Stamp Community Family of Web Sites
Thousands of stamps, consistently graded, competitively priced and hundreds of in-depth blog posts to read
Stamp Community Forum
 
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some stamps?
Our stamp forum is completely free! Register Now!

1c 1851 Plate 4 Stamps

Previous Page | Next Page    
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Replies: 222 / Views: 18,021Next Topic
Page: of 15
Valued Member
United States
81 Posts
Posted 05/12/2020   11:58 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Njs900 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
With plate 3 discontinued, there was a need for a replacement. During the nearly four months of production before perforation was introduced, much of the earliest production of plate 4 must have been immediately used. Some later production remained in the stack resulting in early impressions on perforated copies as you point out. So the dot resulting from something happening during the earliest use of the plate is possible. Who knows.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1016 Posts
Posted 05/26/2020   4:27 pm  Show Profile Check ray.mac's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add ray.mac to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Hi, just curious if my hunch was correct on this eBay auction: 392803050221

Labeled as Type IIIA, witha Weiss cert, but I thought it was actually 96L4, Type Ia. The blur bottom left, and up the left margin didn't match anything on the 6th row F reliefs as well as 96L4. The impression was a lot stronger and a lot more ink than anything on Doporto, so I may have been off.

Since it was flawed, and I already have a flawed one, I didn't bid. Just curious if anyone else did and if I had this one correct.

Thanks, Ray
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1411 Posts
Posted 05/26/2020   8:55 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add dudley to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I was thinking the same thing, ray, and I threw one bid up there. But didn't get it.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1016 Posts
Posted 05/26/2020   11:22 pm  Show Profile Check ray.mac's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add ray.mac to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Thanks Dudley. I did let a couple of others know, but havent heard if they bid or not.

Just wanted some confirmation that I wasn't potentially leading someone down the wrong path. Appreciate the response!
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1411 Posts
Posted 06/12/2020   1:35 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add dudley to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
A diamond in the rough. And rough is an understated descriptor for this ragged cover showing a 10-cent rate to Marin Co, CA made up by two #11's and an imperforate One-Cent Franklin on a three-cent Nesbitt envelope. The One-Cent stamp is the diamond (those who are better versed in the Three-Cent stamps than I might find something there as well). It is position 55L4 Type III (Scott #8) in good condition with reasonable margins.





Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2288 Posts
Posted 06/12/2020   2:06 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
dudley - nice find!

I haven't double-checked the full plating, but its clearly F-relief, Sixth-row, Ty III as you state.

edit: usage would be circa 1857.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by txstamp - 06/12/2020 2:12 pm
Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
159 Posts
Posted 06/13/2020   08:59 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add widglo46 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
This #8 has a PF cert that states it is from Plate 4, but it doesn't have a position number. I guess that even with part of the adjoining stamps, there just aren't enough plating marks to be sure. If anyone feels confident that they can plate it, I'd like to know.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2288 Posts
Posted 06/13/2020   12:20 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Zero analysis on my part here other than to say, from memory, 66R4 consistently had one of the best bottom line breaks, not unlike this.

Great stamp - breaks that big at bottom are very hard to find.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
159 Posts
Posted 06/13/2020   7:54 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add widglo46 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Thanks, txstamp. Focusing on the wide break on the bottom really narrows the field of possible candidates. I think it might actually be 67R4. Comparing it to the figures in Neinken, I see that the stamp has dots in the "S" and "T" of "POSTAGE" that match.

I have another #8 from Plate 4, position 26L4, but it's not as nice. I think it looks like a late printing with plate wear both on the top and bottom contributing to the breaks.

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1411 Posts
Posted 09/11/2020   2:41 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add dudley to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
This is a pair shown cropped digitally from a reduced cover. The stamps are 41-42R4. 41R4 shows the blur up through the N of CENT, the short horizontal dash through Ornament A, vertical scratches extending up separately through the N and E of ONE (probably not visible in the scan but definitely there), and vertical scratches in the left margin. Neinken's updated drawing for this position (CHRONICLE 86 p. 87) notes that the blur occurs on early impressions only. In addition, the notes for this position in the Doporto Archive state that the scratch through E of ONE occurs on early examples. So this is an early printing. Neinken classifies 41R4 as a Ic-IIIA swing position, with most examples being Type IIIA but early examples being Type Ic (p. 266). I'm inclined to identify the copy pictured here as Type Ic based on this and based on the degree of completeness of the left scroll and plume. I invite confirmation or refutation by those who have more hands-on experience with Plate 4 stamps than I do.





Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2288 Posts
Posted 09/11/2020   5:14 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Long ago I also had a perforated 41R4, which on the surface, appeared as though it would qualify as a Ty Ic. The PF disagreed, and after a long back and forth with the expertiser, I finally came around to his reasoning. It was involved and difficult, but it was also the catalyst that made me realize that Ty Ic just should never have been listed since its way to hard to consistently get right.

Anyway, I'll see if I have a decent photo or scan of my old stamp (which I no longer have), and I'll compare it to yours and also try to resurrect the Ic reasoning.

Ic's give me a headache - especially the marginal ones like 41R4. I will say that I am aware that 41R4 has been called a swing position, but I haven't yet, to my recollection, seen a Ic from that position, so this will be an interesting analysis. I may need some time to process this.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1411 Posts
Posted 09/11/2020   5:35 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add dudley to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Thanks, tx. I will of course be very interested in your conclusion.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2288 Posts
Posted 09/11/2020   5:37 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I recall one of the big contentious parts of the PF's argument against ty Ic here was the outer left part of the left plume. Ashbrook tells us to compare Ic's against 89R4 - the drawing, and if they show less of the design than that - then they are not Ic. I think he was mostly referring to the 'bottom' of the stamp, and not the outer left part - albeit still part of the left plume.

In fact, when I walked through the Neinken drawings carefully, 20 years ago, I recall finding what seemed to be inconsistencies in them as well with regard to this. So the PF was bringing in the left outer part of the lower left plume, and in doing so, that totally invalidated this as a Ic, since 41R4 I think, always has less of the outer left plume than 89R4.

So - to be pedantic, we probably need to look up Ashbrook's definition again and decide.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2288 Posts
Posted 09/11/2020   5:56 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
To the specialist, may I suggest that, if puzzled over the proper type of a possible Ic, remember, the stamp under observation is not a Type Ic, if it shows less of the design than Position 89R4, illustrated in Fig 15A23


The above is from Neinken, and are basically Ashbrook's words from his original Volume I book.

Taken at face value, it means "any" part of the design, since it does not qualify where to look. My old college Philosophy Symbolic logic class comes in handy here.

Take that a step further, and look at the Neinken/Ashbrook drawings of 89R4 and 41R4. 41R4 is clearly shorter at left at the left plume than 89R4. So, given that, game-over, 41R4 is not a Ic, unless somehow, that left outside part did in fact appear on a particular copy that Neinken saw at some point. That was the argument used to call my stamp a Ty IIIA.

Based strictly on that argument, your stamp would also clearly be a IIIA as well.

I still need to find a scan / picture of my stamp....

I am also 100% sure that the criteria for expertising these has not been uniformly perfect across all expert organizations and such over time. Without any further study, I am confident in that statement....and its kind of not really the expert orgs fault so much as something that should never have been listed to begin with. Even Ashbrook said so.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2288 Posts
Posted 09/11/2020   6:00 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add txstamp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Oh yes, and now its coming back. Have a look at position 91R4.

Look at the outer left part of the lower left plume.

This position is an F relief, and declared to always be a Ty Ic, yet it has an incomplete left outer left plume.

So now, logic is out the window - except when one applies the rule of "if its an F relief, and 91R4, then its a Ty Ic". In other words, special consideration for that position.

What a mess.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Page: of 15 Replies: 222 / Views: 18,021Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.


Go to Top of Page
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Stamp Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2021 Stamp Community Family - All rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Stamp Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Privacy Policy / Terms of Use    Advertise Here
Stamp Community Forum © 2007 - 2021 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.98 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05