1c 1851 Plate 4 Stamps

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.

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

I was thinking the same thing, ray, and I threw one bid up there. But didn't get it.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.