1c 1857 Plate 5 Stamps

casper123 - Thanks for taking the time to plate it for me. You've nailed it - I'm almost sure. Everything on the Neinken map and on Doporto's example matches my stamp. I was concentrating mostly on the blur in the top label when I was trying to find a match, and the Neinken map doesn't note anything there except the dot in the 'S' (which my stamp does have, now that I look for it). I also wasn't expecting to see so many blotches on Plate 8. You've proven how methodical one has to be by considering every stamp with the same relief.

I'm confused about what the criteria are for a Type Va. My understanding is that transfer roll #3 was used for the entire right pane and for columns 7 thru 10 of the left pane, and that transfer roll #4 was used to complete the left pane. According to the Neinken diagrams, most but not all of of the positions produced by transfer roll #3 plus all top row (relief "A") positions (even those produced by transfer roll #4) are Type Va.

The layout of both panes is shown in the drawings below. The Neiken diagrams depicts a few positions in the right pane as well as a few in columns 7 and 8 of the left pane as Type V. The highlighted cells are the positions that are exceptions to the rule "Roll #3 = Type Va". The StampSmarter database also differs from Neiken classification at positions 26L5 and 58L5.

Do these exceptions mean that a Type Va classification is actually somewhat subjective and that Neinken's assessment has simply become the accepted standard?

Always thought it was subjective based on completeness of right side

Similar to subjectivity for type Ia/Ic

Neinken definitely developed the road map we all follow but love it when a new discovery is made or someone contests his doctrine.

A bit different than controversies between type III and IIIa on plate due to plate wear. Not sure any transition positions exist for V/Va but would be curious to see pictures of examples of V and Va like the positions in question in stampsmarter vs. Neinken

I think it is no accident that the anomalous positions are E and F reliefs, i.e. positions in which the presence vs absence of side scratches is not a factor. I have always thought that the transfer roll #3/transfer roll #4 explanation was a good one, and that the odd identification of some transfer roll #3 positions as Type V is due to a conflation on the part of philatelists of the transfer roll criterion (cut and dried) with the "ornament completeness" criterion (subjective and also dependent on print quality variables) for certain positions where the absence of side scratches is not a dead giveaway for Type Va, and that these anomalies have simply become codified in the hobby. As txstamp said at the top of this thread, there is something more going on here than seems evident on the surface.

I posted a relief "E"/"F" vertical pair on the Plate 8 thread (see 1st image below and refer to http://goscf.com/t/64749&whichpage=2#753644 ). After some discussion with dudley and casper123 on that thread, it was decided that the pair was actually from plate 5, and both stamps were type Va. The dot in the lower left corner of the "F" stamp meant that the pair must have originated on the 5th and 6th rows, but there wasn't enough other plated material available to nail down its exact position.

Well, I'm quite sure now that the pair's position is 47/57R5. I found a strip from Siegel's auction of the Wagshal Collection, Part 4 (sale 1006, lot 1249) that matches (see 2nd image below). Siegel (or Wagshal ???) mistakenly described the strip as 27/37/47R5, but the reliefs are clearly "D"/"E"/"F". The top stamp (37R5) can be matched with the same position from a block of 15 (Siegel sale 1197, lot 1616), so the 7th column is correct, and the strip must be 37/47/57R5.

The annotated photographs are cropped sections of my pair that show details of the matching marks. Neinken didn't make note of the dot in the "O" of 57R5, but it appears in both strips.

widglo46 - I came across a possible Plate 5 stamp that in many ways resembles several you have posted in this thread - 15L5 which you changed to 13L5, 14L5 and one you changed to 18R7. Please take a look at this one and give me your opinion (you too Dudley). The 18R7 is looking pretty good to me.

casper123 - Your stamp looks like a good match to 18R7, but without a high resolution scan, I can't be sure. The mark in the "O" is a little weak. If you'd like me to spend more time on it, send me the best scan you have, and I'll do my best.

widglo46 - check your email
.

Speaking of the "E" reliefs, this one isn't pretty, but just came in the mail today, 50L5. I have 49 different positions on Plate 5, but only a couple E reliefs- I'm having a problem spotting them, and to follow the last couple of posts in this topic, some of the E relief Va's don't exactly look like typical Type Va. So as a result, I've found them to be more elusive than the other reliefs.

I can't usually plate the stamp from eBay, so I usually buy the stamp as a shot in the dark, but the impression was good, and I could see a couple of the marks, and thought it was 50L.

Ray

Spot on ray.mac ... 50L5!

Agree with casper123 - great job!

Casper123 - I studied your example some more. All of the 2nd row stamps on R7 share a lot of the same marks and features, so it's hard to be sure, but I think the best match with your stamp is 16R7. The mark in the "O" is more similar with 16R7 than with 18R7, and ornament "E" on your stamp is slightly more complete than it is on 18R7. This difference is true of Doporto's examples and with my stamp that I plated as 18R7.

The vertical strip of three posted above has resided in my collection since the Wagshal sale:)

widglo46 - take a look at 11L8 and specifically ay the items ID'd with the red arrows below as it relates to my above post. The lack of these on your suggestion and my 1st choice has bothered me and made me look elsewhere. I think this looks pretty good.


Also just realized I posted this here http://goscf.com/t/72893 and came to the same conclusion (alone) that it was 11L8. Sorry...

Winston - Thanks for joining this thread again. All the information you can share is appreciated. Do you agree with me that your strip is 37/47/57R5 and that it is not 27/37/47R5 as Siegel described it? If so, was the auction listing just a Siegel mistake or did Wagshal mess up counting the rows like we sometimes all do?

Also, do you think my pair matches 47/57R5?