1c 1851 Plate 12 Stamps

The stamp below is listed in the upcoming Schuyler Rumsey sale 105 (lot 3083) as a Scott #18. It has been authenticated by both the PF and PSE, and I don't see that it could possibly be anything other than a plate 12, relief "C". Just the same, the incompleteness of ornament Z bothers me.

Is this just the result of wear or short transfer as Neinken mentions in his book? I couldn't find another example in the databases that looked anything quite like this.

I bought a straddle margin #20 that appears to be a Plate 12, relief "B". I can't plate it for sure, but I think the best match is 80L12.

Need an electron microscope to see that faint top line curve . But it's there . I think
So agree a type 2 Scott 20, and not IIIa, and plating looks right on.

rgstamp - Thanks for commenting. The image below is an electron microscope view of the top frameline.

I'm not sure if the top frameline is broken or not, and if it is, how wide does it have to be to be called a Type IIIa? To me it is just another example of the inconsistency (absurdity?) of typing system. In some cases it's based on plate number and relief/position, and in other cases it's based on appearance. IMHO it's time for an overhaul.

Agreed, widglo! Check out David Zlowe's article "Evolution of the Types of the 1¢ 1851 Stamp" in the USPCS Chronicle 242 (2014)

80L12 is not listed by Neinken as a transitional position unlike a few positions on plate.
So it's a type II based on position/plating
But if you can prove there are other copies where line is gone or there is no doubt in your copy (unfortunately there is doubt)… you are stuck calling it type II

Agree there is some silliness to the whole system . But for specialists, it's also what makes it fun and challenging!

It's true that Neinken doesn't label his map of 80L12 as a transitional type, but Richard Nance does so in the Stamp Smarter database, and he labels position 80L12 from the Ackerman/Newberry block as a type II/IIIa example (see image below). It's interesting that all of the type II/IIIa examples reside on the left pane, and I don't know that I've read a good explanation for that.


rgstamp - I'm reminded of something you wrote in a thread that you started back in 2016 https://www.stampcommunity.org/topi...&whichpage=1 You made the observation in that thread that the "experts" seem to look at a stamp and try to identify the plate and then try to determine what type and Scott number the example might be. That struck me as quite insightful, and it is an insight that I think most collectors are missing out on. My feeling is that the present classification system, based largely on appearance, does little to enhance a real appreciation of the complexities of the issue. A classification system based on plate numbers and reliefs would be a challenge to keep manageable, and might discourage some collectors, but in the long run it would almost certainly increase interest in the issue. David Zlowe, in the article that dudley mentions, articulates better than anyone that I've read why the typing system is outdated. I wish someone of his stature would lead a group to come up with a more sensible proposal.

Widglo46

You present great evidence!
Your stamp may be IIIa. I'm starting to change my mind
Thanks for info

Here is another straddle-pane #18 from Plate 12. It has two PF certs stating it is 41R12, but I think this is wrong. It has several plate marks that match well with Neinken's map for 61R12, and the thinning of the centerline at the top matches the same thinning seen on a 70/80L12 vertical pair from the Waghal collection (see Siegel sale 1006, lot 1505).

I think you got it, widglo. The heavy dot in the upper curl of Ornament R looks right on for 61R12.

This is a stamp I picked up at a recent Kelleher auction. Kelleher described it as a Scott #20, Plate 2. From the catalog images, I could only see a hint of the "secret dot" under the cancel, but I was certain from the bottom ornaments that it wasn't a Plate 2, and that the stamp had to be a Relief "B" from Plate 12. After the auction, I asked that it be submitted to the PF to confirm soundness. The PF cert that I got back states that the stamp was submitted as, "USED, PLATE 2, RED CANCEL". The PF's opinion is simply, "IT IS GENUINE".

I'm almost ready to give up on getting certs - why should I pay $50 plus shipping x2 for this kind of casual expertizing? How trustworthy is the opinion when the plate submission in this case was evidently ignored? I've examined the stamp under magnification, and it's not difficult to see the dot under the cancel.

This one I have settled in on either 14 or 15L12 based pretty much on the dot in the 'C' of CENT and the weak bottom frame. Any thoughts?

I think you are right, Caper. I'd go with 15L12.

Caper123 - It sure looks like you've found it. I think that I like 15L12 best - there is a faint diagonal line (scratch?) in the "O" of ONE that I can just barely see in 15L12 in the Ackerman block, but I don't see it in 14L12. 15L12 also has a stronger dot in "C", like your example.

Thanks Dudley and Widglo for the confirmation. At times this plating process is not so easy when clues are few and when parts of the stamp are not aviator help.