Hi Harper1249 --
Am I right in saying that the doubling of frame lines is the result of the rocking of the relief when it was re-entered? Or was it the engraver just not recutting the frame line over the faint frame line left by the relief?
According to Chase, when plate 5E was reworked into plate 5L it was re-entered -- AND -- there was also some touch-up by hand / light recuttting.
Against that backdrop -- and very generally speaking, doubling of the FL's on 5L could be due to either the re-entry process -- OR -- recutting by the engraver with a hand tool -- and the answer could be different for each position on the plate.
Regarding differences in states, one important aspect to consider is what a reentry does to existing recut lines. On 5E, for instance, FL's and inner lines were recut after the designs were initially rocked in from the transfer roll. If you think of these as various 'V' cuts into the plate (made with a graver), the wider (and deeper) the cut was, the more ink the grooves hold.
These recut grooves are deeper into the plate than the transferred design. As the plate wears, both get weaker, and the recuts tend to stand out more from the normal design.
Now what happens to the recut lines when the transfer roll re-enters the normal design? The recut lines tend to get a little pressed out. Some become quite faint. Additionally the original (weak) FL's are again impressed into the plate, often not quite lining up with those lines recut initially, often resulting in some doubling of the FL's. You really see this on Plates 10 and 11, the 26A stamps, where there was a third entry and no recutting done after the Early state.
In the case of 66L5L -- IMO, the doubling of the LFL that you are seeing at the level opposite the top of the LLR was the result of a bit of touch up with a hand tool by the engraver. I say this because on 66L5E there is a weak spot in the LFL at this point -- and re-entry likely did not satisfactorily restore the strength -- so the engraver cut a short touch-up -- which is what we are seeing. Plus, to me, the doubling in question just doesn't look like a relief line. Still, it can often be very difficult to determine if the exact cause on a re-entered plate is due to re-entry -- or additional recutting after the fact.
On the other hand -- that small engraver's slip that I mentioned in my previous post in the RFL of 66L5L at a level opposite the bottom of the queue (i.e., but no slip on Early) IMO is clearly the result of a recutting slip -- as it is out of alignment with the RFL -- poking out and then back in.
As an aside -- in those cases where the FL's on the Early state of the plate have violent bends -- the doubling of the FL's can really stand out as the originally recut lines are so far outside of the re-entered relief lines that the cause of the doubling is obvious. But, alas, IMO, that is not the case with the LFL doubling on 66L5L versus 66L5E.
If you are getting serious about plating -- and it sounds like you might be -- you should definitely pick up a copy of James Baxter's book "Printing Postage Stamps by Line Engraving" -- and FYI -- the Quarterman reprint is just as good as the original publication and can be had for a third of the price -- around $35 I think -- and, from the perspective of a plater, well worth the cost for the information contained therein.
Regards // ioagoa