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!

Show Your US 1851-57 Imperforate Stamps

Previous Page | Next Page    
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 2,607 / Views: 126,865Next Topic
Page: of 174
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1071 Posts
Posted 10/09/2022   6:02 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add mootermutt987 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Dutch-US, I agree with the sharp impression implying that this is a 10A. I will let others assess the position. Although the impression is a good indicator, it is not 100%. Is there any indication that this was mailed in 1851? Any enclosure inside? Any docketing (with the year) on the reverse? It all looks good - the impression, the color, etc - but evidence that it was mailed in the 2nd half of 1851 would be pretty good proof. Of course, knowing the exact position would prove it as well, better than any assessment of color, impression, etc. Your 2 candidate positions indicate that it is a 10A.
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
Netherlands
546 Posts
Posted 10/10/2022   03:19 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Dutch US Stamp Collector to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
mootermutt987, thank you for your reply. I should have stated the back is clear and no contend, so that does not bring any extra information
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
189 Posts
Posted 10/10/2022   5:57 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Harper1249 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Hi Dutch-US, It'd be nice if you could post a higher resolution image in order for us to the nail down the position. The low resolution of the image has removed a lot of the fine details needed to confirm which position we are looking at. Having said that, I looked over your stamp and feel very confident that it is not 63L0, as this position has a guide dot in the lower right corner of the LRDB and your stamp does not. 86R5E looks like a very good candidate though. Your stamp appears to have a guide dot in the same area, it has two lines recut in the URT and it has a very similar top frame that is narrow on the left and widens as you move right. Another feature that makes me think you are correct with 86R5E is the lower frame line of the stamp above your's. It has a very pronounced "flattening" of the frame line at the right corner and this matches up nicely with the bottom frame line of position 76R5E. I tried to look at this stamp compressed but there are several creases on the cover in this area that are distorting how it looks when compressed. Again, a higher resolution image would be very helpful in confirming that this is indeed 86R5E. Nice Job.

Regards,
Harper1249
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
Netherlands
546 Posts
Posted 10/11/2022   05:50 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Dutch US Stamp Collector to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Hi Harper,

sorry for that, I think this is better, 1200 dpi scan, but of course needed to crop and so to be able to upload it.
i already learned something, I was so concentrate on the stamp never thought of looking at the frame line of stamp above, thank you for sharing that wisdom

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
Learn More...
United States
189 Posts
Posted 10/11/2022   08:51 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Harper1249 to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Much better image. Compressed image is way better as well, so the lower resolution must have been impacting it. I'm feeling confident you were correct with 86R5E but I consider myself still in the apprentice stage of plating so maybe some of the experts can confirm this as well.

Harper1249
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
372 Posts
Posted 10/11/2022   11:11 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add ioagoa to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Hi Dutch (and Harper) --

I agree with Harper that Dutch's stamp is position 86R5E - and thus a Scott #10A.

Everything is a solid match in all regard -- including (as Harper noted) the split FL at the east end of the BFL of the adjoining 76R5E above (which is visible on Dutch's stamp).

Not that another confirming feature is needed in this case -- but one thing that you may want to add to your plating notes about position 86R5E -- is that it shows a constant (and somewhat diagonal) blur of color poking out from the upper left corner of the top label block and extending up to the TFL -- and this is clearly visible on Dutch's stamp.

I am attaching a copy of my 86R5E for your additional reference.

Regards // ioagoa


Additional reference copy of position 86R5E:
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
Netherlands
546 Posts
Posted 10/11/2022   1:42 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add Dutch US Stamp Collector to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
thank you Harper and Ioagoa, and I am excited I did get it right. I was unsure...but now I am happy that I did it right and even more happy I learned a few tricks on the way
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
237 Posts
Posted 10/14/2022   12:28 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add stanshepp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
I've noticed that this line seems to have been recut on some positions, but I've never seen it discussed.

Has it been recut?
How is it called out or described?
Did Chase address it and I missed it?

On some positions, it seems that the space was just closed in with a short line. On other positions, it appears that the entire left side of the outer oval has been strengthened.

To be fair, I didn't plate these - and I didn't check the plating on them.

Thanks!
Stan Shepp

5R5E


Unplated


92R1E
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
372 Posts
Posted 10/14/2022   10:21 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add ioagoa to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Hey Stan --

Regarding your question about the possible "recutting" at the 9:00 position of the outer line of the white oval surrounding the vignette -- a couple of thoughts:

-- Reference is made to the book: "The 1851 Issue of United States Stamps: A Sesquicentennial Retrospective -- and more specifically to the article therein titled: A Detailed Study of the 3c 1851 Relief Characteristics by Richard Celler and Elliot Omiya. (Available for free download from the US Philatelic Classics Society website).

-- As discussed in the above referenced Sesqui article -- The area you note in your scans is one where the tessellations impinged into the white oval on the transfer roll -- and thus needed to be removed. The Sesqui article explains how TCC's removal of these tessellation impingements differed on each of the 3 reliefs.

-- Further complicating the subject under discussion -- On the top row stamps from 1851 -- there is speculation that either a "one relief" transfer roll was used which had a different relief from the A, B, and C reliefs (i.e., what the authors called "The mysterious T relief" -- OR -- another theory put forth is that a second (i.e., different) transfer roll was used to produce the 1851 plates than was used to produce the 1855-1856 plates. This is all discussed on page 88 of the Sesqui book at the end of the above referenced article.

In any event -- in my view -- and again, this is only my view, I do not believe that the area in question was "recut" -- but rather -- that the differences you have noted are the result of the transfer roll production process -- primarily from when the tessellation impingements were removed from the white oval -- but also compounded by differences in how the positions were entered, re-entered (if applicable), inking, impression, and plate wear. That said -- I suppose that it is possible that a bit of touch up (i.e., after the design had been entered onto the plate) could have been done randomly here and there on any given position -- but definitely not an area where there was any sort of consistent recutting.

Hope this helps a little -- and I would be interested to hear what others may have to say on this issue.

Regards // ioagoa

PS -- the images of the master die in the Sesqui book are not the best resolution -- so I am attaching an image of the master die that does a better job of showing the various tessellation impingements. Although the image below is listed in the Scott catalog as an "essay" -- Scott #11-E22 -- it is widely regarded by students of the issue to be a "master die" proof. FYI -- the image below is from Siegel's Gordon Eubank's Sale -- (Reference Siegel sale #1242 -- Lot #131). Not my stamp -- but a downloaded scan from Siegel's website.


Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by ioagoa - 10/14/2022 10:39 am
Valued Member
United States
237 Posts
Posted 10/14/2022   11:11 am  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add stanshepp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Thanks, ioagoa.

I will pull the article and check it out later today.

If I understand correctly, this area might be considered a 'repaired transfer' or 'repaied relief' area, similar to the A reliefs of the #26/A's.

So, not a recut, but when the impinging tesselation was removed on the transfer roll, the repair was possibly made on the transfer roll - affecting all of the stamps transfered to the plate of that relief.

Similar to the shoulder gash.

I'll look closer when I get a chance.

Thanks, again.

Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
Learn More...
United States
1508 Posts
Posted 10/14/2022   11:26 am  Show Profile Check rlsny's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add rlsny to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
plated as 97R1L - The neinken image shows lots of extra stuff on it. Is that all just recutting or is it a double transfer?



Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Valued Member
United States
372 Posts
Posted 10/14/2022   12:51 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add ioagoa to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Hi Stan --

Further your last post -- Here's a condensed summary of how I view the process of going from master die to printed stamp -- which I think highlights the various points in the production process that are relevant to the subject currently under discussion:

1. Create the master die.

2. Harden it.

3. Create a 1-relief master transfer roll from the master die.

4. Harden it.

5. Enter 3 transfers of the master transfer roll onto a laydown (or secondary die), one above the other.

5a. Here's where the C relief gash on shoulder in the top relief might have occurred (???).

6. Harden the laydown.

7. Create a 3-relief transfer roll from the laydown.

8. Remove the tessellated impingements from the white oval on all three reliefs. (This is where the different reliefs A, B, and C were created).

9. Harden the 3-relief transfer roll.

10. At this point TCC could start entering the plate. They might have first rocked in a "second state" laydown at this point, as a backup. That way if something happened to the 3-relief transfer roll, they could make a new one from the backup, and skip having to repeat most of these steps.

As an aside -- the way I see it, you will lose a certain amount of fine lines (and incur a certain amount of weakening to all lines in general) in each of steps 3, 5, 7, and 10 -- (which is what necessitated TCC needing to do all of the recutting).

Another aspect is needing to smooth or flatten the die, or laydown, or plate after each rocking in. This burnishing is usually at the edges of the design, so that also might further contribute to weakening the outer frame lines by the time you get to a printed stamp.

Most of this process is explained in way more detail in Baxter's book "Printing Postage Stamps by Line Engraving" (please note that while Baxter's book provides a "general explanation" of the process, it is not with specific regard to the 1851 3-cent issue).

There is also another article in the Sesqui book -- titled "The Toppan Carpenter Plates and the Guide Reliefing Method" -- also authored by Richard Celler and Elliot Omiya -- that you may want to check out if you haven't seen it yet -- as it is a great discussion on the guide relief process and useful information from the perspective of plating the issue.

On the Scott #26 and #26A damaged transfer A reliefs -- I am no expert on that issue -- but I believe that the damage occurred to the transfer roll -- such that all A reliefs entered onto the #26 / #26A perforated plates will show the damaged area. Some of these were "repaired" by hand (i.e., recutting on the plate) after the initial entry -- and some were not. Conversely -- on the imperf reliefs -- the impact of removing the tessellation impingements to the outer line defining the white oval -- while creating differences between the various reliefs -- was not considered "damage" that necessitated repair (i.e., recutting) -- but again -- this is just my view.

Regards // ioagoa
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by ioagoa - 10/14/2022 1:10 pm
Valued Member
United States
237 Posts
Posted 10/18/2022   8:05 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add stanshepp to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Hello all,

Sharing some 3c Imperf Washington's -

Sharing a couple and double checking plating -
First Up - an unused, disturbed OG, #11, C-relief, Top Row, small tear on right side by UR Rosette
I came up with 2L8 -


This one came with plating information - 61L2E - which appears to be correct.
On a Dec 1, 1851, Boston cover with the red, integral "3cts" postmark and the small, black PAID obliterator.


There is a letter inside - Which appears to say ...

Boston Dec 1 / 51
Mssrs. Miner & Burton,
Manchester Vt.
Gents
Is there any prospect of collecting
my small claim against Hammerstein (?)
Draper (?) of Landgrove which you
have in your hands &
Yours,
Ja's W. Lee

There is a manuscript receiver's mark not scanned:
"Ja's W. Lee
Dec 1 / 51"



Enjoy!
Stan Shepp
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Edited by stanshepp - 10/19/2022 1:23 pm
Pillar Of The Community
4758 Posts
Posted 10/18/2022   10:37 pm  Show Profile Bookmark this reply Add John Becker to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
Loudopove = Landgrove, Bennington County, VT
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Pillar Of The Community
United Kingdom
7032 Posts
Posted 10/19/2022   04:33 am  Show Profile Check GeoffHa's eBay Listings Bookmark this reply Add GeoffHa to your friends list  Get a Link to this Reply
"which you have in your hands".
Send note to Staff  Go to Top of Page
Page: of 174 Previous TopicReplies: 2,607 / Views: 126,865Next 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 - 2023 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 - 2023 Stamp Community Forums
It took 0.48 seconds to lick this stamp. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05