#9 Pos 7r1l - Early Impression - Scanner Test

I realized that I have an HP Deskjet F4280 printer which I can use as a scanner. I've never tried it, so here goes.

I suspect the lousy scan is mostly my fault. Per the other thread on scanning, I tried to disable all optimizations that I could. I even scanned it into TIF format, and even that looked pretty bad. I selected 600dpi for the scan. I did have to use the image optimizer to size this down to fit for the board, but the original image was still pretty poor for plating.

So about the stamp - its #9/Type IV, 7R1L, the re-cut and re-entered version of the well-known 7R1E, Type I. This is a very early impression of it, and you can still see much of the lower right plume.
I'm sure this is an 1852 printing, as the impression, and true color, which, sadly, you can't tell from my scan, is the very early darker blue.

I forgot to say that I scanned the stamp still in its clear Hawid mount.
Another day I'll get braver and take it out for another try.

Nice stamp. Typical lousy scan from an HP product. FWIW, I have now fear plunking my stamps right down on the glass.

Agree, really pretty stamp regardless of the quality of the scan.

Txstamp,

I am very grateful you posted this cool position/variation of a Scott 9.

At first glance I thought the stamp was a Scott 5 -with double transfer upper right. I got excited.

But then read your description of it as 7R1L. I remember reading about this position but personally don't have example nor have I seen one. I am now educated on it and thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I have come to the conclusion that before considering that one in a million (billion even) chance of finding a true Scott 5 type 1 with complete plumes, a collector must suspect the stamp is Scott 9 7R1L, or scott 40 or trimmed 18. Recently there was a post/discussion on scf of ebay listing of likely Scott 40 trying to be passed off as Scott 5 by unethical seller.

Please scan/post these interesting "varieties". It's great education!

rgstamp - I'll be happy to as I get time. I'm happy you found this of use. This particular stamp is exceptionally interesting since its such an early impression after the plate was re-worked. Over time, the fragile bottom plumes, wore even more, and are less defined.

I need to re-scan that same stamp, without the mount next, and see if this scanner I have is even worth using. I will get to that and post here at some point. My time to actually work with my stamps is somewhat limited (real life and all).

I also us an HP scanner and I hate it, especially the lack of definition in anything blue.

Ok, I've been practicing a bit with the scanner.
I used 1200 dpi this time, and took the stamp out of its mount.
Color reproduction is still lousy, but the detail is definitely better. I did have to shrink it smaller than the 600dpi one to
get the file size down.

The new scan is much better. Such a great stamp. I doubt it can be bested by very many other 7R1L's.

Now that I got an ok scan that people can see, I can address rgstamp's earlier comment about Ty I fakes. This seems like a good spot to comment on that.

The earlier thread, sounds like it probably addressed the faking of a Scott #5 via cutting down either a #18 or #40 reissue, or #40 proof variant. All of these are pretty easy to detect in person, by noting the cancellation dot inside the colorless oval at about 9'oclock at the left. Of course if you have a bad scan you are looking at online, then it may be a bit difficult. You can see the double transfer in the top label of the stamp I posted. On 7R1E, it will have a similar - albeit slightly different - but similar enough double transfer. The proofs, re-issues, and #18 do not show this. Someone could try to draw it in, but that's really hard to duplicate. I've never seen a fake made this way that I felt would pass any competent 1c expert.

Next post - to break things up, I'll discuss 7R1E v 7R1L.

I posted Ashbrook's diagram of how to talk about the 1c stamp parts, in my last post. The easiest way to tell 7R1E from 7R1L, is to note if the bottom line is recut or not. If it appears strong, as it does on my stamp, then it is a #9, 7R1L and not 7R1E.

If it doesn't look recut, or you aren't sure, then look at the balls. See the diagram to find the left and right balls. They are pretty much absent on 7R1L - refer to the scan I made of the stamp I have. Note that they are basically absent on 7R1L. These are very much present on 7R1E, #5, and are a key way to tell what you have. When the position was re-entered, the balls were essentially flattened out by the re-entry process, and they were eliminated for the #9's.

There are quite a few more very subtle ways to tell, but the recut line and missing balls are the easy things to remember, in order to distinguish a 7R1L from a 7R1E - #9 vs #5. If you still aren't sure, its probably time to get expert help - lots of knowledgeable people on this board, or an expert service of course.

Beautiful stamp.

What is the value on a VF used 7R1L?

I'll second the comment on the balls, as well. I've also noticed that the balls while present on the type 1 and type 1b plate 1 early stamps are far more prominent on the later type 1 stamps (Scott 18, or even the type 1a from plate 4).

This difference helps me also spot something altered to supposedly appear like a Scott 5

Matt