1c 1851 Plate 3 Stamps

njs - Almost every day.

Thanks to Dick (aka Deep Cert), I do have a few 1c stamps again, but, not many plate 3's.

There are some very competent platers who now have various platings of his. Of course, Dick, being the central repository for almost all 1851-57 era plating (+revenues) is basically impossible to replace. The other aspect being his availability and willingness to help regularly.

Over time, I suspect we'll see more and/or better websites with complete plate reconstructions available for reference. Also, stampsmarter and all the great work jaxom has done there for the 1c stamp, I'm sure will get improved as well. This will really help.

It seems that slowly but surely over time, via these websites, and forums such as this that allow communication with established platers, that plating of more difficult items is becoming more accessible/doable for a larger audience. I believe that trend will continue.

txstamp - Thanks for your input. I've looked at two different blocks containing 39R3, and the one pictured below shows the position of the dot relative to 39R3 quite clearly (a portion of 29-30R3 is seen above the block). Judging from this, I don't see anyway my stamp can be a 39R3. In the block, the guide dot from 29R3 is 0.1 to 0.2 mm outside a vertical line extended upward from ornament "L" of 39R3. On my stamp the guide dot is inside the same line by 0.2 to 0.3 mm.

I agree that the GD alignment doesn't match that block.
May I ask your source for the block - what auction, etc ?
I agree its unlikely its 39R3 - if not definitely not - but I'd like to know about the block first.

widglo, I think you have 71R2.

dudley - I think (sadly) that you are probably right once again. My stamp has all of the plate marks of the stamp noted on the Dopoto's website identified at 71R2. I've taken several photomicrographs that I will post later today. I found just one other example in searching through auction records. Siegel sold one block that sold at two different sales, but the resolution of the images available is too poor to discern the plating marks.

This leaves me really wondering about certification of Plate 3's. In my example it was even plated to position 39R3. I am beginning to believe that many others are being certified as Plate 3 based only on characteristics of the plate.

txstamp - I posted an image of the block with 39R3.

It may be simply because I have trouble distinguishing shades, but I will always assume that a dark blue Type II is from Plate 2 until plating proves otherwise. The Plate 1 Early stamps in general have a lighter, almost pastel-like appearance that I have an easier time recognizing.

dudley - nice job.

I haven't done a thorough elimination yet, but I agree, that 71R2 appears likely correct. The horizontal dash in the bust is a good marking. The side ornaments also seem to agree.

widglo - thanks for the plate 3 used block reference. I should have looked at that sale myself.

I find it interesting that 2 out of the 3 known unused blocks from plate 3 are both from positions 39-50R3. In addition, this used block is also from the same positions.

dudley and txstamp - I've attached unannotated images of the marks noted on the Neinken mat and also those or Doporto's site. Just for interest, I've also posted magnified views of two areas of mottling on my stamp - at least what I believe is mottling. Let me know if you think this is no different than the run-of-the-mill kind of blotching typically seen at the top of Plate 2 and Plate 3.

So what you see across the top of this stamp is what is often called "the blur". It is common on plate 2 and 3 stamps, at the top, and is from the plate finishing process. It is not what is meant by "mottling".

I don't really see anything here that I would characterize as significant mottling that would tie this stamp to plate 3.

I have a 71R2, which shows the GD at UR as well. It appears to match yours in orientation. Mine does not show the horizontal bust marking well, if at all, but its partly obscured by a cancellation, and mine is less well inked than yours. I do see the vertical dash in the O of POSTAGE at LR of the O on mine. Again, the left side ornament completeness agrees as well between the 71R2 I have versus yours and the 1c plating archive copy.

I'm pretty convinced that dudley got it right.

edit: Legend, for casual readers -
GD = guide dot, UR = upper right, LR = lower right, etc ...

So the ink film and mottled appearance on plate 3 is found mostly on very early impressions. These would be largely summer of 1856, with some as late as late 1856.

I posted a pair which is a very early printing, earlier in this thread -

https://goscf.com/t/52774&whichpage=3#463094

I think this pair captures the early plate 3 appearance fairly well.

Here's one that I think is 87L3--perhaps those of our colleagues who are more expert on Plate 3 than I could confirm or refute. I can find no image of this position anywhere. It matches the Neinken drawing with respect to the guide dot and the marks in O of ONE, but not otherwise. The stamp has a nice Plate 3-ish crack outside Ornaments AB that is not shown in Neinken. It is a B Relief that shows the A Relief dingle on the left plume, so should be a ninth-row stamp. I can find no matches in the ninth row of Plate 2 (or either state of Plate 1, for that matter).

Yes Dudley that is 87L3. The crack at A-B matches. I believe Mark Friedman has a copy of this position.

I would love to have a 1200dpi scan of this position.

My email is nshmalo@nyc.rr.com.

Good hunting!

Also, I have a copy of 86L3 with a crack at L-M which may be a continuation of your crack.

Njs, done!