3RD Attempt For Me On A 1 Cent Franklin...this One Is Confusing With A Plate Crack?

1. its imperf
2. its not recut
3. has a plate crack right top and a line left bottom (Guide line?)

i am totally lost on this one, not even a guess.

would appriciate help, not just what it is but if possible how you got there...

i am using the Mortimer L Neinken charts, a copy, ..perhaps they are not so good?

Those apparent 'cracks' are actually on the transfer roll. This is a Ty V which has had its perforations removed, in the attempt to fool someone into thinking that it its a more valuable stamp (i.e. 8/8A).

It is a Scott #24, Ty V.

You can see part of the centerline at right, as well.

To elaborate, one key in understanding 1c stamps, is to learn the reliefs from each plate, and what they look like. The scratches that you see, are readily observable on the Ty V reliefs. Once you learn to recognize those, it will be very easy to detect modified #24's.

You can make out some residual perforations at top and left Run of the mill fake

Dutch US Stamp Collector,

Here is a #24 with marks on the right side from scratches that txstamp wrote about that are similar to yours.

That thick centerline is a dead giveaway that it is a Plate 9 stamp.

Excellent Winston!

Dutch, first thing to do with an imperf (or "imperf") copy of this stamp design is to check whether the side ornaments, especially along the right side, are complete. If they are not (as in this case) then you have a trimmed #24, Type V or Va. If there are plate scratches along the right side (as here) that is a more immediate giveaway that it is a trimmed Type V. Use the Neinken book to become familiar with the Type V reliefs and you will not be confused by examples like this any longer (your copy is Relief C, 10th vertical row left pane Plate 9 per Winston's post above--other plating marks identify the position as 70L9).

thank you all so much for having the patience to explain. I am learning a lot! much appreciated

and of course I feel a lot better knowing that what I came to, a 24, was indeed correct. I just ignored it because of the fraudulent altering. learned a valuable lesson again