1c 1851 Plate 1-Late Stamps

txstamp, I looked at 31R1L but thought the apparent long bottom recut on stallzer's stamp ruled out this position. The stamp under discussion has a large left margin but does it have to be a first vertical row position? Maybe the left margin is from one of the wide spacings between vertical rows on the right pane (row 2, row 6, row 9). Just tossing that out there. A quick check before bedtime shows that it doesn't look like it matches any of the positions from rows 6 or 9, but maybe 32R1L....?

Here is Stallzer's stamp with the copy of 31RL from the full sheet. Nienken's drawing of bottom recut shown at bottom, which is clearly incorrect. Neinken shows no other plating marks for 31R1L. The bottom right plume does not match 31R1L as shown. There is enough clear border at left that I think it has to be a 1st column stamp. Left pane has no good matches (11,31,51,71L1L), 11R1L is clearly not a match at top recut. That leaves 31R1L and 51R1L.




EDIT: Added second image of 31R1L thanks to Dudley.
It sure does not look like 31R1L.

stallzer, can you measure (in millimeters) the width of the left margin of the stamp you posted?

From any point in particular? To oval or ornaments?

Sorry--to the edge of the reverse C-shaped ornament at upper left. Thanks.

From my best measurement 1mm from edge to outside edge of ornament.

Thanks, stallzer. This means that your stamp is not necessarily from the first vertical row of the pane.

The only other possible columns at that would be columns 2, 6, & 9 at rows 2,4, 6 & 8. Removing the positions with positive plating marks and by examining the top and bottom recuts of the others, I came up with one good choice, 32R1L is a possibility.




EDIT: Added second image for 32R1L thanks to Dudley.

See my post from yesterday.

Dudley, that is why I am looking further.
Here is the top left ornament comparison.
Left image is from the sheet, center image is Stallzer's and last image is the ornament from Stallzer's stamp overlaid on the sheet stamp to show that the cut line would be before the next image, so it could fit. The plate scratches that I indicated before are shown on both stamps.



EDIT: It also appears that row 9 does not have the spacing between stamps to cut that image.

Sorry I've had almost no real time to study this.
I just want to make one further in-passing comment -
* Stallzer's stamp has an ornament X.
* 31R has an ornament X
* 51R does not have an ornament X
* 71R doesn't either but has already been eliminated.

This would seem to eliminate 51R as well.

I haven't had a chance to assess 31R and the recuts yet...

I agree that if the spacing measurements hold, other positions might be in play, but I haven't had time to look yet.

Another point - be careful with your reference copies and what source you are believing, since Neinken had some errors on these positions.

Don't blindly believe that a reference copy called one of these positions is really it.

You know the right pane from the Gross sale is correct, so trust that, and verify to it for now....

...that sheet scan is already paying off, thx jaxom.

So I caught up with the LR plume argument and I agree, the LR plume on 31R appears way shorter than what stallzer has.

Jaxom, the side by side images you've posted are fantastic and a great help. I appreciate all the help and teaching that these threads provide and the insight provided by TX, Dudley & Jaxom. You guys are awesome!

I am not sure that orn "X" is reliable. I think it fades away with time. The sheet print is a very late printing. Doug's copy of 32R1L has orn "X", Sheet shows no orn "X". Doug's copy is part of a pair 32-33R1L. I will keep an eye out for other positions where orn "X" fades away.