1c 1851 Plate 1-Late Stamps

The 80L1L does show the DT well and centering is good.
The 60L1L shows the plate crack in the lower right inside of the plate bruise.

Here is one that I am trying to plate.
I think I may have found the position as 17R1L. Relief A stamps can be hard to plate. The two bottom images show the recut bottom line and the lineup of the stamp to the left stamp(16R1L). I used the Image from the full sheet as a match copy to use for the images. Any input would be appreciated.

Still looking for input on stamp above, meanwhile...

Here is an interesting stamp I just received. It was sold as a #20 Type II. I think I have it plated as a #23 at position 84L1L.
I have compared the stamp with the images from The Franklin Archive (Doporto). Take a look and comment.

Though there are minor differences in yours from the Archive I'd say they are due to differences in inking. Yours has most all the attributes of the Archives 84L1L and I saw no other that matched it even remotely as well. The heavy cancellation obscuring much of the lower right and the close perfs on the sides prohibit using those areas for comparison. The top recut is spot on as well as many of the rusty plate smudges. I feel quite comfortable with your ID.

I also agree with your 17R1L determination above. When there are few plating marks to use as guides I often refer to the individual nuances of the horizontal engraving lies where the darker background meets the hair on the left of the head and incursions into the white oval frame. In your case there are several lines that match perfectly on this and only this position from my study. I've edited your photo above and pointed several out which match perfectly with the Archive stamp.

Caper, Thank you for your input and insight one these two specimens. On the 17R1L, I have never considered using the stray background lines as a plating feature. I would have thought that this would change with inking. I will start keeping a closer eye on these features. On the 84L1L, the image from the sale did not show the top recut very well and that was the first spot that I looked for on the stamp. The bottom matched well and I was pretty sure of the plating on it. The top recut confirmed that it was correct as a #23, even if the position was incorrect.

Here is another stamp that I won last night. This is the only image I have at this time. It was sold as a #20 but I think it is a #23 also. It appears to be recut at top and bottom. I have not yet plated it. What are your opinions?

That stamp is making me go 'hmmm' with regard to quick identification.

Its a nice stamp, with a good strike of the NYC Ocean Mail cancel. The centering and cancel are just in the way of an easy id. I'm sure its solvable with a bit of effort.

Jaxom, This is a tough one. I'm not sold either top or bottom is recut. Most plate 1 late have a complete side ornament 'A' and a dot in the lower right below the plume - but not all. Your ornament A better resembles that found on 25L2 and several others from that plate.

Caper, I do believe it is recut, esp at the bottom. Look under the (N) of (ONE). It looks like recut starts where most do. The top starts between (S & P).

Just for comparison of the two...with what seems very similar bottoms, yours and the Sc #7. All I'm saying is they can easily be confused. It's hard to tell about the top as it appears there was a cancellation across the top perfs. Still searching 1L's tho.

Here is one that I plate as 35L1L.
The marks/scratches in the upper left match well.

jaxom, that's an interesting example. The plating marks along the top and the split top line seem to confirm 35L1L, yet the dot in Ornament C (attached photo), which is supposed to be consistent, is not evident.

Dudley, it looks like my copy is a very early printing. The details are extremely sharp. It was an interesting comparison that I did with your stamp. I marked up some closeups with arrows, red for Neinken's plating marks, and violet for "other" marks not shown on the plating drawings and seem to be early only printing marks that wore away. There was no other plate 1 late stamp with similar marks in the upper left area.

This first image compares the top left scratch marks. Neinken shows 2 scratches. On the worn copy, these lines are barely visible. On my copy, I can count 5 scratches longer than Neinken showed.



This second image shows the upper right marks. The dots are clearer but the dash is not present on my copy.



The third image here shows the "consistent" dot on your copy but not on mine. The sharpness of my image is really noticeable here.



The fourth and last image markup shows the dot in "O" as shown on Neinken drawings. My copy shows 3 dots in the "O".
EDIT: I changed this image. It appears that there are 3 scratch lines that go from the left edge through the "O" which may have made the marks in the "O". The lines are barely visible. One ends almost at the top of the "N". Maybe I am just seeing things.



My conclusion is that both stamps are 35L1L. My copy must be a very early printing and that "consistent" dot is not so consistent, only on later printings. I am sure that I can find other marks on my copy that will not be shown on later copies.

Is there any doubt that the stamp is 35L1L?

No, I think it is 35L1L and that the apparent inconsistency of the consistent dot is a new wrinkle for me. I'd be interested in the views of our most experienced One-Cent platers out there.