1c 1851 Plate 1-Late Stamps

Here is my latest acquisition to my Franklin collection.
Position is obvious, 1R1L.
It does have a couple faults but I think it is beautiful.

Nice example, jaxom.

Yes, that's a very nice example.
Its a pretty late impression, as you can see the wear/whitening of the bust area. Also bruising in Ben's hair area.

1R1L is a neat plate position.

Thanks for the update and the quick fix for the plate dot charts, txstamp.
I would appreciate it if you look it over to see if I fixed it correctly. I do not know how I missed that block of 6.
I would also like a moderator to remove the Left Pane Chart photo in previous post so only the latest is available.

Here is the updated Plate 1 Late, Left Pane Guide Dot Chart:

I found an error and fixed the issue.
Here is the updated Plate 1 Late, Left Pane Guide Dot Chart:

Here is one I m having an issue with.
The guide dot seems to be 29L1L but the details match 22L1L.
There must be an issue with my guide dots charts.

jaxom - I think your stamp is 82R1L.

It took me a bit to work this out, because I think the drawing in Neinken/Ashbrook of the top recut line is a bit short at the left. I think the top recut on 82R extends to above the period after the "S" in U.S. Neinken shows it stopping at the TL of the "P" in POSTAGE.

If one takes that simple liberty, then I think 82R works well. Now, the drawings are usually pretty good, so I may be mistaken here, but I'll offer up this scan from the Siegel website of 81-82R1L as evidence.

I am definitely interested to hear other opinions on this.

Txstamp, I agree 82R1L is a very strong candidate. I feel 26R1L should get a 2nd look.

Thanks for the input. 26R1L was on my list of candidates by guide-dot alone, but it's recut twice at bottom, and the subject stamp is not. So it can't be 26R1L.

Thanks for your efforts. I do agree that 82R1L is the most likely position. The ornaments match all the way around. The plating marks on the right are covered by the postmark even at high magnification, it cannot be seen. Everything else does match. I have marked it as 82R1L.

I do agree with you that Nienken's book is wrong on the recut. Photos give so much more information.

Ok, I'm struggling with this one. Thought it would be easier.

Bottom row I presume.

It looks like 96R1L to me.
The top cut lines look correct.
The plating dot looks to be under the postmark.

I was picking up images this morning for the plating initiative and ran across this Siegel block 85-86, 95-96R1L. I think that the block is not plated correctly. Isn't position 96 a relief "A"? This one looks like a relief "B".





PS: I think it may be 83-84/93-94L1L maybe?

On Plate 1 Late 96R and 97R (which were Relief A on Plate 1 Early) were apparently re-entered as Relief B (Neinken does not note this). I think the block is plated correctly--note the plate bruise in the head of 95R1L.

Dudley, I think you are correct. Was my error in not knowing of the reentry of the relief. I just saw 96 was not relief A and stopped looking there.

Thanks