10c 1859 Washington Top Row Plating Help Needed!

Anyone have a Scott #35 top row stamp with a dot at "12 o'clock" over the left X??? Mine is shown below. According to Neinken, this correlates to Position 7L, but that position is also supposed to have a curl in the head--which mine does not show. I want to confirm that Neinken did not make a mistake with the head curl. Thanks!

Check Siegel sale 835, lot 115, top right stamp.

Let me know if that's a match.

TXstamp, as usual I believe you are spot on. Now, what position? I have Ashbrook's book on the 10¢ but have rarely opened it as I only own 1 or 2 of the 10¢ stamps.

Based solely on Neinken, I agree with lukusw, that 7L2 seems right, because of the guide dot.

Neinken has a big head-curl on this position, however, and that certainly isn't obvious on the stamps, but I haven't studied the Siegel copy in depth yet.

Thanks, txstamp! I'm convinced my stamp is the same as the top right stamp in that block. Unfortunately, the online photo isn't a high enough resolution for me to rule out a head curl or to definitively ID the others in the block to lock in a position. I'll try to upload a couple more photos pertaining to this position later if I can.

Here are two additional copies that I found online. They show the dot at the top of the X circle, but again, too blurry to rule in/out the head curl.




For comparison, here is one WITH the head curl (I believe to be 8L2):




Obviously, plating marks for this plate can be pretty faint (I think the green ink they used must have been inferior to the blue used for the 1c Franklins), but I'm feeling that perhaps Neinken included a head curl in error on 7L2. The curl shown in his book for 7L is almost the exact shape and length and position as that for 8L. Perhaps it is was a clerical error?

Thanks to everyone chiming in. There's just such a scarcity of high quality comparisons online for the 10c.

Neinken shows the curl on 7, 8 and 9L2.
Three consecutive A reliefs. Obviously some foreign matter got on the transfer roll.

The guide-dot seems to me as though it would very likely be one of the most consistent plating marks -- historically they typically are, as they wind up being impressed deeper than many other parts of the design. It is certainly believable that a guide dot could be visible but something caused by a small piece of foreign matter might not be consistent.

Now with all of the above said, this dot, and others like it across the top of the A reliefs, kind of appear as thought they might be associated with the layout line, and not the transfer roll itself. If that is true, these dots, might in fact be less strong than a normal guide dot. That would seem to be confirmed by the possible 8L2 that you posted. These dots seem to be absent and/or faint, or else we are barking up the wrong tree. I'm voting 'faint' for now.