1c 1851 Plate 2 Stamps

Yep .

Its a pretty cool thing to look at as well, and quite easy to use as a plating reference.

Great job Mark. If you get a good 1200 dpi scan of the reconstruction, I would like to put the images in the database.

Let me add my congrats with just a soupcon of envy!

23L showing the crack. Posted in the 1851 imperf thread but leaving it here also for future reference

@stallzer - very nice, congrats.

Widget1, That #7 pair from plate 2 should be posted here.
I think the position is 62-63R2.

Txstamp, Can you post position 62R2 for me to compare with Widget's pair he has?

I'm taking the liberty of reposting widget1's pair.


jaxom100 - I agree with you that 62/63R2 is probably the correct match for this pair. I originally thought that the guide dot on 62R2 was too far to the right to be a good match, but I was using the Neinken drawing as my reference. I notice, however, that the image you have on the Stamp Smarter 1851-57 1c Plating Initiative is different from Neinken's (yours appears a bit further to the lefft), and is a good match to the left stamp in widget1's pair. I've posted both yours and Neinken's guide dot references below.



The problem with 22/23R2, which I suggested, is that the guide dot on 21R2 is considerably higher than that in widget1's pair. I somehow talked myself into overlooking this. The position discrepancy is much great than what is probably a small inaccuracy in the Neiken map of 62R2.

Moved this post from the plate 1 late thread.

Widget1,
I believe that the pair shown above is 62-63R2.
Here are some closeups with your pair and the Neinken drawings.
The dot on the second image is not in the position shown on the Neinken drawing, but close.
The guide dots match.


PS: Widget1, can you send me a 1200 dpi image of the pair and the strip of 3?
PSS: Txstamp, can you share a copy of 62R3 to compare the dots in UR?

Jaxom100, Thanks for reposting here and clearing up the position on the Pair of #7

Also, happy to send you some hi-res images of the Pair and the strip of 3. How would you like me to get them to you? As a new member, I can't email yet. Put I have a good camera that can certainly get a clear 1200 DPI photo of the strips.

Thanks,
Josh

Widget, A camera image is useless to me in plating as there is no way to get a proper dpi. Camera angle and distance will affect actual dpi. You need a good scanner for proper images. I will just scale up your image to the proper size.

As I was looking to plate this pair for him, I was unsatisfied with my images on Stamp Smarter and the lack of uniformity there. As I did the 12c issue, I learned a few tricks with Siegel images to get them to the proper size. I will implement my techniques to improve the plate 2 database. I will make new spacing charts and may have to tamper with the guide dot charts as well. I was also thinking about changing the guide dot chart to 10 x 5 format over the current 5 x 10. I made these charts long ago and feel that I had posted them before. But I would like opinions on which format others prefer.

jaxom100 - I don't know what you mean by a "proper dpi". A high-resolution photograph will allow more even more resolution than a 1200 dpi scan. The problem with using a camera is in focusing close enough that you can attain a clear image of just the stamp. If you can do so (with a macro lens or a microscope), you can achieve the full resolution capability of the camera.
Doporto uses a special large format camera setup to obtain his images.

The distance from the stamp will set the dpi (physical size of the image).
The angle of the camera to the stamp will set up a distortion.
If Doporto uses a camera, then he is not concerned about one image being the same size and the next image.
To use spacing charts, I need all images to be the same size.

Here is a nice unplated strip of 9 that I found on Siegel from June 2025.
I plated it to 92-100L2. It made some nice spacing images to build a chart.

Jaxom100,

I typically use a macro lens with a ring light on my Olympus OM-D for good close-up shots of my stamps for ID purposes. They turn out crisp and I can really zoom in on minute detail. The size distortion hasn't been much of an issue because of the macro lens.

Regardless, totally understand if a straight scan is better at 1200dpi for sizing and compatibility for the data base. I have a scanner that can do 1200DPI. And I have a few pairs/strips for Plate 2 and 1L I can scan and send to you.

Just let me know the best way to get you the images. Should I just post them here, or is there a way to upload to the Stamp Smarter site.

The 1851 Plating project on Stamp Smarter has been a Godsend, excellent job. It is my go to, along with this forum. My long term goal is to create my own Plate 1L for display. Plate 2 is going to be a lot harder in that regard.

Appreciate all the help.

Cheers,
Josh

Josh, for now, post the images here. I am glad you like my work on Stamp Smarter.
I am currently reworking the entire plate 2 database and charts. The work that I did on plate 2, I did 9 years ago when I first started plating. I took the plate positions on Siegel as correct. Now, I attempt to verify each position. I am making spacing charts and I am redoing the guide dot charts. I am recreating each image in the database to 1200 dpi and verifying the position. I have found a few errors in plating. Here are two examples.

The first one is Siegel 998 lot 347 from the Raymond Vogel collection. It was plated as 31R2. On closer examination of the two guide dots on the stamp above, using my new guide dots, I found they did not match 21R2. I did not have 41R2 left dot at that time. But the left and right dots were slightly lower than on 21R2. It matched the right dot on 41R2. So it is 51R2 not 31R2. I used the image of 21R2 left dot on my guide dot chart for 41R2. I replaced the lower section showing the guide dot location from this image and got my 42R left dot position. See images.


The second example misplated is Siegel 994 lot 931 from the Wagshal collection. It was plated as 25/35R2. I found the match to be 46/56R2.