1c 1851 Plate 2 Stamps

I was looking at my guide dot charts and I was wondering if they would
look better with a horizontal format instead a of vertical format.
The horizontal format shows them in the same rows as the plates.

Let me know what everyone thinks.

I very much like the new row format you came up with. When one has a horizontal pair, that should pop out nicely with your new format.

On the original one, the images are larger without having to click on anything, which is nice - but either can be sized accordingly, so I don't know how much that matters.

Also, the original vertical format might work better on smartphones ... probably only appropriate for persons plating stamps at a show ... I'm not going to plate using a smartphone at home

My conclusion - I like both, but probably favor slightly the new one.

I picked up this one the other day.
Short cut at left. Relief B, plate 2.
It does show the A relief dingle at the lower left to indicate it is a 9th row position. Also comparing the remnants of the right stamp for incompleteness and the guide dot is nicely shown. It also has a slight deformation of orn L that is consistent with the position from what I see. I plate it at 85L2.

Here is the larger scan of the #20 that I had posted elsewhere.
Looking it over, I think it may be 68L2.
It has the lower left dots shown on the Franklin Archive copy.
The mark could be in the "N" of CENT. Look too close and it fades away into spots.
Guide dot matches. Orn A and B are weak. Missing spot on top of orn L matches.

Are blind perfs like this common?
There are no marks of a pin.



:

Blind perfs do happen, and are common enough with this issue.

Usually, there will be an indentation where the pin made contact with the stamp but didn't fully punch it, but not in every case.

There was a famous 1c pair which was supposed to be imperf-between. My memory fails me as to whether it was Ashbrook, or someone else, that identified it as such originally. For it to be imperf-between, there had to be absolutely no visible hint of a failed perf punch. The pair came up for sale a few years ago, and with more eyes on it, it was apparent that it was lightly indented from a failed punch, and, therefore, is no longer classified as imperf-between -- its just an oddity now.

I don't have time right now to check your plating, but I'm sure someone else will get to it.

Tex, I think the pair you are talking about is Lot 3121 in Siegel Sale 1116.

Winston, that's it, thank you.

It is funny..... I checked that pair on Siegel and I had already put it in the database before. I marked them, split them and loaded them and never noticed that the pair was imperf between. What is the matter with me... lol.

IMO, the pair is imperf between by the sheer definition of perforation (not pierced). It does not matter how it became imperf. If the pins did not come down and pierce the stamp, it is imperf. Oh well. I would have sent it to a different grading company for a second opinion.

I got a good deal on this one.
It appears to be 7L2 to me.
Relief T, upper right guide dot cut off.
Nice centering, nice find.

The color on that top row plate 2 stamp is late summer-early fall 1856.

Plate 2 and 3 shared a lot of the same basic color appearances and progressions in 1856.

After 40 years on and off, I have completed a reconstruction of plate 2.

The original Ashbrook reconstruction was sold in the Wagshall sale missing 4 positions. Does anyone know where it is?

I wonder if David Zlowe bought it. I bet Dick would know.

Congratulations!

He thinks not.

Congrats on completing plate 2!
A difficult accomplishment.