1c 1851 Plate 2 Stamps

Here is one that I am having a hard time with.
At first glance, it looks like an easy plate.
It appears to be a bottom row plate 2 stamp.
My best choice so far is 94R2.
I would appreciate any help with it.

Clearly bottom row, probably plate 2 as you suggest - did you measure distance to the stamp on the right, and check vertical alignment with it to narrow down which columns to look at?

Looks like the 5R column is 3/4mm from the 4R column and 5R is lower. That might agree with what you have.

If its not a printing anomaly, the diagonal scratch in ornament R reminds me a lot of some plate 3 stamps.

For example 94L3 has some similarities to this, but also some differences. I'm looking at stamps from Wagshal's sale.

For some reason, I did not consider plate 3. I saw the diagonal line through orn R and nothing on plate 2 to match it.

So 94R2 for your stamp is certainly a pretty good bet. The marginal scratches to the right of Ornament R line up well for this.

I am still a bit bothered by the internal line near Ornament R arcing up left. That said, it might just be a printing variety. At this point, I'd probably assume that, and file this under 94R2.

Here is a reference 94R2.

Thanks for getting back to me on this one txstamp.
I have been looking at plate 3 bottom row stamps for this one like you suggested but was not having any luck. I did manage to add 80+ images to the database for plate 3 left last Sunday. I have a few more pages to go through for images for that plate. I also noticed that, on that stamp, the bottom scroll line below the "E" in "CENT" appears split. Could that be a new plating mark or is that more common than I am thinking?

Look at Siegel sale 1113 Lots 2092, and 2093 - the Six Cent Essay and the Large Die Proof.

https://siegelauctions.com/lots.php...2C+2015

When in doubt about a design issue, I always go to the original die proof - the 6c essay, and one of the Large Die Proofs as well -- which have been modified, but are still pretty good.

My read on your comment based upon the essay and proof above is that it is on the design this way.

One point I can add to my last post, is that since we are looking at bottom row B reliefs, their bottom designs are 'pure' so to speak.

That is to say, they are not altered due to the influence of guide-reliefing. Body-of-plate B reliefs will have the bottom parts of their designs altered due to guide-reliefing. See the dingle on 9th row B reliefs for a good example of the influence of the A relief over the bottom of a B relief.

My point is that the bottoms of B reliefs usually will get 'fattened and flattened' due to guide reliefing, thus blanking out subtle details such as this. On a bottom-row stamp, however, there is no over-rocking effect at the bottom, since B was the bottom relief on the transfer roll, so you get a better picture of the design on the bottom of bottom-row stamps.

By the way, this is another way to tell if a stamp is bottom row - when its cut in - the bottom of the stamp is more detailed (on average).

Here is one that I think is 51L2. Cut really ugly and tight around design makes it difficult. The only plating marks are the two dots in the upper left corner. I thought the detail was more like plate 1 early but found no matches there. I found one match on plate 2. Not many stamps have dots in that upper left corner.

I concur on 51L2.

51L2 looks good.

Here's a copy of 62L2, which I recently acquired at a SAN auction (not Siegel) where it was incorrectly described as #9. I liked this item because it clearly shows the dot under the right scroll which is described in the Doporto Archive as uncertain.

dudley - yes that looks right.

Now that you are all done with 1L, you should start a Plate 2 (and 3) plating. Its a challenging but fun thing.

tx, I'm working on all the plates as material is available and affordable. My current focus, though, is on Plate 8 (I have 145 verified positions so far).

My copy of 62L2 has the dot as well.