This Is An Area I'm Not That Used To Working With...help With Scott 21(?)

Correct, rg, probably another E relief stamp as well.

Now that I'm awake & sober...

Don't want to hijack anyone's thread here. All cool stamps being posted & discussed...

Welcome to daz24! Sounds like you've published an article that would be of great interest here?! If you could post a link or a copy, it would be great!

Seems I'm not the only one who questions these stamps, though we are definitely in the minority. In my mind, the differences between 5-6-7-8 & 9 are just printing quality issues. Worn plates; poor ink etc. Never thought of them as EFOs, but I also don't really consider them different stamps. (And same for 18-24)

Thinking out loud here - to clarify - when they were printed, they were INTENDED to be the same stamp. Compare that with, say, #263 & #278 - while those were the same design, they were printed - intentionally - on different paper. (Watermarked vs Unwatermarked) Or a change in the perforation from 12 to 11 in the WF era.




Happy to oblige. My US collection is as complete as i'm willing to go financially. Haven't added a US stamp to my collection in at least 5 years?? I've specialized in Ottoman/Turkey for many years, which has also effectively reached that similar saturation point. I also collect general WW classic era, but not in any active or dilligent way. Actually been looking for something new...Ottoman/Turkish revenues are the likely next big project.

(Although I haven't touched or added to my collection of baseball cards in this century, I do love them!)

And no - nobody should toss their 5-8 or 10-11 collections!! Collect what you want & have at it! Like I said, it is fascinating to read & great education/enjoyment.

I suppose one could make that argument for quite a few US Stamps. How about the Washington / Franklin series?
Like them, the 1851-1856 1 cent Franklin's were printed in different years from different plates. Same design but look at how many catalog numbers were given to the W/F's.

I am far from an expert, so please eduvate me if I am wrong, but I though the differences were in how the subjects were appeared on the plates when they were made, not wear, poor inking etc.

And stepping into quicksand, I am one of those that think the various 1c varieties that have major numbers should have minor letters, which isn't meant to take anything away from those that specialize in the varieties.

eyeonwall, you are correct. The differences among these types (perforated and imperforate) are a function of how the transfer rolls and/or plates themselves were prepared, not how the sheets were printed. The discussion of how these stamps are currently catalogued is a valid one, but to consider that the current taxonomy is based on factors like plate wear and inking is quite frankly not to understand.

There are quite a few stamps from plate 4 that change from #8A to #8 (22 to 21) due to plate wear. None of the other imperf plates have changelings that I can recall. I count 10 on plate 4 left and 13 on plate 4 right. And two (41R4, 49R4) that changes from 6b to 8A (19b to 22).

100L1E can be Type II or Type IIIA. These are all exceptions that fuel the well-grounded arguments against categorizing these stamps individually based on what is visible on any particular specimen. But the fundamental taxonomy (these exceptions aside) is based on relief features and/or plate preparation effects. Type III's are not by nature simply worn-out Type IIIA's. Whether these distinctions are the best ones to use in order to understand how the finished products came to be as they are is another matter.

Edit: Corrected order of "Type III's" and "Type IIIA's"

As it was discussed a bit here in this thread, I may ask my question here: I still don't get if it's possible to decide whether a 1c 1851 stamp is a type III or type Va just with looking at the right ornaments or if you need plating. Some positions of the Va right ornaments just look too similar to type III right ornaments, to me. I know the "reverse C" hint, but isn't this also present for some type III stamps? Is there anything else which could differentiate then the type III from Va?

(I am not familiar yet with plating, so I wonder if I can though see the types without it)

Most type III stamps have smaller breaks in the bottom and top lines than type V or Va. If the bottom broken lines extends under the N of ONE, then it is probably a type V or Va. The scrolls below the vignette at bottom will be gone on type V/Va. The scroll at bottom right is more complete on types I - IV. There is also more missing on the top corners for type V/Va.

Thank you very much, that helps. But am I correct that there can still be stamps which will be difficult? I saw type III stamps with a break quite wide and also missing a lot at top and bottom. And I saw type Va stamps with much of the LR scroll and a break not so wide.

Well let me to try to answer your question further.

Type Va only comes perforated from plate 5.
Type III only comes imperforated (#8) or perforated (#21) from plate 4 with the exception of 99R2 which is the best example of a type III.
There are 37 positions on plate 4 for a type III. There are about 5 that are cut close to the E - E cut. But all the type III stamps have much smaller breaks in the top, usually between the end of P and start of S of POSTAGE. None are as open at top and bottom as a type V/Va. On the changelings, the question is "is it broken enough to be called III?". No type III are broken wide at top and bottom.

thank you again. Yes, if I consider now all the things you mentioned and look at some example stamps in the internet, I can follow this about the breaks.

Telling a Ty III from a V/Va is usually really quite easy once you get your eyes calibrated. jaxom has given you some good tips.

I would argue that in almost all cases its pretty readily done.
Some badly off-center stamps might pose modest challenges, but if you can see the whole design, I don't really think its that tricky after you've studied some of each, and familiarized yourself with them.

Telling Ty V from Va is harder, I would argue.

The left side ornaments on type Va are quite incomplete, like type V.