A Few 1c Franklin Identifications Please

Part of the design is missing for some of the stamps. May need plating info to identify them. Thanks.

I'm in a huge hurry, so these are 30sec IDs each - take for what its worth ...

stamp 1 - Ty II, #7 Plate 1E A relief. Nice NYC grid cancel

stamp 2 - A mess, may wind up being a #24, but needs more looking.

stamp 3 - Probably Ty II #7. Definitely from Plate 1E, B relief. Nice NYC Slug cancel. Top is probably not broken, have to assume that unless plated to prove otherwise. Highly likely #7.

stamp 4 - Its a plate 12 left pane 10L column stamp. You can see there is a #18 TY I above it. The die cancellation dot is also present. A few minutes more of staring at it can probably determine if its a #18 or #20 (ty II). Its one or the other. Obviously the lack of perforations seems to be an issue here ... it doesn't look like the reprint plate (#40)... worth more study..

gotta run...

back -

Stamp 2 - I think its a Ty V #24 Relief F. I'd invite someone to double check me here, but I'm pretty sure of that.

Stamp 4 - This pretty much has to be: 40L, 60L, 80L or 100L from plate 12. 100L is a Ty I (#18) while the others bounce between #20, and #22 (Ty II/IIIA). That said, the break would be in the top, and yours isn't broken, so Ty II (#20), if not Ty I. This isn't from the reprint plate, as that was only a 100 subject plate, and had no centerline.

For Stamp 4 the big problem is perforations. The centerline is often not perforated, so that's no problem. Look closely for blind, or partially punched perfs on the left vertical side.

Thanks for the comments. Here is the back view. There is a thin, but no trace of perforations.

Stamp 2 definitely Type V (#24), probably Relief F though Relief B not out of the question. Stamp 4 is just weird-looking to me. The scrolls on the stamp above look a little funky, don't you think tx?

I agree stamp 4 is at least somewhat weird. Maybe a lot.

It should have perforations, but doesn't appear to. Giant red flag.

I don't see any obvious paint jobs -- it mostly looks like a plate 12 stamp that has been through a spin cycle in the washer .. so to speak. The color is very washed out ... possibly for a reason.

A very faded postal usage proof? If the secret mark is indeed that what else could it be? No perforated stamps of this issue had margins like that.

txstamp and stallzer

Thanks again for the comments. I also noticed that the color of #4 faded. But I don't know why. All these stamps are from the same collection in an album.

Is it worth it to send #4 for certification?

The paper on stamp 4 looks like it might be a bit thick .. possibly/probably from re-backing.

I have a hard time believing that this originated as a proof or specimen printing, only because it resembles a plate 12 stamp - especially with the centerline as it is - that seems to agree. The common proofs are from the reprint plate, which has no centerline and the stamps don't really look like this - it was a 1-relief transfer roll and all positions, if I recall had a guide dot at top right. Not this one. If this were a proof - then it would be a special printing, imperforate of plate 12. Not impossible, but I've never seen one. Then it would have had to have been used.... The odds are getting pretty low.

I will definitely acknowledge that almost anything is possible here, including all manner of enhancements.

As of now, I'll stick with my original analysis which is Plate 12 10L column stamp not exhibiting perforations - maybe it was a freak item with mostly blind perforations, which, when re-backed hid that even more. That's just a guess.

As far as should you get a cert? .. well from a value perspective, the stamp is badly damaged. So its value isn't a lot. I suspect you'd pay as much or more for the cert, than the stamp is worth. That's just my opinion. I'm trying to think of the top uspide here for this stamp. What is the best possible outcome of a cert here? Honestly a plate 12 used proof would be the most exotic thing here, since it would be unique. Which means that's not what its going to be as I've discussed above. After that, maybe a #18 Ty I. Badly damaged. Those are about the best outcomes - the best 'reasonable' outcome is a badly damaged #18, I think. It could be that. It could be a whole lot less than that as well.

txstamp

Thanks. Since it's not a valuable stamp, I think I will save the money and take it to a local stamp show to get an opinion. Sometimes, PSE will come to our local stamp shows.

Float the stamp and then offer discounts to the people who help you here.

It's the centerline that bothers me, almost to the point it looks drawn in. That being said there is no plausible reason to add it manually. Perhaps the secret mark isn't what it appears to be?

I hesitate to help the OP but I would rather do that than see another episode like we saw with the faux #12 thread where a lack of consensus is somehow twisted into a reason to believe the stamp may be something special, unique, or unusual.

My opinion on the Plate 12 stamp: It is a faulty #18, position 100L12, on normal paper with perorations trimmed to resemble a genuine imperf stamp.

Mr. Sinclair, you have seen many more of these than I ever will. I personally have never seen a plate 12 stamp with margins like this one. Not so much the top but the left side margin. How far and few between are ones like this found?

Plate 12 stamps are not that common to begin with, so a jumbo stamp like this wouldn't be encountered that often. However, it is not at all uncommon to see jumbo stamps from the centerline columns of the 1857-61 stamps.

This is the closest I could come to the Plate 12 stamp on short notice. The only difference being the perforations along the centerline of my #26A pair. Perforated centerlines were fairly common in the first half of the 1857-61 period but by 1861 was never done.