Need Help 'Potentially' Plating This 1c Franklin

I realize the photo is unclear (best I have) but any ideas what plate this might be from?

Check out Plate 4.

It could be a Relief "C" from plate 4, or Relief "B" plate 12.
I did not see any plate 4 "C"s with that top right blur.
It is hard to tell if it has the plate 12 dot or if that spot is part of the postmark.
I glanced through plate 12 just looking for the blur and found a couple but not a match.

I don't think this has the "look" of Plate 12. These stamps typically have a "fuzzy" look, as if there were a light film of blue ink on the design.

Thank you both, Dudley and Jaxom. I believe the best match I can find is 22R4 for the following: (photo taken from the Swedishtigers site had to be trimmed to reduce size enough to post).

Personally, I would start my search with top row A reliefs from Plate 4. My initial reaction is that the top ornaments are too complete to be any other relief from Plate 4.

Bit the bullet and went for it. Will provide an updated photo when it arrives.

Updated clearer scan of stamp. It still looks like 22R4 to me based solely upon the photo on the swedish tiger's site which indicates this position is a type III. Neinken's book has me somewhat confused though. In the section on Plate 4 in the text there is a chart (Fig. 15J) on page 263 and it shows 22R4 is a type IIIA, however the plate pictures later in that chapter show type III on the stamp. So which is it? Big difference between a Scott 21 and 22.

The only relief on plate 4 that that can possibly match, in my opinion, is A. Top row. That said, I don't see the dot at UR - there are a few positions where it could be too high and thus cut off.

Alternatively, its plate 12 A or B relief.
The die cancellation dot in the colorless oval might be obscured.

I don't understand the argument for this being a C relief. The top is all wrong, and the top line even looks complete. The top ornaments are much too complete for a C.

I should add, I think this is probably a Type II.

I think the top line is complete, and the bottom line, although showing a small break, might not qualify as broken. I can't be 100% sure. That would require careful measurement of the length of the longest clean part of the break.

Thanks for your thoughts txstamp. It's getting me closer, I believe.
The lower left ball does not match any from plate 1L or 2 but does match plate 4.
As for it being an A relief Type II as you suggest it could then only come from the top row of plate 4.
The dot which should appear on a top row stamp could have just been cut out in a perf hole but my stamp does not match any of the 20 stamps in the top row, even remotely closely.
There does not appear to be any altering of my stamp.

It is certainly plausible that this was a transitional stamp, that through the burnishing of the upper and lower parts of the stamp to make room for perfs stamps once type II eventually became type IIIa and then type III. There are many such changelings in Neinkens writing on plate 4. In that sense you may be completely correct about it being a II (at one time). I'm only suggesting here, as Neinken did, that it may have changed and morphed into what it is on this stamp. And since it bears no resemblance to any from the 1st row I'm left back where I started...22R4 or possibly another with the same attributes.

Designs don't get bigger due to burnishing, they get smaller.

It is true that the E relief from plate 4, may have some copies (like one or two) with a complete line at top --- i.e. that is one case I'm aware of, where the relief's as drawn on plate 4 may be shorter than some examples. The ornaments I'm seeing are strong and are not going to be subject to this kind of wear.

If you are convinced its not top-row, then start looking on plate 12. That's your other candidate. My opinion FWIW.

Thank again txstamp. Will do!

Uh, there is no 'secret dot' in the left frame of, mine. Nix 12.

I will definitely say that plate 4 stamps can be a real adventure to plate, frequently. The appearances of stamps from this plate changed so rapidly, that it almost seems as though no two impressions from the same position look alike.

Even the top row stamps are surprisingly hard to plate - even when you have the dot.

I agree. This is a tough one. Were it not for the lower ball and 'apparent' break in the bottom frame line I'd be solidly a type II man on this one.