Need Help 'Potentially' Plating This 1c Franklin

If you look in your enlarged scan of the top - above the "S" in POSTAGE, you will see the line above S. Based upon the nature of the reliefs, this implies to me that it is a complete line at top.

Also, Ornament X, also S, you and Z are too complete for anything but top row A relief. Look carefully at Ornament X. I certainly welcome a counter argument from you on this -- but only if you can find a real stamp, that is clearly not an A but that has larger top ornaments than drawn in the reliefs in the book. I don't deny its possible, per my example of the E relief previously, so if you can find one, let me know. I'm still firmly in the A camp.

I spent years, several decades ago, prior to the internet, working with several friends, trying to get a good reconstruction of the top row of Plate 4 - perf and imperf. Collectively, I believe we had them all, but it took some very serious effort to identify certain positions. It was really hard.

Perhaps another approach to take to try and narrow down possible top row positions would be to look at the top row positions that have weak bottom lines by their nature. 2L4 and 3L4 come to mind immediately. Maybe put togehter a list of just the positions with bottom lines that are less than strong, and only study them.

Also, is there any chance of an abrasion at the TR of your stamp that could obscure the position dot somehow?

You also have a small piece of the stamp to the right of this. So 10L/10R are eliminated. What does the horizontal spacing and vertical alignment tell you about this? You will probably have to look at plated multiples from plate 4 to get good thoughts here.

Here are some close-ups of the top of the stamp. I can see no abrasions on the top right.




The perf holes along the top sadly block a complete view of the top of ornaments S,U,X and Z.

I will seek out plated multiples as you suggested. Some may reside on the Swedish-tigers site, others on Siegel.

I'm inclined to suggest 2R4 as a possible here.

Note the vertical blur at TR.

I think the GD would be at the base of your big perf hole (aka not there).

The bottom appears to match well, including the nature of the wear. Some positions wore more at different spots in the bottom line. This looks quite similar.

The C reliefs are closer in appearance than I first thought, but I don't think the combination of Ornament X completeness on yours combined with the line above S to the left half of the S appears on a C.

I appreciate your delving into this with me txstamp! I looked at 2R4 both in Neinken, the ST site and several examples in Seigel. All showed the horizontal line through the E of POSTAGE, the plating mark (small dash) in the N of ONE and a gash near the top of ornament S - none of which are on mine...sigh...

I definitely agree with you that the E marking appears on all copies I saw as well, and is a strike against 2R4.

That said, this is plate 4. Few things seem permanent on this plate, so to speak, so I don't consider it an elimination, rather just a datapoint.

Awhile back -- different plate -- I recall plating a 46L12 and while researching it, I found out that one or more very strong markings on it, appeared on quite a few copies, but had absolutely no trace on others. This could definitely be the case here, as the impression on your stamp does not appear strong.

I do agree that more looking on this stamp is required to reach a conclusion.

My initial thought at the top of this thread, based on the first photo, was Plate 4 Relief C. The subsequent photos showing an apparent complete or nearly complete top frame line, as well as the amount of plume at LR, have convinced me otherwise. I'm still skeptical of the Plate 12 notion, though--the whole look of the stamp suggests otherwise. Plate marks on Plate 4 seem to come and go at random.

txstamp - ebbn thru all top row stamps again, with a fine tooth comb, and must rule them out. Nit-picked all available top row plate 4 stamps on Seigel, comparing them with pictures on the STigers site. Only one I felt was close enough was 6R4. But the differences were enough to have to rule it out finally. On to the B & C reliefs. The perf holes may have hid the truth here.

Understood. I'll be interested to hear what you find.

Just finished another run thru of plate 4. The swedish tiger's site shows a piece of the 22R4 on the scan of 23R4. Spacing looks good, smear shows up, but that's all I can glean from it. There is no 22R4 on that site.

All I know about that site is when I click on #7 it shows me a bottom row #9.

Regarding the 22R4 you posted, from the 1c plating archive - the top ornaments really don't seem to match per my prior comments.

Try this: http://www.slingshotvenus.com/Frank...hv_Main.html

Maybe I am referring to it incorrectly.

No, I meant the swedish tiger site, which you referred to. They don't know what a #7 is, although its a pretty site, obviously with a lot of work put into it.

The 1c plating archive has high quality technical content of course, and the 22R4 I mentioned resides there.

txstamp - I have poured over and over plate 4 positions. I am definitely leaning toward Plate 4, A relief top row stamps. Have to rule out the 'curl in hair' varieties, 10L or 10R due to part of neighboring right hand stamp. The defined arching smudge below and between the ball and scroll on the lower right, so prevalent on Relief A stamps, is largely absent on mine. I am now leaning toward 5R4 as my best 'guess' on this one. The changeling nature of plating marks on plate 4 have gotten to me on this one...sigh...

Both the Doporto archive and Neinken show a plating mark on right ornament 1 going vertically and I don't see it on yours. Doporto also shows a break / weak outer top line above the "S" in POSTAGE.