Need Help 'Potentially' Plating This 1c Franklin

I agree with you too stallzer. The problem is that while the attributes in general match up well with an A relief from plate 4 the plate markings are inconsistent. As is commented in the 'Franklin Plating' archive for plate 4,

""Plate 4 changed it's appearance as many plating marks faded away due to plate wear, and new plating marks developed over the life of the plate. One of the most annoying aspects of trying to identify Plate 4 positions is the appearance and disappearance of these plating marks."

With that tid-bit in hand I've run into a brick wall with this stamp. The drawings in Neinken are not accurate enough and at times the designations are themselves inconsistent in Neinkens text. Take the 22R4 I mentioned above. The picture in Neinken shows the stamp labled as "22R4 ?" and lists it as a type III in the photo while referring to it earlier in that chapter in the plate layout as a type IIIA. This, I am starting to learn, is the story with this changeling plate. Hense all the various transitions of stamps from this plate from type II, to IIIA, to III due to wear and repair. I fear mine could be one of these, in transition, quite possibly an A relief as TXSTAMP has so effectively lobbied for, but unlike those I've seen or can find pictured.

I, like you pointed out have on several occasions in this plating process disqualified this 5R4 position, but have found my way back to it as a possibility at a slightly different stage than what has to-date been shown in pictures of this position. Another words, I'm grasping at straws. If you have other ideas, please chime in...I'm all ears.

I think the stamp could be position 2L4. Here is a copy of 2L4.
The guide dot is cut off by the perf hole as shown in image 2 with part of the Siegel stamp overlaid on OP stamp.
I would like to see a closeup of the lower right corner to help match it. I also put in copies of TR and BL comparisons to the Siegel copy.

Here you go jaxom!

Some very impressive overlay work by the way!

Thanks Caper. I was wanting to examine the blur in that lower right corner. It looks like 2L4 has a similar blur on it. The ornaments match close as well. I am thinking that 2L4 is a match. What do you guys think?

Your making a believer out of me Jaxom!

Its 2R4 as I had originally suggested.

Here is a pair, which I believe should establish this.
The plating of the pair is obvious since the right stamp has the curl, and the left stamp does not. 3R and 4R are the only positions with the curl, thus this pair is 2-3R4.



I really had to shrink this scan to make it fit, and it may have lost some resolution, so I hope there will be enough to work with here. Note that the original stamp for this thread is a late and worn impression, so some of the markings which were consistent on some 2R4's as we looked, and I stipulated did not have to be consistent -- aren't. This pair should illustrate that.

2R4 does have a constant dot on the shoulder north of the N on ONE.

The blur in the left scroll is also a good indicator of a stamp being top row plate 4.

Alignment from 2R to 3R agrees with the original stamp and pair.

You can see of course, the vertical blur at UR which is consistent.

I also feel strongly about the overall nature of the bottom line, and where it is strong, versus where it is weak and/or broken. The bottom lines on each top row stamp vary - and of course vary by impression per position, but you can still often form conclusions there as well. For example if a stamp has a bottom line partially broken in a spot, but another stamp has a very strong line there, then its probably not the same position. For that reason, I always take a good mental snapshot of the bottom line overall appearance and use that to eliminate and match.

txstamp, you lobby for 2R4 well. I like your theory on the 'nature' of the bottom line. In my searching I had ruled it out though mainly due to the mark in the N of ONE being consistent in Neinken, all those listed by Seigel (about 3 in total) and the one pictured in the Franklin Archive, but absent from mine. That kind of consistency is difficult to ignore. The blur in the upper right is certainly consistent with mine as you pointed out.

I had hoped this one mark (pointed out below) on mine would be of help...but no matches.

I do not think that you can say that all 3 plating marks in the letters are missing and the bottom line does not match any known copies but the stamp is 2R4. The only thing that is a close match is the plate blurs. I will look at it closer this week.

Thanks to all. I bow to experience here and am happy to now own a 2R4!