1c 1857 Plate 11 Stamps

Let me reproduce here, some of the words of the great Dr. Chase, as he was in a figurative sense, passing the torch to other collectors interested in plating the 3c stamp:

"The person who takes over should have several qualifications: good eyesight, patience to burn, the love of the stamp and plating ability which may have to be slowly acquired. He must not be a person that jumps to conclusions"

I only bring this up because you appear to be assuming that effectively identical spacing cannot occur in other locations of the plate. It is worth keeping in mind that Plate 11 was likely entered with 120 separate and unique settings of the transfer roll.

Lot 1569 in Wagshal 4 is a Plate 11 T-relief strip. I thought for sure I was going to own that strip. Alas, I was not the only one that knew what it was and the guy that wanted it had deeper pockets than me. I could have kept bidding but at some point desire turns to fear of winning :)

Sinclair, at this point with a small amount of testing just done, I think that you are incorrect. I have checked the horizontal spacing on the blocks that I have available and the spacing always matched vertically. It was only a small sample but that sample said the spacing is the same vertically. I will test further later.

So for Plates 1-4, I think we know enough about how those were entered and made, in order to make some observations about them.

First, a 3-relief transfer roll, followed by a 6-relief transfer roll on plate 4. Actually, the very beginning of 1E may have been a 1-relief roll, but I digress.

After they got their bearings straight on Plate 1E (inverted transfers, top row right pane, etc), plates were entered vertically, left to right. Since things are inverted, that means 10R was the first entry and 91L the last. Because they were entered vertically, and subsequent vertical settings of the transfer roll, were essentially guide-reliefed by using the bottom of the last entry as a guide, that tended to make very even vertical rows (lets ignore 89R2, 99R2, - mistakes, etc).

My point is, as a result of the way they entered these First Contract Plates, the horizontal spacing and vertical alignment will tend to be pretty close on a row by row basis. That is why we can and do utilize this for those plates in order to plate stamps.

Moving forward to the later plates, Plate 11 and 12 are really a whole different ballgame. They were made many years after the First Contract plates, and just from a casual eyeballing of Plate 11 and 12, it is evident that the same process wasn't necessarily followed for them.

They are both 3 relief transfer rolls, but that is where the similarity ends, I think. Look at the Neinken map of Plate 12, for where the reliefs went. Its all over the place. There is some regularity, but overall, its kind of a mess. From what little I understand about Plate 11, it also has some real differences.

Where I'm going with this, is merely to gauge your expectations, and give you enough background information in order to fully process whatever data you get. I'm not sure I/(we?) know enough about plate 11 in order to fully make the statement that horizontal spacing and vertical alignment is going to work as well for this plate (or plate 12) as it did on the First Contract Plates. I will be very happy to be informed that everything is regular and "it all works", but lacking evidence, I would proceed skeptically.

I suspect what you are proposing may work reasonably on First Contract plates. Heck, it might work for plate 11 - I don't want to stop you, I just want you to understand that you are walking into the abyss with this plate. There aren't a lot of maps, and few flashlights to find your way around. Good luck!

Good eye, you are clearly correct. That's quite a strip.
I hope its still in one piece.

Considering the buyer, DZ, I would say that it has survived.

I appreciate the information as it is known or even just thought. Keeps me on track.

I am hoping that the columns do line up but I know that I have to prove this as it is unknown. I am keeping an open mind to any suggestions at this point but I need to start somewhere. I do not have a lot of images to work with, plated or unplated, more on right pane than left. I will keep checking blocks to confirm they are correctly spaced. It should become obvious after a short time by how many different spacing that I can find. If I can only find 20, then the spacing is even. If it is even, then I can set a column for any pair. It will not plate it but will severely limit the number of choices.

If anyone has any plate 11 images that they could contribute, I would appreciate an image.

Here's one that Dudley recognized about a year or so ago, as having a good chance of being 10R11, due to the dot in the middle of the frame line.

Thoughts?

Beautiful stamp!

I am not sure that it is 10R11. The reason being is the heavy blur at right towards the top near orn N, missing the two diagonal lines at the right of the stamp, however, the dot in center look correct, and there is a vertical line thru orn N that is not shown on Neinken but shows on copy. These things being said, I found no other indication on the Neinken drawings of a dot above the vignette oval. I would like to see a 2400 dpi image of this stamp. The image is just to blurry. If you could Raymac, I would like you to send me a 2400 dpi image of this stamp for my research.

This is what I have been able to find for plate 11 right pane. I added 58R11 to the mix by plating one of the Siegel pairs.

Ignoring some kind of mis-placed T relief possibility, it seems to me as though that almost has to be 10R11.

Its a top-row relief (assuming not misplaced), and there appears to be enough white space to the right of it to conclude that its right pane. See the centerline copy on page 1 of this thread for reference - the centerline isn't too far away.

Looking at the stamp itself, what its missing are fine scratches, which one can posit could easily wear away. The nice deep 'dot', above O, however, seems like it should be a fine plating mark to me - namely: deeply impressed, and it appears consistent.

I am not sure that it is a tenth column stamp. If you look at the lower right side, the third, fifth, and seventh perf tip has a mark that would correspond with the left side of the next stamp. The perfs at left side are cut in indicating that the centering would be the same on both sides.

The left plate drawings do not indicate a dot at top. The only top row stamp on the right that has no information at all is 6R11. I think if we look closely at the ones labeled as 10R11 and compare them. One of them may be the missing 6R11, and missing for that reason.

I saw what you see in the perfs originally, and certainly if you want to try your image interpolation trick with the straddle centerline copy on page 1 of this thread, with the subject stamp here, that could prove or disprove quickly.

The image here does not have the resolution. I will try something though, when I get home.

What I need is an image of a strip that covers the gap around the sixth column.