Having Some Difficulty With Scott 20? ID

Here's the stamp. I believe this is a Type II because of the completeness of the ornaments and the fact it doesn't appear to be recut.

I'd like some other opinions.

Here's the stamp:




Yes, it's rather markedly off-center, showing a significant part of the stamp adjacent at right. I liked it because of this initially, despite the short perf at bottom center.

I look forward to what everyone has to say about this stamp.

Nice "shift" you have there, albeit slight. I always found these ever so slight oddities interesting to collect.

Did you try the interactive identifier on stampsmarter? http://stampsmarter.com/1847usa/Cla...ntifier.html

Agreed, Type II.

ETA: Appears to be position 99L2.

I agree, its bottom row Plate 2, Ty II #20.

The vertical layout line at right does appear to match the 1c plating archive copy of 99L2, and the left side ornaments of 100L2 match pretty well in terms of shortness and completeness requirements. The horizontal alignment appears correct - just visually.

The main outstanding question I have is, is the Neinken plating mark in Ornament H for 100L2 consistent? I ask, because it doesn't show on what would be 100L2 here. I suspect its inconsistent and you are correct that its 99L2, but requires a bit more digging for me to be sure. 99L2 is probably right.

Txstamp, I did a little research on the plating mark in question on 100L2. It appears that the mark is very faint and almost non-existant on some copies. The other two copies that I found did not show this mark at the resolution given as doesn't the OP stamp. But a closer look at the OP stamp does show a line that could possibly be the mark Neinken indicated. The mark is a little more to the left and very faint. The first two images are the OP stamp, then 2 other copies from Siegel, and the last is the Neinken drawing in that area. Opinions?

jaxom - here are 2 more 100L2's for reference from Seigel. Though not so clear neither 'boldly' show that mark.

Nice job finding reference copies.

I don't see a single stamp that exhibits the mark shown in Neinken, as drawn for 100L2. The nearby one on the OP stamp may be what he meant, but its not clear. It does appear to either be a very transient marking or a mistake in Neinken. Certainly not fully consistent. Good to know, thanks.

As an aside, Ashbrook (possibly Neinken as well) definitely suffered at times from doing plating drawings from black and white photos. There are plating marks drawn by Ashbrook on mats, which show plating marks that are really cancellations. Its harder to tell the difference with a B/W photo (vs color), what is a plate variety vs what is a cancel. Maybe that happened here, who knows. Its worth keeping on the lookout for this over time.

Oh yes, and caper, I like the 3c stamp over 1c stamp variety you posted. I probably want that cover.

Missed your chance txstamp...went for $800 back in 2010.