US Scott #10/11 Stamps - Double And Triple Guide Dots Caused By Side-Point Tool?

You're welcome, rod222.

The first side point image (Figure 10) looks too basic to have had a spring attached. I can't tell it the second image (Figure 11) could have had a spring involved.

Unfortunately, none of the illustrations of side point devices I've seen in my research has been associated with manufacture of the U.S. 1851 plates.

The The U.S. Philatelic Classics Society publication; The 1851 Issue of United States Stamps: A Sesquicentennial Retrospective described the 1851 plate laydown process in great detail, beyond my prior knowledge of the process. The publication showed this notional illustration of the three-relief transfer roll of the type used to produce the 3-cent 1851 plates, with the side point tool set to the top of the C-relief.



Although this has been covered in this post, for further clarification specific to the 3-cent issue, here is position 1R1e. The guide dot about 1 mm to the left of the upper left corner of the stamp was the controlling guide dot for positioning relief C on the transfer roll at position 1R. The guide dot at the upper right corner of 1R was used to position the transfer roll at position 2R.



It is well established that the three-relief transfer roll transferred C-, A-, and B-reliefs, in that order to rows 1, 2, and 3 of the 3-cent 1851 plates, and that only A- and B-reliefs were used for rows 4 through 10 (with the exception of "misplaced" reliefs).

The USPCS publication stated that once the first three entries were made, the side-point tool was rotated to the bottom of the C-relief, as illustrated here.



The side-point was then dropped into the dot that would eventually be at the bottom of the row-three entry (29R). The siderographer then " . . . wiggled the transfer roll until the raised lines on the
guide relief were meshed in with the recessed lines at the bottom of the row-three entry." So, "The guide dot provided the approximate position for the transfer roll, and the
meshing in (or "dropping in") ensured the exact position."

The key takeaway for me is; since the bottom of the newly-entered position above (not the guide dot) ultimately controlled where the transfer roll was placed for entry of all subsequent rows, it is possible that the side point impacted the plate slightly away from the guide dot, resulting in a new dot. The publication made no mention of the side-point tool being retracted or rotated away before the transfer occurred.

Reference: The 1851 Issue of United States Stamps: A Sesquicentennial Retrospective, edited by Hubert Skinner and Charles Peterson, The U.S. Philatelic Classics Society, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, 2006.

Wonderful work CC,
I'll need to read, and re-read a few times to understand.

Thanks, rod222,

The PDF of the superb USPCS document I've been referencing can be found here:

https://archive.org/details/The1851...ive/mode/2up

Guide reliefing is one of the reasons, I believe that vertical columns are often so straight on these issues.

One can frequently plate stamps by horizontal distance from the stamp to the left or right by column. The combination of the guide dot to initially position the transfer roll, combined with guide reliefing is why the alignment with the entry above, is often good.

I'm realizing how rusty my memory is for details on a lot of this. I had to pull out my notebook from the 1990s to refresh my memory on many details here. Our study group spent basically all of the 1990s and then some, working on these issues. The sesquicentennial book article did a very nice job of collecting and gathering a lot of facts that our 1c/3c 1851-57 study group from (mostly) the 1990s had put together. The authors: members of our group, did a great job of creating a readable narrative for all of this difficult material.

I recall around the mid 1990s when several people from our study group visited with a siderographer from the Canadian Bank Note Co. One piece of trivia I have in my old notes, is that they tried to put guide dots where they would be hidden in the design, often.

Also, to the initial post, guide dots were not imparted by the sidepoint. They were definitely used as the article states, to position the transfer roll.

I do recall distinctly, very early on, when we just found out about the sidepoint, possibly from the CNBC siderographer, that we had some theories about the sidepoint making guide dots - but I now recall that those were simply our minds wandering too far from reality.

Other fun stuff one sees with guide reliefing, is the 11th row effect, which produced some very neat items to collect.

txstamp, I appreciate you sharing your unique experience and perspective, and for contributing to that fascinating document.

For other readers, I'll add what you already know, that the 11th row effect was covered in the referenced document.

Excellent discussion and learning session folks!

Thanks for the feedback, Caper123.

One of my long time go to reference books, FYI, is:

Printing Postage Stamps by Line Engraving
by
James H Baxter

It might be available online - I didn't check.

From Baxter:

"Formerly, punches were tapped with a small hammer to make a guide dot, but this practice was impractical as the dots would vary greatly in size due to the difficulty experienced in striking the punch with uniform blows."

Anyone who has plated 1851 issue stamps knows that the dots are not uniform at all.