Show Your US 1851-57 Imperforate Stamps

Scott #11 and 11A plated 98R4 and 81R2L

Relief "A", Plate 5L with a faint right extra line, not really a frame line. Upper left rosetta looks to have a flat 7:00-8:00 side, might assist in id'ing.

The double strike CDS obscures some of the possible features for identification.

Plate 6 has an extra line, I would look there. Plate 4 has one too but it does not look like a Plate 4 stamp.

photo61guy, Those are outstanding examples of Scott #10, 10A, 11, and 11A! Thanks for showing them.

As a specialist of the 3-cent imperforates myself, I know how hard it is to find such attractive examples with margins all around and nice, light cancels. Well done!

Do you specialize in the 3-cent imperforates (like many of us do), or do you mainly collect nice examples of each type?

Here is my #9 34R1 I believe.

I have to agree with @Classic Coins. @photo61guy, those are stunning examples. Rare to see any imperf, let alone an early stamp, #11, so well centered, clear margins... WOW...

Thank you for posting them.

Hi Moyock13 --

I agree with Sinclair in that your "relief A" stamp with the "extra line" outside of the RFL is from the 8th vertical column of R6 -- so only 4 possibilities -- 18, 38, 58, and 78R6.

I was able to plate your stamp from the scan based on the relationship of the FL's to the design -- and can reveal the position if you like -- or -- you can plate it and I am happy to confirm.

Regards // ioagoa

Hi iogoa,

After comparing Chase, Lund and images posted on StampSmarter I'm pretty confident to say that it plates to 78R6. The big giveaway for me is the Top Frame line, takes a dive over the "E" of postage.

Though, I'd have to push back a little on the Chase description. Sure looks to be a faint right inner frame line, more apparent at the upper right rosetta.

It didn't occur to me to include recut 10, extra line at right, in the plating wizard. Seemed too far off of the right frame line and too faint to be a recut. I thought maybe some sort of engravers slip.

Thanks ioagoa, your input and guidance is always appreciated.

Hi Moyock13 --

These plate 6 and 7 "relief A" stamps are among the most challenging to plate on the 1851 3c imperf issue -- as, generally speaking, the only recutting done on most of them was to lightly strengthen the 4 outer FL's (and on some positions, only 3 of the 4 outer FL's).

Based on what I am seeing -- I plated your stamp to 38R6. A couple of differences that I noted between 38R6 and 78R6 were the upper end of the LFL -- which flares out to a greater degree on 78R6 -- and a number of very subtle differences in the relationship of the RFL to the design. That said -- Given the file size limitations of posting high resolution scans on SCF, I asked another fellow plater to confirm my plating -- and we both agreed that your stamp is 38R6.

You also wrote:




Bear in mind that there were very finely engraved inner lines on the original die -- which, given the production process (as previously discussed in this thread) failed to sufficiently transfer to the plate -- thus driving the need for TCC do all of the recutting in an effort to restore the originally intended design.

On plates 4, 6, 7, and 8 -- probably for purposes of expediency and labor costs (although that is just a guess) TCC did not recut any of the inner lines like they did on the other plates -- BUT -- remnants of the LIL and RIL -- as originally engraved on the master die -- can, and do, still show to varying degrees -- and the appearance of which, even when looking at multiple copies from the same position, can sometimes be further impacted by inking, impression, and plate wear. That said, Chase's description is correct in that on plates 4, 6, 7, and 8 -- after TCC rocked in the original entry from the transfer roll, they did not "recut" (i.e., strengthen) any of these inner lines .

Again -- these plate 6 and 7 "relief A" stamps are among the most challenging to plate on the 1851 3c imperf issue -- and while there are some similarities between 78R6 and 38R6 -- based on what I am seeing -- I am confident that your stamp is, in fact, position 38R6.

Regards // ioagoa

ioagoa,

Thank you, taken to school again. This is why I really enjoy this forum and the guidance received. Thanks for confirming the plate number as 38R6.

I did Classic Coins squish test and did note that 38R6 was very close, but it was that pesky top frame line on the right side of 78R6 that got my attention. It didn't appear to me that the upper frame dipped over the "E" on the first three.

I do have a question. The upper left rosette on my stamp has a flat spot in the center at about 8:00, but none of the four, 18,38,58 or 78R6 displayed the same. Could that have been an inking issue during the printing process?

Hi Moyock13 --

You wrote...




I presume you are talking about the "bulls-eye" in the center of the ULR -- and I think I see what you mean -- in that the "bulls-eye" is not perfectly round -- but am not 100% certain due to the scan quality.

That said -- I believe the cause of the so-called "flat spot" would have to be "inking and/or impression" as the rosettes were never recut on any of the 1851 3c imperforate plates. I considered the possibility of a very slightly shifted transfer -- but ruled that out as those show ink where there normally should be none -- and if anything, your stamp would seem to have a speck or two of missing ink in the area you mention -- thus giving the illusion of a "flat spot". Plus -- if the "flat-spot" was on the plate -- we would expect to see it consistently on other copies of the same position, and after looking at 6 other reference copies this evening -- yours is the only one showing this anomaly.

As an aside -- even though none of the rosettes were recut on any of the 1851 3c imperforate plates -- one of the first places to look for evidence of a shifted transfer is in each of the 4 rosettes -- as quite often a shifted transfer will show as a doubling of the rosette center (to varying degrees) and/or some portion of the rosette dots will have a "stretched" appearance.

Other than my rambling above -- I can offer no other explanation -- so the default "punt" answer is "inking and impression" (i.e., for some reason a speck or two of ink failed to get picked up in this area) -- and we see these inking variations from time to time.

I wish I had more to offer you -- perhaps others can weigh in?

Regards // ioagoa

Wshuwahere77, I like your plating of 34R1L. The contour of the recuts, the positioning relative to the column to the right, the double bottom recut visible on the stamp above, and the position of the guide dot on the stamp above all support this. The plating mark in the S of POSTAGE illustrated in Neinken is not visible to me in the photo, but this is not a deal-breaker.

Classic Coins: I only collect nice copies of individual stamps. One of my dealers in the Salt Lake City area had purchased a large collection of many plated 10's and 11's. I rummaged thru 100's of stamps picking out the best ones. I got to admit that it was a great day of treasure hunting.

Well done, photo61guy. I would have loved to have seen that stock of 3-cent imperforates that you got to pick through!

Thanks again for showing those gems.

Wshuwahere77 - Your #9 position 34R1L is very nice. I like 1¢ Franklins like this where there are just enough of the neighboring stamps to lend extra interest, and yet not so much as to make the example look artificially created from a multiple.