Show Your US 1851-57 Imperforate Stamps

Thank you Greg. It is in the database. Every image helps when plating these tough plates.

Hi tgswanner --




As I previously mentioned -- the whole 1E / 1i subject can be very challenging (and frustrating at times) -- even for experienced platers. In fact, it was probably tough for Dr. Chase as well -- as over the years there have been 4 documented discoveries of 1E / 1i Chase plating errors -- (all by Dick Celler by the way) -- where stamps in the Smithsonian Chase photo's plated as Inter state are actually worn printing copies of Early state -- all as follows:

55L1i is actually a worn plate printing of 55L1E

96L1i is actually a worn plate printing of 96L1E

73R1i is actually a worn plate printing of 73R1E

80R1i is actually a worn plate printing of 80R1E

Again, the only difference between 1E and 1i is re-entry -- as there was no additional re-cutting when plate 1E was reworked into plate 1i. Consequently, the determination of Early versus Inter boils down to finding evidence of the re-entry process -- or concluding that the position in question was not re-entered.

Clouding the analysis are the impact of differences in inking, impression, and plate wear. For example -- a late printing from 1E with a poor impression can often be mistaken for a 1i printing. Likewise, a very early printing from 1i with a perfectly inked proof-like impression can easily be mistaken for a 1E printing.

There have been plenty of occasions where I have been able to definitively nail down the plate position of a stamp -- but where differences in inking, impression and plate wear distort things to the point where I am forced to decline opinion on the state of the plate as to Early versus Inter.

For many collectors, all of this is just a bunch of meaningless trivial minutiae -- as all they really want to know is "do I have a Scott #10 or a Scott #11" -- and even though the state of the plate as to 1E or 1i is uncertain -- one can still definitively determine the Scott #.

In summary, the differences between 1E and 1i that are due solely to re-entry can often be very subtle in and of themselves -- and when the impact of re-entry is further distorted by differences in inking, impression, and plate wear -- figuring the state of the plate can be both frustrating and challenging. Bottom line -- a solid understanding of the stamp printing production process in combination with lots of plating experience are the foundational pre-requisites for those interested in learning how to separate out stamps from 1E and 1i.

I guess what I am trying to say -- is do not be too hard on yourself that you did not see the subtle differences I mentioned in my previous post on your 25L1i. For what it is worth, even after decades of experience plating the 3-cent 1851 imperf issue, separating out stamps between plates 1E and 1i remains one of the most challenging aspects of plating for me -- and for almost every other serious plater I know. I will also say that even among experienced platers -- it is an area where there can be plenty of debate.

Regards // ioagoa


edited for minor typo and clarifications

ioagoa - Nice post, as always.

Dick and I reflected on numerous occasions that in spite of Chase making some errors, Chase's plating error-rate was/is really low. He was a fabulous plater.

Errors such as these are readily understandable and forgivable, on these complex plates, for which ioagoa has explained very admirably.

A message I'm trying to convey to readers is that platings are only as good as the person or persons who made them. Expect an error or two here and there, even if done by Chase. It's always useful to know who put together a particular plating, and what their skill-level was/is.

"Bill Weiss Certified 10A Compared To Contender" Posted on 06/26/2019

"I have scanned these two stamps on covers by themselves and together side by side. To me, the Philadelphia cancelled stamp looks more orange than the certified 10A stamp. They look like they are both Type II. Any help in identifying will be greatly appreciated."

This is a link to the cert and better images. Any more information would be nice! I have read that plating has come a long way in a short time.

https://goscf.com/t/68466

Hi rlmstamps2012 --

Not sure what you are looking for, but here is a little more information about your stamps:

The Bill Weiss certified Scott #10A is position 57L2E. The red Boston cds has a March date and the killer is a classic "large Boston PAID" which was first seen in mid January 1852. So, my guess is that your cover dates to March 1852 -- which is starting to get a little late for a Scott #10A, but still in the ball-park. If March 1853 (or later) that would be a very late usage for a Scott #10A. Despite the scan quality, this stamp was not to too hard to plate as it is an "A relief" with a couple of very distinctive features -- namely:

-- the RFL extends well beyond its intersection with the BFL; and,

-- the bottom label block has a "horn" poking out of its lower right corner and extending into the white space between the BLB and the LRDB.

The overall strength of the recutting is typical of plate 2E -- which is where I started the hunt -- and it did not take long to land on -- and confirm -- that your stamp is position 57L2E.

The "contender" as you called it -- the stamp with the blue Philly JUN 22 cds -- does not have the inking and impression that is typical of a Scott #10A -- and I am confident that it is a Scott #11A -- most likely from either plate 2L or 3. It is an "A relief" -- and the left margin is wide enough that the first place I would start looking is the first vertical column on each the left and right panes of plates 2L and 3 -- and perhaps you will get lucky (i.e., misplaced reliefs, if any, not withstanding -- positions 11, 31, 51 and 71). That said, the left margin is not quite wide enough to automatically eliminate an interpane "A relief" -- especially on plate 2L where there are some unusually wide spacings between some of the vertical columns. The stamp has no obvious variety of recutting that is visible -- and I see no evidence of a double transfer or other plate variety. That said, with the seriously cut-in right side, there is no way of knowing if a recut variety got lopped off. I would give it a "go-around", but I have been plating for hours today and my eyes are getting really tired -- plus the scan quality is not the best for plating work.

As an aside, the logic for narrowing down the possible plates for the "contender" is as follows:

Since the stamp is a Scott #11A, it can only be from plates 1L, 2L, 3, or 5L.

The blue Philly cds was abruptly changed to black in late January 1854 -- so that automatically eliminates plate 5L where the earliest known usage is September 1855.

The upper edge of the top label block and the tiny portion of the URDB that is visible do not show the typical plate 1L gouging -- so that leaves plates 2L and 3 as the only possibilities.

Regarding your comments on the color of the "contender" looking "more orange" versus the Weiss certified Scott #10A stamp -- it is impossible to determine color based on a scanned image -- but for what it is worth (which isn't much) on my monitor, your Weiss certified Scott #10A looks like a brownish orange brown variety -- and your "contender" looks like a typical brownish carmine -- which would imply that the "contender" stamp is an 1852 printing. That said -- the Scott number is solely a function of the combination of two variables - neither of which have anything to do with color:

First, the plate from which the stamp was printed -- and second -- if any portion of either inner line was recut.

Hope this is the kind of information you were looking for -- and I am happy to provide further clarification on any of the above as well if need be.

Regards // ioagoa

ioagoa,
Thank you for taking the time for such a nice analysis and for sharing your experience; it is a significant contribution to not only this community but also to the hobby.
Don

ioagoa, Thank you very much for your very informative response. I am amazed at the amount of knowledge that you have gathered. I am also grateful that you share this knowledge spending countless hours of your valuable time helping and teaching others.

Hi Don, txstamp, and rlmstamps2012 --

Thank you all for your very kind words regarding my postings here on SCF -- much appreciated.

I was fortunate enough to have been introduced to the study of the 1851 - 1857 3-cent issues by KG Tiara way back in the mid 1980's -- and to have been mentored over the decades by the likes of Bill Amonette and EL Fritz on color study -- and Dick Celler on plating -- and many other students of the issue as well.

Having retired a couple of years ago after a 45-year career slaving away to the "corporate world" -- I finally have the time to give back to the hobby some of what I have learned -- a labor of love to be sure.

Regards to All // ioagoa

ioagoa - As you and I discussed earlier this year via email, I am amazed and saddened that we never met. We had all the same friends. Literally.

I'm happy that you are posting here. I feel strongly that we need people such as yourself active as you are, to help promote this hobby forward. Many of our friends are now gone.

The Classics Society started out as the 3c 1851-57 unit, organized around Dr Chase. Where does Classic plating go from here? The future looks bright to me.

Good Evening All. Just wanted to show what I believe to be position 32L8 with a nice 1857 CDS. The 32L8 has a really cool extended frame line at lower right going all the way to the 42L8 and this shows it very nicely.

Hi tgswanner --

Your plating is confirmed as 32L8 -- and YES -- that is a really nice position piece that captures the RFL extension very nicely.

Thanks for showing it!

Regards // ioagoa

PS -- If you could send me a 1200 dpi scan for my plating reference files it would be much appreciated.

This one has me a bit perplexed.
I see an extra frame line at the right (seems a little far and strong though)
It looks like a double transfer, all four rosettes look to be DT's
Faint right frame line
Faint inner right line
It appears to be from plate 5L, but...

There appears to be a perf mark top left, could this be a trimmed 26?

tgswanner / Ioagoa,

Great stamp information sharing (thank you). When I look at the on-line stamp smarter plating details, I see that 31L8 is listed as having recut #39 (extended frameline to stamp below), but 32L8 is not marked as such. The chase photo for 32L8 clearly does show this extended frameline. Given this, does it make sense to suggest an update to the Stamp Smarter files to indicate that 32L8 does have recut #39. It may help others who do a search by recut variety. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Hobsun

Hi Hobson013 --

Recut #39 was announced in the USPCS Chronicle by Bill McDaniel and described by him as follows "Variety 39: Line joins lower right corner to upper right comer of stamp below."

McDaniel mentioned in his article that he identified the applicable positions by a "cursory examination of the Smithsonian Chase photos" -- and in the case of position 32L8, he understandably missed it.

As an aside, the StampPlating image of the "Lund" copy of 42L8 also shows the recut quite well.

Link to the Chronicle article is here (hopefully this link will work -- but if not, see Chronicle #188 / Nov. 2000 / Vol. 52 / No. 4):

http://chronicle.uspcs.org/PDF/chro...88/12115.pdf

Based on tgswanners stamp -- which definitely plates to position 32L8 -- you are correct that StampSmarter, StampPlating, and other data sets should be updated to add position 32L8 as a recut variety #39.

Might make for a short article / announcement in the USPCS Chronicle as well -- as there are some collectors who keep track of the count, and relative scarcity, of the various recut varieties?

Regards // ioagoa

edited for clarification and typo fix

I updated the Stamp Smarter database to indicate 32L8 as a variety #39. If anyone wants to allow their stamp to be part of the database, just note permission to add it and I will.