Show Your US 1851-57 Imperforate Stamps

Ty II #7.
Not recut.

Thank you sir. Much appreciated.

Thanks for looking at it Txstamp. I thought it looked very odd. It seems "intact" looking at it from the back although there is a subtle crease in the upper left area. Wonder what were they going for? Trying to make it look a type I?

Maybe they just tried to add a top margin.

The funky-looking design elements at the top are hand-drawn.

Right - and the thing that also has me considering a possible margin added is the horizontal crease just below the top left margin. Would have to see the stamp to be sure.

Switching back to the 3c. I've tried plating this one and my best candidate is 44L4.

Relief B
No inner lines
left frame line close to design (Plate 4)
heavy frame line at bottom

Hi Harper1249 --

Great job on this one -- as stamps from plate 4 can be some of the easiest to ID the plate from which the stamp came -- but some of the toughest to nail down the position.

Despite the seriously cut-off RFL, 44L4 looks good. You have the guide dot poking out of the LR corner of the LRDB, the open corner at UL, the BFL extends too far left, the high TFL, the top of the upper label block is recut by a line that runs a bit too far at the right end, and the RFL is quite far from the LRDB.

I compared your stamp against 5 reference copies of 44L4 and am confident that you nailed it.

Regards // ioagoa

PS -- As an aside -- FYI -- the Lund copy of 44L4 on StampPlating.com is wrong -- as it is actually 66L4.

Thanks for the insight and confirmation Ioagoa. I have another one i'll be posting soon but want to make sure I am not wearing out my welcome with you and others. I can put these posts in a new 3c Plating thread if needed. Thanks again.

Harper1249

Keep 'em coming, Harper1249.

- B Relief
- No inner lines
- The upper frame line is high above "POSTAGE"
- No visible guide dots
- Open corner at upper left
- left frameline strong and close to design
- "doubling" of left frame line
- Looks like the LRDB is recut and extended up to LRT but I did not see this on any of the Chase, Lund or SS images I used for comparison

My best candidate so far is 91L8. Compression images are similar for this position and my specimen.

This one was/is tougher for me despite its somewhat unique left frame line. I spent way to long looking on plate 4 because of the doubling left FL and the fact it was in close to the design. Is the faint left frame line what was laid down originally by the transfer roll and the thicker frame line is what was recut after? The engraver just got off the original frame line?

Regards,
Harper1249

Hi Harper1249 --

First -- let me say that you are not even close to "wearing out your welcome mat" -- as I very much enjoy reading your posts, looking at your stamps, and helping with your plating efforts -- so, like Classic Coins said -- keep 'em coming!

Nice job on plating the 91L8 -- which is confirmed as correct.

Couple of comments in response to your questions --

-- The doubling of the LFL is exactly as you suspected -- the faint line is the LFL as engraved on the master die and ultimately transferred to the plate when the position was rocked in -- and the heavier (i.e., "recut") line was so far off that that both lines show on the printed stamp. As an aside -- it was the very faint transfer of the FL's that drove the need for all of the recutting done by TCC -- and this position is a good illustration of that. The originally transferred, weak LFL is difficult to see in the Chase photo due to its quality -- and also a bit hard to see on the Lund stamp due to what looks like a smudge of light soiling (???) in the left margin -- but under high magnification it is there. I am also attaching a copy of my 91L8 -- which shows the doubled LFL better -- and is a solid match to your stamp in all regard.

-- On that possible "recut" you noted at the UR corner of the LRDB that extends north toward the LRT -- I agree that it is not visible on the Chase or Lund copies -- and at first, I thought it might have been a bit of stray inking -- BUT -- it also shows, albeit to a lesser extent -- on my copy of 91L8 (see scan attached). IMO there is a bit of a deeper spot on the plate at the UR corner of the LRDB -- and as the plate wore, the dark spot became more pronounced -- and in the case of your stamp -- there is also a bit of stray inking protruding up toward the LRT. In any event, for what it is worth -- I confirmed the Lund copy of 91L8 as being correctly plated as well -- so, my opinion regarding the differences we are seeing at the UR corner of the LRDB is that they are attributable to a combination of differences in inking, impression, and plate wear.

-- Too bad your stamp is cut in at UR -- otherwise the top margin is wide enough that the GD from the adjoining 81L8 above would have shown -- and probably saved you a bunch of time nailing this one down .

Regards // ioagoa

Thanks for the confirmation Ioagoa. I see what you mean about the guide dot just being out of view. That would have save me a lot of time. Oh well, you go with what you have.

This next one looks to be nice example of 9L2L.


The upper right guide dot puts me in the top row. It's a B Relief with nice margins on three sides. The frame lines are all strong. It's missing a lot of the TFL, BUT they were nice enough to leave the upper right guide dot. The URDB looks to have one line recut on the top. The bottom left corner of the ULDB is extending down towards the ULT. The lower left side of the LLDB tappers in.

There appear to be two marks between the TLB and the TFL. One is located just right and above the "S" in U.S. The other is just right and above the "E" in Postage. These marks appear in Chase and Lund images as well. These marks also appear on 9L2E which is a C relief.
All this lead me to conclude this is 9L2L.

Also, Chase mentions that there is a DI on this position. Assuming I have the correct position, can someone point it out to me? Is it in the upper right Rosette?

Regards,
Harper1249

Hi Harper, I concur with your assessment. Looks like 9L2L. The DT I see is in the oval frame around George at about 4:00, just about where the lower right rosette touches the oval frame line.

Thanks Moyock13 for pointing that out. I prob looked at that area 30 times and those dots never registered with me. Why would the two marks along the top survive the re-entry on the late state when the C relief got replaced by the B relief? Seems like the rocking of the B relief would have removed the marks.