Show Your US 1851-57 Imperforate Stamps

ioagoa, nice call on rinsy's 86L6. I'm curious to get your take on the toga button. Looks a little funny to me. Almost looks like a small crack. But it doesn't show up on either the Chase or Lund pictures.

Hi Moyock --

Regarding that weird inking on the toga button on rlsny's 86L6 -- I have no idea what that is -- other than to punt and say that it is a bit of stray inking.

That said -- I am 100% certain that it is not a consistent plate variety -- as I have 4 reference copies of the position -- which, consistent with both the Chase and Lund copies as you already noted -- do not show anything unusual around the toga button.

If I had to venture a guess, I would say that there was some foreign material on the plate -- perhaps a piece of hair from of the press operator when he wiped the plate?

As I recall, other than the so called "recut button" (which I believe is actually a stellate crack), the recut bust, a few copies from plate 5L with rust spots touching the toga, and the standard "gash" from the C relief -- there are no other consistent plate varieties of note with regard to the toga button -- which as far as I know, was never recut.

Regards // ioagoa

Been lusting after this one for a while - a beautiful #8. Can anyone identify the position?

Looks like 24L4, which is a Type IIIA position that can turn into a Type III as the bottom frame line wears, if one subscribes to that way of identifying types.

@dudley - not only is it a 24L4, but this stamp is the exact stamp used in this reference for 24L4: http://www.slingshotvenus.com/Frank...inFrame.html

Looks like it was bought as a pair from Siegel in 2017 and subsequently split.

Phillazilla, if I was spending the money that you you probably have in that stamp, I would lust for a different one. Technically it should not be certed as a Type III. Even as a certified stamp, discriminating buyers other than yourself would rightfully avoid the stamp unless the price is low.

Philazilla - I found two auction records that included this stamp. There is also a 2004 PF cert for the pair confirming the position.

Thank you @dudley, @sinclair2010, @widglo46 - I think I will see about returning this one. . .If I'm going to spend real money on a #8, I want an uncontroversial position.

What do you know about this one? - It sold as a 61L4 in a Siegel auction last year. The online plating archive does not have an image or write-up on this position.

This stamp has been sold by Siegel several times. It appears correctly plated as 61L4, to judge by the Neinken drawing. Neinken categorizes it unambiguously as a Type III. The Siegel descriptions of this particular stamp note the "wide breaks" at both top and bottom. I dispute the presence of a wide break at bottom. If anything, there are a couple of small breaks. And check out Lot 84 of Siegel Sale 1050 (16 July 2013), an imprint copy of 61L4 listed as a Type IIIA with the cryptic description "appears to have breaks at both top and bottom (Ty. III) but plates as Ty. IIIa." It's a good example of why the so-called "swing positions" between Type IIIA and Type III are fraught with contradiction. These Type IIIs are "created" by worn impressions of Type IIIA. Where else would you find a lower-quality example worth more than a pristine impression?

I have handled a number of Plate 4 Type III stamps with wide breaks at bottom. I agree that the 61L4 does not really have a wide break at bottom. The 24L4 that Phillazilla posted should never have been certed as a Type III. I am glad to see that the stamp is going back.

Thanks again - I will keep up the hunt - I've learned a lot from this exercise and your help!

Thought this was interesting. A Metropolitan Errand and Carrier Express Co Sc # 107L1 and a 3c #11 (haven't plated yet) tied to a piece. Too bad I wasn't able to get the whole cover. Bummer.

Nice piece Moyock13, I was watching that one on ebay. The engraving on the local carrier stamp is very impressive and the 3c is a great one as well. All four frame lines present. It looks like someone actually took their time to cut that one off the sheet.

Good morning all. I'm hoping you call can verify my plating of this pair. I'm thinking it is 2L4-3L4. It appears to be a C relief but the shoulder gash is almost nonexistent on both stamps. I turned up the contrast in photoshop to where you can start to see what I think is the gash on the right stamp. Other defining features are:
- On left stamp, the frame lines in the lower left corner do not meet.
- On left stamp, the BFL recut does not extend all the way to the RFL.
- On right stamp, the RFL extends below BFL.
- On left stamp, the LFL just touches the UL rosette. This, in combination with the LFL/UL rosette spacing on the right stamp is also helpful with identifying the positions.

As always, your insight is very much appreciated.
Harper1249

Hey Harper1249, nice pair ya got there. I have to disagree with you though on the "C" relief. Both stamps look like "B" reliefs to me.
Small break at 12:00
Impingement at 6:00
Light line at 3:00

Also it looks like the left frame line touches the upper left rosette taking the place of the left inner line.

And there could even be a guide dot on the left stamp on the lower right, just touching the label block (maybe)