Show Your US 1851-57 Imperforate Stamps

Clearly a perforated stamp with perfs trimmed.

All kinds of condition issues. The top appears to have been mostly torn off/separated and now realigned. Under the hinge things look pretty scary. Probable thin(s), etc. Offset from being previously mounted on an album page. Overall the stamp is clearly just a space-filler. Nothing more.

As to what it is, color with these 5c stamps from scans gets a bit testy as it does for many. This stamp has also had a hard life, and the color I'm sure is at least somewhat altered from its original state regardless of scan issues.

So I'll just say : It is one of: Scott 27, 28, 28A, or 29; but it hardly matters which given the condition.

It looks like probably a New Orleans CDS.
Many 5c stamps were used on mail from New Orleans to France.

good calls by Mayock and TX. The stamp was purchased online several years ago as a Scott 12. The online site did not provide a photo of the back.
On arrival, the perfs showed up first, then the messy repair jobs.
But the color was intriguing, reddish.
PSE called it brick red, a Scott 27. It has a place in my album, if only for the story.

Sandman,
Based upon my forum experience, I suggest reconsidering the method in which you posted this kind of thing in the future. The recommendation is that posters supply everything they know about the material when posting. If a poster does not do this, we find that people will stop responding to that poster.
Don

thank you Don. I m relatively new to the Forum, unaware of the understood rules.

No worries. In the past, people try to 'trap' others by trying to "catch". In other cases, people slowly add additional information over a series of posts. These things tend to frustrate some folks and they will stop replying.

Please note that this is not a forum rule, just a recommendation based upon my opinion.
Don

I made an attempt at plating and got 81R1E. I am not good at this, so please check me. Thanks. Color on this is also quite orangey - maybe reddish orange brown?

After staring at this a bit more, I'm feeling pretty good about that position. In stampplating it says 10A, but that appears to be a mistake. The images there match mine - both dots, upper triangle recuts - all seem good. Interestingly the color image over there is quite similar in color to mine.

Hi rlsny --

I have not looked at your tentative 81R1E yet -- but I can say that your stamp is definitely a Scott #10A -- as the LIL is recut for a short part of its length just below the upper left rosette. This would be Chase's recut variety #4 -- LIL only recut.

I personally do not like the Scott classification system for recutting varieties -- as they are a bit contrived to create more album spaces to fill for the general collector. Rather, my main interest is in figuring the plate and position from which the stamp came.

In any event -- any 1851 3c stamp with any portion of either inner line having been recut is, by definition, a Scott #10A or a Scott #11A -- depending of course on the plate from which the stamp came. In other words -- there is no requirement that the recutting of the inner lines be for the entire length to qualify as a Scott #10A / 11A as the case may be.
 
I will try to look at your stamp over the next few days to confirm your plating --- unless somebody else gets to it first.

Regards // ioagoa

Interesting - I was wondering about those bits of lines - thanks for the clarification - Chase recut variety #4 - going to dig into that a bit

Hi rlsny --

Regarding Chase's recut #4 classification -- i.e., "left inner line only recut" -- my prior post could have been worded better -- so to clarify ...

A Chase recut variety #4 is one where the left inner line has been recut for all or a portion of its length (and in some cases the "portion" is a very short recut -- even much shorter than seen on your tentative 81R1E) -- while at the same time, the right inner line shows no trace of recutting whatsoever.

From the perspective of Scott catalogue number classifications -- to be classified as a Scott #10 (or #11 depending on the plate from which the stamp came) -- both inner lines must show no trace of recutting whatsoever. In other words -- any amount of partial recutting to either inner line -- no matter how small -- would be classified as a Scott #10A / #11A.

Of the 2,600 possible positions (i.e., 13 plates x 200 stamps per plate) -- there are only 24 positions where the "LIL only has been recut" -- 12 on plate 1E -- and the same corresponding 12 positions on plate 1i.

Consequently, without going any further with the plating process, given that your stamp clearly shows a partially recut LIL, and no recutting whatsoever on the RIL -- it has to be from either plate 1E or 1i, and thus Scott #10A.

Your stamp has a wide sheet margin -- and a GD at both lower left and lower right -- thus, it has to be from the first vertical column -- which automatically eliminates 20 of the 24 possibilities -- leaving only 61R1E, 61R1i, 81R1E, and 81R1i as candidates for further evaluation -- and the positioning of the lower right GD alone eliminates positions 61R1E and I -- leaving only positions 81R1E and 81R1i as possibilities.

Now that the "position has been nailed down" you will need to determine the state of the plate as either Early or Intermediate -- which at times can be the most challenging part of the plating process with 1E / 1i stamps -- as the only difference between the two is the result of re-entry when plate 1E became plate 1i.

Again, I will try to look at your stamp over the next few days -- but in the meantime -- you should look at examples of 81R1 from both the Early and Intermediate states of the plate, identify the differences caused by re-entry -- and see where your stamp fits in.

Regards // ioagoa

Thank you ioagoa, It looks like plate 1e. Looking at the plating images of 81R1i the recut in the upper left triangle is much reduced. The frame lines are thinner. The recut in the LIL is practically gone. Based on that plus the strong color and impression I'm going with 1e. Thanks for sharing this knowledge, very helpful.

Hi rlsny --

Great work -- and I agree that your stamp is 100% from the Early state of the plate -- so position 81R1E -- a couple of additional comments...

-- In addition to the differences between Early and Inter states that you noted for this position -- the most definitive evidence of re-entry is that on Inter state, there is a slight doubling of the LFL at a level just above the lower left rosette -- versus no doubling on Early state.

-- Separating Early from Inter states of plate 1 can be very challenging because the plate wore so quickly in both states. For example -- Often times it is difficult to separate out a "worn" printing impression from the Early state of the plate versus an "early" printing impression from the Intermediate state of the plate. That said -- without the telltale doubling of the LFL seen on Inter state copies of 81R1 (as noted above) -- your stamp is definitively nailed as being from the Early state of the plate.

I am sure that we will see this stamp pop up on ebay in the near future. Very nice plating copy -- from the rarest of the 3c plates -- especially with that lower left GD showing. Too bad that the TFL is cut-off -- otherwise the stamp would be major auction quality.

Regards // ioagoa

Thanks - I have about a dozen potential 10/10As to work on. I'm hoping I have anywhere close to this much luck validating them. Thanks again for the great info.

Sorry for the poor pic but I don't want top pull the stamp out of its mount.

I plated this as 63R1e. It has the Left Inner Line Only recut.

I had forgotten, but was reminded by reading through the previous posts, that I believe the platting site shows 63R1i in the place of 63R1e.
It shows a stamp with the upper part of the LFL doubled. It appears to be a perfect visual of what Ioagoa described above.
Obviously I would love to here what you think.

Hi Stampcrow --

Regarding the Lund copy of 63R1E that is currently slotted on the stampplating.com website -- I presume that you are referring to that "doubling" of the LFL starting at the top of the LFL and running south to a level just below the upper left rosette. Given the bends and shape of the "doubling" -- my initial thought is that it looked more like an engravers slip versus the result of re-entry.

In any event -- I just took a look at 3 confirmed copies of 63R1E -- and another 3 confirmed copies of 63R1i -- (all of which were confirmed for me by Dick Celler -- and I believe to be correctly plated) -- and none of these reference copies show any trace whatsoever of LFL doubling on either the Early or Intermediate states of the plate. All very strange?

I checked the Lund 63R1E stamp against my reference copies of both 63R1E and 63R1i -- and except for that weird "doubling" of the LFL, it is a solid match to 63R1E in all regard. The Lund stamp also shows the RFL of the adjoining 62R1E at left -- and this is another confirming feature. Bottom line -- I have no explanation for why the Lund stamp shows the "doubling" that you noted -- other than to punt and say that it is an inking anomaly -- which is very unfortunate -- as these 1E / 1i stamps are challenging enough without such anomalies.

I wonder if there could have been a foreign object on the plate when the press came down -- like a teeny hair or something? Either way -- unless we can find another copy with the consistent "doubling" all we can say for now is that it is an anomaly?

Regarding your stamp -- when it comes to plating stamps from plates 1E and 1i -- I really need a 1200 dpi scan to work from -- and in some cases, even that is insufficient to determine the state of the plate without being able to examine the actual stamp in hand.

If you want to scan your stamp at 1200 dpi on a flatbed scanner and post up a high-resolution scan suitable for plating work -- I will give it a go-around and let you know what I think.

I would also be interested in hearing what others think may have been the cause of the "doubling" seen on the Lund copy of 63R1E?

Regards // ioagoa