Show Your US 1851-57 Imperforate Stamps

Ah, ioagoa! The fount of all 3 cent plating knowledge! =)

Thank you for plating my 3 cent stamp with the black JUN 19 cds. I haven't had a lot of opportunity of late to really dig in. Besides it being really noisy in my stamp room during the summer with the a/c and dehumidifier running.

Thank you again.

When transfering some scans to forum posts, the uploader is reducing the file size that hides some of the detail. That may be why it appears a little blurry. I used the same plating wizard tool you noted when attempting to plate the #10 yesterday. Since it does appear we have the same conclusion that is a hopeful indicator that the plate position is correct.

This 6L3-16L3 pair that I acquired in a bulk lot earlier this month displays one of my pet peeves, someone writing what the postmark says on the back of the stamp when it is perfectly readable on the front of the stamp.

I also don't like when they do the same on covers and write it on the front.

No that it is much better when they write on the back of the cover.

Hi Stan --

I finally got some time to look at the stamp that you posted back on Sept 9 -- the one with the bold APR 30 cds cancellation -- and where you mentioned that a prior owner made a pencil notation on the cover that the stamp was position 65L5L showing the plate crack as described on p. 57/60 of the Chase book.

I plated the stamp to position 44R2L -- and agree with Classic Coins reply that the line showing on the bust in the general area where Chase describes the supposed crack is a foreign object of some sort.

To avoid any possibility of confusion as to which stamp I am referring to -- a link to your original post is here:

https://goscf.com/t/72775&whichpage=209#811745

Regards // ioagoa

Oiman,

Look at the horizontal line under the "E" in "CENT" and check out a real 78R4 (not the drawing).

Thanks again, ioagoa!

@daz24 I now see the little line under the E in Cent at the top, and I am more convinced your plating assessment is accurate!

The first stamp below is from position 10L5L that I picked up at a stamp show earlier this month. One interesting thing about this position is that it has a top position dot. The 10th position on the right pane of plate 5 has no discernible position dot.

Another interesting feature of position 10L5L is that there are several consistent spots of color in the margin to the right of the lower-right rosette, straddling the center line. Additional spots of color can be seen in the letters E and S of CENTS. The second stamp is another from position 10L5L showing the same pattern of spots. To me, these spots of color look fainter or more subdued than the typical look of spots assessed to be caused by rust or pitting on many plate 5L entries, possibly due to the nature of the plate defects, the ink formula, or wiping.

The lower third of the right frame line of this position is very widely spaced from the rosette, diamond block, and right inner line.

Classic, nice set of stamps. Thanks for posting them.

Second stamp shows a spot of color to the far right of the upper right rosette, to the right of the center line. The first stamp you posted shows the same spot. Just thought I'd point that out. =)

I'm also seeing an inconsistency in the upper frame line in each stamp. I'm sure that it's inking between the different sheets. I just find the slight differences between sheets due to inking interesting.

Hi, Moyock13,

You're welcome. I appreciate your observations. I hadn't noticed the consistent marking near the top of the center line that you noted.

Yeah, the inconsistent appearance of the top frame line could certainly be due to inconsistent inking, especially since excess ink sometimes had to be wiped off the edges of the plate by hand.

Can someone validate the position of this stamp as 27R5L?

There just seems to be a lot more going on with this particular stamp than the plating examples. For instance the upper left corner appear to have rust marks around the frame lines as well as in between the inner and outer lines. These marks didn't show up in the chase or O'Doherty examples.

Though the marks in the word POSTAGE appear to be consistent with a cancelation with a semicircle curve. But the marks around the upper right frame lines could be consistent ink spots, rust marks or from a messy wiper.

What do you think?

27R5L looks to be correct. Several areas stand out on this position. A large portion of the upper left triangle is missing, the left inner frame line bows out as it reaches the lower left rosette and of course the guide dot. Also, the left 1/3 of the top frame line has a heavier recut than the rest.

I would guess the marks in "POSTAGE" are related to printing. Rust marks or other defects in the plate would be showing up on other examples not I'm not seeing them.

Regards,
Harper1249

Thanks Harper, I concur. Lots of stuff going on with this stamp. I gave it a soak this morning and once it dries I'll repost the cleaner version. Then we can compare what marks were grunge and what marks are actual ink.

As promised. Here's a cleaner version of the 27R5L posted above.