Show Your US 1857 Perforated Stamps

Thank you Harper1249 for all the detail. I enjoy trying to understand .

Sc#26d and #104

Nope and Nope.

Scott 26d is a "Horizontal pair, imperforate between". The pictured stamp is a single stamp, with a straight edge at the right, showing a small portion of a stamp from an adjacent pane. Often called a "straddle margin". Rather common, and not what is meant by a 26d imperf pair.

The Scott 104 special printing is without grill. The pictured stamp appears to have a grill on the reverse, so for this reason, among other reasons, it cannot be a 104.

Rlsny.... Bottom row #26 on your stamp.

I picked this up on ebay, ID'd as a 20, which clearly it is not. I plated it as 49L4, which is listed as a 1C. Have not got in hand yet, just need confirmation as to the plating. Though listed as 1c, it has a wide break at top and a break at bottom like a type III. My question on that is, is this a swing position that can be a 1c or a III depending on the break at bottom?

I agree with your plating of 49L4. Good job.

I don't see the bottom line on yours as being broken. If there is even a hint of a line, then it is considered complete, and any break has to be substantial and clean.

I don't note any 49L4's as having been certified as Ty III, although some have gotten the Ty IIIA certification, in addition to Ty Ic, of course. The bottom line on this position is weak.

This is one of those stamps, that if it were centered to where the bottom line wasn't visible, it would probably cert as a Ic based on plate position. Given that its visible, and is very weak, someone may call it a IIIA, or possibly a Ic. I don't see it as a Ty III. These types are often difficult to get consistent answers on, although there are apparently discrete criteria.

edit: To clarify my answer - Neinken calls this position Ty Ic. There are, however, at least 2 PFCs for submissions that were called Ty IIIA. So it is a Ic-IIIA swing position now, at least, per the PF. See PFC #s: 443343, 435492.

Here are two 26 curiosities (in my opinion).

First is a #26 with a engravers slip (maybe) lower left margin. Couldn't find any explanation in Chase's book.


Second, appears to be a top row stamp at the right sheet end. Notice that the right hand frame line stops just above the design. The left frame line slants away from the stamp. And there is a curious dot between the left frame line and upper left diamond block.


I do not have a lot of luck plating the 26's, so these two are unplated.

Hi Moyock --

I am no expert on the 1857-1861 perforated 3c issue -- but I do have a small collection of plate flaws -- and I am pretty sure that your first stamp is position 49L24 -- showing Hegland's "Flaw #19 – Heavy Dash in Margin".

Take a look at Hegland's article in USPCS Chronicle #105 from Feb 1980. Hegland provides a listing of flaws -- along with a hand drawn mat and a reference table. That dash in the left margin of your stamp matches up with the plate flaw that Hegland associated as being outside the right margin of 48L24 -- making your stamp position 49L24.

I compared the flaw on your stamp to a few copies of 48L24 in my collection that show the flaw -- and it looks like a solid match to me.

Take a look at Hegland's USPCS Chronicle article referenced above and see what you think.

Again -- I am no expert on these stamps -- so if somebody else could weigh in and confirm my thinking it would be appreciated.

Regards // ioagoa

Ioagoa, most definitely 49L24.

I don't know right off the top of my head what position the top row stamp is but it is definitely unusual or unique? with the odd dot. It isn't position 10 because I can see color on a hanging chad and I don't think it would be 10L because I think it is too far away to be a tiny piece of the centerline on that chad.

Hi Sinclair -- Thanks for the confirmation on the 49L24. Regards // ioagoa

ioagoa, wow! Thank you for identifying the plate flaw as Hegland's flaw #19. I would have never figured that out.
sinclair, thanks for the confirmation.

I never realized the number of plate flaws involved with the1857-1861 perforated 3c issue. Might be a new area of focus! =)

Thanks again.

This is at least the third time that Kelleher has offered this stamp - and included this mis-description claiming that it is a $500 variety.

I've written to them each time.
Charles DiComo wrote to them as well.

They just don't care.

It is outrageously unethical to knowingly continue to offer this stamp described thus.

Offered again in today's auction. Lot #5007

I would agree it certainly looks like the left outer frameline is in close with no inner line recut. Have they responded to you stating why they think its that recut variety?

Here are two I just found on the first stock page I looked at that. I sure I could find more with the outer framelines in close. Seems like an easy thing to rule out. Wonder why Kelleher is so convinced?