1851-1861 3c Washington Compression Charts

Plate 5 Late is now updated on Stamp Smarter https://stampsmarter.org/features/S...Plating.html
Don

What do I do when I come to 15L6 which has an incorrect Chase image? Do I post the incorrect Chase image? Does anyone have the correct image?

It seems that publishing incorrect information would not be desirable. However making a "paper trail" to document the Chase mis-plating would be both responsible and useful. Specifically, I would create the equivalent of a footnote, perhaps posting a 20-30% lightened image of the Chase stamp (so that it is still marginally identifiable as his plating error via the cancel, etc.), and overlay a notice, similar to the following:

Hey Jaxom --

In my opinion -- I would not post the incorrect Chase image for 15L6 (which is actually 18L6) in the SS database as if it were 15L6 -- as it will just cause confusion for anybody who plates a stamp against the incorrect Chase reference copy.

Attached for your use is a scan of a correctly plated copy of 15L6 -- which, by the way, is the ex-Celler discovery copy.

Below is an extract of an email from Dick dated 2/26/2002 regarding the differences between 15L6 and 18L6:

**********

.... "The basic differences between 15L6 and 18L6 are as follows:

1. The RFL bulges outward (below the UR rosette) on 18L6, whereas it is
essentially straight on 15L6. This is a pretty dramatic difference.

2. The LFL bulges outward a little (below the UL rosette) on 18L6, and is
essentially straight on 15L6.

3. There is a short TFL extension to the right on 15L6 and not on 18L6.
Chase has a sketch of this next to the 15L6 spot.

4. There is a weak spot in the RFL of 15L6 (and a slight bend-in at that
spot) about halfway down.

5. The uneven strength LFL is different on the two positions. On 15L6, as
you go up the LFL , the LFL is quite heavy until a point even with the
bridge of the nose. On 18L6, there is a short heavy section even with the
chin.

6. The LFL is thick opposite the lower half of the ULDB on 18L6, and normal
on 15L6.

There may be a few other small differences, but these are the major ones."....

*******

Again -- I recommend that you do not post the incorrect Chase image for 15L6 (which is actually 18L6) as if it were 15L6 -- as it will just create plating confusion. If anything, you may want to post both Chase images under 18L6 (i.e., the incorrect 15L6 that is actually 18L6 -- and the Chase copy of 18L6) -- and create a "dummy" image for 15L6 that references the Chase error of plating.

Sometime tomorrow -- I will send Don a 1,200 dpi scan of the correct ex-Celler image for 15L6 that you can use (as the 300 dpi image attached is likely inadequate for plating purposes).

Regards // ioagoa

eidted to acknowledge that while I was composing my reply to Jaxom, that John Becker responded with a similar recommendation about posting a "dummy" reference image in the 15L6 slot to indicate the Chase error of plating (i.e., that the stamp slotted by Chase as 15L6 is actually 18L6).

Maybe I should post that image in B/W and indicate it was a corrected image like this.

I have added ioagoa's 15L6 image (hi res he sent me) to the Stamp Smarter database, thank you.
Don

Here's a 97R6 is needed. Can supply in higher res to you Jaxom.

As I progress on plate 6 left, it appears that Stan has stumbled upon the remainder of Chase's plate reconstruction. Take a look at the Stamp Smarter database for that plate. I am enjoying finding and adding these images to our database.

Thank you Stan!

Apparently, those plate reconstructions have:

-- plate 5L -- 2 stamps -- maybe 3 as 66R5L is hard to tell?

-- plate 6 -- major gold mine here with 59 stamps -- including 47R6 the recut bust !!!!

-- plate 7 -- 2 stamps

-- plate 8 -- 8 stamps

Stan Shepp

That is very cool to see. I'm interested in the backstory of how you came across them.

These were from Steven Rosen's plate reconstructions, loosely represented as Dick Celler's at WestPex earlier this year.

Stan

So should I assume that since there was no mention in the lot description of the Chase stamps being present in the plate reconstructions, that Rumsey et al. were not aware of them?

Harper1249

I would guess that no one was aware. Steven Rosen should have known. He should have told Rumsey.

Possibly, Stanley Piller was aware, as he was an associate of Rosen

It is safe to assume that they will not be mistaken again.

Stan Shepp

Here is the guide dot chart for the left pane of plate 6. I had to scale it 60% to fit here. If anyone has a copy of one of the three positions showing the left guide dot, I would appreciate a copy to fill in the holes. Full size image has been uploaded to Stamp Smarter database.

Woot Woot!! Thanks Jaxom100 and Stanshepp.