ID And Plating 2d Blue

So I wasn't sure to start a new thread or not - I found a couple but they were really old. Im on to another Id like help with Plating ID, SG no. and Cancel ID. I see " LC " on back of stamp next to 14. I have verified Perf 14 but I cannot make out the Wmk. I think LC is correct but cannot tell type. I've seen that "19" was not a common number cancel. Perhaps Wales? Anyhow, Im thinking Plate 5, SG 34??

It looks like Watermark 20 in Scott ... Large Crown. Perf 14 and thick lines would make it Scott 17 on bluish paper. I'm not an expert, and don't have specialized catalogs, so please await further answers.

Postmark
14 bars. Number in diamond. Used at the City of London

(14 bars my best guess from the scan, you may wish to check)
I have counted 7 bars right to left half way.

ive found this Type 4, besides the No. 19 I've seen earlier for Wales(but w/ no design included).

19 in diamond, used at the city of London
4 Types

9 Bars
11 Bars 7th March 1851 to 12th April 1854
13 Bars
14 Bars

The 14 Bars (as yours) is notable, in the orb affixed to the end of the leg of the "9"

I think it is alphabet III, so must be plate 6, SG 35. SG34 has alphabet II. The problem is the high slender J looks like alphabet III, but the loop is reminiscent of alphabet II

The 8 o'clock ray of the left star is weak, but the 11 o'clock ray is even weaker. The first is indicative of plates 4/5 and the latter of plate 6.

Forget above,

The lines are too thick for plate 6. It, only can be plate 5 and must be alphabet II. So SG34 as you suggested.

Thank you. I am on a Mac and was wondering if you know of a good ruler to get measurements if you are on a Mac? Also, I know colors are tricky on computers, but plate 6 also looks to be a darker blue - just wondering.

Tks Rod & partime

so, I have another. This one is 4 letters. Question - can this be soaked with no harm to the stamp? Id like to try and clean up the back. The stamp does look a little strange to me - there is either a lot of ink on the front or maybe the paper is not what im use to? In looking closely at the front, it looks to be textured. In looking with a strong glass, it seems like I see threads, maybe even like there is a backing thats been applied ?? I think I see Plate 9 on the right side and Perf 14 is what I got. confirm? Id like to be able to soak then get the Wmk id. I do not know why the numbers on the back are - I think its a SG 45 not 58 and Perf 14 not 15. I've added some red lines by the spots that seem different to me. Also, when looking at the back, the area from the left of the upper right corner looks damaged, thin??

Watermark Scott 20, Large Crown. Damage upper right (when viewed from back), absolutely. Soaking is OK, and may show you better the damage on upper right.

The third tooth from the right is missing in the second scan

That is extreme damage, perhaps a repair job
Otherwise a nice stamp

I'd leave well enough alone, no soaking
Backs of stamps are of little concern with used stamps
(regarding "cleaning up")
You'll possibly do more damage.

Red lines only tend to confuse.
Just get two similar stamps, same dpi scan
crop to the teeth, then toggle the images

Strange areas can then be confirmed, or added for study.

I have no idea what the '58' means. It, likely, is a catalogue number but not SG.
The thin lines make it SG 46 or 47, depending on whether it is blue or deep blue.
The '15' is the plate number (must be in the range 13-15).

It is a perf. 14 gauge. The perf. 15 gauge was not used before the Edward VII era by Harrison & Sons, to prevent tearing stamps. It is closer to 14.75 x 14.25.


@Rod,

I think either much of the paper where you see a missing perforation has been torn off, leaving very thin paper, or (more likely) it is paper with black printing from an album page sticking to the back.

edit: 'back printing' must be 'black printing' in final sentence.

I always soak used stamps to remove hinge remains (especially if there's more than one) and any other detritus.

Water just off the boil will kill mould spores too, along with giving the stamp a freshen up.

Gee Bobby, you are better man than I, Gunga Din
Yikes, I wouldn't have the courage.

Thanks NSK

For the most part, the areas to the left of the red marks I added, when the stamp is enlarged look to have depth and texture - like blue threads over white background.

Unless my eyes are tricking me, isn't plate 9 listed in the scroll? I think I see that on the right side.

Your eyes are tricking you . There's clearly a one, which means the other digit can't be a nine.

58 : maybe 1858 (year of issue)