Possible Late Usage Of Scott #9

I'm curious if this cover would be considered a late usage of a 1852 1c Washington, I'm assuming that the stamp is a Sc #9.

The cover, franked with two #26's (1857) and one #9 (1852), sent by care of Gen. B. Joy Esqr., I believe the Att General of Boston or Mass.

There is faded writing on the left side of the cover, but I couldn't read even with the use of Postmark Reveal. Also, somewhere along the way someone penciled "10" below the 1c Washington. Was this stamp ever designated as a Scott #10 in the earlier catalogs?

Any help explaining would be appreciated. Thanks.

This is a forwarded cover. The second #26 on the left paid the forwarding postage. The one cent was probably a carrier fee.

Thanks revcollector, makes sense.

Anyone able to help plate the 1 cent imperf?

Perhaps you can start, and then post some specific questions if you get stuck. You'll need to upload a better close-up photo for anyone to see the details though.

https://stampsmarter.org/features/S...Plating.html

Why are you convinced the 1 cent is a type IV? From that scan too hard to tell.

Higher resolution scans of the stamps provided.

The 1c imperf appears to have a single bottom oval recut. But the stamp is cut a little short as to make seeing the complete bottom line impossible. As with the top, because it was torn away when affixed to the letter it is difficult to determine characteristics. (at least for me)


Here are the two 26's from the cover. I have yet to attempt plating these. The last 26 has a "15" written on the stamp, could that be the date the postage due was added?

Someone who knows these better will surely chime in, but it looks more like a 7 to me.

The 15 does seem to be in the same handwriting as the second address.

revcollector, good eyes! It certainly does look like the same hand writing.

Reading into Neinken a bit I'm falling in line with revcollector thinking the 1c imperf is a #7, type II relief B

Carried "to the mails" in Boston 3c+1c, and forwarded 3c pre-paid, as already mentioned.

The 1c stamp is a B relief for sure, very possibly a plate 2 stamp i.e. Ty II #7. There is a chance its a Ty IV ... can't 100% rule that out yet.

It may take some effort to plate it and I just don't have that time right now, but I'm sure others here can.

Interesting combination usage by the way - carrier plus forwarding together - kind of neat, and also mixed issue usage. I enjoy all of those kinds of things on covers - anything to make it more than just the run-of-the-mill usage.

txstamp, when you get the opportunity, check 99L2. Several of the scratches line up, the scratch to the left of ornaments C/D, the vertical scratch cutting through ornaments L/M and the outside scratch on the right that runs the length of Jeffersons face. Not sure how easy it will be to see on the forum copy.

Thanks.

I can do that - might be a few days - hail just smashed my truck's front windshield so I'm a bit out of things at the moment.

Geez, txstamps! Glad you're okay. Windshields are replaceable, you're not.

99L2 is certainly in play, I agree its a possibility.
The scratch to left of ornament D seems correct.
This position does have a vertical layout line that spans ornaments LM and OPQ and actually on my copy, it's almost complete on the entire right side vertically. I can only barely see something on your stamp.

I'm maybe most interested in the vertical alignment and horizontal spacing for your stamp, as you have both stamps L+R adjacent which is great. The spacing and alignment seems to line up with the 9L column being possible. The gap from 8L to 9L is huge - 9/10mm which by eyeballing, appears about right on yours. Similarly the gap to right is only 2/5 mm which also may be correct on yours. Your stamp is a bit lower than the stamp to the left and may be a bit lower than the stamp to the right as well, which would also agree.

I have to get back to other stuff -- so what I'd leave for you is to study the columns based upon alignment Neinken page 175 and see if any other columns qualify and check all stamps. You probably already did this, and if so, just let me know and when I get some more time we'll see what we can see.

The only issue with using these types of scratches and layout lines for plating --- they are great aids by the way -- is that a lot of other positions have very similar markings - so you have to be thorough before you declare victory, and eliminate everything else. The spacing and alignment exercise here should help you eliminate most of the plate.

Looking at this stamp via digital microscope the vertical scratch on the right side is consistent with the image available on Slingshotvenus. Unfortunately I do not have another copy available to compare. My copy shows some plate wear possibly making the scratches tougher to see, but under the digital microscope I can follow the scratch the full length of the stamp.

The measurements between stamps are pretty close to the image Neinken shows on page 175, though 9/10 th's of a MM is pretty much a guess with my old eyes. But the distances seem pretty consistent with Nienken.

My only question is the the relative vertical placement, I don't see "much lower" I see slightly lower. 99L2 is lower compared to 98L and 100L.

I'm not yet willing to plant the flag, but I am 98% confident this is 99L2. If you can post a higher resolution image of your 99L2 we could compare.

Thanks txstamps.