3c 1851 100r4 Lfl Variations

While plating a 3C imperf on a folded cover I found something a little odd between references.
Heres the plated 100R4 on a Baltimore cover.


While searching for the correct match I use the scaling method to narrow the frame line references. My plated 100R4 scaled. Notice the LFL is abnormally distant from the lower left Rosetta.


Compared this against the Lund copy. Looks like a match.


Then, just for giggles, I compared to the Stamp Smarter 100R4 copy.


Seeing anything weird? Look at the Stamp Smarter 100R4 scaled copy. The LFL is split at the bottom. The other two do not show the split. So, either the SS 100R4 is an early copy while the plate was fresh and the other images are from an older, worn plate 4 or it's a misplaced 3C and maybe not a 100R4.

Thoughts?

Moyock13, my first thought was, "oh no I uploaded another stamp incorrectly". But I don't believe the 100R4 is mine.
I do have the 99R4 and that stamp shows a faint line outside the entire length of the RFL.

So I went to Dr. Chase. He mentions 99R4, "… which has what is either a guide line, or an extra line deliberately drawn, just to the right of it". 'It' being the RFL.

As for the 100R4, he does mention the stamp in the Plate Varieties chapter but not pertaining to the line you're asking about.

So here's where I ad lib.., that extra line reminds me of some of the 'extra lines' we see on stamps from plate 10 and 11.

And I apologies if I'm way off base with this but I remember Winston mentioning 'layout lines' when talking about plate 10 and 11. If I misrepresent Winston's post, again I'm sorry.

So my thought is that plate position when re entered was slightly shifted off the original LFL. Couldn't that also explain why the stamp shows a wider space between the LFL and the lower left Rosette?

Having re read and re thought my response, it doesn't make sense that a re entry shift would cause the frame line to be further away from the rosette. They would obviously travel together.
Rather a re cutting of the LFL.

Here's the 100R4 from Stamp smarter.


It has the same appearance that Classic Coins was discussing in the 1851 3C imperf thread, where he described an engraver pushing on a steel rule with the burin tool and the rule moving.

But it still doesn't explain why this particular stamp shows a split frame line while the other two do not.

And looking at it again the Stamp Smarter 100R4 does not show the misplaced ink spot in the lower right corner just outside the RFL.

Thanks stampcrow.

Moyock

My responses are meant to be conversational not informational.

We're lucky, with these 3c stamps to have knowledgeable people participating

Hi Moyock --

Your 100R4 question sent me down a number of rabbit holes today -- and after a few hours of plating confusion -- here is where I ended up after all the dust settled and all the smoke cleared (and FYI -- I confirmed all of my conclusions with ClassicCoins):

-- Your patient stamp is not 100R4 -- but rather is 97L4. One of the most notable differences (among others) is the relationship between the TFL and the TLB -- caused by both the bends in the TFL as well as the recutting across the top edge of the TLB. Take a side-by-side look at the two positions and you should be able to see where they differ (use either the SS-1 or SS-2 copies for 97L4 as the SS-3 copy is missing the entire TFL. FYI -- both the SS-1 and SS-2 copies of 97L4 have been confirmed as correctly plated).

-- The Lund copy of 100R4 on the stampplating.com website is also wrong -- and coincidentally is also actually position 97L4.

-- The Lund copy of 97L4 on the stampplating.com website is another error of plating. It is definitely not 97L4 -- although I have not yet plated it to its correct position.

-- The SS copy of 100R4 is correctly pated.

-- I have sent Don D. 1200dpi images of 2 confirmed copies of 100R4 -- and have asked him for links so that I can post them here -- as both of these reference copies show a doubling (or a slip) in the LFL. Additionally -- position 100R4 is noted in the Chase book as having a plate flaw showing as a diagonal blur of color in the bust -- although he also mentions that the flaw varies widely depending on impression. I will post up my 1200dpi reference copies once I hear back from Don -- as both of them show the flaw. Once you know where to look, I think I can see the barest trace of it on the SS copy of 100R4 as well.

Regards // ioagoa

You guys are awesome! stampcrow, ioagoa, we are fortunate to have you on our team. Didn't mean to send anyone down a rabbit hole, always makes me think of Alice! =)

So, I have a 97L4, not a 100R4.

Thank you guys!

Moyock13

Hi Moyock --

Closing the loop on my post from earlier today -- as Don sent me links so that I could post up 1200dpi scans of 100R4 to show the plate flaw (i.e., blur of color) on the bust as described in the Chase book.

If you look closely -- the first of the 2 scans below is marked with blue arrows to show the flaw -- which as mentioned earlier -- per Chase -- the flaw varies widely based on inking and impression. Still, once you know where to look -- I believe that a trace of the flaw can be seen on the SS copy.

Regards // ioagoa

Ioagoa, do you want me to post these two stamps on SS database?

Hi Jaxom —

YES — good idea to add the 100R4 reference images to the SS data base. Thank you!

Regards // ioagoa

Ioagoa, Those two 100R4 stamps are now in the database. Thanks.

Following up on ioagoa's post yesterday, I plated the stamp shown in the 97L4 slot on stampplating.com to position 91R4, and ioagoa confirmed my plating.

Here is a scan of a 91R4 from my collection. This is a clear printing which shows two small vertical lines just inside the left frame line near the bottom. The lowest of these two faint lines usually can be seen on impressions of 91R4. The dot at lower-left is classified as an accidental dot.

Lund copies have 18 errors on plate 4. It is the plate with the most errors so far.

Let me know of any errors you find in the SS database or if you wish to add a stamp to the database.