1851-57 12c Washington

I have been doing some work on plating of the 12c Washington stamps. Looking into making some guide dot and spacing charts. I have noticed a lot of INF and OFL that have been recut. It might make it a good candidate for compression charts as well. Unlike the 3c stamps, there are no (Chase) images to compare for compression charts. There is no plating database on Stamp Smarter for the 12c stamps.

If anyone has any 12c Washingtons, I would love to see what you have posted here and for a possible database at a later date.

One of the first issues that I have discovered is that the Neinken drawing for position 1L1 does not show the upper right guide dot correctly. Also, the Neinken drawing shows the bottom IFL has been recut It does not appear to be correct. I recently found a 1L1 online for comparison. What do you guys think?

Sounds like a good idea to me. Here is my only copy of the 12c.

Regards, Harper1249

2 copies of 43L1.

Nice.

The article starting on Page 171 below is probably required reading, as it updates some of the state of the art on the 12c stamp.

https://www.uspcs.org/wp-content/up...CS_and_B.pdf

This Chronicle article talks about Plate 1E, yes, "early" of the 12c stamp:

https://chronicle.uspcs.org/PDF/Chr...44/21341.pdf

Another good background article -

https://chronicle.uspcs.org/PDF/Chr...40/21075.pdf

Oh and just to clarify, mostly for casual readers, Scott #17 and #36 are from the same plate - plate 1.

So you can leverage the perforated 12c stamps as well.

#36b is from Plate 3, a new and different plate.

I have 14 relevant stamps on ebay that were scanned at 1200 dpi if they help

Thanks Rlsny. I copied all of the images.

What are your thoughts on the upper right guide dot and lower IFL on that stamp 1L1 not matching Neinken drawing?

11R1. Though I agree with Neinken on the Guide Dot placement and plating marks in the "A" of POSTAGE and "S" CENTS. I disagree with the recuts Neinken has provided. The top left frame line recut according to his reference shows just the last few millimeters, but the stamp shoes more of a engravers slip. And the mid outer left frame line recut illustrated doesn't show on my stamp.
Either Neinken wasn't able to magnify enough to completely see all the aspects of the 12c imperfs or there were adjustments to the plate along it's lifetime.

Jim Allen addresses some of your issues -

Here is one I have, no clue on position.

Stallzer, looks like 8R1 possibly.

Moyock, you are correct with position 8R1.

It is top row and the stamp to the right is higher.
This limits the positions to 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8L, or 6, 8, 9R.
The bottom outer frame line runs past the left outer frame line.
This limits the choices to 10L, 7R and 8R.
Compare the two sets of choices and the only one in both groups is 8R1.

Moyock13, I looked at your 11R1, I see the mark in the "A" of "POSTAGE" you mention on your stamp but not on the Neinken drawing. The mark on the "S" in "CENTS" matches. The recut on the top left seems to go a lot longer than Neinken shows. I see the recut in the middle of the left outer frame line as indicated by Neinken but just a bit lower. I only notice it at a distance, not close up as much. The guide dots match. I also noticed marks on the "C" in "CENTS" and the "W" in "TWELVE". It is hard to tell about a recut on the lower left inner frame line.

Here is a London cover with two #17's, 84L1 and 85L1. These are fairly consistent with Neinken's assessment of frame line recuts.

Is it possible that there are subtle differences between plates 1E and 1? And what we're seeing is just that, a mixture of both plates? I'm probably thinking too much!

Jaxom:

Here is a scan of the copy in my collection. Hope it is helpful in some way!