Identification Of A 1c Franklin Imperf - Scott 6?

I'd like some opinions on this imperforate 1c Franklin.



I believe that it's a Scott 6, Type Ia, based on the completeness of the lower left and right ornaments. But I'd also not like to get my hopes up that it's one of the rarer types (so convince me that I'm wrong, I suppose?) It's also possible, given the lack of margins on my stamp, that it is an 18 or 19 with the perfs trimmed off.

If someone is able and willing, I hope my scan is high enough quality to permit the stamp to be plated. I scanned it at 4800 dpi, which was the highest I can do at home.

VanishingCave,

When I see the bottom of your stamp, I do not see the level of completeness that leads me to consider this to be a Type 1a stamp. The attached photo shows an example where the scrolls at the bottom are clearly more complete than on your example. This item was certified as Type 1a by the PF. I suspect others will chime in and they may provide a more definitive reply but I hope this helps and provides a stamp for comparision.



Hobsun

The bottom ornaments are definitely incomplete. It is not recut at bottom. Only a few positions on Plate 1 Late with guide dot are unrecut at bottom, and this stamp does not match any of them. I could not find a match with the guide dot position and shape on Plate 2 either. My best guess is a Type II from Plate 1 Early.

Thanks Hobsun, I was checking PF certs and noticed the same--the bottom ornaments are very complete on most of the examples there. I guess I got excited with my copy because the bottom ornaments are more complete than any other example I have. Still not enough to be fully complete though, as I now know.

And Dudley, I appreciate your input. I see that Type II is described as missing the balls on the bottom ornaments. This does seem to match my stamp. So that would put this as a Scott 7 or a closely trimmed 20, yes?

I don't recall off-hand ever seeing a 1c stamp from a plate other than Plate 1-Late that had that overall worn type of appearance.

That would make it a #9.

Its not recut at bottom, and reminds me of a number of positions on the right pane with weak bottom lines -- 67R1L would be my first stop if I were trying to plate it. If not that, then somewhere on the right pane ; one of those not-recut-at-bottom positions. 89R1L is the most famous of them...

Tx, I didn't think the guide dot was a proper match for 89R1L, but on second look you are probably correct.