1c 1851 Plate 1-Early Stamps

Lets use this thread when discussions come up about Plate 1-Early of the 1c 1851 issue.

This was the first state of the first plate, used to print 1c stamps.

The new postal rates went into effect July 1, 1851, with the new stamps available then as well.

I'm sure it was not hardened, since the impressions wore pretty quickly, and the plate was re-entered and 199 positions were recut about a year later, to turn this into plate 1-Late in mid 1852.

Types and Scott numbers known from Plate 1E, are:
Scott - Type
5 - I
5A - IB
7 - II
8A - IIIA

I will start this off, by reposting 3193zd's plate 1E pair, that was posted in the "1c 1851 Plate 3 Stamps" thread awhile back.

There are more and better images of it, in the plate 3 thread, but I don't want to occupy that thread with more Plate 1E discussion, thus, this thread.

I received a very interesting and worthwhile email from a friend, a 1c expert, whom I'll call "Deep Cert" (all in good, friendly, humor, believe me )




In the plate 3 thread, sinclair posited that this may well be 57-58R1E.

I don't collect the 1851 issue but I'm lucky to have this living with me. 40R1E, ex-Wagshal and illustrated in Neinken. I understand that this was the piece used to confirm that the early state of the plate lacked a plate imprint.

So Deep Cert wants to point out that 57R1E is a problem to plate, because the Neinken mat is wrong. He indicates that the Neinken mat corresponds to 37L2.

Here is a scan he sent me, of the front and back of the stamp Neinken used for his 57R1E mat.

Deep Cert goes on to explain that he and a colleague studied 57R1E from numerous multiples which intersected it, and, thus were pretty clearly plated properly. A composite scan was made, of the problem 57R1E, which I previously posted, along with scans of three correct copies of 57R1E (cropped from multiples). The upper left stamp is the incorrect 57R1E, which has a much shorter ornament H1, than the others. In addition the UL stamp shows the ornament L from the stamp to the left, and the alignment is wrong for 57R1E.




Deep Cert believes sinclair's plating is correct, but there are a few plating features that are hard to make out on the lo-res scan provided of the pair.

From the compilation, note a horizontal line (scratch?) running into ornament H1. Also 58R1E has a dot above ornament A1 as shown in the Neinken mat. This is pretty consistent. A scan of Ashbrook's 58-59R1E appears below, and you can see the dot above ornament A1. Note on the pair, that 58R1E has a weak Ornament L. The pair in question also seems to have this (a bit cut into).

paperhistory - Thank you very much for posting that cover. That is a fantastic item!

You are correct, the imprint wasn't added until the plate was re-worked in 1852. I guess, this being the first plate, why bother to number it? Maybe it would be the last!

Any 1c Plate 1E stamp that has enough sheet margin to illustrate the lack of an imprint, is a very highly collectible item.

Here's a nice pair I acquired about a year ago courtesy of our friend sinclair2010. 84-85R1E.

dudley - nice pair.

Its hard to be sure, I'm pretty sure it isn't ... but the color of that pair does seem to be approaching, at least, the spring 1852 dark blue shade.

I had a couple examples, that were so dark, in at least one case, Ashbrook called it a plate 3 stamp, position unknown. I was able to definitely plate it to a 1E position.

I finally found the plate position for one of my 1c Franklins. With my high res scan, I am now positive of the position 1L1E. I do not know how I missed it before. I went through the pictures of Plate 1 Early 3 times before I found it. It is unfortunate that the top and side were cut so short when they had so much room. The missing guide dots on the top made it harder to find. The marks in the "P" and "O" are identical to the plate position. There is also the same mark in the "A" that is not noted in the plating reference. At the bottom, the dot and the gap in the frame match as well.

Comments appreciated.

1L1E it is, a good match! The missing guide dot trimmed at the top would make it more difficult but then the satisfaction when one finds the position is just that much greater!

Yes you guys are definitely correct on this. It matches the 1L1E online very well. The Dot under the O in ONE is not in the Neinken book, nor are some of the other nice marks. I'll have to make note of them.

I'm annoyed by that obvious stray ink mark which almost exactly matches 9R2 at UR. Ashbrook made some platings from black and white photographs a long time ago. There are drawings in various parts of Neinken which include alleged plating marks, but really were parts of a cancellation, mistaken for a plating mark.

I did notice that the short diagonal line in the upper left leg of the "A" seemed to be consistent as well. And the bump in the center of the bottom circle between the "E" and the "C" as well.

Can someone help me figure out this one? Is it an early or late plate 1? It should be easy to plate as it is a top row stamp but it has features that match a lot of them. It has some ugly stains.

6R1L.

Thank you Sinclair.

I can't seem to nail this down. Some one took time to repair it in middle of Franklin's head so I thought could be a cool position. Centering is reasonable for issue.

It should be easy. I see the big ?guide dot upper right. These always get me excited thinking top row of some pate 1,2,3, or even 4. However, relief doesn't match to top row. Or is this not a guide dot and ink from cancel?

guide dot lower right.

B relief? type II, unless altered/scraped

I think plate 1E

Help much appreciated