1c 1851 Plate 1-Early Stamps

A matter of philatelic philosophy that has been discussed elsewhere on this board. I agree with txstamp: plate position is everything. IMO, if you can plate a stamp to a position that is consistently Type IIIA then that stamp is Type IIIA, regardless of how much of the visual identifying characteristics are present or not. If a stamp cannot be plated to a position that is of a consistent type, and the type cannot be determined visually, then (again IMO) it should be "unidentified." If a stamp can be plated to a position that is transitional between types (II and IIIA or IIIA and III) but the type of the stamp in question cannot be determined visually, then again it should be "unidentified." There is a certain tradition regarding the One-Cent 1851 that the "default" identification is Type II, i.e., if the stamp cannot be identified visually as to type then it is a Type II. Bollocks, say I.

Ok...... can you tell me if 33L1E is a type II or IIIa? Neinken says IIIa and Deporto says type II. Is it a variable position?

33L1E - I see what you mean. Neinken has it as only IIIA, while Doporto has it as only II.

So what we don't know at this point, is if Doporto has newer information than Neinken about this position, which is possible.

If not, then, he either made a mistake or is taking the position of "if its not visible its a II", towards his listed stamp which is cut off at the top.

I would submit that the proper resolution to this for you would be for you to email him and simply ask him what's up. Let us know what he says.

If you search 33L1E on powersearch you will find a pretty convincing Type IIIa.

I should correct myself here - on the drawing for 33L1E - it says IIIA, in Neinken, but on page 66, the summary for the plate, it says II-IIIA, implying its a changeling position.

sinclair - good eye thanks for the pointer. I see the Siegel 32-33L1E pair.

https://siegelauctions.com/lots.php...e-984-lot-79

First step would be to try to confirm the plating of it, and also confirm the 33L1E on the 1c plating archive, and that it matches the Siegel right stamp.

I didn't look in the good book. If that is the case and Doporto has the stamp plated correctly, then he would also be correct in calling it a Type II.

I also didn't try to confirm the plating of Siegel pair. Back to my 3c stamps :)

The Doporto 33L1E is tied in with a 43L1E. It does not show the Neinken plating mark because of the cut. I am pretty sure of my plating of the pair as I found plating marks for both stamps from Neinken's books. I think that I need to dig up the money for the pair. Even if they are type IIs, still a scarce pair.

What do you think it is worth?

I think maybe $200 if two type IIs. He is asking just a bit less than that. But only because it is plate 1E, not plate 2. I do not know if it is a deal at that price though unless it is an 8A.

I think $200 is pretty high but I haven't seen the item either.

Vertical multiples from 1E are always nice to get.

Changing subject - Last night I got the Siegel mailer for an upcoming auction where they have a horizontal strip of 6, positions 1-6R1E. Pretty nice item. Combination Ty II and IB, not to mention 60% of the big top row right pane in one strip.

The pair I am looking at is 32-33L1E horizontal pair. $200 might be high but I am hoping it is 8A. Neinken shows the 33L1E 8A cut as starting at right side and I think I can see the start of the separation.

I bet the strip of 6 sells high.

We worked out a deal. I got the pair 32-33L1E for $150. A bit high for type II but low if one is IIIa.

IMHO a stamp does not merit much if any premium over a type II if the variation does not show clearly. I might be interested in such a stamp for plate reconstruction purposes but not for the stamp itself. I do not see the value of a type I if you cannot see the bottom for example.

njs - I definitely agree. The issue, really is what do you call it?

I've never been a fan of Ashbrook's statement in that "it was a ty III before the type characteristics were cut off...". Personally, I don't want to know what it "was", I want to know what it is now.

If I'm a dealer wanting to identify a stamp as something, Ashbrook's terminology is useless to me.

I've always maintained, that if you are sure what it is, based upon plate position, then you call it what it is, even if you can't see it all.

Of course, the price/cost should be adjusted accordingly clearly.