1c 1851 Plate 1-Early Stamps

And the 99R - beneath it shows the 11th row effect well as it should, being a misplaced A relief. That strip has so much going for it.

Post the back - I'm curious who plated it.

Here is the back of the strip.
It looks like an off-set printing on the back.

I don't recognize the writing.

Not very neatly written regrettably.

Yes, poor lettering and positioning for the lettering.

Edit: The more that I look at the markings on back, the more that I want to remove them. I should get this strip certified.

As much as I despise writing on stamps I would likely leave it alone. You can never get it all and you risk damaging the stamps...

Here are the links to the 2400dpi images of the three stamps from the strip.

http://www.stampsmarter.com/plate/h...s2/22755.jpg
http://www.stampsmarter.com/plate/h...s2/30227.jpg
http://www.stampsmarter.com/plate/h...s2/15730.jpg

Here is one I won at an auction this week. The Doporto cert that came with it states "A releif from plate 1 early, position unknown. Cut in at upper left"

Very nice. As usual, Doporto's assessment is correct.
The overall color and impression are very characteristic of Plate 1E.

Here is an interesting strip that I recently acquired.
It was listed as "Scott #9 - tear - rejoin" and "cat $95".
I got it for under $30. The "tear" is a separation between the stamps and they were rejoined on the back. It is still 3 stamps, none damaged. It is not a type IV. The height spacing indicates left plate, columns 1-3 or 2-4. Written on back is "16-18L", which it is not. I looked at plate 2 and plate 1 early. I think it may be a match at 11-13L1E. I would appreciate comments.

The vertical scratch in the margin between the right two stamps, closer to the middle stamp appears on many positions, but I agree that 12-13L1E is a close match for that. I have not looked at anything else, however...

It seems that a lot of positions on plate 1 early with that mark in the middle of the side between the stamps. I scratched the idea of finding column positions and started searching harder. I think that I may have found the plating marks that I needed that match positions 76-78L1E. Here are the images that I came up with to try to prove this conclusion. Opinions welcomed.

jaxom - I apologize for making a mistake on this strip.

It is in fact, not a plate 1E strip, and instead is: 16-17-18L2.

I have to remind myself, from time to time, to never let myself get stuck thinking that something 'has' to be from a certain plate, based upon overall appearance. Overall appearance gets one started in searching for the most likely plate, but there are plenty of things out there that have deceptive appearances.

More on this strip after a bit.

Really? With the weak top lines, I would never have figured plate 2. I sure thought that I had it with the above data. I was able to find the plate Mark's on all 3 stamps. I will check those positions when I get home.

Siegel sale 994 lot 960 is a useful comparison.
https://siegelauctions.com/lots.php...-994-lot-960

16L2 has a very short Ornament N, and short L & M.
The short N is a standout characteristic, being unusual, and maybe the shortest on Plate 2. I don't think Neinken noted it in the drawing.

The scratch to the right of 17L2 matches the one at the 1c plating archive perfectly.

At the top of A reliefs on Plate 2/3 vs 1E, there are also remnants of burnishing done on the plate. Plate 2/3 often have a horizontal blur of color across the top, whereas its much less defined on 1E. One place to look is Ornament S, which on Plate 2/3 often appears horizontally sawed off, whereas its more gentle on Plate 1E. I should have seen that right away, but I had forgotten about it.

Another distinction of plate 2/3 A reliefs vs 1E is a diagonal blur at upper right running southeast from ornament Z.

The 17L2 here has a red arrow pointing at it:
http://www.slingshotvenus.com/Frank...Pos17L2.html