1c 1851 Plate 1-Early Stamps

I'm moving our discussion of my 1851 1c Franklins on letter to this Topic as it seemed more appropriate.

Here's another post of the cover and a close-up of the strip of three.



From txstamp



Yes, you helped answer my questions on reliefs and I have printed out the plate 1E layout and it is well marked up from me trying to eliminate positions. Thanks again.

I also have a much better understanding of the earlier posts from you, jaxom100 and others related to alignment and spacing.

So as of now, we know:

1. Stamps are on a folded letter with CDS showing April 1 (did they have April fools back then, prob not). On the right side of letter it lists March 30, 1852. This date would indicate these stamps came from latter printings from Plate 1E.
2. Stamps are Relief A.
3. Spacing between columns and alignment of stamps fit very nicely with vertical columns 5,6 and 7 of the right pane which means these stamps are 15R-17R, 35R-37R, 55R-57R or 75R-77R.
4. Definitely not the bottom vertical row, so they are not 95R-97R.

So now I trying to figure out which row are these stamps coming from. And I'm starting to pull my hair out because we're talking about tiny variations that you might not even be able to see because of cancellations, plate wear, weak impressions, etc. Oh yeah, and a good amount of the tops are missing and the left bottom corner of the left stamp is missing.

Neinken mentions that looking at the breaks in Ornament H can be helpful in plating of positions. So thats where I started. Ornament H is not available on the column 5 stamp (left), so I only was able to look at column 6 and 7. Below are comparisons of stamps with the relevant Neinken's Plate Drawings. I have placed a red X below positions I do not think match up with the stamp.




From these I'm inclined to eliminate 15R-17R and 75R-77R. 15RE1 also contains a double transfer which I am not seeing in my column 5 candidate, so even more reason to eliminate 15R-17R. I have also downloaded images of real examples of these positions and I'm comparing them in a similar manner. I'll upload those comparisons as well.

Right now, I'm leaning towards saying its in 35R-37R or 55R-57R but still need to do more looking.

Thoughts? Am I making this more complicated than needed? As always thank you for your expertise and insight.

Here is Ornament H in the vertical column 6 stamp compared with plated examples pulled from Siegel. Not sure image quality allows for meaningful comparison of these.

Welcome to plating 1c stamps

You aren't missing anything, in fact, your statement above pretty much covers it. Once you've done all the high-level narrowing-down that you can do, it comes time to deal with the minutia. The Neinken book is a big help, more so than initially meets the eye. For Plate 1E, 2 and 3, but not 1L, Neinken does make some effort to show short ornaments and varying levels of outer ornament completeness. Plate wear can confound and compound that, but its still a notable help.

The best thing these days is to compare vs high quality scans of other stamps. Unfortunately, not all positions are available in hi-def. Searching Siegel auctions is useful, as they've sold lots of nice blocks and multiples, which are plated, and they often have decent scans. Be careful trusting when they say a stamp is a certain position, as, it may or may not be correct. Always try to validate platings you see elsewhere, for yourself. But still use them as a reference if you are satisfied with the platings. That's why I find blocks and multiples sold at Siegel are often good references.

We already know that this strip is plate 1E, but if we hadn't already determined that, we'd be discussing what other Transfer roll#1 plates this might be: 1E, 1L, 2 or 3.

I have to run now ... you are getting the idea, though.

So I spent a bit of time today on your strip.

I agree that its most likely either 35-37R1E or 55-57R1E, based on overall completeness of outer ornaments in general.

The lower right plume is a key point in this, I think.
If you will note in Neinken: 35R and 55R are considered "weak" at LR; which appears to match yours. 37R and 57R are considered "short" at LR, which matches yours as well.

In addition to ornament H, all of the left side ornaments - can be a lot of help. On plate 1E they don't vary quite as much as they do on other plates, but they still vary slightly. Also ornaments P & Q may be of some help here.

I have notes from plating a prior 55R1E, that ornament P is incomplete slightly at the right and "flattened" vertically. That certainly seems to match your stamp. 35R1E in Neinken is drawn as complete there. Of course, Neinken is not perfect, so there is some possibility for error here, but overall, I would favor 55-57R1E here, pending further study - with better scans of other reference material to compare against.

In other words, I'd "pencil" that in on something next to the strip (not on it) as being likely correct, but not 100%.

edit: forgot this was on cover- pencil in on your album page

Thanks Txstamp for your expertise and insight on plating this strip. I'll look more at the ornaments you refer to and try to narrow it down further. My job requires a lot of work in the legal realm and I'm often using the "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not)" thresholds when looking at cases. I think our evidence meets the latter and more likely than not this strip is 55-57R1E.

I've also been staring at it way to much over the last week and need to set this one aside for a bit. After a while all you see is the toning, blemishes, tears, creases, etc. I find myself saying man this cover is awful looking when in actuality it's a beautiful thing. I'm off to try and plate a few 3c. Thanks again.

There is a lot more good reference material available for plate one late. Try looking at the side ornaments on the positions in question there. Unless the position was reentered (often resulting in a double transfer) the side ornaments should be similar.

Hi njs, yes that's a fair point.

It is good to use plate 1L as a reference for plate 1E with regard to guide dots, as those mostly didn't change after the re-entry.

I get a bit uncomfortable checking design completeness, since many if not most positions were re-entered -- but you are correct, its worth checking. I'll do that when I get some time...that should be an interesting exercise anyway - I agree.

The stamp below is another example of position 1R1E. The traces of the original entry are so intriguing to me (likewise for 2R1E), that I was prompted to re-read the article entitled, "The Toppan Carpenter Plates and the Guide Reliefing Method", by Richard Celler and Eliot Omiya. The article offers a well-founded theory of what steps may have transpired in the making of Plate 1E.

One question in particular, however, seems not to be answered. Why was it felt necessary to burnish the top of the "T" relief on transfer roll No. 1? If that relief was only going to be used for finishing the top row, burnishing it off would have been completely unnecessary. Is it possible that the guide relief method was perhaps an after-thought, and the original intent with a new "T" relief was to re-use if on every third row?

widglo - you ask a good question about why the top of the T relief was shortened.

I'm not sure why. It may reflect lack of a complete plan up front as to how they were going to fully transfer the plate, when the new roll was made.

I bought another #7 Relief "A" from a recent auction that wasn't plated, but it looked to be an excellent impression, and I thought that it might be from plate 1E. I had a few clues to work with when I tried to plate it.
1) The left margin was at least 0.7 mm wide.
2) The top frame line was weak (or broken) in two tiny gaps between the "S" and "O" of POSTAGE.
3) The bottom frame line was weak with a tiny gap beneath the "C" of CENT.
4) The stamp above my patient had a strong double bottom frame line.

I found only a few Plate 2 possibilities with similar top line breaks, and I thought that I could eliminate them because of various other differences in ornament completion or plate marks. I then concentrated on Plate 1E, but I found, unfortunately, that there are many Plate 1E Relief "A" positions without an example in the 1¢ Franklin Plating Archive, and many of the Siegel images are borderline adequate for plating purposes. The Neinken diagrams show several Relief "A" positions on plate 1E with weak top frame lines or tiny breaks, and at least two of these also seem to meet the other criteria I outlined above. I am favoring either 56R1E or 71R1E, but I will continue to work on it.

Pretty stamp.

I agree, I would certainly start looking with Plate 1E.
The more complete left-side ornaments and lack of a blur across the top, which is often seen on plate 2 & 3, but less so on 1E.

Also, I think that's a "Charleston, SC" blue CDS.

edit: see this one for comparison: http://goscf.com/t/72775&whichpage=18#647458

widglo, I agree with txstamp that Plate 1E is the way to go here. A Reliefs from this plate are often difficult, as you have seen. In this case I think 71R1E is not a candidate, however - this position has a clear break in the top line over the O which your stamp does not show.

txstamp - It does appear to be a "Charleston, SC" cancel. That is also how Siegel described it in their sale.

dudley - You are correct, it can't be 71R1E. Perhaps I got my notes mixed up with 71L1E.

Many thanks to Dorporto and Richard Nance for all the images of plate 1E that they've compiled. I can now confidently say that my patient is position 79R1E. I went through every possible "A" relief plate position, filtering candidates only on the requirement that the left margin be at least 0.7mm wide. Ironically, 79R1E was the very last position on my list!

I'm not sure that it was right to do so, but in my search for a match, I put a lot of weight on the strength of the two lines in the bottom frame of the position directly above my patient. This allowed me to eliminate several possibilities even though I didn't have an image of the position being considered. Neinken doesn't seem to note the differences in this part of the frame unless the bottom line is noticeably weak. With 79R1E, both plate marks and the solid two bottom frame lines in 69R1E could confirm the plating.

I am plating this stamp as 56R1E. This position is a transition type #8A, but my patient doesn't look very worn to me, so I wonder how often if can be found as a #7. I had only 2 Siegel sales and the Neinken map to compare. The Siegel images don't show great detail, but what I see matches very well.

I found a #7 that was listed only as a double transfer. I was nearly sure that it was a 91L1E, so I paid $140 for it without haggling. It's not very pretty, and considering the condition, maybe I paid too much for it. It's a plate position I wanted though, and until I find a better one, I'm happy to own it. The impression is pretty good on the stamp, and I think it's fun to look for all the evidence of the triple transfers including one inverted.

I haven't found any glaring faults other than the clipped corner and a vertical crease about 1mm from the right margin extending from the bottom up to the jagged scissor cut. If the right edge were simply extended straight to the bottom, both the jagged edge and the vertical crease would both be gone. I don't know whether it's worth taking off the 1mm when the LUC is already damaged, and I think for the time, I'll preserve it like I found it.