The American Philatelist April 2020

It is also true that the stamps were produced with varying
image print quality, especially as the printing plates wore,
resulting in incomplete or imperfect image details. Correctly
identifying the plate and position of an individual stamp can
be a daunting challenge. But with similar-appearing stamps
ranging in catalog value from a few dollars to thousands, or
tens of thousands, of dollars, proper identification is very important.
Expertizing the 1¢ Franklins
These myriad variations and variables result in uncertainty
among collectors, even those who have been specialists for
many years. Thus, the 1¢ Franklins are frequently submitted
to APEX for authentication. Our process is simple. APEX is
blessed with some 180 Expert Committee members that expertize
most of the world. Several are renowned specialists
on the 1¢ Franklins. Any time a stamp is submitted that looks
even remotely like the Scott A5 image, we have a protocol
that ensures that two or three Expert Committee specialists
will examine and authenticate the stamp. And very frequently
“Expert 1” will request that we “have Expert 2 take a look”
for a second opinion on a particular aspect. Expertizing is a
collaborative process as practiced by APEX.
Collaboration notwithstanding, so great are the nuances
that even our experts can disagree. Recently the stamp in
Figure 4 was sent in for a certificate. The discussion that follows
is abstracted from the notes of three experts. A word
of caution: we are about to dive deep into the weeds of the
specialized nomenclature associated with the 1¢ Franklins.
(Caveat coactor; let the philatelist beware!)
The first expert declared the stamp a Scott 20; one reason
for the decision is, quote, “the bottom line is faint but complete
at the bottom.” On to expert two.
Let me quote a large portion of expert two’s notes: “This
stamp is Relief “B,” position 19L4 from plate 4. Relief B always
has a break in the top line, even though the top of the
design is cut away by the perfs. Thus, this cannot be Scott 20.
19L4 is shown in Neinken as Type III, outer line broken Top
and Bottom. However, this stamp seems to have a faint but
complete bottom line. I leave “break” or “no break” to others.
The stamp is either Scott 21 or Scott 22…” No consensus as
of yet.
A third expert was called upon as part of the normal authentication
process. From his notes, we learn additionally:
“…There is a faint line of ink in the area under the “C” of
CENT. So, the bottom line is Not broken and so the stamp
is Not a Type III, but a Type IIIa. That makes it a Scott 22.”
APEX does not use a “majority vote” or “tie-breaker”
when preparing opinions. I reached out to the first expert
and discussed the subsequent evaluations. He was satisfied
with those findings. We could all agree that this patient was,
indeed, a Scott 22.
And that is what the APEX certificate stated: “United
States Scott No. 22, Type IIIa, “B” Relief, position 19L4. Genuine…”
* * *
I am grateful to Richard Celler for his assistance with this
column.
I welcome your questions, comments, and suggestions on
any philatelic topic. Please feel free to email me at Gary@
stamps.org. I look forward to hearing from you.
A Valentine letter addressed to Miss M. A. Cribbet, care of Dr. Rolker. No. 122 7th Street [Cincinnati, Ohio]. The 1¢ local drop rate
paid by an 1857 Scott No. 24. From the APEX Reference Collection.
340 AMERICAN PHILATELIST / APRIL 2020