Greg, let me plate these and get back to you, but first comment is, it's not an 11 it's an 11A. They are early printings, my initial impression from looking at them is that they are from Plate 3, I think, probably position 19 and 20 from left panel, as they are a right margin pair, as noted by the wide selvage at right.
Some things to note while I get to this is, they are early printings for sure, the color is not the typical "Dull Red", and may be closer to the slightly more scarce Claret.
Things to note immediately as well are, the right inner frame line of the right stamp has been recut, to the extent that it runs up to the top edge of the right triangle. The left triangle looks to have had one line recut in the outside edge. (True "recuts" when you see notes like 1 line recut in triangle or 2 lines recut in triangle, are in reference to horizontal lines, not vertical).
The left stamp has a bit more going on. As George mentioned, the left outer frame line of the left stamp is doubled. But more interesting to me, since these are A type, is the right frame line of that left stamp is a single frame line that cuts through the bottom rosette just slightly (about 3 points of the rosette poke through prominently and one slightly), and that outer frame line joins both the top and bottom diamond blocks.
Unfortunately, the pair are just in at bottom, upper left and most of the top, so that does bring their value down somewhat. Pairs in the 11 and 11A are what I would describe as "uncommon" but not specifically scarce, though this shade, and the particular recuts may make this pair edge closer to scarce category.
The gum is another issue. From this photo, I can't see enough to comment about whether it is OG or not. More later.
Plated: 29-30L3, left pane of Plate 3, relief B, extra outer left frame line on left stamp, and right outer frame line takes the place of the right inner frame line.
I guess whatever "genius" cut the block in half opted to cut into the design at the bottom of the top pair, leaving the clear margins with the bottom pair. What a travesty that the block is no more.
George, I believe the decided to make that cut based on the note in the block, that there was (already) a small scissor cut into the bottom of the top left stamp. That ensured 4 full margins around the other pair. It is visible in the Siegel listing if you blow the image up and look closely.
But yeah, separating an 1851 block was a poor choice in my view as well.
Maybe....maybe. Damn cat has no boundaries at all. I better check those Zeppelin plate blocks and see if they are still plate blocks. I haven't seen them in a while....
Comments
Some things to note while I get to this is, they are early printings for sure, the color is not the typical "Dull Red", and may be closer to the slightly more scarce Claret.
Things to note immediately as well are, the right inner frame line of the right stamp has been recut, to the extent that it runs up to the top edge of the right triangle. The left triangle looks to have had one line recut in the outside edge. (True "recuts" when you see notes like 1 line recut in triangle or 2 lines recut in triangle, are in reference to horizontal lines, not vertical).
The left stamp has a bit more going on. As George mentioned, the left outer frame line of the left stamp is doubled. But more interesting to me, since these are A type, is the right frame line of that left stamp is a single frame line that cuts through the bottom rosette just slightly (about 3 points of the rosette poke through prominently and one slightly), and that outer frame line joins both the top and bottom diamond blocks.
Unfortunately, the pair are just in at bottom, upper left and most of the top, so that does bring their value down somewhat. Pairs in the 11 and 11A are what I would describe as "uncommon" but not specifically scarce, though this shade, and the particular recuts may make this pair edge closer to scarce category.
The gum is another issue. From this photo, I can't see enough to comment about whether it is OG or not.
More later.
All points I mentioned previously.
But yeah, separating an 1851 block was a poor choice in my view as well.