Scott I think we all need to have open minds, and polite active discussion is always good, and often solves a problem.
You asked me:
pertinax wrote:
Why don't you go to SG and ask them if the stamps on this cover, if accepted as genuine as issued, are stamps listed as 'G1 plate 77' in their specialised catalogue. I would do so myself, but I already know the answer!
My response to that is, that you have chosen not to respond to before, is that clearly there ARE "77's" out there right now
with Certs that all the stamp world -
Gibbons included - would have no issue as being sold for huge sums as "G1 plate 77".
WHAT exactly do I "need to ask" SG?
Undoubtedly these are mostly identical to Abed's examples (as he states) and were printed on the same day most likely, and possibly even on the same sheet of 240 - that is not impossible to believe.
It is elementary. I do not see your point that this appears to you to be "palpably untrue".
If Abed gets a cert for these, they too will be so recognised. No matter what you impute SG tells you.
Worldwide. Indeed Gibbons would likely BUY them off him for goodness sakes, for a client!
If Abed got a clear Cert for these I have no doubt WHATEVER that SG would list an on cover price for them - if in fact SG did that for 1d plates. But of course they do not, and their GB QV "Specialised" - is like all the SG "Specialised" volumes - a
very average work compared to our ACSC and the superb footnotes therein.
My December 2006 14th edition might well be out of date, but for the info for others who may think there is a ton of useful info they offer in there on this stamp, as imputed in your post, they'd be wrong.
All Gibbons have to say re "77" in there is a common sense short warning, not to be caught by altered copies from plates 177 via added postmark ink etc on the "1", and their
ONLY other comments about plate 77s and the other early rejected plates is that -
"no stamps exist, except for for a very few from plate 77 that somehow reached the public."
Their wording not mine ---
"somehow reached the public."
No note from SG that they cannot be sold or accepted as genuine
"unless they match the British Library copy", and no notes that
"if on cover they cannot be genuine" - as you seem to impute they have advised
you is the case?
SG Editor Hugh Jefferies consults with me on stamp matters local, and I can BET if I asked him if he had even advised you re any such thing, I'd know in advance what his response would be.
All Gibbons otherwise say about "77" in my specialised is
"£160,000" - indeed you or others have not addressed why SG do
NOT price it today, in any catalogue?
I remain of the view that ANY 1d red with a recent recognised Cert stating "Plate 77 is genuine" will be equally regarded as being book valued at
"£160,000", as are the other used copies out there, that Abed has documented. And why NOT?
On 3
on cover is "£160,000" x more than a 3 multiple - of course.
That is how the stamp business works, and has ALWAYS worked ..... get the Cert, and the stamp
assumes the relevant catalogue value stated on the Cert.
Indeed speaking of Gibbons, their info in the current 2009 "Part 1" is slightly different re plate 77 to the Specialised, and is not totally correct it seems.
They have more info in there than they offer in the GB Specialised. And say, (in addition to the "177" warning) and I quote:
"Plate 77 was also rejected, but some stamps printed from it were used. One specimen is in the Tapling collection and six or seven others are known"
That wording
implies the Tapling copy is used, but we know that it is mint. The wording should surely read
"from it are recorded." We know from Abed's table that
nine in total (not counting his 3) appear to be definitely recorded in the literature, not counting the lost copy from 1906.