GB 1864 1d red stamp rare Plate 77 - newly found Victor Hugo cover

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 11 Jul 2009 00:37

[pertinax wrote:
Glen,

OK. At least it is now clear to me that you realise that these stamps were printed from a plate that had the number 73 engraved in all four corners, and on which the vast majority of units had the number 73 on them.

Right?

Scott

What relevance does that have, to a non faked stamp clearing bearing the number 77 being collecible as showing "Plate Number 77"

I assume that means 'yes', to my question 'Right?'.

It matters a great deal!!

The whole system of classifying GB penny reds is based upon what numbered printing plate the stamp was printed from.

As I have said, it has been proved categorically that these stamps were printed from plate 73. Fullstop.

The listing in SG is for stamps that are printed from the piece of steel marked with 77 in all four corners; to be precise, the exact piece of steel from which a proof sheet was delivered by Perkins Bacon to the Dept of Stamps and Taxes and returned rejected by Ormond Hill on 7 February 1863. Fullstop.

Abed's three stamps are not plate 77s, they are second states of plate 73!!

Scott

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 11 Jul 2009 00:43

I add, don't forget that it is without question that the Caspary example is not from plate 73.

This means that whatever sequence of events created these, it happened to more than one plate.

OR

There are actually stamps out there that are really from plate 77 !!

S

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 11 Jul 2009 00:49

And what records do we have of just some of the numbers on a plate being changed?

We're in uncharted territory, so saying that something was "never done" doesn't apply.

We're discussing something that was "never done" -- but clearly was done at least this once.

Greg

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 11 Jul 2009 00:57

All fair enough Greg, but I am confident you will not find even one specialist in this area, even amongst those who are in the opposite corner to me in this discussion, that thinks all 240 units were changed to 77, the four corner numbers were also all changed to 77, and then they were all changed back again to 73!

Don't forget my post a couple above - this had to have happened to more than one plate. So they changed the corner numbers on two plates both to 77 ??

No way.

Scott

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 11 Jul 2009 01:01

No-one has suggested that they were changed back.

But which is likelier?

They changed all of the numbers to 77 and decided it was a bad idea after printing a very small number of sheets?

Or they changed some of the numbers to 77 and decided it was a bad idea after printing a very small number of sheets?

They are both insanely unlikely. One or other of them seems to be true. I don't see that we yet have any evidence of which is right.

Greg

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 11 Jul 2009 01:04

No-one has suggested that they were changed back.

But they would have had to have been because plate 73 went on to produce stamps for several years after the date of Abed's cover.

If not changed back, there would be 77s all over the place which clearly there aren't. Agreed?

S

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 11 Jul 2009 01:09

....to be precise, plate 73 was recorded as being repaired on 31 January 1866.

This would not have been done unless it was intended for it to continue printing stamps.

In fact it was not defaced until 5 March 1868, after printing 529,900 sheets.

See what I mean?

Abed's cover is dated 1865.

Scott

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 11 Jul 2009 02:22

Dear Friends

Thank you for your very valuable debate into this 'enigma'.

May I suggest that if you do have the time, that you refer to the website I have had built for this stamp and which does contain some interesting 'food for thought' on plate 77 stamps which may be useful with this discussion.

Kindest regards

Abed H Najjar

http://victorhugocover.com

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 11 Jul 2009 02:37

Despite what Bacon writes, PH and PI don't have the same postmark. Are there any photos of the piece that they are both on?

Greg

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 11 Jul 2009 02:59

Is this what you're after Greg?

I know it's not entirely clear, but you'll have to believe me that this is the piece with the plate 77 lettered PI on it.

Not the best, but it's all I have.

A clearer image of it is on the front cover of the Spink sale catalogue dated 17 December 1997.

Scott

Post by **admin** » 11 Jul 2009 03:06

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 11 Jul 2009 03:09

pertinax wrote:Is this what you're after Greg?

I know it's not entirely clear, but you'll have to believe me that this is the piece with the plate 77 lettered PI on it.

Not the best, but it's all I have.

A clearer image of it is on the front cover of the Spink sale catalogue dated 17 December 1997.

Scott

Thanks! OK, that's what I was expecting. Why is Bacon (as quoted by Abed) saying that PH was also on that piece? It clearly wasn't.

Greg

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 11 Jul 2009 03:23

Greg,

I think you're misunderstanding what he's saying.

He's talking about the 1d stamp and 4d stamp when he says they are both cancelled with the London 15.

S

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 11 Jul 2009 03:26

I guess. The exact quote from Abed is

As far as plate 77 stamps 'PH' and 'PI' are concerned E D Bacon states the following:
"Both stamps still remain on a portion of the envelope or letter-sheet they franked and are obliterated with the number "15" surrounded by heavy bars, which was also a cancellation mark used in the London Head Office. ..."

Doesn't sound very ambiguous to me. Clearly was.

Greg

Post by **admin** » 11 Jul 2009 03:49

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 11 Jul 2009 04:56

Looks like the bars landed in just the right places, leaving both numbers clear.

Greg

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 11 Jul 2009 07:46

Greg Ioannou wrote:I guess. The exact quote from Abed is
As far as plate 77 stamps 'PH' and 'PI' are concerned E D Bacon states the following:
"Both stamps still remain on a portion of the envelope or letter-sheet they franked and are obliterated with the number "15" surrounded by heavy bars, which was also a cancellation mark used in the London Head Office. ..."
Doesn't sound very ambiguous to me. Clearly was.

Greg

Greg, I think the statement is ambiguous. It COULD be read to mean the same portion of envelope or letter sheet or it COULD be read to mean that each is on thier own piece but both were obliterated with same cancel.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 11 Jul 2009 09:05

Guys, the relevant quote from Bacon (page 164) is:

"The other specimen, used with a copy of the Four Pence....was submitted to the Expert Committee of the Royal Philatelic Society, London in 1920. Both stamps still remain on a portion of the envelope or letter-sheet they franked and are obliterated with the number "15" surrounded by heavy bars, which was also a cancellation mark used in the London Head Office."

I agree the sentence quoted by Abed is confusing when read in isolation, but is clear once the whole thing is read.

Scott

PennyBlack1840 · Post by **PennyBlack1840** » 11 Jul 2009 09:44

Plate 77 remains a very rare stamp and because of this has been prone to exaggeration and downright forgery for over a hundred years.

Only this last week a gentleman bought 2 x Plate 77 into our shop in the Strand, London. Needless to say both were not. One was a plate 177, the other was an 'amended' plate 72 which clearly showed under magnification.

Many years ago I was advsied that the position of the downward leg of the '7' in relation to the concentric circles at the sides of the stamp are a key aid in identifying plate 77. In a genuine Plate 77, these point directly at the lowest point where the concentric circles intersect. On the other plates they simply do not.

Again as I mentioned previously in this thread, is there not a proof sheet in the NPM (now renamed) archives?

Peter

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 11 Jul 2009 10:00

Many years ago I was advsied that the position of the downward leg of the '7' in relation to the concentric circles at the sides of the stamp are a key aid in identifying plate 77. In a genuine Plate 77, these point directly at the lowest point where the concentric circles intersect. On the other plates they simply do not.

Indeed, as illustrated here:

On the 77 the foot of the 7s pretty much hits the precise intersection of the white curved white lines below.

On 177 the foot is slightly further left.

Scott

Post by **admin** » 11 Jul 2009 11:26

Folks lets stay focused on things that are mysteries, not those that clearly are NOT!

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 a very few from plate 77 that somehow reached the public."

Their wording not mine --- "somehow reached the public."

The cover is dated Nov 22, 1865 with totally genuine Guernsey, France and Brussels cancels - which negates the Gibbons warning that this might be a misreading of the plate number as 77 when really 177 - since plate 177 didn't exist then.

However plate 77 use was high likely in this period.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 11 Jul 2009 13:50

Folks,

Here is a better scan of the PI piece, taken from the catalogue cover I mentioned.

Also a poor scan of the LL stamp, which is in quite bad condition.

Scott

Jonah · Post by **Jonah** » 11 Jul 2009 14:40

pertinax wrote:Folks,

Here is a better scan of the PI piece, taken from the catalogue cover I mentioned.

Also a poor scan of the LL stamp, which is in quite bad condition.

Scott

That upper cover piece doesnt seem right to me.

I realise that it's been authenticated etc , however it just seems too "perfect" a strike that it reveals the plate numbers through the obliterator. Added to the fact the the strike on the 4d when measured would actually cover the top of the 7's if applied entirely just seems to "perfect"

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 11 Jul 2009 14:55

Ummm -- wasn't that 4d issued in 1862? The range of dates of use of the "plate 77s" is starting to stretch my credulity.

Greg

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 11 Jul 2009 15:43

One thing that has been on my mind is about the mint examples.

The mint examples that we know the lettering of are all from the top left of the sheet. It's of course impossible to be certain that they were originally part of one block without viewing them all and doing a perf comparison, however I think it's a reasonable assumption that they were.

Bearing this in mind, I personally think it's unusual for mint stamps of those A row letterings to not still have their adjacent selvedge still attached.

Could it be that the dealer that first handled the mint block - assuming it was a block for the purpose of this theory - was in a dilemma in seeing that his stamps were numbered 77, but that the number engraved in the corner selvedge was something else?

I'm quite certain I would have some difficulty locating a dealer who would not have torn the selvedge off without the slightest hesitation, in order to leave himself pristine examples numbered 77.

Just a thought.

Scott

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 12 Jul 2009 01:20

Greg Ioannou wrote:Ummm -- wasn't that 4d issued in 1862? The range of dates of use of the "plate 77s" is starting to stretch my credulity.

Greg

OK, I had a misconception here. I'd thought SG 79/80 were issued in 1862 and replaced by SG 81/82 in 1863. In fact, they were all all apparently used concurrently until at least 1865. So the time frame still works. This piece could well have been used around the same time that Abed's cover was mailed. And the #15 postmark was used throughout the period.

I'd thought the time frame was messed up, but it isn't.

Except for the larger issue of creating a credible time sequence for what happened to plate 73.

Greg

Post by **admin** » 12 Jul 2009 14:47

[

Interesting comparisons from the article below I urge all members to read carefully -

https://www.collectorsclub.org/CCP/2008/1d%20Rose-Red%20Plate%2077.pdf

That proves that even the 2 MINT "77s" - the Royal Collection and 'Tapling' copies, did not come from plate 77!

Post by **admin** » 12 Jul 2009 15:08

I have absolutely no idea WHY, but a further most detailed article on these stamps have never before been mentioned or linked to in this thread:

http://www.collectorsclub.org/CCP/2008/1d%20Rose-Red%20Plate%2077%20-%20conclusion.pdf

Glen

Post by **admin** » 12 Jul 2009 15:15

"The first test was an EDAX Eagle II microenergy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF) spectrometer using a rhodium (Rh) X-ray tube operating at 35 kV and 300 micro-amps under vacuum (Figure 4). The spot size of the X-ray beam was 30 microns. Typical analysis time was 400 seconds per sampling location."

And then we have examination via this massive micropscope.

That also detects no issues with the paper or ink on the stamps on cover.

HOWEVER - right now two "Expert" (coff) certificates have been issued saying these plate numbers are faked, with Plate 73 or another plate, allegedly changed to read 77.

I feel fairly sure those "expert" views are both totally wrong.

One view was plainly absurd, arguing essentially that someone had cut the number "7" out of other stamps and pasted it over the second "7" on each stamp. A $20 UV lamp would detect that if it were true!

The other view in essence imputed the second 7 had been hand-painted out in red and a new 7 painted in on every stamp. Again the most rudimentary checking would reveal this if it were the case.

Glen

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 12 Jul 2009 15:17

That proves that even the 2 MINT "77s" ........ did not come from plate 77!

I'm very glad Glen, that you finally agree with what I have been saying for ages - that Abed's stamps don't come from plate 77!!

Scott

Post by **admin** » 12 Jul 2009 15:35

pertinax wrote:
That proves that even the 2 MINT "77s" ........ did not come from plate 77!

I'm very glad Glen, that you finally agree with what I have been saying for ages - that Abed's stamps don't come from plate 77!!

Scott

"Finally"?

I agreed on that 20 posts back as is clear to all except you it seems, and posted the photos of the corner check letters link to prove it.

YOU I believe were adamant above that the Royal Collection and Tapling copies DID come from Plate 77 as laid down -- it appears you are completely wrong in that view.

Bottom line - there is no evidence that that a single stamp in existence today came from plate 77 as laid down and was later destroyed.

However some 13 stamps exist that bear the plate "77" upon them. The 3 on cover included.

Post by **admin** » 12 Jul 2009 15:45

pertinax wrote:
In short, Ormond Hill must have been looking at at least one printed sheet from plate 77 (and for that matter from plate 75) to have made this decision - and possibly as many as six sheets.

It is from this/these sheets that it has been, till now, accepted that plate 77 stamps came from. That somehow they escaped the furnace.

And quite frankly I am as yet unconvinced this is incorrect.

Are you convinced NOW Scott, none of the recorded copies were printed from these 'Plate 77' sheets you refer to Ormond Hill looking at?

Glen

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 12 Jul 2009 15:49

YOU I believe were adamant above that the Royal Collection and Tapling copies DID come from Plate 77 as laid down

I may have said that right at the beginning when all the info was still coming out and the second half of Abed's article had yet to be published, but I never it said after, in the most recent group of posts in the last couple of months - all I ever said was that the Tapling stamp did not come from plate 73. I never said anything about the Royal stamp as I had not seen it.

Scott

Post by **admin** » 12 Jul 2009 15:57

Scott - so you have changed you view, and FINALLY agree it is indeed likely that -

.... none of the recorded copies were printed from these 'Plate 77' sheets you refer to Ormond Hill looking at?

In we have succeeded in having you overturn your initial strong view, there is hope others may do so.

All major philatelic discoveries have come about via collectors with open minds.

Post by **admin** » 12 Jul 2009 16:16

The 8 page detailed forensic report with graphs, by the Professor of Analytical Chemistry, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey is here - showing that no tampering took place - http://www.ajaok.notlong.com

Incredibly one UK "Expert" body is much smarter than this Professor it seems.

They decided that all 3 copies on the cover had the number "7" cut from other stamps, and pasted over the second 7 on both sides of all 3 copies on the cover.

Talk about NAIVE.

It is like a bad monty Python script.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 12 Jul 2009 16:21

No I haven't my position at all.

I've said all along it was possible, but can only be proven with evidence of exactly what plate/s and the others come from.

If you go right back to the beginning to the October 2008 posts I was saying I would be prepared to accept Abed's theory if he proved by reference to the checkletters what plates the other stamps came from. For instance, my post on Oct 21:

Exactly what Abed has to do with not just the BA stamp, but every currently accepted 77.

I do not accept as evidence this table:

as I do not believe it proves anything that could not be put down to printing differences between stamps. I believe a bunch of similar scans of stamps from any other plate would prove this is so, as they would show similar differential.

A heavy weight of evidence is being drawn from the 'albino' impression at the top of the above table of scans. Yet it needs to be understood that this is an impression from the transfer roller, not from the plate itself. In each step of the transfer process, some definition of the engraved lines is lost. For this reason, the recesses on the original die are deeper than they are 'taller' on the transfer relief, and the engraved lines are not as deep on the plate.

So what we have in the 'albino' print is an impression into paper from something that was designed to put an impression into steel. If it can't be appreciated that this will give different results, then I give up

Scott

Post by **admin** » 12 Jul 2009 18:04

Scott - which plate did the Tapling collection "77" corner letters match do you recall?

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 12 Jul 2009 22:45

admin wrote:
Scott - which plate did the Tapling collection "77" corner letters match do you recall?

AFAIK no-one has established this yet.

As I said in October last, the onus is on Abed to do this - not only the Tapling stamp, but all the others too.

Only reference to the precise checkletter positions of the stamps will prove anything.

If any of the stamps cannot be allocated to another plate by this method, then that will be pretty conclusive proof those are actually from plate 77.

Scott

Post by **admin** » 13 Jul 2009 00:15

pertinax wrote:
AFAIK no-one has established this yet.

As I said in October last, the onus is on Abed to do this

Should be a VERY simple thing for Abed to do ... odd that he has not. Top 2 letters look especially plateable!

If this is not Plate 73, one presumes it (and the Royal Collection one) must be 77 if not from the other early plates.

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 13 Jul 2009 04:05

Abed said here, in May:

PS plates 72 or even 78 for that matter are only possibilities. Much research needs to go into this.

Obviously his research is ongoing.

I've checked my GB to see if I have reference copies of any of the relevant letter combinations from any early plate. Unfortunately, I sold most of my "duplicates" a few years ago. So no luck here.

I think the research Abed has done so far is fascinating. I wish this discussion was more in terms of "ok, how do we figure out what was going on here?" rather than "you said this and you were wrong."

Greg

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 13 Jul 2009 08:38

Should be a VERY simple thing for Abed to do

I agree, there can't be too many plates displaying the following:

Top A - basically central, but VERY slightly low and to the right
Top B - to the right and slightly high, slight tilt west
Lower B - high, otherwise central, possible slight tilt east(?)
Lower A - central, possibly with a short right foot(?)

and only the earliest plates need be checked in my opinion - say the first 15, so plates 71 to 86.

I would do it myself if I had the material, but I don't.

Scott

Post by **admin** » 13 Jul 2009 11:45

Several UK dealers (Graham Mann on this thread earlier, included) make a good living offering plate numbers and corner letters to the many collectors doing reconstructions of plate numbers and corner letters.

All the dozen or so earlier plates needed to be checked here, are pennies apiece basically, and sourcing 'AB' examples from the first dozen plates should be a 10-15 quid exercise, tops. Abed spends that on lunch each day I'll bet.

That will sort out the mint copies VERY fast as being from another issued and known early plate (other than 73, which we know they are not) .. or really from 77.

My gut feeling has been that the MINT copies were more than likely 'liberated' by someone (at around the time of plate being rejected, or later) as a corner block from a Registration or perforation guidance sheet etc.

The several used copies I'd near bet if we could examine them all, are from a very short lived cliché substitution taken from plate 73, and for whatever reason were re-engraved with '77' side numbers.

One obvious possibility for that was posted earlier here by the same Graham Mann -

"One possibility could be, that to repair some illegible numbers the wrong "7" was recut. Bear in mind that the plate is in mirror image - perhaps the engraver mistakenly recut the 3 to a 7 on some impressions on the plate 73 thinking he was actually re-cutting the 7.

After printing a small number of sheets the error was spotted and corrected. This would give rise to a small quantity of '77s' being in existence."

The BPA tellingly also send it back as a '73' - as he also reported here on this thread -

"The second 7 had a distinct flat top. I sent it to the RPS for certification and got the reply "not plate 77". Not convinced, I sent it to the BPA. I got the reply not 77 but 73!

I assume this was given because the letter positions matched that of plate 73. I later sold the cover at Stampex for a princely £1.50. OH, HOW I WISH I HAD NOT!!"

Rather interesting that a dealer of that experience with handling these issues, could look at a stamp most carefully, determine it read "77" without any doubt in his mind, and still be declared wrong.

He spent probably 50 quid getting 2 certs and I bet did not do that unless he was DARN sure that "77" was printed there clear as a bell.

I do hope he still has those certs on file, and can tell us the corner letters of the example he had on cover -- it would be useful to add to BACK O BOURKE's chart as a possible contender, should it come onto the market again from his fortunate client at STAMPEX.

[

Abed's articles makes it very clear he feels the 4th mint copy in this list above does not exist any longer (or perhaps was deemed not a "77!) and the Crocker copy was lost in the San Francisco fires of 1906.

So we will never know I'd guess, the corner letters of those 2, a real shame.

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 13 Jul 2009 12:13

I assumed that Mann's cover was the one that Abed now has.

Greg

Post by **admin** » 13 Jul 2009 12:19

Greg Ioannou wrote:I assumed that Mann's cover was the one that Abed now has.

Greg

A good journo never assumes.

At least my checking on this tells us that stamp's lettering - "E.I."

stampmann wrote:
For those not in the know I have dealt in early GB for nearly 30 years. Much of my business has been in supplying SG43/4 1d plates with specific check letters. In that period I have probably had the best part of a million of the little beasties pass through my hands!

Some two years ago I had a phone call from Abed Najjar with a request for specific letterings from plate 73. We soon got chatting about the stamp in general but he did not explain why he wanted them until I told him how I felt that back in the early 1990s I had found a plate 77 on cover.

The cover came from a box lot that I had bought at the now defunct Phillips auction. There were a dozen or so covers all to the same address and from the mid 1860s. I do not think they had ever been out on the market before.

One cover appeared to bear a plate 77. The stamp 'EI' was off centre to the left so that the right number could not be seen.

However the left could be; the first 7 was complete and the bottom half of the second was obscured by postmark.

This second 7 had a distinct flat top. I sent it to the RPS for certification and got the reply "not plate 77". Not convinced I sent it to the BPA. I got the reply not 77 but 73!

I assume this was given because the letter positions matched that of plate 73. I later sold the cover at Stampex for a princely £1.50. OH HOW I WISH I HAD NOT!!

When I told Abed he opened up and explained what and why he was researching. He is not out to make a fortune but has got his teeth into a mystery which he wants to clear up.

I know he has spent several thousand pounds on forensic examination of his cover.

Please do read his article carefully as it really is most interesting.

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 13 Jul 2009 12:54

So first used one from the top half of the sheet -- and another stamp from row I that's centred far to the left.

I wonder how many other plate 77s have bad certificates because they are from plate 73? I guess the various British expertizing bodies would know. Do they reveal things like that if asked? Are researchers allowed access to their files?

Greg

Post by **GlenStephens** » 13 Jul 2009 13:19

Greg Ioannou wrote:
I wonder how many other plate 77s have bad certificates because they are from plate 73? I guess the various British expertizing bodies would know. Do they reveal things like that if asked? Are researchers allowed access to their files?

Greg

Greg given the past records are not computerised, I'd doubt they really bother sharing the info.

ESPECIALLY when they issue idiotic opinions as they did here, that someone had glued "7s" cut out from other stamps to stamps onto all 3 stamps on the cover.

The stamp establishment is never terribly keen to accept on face value, something clearly valuable, they did not know existed before. Especially in the very conservative British stamp world.

Most especially a $500,000 type item, that would instantly be one of the rarest pieces in British Philately if certified as genuine.

Right now two certificates have been issued saying these plate numbers are faked, the latter Cert saying another plate has allegedly changed to read 77.

I feel fairly sure those "expert" views are both totally wrong - admittedly without viewing the cover myself.

The first view was plainly absurd, arguing essentially that someone had cut the number "7" out of other stamps, and pasted it over the second "7" on each stamp on cover.

A basic $20 hand held UV lamp would detect that if it were true! As would 20/20 eyesight I'd guess, or a human fingernail.

The other view in essence imputed the second original number had been hand-painted out in red, and a new 7 in white painted in on every stamp. Again the most rudimentary checking would reveal this, if it were the case.

Massive blow-ups of the paper fibres of this region have been taken, and they are illustrated in the article online, and show no such manipulation or alteration.

As you will see in the highly detailed reports here - http://www.johfail.notlong.com - senior forensic Scientists and technical labs, using electron microscopes, and a million dollars of analytical equipment, see nothing of the sort.

Abed spent several £1,000's, and a great deal of time, and went out and got highly technical forensic reports on this cover.

The detailed forensic evidence appears to show those "Expert" views above are simply wrong.

The Forensic Institute, 10th August 2006 - "... there is no evidence of alteration. In summary, using these techniques we did not find evidence that could be established as tampering."

Reading Scientific Services Limited (RSSL), 1st February 2008 - "No evidence was found of fibre disruption (e.g. through deliberate tamper by scraping, cutting or adding fibres) during topographical examination of the second '7 diamond' regions."

The Forensic Science Service, 31st October 2006 - "I find no evidence that the plate numbers have been altered by cutting out portions of other stamps and pasting them onto the stamps examined here."

Rutgers University USA, 19th September , 2008, Gene S. Hall, Ph.D., Professor of Analytical Chemistry - "The identical nature of the inks of the three samples effectively rules out the finding that the ink had been painted in."
"Raman examination also confirmed that the pigment was the same in both the basic stamp and the second "7" area. There was no difference in the ink composition in the diamond areas surrounding the first and second "7" in the plate numbers."

As I have often written in my columns - the last word will NEVER be written in philately, and very major finds occur each year.

Keep an OPEN mind.

I am a great believer that closed or blinkered minds are often the biggest impediment to important new stamp discoveries being recognised for what they are.

Richard Debney, one of the members of the second "Expert" Committee involved, divulged his committee knew of the "forged" finding of the other, before making theirs, and sticks to his guns here - http://www.ughoix.notlong.com

Abed need not be disheartened that a few "experts" have declared that the 3 stamps on his cover are "faked" - despite the clear written high tech forensic evidence he now has, that they are not tampered with in any way.

Sadly Committees are not always correct, even when the matter before them to rule upon is very simple.

All major philatelic discoveries have come from philatelists with open minds.

Post by **GlenStephens** » 13 Jul 2009 15:03

Have Abed or others verified whether this 1920 find (accepted by all as a "genuine" 77) has corner letters that ALSO match Plate 73 - or any other early plate?

Again a dead easy and cheap thing to verify.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 13 Jul 2009 15:41

It's possible all the BA stamps in the range of plates I mentioned are still attached to the imprimatur sheet.

(Unlike any A row stamp which is almost certain to have been removed)

Abed, do you know Doug Muir of the NPM well enough to ask him to forward scans of them?

Scott

dporter-stamps · Post by **dporter-stamps** » 14 Jul 2009 01:25

Here is a used block from plate 73 showing stamp P I

a single from plate 71

a single from plate 78

a single from plate 79

Post by **ozstamps** » 14 Jul 2009 01:31

dporter-stamps wrote:Here is a used block from plate 73 showing stamp P I

a single from plate 71

a single from plate 78

a single from plate 79

Useful scans! Bring on the 1d plating experts - is this below a 73?

GlenStephens wrote:
Have Abed or others verified whether this 1920 find (accepted by all as a "genuine" 77) has corner letters that ALSO match Plate 73 - or any other early plate?

Again a dead easy and cheap thing to verify.