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

Post by **ozstamps** » 14 Jul 2009 01:35

The PI above is from the block of 6 from dporterstamps that he states is plate 73. (I have no idea if that is correct as many numbers hard to see, but it does seem to be 73 on ones I can see!)

Assuming it is is, seems VERY obvious the top right 'P' is way to left of check box on the one from the block, and the alleged "77" has a well centred P.

The stamps are different.

Therefore assuming the block 6 is plate 73, the stamp on piece is NOT.

Post by **ozstamps** » 14 Jul 2009 01:49

I am no 1d plate expert, but assuming the dporter-stamps photos are accurately ID'd, then the stamp on piece is nothing like 79 or 71, and is similar to 78 but differs slightly on corner check letters I'd say.

Do others agree on that?

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 14 Jul 2009 01:54

Cool. None of those seem to match. Plate 73 is not even close. (Look at the misalignment in that sheet!)

Abed did comment that he was considering plates 72 and 78.

Greg

dporter-stamps · Post by **dporter-stamps** » 14 Jul 2009 02:00

I have checked the plate no's again, just to be sure, & they are 100%

I have a few other plates with "P I" - I will scan them & post them

David

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 14 Jul 2009 02:37

Wonderful.

As has been said Plate 73 can be ruled out - the upper P is centred well left.

Plate 71 is also not a match - the lower I is centred left.

Plate 78 is not a match - the upper I sits further left and looks to have a tilt west.

Plate 79 is not a match - the letter positions look like they may be the similar, but that this is not a match is proved by the fact that the posted plate 79 shows the alignment between PH and PI on this plate is narrower than it should be. If the 77 PI stamp was from plate 79, then part of the frame of stamp PH would be showing on the left.

Next please....

Scott

dporter-stamps · Post by **dporter-stamps** » 14 Jul 2009 02:44

a few more 'plates' with 'P I' check letters.

1st scan is a blow up of plate 73 in my post above showing the plate no 73 clearly.

all the other plate no's have been checked, a few of the stamps are trimmed.

Post by **ozstamps** » 14 Jul 2009 02:48

Great clear scans David.

I think Pertinax posted we really only need to look at the first 12-15 plates issued as the postmark on the cover is late 1865 so anything that was issued after that we can rule out?

He might ber able to clarify that?

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 14 Jul 2009 02:55

Yes Glen, in all honesty I think it will end up that they will all come from early plates.

Certainly I don't think they will come from any plate with three digits - ie 100 and beyond - as surely the 77 stamps would show traces of the third number.

For this reason I won't look at triple digit plates, at least for the moment.

Plate 99 is not a match - the upper P is too far left.

Scott

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 14 Jul 2009 03:02

I'm going to stick my neck out and make a prediction.

I wouldn't be surprised if the PI stamp turns out to be from plate 81, based solely on one thing.

The three units from plate 73 on Abed's cover are lettered RL, SK and SL.

All three of these plate 73 stamps are known to exist in a second state, following repair by re-entry. Of course, the stamps on Abed's cover prove that in fact plate 73 stamps that are currently thought to be second states are actually third states - the real second states of those units from plate 73, bear 77 on them.

So are any PIs known to have been repaired? Yes - plate 81.

It seems possible adjacent stamp PH will also be from 81, though AFAIK it is currently not a known repair.

Scott

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 14 Jul 2009 03:10

I don't think RK should be on this table, or have I missed something?

Post by **ozstamps** » 14 Jul 2009 03:16

RK was a presumption I think, that it would be the same plate lettered as the 3 on cover. May well be wrong of course!

Interesting guess Scott .. well hopefully somenoe has a plate 81 lettered "P.I." so that can be trsted.

David .. I edited out the scans for plates past 99 as Scott's suggestion. to keep this thread focused on the ones we do need to check -- they are below if others want to check them!

Your plates show in the image codes on links,

http://www.david-porter.co.uk/images/red100pi.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.david-porter.co.uk/images/red106pi.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.david-porter.co.uk/images/red107pi.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.david-porter.co.uk/images/red109pi.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.david-porter.co.uk/images/red115pi.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.david-porter.co.uk/images/red117pi.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.david-porter.co.uk/images/red118pi.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.david-porter.co.uk/images/red140pi.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.david-porter.co.uk/images/red149pi.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.david-porter.co.uk/images/red151pi.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 14 Jul 2009 03:37

I'd suggest removing RK -- I only added it in a discussion of centring. And I'd be comfortable adding EI, the on-cover one that was rejected because it was from plate 73.

Greg

dporter-stamps · Post by **dporter-stamps** » 14 Jul 2009 03:40

no problem Glen, didnt realise that only scans of up to 99 were needed

Post by **ozstamps** » 14 Jul 2009 03:50

Greg Ioannou wrote:
And I'd be comfortable adding EI, the on-cover one that was rejected because it was from plate 73.

Greg

Graham Mann will be sobbing for a month if we add that - he sold it for £1.50 based on the "73" cert.

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 14 Jul 2009 04:01

ozstamps wrote:
Greg Ioannou wrote:
And I'd be comfortable adding EI, the on-cover one that was rejected because it was from plate 73.

Greg
Graham Mann will be sobbing for a month if we add that - he sold it for £1.50 based on the "73" cert.

And what about poor Abed? I'm also proposing demoting his block of 4 back down to an irregular block of 3.

I think Graham's cover is likely every bit as legitimate as Abeds. Don't you? I wouldn't suggest taking Abed's cover from the list if he sold it for £1.50.

Greg

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 14 Jul 2009 04:11

....how many more will come out of the woodwork?

Scott

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 14 Jul 2009 04:16

I am delighted to see how well Stampboards members have taken on the task of plating the existing plate number 77 stamps.

What a Kudos for the site, its administration and its members if they were the reason behind solving this enigma.

May I just add that in my view none of the accepted stamps are from plate 73. None match the corner letters and all have the high left hand '7'on the right hand side (unique to this plate).

I have always maintained that the possibility exists that both numbers were changed as both 7's have no dashes next to them as I believe they should if they came from a plate 77 roller.

The dashes are a major feature of this stamp and are on the master die. In fact the plate number was engraved on or next to them. Other features also point to this fact.

Plate 81 did have 49 heads re-entered as did plate 73 (67 heads).

Details on my site http://www.1dplate77.com/pdf/LINK-4-THE-COVER.pdf *MOD - Link no longer active.*

pages 10-13

Many thanks
Abed H Najjar

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 14 Jul 2009 10:02

I'm going to stick my neck out again and put forward a theory about how Abed's three stamps - and possibly others if they are proved to have been printed on other plates - came to have 77 on them.

All this is predicated on them being genuine of course, and I accept it certainly appears they are at this point.

Stampboards readers may not be aware that the first instalment of Abed's article was re-published in the most recent GB Journal (of the Great Britain Philatelic Society). The second half of the article is to follow, presumably in the Sept/Oct issue.

I believe that there are several GBPS members who will be mulling this over quite a bit and will form an opinion of how these stamps came about. I have no doubt that more than one will come up with this suggestion I will make here. I think it makes sense and covers all the facts. When it all comes down to it, I think the explanation will actually be quite simple.

So here goes.

First some background.

A decision was made in 1857-58 to amend the penny stamp by including the checkletters in the upper squares in reversed order, and also add the number of the plate in the stamp design. The latter of these two changes resulted in something that had not happened before - prior to this point all the transfer roller reliefs were indentical, but now each one was different, bearing a different plate number.

A group of plates altered as above was manufactured and held awaiting the time when they would all be put to press for the imminent release of the new design.

Fourteen new plates were put to press on 1 March 1864, and another four plates by the end of that month bringing the total to eighteen. At this point all printing from the old plates, the ones with stars in upper corners, ceased and all plates at press were then basically new.

The stamps were probably first issued on 1 April 1864.

Now to my theory.

Bearing in mind all the plates were new, it was some time before some of the plates began to show plate wear. These plates were removed from press to allow some units on them to be re-entered. This restores the engraved lines so they again hold enough ink. If the November 1865 date of Abed's cover is anything to go by, then I would say this happened mid-1865 at the latest, though it was possibly significantly earlier than that if other plates were available to take their place at press.

Repairing plates was a fairly common occurrence, see my blog:

https://pertinaxsphilatelicblog.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For some reason, the technician performing this re-entering operation used the transfer roller that was engraved with 77, and he proceeded to re-enter all the units he was told to with this transfer relief.

Very soon afterwards, the mistake was realised and the plate/s were removed from press again to have this fixed. The combination of a short time at press in this state, and that only some of the units beared the numbers 77 on them, results in them being very rare.

I do not believe that the 77 numbers were created by hand recut. I have seen plate numbers that been recut by hand (noteably on plate 80 and 2d plate 8 ) and they have a rather distinct appearance that is not shared with the 77s.

Rather, I believe Abed's stamps have been re-entered as I have said, and believe I can prove it.

The transfer roller relief has blank corners. This gives a void on the plate, into which the letter can be punched. Anything that is within that corner, if the transfer roller is again passed over it in a re-entering operation, will be weakened by that operation. Have a look at some of the entries in my blog that show the effect of re-entry on the checkletters on units of earlier plates. It's subtle, very subtle, but it is my belief that at least some the checkletters of these three stamps show slight weakening when compared to those from the Imprimatur sheet. I am confident that collectors who specialise in the plate repairs of this group of plates will confirm this.

But the most obvious effect of weakening though is upon the constant mark - the small spur on the base of the upper S square of stamp SK. This is significantly and obviously weakened in comparison with the Imprimatur sheet. Please look at the entry in my blog that talks about the effect of re-entry upon the constant dot in the F square of stamp TF from plate 49. It's the exact same thing with the spur - which in this scan shows it to be weaker to a point that cannot just be explained away by it being a lighter print to the Imprimatur:

I am certain the weakened spur on SK is incontrovertible proof that that impression has been re-entered. And there is no doubt in mind that all these three stamps are printed following a repair by re-entry.

I do not believe there is any merit in the suggestion that if the 77 relief was used for this, then there should be 'dashes' next to the 7s, as seen on the albino impression in the British Library. As I have said in an earlier post:

"So what we have in the 'albino' print is an impression into paper from something that was designed to put an impression into steel." This will give a different result.

I believe that the dashes suggestion can be 'dashed' (forgive me) if one looks at other albino prints at the British Library, and then looks for them on stamps from those plates.

So why would the technician use the 77 roller relief?

I think it highly unlikely this was intended.

I don't think he knew he was supposed to being using a certain relief but made a simple mistake, because as it seems we are potentially looking at more than one plate for all this, he should have at least changed the relief before moving to the next plate. Also, the 77 relief is not even on the same roller as the 73 relief (roller 1 had reliefs for plates 69 to75 and roller 2 for plates 76 to 81).

I think this came about because he simply hadn't been told he couldn't just use any relief he liked, as had previously been the case when all the reliefs were identical. And I think it highly likely that this set of repairs were the first undertaken on the new format penny plates. By this time of course, the plates producing the twopence value had correctly undergone several repair operations, but in this case there was really only one plate in existence at one time which reduces greatly the chance of the wrong relief being chosen. Possibly it was a different technician as well.

We are unlikely to ever know for sure, but I feel certain that it was not an intended action. This is backed-up by the apparent very quick correction of the error.

There are a lot of words above, but it all boils down to this:

Plate 73 became worn through use and needed some units re-entered, and the operator accidentally used the wrong transfer relief. This error was noticed and quickly corrected.

I believe it's as simple as that.

It remains to be seen if the other 77s are also from other plates, however I stand by my opinion stated in previous posts that if they all are then there are no plate 77 stamps at all - they are all second states of other plates.

Scott

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 14 Jul 2009 14:34

So the repairs were made, a small number of sheets were printed, and the repaired units were fixed? That does seem to connect all of the dots.

But it still leaves some puzzling questions.

Were the stamps printed in batches of a small number of sheets? That seems unlikely, given the quantities printed overall. When was the error caught? (When was the first stamp with plate #77 on it reported?)

If in checking while still in the plant, why would any sheets have made it out? If immediately after they were circulated, wouldn't there be records of a major recall of misprinted sheets?

Either way, wouldn't there be a record of a large number of faulty sheets destroyed?

Greg

Post by **admin** » 14 Jul 2009 15:01

Greg Ioannou wrote:
If in checking while still in the plant, why would any sheets have made it out? If immediately after they were circulated, wouldn't there be records of a major recall of misprinted sheets?

Greg

Nice argument from Pertinax.

Greg .. Abed's pieces do seem to point (final sentence below) that the plate number really was of little interest to the postal authority.

http://www.collectorsclub.org/CCP/2008/1d%20Rose-Red%20Plate%2077.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.collectorsclub.org/CCP/2008/1d%20Rose-Red%20Plate%2077%20-%20conclusion.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The printing of this issue did not commence until March 1, 1864, and the first stamps were issued on April 1 of that year. The imprimatur sheets were registered on March 14, 1861, for plates 71, 72, 73 and 74, on February 7, 1863, for plates 76, 78,
79, 80 and 81 and on March 1, 1864, for Plates 82 through 87.

These plates were all put to press on March 1, 1864. In total, plate numbers 69 to 225 were produced, and the majority of these plates were well used, as there was a reluctance to discard them until they were worn.

Plates 69, 70, 75 and 77, and the later plate 128, were rejected mainly because the images were out of alignment for the application of correctly positioned perforations. Plate 126 was not produced as the impression on the transfer roller was defective.

The rejection of practically half the number of the nine early plates numbered 69 to 77 had to be a serious setback, bearing in mind that the four plates involved were of no use and involved a large expense of time and money in producing them.

Had it been economical or possible, then why were they not replaced with another plate of the same number? It is reasonable to assume that the plate number was of no importance to the postal authorities and merely served the purpose of identifying the printing plate.

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 14 Jul 2009 15:28

Great Scott,

Your SK match is the " smoking gun " but whats the next step.

In my opinion it should be resubmitted to the Royal for a new certificate which presumably will mention that it is Plate 73 re-entered with the Plate 77 roller.

But what does that make it a Plate 73 or a Plate 77,

David B.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 14 Jul 2009 15:34

it should be resubmitted to the Royal for a new certificate which presumably will mention that it is Plate 73 re-entered with the Plate 77 roller.

But what does that make it a Plate 73 or a Plate 77,

Yes indeed. They were printed on plate 73, they are later states of that plate.

But in all honesty, I don't think there is any point re-submitting for probably a year or more. It will take that long for the second part of Abed's article to be published in the GB Journal and then for all the discussion - for and against - to take place.

Scott

Post by **admin** » 14 Jul 2009 15:35

Abed H Najjar wrote:
What a Kudos for the site, its administration and its members if they were the reason behind solving this enigma.

Yes, an international Bulletin Board like this allows a part more "real time" and meaningful discussion than print specialist journals. Where whatever is written appears many months after it is typed, and allows no immediate response and discussion to what is written.

In this thread we have posts from England, USA, Australia, Canada and Ireland etc. And 3,300 page views on this - already.

This Forum will lead to a definitive solution to this conundrum ... that much is certain - and that would not have occurred in my view via any other venue.

Far too many interesting philatelic puzzles are raised in specialist journals, and remain unresolved for decades more.

I am sure we will have far more input from interested parties - both those who feel Abed's 3 stamps on cover show plate "77" which are unaltered - and those who do not.

Please invite them to sign up and join in the friendly debate - email them this link - .

https://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8808&start=0

That is all this thread is about, at the end of the day.

What plate actually printed these 3 stamps, ('73' seems certain) and when, and how, and why - is for further discussion in the future.

The matter to hand is - "do the 3 stamps below on cover show the number "77" engraved on each side, without anyone having manipulated or forged them in any way, to create those numbers?"

I personally feel the answer to THAT question is a resounding YES, and the compelling, and very extensive forensic evidence appears to support that.

That may not be an answer many long time students of this issue will like to accept, or want to accept - but unless they can offer conflicting evidence that the "77" numbers on these 3 stamps are faked or forged, the scientific reports prove them wrong.

The final word will NEVER be written in Philately - and intelligent collectors with open minds have been the reason for all major discoveries over the past 169 years.

Glen

Question ..... do these numbers says 77 - or not?

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 14 Jul 2009 15:37

This scan of PI plate 81 has arrived from a friend in the UK.

This looks very close indeed to me. I think both stamps show the upper I with a slight bend west?

Does anyone have advanced photoshop skills? Perhaps the two images can be made the same size and then layered on top of each other to highlight any letter position difference.

Scott

Post by **admin** » 14 Jul 2009 15:41

Scott was that Chardonnay you had for lunch?

Not even remotely close is my guess.

Lower "I" on stamp on piece is well right compared to the copy you show us.

Lower 'P' on stamp on piece has a very distinct sloping top - your copy does not and is perfectly flat. That will be the most useful plating tool in my view given we cannot get a better image of the stamp

Top "I" on your copy is WAY to the right of the stamp on piece - where the "I" is "well centered".

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 14 Jul 2009 15:47

Glen,

You are being deceived by the fact the lower I square is cut off by the perfs. This gives the impression the I is differently placed than it really is, and not as what you would see if you could see the whole square.

Use the intersection of the side network of lines as your guide.

Scott

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 14 Jul 2009 15:53

It's very close, Scott. I'm not sure. To me the upper P tilts east trivially in the 81, doesn't in the 77. But all sorts of other things match. You're right -- it needs someone with skill matching images, like Neville sometimes does in the squared circles thread.

He always asks for the two images to have the same DPI (usually 300 dpi). He's not going to be able to compare images of such disparate sizes.

Greg

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 14 Jul 2009 15:56

This might illustrate what I mean.

the lines drawn on this use the row of intersections of the curved lines and next the row of intersections as 'survey' lines to judge the position of the I.

Unfortunately I can't do this on the stamp on piece because it's placed at an angle, but if you look closely I'm sure you will see the letter is actually very close indeed between the two.

Scott

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 14 Jul 2009 16:00

And I'd be comfortable adding EI, the on-cover one that was rejected because it was from plate 73.

I'm sure it will pain Grahame to learn that unit EI of plate 73 is one that is recorded as existing in a second state.

Scott

Post by **admin** » 14 Jul 2009 16:10

admin wrote:Scott was that Chardonnay you had for lunch?

Not even remotely close is my guess.

Lower "I" on stamp on piece is well right compared to the copy you show us.

Lower 'P' on stamp on piece has a very distinct sloping top - your copy does not and is perfectly flat. That will be the most useful plating tool in my view given we cannot get a better image of the stamp

Top "I" on your copy is WAY to the right of the stamp on piece - where the "I" is "well centered".

I remain most comfy with this plating guess.

Skippy · Post by **Skippy** » 14 Jul 2009 16:13

pertinax wrote:This scan of PI plate 81 has arrived from a friend in the UK.

This looks very close indeed to me. I think both stamps show the upper I with a slight bend west?

Does anyone have advanced photoshop skills? Perhaps the two images can be made the same size and then layered on top of each other to highlight any letter position difference.

Scott

I can have a go at overlaying
Do you want the whole stamps overlayed or just the "I" boxes ?

Skippy

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 14 Jul 2009 16:30

Whole stamps, please.

Skippy · Post by **Skippy** » 14 Jul 2009 17:15

Here are the bottom P/I's together to compare

Am working on whole stamp overlay and will post later

Skippy

Post by **admin** » 14 Jul 2009 17:25

admin wrote:
Lower 'P' on stamp on piece has a very distinct sloping top - your copy does not and is perfectly flat. That will be the most useful plating tool in my view given we cannot get a better image of the stamp

Thanks for that nice work there Skippy.

Not even vaguely similar - IMHO.

Skippy · Post by **Skippy** » 14 Jul 2009 18:53

Hi Guys,

Unfortunately, due to recent computer problems I've had, I can't open the program I use to overlay and make a flip animation

(tried reinstalling but it Ain't going nowhere

)

Here are the two stamps, resized, and in the same position (well very close by a fraction of a mm) within each page.

If you save them to your computer (do not crop out white spaces, each stamp has been positioned to match the other's position on the page)

Name them stamp1 and stamp2 so they are side by side in your Picture file and you might be able to click quickly from one to the other when opened in Windows Picture Viewer. (like a flip book effect)

Hope that makes sense

Skippy

flip138 · Post by **flip138** » 14 Jul 2009 19:06

Assuming the SK proposition is correct, might there be a third state of this stamp, following a second re-entry to convert 77 back to 73? Presumably this would have an even weaker spur on the square?

Not my area at all, but a fascinating discussion.

Phil

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 14 Jul 2009 19:13

Assuming the SK proposition is correct, might there be a third state of this stamp, following a second re-entry to convert 77 back to 73? Presumably this would have an even weaker spur on the square?

Phil,

I say exactly this some posts ago:

All three of these plate 73 stamps are known to exist in a second state, following repair by re-entry. Of course, the stamps on Abed's cover prove that in fact plate 73 stamps that are currently thought to be second states are actually third states - the real second states of those units from plate 73, bear 77 on them.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 14 Jul 2009 19:26

Glen,

I have just woken from a three hour nap and looked at the scans again afresh. Thanks skippy for making them similar sizes.

I have to say that I do not see any reason to change my thinking that these two stamps come very close to matching, and may well be a perfect match - right down to the slight blur inside the loop of the upper P!!

Scott

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 14 Jul 2009 20:38

Gentlemen

I am finding increasingly more difficult not to get involved, but I am delighted to see that at last plate 81 has appeared in the discussion.

I have already compared a plate 81 AB with the Royal AB copy and there is a serious match.

I have enclosed the images for you to look at. Plate 81 has been on my mind, as I always thought both numbers were changed, but with such an antagonistic and skeptical philatelic world out there, I was quite 'afraid' to air this view, incredible that it is.

But I am delighted to see 'OPEN MINDS'

I will leave the observations to you.

Thanks

Abed H Najjar

PS I seem unable to add the images and so I will send them to Admin to do that for

Post by **GlenStephens** » 14 Jul 2009 21:04

Abed H Najjar wrote:
PS I seem unable to add the images and so I will send them to Admin to do that for

"unable" is such an unfortunate choice of words Abed.

"UNWILLING" to learn how to is more like it - unlike our other 3000+ members I'd suggest.

Loading images here is a CINCH -

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=284

We have 90 year olds do it all day long!

I will on this occasion do it later, as I might be the first member to prove via image comparison, that the Royal Collection Mint copy is NOT from Plate "77".

Now THERE would be a newsflash of some note if correct!

Post by **GlenStephens** » 14 Jul 2009 21:27

Well using Abed's new "81" used image he sent me, it seems very clear to me it has very similar corner check letters to the MINT "Plate 77" in the Royal Collection.

So false alarm .. although it fooled me at first glance.

However unless Pertinax's Chardonnay fuelled eye sees the photos differently, (very possible - see above!) the lower B on the mint copy is slightly more to the right than the used one? And the Mint top A is slightly tilted to left.

Very similar in all other respects I'd say.

What do others think?

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 14 Jul 2009 21:49

I agree - the upper A is in a completely different spot!
And there are other mismatches.

The AB stamp is not from plate 81.

I've been wondering about this earlier today, because all the known repairs to plate 81 are in the lower right quadrant of the plate. If the mint examples - which are all A and B row - were from 81 then that would mean new repairs that are as yet unknown. I would find this unusual on such a heavily studied plate.

I can confirm that the AB stamp in Royal Collection is also not plate 73 - the lower A placed to the right proves this.

We could be looking at three plates being involved. Plate 85 is known to have lots of repairs in the upper left quadrant...

Scott

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 14 Jul 2009 22:56

pertinax wrote:Glen,

I have just woken from a three hour nap and looked at the scans again afresh. Thanks skippy for making them similar sizes.

I have to say that I do not see any reason to change my thinking that these two stamps come very close to matching, and may well be a perfect match - right down to the slight blur inside the loop of the upper P!!

Scott

To my eyes they match. Look at the lower I's -- the bases are both sharply angled. And the positions of everything seem identical.

Glen, what details are making you see these as totally different?

Greg

Post by **GlenStephens** » 14 Jul 2009 23:04

Not even vaguely similar "P" - IMHO.

admin wrote:
admin wrote:
Lower 'P' on stamp on piece has a very distinct sloping top - your copy does not and is perfectly flat. That will be the most useful plating tool in my view given we cannot get a better image of the stamp

Post by **GlenStephens** » 14 Jul 2009 23:10

We gave this chap below a $100 prize for 'best thread of the month.'

I really urge all members to download this superb tool -- quick and free, and for looking at small "P"s is MOST useful and accurate! Click his link.

Glen

August 2008
Peter123
Virtual magnifier for your computer screen
http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=8088

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 15 Jul 2009 00:23

Hallo all,
Farther back in this thread I mentioned that I had once found what I believed (and perhaps still do) plate 77 EI on cover. This I sent to both the RPS and BPA. The BPA said it was from plate 73 and the RPS said it was not 77. I later sold the cover for £1.50 but.......I kept the certificate! My office is to say the list chaotic but like all in philately I throw nothing away. This morning I had a feeling I had tucked the certificate away somewhere. Lo behold it was where I thought it was having lain there for some 17 or 18 years. Of course a certificate has a picture which I share with you here. If it doesn't show just go to:
http://www.stampsuk.com/plate77/pl77.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I have had a heck of a game trying to work out how to do images. Just like Abed I have not found it easy!

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 15 Jul 2009 00:27

Hmm....got told it could not determine the size of the image so if you want to view it go to http://www.stampsuk.com/plate77/pl77.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MOD - Link no longer active

Post by **ozstamps** » 15 Jul 2009 00:31

GlenStephens wrote:
Loading images here is a CINCH -

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=284

We have 90 year olds do it all day long!

Graham ... you have them all on 1 page .. simply load them up as 4 images as per SIMPLE outline above! You are 99% of the way there already.

Just sign up for the free google PICASA and you are done and/or put them one by one into the free photobucket.com account we all use.

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 15 Jul 2009 00:54

Thanks Glen,

Here goes

MOD - Images were deleted by member.

Post by **ozstamps** » 15 Jul 2009 01:10

Well done Graham .. here is the plate number area sideways of relevant LEFT number on your cover - does not look like 73 to ME as the BPA told you! :

(Two of Abed's "77's)