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

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 15 Jul 2009 01:13

Finally it worked!

Take a good look above. Do you not agree that perhaps I really did have a 77 on cover.

I wish I still had it but "c'est le vie"!!!!!

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 15 Jul 2009 01:32

Here's another thought.

Over the years the RPS have had many applications for certs for plate 77s.

They have always photgraphed the stamps submitted and kept a copy of both good and bad.

Would it not be interesting to examine their archive?

Post by **ozstamps** » 15 Jul 2009 01:36

stampmann wrote:Finally it worked!

Take a good look above. Do you not agree that perhaps I really did have a 77 on cover.

I wish I still had it but "c'est le vie"!!!!!

Well it certainly was not a "73" as the BPA advised you. And the RPS below seem wrong too I'd say. What number did they imagine it was?

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 15 Jul 2009 01:43

stampmann wrote:Finally it worked!

Take a good look above. Do you not agree that perhaps I really did have a 77 on cover.

I wish I still had it but "c'est le vie"!!!!!

You really did. I hope whoever bought it stumbles across this conversation some day.

Greg

Post by **ozstamps** » 15 Jul 2009 01:44

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!!

Graham did you find that BPA cert too?

How on earth could an 'expert' body state this number below was "73"?

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 15 Jul 2009 01:46

They (correctly) identify it as plate 73 from the corner letters.

Greg

Post by **ozstamps** » 15 Jul 2009 01:50

Greg Ioannou wrote:They (correctly) identify it as plate 73 from the corner letters.

Greg

Really?

We can't agree here on the ones last page, where all FOUR letters are clearly visible on both stamps. The BPA could basically only see ONE .. and an incomplete "I" at that to make it worse.

Seeing the BPA have absolutely no idea what corner letters of 77 look like for this stamp they were looking only at the plate number I believe.

http://www.stampsuk.com/plate77/77.jpg

MOD - Image deleted by member Stampman

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 15 Jul 2009 01:53

Good point! For if I kept the RPS cert I'll have the BPA one somewhere.

Bit pushed for time today but I'll have a hunt perhaps on Thursday.

If you saw my office you would know what a mammoth task it will be, least of all because everything is coated in cigarette ash!!!!!!!!!

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 15 Jul 2009 01:59

C'mon. Plating stamps isn't THAT tough. What do you think keeps all those KGV heads collectors entertained? If you only had perfect stamps to plate, there would be no challenge to it.

Post by **ozstamps** » 15 Jul 2009 02:01

stampmann wrote:
If you saw my office you would know what a mammoth task it will be

I'll BET your office looks like a Mayfair Doctor's surgery compared to my legendary set up -

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=3636

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 15 Jul 2009 02:16

OK Glen you win but I have a wife and am not allowed in the house so my office is a separate building in the garden.

How come yours is so clean? Mine's filthy but then I do like my baccy.

Will stay on subject and find that cert.

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 15 Jul 2009 02:27

ozstamps wrote:
Greg Ioannou wrote:They (correctly) identify it as plate 73 from the corner letters.

Greg
Really?

We can't agree here on the ones last page, where all FOUR letters are clearly visible on both stamps. The BPA could basically only see ONE .. and an incomplete "I" at that to make it worse.

Seeing the BPA have absolutely no idea what corner letters of 77 look like for this stamp they were looking only at the plate number I believe.

Image link inactive. Removed

I agree. The only letter they could really compare was the bottom left E and even then the foot has cancel over it.

The position of top 'I' could be questioned but I accept that measurements can be taken from the left of the square and the bottom.

However as far as I am aware there is no definitive work on SG43 letter positions as there is with imperfs and 1d stars. The only way to get a match is to physically compare with EI from plate 73 or the imprimatur sheet.

Do the certificating bodies have full sets of copies of the SG43 imprimaturs or complete sheet reconstructions of all plates (36,240 stamps without plate 77)?

I doubt it!

dporter-stamps · Post by **dporter-stamps** » 15 Jul 2009 02:49

here's a scan of plate 81 lettered 'R L' along with Abed's stamp

sorry i don't have any copies of the bottom 2 stamps

[

Post by **ozstamps** » 15 Jul 2009 02:51

Thanks David .. another plate one discounted -- left 'L' and 'R' WAY to RH side on your copy.

Post by **ozstamps** » 15 Jul 2009 02:53

stampmann wrote:
Do the certificating bodies have full sets of copies of the SG43 imprimaturs or complete sheet reconstructions of all plates (36,240 stamps without plate 77)?

I doubt it!

I do not think some of them possess a desk light or tin of Ronsonol fluid to be honest.

The fact one the alleged leading "expert" body offered a written Cert and opinion to Abed which 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- i.e. 5 or 6 substitutions.

A basic $20 UV lamp would detect that if it were true! So would a dip in Ronsonol. As would 20/20 eyesight I'd guess, or even a human fingernail.

The other "expert" 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.

Electron miscroscopes such as this one, in the hands of forensic labs detected nothing of the sort.

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » 15 Jul 2009 05:38

Interestingly Graham's cert has seven signatures on it so they must have had a good turnout that day!

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 15 Jul 2009 08:56

here's a scan of plate 81 lettered 'R L' along with Abed's stamp

there's really no need to do the usual comparison with the three stamps on the cover - they have already been established to be from 73.

Scott

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 15 Jul 2009 09:09

Do the certificating bodies have full sets of copies of the SG43 imprimaturs or complete sheet reconstructions of all plates (36,240 stamps without plate 77)?

I doubt it!

A very important comment, and I'm sure the answer will be that they have access to the imp sheets when they need them.

A valuable feature of 'your' EI stamp Grahame, is going to be the alignment of stamp EH at left, which on this badly centred stamp shows it to be slightly stepped down from EI. This is quite unusual for this range of plates, and will probably end up being a clincher for what plate it's from.

I was about to confirm the EI stamp was not from 73, as I have a copy and it shows different letter positions. But now that I look at it again I'm not sure if my stamp is actually plate 78, so I will have to find a definite 73 with clear side numbers.

Scott

dporter-stamps · Post by **dporter-stamps** » 15 Jul 2009 09:18

Scott,

I have cut & pasted some scans of the Taping copy (plates 78, 94, 98)
& the Royal copy (plates 78, 87, 89, 92)
showing the top letters together & the bottom letters together

let me know if they are of any use & i will post them

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 15 Jul 2009 09:25

Yes please dporter, but what I'm really desperate for is scans of AB and BA from plate 85.

Scott

dporter-stamps · Post by **dporter-stamps** » 15 Jul 2009 09:42

Sorry dont have 85 AB or BA

the darker scans are my stamps

dporter-stamps · Post by **dporter-stamps** » 15 Jul 2009 09:45

dporter-stamps · Post by **dporter-stamps** » 15 Jul 2009 09:51

Is it my imagionation or does the 'B' on this plate 89 look like it used to be an 'S' which has been recut ??

iomoon · Post by **iomoon** » 15 Jul 2009 09:58

Dave,

no idea what an imagionation is, but yes it does look like a recut S.

Diver Pete · Post by **Diver Pete** » 15 Jul 2009 09:59

[quote="dporter-stamps"]Is it my imagionation or does the 'B' on this plate 89 look like it used to be an 'S' which has been recut ??

dporter - I think your eyes might be strained after looking soooo closely at these letters!

8)

However, that said, I think you are correct it does look like a re-cut "S"! 8)

There is something else not quite right with this stamp, as the "A" on your stamp is not as wide between the feet as the "Royal" and the A is rotated (about the left foot) fractionally further down.

Or are my eyes going as well...

Post by **ozstamps** » 15 Jul 2009 12:40

dporter-stamps - just a light inking vagary is my guess - but yes is does look a little like an S!

Remember that after the 240 impressions were all laboriously rocked into the new steel plate from the transfer roller (which took about 2 weeks per plate) did the corner letters get punched in by hand with a large hammer, one stamp at a time.

Hence EACH stamp will generally have very minor differences to stamps of those letters from other plates .. wider or higher placed letters, and slightly tilted ones etc to either direction.

I am guessing those doing that job had a kit of punches of numerals 0-9 to work with for that job .. but no alphabet letters to get mixed up with!

gdmcon · Post by **gdmcon** » 15 Jul 2009 13:31

For a newbie following this discusion, is is there a site I can visit that would show the process to produce a cliche, and the process of changing the lettering and are there any illustrations of plate No's that have been re-numbered ie re-engraved

BACK O BOURKE · Post by **BACK O BOURKE** » 15 Jul 2009 19:52

Is it not true the way of confirming the authenticity of a genuine plate 77 is to look at where the bottom of the "7" numerals touch the engraving?

If the bottom of the 7 meets the point where the engraved lines meet it's genuine.

If slightly to the left it's a 177.

Many plate 177 stamps masquerade as 77s due to the accidental or intentional masking of the "1" numeral.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 16 Jul 2009 23:05

I'm sure I'm going to get yelled at by Glen in his usual way, but here goes anyway.

Is there anyone here who thinks, despite the scientific reports to the contrary, that it's possible the cover could still be faked?

Scott

Post by **ozstamps** » 16 Jul 2009 23:12

pertinax wrote:
Is there anyone here who still thinks, despite the scientific reports, that the cover could still be faked?

I am sure there are 1000s of such folks ..... including most members of both "expert" committees.

My view is they are both totally wrong.

I am hoping some members of there may join and add their comments as I am sure they are - or soon will be - VERY aware of this thread.

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" stamps which are unaltered - and those who do not.

Please folks, go out of your way to invite them to sign up and join in the friendly debate - email them this link -

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

Glen

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 16 Jul 2009 23:23

I admit to having renewed doubt.

I still think the three stamps on the cover show signs of having been re-entered. And I still say the numbers look unlike any other recut plate numbers I've seen. But what if this is because they are faked?

Do I think that it's possible to fake something that is scientifically unable to be detected?

I'm not sure, but I do think that when a lot of money is involved, things become possible that otherwise were not.

I had the following thought today when I was walking to work:

'Wouldn't it be ironic if it turned out the cover is faked, but that all the investigation into it shows us how the real 77s came about?'

Scott

Post by **ozstamps** » 16 Jul 2009 23:28

pertinax wrote:
Do I think that it's possible to fake something that is scientifically unable to be detected?

For 6 numbers on 3 stamps to achieve what has been achieved. TOTALLY impossible.

Let us think sensibly here for a moment -

A Faker's Check List -

I have a logical brain I believe, and think to myself that if someone was determined to fake a plate '77' on cover, there are at least 3 things they would do.

1. Stick to a SINGLE stamp on cover to alter ... FAR less work, and far less chance of getting caught out, or messing it up.

2. Select a NICE looking well centred stamp to fake, to maximise the return if accepted as genuine.

3. Pick a nice clean complete cover to work on, for the same reasons as #2.

These 3 totally obvious features are all missing here. A tatty looking part cover, with 3 woefully centred stamps, one badly scuffed and damaged, and one badly creased.

And the obvious fact it turned up unheralded in Europe points further to no large profit gain being involved here.

This is EXACTLY why, given the compelling scientific evidence supporting my view, I believe all 3 stamps to be perfectly genuine and unaltered, and all are showing plate number "77".

Let's get serious ..... if PROFIT was the motive - as it is with ALL fakes - with a MILLION 1d red covers on earth to choose from, at only a quid apiece to work on, WHO in their right mind would pick this rather ugly partial thing, with shockingly centred stamps, and clear damage to 2 of them as their faker canvas? Does not stack up at ALL.

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 16 Jul 2009 23:45

pertinax wrote:Is there anyone here who thinks, despite the scientific reports to the contrary, that it's possible the cover could still be faked?
Scott

Yes, I'm keeping an open mind on the issue. At this point, we are in a position of being asked to believe that one of two very unlikely scenarios is correct:

-- a cover that has been able to pass thorough scientific scrutiny is faked. An earlier cover submitted independently had been faked in the same, somewhat unlikely, way.

-- "plate 77" stamps resulted from botched repairs to more than one plate. The repair would have involved needlessly changing the plate number of numerous stamps on the repair sheets. The sheets were then repaired again (so well that no trace of the repairs to the plate numbers has ever been discovered, in an issue that has been studied extensively). A small number of the botched stamps reached the market. The error was found either when a small number of sheets from these plates had been printed, or after a normal print run that was subsequently destroy (and there's no record of either of these things happening).

Frankly, I don't yet believe either of these scenarios. They are both too unlikely. I think we've missed something that will point us in the direction of another solution to the problem. I don't have a clue what that might be.

Greg

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 17 Jul 2009 00:12

pertinax wrote:I admit to having renewed doubt.

I had the following thought today when I was walking to work:

'Wouldn't it be ironic if it turned out the cover is faked, but that all the investigation into it shows us how the real 77s came about?'

Scott

Now Scott you are where I am at! My cover, Abed's and the known 77s may all be fakes or genuine 77s but not printed from plate 77! It is not unreasonable to imagine, as has been mentioned earlier, that there were alterations to one of the plates to create 77 either intentionally or unintentionally. I doubt whether we will ever know.

My gut feeling is that none are truly from the original plate 77. Remember what the Perkins Bacon records state "No Sheets Printed". The plate was made a long time before the stamps were issued and therefore probably destroyed long before.

I see this discussion as not so much an argument about whether some or all are fakes but more about how 77s come to exist today! This is what makes it all so interesting.

The trouble is for those who believe they have genuine 77s there could be a lot of money riding on it.

I do know of at least one expert who has doubts and some interesting arguments. I was hoping he would join the fun but an e-mail received yesterday says: "Sorry but I don't want to enter into this. I don't fit in I like facts rather than conjecture."

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 17 Jul 2009 00:27

stampmann wrote:I do know of at least one expert who has doubts and some interesting arguments. I was hoping he would join the fun but an e-mail received yesterday says: "Sorry but I don't want to enter into this. I don't fit in I like facts rather than conjecture."

We're not in a situation where there can be a discussion limited to facts. We have a number of pieces of information that seem to be facts, but they don't link together to make a coherent, complete picture. And some of the facts seem to contradict each other.

It isn't possible to make sense of a situation like that without considering how the observed facts might fit together. That's called conjecture. It is how problems like this get solved.

Greg

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 17 Jul 2009 00:45

Greg I totally agree. They are his words not mine.

Unfortunately I cannot pressure him to join in. I wish he would.

This discussion can be likened to a 'think tank' and only in people sharing ideas and evidence etc, are we able to reach conclusions.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 17 Jul 2009 07:58

Unfortunately I cannot pressure him to join in. I wish he would.

Initials WH ??

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 17 Jul 2009 08:14

Well Scott you know we share a friend. How could I dare comment.

Post by **ozstamps** » 17 Jul 2009 13:49

stampmann wrote:
I see this discussion as not so much an argument about whether some or all are fakes but more about how 77s come to exist today! This is what makes it all so interesting.

The trouble is for those who believe they have genuine 77s there could be a lot of money riding on it.

I do know of at least one expert who has doubts and some interesting arguments. I was hoping he would join the fun but an e-mail received yesterday says:

"Sorry but I don't want to enter into this. I don't fit in I like facts rather than conjecture."

Graham I truly doubt he is an "expert" in anything other than "playing it safe" and "ducking for cover", so that he does not look rather foolish when he is proven wrong, and his "expert" comments here to the contrary stand forever next to his name.

Old school tie conservatives the likes of him, do not want to be among the ones that need to tell Her Majesty The Queen, her million dollar stamp is not what she thinks it is. Heaven Forbid - his OBE might be in peril.

The mere fact that alleged 'philatelists' like that are staying quiet, proves beyond any doubt to me that they feel all these 3 stamps are numbered 77, and are un-tampered with - but just do not want to be too early in the conga line to say so.

Why the stamps show 77 is another argument entirely. All this thread is about is that they DO have that numbered engraved on them, and the PO sold them in that form in 1865.

A 'philatelist' is someone who studies stamps with an open and objective mind, and your client does not fit that definition it seems. Sad but true.

If he for one moment doubted they were genuine, he'd be here with bells on IMHO, arguing the case, but will of course look pretty foolish when his words stay here unedited and the thinking stamp world proves him wrong - as they will. So he stays silent.

As he allegedly deals in "facts" there are only 2 facts established so far. Does anyone disagree?

1. These 6 stamps all have the undoubted number 77 engraved on both sides.

2. A million dollars worth of equipment in 3 forensic labs operated by Professors and Senior Scientists, agrees those numbers are not tampered with in any day.

In a court of law such evidence would be incontrovertible proof - in the absence of any refutation by other detailed science - that the matter is closed, as being proven beyond reasonable doubt.

THEY are the FACTS. There is no 'conjecture' whatever about them, from anyone.

I do not believe one person on this 241 post thread has disputed these two FACTS above.

But for less nervous or timid "experts" in the UK .. please offer an opposing point of view if you have one.

Glen

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 17 Jul 2009 16:53

Well Scott you know we share a friend.

Grahame,

I was chatting with him earlier this week. He said he has multiple copies of the plate 73 SK stamp in particular.

This is good news - I've lost count the number of times a problem has been solved by being able to put 5 or 10 or more copies of the same stamp down and look at them all together.

Scott

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 17 Jul 2009 18:46

Some of this may be repeating Glen's last post so forgive me for that.

I note with interest 'Pertinax's' thinking about whether the item is now a possible fake and I also note the invitation to other members to comment on this.

It does appear that philatelists who have not handled the item and can not understand the reason behind its existence seem compelled to declare it a fake, despite the strong research behind it and the state-of-the-art forensics that has been used to investigate it. I suppose it is a natural reaction, but I do find it rather unjust.

Let me put it this way. If anyone knows how one can alter three LINE ENGRAVED stamps made from fragile paper where five '3's are changed to five '7's in a way that can not be detected by eyesight alone then PLEASE let us hear about it.

What we have here are stamps that have been looked at under 80x magnification and under scanning electron microscopy only to find that the fibres are untouched. How can anyone change numbers without affecting the paper fibres in the area to be altered??

Needless to say we need a pigment in order to create the '7's. Well I can say here that Raman microscopy and EXDRF has analysed the ink in both '7's and this was found to be the same. It is important to remember that the cancel falls over the '7's and the rate, date and markings are all correct.

So how could these stamps have been faked??????

Two expert bodies declared this item a fake on two different grounds, they could not even agree on that. One suggested a 'cut and paste' option and the other a painted option. Both have been discredited by the International forensic organisations that have investigated the item.

In this case magnifying glasses, UV lights and comparrators have been replaced by elemental studies, micro-analysis and electron microscopy, so please let us keep this in perspective.

Forensics today is the way by which Police, Government, Banks and other bodies determine fake and counterfeit, surely philatelists can also fall into this group. With this cover we are looking at counterfeit, and forensics without a doubt can be perfectly decisive.

Why can't philatelists and experts in this field spend their valuable energy trying to resolve this enigma rather than wonder about something that has been proven to be 'untampered' with.

Here are a few facts about plate 77.

Plate 77 was not put to press in 1864 but was defaced in 1863 over one year before the printing of this issue and so any stamps showing a plate number 77 must have come from the few trial sheets printed over a year before-hand and which should have been destroyed but were released a year later amongst the 12 billion copies printed!!! But not before some smart guy cut out the top rows!!!!!

OR from other re-engraved plates - as in my case plate 73.

In my view plate number 77 stamps were possibly(!) produced manually by engraving other plates, and later corrected by re-entry using the correct roller impression. The fact that work was carried out on this plate is endorsed by the fact that trace elements, which were not components of the printing ink, have been found on the right hand '7' area and most importantly in the scuffed area where the sixth figure '7' should have been and which is imperceptible to the naked eye. In my view very strong evidence indeed.

The fact also that the dashes, next to each right hand '7' are missing is strong evidence of plate alteration. The dashes which form a major part of the design on the right hand side are on the master die and appear on all the stamps from all the plates printed from it. The plate number was engraved on or next to them.

Their absence on ALL plate 77 stamps MUST be questioned by any serious philatelist. Pertinax talks about the albino roller impression. If these details were on the stamps and not the impression I would accept his argument, but detail ON the impression and Not on the printed stamp MUST be at least questioned by a pragmatist.

I have been a serious philatelist for over 40 years with a keen interest in British Commonwealth, and The Middle East, specialising in the stamps of Transjordan, a country I expertise and one on which I have written two award winning books.

Transjordan stamps abound with forgeries and fakes and so I am not a stranger to the subject of faking.

I am not in the habit of spending valuable time and precious funds on a matter that I felt was ever in doubt. I have every confidence that this item is genuine and I can not honestly see how anyone can prove otherwise.

I have been trying for years to prove that the stamps on the cover have been faked and failed. 40 years experience in serious philately have taught me not to be surprised when the unusual or the unexpected happens. Stamps I thought never existed have appeared, and in some cases 'on cover' and were genuine.

It is sad that some specialists in this area will only deal in 'FACT'. Had all philately been based on facts and documented evidence, we would then have little need for serious study or research and perhaps the words 'A new find or discovery' would not exist !!!!!

Finally I wish to add that much well thought out information is on my website and it does appear that very few have had a look. It does try and give some idea about this conundrum and some possible explanations.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 17 Jul 2009 23:18

but I do find it rather unjust.

Abed,

It's not unjust at all - it's exactly what should happen with such a potentially important item.

Only by everyone putting their tuppence worth in, will a clear picture come through. But please don't think this will be sorted within this year. It will take time, either way.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 17 Jul 2009 23:24

Glen,

Throughout this thread you have said everyone should keep an open mind, yes?

So comments like this:

Graham I truly doubt he is an "expert" in anything other than "playing it safe" and "ducking for cover", so that he does not look rather foolish when he is proven wrong, and his "expert" comments here to the contrary stand forever next to his name.

directed at someone who hasn't even posted here, are really not helpful.

I thought keeping an open mind should work both ways. Or do you mean only so long as it concurs with your opinion?

Scott

Post by **admin** » 18 Jul 2009 00:17

Scott this person - whomever he is, has clearly decided he has a closed mind, as he can't see any 'facts'.

His call.

If he had the backbone to post his thoughts - well and good, but not sure why you need to be his mouthpiece? You two can natter on the phone all you like, but just do not post on his behalf please.

We have no knowledge that he has any expertise at all on the matter -- he may even be one of complete dopes from "Committee One" who claim someone pasted bits of 6 other stamps over all the latter 7s on this cover.

If that is the case, philately is best served not to have any more of his 'wisdom' I'd guess.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 18 Jul 2009 00:40

Scott this person - whomever he is, has clearly decided he has a closed mind, as he can't see any 'facts'.

ROTFLMAO

Glen, you have not read one word from him, not one word!

Is it any wonder he doesn't want to join the discussion here?

Scott

Post by **admin** » 18 Jul 2009 00:53

pertinax wrote:
ROTFLMAO

Glen, you have not read one word from him, not one word!

So this friend of yours with the alleged great expertise now denies typing this it seems?:

"Sorry but I don't want to enter into this. I don't fit in - I like facts rather than conjecture."

If he does not remember what he says, perhaps he might be wrong on stamps too?

Let's move on .... this thread is not about shadowy people who are too scared to join up, and actually voice an opinion for themselves .. lets leave if for those who DO.

Thanks. Heresay is never helpful. Courts will not allow it, so let's use their wise guidance.

Glen

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 18 Jul 2009 01:12

So this friend of yours with the alleged great expertise now denies typing this it seems?:

"Sorry but I don't want to enter into this. I don't fit in - I like facts rather than conjecture."

This is the sort of logic that everyone here has to deal with from you Glen.

I forget about this quote (that is not directly from him, but stated to be so by someone else) and from this you now say that he denies it.

Gimme a break.

His opinion will come out where it should do - in the GB Journal.

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 18 Jul 2009 01:26

Looking at the last few posts I hope this discussion is not going to degenerate! Lets stay on subject. Abed has a cover which was rejected by the certificating bodies just as mine was 18 years ago.

Unlike me Abed has decided to attempt to prove them wrong.

He may succeed he may not but the point to remember is that the certificators (is there such a word?) are only giving an opinion (read the small print on any 'ticket'). Given that a certificate is only opinion it is not a statement of fact.

I think half the problem is that the philatelic world has come to believe that whatever the committee says is the word of God and it is unalterable. I wish that one or more of those that signed Abed's cert. (and mine) would perhaps explain their reasoning.

Ours is a small world and by now most must be aware of Abed's contention. Philatelically an explanation is owed. I wonder who were the signatories to Abed's cert (the expert Scott and I know was NOT one of them) and perhaps they are those who should be asked to join and contribute to this discussion.

I would love to hear the other side!

Post by **admin** » 18 Jul 2009 01:37

pertinax wrote:
So this friend of yours with the alleged great expertise now denies typing this it seems?:

"Sorry but I don't want to enter into this. I don't fit in - I like facts rather than conjecture."
This is the sort of logic that everyone here has to deal with from you Glen.

I forget about this quote (that is not directly from him, but stated to be so by someone else) and from this you now say that he denies it.

Scott your last post more correctly should be deleted as deliberately choosing NOT to get back on topic, as all members were asked to do, not less than an hour back.

However seeing you appear incapable of reading and/or comprehending - for the last time please go and see WHAT was said and by whom.

Either you are accusing stampmann of lying - or what he posted is true. I side with the latter, unless you have evidence (there's that word you 1d platers seen paranoid of using!) to the contrary.

As I suggested before - chat away with your mystery pal on the phone until your tongue drops off - none of us could care less, but do NOT post here on his behalf - get it? If he wants a press agent he needs to move to Los Angeles.

stampmann IS a member and I believe what he posted is accurate -

stampmann wrote:
I do know of at least one expert who has doubts and some interesting arguments. I was hoping he would join the fun but an e-mail received yesterday says: "Sorry but I don't want to enter into this. I don't fit in - I like facts rather than conjecture."

Now ---- back to normal programming.

And a reminder to all Members going forward - the actual subject of discussion here is -

"GB 1864 1d red - the rare plate 77 - newly discovered cover?"

Glen

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 18 Jul 2009 20:40

Sorry Admin if just for a moment I go off subject.

We in England will probably not have time to post much over the next 24/48 hours as we shall be glued to one of the greatest test matches of all time.

Australia will have to follow on at Lords wow!!!!

Then defeat ........ the first since 1934 yippee