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

[pertinax]

Can you be absolutely certain of that

Yes.

Have you actually read the initial posts?

Abed even says as much in the first part of his article.

Scott it does not really matter one jot.

I was responding to traralgon's post that attempts to make the fact that the three stamps on cover are badly centred out to be additonal proof they are genuine 77s. For the reasons already stated, the bad centring of these stamps means nothing.

The other thing is that it does indeed 'matter one jot'. Even if it's accepted that Abed's stamps are genuine as issued with 77 on them, they still will not be stamps printed from plate 77.

If this cannot be appreciated, I suggest readers go back and read the original article and later posts. Particularly the parts about why they were categorically proven to be printed from plate 73 (regardless of the 77s on them), and the reasons why it can be categorically proven that the mint example of plate 77 in the British Library was not printed from plate 73.

Scott

[admin]

Scott it does not really matter one jot.

If the stamps have "77" engraved on them on both sides - as these all do - and were sold like that by the PO - they are collectible - and Certifiable as "Plate 77" unless they are faked or doctored.

Several of the other recorded and Certified "Plate 77's" may well be identical to these ... we will never know, as the whereabouts of them are not all known today.

Scott the above common sense logic must surely stand.

Otherwise are you suggesting SG in future now has two listings: -

Genuine Plate 77 stamps that look rather like the one in the British Library.

Genuine Plate 77 stamps that do not look exactly like the one in the British Library

That would be a nonsense!

In philately we must all have open - but disicplined minds.

The plate 77 stamp has been known to be rare for 140 years.

Countless millions of examples have been squinted at worldwide over those 140 years, in the hope of finding one ..... and with a catalogue value of £160,000 used ... no wonder.

(Indeed SG has ceased listing a price in both 2009 'Part 1' and 2009 'Concise' this year - WHY?)

So bottom line - millions of copies being carefully examined by sharp eyes over a century, have yielded less than 10 copies with undoubted "77" numbers that are not tampered with.

Three more is just a fortunate find. Even more so being on one cover.

No-one was going to be stupid enough to try and tamper/forge THREE copies already on a clearly genuine cover!.

This is a 6 figure item in Sterling if sold - no doubt whatever about it in my mind.

[admin]

As we can see, one of the known used copies was found in 1944 after examining a MILLION 1d red "plates".

Of the 5 allegedly existing used copies, the whereabouts of them all is obviously not know today, so no comparisons can be made against them.

This just supports my point that however these 3 stamps on cover got to bear Plate 77, is another discussion altogether.

Whether a cliché substitution or similar occurrence, at the very end of the life of plate 73 or wahtever occurred, is not material to the fact these do exist, and are clearly genuine IMHO.

They DO all bear undoubted plate 77's numbering -- all 3 of them, and clearly were issued in that form by the PO, and were licked on a letter in 1865.

There are many independent forensic reports I posted above that the stamps and plate numbers and paper are not tampered with.

For 145 years only a few others have been found, so it is not a case that the market will now be flooded with them - as millions of keen eyes have been scouring 1d reds for near a century and a half.

Glen

[OttawaMike]

I'll risk jumping into this one - just for fun!

I think Pertinax is spot on with his logic here. What is on the stamp doesn't really matter. If the stamp was not printed from Plate 77, then it is not a Plate 77 stamp. The problem becomes one of distinguishing between the two, and that is beyond my ability. However, assuming that there is an objective way to separate them, then absolutely, there should and will be two separate listings in standard references. The new discovery may, in fact, be rarer.

[admin]

And finally, 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.

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

My dealer friend, the late Simon Dunkerley in 1989 found a 1913 ½d green Kangaroo with sideways watermark while sorting some used Roos for stock.

This stamp had never been recorded before with a sideways watermark, despite being very common, and issued 76 years earlier.

He sent it to the Royal in Victoria for a Certificate. Their "Expert Committee" charged him money in 1989 to declare it was "treated and faked".

Now anyone in stamps with half a brain - indeed with 10% of a brain, should know a SIDEWAYS watermark on a rectangular perforated stamp can't be 'faked' and pass muster even visually, much less in fluid or via UV, or via more extensive checking.

BUT, one leading and well known Roo collector, well entrenched at RPSV, apparently decided as he did not own one, and he had never heard of one, clearly meant this one must be a "fake".

Simon afterwards showed it to fellow dealer, Rod Perry, who of course saw it was kosher in his view, and bought it off him for far less than it would be worth with an "is genuine" Certificate. For a VERY modest sum of money - less than $1,000 as I recall.

I discussed it with Simon at the time and he was crest-fallen his discovery had been so roundly de-bunked, as "treated and faked".

Rod had the brains to mail it to the BPA in London later in 1989, who of course were not prejudiced, as certain members of the RPSV Expert Committee back then apparently were ("IIIII have never seen it before and IIIIIII do not own one therefore it MUST be forged") and gave it the only Certificate possible - sideways watermark - is genuine.

When this was publicised by me in "Stamp News" and overseas magazines at the time, at least two other copies were found in very short order. Both with the sideways watermark pointing the other way, therefore at LEAST 2 sheets of 480 were sold. One of those was also sold at Gray.

Simon's 'discovery copy' was sold at the Arthur Gray auction in New York in 2007 for $A56,250. I was at the sale and the buyer was NYC dealer Robert Seigel, acting on behalf of a client, so the client would clearly have paid way over $A60,000 for it.

Quite a step up from the few $100 Simon sold it for, based on that absurdly wrong RPSV "Expert Certificate". At the time, Simon sent me photocopies of the both the Certificates from which these scans above are taken, and apologies for the blurry quality, but it was 20 years back!

Glen

[pertinax]

Otherwise are you suggesting SG in future now has two listings: -

Genuine Plate 77 stamps that look rather like the one in the British Library.

Genuine Plate 77 stamps that do not look exactly like the one in the British Library

That would be a nonsense!

More correctly:

1. Stamps printed from plate 77;

2. Stamps with 77 on them, but printed from other plates.

And I disagree it would be a nonsense - it would be an accurate description of the status quo.

There is no doubt that if the three stamps are accepted as - for want a better description - 'genuine as issued', they would not be stamps that are currently listed by SG (or anyone else) as plate 77s.

They would be in an entirely different and new class - they would be stamps printed from some sort of hybrid plate, where some of the units show the number 77 and the rest a different number.

The possibility has been raised by Abed in his article, that all currently known plate 77s may have come from the same hybrid plate as those on his cover. The answer is no - it would have had to be more than one plate involved as the British Library stamp is not from plate 73.

As I have said a couple of times in earlier posts some months ago, as a starting point it needs to be established whether the British Library stamp is printed from one of the other plates. Has this been done Abed?

Scott

PS Glen, your lengthy post about the sideways wmk roo adds nothing to this topic. There is a huge difference between the cert issued by RPSV, and those issued for the three 77s on cover. The difference is that BPA and RPSL both have incontrovertible proof that the three stamps were printed from plate 73!!

[admin]

There is no doubt that if the three stamps are accepted as - for want a better description - 'genuine as issued', they would not be stamps that are currently listed by SG (or anyone else) as plate 77s.

Interesting.

Scott - so you have studied the nine other known examples listed below, and all their respective Certificates, and can assure us that "or anyone else" - i.e. all the past expertising bodies are totally in agreeance with your interesting statement?

Unless the answer to that is "YES" it is all total guesswork on your part - and inaccurate guesswork for certain, I'd say.

How do you KNOW what all the other record copies look like, and what their respective Certificates say - unless you have studied them all? WHAT if several of them match Abed's copies? Are their respective Certificates suddenly "wrong" - simply as you say they are?

Did the 1994 Harmers auctioned copy quote the then current SG current price for plate 77 in their auction write up? Did it sell for a price in line with it? Or indeed did Harmers say "This stamp has a clear Cert, but we are not quite sure if this is a "real" Plate 77 printed from Plate 77, or a "Plate 77" printed from some other plate yet to be determined by others." You collected early GB then .. I am sure you watched them like a hawk.

What if Abed's cover got a clear Certificate saying "Bears 3 copies of GB 1d red - plate 77" - are you saying they are somehow NOT the "plate 77's" listed in world catalogues, and that the entire stamp world will agree with your view - but have likely accepted similar copies for decades as being OK - and even had them exhibited at the highest level?

Blind guesswork and wild blanket statements, unsupported by any supporting evidence whatever, will never be in the forefront of applauded philatelic research. Indeed that's how that absurdly comical RPSV "Certificate" came about on the Roo.

Seeing 3 stamps on cover all with a clear "77" plate number is not guesswork - and supported by scientific lab analysis none that are tampered with, is a visual and proveable FACT!

[Greg Ioannou]

PS Glen, your lengthy post about the sideways wmk roo adds nothing to this topic. There is a huge difference between the cert issued by RPSV, and those issued for the three 77s on cover. The difference is that BPA and RPSL both have incontrovertible proof that the three stamps were printed from plate 73!!

So, the three plate 77s on cover show characteristics of plate 73, though they say 77. Does that necessarily mean that they are from plate 73?

I don't know anything about the production method of these stamps. But I do know that one of the intellectual challenges of collecting Aussie roos and KGV heads is spotting substituted cliches -- images that were transferred from an early plate to a later one to correct a problem with the later plate.

Could something similar have been done here? An image of the plate 73 stamps, from before the plate numbers were added, used to repair plate 77? (We already know that plate 77 had major problems, right? So a complex repair attempt doesn't seem that unlikely.)

Greg

[sherro]

There's only two questions here, how and why?

If we assume, which seems apparent, that the stamps were not printed from Plate 77, how does the (very) clear "77" appear on them? I support the suggestion of a substituted cliche, but that doesn't explain a multiple!

Which leads to "why?". If Plate 73 was a perfectly well-functioning Plate (very common £4 used), why did it become necessary to sub a cliche, in multiple positions, especially from such a rare, and unused plate?

This is a fascinating conundrum. Isn't it amazing that it can stir such passion, not necessarily about value, after so many years?

[admin]

Sherro - yes, as Greg Ioannou points out the KGV heads and Roos from Australia have several Substituted Cliches.

One 1d red plate allegedly had rat's graw at the surface (more likely plain old metallic RUST!) and the top 2 stamp metal impressions or cliches were badly damaged.

This is the only block in private hands showing it - from the "Stamp Find Of The Century" thread -
https://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=2996

These top 2 stamps are the "Rusted Cliches" - or the "Pre-Substituted cliches.

The printer simply cut them out and soldered in 2 different 1d cliches from another plate - which differed of course, and are identifiable hence the 2 x SUBSTITUTED cliché stamps which also exist (and are more common) and are sought after.

Unless someone has sighted the complete and undamaged GB Plate 77 printing plate, and can verify it exists with no units cut from it, I cannot imagine why such a substitution was not made on the GB stamps. Clearly more than 1 unit might have been so substituted.

ANYTHING might have damaged a few units of the "73" plate ... and swapping over a few units from an otherwise non usable "77" would not have bothered a printer, seeing these 1ds used ~150 different plate numbers, and to a printer it would not mean anything.

IF this occurred at the very end of its life, it would account for so few being found ..... the same story with the KGV "Rusty Cliches".

It seems Abed is saying all 10 of the known copies are probably like his! And possibly NONE of them indeed are from pertinax's alleged DIFFERENT "Plate 77". The mystery deepens.

[Greg Ioannou]

Plate 73 cliches could have been substituted into plate 77, or vice versa. I think it is more likely that plate 73 was used to repair plate 77 than vice versa -- I can see a scenario where the repairs were done to a heavily damaged plate 77, which was abandoned as unusable after only a few sheets were printed.

I think that makes sense of Abed's observation that the plate 77s sighted match the characteristics of plate 73. If a largish chunk of plate 73 was used to repair a badly damaged plate 77, then those positions would exactly match the plate 73 positions except for the plate number.

Greg

[Greg Ioannou]

Was the second part of Abed's article ever published? It isn't on that site. He promises to solve the mystery in part 2!

Greg

[Greg Ioannou]

Answering my own question! Here it is:

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

Most of it summarized the first article. Read from Raman Examination on page 9. And yes, he does offer an explanation that makes sense, on pages 12/13.

Greg

[pertinax]

Scott - so you have studied the nine other known examples listed below,

Glen, I have studied only the British Library example. I don't believe there is need to go further to the others at this stage because I can prove that stamp is not printed from plate 73.

As I have said many times - the three stamps on cover were printed on plate 73, not on plate 77.

The only way that the three stamps on cover can ever be in the same class as the currently known 77s, is if they are all proved to be from other plates. This is why I have said several times:

as a starting point it needs to be established whether the British Library stamp is printed from one of the other plates.

Please understand that if it is established that all the known 77s are from other plates then there will effectively be no plate 77s at all - they will all be second states of other plates!!.

pertinax wrote:

There is no doubt that if the three stamps are accepted as - for want a better description - 'genuine as issued', they would not be stamps that are currently listed by SG (or anyone else) as plate 77s.




Interesting.

Scott - so you have studied the nine other known examples listed below, and all their respective Certificates, and can assure us that "or anyone else" - i.e. all the past expertising bodies are totally in agreeance with your interesting statement?

Glen, don't take my word for it....let's go straight to the source. Why don't you go to SG and ask them if the stamps on this cover, if accepted as genuine as issued, are stamps listed as 'G1 plate 77' in their specialised catalogue. I would do so myself, but I already know the answer!


Scott

[Greg Ioannou]

Abed hints that some of the known copies are from plate 72.

Greg

[pertinax]

Thanks Greg.

Has anyone got a stamp from plate 72 lettered BA that they can post a scan of? At 800dpi please.

Thanks
Scott

[Abed H Najjar]

Dear Friends

Thank you for your valued views which form an excellent base for the further understanding of this enigma. I must say here that in my view all the exsiting plate 77 stamps may not have come from plate 77.

I believe that there is enough evidence to cast doubt on this fact. This information may not have been known when this stamp was entered in the catalogue by SG as everyone believed that plate 77 printed the exisiting plate 77 stamps.

I have put the evidence that I have found and which casts doubt on this fact on my website. You may wish to view this at some stage.

Abed H Najjar

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

[Greg Ioannou]

Abed, welcome to the discussion, and to Stampboards. I found your articles to be among the most thought-provoking philatelic research I've read in the past decade.

You've presented us with a most wonderful puzzle. In the second part of your paper, you present compelling evidence that the plate #73 was carefully changed, presumably by the authorities, to 77. You give a good description of how it was done, and that description meshes well with what I know of similar alterations and repairs to Australian stamps. (Do we have a coherent discussion of the 1½d void corner repairs anywhere?)

Have you learned anything about these since you published your papers?

Greg

[pertinax]

Glen, we've been at each other a bit on this topic, and I think that our positions are clear and that neither will change the others.

So let me make this my final comment, until such time as something new happens.

My only motivation in entering this discussion is simple: if these stamps are genuine, I want them to be understood for what they are, not for what they are not.

Some will have formed the position that they are stamps that should be classified with the current catalogue listings of "plate 77".

I am confident however that this position will ultimately not prevail, because it is palpably untrue.

Scott

[GlenStephens]

Scott I think we all need to have open minds, and polite active discussion is always good, and often solves a problem.

You asked me:

Why don't you go to SG and ask them if the stamps on this cover, if accepted as genuine as issued, are stamps listed as 'G1 plate 77' in their specialised catalogue. I would do so myself, but I already know the answer!

My response to that is, that you have chosen not to respond to before, is that clearly there ARE "77's" out there right now with Certs that all the stamp world - Gibbons included - would have no issue as being sold for huge sums as "G1 plate 77".

WHAT exactly do I "need to ask" SG?

Undoubtedly these are mostly identical to Abed's examples (as he states) and were printed on the same day most likely, and possibly even on the same sheet of 240 - that is not impossible to believe.

It is elementary. I do not see your point that this appears to you to be "palpably untrue".

If Abed gets a cert for these, they too will be so recognised. No matter what you impute SG tells you. Worldwide. Indeed Gibbons would likely BUY them off him for goodness sakes, for a client!

If Abed got a clear Cert for these I have no doubt WHATEVER that SG would list an on cover price for them - if in fact SG did that for 1d plates. But of course they do not, and their GB QV "Specialised" - is like all the SG "Specialised" volumes - a very average work compared to our ACSC and the superb footnotes therein.

My December 2006 14th edition might well be out of date, but for the info for others who may think there is a ton of useful info they offer in there on this stamp, as imputed in your post, they'd be wrong.

All Gibbons have to say re "77" in there is a common sense short warning, not to be caught by altered copies from plates 177 via added postmark ink etc on the "1", and their ONLY other comments about plate 77s and the other early rejected plates is that -

"no stamps exist, except for for a very few from plate 77 that somehow reached the public."

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

No note from SG that they cannot be sold or accepted as genuine "unless they match the British Library copy", and no notes that "if on cover they cannot be genuine" - as you seem to impute they have advised you is the case?

SG Editor Hugh Jefferies consults with me on stamp matters local, and I can BET if I asked him if he had even advised you re any such thing, I'd know in advance what his response would be.

All Gibbons otherwise say about "77" in my specialised is "£160,000" - indeed you or others have not addressed why SG do NOT price it today, in any catalogue?

I remain of the view that ANY 1d red with a recent recognised Cert stating "Plate 77 is genuine" will be equally regarded as being book valued at "£160,000", as are the other used copies out there, that Abed has documented. And why NOT?

On 3 on cover is "£160,000" x more than a 3 multiple - of course.

That is how the stamp business works, and has ALWAYS worked ..... get the Cert, and the stamp assumes the relevant catalogue value stated on the Cert.

Indeed speaking of Gibbons, their info in the current 2009 "Part 1" is slightly different re plate 77 to the Specialised, and is not totally correct it seems.

They have more info in there than they offer in the GB Specialised. And say, (in addition to the "177" warning) and I quote:

"Plate 77 was also rejected, but some stamps printed from it were used. One specimen is in the Tapling collection and six or seven others are known"

That wording implies the Tapling copy is used, but we know that it is mint. The wording should surely read "from it are recorded." We know from Abed's table that nine in total (not counting his 3) appear to be definitely recorded in the literature, not counting the lost copy from 1906.

[PennyBlack1840]

Hi all

Just came across this thread and thought I would make a couple of observations.

1) Plate 77 is acknowledged as very rare.

2) The Somerset House 'vetting' of six sheets is well known and where issue was agreed would ordinarily see one sheet retained for archives and the other 5 perforated and issued as part of the usual stamp distribution.

3) Generally acknowledged that some examples of plate 77 were distributed, whether officially or unoffically difficult to say ( aconspiracy theorists nightmare I would suggest).

4) Plate 177 misreads are common, but it is well known that the postioning of the foot of the '7's in a 177 relative to the concentric circles below them is quite different to a '77'. Reference to and extensive study of the proof sheet in the NPM archives has established that.

5) Based on the forgoing facts, it is fair to believe that perhaps one maybe two sheets of plate 77 'may' have got into circulation - sheets that probably should have been destroyed - bear in mind the GB 'abnormals' exist for similar reasons.

6) To have a 'genuine' plate 77 printed stamp issued would mean the sheet would have to be issued to a Post Office or two for distribution and sale. It is highly unlikely IMHO that this official distribution could involve more than say 3 offices? Even that would imply that the Post Office would issue 1/3 of a sheet to an office whereas in practice for accounting (a sheet with 240 stamps was of course face value £1) it would make abundant sense to only issue single sheets.

7) If this is logical, then given the dearth of examples apparent (see on), then the three alleged examples were issued in Guernsey? A small place and this is 1864 with nothing like the freedom of movement for the general population we have today. Failing that someone purchased the stamps on the UK mainland and never used them until they reached Guernsey?

8) The Guernsey duplex is reasonably well known and as a longstanding member of the Channel islands Specialists Society (CISS) I know the post office records for the area have been extensively researche din the past. I am not aware that anyone has mentioned a distribution (incoming) of plate 77 stamps.

9) For other rarities (GB and elsewhere) it is usually known if a single Post Office was responsible for where rarities occur (e.g. Prussian Blue 1935 Jubilee).

10) Forgeries of covers / postmarks / stamps of all periods are known some better than others. At £160,000+ per stamp, a reasonable sum expended on albeit 'good' copies might well achive a very positive financial result? I am sure we have all seen good examples of items which appear to be correct even under close scrutiny which later prove to be wrong.

11) The postage amount on this part wrapper would not appear to be correct for the period and destination involved.

12) SG have removed the catalogue price - I am not surprised, given no recent 'sale' price anything would be a guess.

By way of an anecdote, some 12 years ago I was Chairman of a local philatelic society in East Sussex (UK) and we had a visit from another sopciety. One of the displays from an elderly gentleman was entitled 'worth looking out for'.

It had various odd dies, perfs and plates etc. from around the Commonwealth, including halfway through a plate 77 Penny Red, which he evidently discovered having trawled through tens of thousands of penny Plates and that he had found this one many many eyars ago after 230+ years of searching..

I have no way of knowing whether his stamp was genuine (it had no cert), but it was most surely NOT a mistaken 177, both numbers were clear as I recall - it was 12 years ago. Upon closing his display the gentleman remarked that he hoped we enjoyed the display and then as an almost overlooked quip said - 'Oh yes' I forgot to emntion that I found this only last year and put up a further example of plate 77. Yes that would make two in the same room.

Admittedly I had nothing like the philatelic knowledge I have today, but it was clear these stamps had been displayed many times with presumably no obvious rebuff to their status.

In closing I would keep an open mind on these, after all there are so few apparently in existence, but if they are genuine, then given the perforations, there is no way they match the other example from the British Library in terms of coming from the same sheet (see above re process for acceptance / issue).

Very interesting thread.

[PeterS]

Pennyblack1840, I have no expertise on GB, nor it's distribution practices in the 19th century.

However, following your hypothethis that a sheet ( or 2) of Plate 77 got into circulation inadvertently, why is it surprising it ended up where it did?

It would, surely, be purely a matter of chance which post office got the sheet. It would depend purely on the next batch of stamps to be sent when the Plate 77 'turned up'.

In any event, the hypothesis given easrlier implies that these Plate 77 stamps are really substituted cliche's from another sheet. Or have I misunderstood the research?

[PennyBlack1840]

Peter

My point is that Guernsey is an isolated place theerfore we would expect all other known used examples from the same sheet to be used in the same place, if they were distributed there or in all likelihood be postmarked there.

In the 1860's population movement was minimal and none of the other 'used' examples of plate 77 have been used in Guernsey to my knowledge.

Peter

[gavin-h]

...none of the other 'used' examples of plate 77 have been used in Guernsey to my knowledge.

Peter,

It would be interesting to plot on a map where the known examples were used - and to try and examine/extrapolate that pattern

[admin]

Will not occur.

Good luck even FINDING the wherabouts of most of the "genuine" used copies, much less an image.

If it was cancelled at Harpenden or Herne Bay or Truro, or anywhere else on the mailnland, no-one would bother to raise it as "unusual".

Guernsey had a far larger population than a ton of other places that had a PO.

Indeed at ~30,000 in 1865 it had a far great population than most places with a datestamp in the UK.

https://www.islandlife.org/population_gsy.htm

[PennyBlack1840]

Absolutely will not occur, but I have a feeling that none of the known examples will be used there.

[Greg Ioannou]

The Fletcher copy, which is illustrated in Abed's first article, has a London #1 in diamond numeral cancel. It is centred very high, unlike the three on cover which are centred very low. Clearly not from the same sheet, whatever they all are.

Abed's articles answer a lot of the issues that have been raised in this discussion -- and raise other issues. I really suggest people who have not read them carefully do so.

Greg

[admin]

I have no idea what the CANCEL has to do with anything to be honest?

I mailed some banking and paid bills from Magnetic Island in far North Queensland last week as an example. (A client is the postmaster there actually!)

The fact that mail from Glen Stephens is cancelled Magnetic Island does not mean I bought the stamps there .... I simply took up a booklet with me.

Last time I heard regular ferry services ran to Guernsey in the 1860s and who is to say the same thing might not have occurred .. perhaps a tourist on vacation - hence the letter to Europe.

It really does not matter unless something can CATEGORICALLY show only 1 sheet was ever resealed and the common view seems to be FOUR sheets were test printed from each plate and may have worked their way into standard sheet stock.

[flip138]

Just an observation:

If the positioning of the individual impressions in the made-up plate was very inaccurate, then stamps centred high and low could have both come from the same sheet.

Phil

[gavin-h]

Just an observation:

If the positioning of the individual impressions in the made-up plate was very inaccurate, then stamps centred high and low could have both come from the same sheet.

Phil

An example showing clearly how differences in centring can occur on a single sheet:

It's not difficult to imagine a similar thing happening on Plate 77

[Greg Ioannou]

Just an observation:

If the positioning of the individual impressions in the made-up plate was very inaccurate, then stamps centred high and low could have both come from the same sheet.

Phil

well yes, but you wouldn't see that sort of difference from row P to row R on the same sheet of penny reds. They were never THAT bad! And you can see that there's no significant difference from row R to row S.

Greg

[ozstamps]

Just an observation:

If the positioning of the individual impressions in the made-up plate was very inaccurate, then stamps centred high and low could have both come from the same sheet.

Phil

That seems to what the evidence points to from Abed?

[Greg Ioannou]

But the used stamps we're talking about are from consecutive rows. The spacing just can't shift that much from one stamp to the adjacent stamps. Nor does Abed claim that they do. The used stamps have to be from at least two sheets.

[dporter-stamps]

Hi,

I have been reading this with interest, maybe these scans will help throw a bit of light on the movement of perfs along the stamps.

This is a scan of one of my blocks, it shows the difference in the perfs across the sheet, there is no reinforcement or splitting, so should be accurate.

The 2nd scan shows 4 stamps from the bottom left of the block (the vertical perfs are pretty much centered).

The 3nd scan shows 4 stamps from the bottom right of the block (the vertical perfs are 'pushed' well to the left).

There does not seen to be any difference to the horizintal perfs, though there is only 4 rows of stamps compared to 12 colums.

[PeterS]

A similar shift occurs on many Australian earlies. Even George V stamps are prone to this sort of perf shifting, as the following 2 blocks show.

The sheets these stamps came from were probably quite well centred at first but the strike of the comb perforator slowly got 'out of alignment' as it progressed down the sheet.

[ozstamps]

Someone suggested to me today all 6 Plate numbers could be faked.

Total nonsense IMHO. Detailed forensic reports from several labs show there is no tampering with the numbers or paper or ink.

First why 'create' THREE copies when a "local" UK cover only needed you to bother faking 1 stamp and far less chance of getting caught or messing up.

Second the corner stamp is badly scuffed and top one is creased .. why do that if gain was the motive?

Third these are all horribly centred .. something a forger for gain would avoid like the plague.

I remain convinced all 3 stamps bear plate "77" on both sides, and have all borne that plate number since 1865.

[BACK O BOURKE]

Below is the plate numbering system and the position of the three stamps in question.

Great thread.

[Greg Ioannou]

Interesting, Bourke

Here are the known copies and how they are centred:

Position Horizontal Vertical
Unused stamps
AB left centred (scissor cut)
AC unknown (scissor cut)
BA left centred (scissor cut)
Used stamps
LL unknown
MI unknown
NC unknown
PH right high
PI right high
(RK) right low (you can see a portion of this on the cover)
RL right low
SK right low
SL right low

Interesting, when you place them on Bourke's grid, that the used ones are all from the lower portion of the sheet. And I really can't see how PI, which is centred very high, and the nearby RK, which is centred very low, can be from the same sheet.

Greg

[ozstamps]

I am going to cover this as a multi page article in my next "Stamp News" column -- and the "Philatelic Exporter" in the UK most likely too.

I have no doubt whatever all 3 stamps show plate "77" and have never been tampered with, as multiple forensic labs confirm the latter.

It seems more and more likely a small cliché from plate 73 was substituted/soldered into another plate VERY late into its life due to damage in the SE corner, and the check letters hand re-engraved in error as "77" which we are told is a simple process - the re-engraving that is.

I'd even be pretty certain that the row below it bore the same "77" numbers. Indeed it would not surprise me that at least 25 units were involved - from PH to the lower corner. If this repair was done late in the life of the printing from that "plate" the few used survivors would not surprise.

It seems clear to me the scissor cut 3 mint copies were snipped off the top left corner TRUE plate 77 test sheet by some official, and later leaked onto the market. The corner check letters indicate a block of 6 was so snipped, and they are the only "Mint" examples.

Does anyone know WHEN the stamp world had the first reports of a "Plate 77" being discovered ?

'Stamp News' right now look like they will run the cover on their front cover .. I saved all readers from Michael Jackson which was their best option until my suggestion.

Abed owes me a First Class Qantas ticket to London to buy me dinner if this cover ever gets a gong, as I am sure it will, after a large dose of mainstream stamp media!

Glen

[ozstamps]

Using BACK O' BOURKE's very useful grid we get this larger picture.

Which I think supports my theory that the MINT copies are almost certainly from one block (of 6?) that was 'souveniered' by someone and cut apart with scissors and given away to collectors or sold. (The Royal Collection copy is of course from this block.)

These mint copies were VERY likely from the "real" perforated test sheet of plate '77' that was rejected.

Maybe Barry or someone else with good graphic skills can replicate this grid in a high rez image I can use in the article?

A little presumptuous to call "RK" as plate 77 of course, as we have not seen it, but my strong feeling is that is what it will show (if even found!) being part of the block the trio on cover were from.

Other than the "NC" being so far away, a substitution of the SE corner looks very likely.

Can someone find the 1994 Harmers sale cat and advise what cert - if any - the "NC" had, and show us an image?

[pertinax]

It seems more and more likely a small cliché from plate 73 was substituted/soldered into another plate VERY late into its life due to damage in the SE corner,

The other way around. The transfer roller ('cliche') for plate 77 was used to re-enter a few units on plate 73.


Scott

[ozstamps]

Scott I do not think so?

Unless we are certain 77 had the identical check letter positions and peculiarities to 73 - which we do not.

Unless that were true, taking any cliché units from 77 would surely offer the 77 corner letter vagaries?

Abed has shown hand changing 73 to 77 on the plate via engraver tool was a fairly minor thing.

HOWEVER making a new plate took 10 working days or 2 weeks, to rock in 240 impressions of the transfer roller onto a half inch thick flat piece of polished steel. The corner check letters were a simple thing, punched in afterwards by hand.

Far simpler, quicker and cheaper to cut out a portion of any otherwise perfect but unissued plate and substitute it, surely?

[ozstamps]

It's a fascinating article that should be read by everyone.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

My take on the article is that the 77 is a re-engraved 73, so these were not printed from plate 77 if any stamps were ever actually printed from plate 77

I think sherro got it pretty close to right VERY early on.

[admin]

BACK O' BOURKE very helpfully made us a coloured wall chart of the known corner letters.

As plate 77 (and several others) was only "partly defaced" I wonder if that is where the otherwsie unwanted cliches might hav arisen?

If the top part was defaced for instance, and the mint copies came from a test sheet, it may be plausible?

[pertinax]

Glen,

The stamp lettered SK has a constant variety in the form of a mark at the base of the upper right square.

This mark is constant and unique to the plate marked with the number 73 in all four corners. The mark cannot be transferred to another plate - it belongs to plate 73, fullstop. It is caused by a small nick in the actual piece of steel that is plate 73.

This is why I've been saying all along that it is absolutely proven that regardless of what numbers are on them these three stamps were printed from plate 73.

Scott

[admin]

Scott as I've said clearly enough the corner check letters show these 3 stamp on cover match plate 73 stamps EXACTLY. No one is doubting that here.

Abed shows the blow up photos to prove it in fact -

https://www.stampboards.com/images/philatelics/~allan/shrop/Articles/pg70.html

Hence the obvious theory that a cliché of plate 73s from that steel plate .. (along with your little mark!) were re-engraved by printer with "77" plates on the side spandrels and otherwise untouched.

Why?

Well that is clearly the question. But there is no doubt it occured. On all 3 stamps on the cover.

No one with a brain is going to assert this reads '73'.

And if the number reads "77" and that has not been forged or faked, it is ipso facto a genuine example showing Plate number "77" - regardless of why it was put there by the PO.

[pertinax]

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

[Greg Ioannou]

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

No, we don't know how many of the stamp in the plate were renumbered from 73 to 77, and we don't know if the corner numerals were changed.

Greg

[admin]

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 very clearly bearing the number 77 being totally collecible as showing "Plate Number 77"

Abed shows the the mint copy in the Royal Colelction and the Tapling copy are likely from the same source as his on cover trio.

Neither has the plate number in the same position which they should have if all impressions from the existing transfer roller we used to make the plate with these characteristics.

A leading GB dealer in these stamps told me today he feels it quite likely NONE of the accepted "77" copies, from the Queen's copy down, were printed from the later defaced "77" plate.

So you feel SG should de-list that stamp based on this fine first hand observation research??

http://philatelics.org/~allan/shrop/Articles/pg75.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[pertinax]

No, we don't know how many of the stamp in the plate were renumbered from 73 to 77.

True, but we do know it wasn't all 240 because firstly plate 73 is a heavily studied plate and it is known that most units were not ever altered at any time during the life of this plate. Also, a complete alteration of the plate would have given rise to the necessity to record such in the Perkins Bacon engraving book, but it isn't there!

and we don't know if the corner numerals were changed.

Yes we do, because this was never done - at least not after the plate had been to press.

Scott