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

Post by **GlenStephens** » 18 Jul 2009 20:52

Gloat all you like in the special thread we have below on JUST that topic .. this one is for PLATE 77!

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=13095&start=50

HOWEVER - clearly Rudi got paid off to make terrible decisions by the UK bookies .. giving Ponting caught behind when he did not even hit the ball .... assume that will NOT occur this innings and then see what the odds change to.

Take the odds on the ozzies now and you might not need to sell 1d Plates.

RolyRJ · Post by **RolyRJ** » 19 Jul 2009 11:07

Back to subject

Right up front, I know nothing at all about 1d Reds.

But........... I do have degrees in Math and Statistics.
What intrigues me is, if the Plate 77 stamp is so rare, what are the odds of three of them turning up on the one cover?? Along with all the other evidence (forensic and otherwise) surely this must be considered as well?

I have two NZ Penny Universals that have been turned down by the powers that be simply because "they have never seen examples like these before therefore they must not be genuine" even though the possibility of them being genuine does exist. (still that is an argument for another thread sometime).

Why throw that last paragraph in? Simply because if three of these (turned down) Universals turned up on cover I would immediately think "what are the odds of that occuring".

Worth the thought????

Cheers

Roly

GUTTERS · Post by **GUTTERS** » 19 Jul 2009 11:14

But does three on a cover make it less genuine than one on a cover

Diver Pete · Post by **Diver Pete** » 19 Jul 2009 11:19

I, like RolyRJ, also know nothing at all about 1d Reds.

I unfortunately do not hold a degree in math and statistics but have done enough in my engineering degree to get by..

What intrigues me is, if the Plate 77 stamp is so rare, what are the odds of three of them turning up on the one cover?? Along with all the other evidence (forensic and otherwise) surely this must be considered as well?

I would have thought that they have turned up on one cover lends credence to their authenticity as it shows that all the stamps were "procured" at the same time.

I would be more suspicious if the three stamps were of different plates on the cover...

Food for thought....

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 19 Jul 2009 11:21

I presume the committees will have to give in and accept that the stamps are from the re-entered Plate 73 but what happens then.

Will they get Part 1 listing, presumably NO, will they get specialised Victoria listing, presumably YES with a note of what they are, Plate 73's re-entered.

Will they get catalogue value noted, presumably NO.

Will they realise a high price if sold a Auction, YES but no where near what real 77's get, possibly only a few 1000 instead of a few 1,000,000 is they were 77's.

David B.

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 19 Jul 2009 11:34

But they're adjacent stamps from the same sheet, Roly. You'd expect them to have the same plate number.

What would be far more exciting would be a plate #73 joined to a plate #77. If this conversation is edging anywhere near the truth, such things once existed and might yet be found.

Greg

iomoon · Post by **iomoon** » 19 Jul 2009 11:38

Roly as others have stated, the fact that they are all three with different letter positions makes it mathematically more feasible.

All positions are from the southeast part of the sheet, with two adjoining and one separated stamp.

I find it not inconceivable that someone could have bought a block of nine or ten stamps from the extreme southeast bottom of the sheet (because it was easier for the postmaster to remove them from the bottom corner of the sheet). TK, TL and PK could have been used on one posting and SK, SL and PL on this one.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 19 Jul 2009 12:49

I presume the committees will have to give in and accept that the stamps are from the re-entered Plate 73

I don't think this is going to happen.

I'm starting to think more and more that my theory is wrong.

Scott

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 19 Jul 2009 12:55

But........... I do have degrees in Math and Statistics.
What intrigues me is, if the Plate 77 stamp is so rare, what are the odds of three of them turning up on the one cover??

Roly,

Surely the fact that two are still joined and the third stamp clearly was originally also, makes the odds of them being on this cover exactly the same as one stamp being on a cover - in effect they are statistically one unit, no?

Scott

Post by **admin** » 19 Jul 2009 13:50

David Benson wrote:
Will they get Part 1 listing, presumably NO, will they get specialised Victoria listing, presumably YES with a note of what they are, Plate 73's re-entered.

David unless you can show me otherwise, the 3 on cover have the EXACT same status, as the copies in the Royal and Tapling collections.

There is not a shred of evidence that any of them came from a sheet of 240 stamps all showing Plate 77. Agree?

They are ALL genuine 1d reds untampered with, with the numbers 77 on both sides. The ones on cover, and the Queen's copy etc are no different unless you or others can prove to me they are.

Either SG deletes the lot or these 3 hold the exact same status.

As I posted earlier, you cannot seriously be suggesting SG has 2 listings:

"Stamps showing the number 77 at sides found after 2005"

"Stamps showing the number 77 at sides found before 2005"

Bit like being half pregnant.

The mere fact around a BILLION 1d reds have been squinted at for 150 years by collectors as they are worth huge money if a "77" is found - yet only 13 have been recorded, clearly indicates they are very rare, however they occurred.

We may find 1 or 2 more copies are discovered in the next 50 years - as would have occurred before Abed's cover was discovered.

It still makes them all VERY rare. All of them ... not just some of them.

When you are a seller of a similar cover for "1,000s" please contact me ASAP.

Meanwhile I retain the view the cover is certainly a ~$500,000 piece. History shows such a figure is more logical.

We all know committees are often wrong. And they most clearly are, in this instance.

Does not alter the fact the 3 stamps on this cover have '77' on each sde and are un-altered.

Glen

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 19 Jul 2009 13:59

pertinax wrote:I'm starting to think more and more that my theory is wrong.

Yeah, we're not there yet. Too many pieces of the puzzle still don't fit together.

Has the story behind those three mint ones from the top corner ever been told? I'd love to know how and when they were found, and who separated them. And how big the original unit was before someone divided it up. I feel like there must be a clue in that bit of history.

Greg

RolyRJ · Post by **RolyRJ** » 19 Jul 2009 14:37

I probably did not explain myself clearly enough ..... sigh it happens often

If these three are indeed from the same "block" then statistically they can be treated as one unit and so end up on one cover as shown.

Way back several posts ago someone (Scott?) suggested that someone may have made a mistake and re-entered several spots with a "77" die.

It got me thinking, what were the chances that these three stamps were such victims and then ended up together on this cover? The impression (no pun intended) I got was that the re-entering was on a fairly random basis but then again a whole south east section could have been worked over I guess.

Hey, they are just random thoughts thrown into the mix that may triger something a little more solid by those that know this stamp far better than I do (which is nil)

Cheers

Roly

Kaygeevee · Post by **Kaygeevee** » 19 Jul 2009 15:16

I also know very little about the QV 1d Reds,

As I read the post we think these 3 stamps are from plate 73 because of the position of the check letters, OK so far.

Next these stamps (and maybe others) were re-entered with the plate 77 die, How would you do this?

1: Burnish of the original impressions from the plate (and the check letters?) re-enter the plate with the 77 die and then stamp in the new check letters?. One would think that the check letters would now be in a different position. (You could leave the check letters on the plate and then re-enter but the re-entry would have to be in Exactly the same position.

or

2: Re-enter the stamps on the plate (without burnishing off the old stamps) with the plate 77 die, this way the check letters would be in the same position, this would have had to be done by a master craftsman as he could not afford to be a fraction of a mm. out or you would see some duplication of the stamp, which we do not see on the stamps in question.

Or the 73 was retouched by hand to 77, if this was the case I would expect to see a greater difference between the re-touched 7's.

Others may have a different solution as to how the re-enters were done.

Best regards David

sherro · Post by **sherro** » 19 Jul 2009 15:27

This really is a superb thread, which has focused a lot of brains. Unfortunately, I can't see a resolution!

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 19 Jul 2009 19:43

RolyRJ wrote:Back to subject

Right up front, I know nothing at all about 1d Reds.

But........... I do have degrees in Math and Statistics.
What intrigues me is, if the Plate 77 stamp is so rare, what are the odds of three of them turning up on the one cover??

I am no statistician but for GB Queen Victoria stamps the following rule has been used in the past: Of each stamp issued 2% have survived - 98% of which are used and 2% mint. On that basis no mint 77s should exist but they do.

Abed's cover is possibly not the only one. Look back in this thread and you will see a scan of one I had 18 years ago which was condemned by both the RPS and BPA.. I am sure that many others on and off cover have been condemned too!

Most of these are fakes but how many like mine were "Abed" stamps. Stamps from plate 77 should not exist as Perkins Bacon record that no sheets were printed. However they do, and there may be more than we realise.

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 19 Jul 2009 20:33

Glen,

the value is completely hypothetical as it needs to be recognised by one of committees before it should be sold.

I believe that it will be catalogued by Gibbons in their QV Specialised catalogue as a " Claytons " Plate 77 and of course some of the recognised 77's will be relegated to the inferior listing and maybe the Queen will not be amused as it will mean a large drop in it's value,

David B.

Post by **admin** » 19 Jul 2009 20:45

David Benson wrote:
Glen,

The value is completely hypothetical as it needs to be recognised by one of committees before it should be sold.

David with the greatest of respect, history shows you are greatly mistaken.

I have no doubt this cover is a ~$500,000 piece, as we speak, sold the right way. That is around a £200,000 hammer price. There are no others on cover recorded (except possibly stampmann's long sold one!) and THREE copies on cover is a centrepiece GEM to a serious collector with an open mind.

Good GB covers get huge sums. This cover got WAY over $A500,000 - https://www.stampboards.com/images/stampauctionnetwork/F/93/45.jpg - and has 5 relatively common stamps on it - indeed many 100s if not 1000s of covers exist with this stamp on it.

This one got near a million - https://www.stampboards.com/images/stampauctionnetwork/F/93/53.jpg - again 10,000s of these stamps are on cover and are not highly cat stamps.

There is no other cover bearing 3 x undoubted Plate 77s - which were last listed by SG as £90,000 each off cover. So if my figure is "hypothetical" - it is conservatively hypothetical.

Things with no certificate of any kind - indeed openly branded by entire gaggles of 'experts' as fake have sold for multi million dollar figures.

As a VERY relevant example, I have written in the past detailed research articles on the Sweden 1857 'Tre Skilling Yellow Banco' - one is here - https://www.chohthu.notlong.com

Again highly controversial, and again no-one has the slightest clue as to EXACTLY how this stamp came to be. Or even if it is genuine - or not.

In 1974 it was exhibited at the stand of Frimarkshuset A.B. the well known Swedish dealers, at 'Stockholmia 74'.

The stamp was then offered to the Swedish Postal Museum for purchase at $US1,000,000.

The curator Gilbert Svensson had always suspected it to be a forgery, and arranged for it to be handed over to a group of nine Swedish stamp "experts" to examine.

These "experts" concluded it was a fake - possibly a fake of the original stamp that some of them also thought was a fake anyway!

They stated that one third of the stamp was of a different paper type than the rest. And it differed in exterior appearance from early photographs.

One of the experts, Friedrich Schaffer pointed the finger at original dealer owner Lichtenstein as the forger/creator of this 'fake'. The experts publicly claimed the story of the original Backman sale in 1885 was a lie.

In "Stamp Collecting" May 1975 it was stated that photo-micrographic tests had shown that the forger bleached a genuine lightly used 8 Skilling Banco to rid it of colour, and then printed a fake 3 Skilling stamp image on top. (i.e. the technique always used cleverly by Jean Sperati.)

After all these damning reports, owner Berlingen and Frimarkshuset A.B. then paid for a very detailed scientific and X-Ray report in 1975, by a Professor of Medial Biophysics, on the paper and ink etc, which pointed they claim, to the stamp being a genuine colour error.

So who really knows? The 'Tre Skilling Banco' allegedly sold in 1996 for a world record Swiss Francs 2.87 million ($US2.3 million) to Hans LernestÃ¥l, a Swedish dealer.

The stamp was not offered with a Expert Certificate of any kind in the 1990 or 1996 Auctions - indeed I do not believe any Expertising Committee at any time has ever given it a Certificate as being a genuine error of colour.

The stamp has been crudely re-perforated along the top, and has a sizeable slit at the side .. neither mentioned at all in the 1990 David Feldman auction - which had a deluxe catalogue issued for just this one stamp!

So Abed Najjar might take heart from that story.

Nine "experts" all decreed the Sweden "Tre Skilling Yellow Banco" to be a fake, yet science apparently proved it otherwise, and even with NO Certificate as genuine from anyone, it still sells for millions at auction!

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 20 Jul 2009 18:37

Abed Najjar kindly e-mailed a link to Glen Stephens article on this topic. I think it sums up the current situation rather well so on your behalf Glen I will share it here:
http://www.glenstephens.com/snaugust09.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A thought occurs to me that as this story spreads those on the expert committees are going to have to come out of the cupboard and explain why they consider the stamps to be fakes. They will not be able to remain silent forever!

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » 20 Jul 2009 19:56

Clearly on your submitted copy Grahame the 7 signatories on the RPS certificate and the wording merely stated it was not a plate 77. I could see no further explanation as to what they thought it was.

Indeed, the very few items I have submitted for certification have all luckily returned certificated as hoped and expected.

If I recall, there is a section on the application forms for stating what you believe you are submitting and would expect at the very least for your money to be told what it actually in their opinion is.

After all, there are an awful lot of things that your stamp was not but they may well have hit on the one thing it actually was to choose to say it wasn't!

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 20 Jul 2009 20:10

Highlander wrote: Clearly on your submitted copy Grahame the 7 signatories on the RPS certificate and the wording merely stated it was not a plate 77. I could see no further explanation as to what they thought it was.

Indeed, the very few items I have submitted for certification have all luckily returned certificated as hoped and expected.

If I recall, there is a section on the application forms for stating what you believe you are submitting and would expect at the very least for your money to be told what it actually in their opinion is.

After all, there are an awful lot of things that your stamp was not but they may well have hit on the one thing it actually was to choose to say it wasn't!

Exactly my friend! This is why I then sent it to the BPA. It was them who replied "Not 77 but 73". Unfortunately I can no longer find my copy of the BPA cert. After all it was some eighteen years ago.

moonlight · Post by **moonlight** » 23 Jul 2009 00:21

Someone please help.

I have tried to follow the discussion of the plate 77 stamp.

I can't see the 77 on any of the scans. Where should I be looking?? Thank you.

Post by **admin** » 23 Jul 2009 00:29

This is one of 6 UNDOUBTED number '77's' from Abed's cover.

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 23 Jul 2009 00:38

Blimey Glen that's a big un.

I can't wait for your Exporter article which issue will it be in? I think it will certainly cause a stir especially if it's on the lines of the one you have recently published

sherro · Post by **sherro** » 23 Jul 2009 01:04

.....and if that's not a Plate 77, I'll eat one of Glen's skirts!

Post by **admin** » 23 Jul 2009 01:23

Stampmann .. my long article on these will be the UK "Exporter" out in a day or so I imagine.

Graham Philips made me honorary "GB Correspondent" just for this issue he says!

He does not have the space to add the Roo sideways wmk section, or the Swede, 'Tre Skilling Yellow', as the data on the 1d cover is plenty wordy enough. 8)

http://www.glenstephens.com/snaugust09.html

The above is how it will appear in a few days in "Stamp News".

It is about a six page article I understand -- entirely on this cover and discovery.

The "Stamp News" Editor phoned me this week to say in his view, it is the interesting thing I have written for the magazine, which was unusual as it was GB related .. and I've written for them for near 30 years!

The 1d trio will be the front cover sole item. "Stamp News" is mailed to about 50 countries, so the word will spread far and wide on this one now.

A leading GB dealer in 1d reds (who has handled the on piece copy of '77') emailed me tonight to say:

"I need to fully read the articles, but am puzzled how plate numbers could be changed from 73 to 77 - not practice"

So I do think we have uncovered something here with these plate 73's, clearly bearing genuine '77' numbers, that has never been recorded before, even by those VERY specialised in this issue.

So instead of lazy and blinkered "Experts" taking the easy way out, and just typing "Forged" as they are not curious enough to think a tiny bit out of the square, this board and those columns, might in a small way get us back to that obvious solution.

It is very clear to everyone with a pulse they are not "forged," so obviously they were sold that way by the PO in 1865 ... our job now is to discuss WHY and HOW.

Glen

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 23 Jul 2009 01:38

A leading GB dealer in 1d reds (who has handled the on piece copy of '77') emailed me tonight to say:

"I need to fully read the articles, but am puzzled how plate numbers could be changed from 73 to 77 - not practice"

So I do think we have uncovered something here with these plate 73's clearly bearing 77 numbers, that has never been recorded before, even by those VERY specialised in this issue.

Glen

If this is the 77 on piece with the 4d I have also 'tweezered' it. Having known the owner for 30 years he brought it to my office in 1991 to compare it with the candidate on cover I found all those years ago.

You know Glen if Abed wins the day I am going to be as sick as a parrot because I let my cover go after it was condemned as a 73. If Abed's is right mine probably was too.

Someone out there has got it though!!!!!!

sherro · Post by **sherro** » 23 Jul 2009 01:59

I have the sinking feeling that the parrot will come into play. I think it's best that you comfort yourself with the fact that, although the ahem, experts, got it wrong, 1990's technology probably wouldn't have helped either!

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 23 Jul 2009 02:14

Well Sherro at least I sold it for more than I paid! Reckon gross profit was 75p without allowing for VAT.

Life's like that win some lose some

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 23 Jul 2009 02:26

stampmann wrote:Well Sherro at least I sold it for more than I paid! Reckon gross profit was 75p without allowing for VAT.

Life's like that win some lose some

Yep. (You also had the cost of two bad certificates, eh? Ouch.)

Greg

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 23 Jul 2009 02:34

Oh b**ger I forgot that! Net Loss then

Excrofter · Post by **Excrofter** » 23 Jul 2009 03:10

Hi, everyone, I just hope this 77 cover is for real, we need a little more excitement and not too much cynicism in the hobby.

I was involved when the 3 skilling yellow was sold in Zurich by Feldman, it is a great stamp, I believe in it, many did not. Just hope this cover turns out to be as exciting.

Many folks are jealous, why, because they did not find it. Good on yer mate!

I just hope your boys don't find their form in the next three test matches over here!

Good luck

Excrofter
http://www.stamps.gb.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FinstP · Post by **FinstP** » 23 Jul 2009 09:40

ozstamps wrote:
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.

[

Very interesting thread.
I don't want to appear a smart a*** but the picture here isn't an electron microscope (the microscope is an optical one - the instrument is a Raman microscope). More importantly though, I do have a scanning electron microscope, with EDX (analytical) capability, amongst other equipment and I will offer my services for free if yet another scientific opinion would help!

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 23 Jul 2009 09:57

Ho hum. A few comments and queries based on reading the articles and this thread -- it's not my field specifically, but that doesn't mean I can't form an opinion based on what's been shown!

The Perkins Bacon records seem to indicate that no sheets were printed from the real plate 77 -- i.e. the one originally laid down as such. It wasn't 'registered', it wasn't 'put to press', and consequently there's no imprimatur sheet. 'Impressions' is given as 'none'.

From the dates given it was laid down on 3rd July 1861 and placed in the officer's safe the same day (this seems to have been standard to judge from the dates for the other plates), and then brought out later. There's a note that it was 'incorrectly laid down for perforation'.

The impression I get from those notes is that they took it out a year later planning to use it, then realised "oh *&%$, the impressions aren't straight, we can't print from this". If so, no real Plate 77 stamps can actually exist. If they didn't print with the plate, there ain't any stamps from it.

The only scenario I've seen suggested for the existence of genuine 77's unpacks as something like: impressions 'none' refers to approved impressions during the print run (quite a likely interpretation), and the bad alignment showed up on the famous (up to) 'six sheets' printed as a test before going through the formal process of approving and registering sheets from the plate, and the copies come from these test sheets, possibly kept as souvenirs.

In which case you have to ask how and why, though? From all I've heard, properly printed stamps on official paper, even test runs, were very carefully checked and destroyed if not used or archived, especially if perforated and gummed (as the mint copies are AFAIK). They didn't even keep an imprimatur-type sheet for the records.

It's not the same situation as Abnormals, they were from approved plates that were expected to be subsequently brought into use, and so it was quite all right for the extra sheets to be placed into stock. This was 1862, there was no established collector market for this sort of leakage.

Ormond Hill might have had the authority to keep samples, but then why were the stamps found mint in disparate places, and why are there no similar escapees from plates 69, 70, or 75? Possible, but not entirely convincing.

If Scott's re-entering theory is shown to be right -- which it may well be, even if he himself is now having doubts, and it explains most of the above points nicely -- then a number of conclusions follow.

(1) Stamps with a plate 77 on them would indeed be second states of other plates. They would have come from a plate that had one number -- e.g. 73 -- on most of the stamps as originally laid down, but 77's in error in a number of incorrectly re-entered positions.

Their status would be rather like that of another famous Swedish variety, the 1879 20/Tretio error -- where a damaged 20 ore cliché was replaced by a spare cliché for the 30 ore stamp, with the figures "30" cut out and replaced by the centre of a 20 ore cliché, but by mistake the text "Tretio" ("Thirty") was not replaced. That makes it an error variety of the 20 ore. Likewise these stamps would be error varieties of plate 73.

(2) The point does actually matter, because accuracy is a Good Thing in philately. Collectors have always had a very bad habit of coming up with Just So Stories to explain certain features -- stories which then go on to be accepted as proven fact by later collectors. Calling these stamps plate 77 would be like saying the WA Inverted Swan is an inverted centre. Looks like it was, but in reality it wasn't.

(3) Yes, Gibbons probably should in that case rewrite their listing and omit 77 from the main sequence of plate numbers. They probably wouldn't, because of potential outrage, but they might. At the very least they ought to distinguish between the two potential types of '77'. It would probably lower the price of the re-entered types, but they would still be a famous rarity and could expect to go for large sums.

(4) There should be '77s' from several different base plates around, and all of the plates re-entered at the same time should be assumed to be potential sources of copies. It wouldn't surprise me if such later states were about and just not noticed before, because if you don't already have the idea that they might be examples of such an odd variety there's no reason to cross-reference in such detail, especially on an issue that appears 'easy' and has been far less studied than the earlier line-engraved stamps. Ideally, all known copies would be matchable with other plates.

(5) Some '77s' given 'bad' certificates from various bodies are probably completely genuine. Anyone with such a stamp in their collection that they think is a fake should take another very close look at it, and (if a Stampboards member) post a scan for comparison. More examples would be really helpful!

(6) There would have been se-tenant examples appearing to be 73/77, or other plate/77, any of which turning up would provide fairly conclusive evidence. I don't hold out much hope unless it's an item that simply hasn't been checked for its plate before, because realistically someone who didn't have the re-entry theory who found such an item would probably have either discarded it as an obvious fake, or separated it as being more convincing for a buyer.

Minor points:

I'm wary of saying a stamp definitely isn't a match for corner lettering because of small differences that could be due to inking variation. Hell, this happens a lot! You have to try to find invariants in size, shape, or orientation that can't change, and also really try hard to get same-size, same-angle images. Ideally, you'd like to have several examples to compare against, not just one -- presumably this will come about in time as people check their stocks/collections.

I shouldn't imagine that the Queen could care less whether her Plate 77 is real or not, let alone how much it's worth. I'd be surprised to find that she even knew what it was or that she had one, stuff from the Royal Collection doesn't usually come on the market, and she doesn't seem to be short of a bob or two.

According to the Williams brothers, the AC plate 77 was found in 1919, was sold originally to J. de R. Phillp, sold to Major Raphael in 1959, and disappeared in 1965 when his collection was stolen. So it's not likely to surface any time soon?

Didge · Post by **Didge** » 23 Jul 2009 11:40

Folks,

Great topic. Just learned of it from Glen's article and looking forward to reading it all.

Tim

OttawaMike · Post by **OttawaMike** » 23 Jul 2009 12:11

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned.

If the original plate 77 was rejected because it was misaligned for perforating, which I take to mean crooked, the multiple of 3 on the cover does not seem to bear any evidence of that misalignment. The stamps are off-centre, of course, but no more than is commonly found on penny reds.

Further evidence that these are re-entries, perhaps?

Post by **admin** » 23 Jul 2009 13:35

Mike, thanks goodness you are wrong re your comments on typical centerng!

These are WOEFUL. Even by 1d standards I'd suggest.

The words "One Penny" are simply not readable.

And remember these are from the base of the sheet. As the mint copies are well centred as we know, and are from top left corner, the theory stands up misalignment may have been the reason for the issue.

OttawaMike · Post by **OttawaMike** » 23 Jul 2009 13:50

There are all kinds of penny reds that more poorly centered than these. In fact, the whole issue (as is the case for virtually all of the early GB issues) is notorious for being poorly centered.

However, I thought the concensus was that these were not from Plate 77, but rather from a re-entry to a different plate. The fact that they are not misaligned in the sense that the stamps are not significantly out of parallel with the perfs would seem to support that concensus.

Anyway, that was just a small contribution from the peanut gallery.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 23 Jul 2009 16:15

If the original plate 77 was rejected because it was misaligned for perforating, which I take to mean crooked, the multiple of 3 on the cover does not seem to bear any evidence of that misalignment. The stamps are off-centre, of course, but no more than is commonly found on penny reds.

But the plate 77 misalignment doesn't come into play, because it is established the stamps are not from plate 77 - they are from plate 73, as is agreed by all. Yes?

Scott

OttawaMike · Post by **OttawaMike** » 23 Jul 2009 16:29

Exactly my point.

Because they are not misaligned, they can't be plate 77. If not fake, then they must be a secondary state of another plate.

Your search for matching check letters may prove futile. It's possible that a re-entry was done by burnishing the entire subject from the plate, then re-entering the entire design, including the letters. (There are examples of this type of re-entry in Canadaian philately.) If this was an error and later discovered, then removed and replaced again, the check letters on the stamps inscribed 77 might be unique to those stamps.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 23 Jul 2009 16:33

(There are examples of this type of re-entry in Canadaian philately.)

But not in GB philately, at least not after the plate has already been at press, and at least not yet.

S

OttawaMike · Post by **OttawaMike** » 23 Jul 2009 16:46

Just to add this to the mix, for what it's worth (probably nothing).

The reason that this type of re-entry was discovered in Canadian philately was that the original subject was not completely burnished from the plate before the new subject was entered. This resulted in parts of the original design showing through. Probably the best known is the 5c on 6c Small Queen major re-entry.

Had the job been done properly, it would never have been noticed. Who knows how many times it was done correctly?

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 23 Jul 2009 16:52

Mike,

Was this a case of the plate being re-used and the original impressions not being completely removed beforehand?

Scott

OttawaMike · Post by **OttawaMike** » 23 Jul 2009 17:02

Oh, gee, I don't recall offhand in the case of the 5c on 6c whether the plate had been in use before the re-entry was done, or whether the repair was done to the plate before it was used in production. I'm sure that's buried in the literature I have around here someplace.

I'm not sure that it matters here, though. I was simply trying to illustrate that this type of re-entry can be done without leaving any evidence that the plate has been altered. (I guess that's actually true of any re-entry, simply by random chance a re-entry could be so perfectly aligned with the original that no trace is evident.)

I'll leave it to you as to whether this type of thing is possible in the GB context. The existence of check letters may make it impossible, or at least highly unlikely, that it could be done and not discovered.

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 23 Jul 2009 20:23

Am I misunderstanding? I always thought that a re-entry was when the plate or part of it was re-entered from the roller. In the case of this 73/77 anomaly it is in my opinion more likely that the plate was hand repaired. This is known to have happened to plate 73 and my belief is that during a repair some numbers we recut.

As the plate is a mirror of the finished sheet then the engraver may have altered a 3 to to a 7 on some impressions instead of recutting the first 7. A number of sheets were perhaps printed and on inspection the error spotted and rectified.

This would give rise to stamps such as the one I had and Abeds' existing as both 73 & 77 with identical letter positions.

As mentioned earlier I have handled many thousands of 1d plates over the last 30 years and although Abeds 77s and mine are off centre they are not atypical. There are many many worse centred specimens than these. In fact well centred are less common.

Nice to see 'Excrofter' here so a hallo to John from Grahame By the way Glen please can you note the spelling of my Christian name as you keep depriving me of my final 'E'.

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » 23 Jul 2009 20:44

Well Grahame if he has only taken an "e" from you I think you have got off very lightly!

How did you sell the cover then? Was it in person to someone as a failed cert plate 77 or just thrown in with a bulk selection?

Could have been one of the signatories thought the other six were wrong?

Post by **admin** » 24 Jul 2009 01:57

stampmann wrote:
By the way Glen please can you note the spelling of my Christian name as you keep depriving me of my final 'E'.

I apologise for your parent's clearly bad judgement for giving you a name that can be spelt a dozen ways.

Graham, Graeme, Grahame, etc.

Try mis-spelling GLEN.

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 24 Jul 2009 01:58

admin wrote: Try mis-spelling GLEN.

Glenn, you say?

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 24 Jul 2009 02:27

Apology accepted Glennis oops sorry Geln...I mean Glen.

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 24 Jul 2009 02:31

admin wrote:
stampmann wrote:
By the way Glen please can you note the spelling of my Christian name as you keep depriving me of my final 'E'.
I apologise for your parent's clearly bad judgement for giving you a name that can be spelt a dozen ways.

Graham, Graeme, Grahame, etc.

Try mis-spelling GLEN.

Look mate my mum did me a big favour whatever the spelling. For the first 7 or 8 hours of my life I was Aubrey. Try growing up on a tough council estate with that name. Anyway better stay on subject.

Advance apologies to any Aubreys reading this post.

rustys · Post by **rustys** » 24 Jul 2009 02:49

Hi All

If anyone is looking for any SG43 1d plate reds from a perticular plate or letters I might have it, as i have about 250,000 reds on stock all in stockbooks plated laid out by letters.

If you are trying to identify a red by its letters i can send you a scan of the stamp or if you want to buy any just let me know.

My email is: rustyspennyreds at live.co.uk

Colin