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

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 24 Jul 2009 08:32

Colin,

Just the sort of offer we've been waiting for!

As a start do you have stamps AB and BA from all plates 71 to 99, that you would be able to scan? At 600dpi please? And if I could be a pest, please have them sitting exactly upright as this will save a lot of time and is easiest done at your end.

Probably no need to post them here as they will take up too much space, but if you can send to me I can go through them looking for a match to the 77s of those positions. I will then report back and load all the images with links, so the images themselves don't take up space here.

How many do you have in that range?

Scott

pertinax [at]hotkey.net.au

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 25 Jul 2009 08:35

A couple of questions that occurred to me when posting to the Mulready group on the topic:

What effect does major re-entering have on the positions of the corner letters in general? Naively, I'd expect certain small shifts in position or apparent position unless everything was lined up perfectly so that the outlines of the corner squares matched, and looking at (for example) the photos in the article on the imperf Die I Plate 40 in the GBJ for May/June 2009 seems to bear that out. They vary quite a lot. How common is that? And how much difficulty does it add to the identification of later states? If the letter positions could be slightly shifted, then an approximate match might be all you could hope for.

In which context, can anyone provide scans of the currently accepted second states of plate 73 for the corner letterings in question -- i.e. what would actually be corrected third states if this theory is right? They would make an instructive comparison.

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 25 Jul 2009 08:48

Thank you 'Mozzerb'
The logic behind the thinking in both your two posts is very valid and your reasonable questioning re the corner letters also needs investigation. Your thinking is very much along my lines of thought as I have questioned exactly your point on my website for this stamp. I do hope that those with the knowledge in this area can help us go further in this direction.
Abed H Najjar

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 25 Jul 2009 09:08

What effect does major re-entering have on the positions of the corner letters in general?

In 99% of cases, none.

In the case of stamp KB plate 40 that you mention, the reason that the letter B looks like it has varied slightly in position is because the sideline at the right of its square has been recut at different times in different positions. This is gives the appearance that the B is differently placed, but in fact it is in exactly the same position in relation to the other three sides of its square - except of course in the final state where it has been completely burnished out and repunched.

Scott

Kaygeevee · Post by **Kaygeevee** » 25 Jul 2009 09:47

Hi Scott,
So you are saying that the re-entry operator could do the re-entries without burnishing the original design from the plate (as I said on 19 Jul 2.16 post) a Master craftsman with such fine lines in the 1d red design one would have thought that this would have been impossible, but yesterday at the Melbourne stampshow I was told that this DID happen on the earlier issue, quite amassing.

re using the 77 Die roller by accident to do the re-entry, the operator would have to add metal to the plate in the area of the 3 before doing the re-entry, this would suggest that he new he was not going to use the 73 Die.
I tend to-wards a re-touch based on the information on this board.

I don't think it will happen but it would be nice if someone could explain why it did not get a certificate.
But as I've said before I know VERY little about the QV 1d Reds

Best regards David

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 25 Jul 2009 10:01

So you are saying that the re-entry operator could do the re-entries without burnishing the original design from the plate

Yes, and this is how it was done every time where a re-entry was effected after a plate had already been at press.

The only burnishing out of the design to enter a new one occurred in cases during the plate manufacture, before a plate had gone to press. Such cases are correctly termed 'fresh-entry', though the term re-entry has become commonly used for both classes of operation, even though they are quite different.

S

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 25 Jul 2009 12:02

pertinax wrote:In 99% of cases, none.

In the case of stamp KB plate 40 that you mention, the reason that the letter B looks like it has varied slightly in position is because the sideline at the right of its square has been recut at different times in different positions. This is gives the appearance that the B is differently placed, but in fact it is in exactly the same position in relation to the other three sides of its square - except of course in the final state where it has been completely burnished out and repunched.

Right -- well in that case the pl40 KB is irrelevant then (as here I presume we're talking about a roller die being rolled in again over the top of the original impression, rather than a hand recut? Incidentally, I can't see any plausibility in the idea that the 3s were recut to 7s by hand by mistake -- why would anyone consider such an action of practical value? And on more than one stamp?).

Would still like to see more before-and-after examples of such re-entries -- e.g. there's a second state of the 2d plate 8 OE illustrated in the March/April 2009 GBJ where the letters seem (to my unpracticed eye, from the illustrations given) to be very slightly shifted towards top left. It seems to me that unless the registration was exact, the borders of the corner 'square' would have to be shifted slightly. Maybe the people at PB actually were that good, but it would be nice to have it visually confirmed.

Incidentally, the letters on that second state OE stamp are a lot weaker, presumably due to flattening of the area in question by the re-entering die withour corner letters? Is that a common feature? The corner letters on the three stamps in question don't seem noticeably weak.

(Apologies if this is all old hat to LE specialists. But I'm not one, so don't have the specialist knowledge.)

Peter · Post by **Peter** » 25 Jul 2009 19:17

I have read the debate on the Plate 77 'find'. It is interesting that this piece does not have a good certificate from any major expert committee.

From what I read, it has lots of non stamp people saying the printing ink etc., is original and not disturbed.

It is easy to say that all the world's greatest stamp experts are all wrong,

But I certinally would not consider it to be genuine from what I can see. It is probably a 'scratch and paint' job.

Peter

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 25 Jul 2009 20:01

Peter wrote:It is easy to say that all the world's greatest stamp experts are all wrong,
but I certinally would not consider it to be genuine from what I can see.

It is probably a 'scratch and paint' job.

Peter

Peter no offence but I think if you read all the posts and Abed's articles you will see that it has effectively been proven not to be.

The debate is now not so much about a fake but more about how it could exist!

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 25 Jul 2009 21:26

is now not so much about a fake but more about how it could exist!

Or perhaps: how it could be faked in such an expert way??

Scott

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 25 Jul 2009 21:46

pertinax wrote:
is now not so much about a fake but more about how it could exist!
Or perhaps: how it could be faked in such an expert way??

Scott

Indeed Scott. However my point was that I think the discussion and research so far has taken it beyond a mere 'paint job' As a fakes they would rank alongside the achievements of the great artists (and they were) such as Sperati.

If fakes then the philatelic world is owed an explanation of how and when they were done. Personally I do not think they are fakes or forgeries. I do think that the stamps have not come from the plate 77 which after all was never used.

I am inclined to think that some if not all of the accredited 77s may have come from the same source.

Post by **admin** » 26 Jul 2009 03:20

Peter wrote:
It is easy to say that all the world's greatest stamp experts are all wrong,

Please let us know which of the "world's greatest stamps experts" have put to paper this stamp is not right.

The RPS in London who have ran for cover on this, where a few old brain dead duffers have stated that 6 x number 77s were glued on? One of the very dumbest certs issued in their long history.

On the PF in the USA who said that 6 x number 77 were painted in.

Both have been wrong 100s of times before - so what is new here?

I can find you a half dozen philatelists with basic common sense and normal eyesight, who say you are mistaken.

Are they less expert?

The easiest thing for a lazy person to do is block their minds from new ideas.

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 26 Jul 2009 12:20

ozstamps wrote:
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.

Going back a bit, I know, but ... if I were a faker I might very well do this. After all, anyone faking a 'one-of-a-kind rarity' needn't be over-concerned about condition. Picking a pristine stamp would just invite suspicion of it being 'too perfect', in fact, not to mention the question 'why did no-one check the plate number of this stamp before?'. Picking an obviously tatty cover that might well not have been previously looked at closely to work on would make the story more plausible, and if accepted as the only known example wouldn't make that much difference to the price.

Sorry, being cynical here. That doesn't mean that this one is faked, only that the condition of the cover isn't more than a possible indication, not a killer argument. (The existence of another (previously rejected) cover, independently found, is definitely a plus point.)

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 26 Jul 2009 12:32

I agree, the condition of the cover proves absolutely nothing either way.

Scott

Peter · Post by **Peter** » 26 Jul 2009 18:47

Have you ever heard the saying 'if something seems too good to be true........'!!!

Here we have a perfect example to prove the quote. Three examples appearing from nowhere and then with no stamp expert committee certificate.

Why? Simple, it is a fake and that is the end of the matter!

Peter

stampmann wrote:
Peter wrote:It is easy to say that all the world's greatest stamp experts are all wrong,
but I certinally would not consider it to be genuine from what I can see.

It is probably a 'scratch and paint' job.

Peter
Peter no offence but I think if you read all the posts and Abed's articles you will see that it has effectively been proven not to be.

The debate is now not so much about a fake but more about how it could exist!

Peter · Post by **Peter** » 26 Jul 2009 18:53

Dear Mr Najjar

You have taken a lot of time to prepare 'facts' about your item. What I do not understand is why there is no certificate for this item.

Perhaps you would be able to explaine why this is. Have you contacted the expert committees? If so, what were there findings?

Peter

Abed H Najjar wrote:Thank you 'Mozzerb'
The logic behind the thinking in both your two posts is very valid and your reasonable questioning re the corner letters also needs investigation.

Your thinking is very much along my lines of thought as I have questioned exactly your point on my website for this stamp. I do hope that those with the knowledge in this area can help us go further in this direction.
Abed H Najjar

Post by **admin** » 26 Jul 2009 20:13

Peter wrote:Dear Mr Najjar

You have taken a lot of time to prepare 'facts' about your item. What I do not understand is why there is no certificate for this item.

Perhaps you would be able to explains why this is. Have you contacted the expert committees? If so, what were there findings?

Peter

Peter ... based on your just 5 posts on stampboards I realise you may be new here to Bulletin boards, but please follow the usual convention to actually READ the thread, instead of posting alleged "questions" that clearly have been fully answered long ago.

Please READ this and your alleged "questions" will be answered in full I suggest. But clearly you already know that.

There re Certificates and everyone on this board apart from you seems to realise they state the stamps are faked.

The reasons given by these alleged "Expert" bodies, a half blind 10 year old can disprove.

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

i have just returned from a major national Stampshow in Melbourne this evening, and everyone I spoke to, from leading dealers, leading auction house and FIP Large Gold winners, agrees those two Certificates were absurd and foolish, and agree even the most RUDIMENTARY checking will show what they allege could not occur, and not be readily detected.

Peter -- do you have anything to add as EVIDENCE that will support your view these stamps are somehow faked???

You know -- evidence - something that PROVES or helps prove your allegation? Not just parroting someone's else poor opinion.

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 26 Jul 2009 20:54

It is good that this Peter wants to go against the flow but I only wish he would offer some constructive argument or evidence rather than just unfounded statements! Peter have you read all the posts?

Have you bothered to read Abed's articles?

Why not take the trouble to scroll back and look at the scans I posted. My '77' was not tampered with in any way whatsoever. Back in 1991 the Royal simply said "not 77" even though the stamp bore the plate number 77! A scan of the cert is shown! The BPA said it was 73 even though it bore the number 77.

I assumed that they matched the letter positions with the same from plate 73 which is the same possibility for Abed's piece. This is what the discussion is all about. If you think that Abed's 77s are fakes what argument or evidence do you have or is it that you have a closed mind and do not dream of questioning the 'experts'.

When several hundred years ago the church said the world was flat I am only glad that some dared to question their 'expert' opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by **gavin-h** » 26 Jul 2009 21:08

pertinax wrote:
is now not so much about a fake but more about how it could exist!
Or perhaps: how it could be faked in such an expert way??

Scott

Or even: are there some vested interests involved here that impel so called "experts" to dismiss a genuine article as a fake

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 26 Jul 2009 21:23

gavin-h wrote:Or even: are there some vested interests involved here that impel so called "experts" to dismiss a genuine article as a fake

Ah ha! A conspiracy theory. However a good point! The more 77s there are might upset the market but there would have to be an awful lot because there is an awful lot well heeled collectors out there who would like one. More interesting is the idea that all 77s are 'dodgy' and worthless. Owners including HM QE2 would be as sick as parrots (or swine)!

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 27 Jul 2009 13:06

I was just struck by one of the findings in the first part of Abed's report:

Consider the findings of the X-ray microfluorescence analysis. The elements, lead chromium, barium and titanium were found in trace quantities to take the shape of each of the right-hand diamonds containing the second figure "7" in each "77" pair.

It is extremely unlikely (see other evidence) that these trace elements formed a part of an offending ink, particularly since they are also found in the scuffed area that shows no attempt to create a "7."

On the other hand, the very specific shape suggests that they could have come from an alloy plug that might have been used to alter the number on the plate. Furthermore, the burin used to engrave the number on such a plug may very well have left some of these trace elements within the diamond plug.

The fact that trace elements found are not from the ink is again supported by the finding that the same trace elements were present in the area of the scuffed diamond that would have held the second "7," which was observed using the SEM. The figure, although invisible to the naked eye in the scuffed area, showed these very trace elements within the diamond area using x-ray microanalysis.

A skeptic would look at that finding and see a smoking gun. Why is the second diamond chemically different from the first?

The easy answer is "because it has been tampered with" -- and that seems to be true. But was the tamperer a modern faker or an 1860s re-engraver?

Abed makes a compelling case that it is the result of the reentry, and I accept his analysis of the evidence. BUT -- all three of these stamps were repaired, presumably at this time. So why is the only part of each stamp that is chemically different the diamond around the second numeral? If the burin left trace elements there, why did it not do so elsewhere on the stamps?

Greg

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 27 Jul 2009 18:05

Greg you make a valid point as far as a sceptic would and this is why we depend on forensic science, and this case much forensics has gone into this.

This is what Professor Hall has stated in his report after analysing the cover:

Rutgers University- 19th September , 2008
Gene S. Hall, Ph.D., Professor of Analytical Chemistry

-"The identical nature of the inks of the three samples effectively rules out the finding that the ink had been painted in."

-"Raman examination also confirmed that the pigment was the same in both the basic stamp and the second "7" area."

-"There was no difference in the ink composition in the diamond areas surrounding the first and second "7" in the plate numbers."

-"There was no difference in the ink composition in the diamond areas surrounding the first and second "7" in the plate numbers. The elements Ba, Cr, and P were found only in the diamond area surrounding the second "7" in plate number "77" and were not homogeneous and not part of the ink formulation. Their source is probably from the printing process."

If the area of the '7' only was altered by hand either directly on the plate, through a re-entry or even a plug we can then expect plate contamination. This is what we have. In my view quite conclusive. We can not take isolated cases and make up a conclusion. One must look at the WHOLE picture and see if it all adds up.

The evidence, which is plentiful, all points towards non tampering. Now if a sceptic wishes to say that these trace elements prove otherwise then HOW do they do that and how can you prove that the '7's have been faked.

Abed H Najjar

Post by **ozstamps** » 27 Jul 2009 21:44

The RPS do not need to bother with a million dollars worth of new fangled equipment. They have the trusty MONOCLE of Colonel Horace Smythe-Gormless to guide them in their judgment.

It has served him well for decades and BY JINGO there will be none of this mutinous talk of TECHNOLOGY, or FACTS, to impede the accuracy and independence of the RPS London Certificates.

This DARN FAKE has seen some BOUNDER cut out number 7s, and any darn fool can see that. Back to the Port and cigars, and let's not use our brains to think any further on these annoying pests mailing in crude fakes, that may actually mean a new discovery is logged into the annals of philately.

------------------

I had a person very well known, somewhere in Europe I've been in contact with for many years, who runs an Expert committee contact me this week to say this cover had been denounced by 3 UK bodies, and one American one.

When I asked if he meant the BPA had also given it a bad cert, the response was a sheepish reply along these lines. "Umm, well not really sure on that bit actually, posibly not, but I am sure they do not like it".

When asked the far easier question whether his body has given it a bad cert it turns out they had not either!

So what is in Abed's articles and stated quite openly, seems disputed by no-one.

However, it is VERY clear there is LOTS of subversive mumbling and muttering and white anting "off the record" about it being "impossible to exist" from senior philatelic personages, who should know a lot better than to be that blinkered.

This whole saga is like a Monty Python script.

Those that should be being objective are not, and those who have no horse in the race can see clearly the correct answer. Sad really.

The large national Stampshow I was at for the last 4 days gave me an opportunity to ask one the world's leading stamp auctioneers what he thought. (He is also an exhibitor of some note, and a Judge.)

His response - without hesitation was - "totally genuine in my view".

Was drinking one night this week with the two Swedish FIP attendees. Asked them about the Tre Skilling Banco publicly and unanimously branded as 'FAKE FAKE FAKE' by a panel of 9 Swedish "Experts" in th 1970s.

I was told that prevailing opinion now in Sweden is that it is entirely genuine.

When I asked why the view had changed the answer was

"Technology is SO much better these days."

So when the RPS gets past using the trusty MONOCLE of Colonel Horace Smythe-Gormless and his crusty chums, to apparently form the ridiculous "Expert" view as they have on this cover, philately will take a positive step forward IMHO.

Al Committees issue HOWLERS at times -- it can't be helped. This clearly is the Howler of all time, stating 6 x "7s" were cut out and glued on, and if they value their integrity and their reputation, I'd imagine they'd be in a hurry to get it back to "review" and "re-visit" the Howler opinion.

I have no horse in this race ... I do not own the cover, and was not even aware it existed until Pertinax started this thread a few months back. However I do know enough about stamps to deduce it looks entirely genuine, IMHO

ALL thinking collectors should email the link to this thread, to all friends they know -

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

The more collectors who have common sense and an open mind that read this debate, the better, and more accurate the philatelic result will be.

Who knows -- some evidence might be posted here that DOES prove in some way these are fakes .. and that will settle it for all time.

So far in 350 posts no-one has offered one shred of it, but who knows .. the discussion has just started.

=================

From - https://www.glenstephens.com/snaugust09.html

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 a clue as to EXACTLY how this stamp came to be. Or 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.

Peter · Post by **Peter** » 28 Jul 2009 00:20

I am intrigued that the Plate 77 debate continues. The answer is so simple and so basic.

Just look under an ultra-violet lamp and see if the second '7' responds exactly the same as the first '7'. If the second '7' fluoreses, then it has been faked. End of debate!

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 28 Jul 2009 00:25

Peter, if it were that simple there would have been no discussion. They match. Not even close to the end of the story.

Have you read the whole thread and the three papers that have been linked to?

Greg

Post by **GlenStephens** » 28 Jul 2009 00:39

Please be mindful that Peter's 'expertise' on stamps was amply displayed in his only other foray into stampboards, when he took exception to the comments below, made on this thread -

https://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3370&p=332445#p332445

Peter was aghast anyone would actually suggest Brandon or others paid 40 quid for an "expert" view, actually needed to state a stamp had a non postal cancel, so some poor bunny down the track did not pay $1,340 for it, as occurred here. It is worth about 15% of that sum.

Others here including people who WERE recognised Experts, and indeed issued highly regarded Certificates, such as Simon Dunkerley also disagreed with him then. A shame Simon's sudden passing has not allowed his lifetime of expertise to be added to this thread. He loved these technical challenges.

It seems to me Peter's stamp knowledge might fit readily onto the head of a pin .. however we have only 8 posts to form a view with so far. My money is firmly on the pin theory however. Time will tell.

ozstamps wrote:
Some moron paid $1,340 for this "Cancelled Nauru" at Prestige on Friday. (Est $500.)

100% non-postal use.

There is one born every minute. The cert is mainly at fault for not using the words "non postal" in their wording, and the dopey bidder probably has no idea it is non postal, unless he reads stampboards.

/

Cooky · Post by **Cooky** » 28 Jul 2009 01:12

Guys, I'm gonna take one for the team and offer $10 Australian (plus postage) for the 3x77 cover.

I could never question the integrity/eyesight of someone with a monocle.

Last time I saw someone wearing one, an offsider of the person wearing it kept saying:

"I see nothing .... I see nothing"

Funnily enough, this entire thread has a bit of Sgt. Schultz feel about it.

Maybe if the experts could open their eyes, they woud see:

(a) That the war is over; and,
(b) that this cover is kosher.

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 28 Jul 2009 01:13

Abed H Najjar wrote: -"There was no difference in the ink composition in the diamond areas surrounding the first and second "7" in the plate numbers. The elements Ba, Cr, and P were found only in the diamond area surrounding the second "7" in plate number "77" and were not homogeneous and not part of the ink formulation. Their source is probably from the printing process."[/i]

If the area of the '7' only was altered by hand either directly on the plate, through a re-entry or even a plug we can then expect plate contamination. This is what we have.

I agree that this is quite clear as far as proving that the stamps on your cover are genuine. What I'm focussed on is trying to understand what happened back in the 1860s -- and for that purpose, the scientific evidence is puzzling. Or, rather, it refutes the picture that is emerging.

Consider: Plate 73 is worn and needs repairs. So 60 or so positions on the plate are re-engraved or (less probably) re-entered. As part of that process, some of them are erroneously renumbered as 77s.

What the scientific evidence should show is Ba, Cr, and P in the second diamond and on the other places that were repaired on each stamp. The evidence is very clear that this is not the case. Ba, Cr, and P are found only in the second diamond on each stamp.

So not only were the stamps renumbered when they were repaired, but the changes to the second diamonds were effected in a different way than the changes to the rest of the stamp. So yes, probably a plug in that spot on each stamp, and simple re-engraving for the other repairs. That makes sense of the forensics -- but does it make much sense as a way of repairing a worn plate?

(By the way, has it ever been established that the stamps on the cover are in fact the repaired state of plate 73? Or are they the original state? That would be especially puzzling. It would mean they didn't fix the worn plate -- merely, for no known reason, renumbered it.)

Greg

OttawaMike · Post by **OttawaMike** » 28 Jul 2009 02:56

Without any facts to the contrary, it is possible that the 77's are from the original plate, and are not second states.

As I understand the process, the engraver transfers the subjects to the plate from the master die one at a time. This did not take place all at once. So it's possible that some 73's (or whatever) were entered, the engraver stopped and when he returned to the task started entering 77's by mistake.

The error is not noticed until the plate had been put in use, then is later corrected. Then the re-entered 73's (or whatever) are the second states.

You would think that this would be unlikely because of the extensive checking that should have been done before the plate went to press, but then, "unlikely" is found in the origin of many philatelic errors.

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 28 Jul 2009 03:15

ozstamps wrote:
The RPS do not need to bother with a million dollars worth of new fangled equipment. They have the trusty MONOCLE of Colonel Horace Smythe-Gormless to guide them in their judgment.

Correct identification is due, I think, or you should use a caricature.

Although it was Virgin media (from whom you have shamelessly hotlinked the image against all principles of internet good practice) who put up this picture of Sir Patrick Moore, I think it is quite unreasonable to include a picture of this renowned scientist in this discussion implying that he is one of the RPS expert committee.

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 28 Jul 2009 03:23

OttawaMike wrote:Without any facts to the contrary, it is possible that the 77's are from the original plate, and are not second states.

As I understand the process, the engraver transfers the subjects to the plate from the master die one at a time. This did not take place all at once. So it's possible that some 73's (or whatever) were entered, the engraver stopped and when he returned to the task started entering 77's by mistake.

The error is not noticed until the plate had been put in use, then is later corrected. Then the re-entered 73's (or whatever) are the second states.

You would think that this would be unlikely because of the extensive checking that should have been done before the plate went to press, but then, "unlikely" is found in the origin of many philatelic errors.

It isn't, unfortunately, that straight-forward. The earliest plate 73 printings show very little plate wear. The three "plate 77/73s" on the cover show the considerable plate wear, as do the "second state" plate 73s, after the plate repairs. So the sequence is clearly 73/77/73 again. Makes no sense, but there you are.

Greg

Post by **admin** » 28 Jul 2009 03:25

Ian - I read an interesting stat on senses of humour this week. Like stamp knowledge .... some have it, and some don't.

OttawaMike · Post by **OttawaMike** » 28 Jul 2009 03:38

Greg Ioannou wrote:
It isn't, unfortunately, that straight-forward. The earliest plate 73 printings show very little plate wear. The three "plate 77/73s" on the cover show the considerable plate wear, as do the "second state" plate 73s, after the plate repairs. So the sequence is clearly 73/77/73 again. Makes no sense, but there you are.

Greg

Ah, well, then those are facts to the contrary.

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 28 Jul 2009 04:00

OttawaMike wrote:Without any facts to the contrary, it is possible that the 77's are from the original plate, and are not second states.

As I understand the process, the engraver transfers the subjects to the plate from the master die one at a time. This did not take place all at once. So it's possible that some 73's (or whatever) were entered, the engraver stopped and when he returned to the task started entering 77's by mistake.

The error is not noticed until the plate had been put in use, then is later corrected. Then the re-entered 73's (or whatever) are the second states.

You would think that this would be unlikely because of the extensive checking that should have been done before the plate went to press, but then, "unlikely" is found in the origin of many philatelic errors.

And to add to what Greg said, I understand that the master dies for 73 and 77 weren't even on the same roller. So our hypothetical engraver -- or rather printer, I don't suppose this sort of heavy duty work was done by the highly skilled engraver himself -- would have had to change the die roller in between takes, as it were.

From the look of that record book, it was all done on one day? Also, considerations of simple efficiency would seem to go against the idea that the numbers were engraved after each impression was laid down, thus requiring the roller equipment to be moved out tof the way so that the engraver could do his stuff.

Surely more likely is that they laid down the impressions for the whole plate then passed it to him to add the 'customisations'?

OttawaMike · Post by **OttawaMike** » 28 Jul 2009 04:41

That's interesting. Do you mean that the numbers were not on the dies that were used to produce the plates? If that's the case, then there would be three operations - main subject, plate number, check letters. And the plate numbers would likely show variations on the same sheet.

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 28 Jul 2009 04:45

OttawaMike wrote:That's interesting. Do you mean that the numbers were not on the dies that were used to produce the plates? If that's the case, then there would be three operations - main subject, plate number, check letters. And the plate numbers would likely show variations on the same sheet.

The plate numbers were on the dies used to produce the plates. Reference to the plate 77 die shows it wasn't used to produce the three stamps on the cover. Further digging shows that they were produced from what started life as the plate 73 die, with the second number at some point mysteriously changed to a 7 -- and then apparently changed back again.

No simple explanation can be found for the observed data. It is very hard to see how the stamps on the cover could have been faked, but it is equally difficult to explain the existence of these three plate 77 stamps -- or any of the other known plate 77s.

Greg

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 28 Jul 2009 04:56

OttawaMike wrote:That's interesting. Do you mean that the numbers were not on the dies that were used to produce the plates? If that's the case, then there would be three operations - main subject, plate number, check letters. And the plate numbers would likely show variations on the same sheet.

No, what Greg said. Sorry, ignore the second and third paragraphs of my previous post -- they're drivel. The perils of dashing off a quick comment before leaving work and without thinking it through!

Kaygeevee · Post by **Kaygeevee** » 28 Jul 2009 05:07

Hi OttawaMike,

I think you will find that you have a Master Die (with no plate No's or check letters) this is then hardened and then it is used to make the Rolling in Die the plate No. is then added (still no check letters) after this has been hardened it is used to make a plate ie 73 then the check letters are added to the plate.

I don't think a printer would ever be allowed to alter the plate, the plate would have to go back to the "plate making" area of Perkins Bacon.

Best regards David

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 28 Jul 2009 20:26

I believe it is very important for me now to make this post and very much hope that members would take the time to read it.

It is clear now that there are those who accept the stamps on the cover as genuine and and in my view these are the pragmatists and serious open-minded philatelists, and there are the others who still doubt its authenticity and groundlessly declaring it a fake and continue to disparage it.

So here are the facts behind the expert opinions and all the examinations carried out on the cover and the stamps.

The experts who have examined the stamps said the following:

1- Faked from plate 73 stamps and intimated a 'cut and paste' process
2- Faked from plate 71 stamps!!!!!
3- Abraded and painted
4- Fluoresces under UV light!!!!!

It is quite clear that there is no agreement between them over this and I presume they would have used the usual academic methods such as magnifying glasses, UV lamps and comparators in order to come up with their opinions which condemned this item as a fake.

It is very important for us to remember one thing. We are looking at tampering heavily and in in five locations on three line engraved stamps i.e intaglio printed pieces of fragile paper, which in this case happen to be three GB stamps. THIS IS A PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE THING TO DO- PLEASE TRY IT AND SEE FOR YOURSELF.

It is therefore logical to conclude that if the paper is proven to be untampered with and the ink the same then the item is genuine. How and why it came to be is another issue.

Now in order to put an end to the unjustified and groundless opinions of faking which I still constantly get from sceptics, I have had the cover and stamps extensively examined by the following five internationally renowned forensic organisations and experts:

- The Reading Scientific Laboratories
- The Forensic Institute,
- The Forensic Science Service
- Rutgers University
- The Forensic Document Laboratory

These institutions and the professionals who work in them specialise in paper and ink examinations and while I admit they are not philatelists, they can certainly examine paper and ink at levels that philatelists and experts can not, and also use 21st century equipment that philatelists and experts do not use.

After all we are not looking at authenticating an overprint, a surcharge, a shade, a cancel, a handstamp or the like. Yes, in these cases we can accept the opinion of the philatelic experts who have handled these items and who can compare and use their experience.

However in this case we are looking at possible PAPER TAMPERING AND COUNTERFEIT and for this forensic experts in my view would, without any doubt, leave the philatelic experts standing. These professionals have the experience required and the equipment needed to carry out proper investigations and will stand up in court to defend their findings.

The following range of equipment was used for investigating the three plate number 77 stamps:

1- Raman Microscopy
-Detects and identifies the elements in the inks and the compounds present
2- Scanning Electron Microscopy
-Detects any disturbance to the paper surface and the paper fibres
3- X-ray microfluorescence (associated with elemental mapping) and X-ray microanalysis
-Detects, identifies and maps the elements present within a specified area
4- Light microscopy to 100x magnification
-Detects any disturbance to the interwoven paper fibres which appear very clearly at this magnification
5- IR and UV lamps
-Useful forms of invisible light that can give an idea if a dye has been introduced and if tampering took place in a given area.

All these bodies and experts have found no evidence of human tampering or alteration of any kind.

Finally I have asked Mr Robert Radley from The Forensic Document Laboratory, an internationally renowned forensic document expert to look at ALL the possible methods in which a 73 could be changed to a 77 and see if there was any evidence that any were applied in this case.

His full CPR compliant report confirmed that there is no evidence that the item has been tampered with in any way. He was also asked to examine and comment on the expert opinions 'a' and' b' to see if they had any validity and he has confirmed that both are incorrect.

Mr Robert Radley is an expert witness and has recently been instructed on a multi-billion dollar court case in Hong Kong. The report, for obvious reasons, must remain confidential for the time being.

I honestly do not know of many other philatelic items that have had the 'book' thrown at them to such an extent as this has. All those who disparaged it have not come up with one iota of credible and proven evidence against it.

I was the first to try and prove that the stamps have been faked by using all the equipment stamp experts use today which included UV light, plus 100x microscopy and have totally failed.

It just leaves me with one question to ask and that is, 'why can this item not exist as such and be genuine?'

Abed H Najjar

Post by **admin** » 28 Jul 2009 20:50

As I said once before Abed if this was a matter related to a murder investigation etc, and the Crown produced that depth of detailed forensic analysis, all Judges would declare the matter proved beyond all reasonable doubt, that the paper and ink was not tampered with.

All the PROOF is on your side, and in law proof and evidence are all that counts. Not old-school-tie stonewalling, malicious whispering campaigns, and pig headedness to accept the bleeding obvious - that this is an exciting new discovery.

However philately does not work so logically sadly.

One chap said to me in Melbourne this weekend something along these lines, and sadly I do think there is a LOT more than a grain of truth in it:

"If the chap that discovered this was Brigadier Chumley Smythe-Wycombe, who came up with all the science to back it up - and NOT a fellow with an Indian sounding name, he'd have almost certainly got his clear Royal Cert a year or so back."

Sad that can even be a possibility in "enlightened" 2009, but I truly think he had a very valid point. Like the Sweden Tre Skilling Banco, where the experts denounced it VENOMOUSLY as a fake - in packs, the 1d Plate 77 cover will be accepted as genuine in time.

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 28 Jul 2009 20:54

Abed,

It may make it simpler if you could repeat the exact words that were used on all the certificates,

David B.

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 28 Jul 2009 21:21

The certificates state the following.

Opinion 'a'

...- are not from Plate 77 but have been faked in each case using a stamp from Plate 73.

Opinion 'b'

The stamps are not from Plate No.77, rather the second digit of each stamp has been altered to resemble a '7'

Further details on their believed methodology were made in writing.

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 28 Jul 2009 21:41

Abed,

Thanks,

Of course both of the terms used are incorrect and maybe it is time to reapply for new certificates. I would personally reapply to the Royal London as they would be aware of the various methods that have been used and as the outcome of this item is as important to British Philately as was the Grinnells to Hawaian/US philately I am sure a lot more study will go into determining the outcome, although of course the Royal proved the Grinnells to be fake I am sure the outcome of your item will be proven to be printed by another plate, presumably plate 73 re-entered by the Plate 77 roller Die.

David B.

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 28 Jul 2009 21:45

Abed H Najjar wrote:Mr Robert Radley is an expert witness and has recently been instructed on a multi-billion dollar court case in Hong Kong. The report, for obvious reasons, must remain confidential for the time being.

Not obvious to me -- it doesn't have any connection with the court case does it? Or is there some kind of confidentiality clause, and if so what on earth for? I agree with your general points, but if the report is clear cut, surely best just to publish the damn thing and get it over with.

All that would remain then is to work out how the items came to be (all the theories so far have things they don't seem to handle very well).

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 28 Jul 2009 22:12

Robert Radley was expert witness on a multi-billion dollar Will case in Hong Kong this April. This I mention for interest sake only!

His report to me on the three stamps, a totally separate issue, must remain confidential at least for the time being as it names both Expert committees who issued the fake certificates and whose identity I wish kept private.

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 29 Jul 2009 02:58

Peter wrote:I am intrigued that the Plate 77 debate continues. The answer is so simple and so basic.

Just look under an ultra-violet lamp and see if the second '7' responds exactly the same as the first '7'. If the second '7' fluoreses, then it has been faked. End of debate!

Do you read the posts Peter? Or is it that you just write the first thing that comes into you head?

Previously I have asked have you read the posts? Have you read Abed's and others articles? You ignore the question and just keep posting what many will consider to be silly statements.

I repeat; the discussion here is really about the origin of 77s. I think if you bother to read you will see that crude faking as suggested by the so called experts has been disproved.

Please do us all a favour and read what is written as your remarks only serve to make you look foolish.

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 29 Jul 2009 05:18

Abed H Najjar wrote:His report to me on the three stamps, a totally separate issue, must remain confidential at least for the time being as it names both Expert committees who issued the fake certificates and whose identity I wish kept private.

I'm guessing that by that you mean the names of the people who signed them, rather than the names of the committees themselves? I think the cat was let out of the bag a long time ago on the latter.

Ultimately though, the signatories are a matter of record, and the report is largely wasted effort until it's seen, which it will have to be at some point to do any good. Redact the names if you prefer, but it's best published at the earliest opportunity.

Post by **admin** » 29 Jul 2009 05:28

David Benson wrote:Abed,

Thanks,

Of course both of the terms used are incorrect and maybe it is time to reapply for new certificates. I would personally reapply to the Royal London as they would be aware of the various methods that have been used and as the outcome of this item is as important to British Philately as was the Grinnells to Hawaian/US philately I am sure a lot more study will go into determining the outcome, although of course the Royal proved the Grinnells to be fake I am sure the outcome of your item will be proven to be printed by another plate, presumably plate 73 re-entered by the Plate 77 roller Die.

David B.

David do you really think they'll backtrack on this so early on?

Post by **admin** » 29 Jul 2009 19:56

mozzerb wrote:
Abed H Najjar wrote:His report to me on the three stamps, a totally separate issue, must remain confidential at least for the time being as it names both Expert committees who issued the fake certificates and whose identity I wish kept private.
I'm guessing that by that you mean the names of the people who signed them, rather than the names of the committees themselves? I think the cat was let out of the bag a long time ago on the latter.

Ultimately though, the signatories are a matter of record, and the report is largely wasted effort until it's seen, which it will have to be at some point to do any good. Redact the names if you prefer, but it's best published at the earliest opportunity.

Indeed Richard Debney from the USA openly fesses up he was on the US "Expert" Committee, and wrote the extra notes on the cover, and does not like the cover:

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

I wrote the prevailing opinion quoted by Mr. Najjar as Expert Opinion "B" and was responsible for the information conveyed to him in the subsequent correspondence. I was aware of the information contained in Expert Opinion "A" prior to writing mine.

.... It is completely my choice to disclose my involvement.

I am completely happy with the opinion and am willing to put at stake my thirty-two-year professional reputation upon it.

My guess is in a few years time, Mr Debney will greatly regret writing the last sentence. We shall see.

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 29 Jul 2009 20:13

Glen,

David do you really think they'll backtrack on this so early on?

They are not really backtracking, many more facts have emerged since the certificate was issued and Scott's theory gives some credence on how it could have occurred.

Without that theory the original group that gave the certificate can now realise that there is a possibility that other stamps engraved with a 77 could possibly exist but not from the 77 printing plate which is the main reason why they were deemed forgeries then.

Like I mentioned before the Royal, mainly Patrick Pearson spent a lot of time and effort into studying the Hawaiian Grinnells and it now needs someone or a group to do the same with these.

David B.