Why would the organizers want to display such an obvious fake?
Presumably Abed would insist on displaying it as a genuine rarity, which presumably the Royal (as one of the leading organizers of the show) could not tolerate?
Kindest regards
Richard
Moderator: Volunteer Moderator Team
Why would the organizers want to display such an obvious fake?
The plate is a physical half inch thick piece of steel.
Even if it comes to market and sells, it won't prove anything other than what has been demonstrated.
A, unequivocally. Identifying the plates manufactured, in sequence, was the whole point of the plate numbers -- so even if a plate was rejected (as 77 was, also 69, 70, 75, 126 and 128) the number of the next plate made carried on the sequence, and the rejected number wasn't reused.
capetriangle wrote: ↑09 Jan 2022 02:26
Why would the organizers want to display such an obvious fake?
Kindest regards
Richard
Do any of these "very carefully researched " certificates mention that the stamps were actually printed from plate 73?Global Administrator wrote:
This Victor Hugo addressed Plate 77 cover now has THREE very carefully researched Expert Committee Certificates stating it is genuine. And none saying anything otherwise.
Sadly Mr. Twining has since passed away.Glen, others
What would cause me to change my view would be:
(1) to see a sea-change in Great Britain philately in that there is an acceptance that Plate 77's can plate to stamps from other Plates, and
(2) to see the item get a good BPA certificate bearing any two of the following signatures: Michael C. Lea, A. F. Norris, John Taylor or F. V. Twining.
I would then be in a similar position as the famous American writer and atheist H. L. Mencken when asked what he would say if when he died, he went to Heaven and was met at the Pearly Gates by Jesus and St. Peter.
"Gentlemen, I was wrong" was the response.
Richard Debney
capetriangle wrote: ↑10 Jan 2022 00:53
I have never encountered anyone (an examiner) who has not confirmed this when it was been pointed out to them.
Kindest regards
Richard Debney
capetriangle wrote: ↑10 Jan 2022 01:28
None of the entities above rendered philatelic opinions.
Richard
I feel it is important here to make another post and include a brief summary (verbatim) from Professor Hall's report and from the RSSL report both of which are technical and both of whom have used between them the following state of the art analytical equipment to analyse the ink in both '7's.
1- Raman Microscopy
2- EDXRF ( X-ray microfluorescence) associated with elemntal mapping
3- X-ray microanalysis
4- Scanning electron microscopy
Gene S. Hall, Ph.D., Professor of Analytical Chemistry report - Quote:
"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."
RSSL's report- Quote:
"No evidence was found of fibre disruption (e.g. through deliberate tamper by scraping, cutting or adding fibres) during topographical examination of the second '7 diamond' regions."
The APS certificate states this explicitly. The PF certificate states that they are from plate 77. The two pages of the Sismondo certificate that have been publicly posted don't mention plate 73, but Abed informs me (by email) that a later page states that they are from that plate. (No, I don't know why he doesn't just post the whole of the damn thing. I've given up trying to make sense of it.)
Glen, Glen, please, you are missing the point here. We are both equally critical of Trump.Global Administrator wrote: ↑10 Jan 2022 01:50 Glen
(The fact you are ''amused'' that you and Trump are both still howling at the moon over a lost cause is rather sad actually.)
capetriangle wrote: ↑10 Jan 2022 02:12
I will reply to the more important balance of your post in due course.
Kindest regards
Richard
mozzerb wrote: ↑10 Jan 2022 02:01The APS certificate states this explicitly. The PF certificate states that they are from plate 77. The two pages of the Sismondo certificate that have been publicly posted don't mention plate 73, but Abed informs me (by email) that a later page states that they are from that plate. (No, I don't know why he doesn't just post the whole of the damn thing. I've given up trying to make sense of it.)
So, these 3 so called 'very carefully researched certificates' cannot even agree on what the stamps are! Precise wording is critical here.emason wrote: ↑10 Jan 2022 03:40mozzerb wrote: ↑10 Jan 2022 02:01The APS certificate states this explicitly. The PF certificate states that they are from plate 77. The two pages of the Sismondo certificate that have been publicly posted don't mention plate 73, but Abed informs me (by email) that a later page states that they are from that plate. (No, I don't know why he doesn't just post the whole of the damn thing. I've given up trying to make sense of it.)
Thank you Maurice.
Abed H Najjar wrote:
Plate 77
With so few copies known of stamps showing a plate number 77, there was no reason to question the fact that they were printed from plate 77. However the fact that the stamps on my cover showing a plate number 77 actually came from plate 73, forced me to research and look further into plate 77.
Apart from a few published words here and there, essentially stating that copies are known to exist from plate 77, little else of value that I could find existed, until I examined Inland Revenue document IR79/79.
It was this official document which stated that plate 77 was:
1- Not registered
2- Not put to press (on the day this issue went to press 1st March 1864)
3- No impressions were printed from it
4- Defaced over a year before the printing date
That made me wonder about the status of the existing and accepted plate 77 stamps. Namely, the Tapling copy BA and the Fletcher copy PH and the Royal copy AB.
There is no doubt that if the existing provenanced copies come from plate 77, then they must have originated from the one or two very badly perforated trial sheets that were printed over one year before the official printing date of 1st Mar 1864.
Those sheets which should have been accounted for and destroyed at that time, must have however been stored somewhere, then found one year later, 'gummed' and released 'in error' but not perhaps before someone removed stamps from the top two rows!
Based on the existing images philatelists with an interest, and students of this issue, can decide whether to just accept the fact, without further question, that these stamps come from plate 77 or not.
I personally do not think they conclusively do and feel that there is much more research to be done before we can be sure. If others however wish to keep the status quo then I will be the last to want to change their mind.
Bear in mind however a few more points:
- Only the mint copies AB, BA and AC come from the top of the sheet and all the used copies come from other places on the sheet.
- Were these unused copies removed from the top two rows intentionally? If so why release the remaining valuable sheet into the public domain? Or were they known to be rare and removed from a sheet that was purposefully re-engraved 77 from another plate printed for normal use to be naturally released to the public?
- These sheets once rejected by Hill in 1863 should have been returned, accounted for and destroyed. For what reason were they kept for over one year - Remember plate 75 was rejected at the same time, yet no 'purposefully' removed copies from that plate exist?
- Plate 77 was rejected because of the fact that it was badly laid down for perforation. None of the existing and provenanced copies however are badly centred enough to warrant that.
I have no doubt that others will put up an answer for each of these points in order to support plate 77, but we do need to address the other points made as well so that this fact can be taken as certain.
Abed H Najjar
Nah, I haven't, that was just your imagination as usual.Global Administrator wrote: ↑10 Jan 2022 05:13 My apologies - as you have told us endlessly what a keen student you are of these issues, I assumed you'd own the relevant literature - Perkins Bacon's 1929 Supplement, page 26.
Not really? The problem with rejected plates was that the plate as a whole was badly laid out, meaning it would have been necessary to make too many adjustments when perforating it. Individual stamps can and do have any kind of centring, and the top rows especially will usually be reasonable.Global Administrator wrote: ↑10 Jan 2022 05:46 FWIW .. digging back I found Abed's post on the earlier Plate 77 examples which in part said - and I had not thought before on the CENTRING of all the previous reported copies. None were any worse than other plates. Yet supposedly Plate 77 the plate was rejected on that basis. Very curious, to me anyway.
admin wrote:
Re the Mint 1d Plate 77s I found this interesting first-hand account from Tom Allen, who bought a great deal of material for the Royal Collection, and indeed, was asked to be Keeper Of The Royal Collection (by Wilson) when Sir John Wilson retired.
Allen was one of the few dealers ever invited to join the RPS London, and was on their Expert Committee for over 20 years, 1954-1975.
Wonder what his "Secret Test" for Plate 77 was?
Abed H Najjar wrote:
In this post I will study the number '77' from the plate 77 roller impression courtesy of The British Library, and compare it with images of the number '77' from stamps BA, AB and PH. There is no doubt in my mind that what we will observe will raise serious questions as to the credibility of the accepted fact that plate 77 did print the existing and provenanced stamps showing a plate number 77.
For the record, I have personally handled copies BA and PH and viewed them under 80x magnification using my microscope which I took with me to the British Library. I also have high resolution images of them both.
I have personally handled copy AB at the Palace and have a high resolution image of that stamp too. I have also studied high resolution images from The British Library of the roller impression for plates 73 and 77 which I have enlarged to A1 and studied.
For the provenanced stamps to come from plate 77, then they must exactly match the plate 77 roller impression. Here are images of the following:
1 - The roller impression of the whole stamp from the plate 77 roller - Image 1
2 - The right hand panel in which the plate number was engraved. Note the very important row of dots inside each diamond and on, or near which, the plate number would have been engraved. This row of dots is a part of the design and is on the master die. Also illustrated is the same panel for the roller impression for plate 73 and the same panel from stamp BA - Images 2,3 and 4
3 - Enlargements of the number '77' on the right hand and left hand panels. Note the vital importance of the two clear dashes next to each figure '7' on the right hand panel - Images 5 and 6
The following statements below from Pertinax confirm that in his view stamps AB, and BA come from the plate 77 roller impression and hence the printed 'proposed imprimatur sheet'.
In fact this is the only other way that the genuine stamps could have ever been produced.
- 'I believe of course they came from the actual 77 plate, and nowhere else - however it is that that came about. And the plate 77 roller relief impression proves it.'
- 'The 7's on stamps AB and BA 'match each other exactly'
- 'show no deviation whatsoever between them'
- 'on both the British Library stamp and the Royal Collection stamp, are all in EXACTLY the same position'
- 'all the known plate 77 stamps match each other'
What will be shown now is that stamps AB, BA and PH, DO NOT match the roller impression and are not identical or match each other as stated above by Pertinax.
Here are the images of the figure '77' from the Tapling BA, Royal AB, and Fletcher PH. Both right and left hand panels.
Right hand '77' panel for copies BA, AB and PH
Left hand '77' panel for copies BA, AB and PH
What we notice above is without doubt number 7's that look different, tired, worn, weak and dissimilar, and not the crisp, clear and identical impressions that would be expected from a plate that has only printed a few sheets from one roller impression. Most importantly they also DO NOT match the plate 77 roller impression.
Obviously in this case there is not an '..engraver or printer worth his salt would let such stamps into the public domain.' As stated by a board member.
Please note the following:
- Firstly, what is immediately clear is the total absence of the two dashes next to the two 7's. These must appear if plate 77 printed these stamps. They are an integral part of the design, and to accept their absence without question is wrong. After all, the plate did not print too many sheets and any impressions from it should have been pristine. They are present in every other diamond but absent from the 77 diamonds!!! These dashes are absent on all the three stamps AB, BA and PH. They are also absent, as far as I can see, from copies PI and LL from which I only have images.
- Secondly, all the 7s must have a crisp new look as they should, and they do not. They all look different in one way or another, varying thicknesses and shapes, they also have a weak look. Notice the shortness, to varying degrees, of the top bar to the left hand 7. It is faint to practically absent in copy PH. This deformity has no excuse from a new plate. Furthermore note the upright of the right hand 7s on the right panel look solid, the Tapling copy is solid but curved. The thicker right hand 7 of copy PH with its dropped top looks nothing like the others and the right hand 7 on the left panel of this stamp has practically no diagonal. Also importantly are the 77's in stamps PI and LL which look somewhat different again to those posted above. I however only have images from photo copies of these.
- Thirdly and also of great importance, one should very carefully examine where all the 7's fall. They must all fall in exactly the same place EVERY TIME and must look identical if they came from the one roller impression. They certainly do not. In particular look at the two 7's on the left hand panel from the Tapling copy, they both fall to the right of the intersection. The others fall right, left or central.
In view of the above clear inconsistencies we must therefore question the origin of these stamps, as there are now enough irregular features to put forward against plate 77 printing them. The examination of the copies AB, BA and PH above cast a serious doubt, in my view conclusive doubt, that they do come from plate 77.
Had the Tapling copy BA come up for expertisation, would an expert body not question its appearance as compared with the roller impression, assuming they had a copy of the impression?
I am the first to admit that on these stamps inking vagaries, in that, some parts of a character may not be complete can happen, however the features are always the same, and only in the case of a worn impression can some detail be lost.
I have studied and compared features from several thousands of these stamps and have not come up with inconsistencies of the nature seen on the 77s on the three stamps AB, BA and PH.
The plate was rejected because of being badly laid down for perforation and yet ALL the exiting copies, from the top to the bottom of the sheet, do not show any signs of this defect. Even this fact goes against the theory that they come from plate 77.
I will repeat what I stated earlier in one of my previous posts:
'I believe that what we will conclude one day is that the printers of the time, even the best, for whatever reason and we may never know, did do things that beggar belief.'
Abed H Najjar
pertinax wrote:
I come here with tail between my legs to admit that several days ago I realised that part of what I was putting forward is not correct.
What I had said in the most recent exchanges was that I believed the second 7s on all the known plate 77 stamps would all match in terms of position and shape.
I had however forgotten that Abed's article included an image of the Fletcher Collection plate 77 stamp (PH), and from that it is apparent that the horizontal to the right-hand second 7 has a definite tilt downwards. This is not matched on the other 77s illustrated - AB and BA.
So to that extent, I was wrong.
Scott
Did people collect to that degree of specialisation in the 19th century?Global Administrator wrote: ↑10 Jan 2022 23:17
Do we know WHEN the Royal Collection copy was obtained?
Reading the chart above - no 'finds' in the 19th Century seem confirmed ... seems odd for an 1864 RARITY.
Glen
To the best of my recollection I made a post on this thread some time back (translation -- fairly sure I remember this correctly, but I'm not going to faff around trying to find it, anyone who wants to is welcome) noting that when I looked in a SG catalogue of c.1900, it didn't list the individual plate numbers -- merely noting that there were many of them and certain ones were not used. It did (again IIRC) mention the existence and rarity of a 77, although also reported a plate 70(?) which is no longer listed.
The "British School" of collecting involved the trimming of imperforate margins to as close to the design as possible and the removal of the perforations which were not considered significant.
The Pom wrote: ↑11 Jan 2022 03:44Did people collect to that degree of specialisation in the 19th century?Global Administrator wrote: ↑10 Jan 2022 23:17
Reading the chart above - no 'finds' in the 19th Century seem confirmed ... seems odd for an 1864 RARITY.
Most of the earliest albums/catalogues are fairly simplified compared to what we're used to now, hence the number of finds still being made today.
As an explanation for the accepted mint examples? Not impossible, but very speculative -- you would expect some record of it, even if only as gossip among the contemporary collecting fraternity. The 1865 "Royal Reprint" of the Penny Black (actually from Die II Plate 66) has a documented request from Ormond Hill to PB AFAIK.Global Administrator wrote: ↑11 Jan 2022 10:28 The oft made suggestion that perhaps a special later printing was made of stamps bearing number 77 for Royalty/Big Shots might have some merit?
Global Administrator wrote: ↑11 Jan 2022 12:29 Based on the data and images we now have, does ANY member here truly believe all 3 stamps came from the one test print sheet of Plate 77?
pertinax wrote:
I come here with tail between my legs to admit that several days ago I realised that part of what I was putting forward is not correct.
What I had said in the most recent exchanges was that I believed the second 7s on all the known plate 77 stamps would all match in terms of position and shape.
I had however forgotten that Abed's article included an image of the Fletcher Collection plate 77 stamp (PH), and from that it is apparent that the horizontal to the right-hand second 7 has a definite tilt downwards. This is not matched on the other 77s illustrated - AB and BA.
So to that extent, I was wrong.
Scott
They are visible on the left panels of AB, BA (very clearly) and PH (from the scans in Abed's 2008 CCP article), less so or not visible on other examples, so I think variable in nature, possibly affected by uneven pressure exerted during the roller transfer process. A question perhaps is do they show consistently around the numerals on early prints of stamps from other plates, or are they typically variable in nature?Global Administrator wrote: ↑11 Jan 2022 22:33 Well I do not see the dashes in the '7' diamond shaped boxes even on the ''BA'' example via the VERY clear scan you offer. Does anyone else? There are none.
The registration sheet photos on The Postal Museum website should be useful to answer that question?GB1840 wrote: ↑11 Jan 2022 23:39 They are visible on the left panels of AB, BA (very clearly) and PH (from the scans in Abed's 2008 CCP article), less so or not visible on other examples, so I think variable in nature, possibly affected by uneven pressure exerted during the roller transfer process. A question perhaps is do they show consistently around the numerals on early prints of stamps from other plates, or are they typically variable in nature?
Users browsing this forum: Kiwidude and 4 guests