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

[Derbyboi2]

Bacon, of course, didn't serve in the first world war. He visited the Royal Collection three times a week during wartime. He was also deaf and over 41 at the time of the outbreak of the first world war.

Here is an extract from his Wikipedia entry.

''A week after John Alexander Tilleard, "Philatelist to the King",[7] died in September 1913, Bacon was invited by King George V to be the Curator of the Royal Philatelic Collection.[2] He accepted and travelled from his residence in Croydon to Buckingham Palace two or three times a week until his death to work on the collection, to buy stamps, to receive items from the post offices in the United Kingdom, and the British Dominions and colonies, and to mount all this in uniform red stamp albums,[8] while Tilleard had accumulated and mounted only when the King was preparing an exhibition at the Royal Philatelic Society London. Nevertheless, John Wilson, Keeper of the Collection after Bacon's death, criticised the way Bacon added new hinges without removing old ones.[9]

Whereas deafness[10] isolated Bacon from the others members of the Royal Court, he alone succeeded in balancing the collection's budget when the King bought a lot and to mount every project, essay and issued stamp received. During World War I, the session in the Stamp Room placed inside Buckingham Palace diverted the King from matters of state and the war, and made him consider the curator as a friend like Tilleard.[11]

After George V's death in January 1936, Bacon continued his tasks on a collection that became part of the royal heritage. Even if Kings Edward VIII and George VI were less enthusiastic stamp collectors than their father, they made sure that all British and colonial postal authorities continued to send philatelic material to the Curator.[12] But Edward VIII ordered that the collection had to be financially self-sufficient, through the sales of duplicate stamps. In July 1936 Bacon was authorised to sell two 500-dollar stamps of the Straits Settlements featuring King Edward VII for 1,000 pounds.[13]

In April 1938 Bacon announced to the King his retirement on the next first of September. John Wilson was quickly chosen because, as President of the Royal Philatelic Society London and chairman of its Expert Committee, he already knew the collection well.[14] However, Bacon died of influenza in June 1938.[15] From 1904 until his death, he lived in Croydon, commuting to work at Buckingham Palace. [16]''

[mozzerb]

I cut out the details of recruitment/conscription to avoid giving Glen something to go off on a tangent about, but yes, it was working-class heavy and by late 1914 the full range of economic difficulties and Western Front mass casualty horrors hadn't kicked in yet.

Regarding the RPSL, at the time the annual subscription was about £1(*) -- probably a guinea, I should think? -- and there was a joining fee too, so "middle/upper class membership" sounds about right.

Regarding the expert committee specifically, note that anyone invited to join such a thing needs to be a senior and knowledgeable philatelist, and those generally aren't of military age. So no, I don't think the committee would have been greatly depleted by call-ups to the colours.

--------------------------------------
(*) Judging by the accounts presented at the 1914 AGM and printed in the LP, which give the total revenue from entrance fees/subs -- £347 and sixpence, so about £1 2s 6d each relative to the stated number of 308 members/associates.

[Derbyboi2]

Bacon also has form with the line engraved 1d

''Title
The line-engraved postage stamps of Great Britain printed by Perkins, Bacon & Co.; a history of their production during the forty years, 1840-1880, mainly compiled from the records of the firm with the assistance of James Dunbar Heath, Managing director., v.2.
Author
Bacon, Edward Denny, Sir, 1860-1938.
Published
London :C. Nissen,1920.''

I doubt Charles Nissen would publish a book on the line engraved issues without thinking it was authoritative. At this time Bacon was President of the RPSL.

[flip138]

Mozzerb - although I have no experience in plating 1d reds, the availability of images of all of the registration sheets on the gbps website encouraged me to have a look at LL.

https://www.gbps.org.uk/information/sources/registration-sheets/le-1d-red-plates.php

I took four characteristics of the LL subject stamp: identifying each L as NW, NE, SW or SE (north-west, north-east, south-west, south-east corners).

1. Base of NW L is lower than that of NE L
2. The stamp underneath (ML) is entered slightly to the left of LL
3. The distance to the ML stamp is less than the distance to the LK stamp
4. The vertical stroke of SE L points to the right of the first white dot above it

The bottom line is that although the L's of some plates are pretty close to those of the subject (e.g. 172 and 178), I could not find a complete match of the above characteristics of the subject stamp with any of the registration sheets between plates 71 and 225.

With most plates, the vertical separation between LL and ML is greater than or similar to the horizontal separation between LK and LL. I also could not find any plate with a vertical spur on the top of the left hand frame line of the ML stamp, as appears to be the case for the subject, although this may be an extraneous mark as the colour does not exactly match.

Apologies if this has already been stated, but would the registration sheets have been available to the RPSL experts when the original certificate was issued? Of course, whether or not they were used is another matter.

Phil

[mozzerb]

The bottom line is that although the L's of some plates are pretty close to those of the subject (e.g. 172 and 178), I could not find a complete match of the above characteristics of the subject stamp with any of the registration sheets between plates 71 and 225. With most plates, the vertical separation between LL and ML is greater than or similar to the horizontal separation between LK and LL. I also could not find any plate with a vertical spur on the top of the left hand frame line of the ML stamp, as appears to be the case for the subject, although this may be an extraneous mark as the colour does not exactly match.

Apologies if this has already been stated, but would the registration sheets have been available to the RPSL experts when the original certificate was issued? Of course, whether or not they were used is another matter.

Thanks, Phil, very useful, and saves me some work.

That implies that LL is a genuine plate 77, as both the "faked from a stamp from another plate" and "all 77s are really printed from modified versions of other plates" explanations require that the lettering, spacing etc actually match some other plate.

Given his position Bacon would probably have been given access to the registration sheets in 1914 if he'd asked, but I'm not aware of any statement that he did. (In connection with this matter, at least, I think he did inspect them when writing his book on line engraved.)

On the other hand, there should have been plate reconstructions about that would have served much the same purpose. More recently, the RPSL were gifted a set of them some time ago (except for 77 and 225), and I understand that's what they compared with when looking at Abed's cover.

[Parisboy]

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned (I did start to read the thread from the beginning but there is just too much to go through), but the post office numerals on the used copies seem to imply a common point of origin (except the Hugo cover but it depends where the stamps were bought).

LL 80 Tottenham

MI 75 Edmonton

NC 15 Highbury (if this stamp actually exists)

PH 1 Highgate

PI 15 Highbury

All except Highgate are close to each other and Highgate isnt that far.

Maybe the stamps originate from the same Post Office branch, rather like all the George V Silver Jubilee Prussian Blue stamps originated from Edmonton?

Happy to be proved wrong but it does shed another angle on the mystery.

Chris.

[mozzerb]

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned (I did start to read the thread from the beginning but there is just too much to go through), but the post office numerals on the used copies seem to imply a common point of origin (except the Hugo cover but it depends where the stamps were bought).

LL 80 Tottenham

MI 75 Edmonton

NC 15 Highbury (if this stamp actually exists)

PH 1 Highgate

PI 15 Highbury

All except Highgate are close to each other and Highgate isnt that far.

Maybe the stamps originate from the same Post Office branch, rather like all the George V Silver Jubilee Prussian Blue stamps originated from Edmonton?

They're all Inland Branch cancellations IIRC, not district numbers -- without going back to check every one, definitely PH is (number in diamond), and the two "15"s are an unusual type that seems to have been confined to registered mail (the one on piece with a 4d is a standard inland registered letter combination of the period).

The "80" in circle on LL is a bit misleading -- it's a district type and I think the number was allocated to Tottenham later, but at this time was used at IB according to the Parmenter book, which illustrates it. (I looked it up a few days ago.)

So very likely the GPO itself or a single branch in London EC.

[GB1840]

It is not a long stretch of the imagination to believe the first sheets from a new plate did not print sufficiently well for all impressions to show the fine detail required, I can't go back as neither can you to inspect the sheets, so I am just providing what I believe is a reasonable possible explanation

Sorry it is fantasyland nonsense, and not 'a reasonable explanation.' as to why 'LL' is from a plate of a million impressions etc.

I worked for some years at a Rupert Murdoch large daily newspaper here, and then in a leading advertising company. This is 55 years back when all Newspapers and ads were made entirely from in hot metal and zinco half tone engraved image blocks.

This ‘LL’ is an impression from a VERY worn plate, with the ‘77’ numbers possibly re-entered for some reason we do not know why. I repeat that is our puzzle here. It is clearly a worn impression. THAT is a fact.

Glen

Fantasy nonsense, really? Does anyone else here seriously believe the operation of a printing press and its setting up to print from a brand new plate from the 1840s - 60s can be realistically compared with something from the 1970s and relevant to this discussion, irrespective that the printing methods are different? I don't think Murdoch's presses looked quite like these, maybe there had been some progress in 100 years!

Yes the final product was similar, but the setting up - 'settling' of a new plate on a press dating from the 1860s was very different from a 20th century machine, and clearly as the first hand records confirm, and cannot be disputed it took time to set up a press before it was able to achieve the quality of print and the fine detail required of the final product. Just read the words of the letter, there would be many adjustments required and first few pulls could have produced a poor quality print and a number of sheets rejected as usually was the case as is recorded in the print record.

Therefore LL could possibly be from a very early sheet taken during the settling of the press with the new shiny plate 77, that was subsequently used to check the alignment and the plate soon rejected, who knows?, but it can't be dismissed as nonsense.

But Glen prefers to believe it is more likely that PB were busy altering plate 73 and now another (yet to be determined!) plate (or plates) to show a 77 (and back again) but at the same time dismisses any other more likely explanations.

[satsuma]

Throughout this long thread on plate 77, there has been animated and at times aggravated discussion about how many sheets were printed, and whether the extant copies got to the market legitimately, or surreptitiously.

There's been mention that a couple of the mint copies were first brought to market 50 years after printing, and theft of "archive" copies probably explains that.

What I've yet to read is confirmation that the plate was actually contemporaneuosly destroyed after the refusal to register it.

Could it have been put to press again some time later as a favour to "influential" personages?

Could KGV's penchant for wanting an example of everything from the Commonwealth, motivated the sudden appearance of some copies for sale.

I expect to be answered "not possible" but so far I haven't seen this theory discussed or refuted.

[Allanswood]

Normally a worn plate or a rejected plate will be milled clean and a new plate with new number rolled in. They were, after all, about 12-15mm thick and only needed to lose about 0.3 to 0.5mm to be 'clean' again.

77 was not the only plate number never to see the light of day. Others in the '70's' have no surviving examples.

As for 'how many sheets were printed', it had to be very few, or 1. After all why waste paper before even seeing if it could be perforated (which it couldn't).

As for printing again 'some time later', paper has changed, ink has changed, the perforator has changed. And there would be a lot more examples floating around.

[satsuma]

Well there are still some stumbling blocks to be explained.

My understanding is that it was normal for 6 sheets to be printed prior to registration, the best of which was kept as the imprimatur, and the other 5 of which were returned to stock.

If on the other hand only 1 was printed and it was decided that it wasn't good enough to perforate, why send it for registration?

Surely a message saying the plate is faulty would have been sufficient?

And then, if it was so easy to skim the plate and roll in a new set of impressions, why change the plate number at all? Presumably the original individual engraving from which the plate was created was still available.

And then thinking back to the perforation process, surely printing at least 2 sheets makes more sense, to allow for the possibility that the plate was fine but the first attempt at perforating it was mishandled.

Regarding the ink, if the first mint copies didn't surface for 50 years after printing what could the ink on those copies have been compared to? There was no spectroscopic analysis available back then, and possibly after they went into institutional collections this was not done later.

How much retrospective testing of the mint copies has been done? Is it possible that, for example, that Sperati created them from genuine stamp paper of the era? After all they were mint no gum so it wouldn't have been necessary to faff around with postmarks or regumming.

This could also explain why the characteristics of the 7s differ between the mint and used copies without needing to alter a plate, print from it and alter it back.

Regarding the used copies, if one sheet was perforated, rejected for registration, but put into stock and distributed the number known would lie within the bounds of the normal survival rate, wouldn't it?

Note that I am not assuming this is what happened, merely positing a possibility to debunk, as I have difficulty accepting that plate numbers being contemporaneously changed at the printers, to print a few examples, and then changed back is the only explanation.

And if it wasn't contemporaneous, then the difficulties Allanswood raises remain to be answered.

[Rigs]

All good points.

But if plate 77 was never legitimately issued you could argue that any that snuck through are invalid and effectively worthless anyway.

A curious novelty at best.

As opposed to legitimately issued stamps that are valuable because few now exist, or those issued with an unnoticed flaw or error.
.

[norvic]

All good points.

But if plate 77 was never legitimately issued you could argue that any that snuck through are invalid and effectively worthless anyway.

A curious novelty at best.

As opposed to legitimately issued stamps that are valuable because few now exist, or those issued with an unnoticed flaw or error.
.

As you say, good points.

Basically down to, if it wasn’t good enough (somewhere on the plate)

- was it definitely destroyed;

- if it was destroyed by skimming, why wasn’t number 77 reapplied to the same metal?

[Global Admin]

Some good points Satsuma.

I am certain the 3 'mint' examples have never had any Expert Committee scrutiny whatever, at any time - other than the 'secret test' Tom Allen and Charles Nissen undertook in his shop, before buying it from the mystery man in the black overcoat, at the end of WWI.

Probably doing what I'd have done - tested the 77 box with a Q-Tip or cotton bud dipped in hot water and detergent, to quickly check for a water painted in second '7' number.

As a result of this first hand account 'secret test' any modern test on that copy will likely have those '7' boxes SCREAM of 'tampering - tampering' as a result of using modern testing lights on it.

Note that I am not assuming this is what happened, merely positing a possibility to debunk, as I have difficulty accepting that plate numbers being contemporaneously changed at the printers, to print a few examples, and then changed back is the only explanation.

A few members above have also added in the 'changed back again' rider to their 'arguments'.

There is no need whatever for that to have occurred. NONE.

PB sadly did not retain a proof sheet pull of each RETIRED plate, showing the then current side numbers, and state of wear for the files. If they did, this mystery would have been solved 15 years back!

Very odd this was not done, as cost of new plates to PO was high and if PB had 'evidence' via final pulls of the worn plate to show PO if ever queried that they needed replacing, the plate numbers would show as a side bonus.

A charge LATE in any plate's life would mean few copies were printed of that change, before the plate was scrapped. Entirely possible. Given the worn appearance of many of the used '77' - more likely than not.

Roughly 140 million were printed of each new plate, or roughly 600,000 sheets each. So at end of life, the plates were very worn.

Survival/retention value of this mega common 1d value was way less than .1% as they were perceived to have zero value to anyone. Higher face values of stamps NOT red in colour were not seen so often, and folks sometimes put those aside. Even so, accepted survival rate of those was only 3% or so.

[blue-within-blue]

Satsuma asked "Is it possible that, for example, that Sperati created them from genuine stamp paper of the era? "

Short answer - very unlikely. He made all his forgeries by photo-lithography. Unlike the other prolific forgers such as Spiro, Oneglia, Fournier etc, he did not make anything from engraved plates. A copy of a penny red made by photo-lithography should be obvious to anyone who examined it closely.

ROB

[gavin-h]

A charge LATE in any plate's life would mean few copies were printed of that change, before the plate was scrapped. Entirely possible. Given the worn appearance of many of the used '77' - more likely than not.

The first issue that needs addressing in this hypothesis is, are we looking at a "worn plate" or at "worn stamps".

In many respects both would give similar results, and may be difficult to distinguish.

However, looking at the illustrations of LL above, I find it rather difficult to overlook that if it's a fresh stamp from a worn plate, it's also been struck with a worn canceller. The bars and, in particular, the circle of the cancel are very worn and the colour of the cancel is more grey than black from the images we have.

All of that, and the colour of the paper, would suggest to me that this stamp has more likely than not suffered from surface abrasion, bleaching/cleaning or fading at some point in its history.

Of course, happy for the experts to PROVE me wrong...

[GB1840]

Well there are still some stumbling blocks to be explained.

My understanding is that it was normal for 6 sheets to be printed prior to registration, the best of which was kept as the imprimatur, and the other 5 of which were returned to stock.

For the early line engraved stamps (this directly relates to the 1840s to 50s where more detailed records exist but probably similar for the later plates) printing from a new plate normally commenced a day or more before the commissioners were invited to come to see the registration sheet printed.

Typically 400 sheets per day per press were printed. This is recorded in the PB records as we know in many cases when a new plate was first printed from and by whom, also the day the registration sheet was printed, it took a while, sometimes hours or longer to settle the new plate on the press and get a good print.

So 100s of sheets where often printed before the registration sheet and often a number of sheets were spoiled during this period as is also recorded as even spoilt sheets had to be accounted for.

[mozzerb]

A few members above have also added in the 'changed back again' rider to their 'arguments'.

There is no need whatever for that to have occurred. NONE.

There's every need for that to have occurred if you want to use this 'theory' to explain Abed's cover (without which nobody would even be formulating such a 'Froot Loop' idea in the first place).

The cover is dated 1865, but plate 73 continued in use until 1868. If positions had been changed to 77 but not changed back shortly afterwards, why are there not plenty of stamps from plate 73 but reading 77 that were printed in those three years? Have you really not grasped this basic point yet after more than a decade?

You can argue this wasn't done for whatever plate is supposed to have been changed for the LL stamp (apparently none of the actual plates match, but *handwave*), but why the difference?

[GB1840]

A few members above have also added in the 'changed back again' rider to their 'arguments'.

There is no need whatever for that to have occurred. NONE.

There's every need for that to have occurred if you want to use this 'theory' to explain Abed's cover (without which nobody would even be formulating such a 'Froot Loop' idea in the first place).

The cover is dated 1865, but plate 73 continued in use until 1868. If positions had been changed to 77 but not changed back shortly afterwards, why are there not plenty of stamps from plate 73 but reading 77 that were printed in those three years? Have you really not grasped this basic point yet after more than a decade?

You can argue this wasn't done for whatever plate is supposed to have been changed for the LL stamp (apparently none of the actual plates match, but *handwave*), but why the difference?

And of course it is known plate 73 was repaired on 31 Jan 1868, over 60 letterings, including SL, illustrated in Wiggins. Even Abed accepts this so his cover may be in an 'intermediate state' as he puts it.

The only way forward is for Abed to show all the accepted 77s were from modified plates, so let's start rubbishing LL.

It seems however only the cover has been proven to match letter positions from another plate, so bang goes that simple theory.

[adw]

I'm not sure it's necessary to show that ALL stamps with 77 at the sides are from modified plates in order to explain the Victor Hugo cover.

If plates were worked on by hand to correct wear and damage (an example of a 2d plate 8 where the numbers had been strengthened was posted way back in this thread) then it's not impossible to imagine an engraver going cross-eyed re-engraving a load of 73s making a mistake and engraving 77 instead. Then it being corrected once noticed on printed sheets.

That doesn't mean there aren't ALSO surviving examples of actual plate 77 stamps, since at least one sheet must surely have been printed and perforated in order to determine that it was no good for perforating.

[Derbyboi2]

Without banging on too much about the LL '77' it is pertinent to repeat the following: -

1. Bacon signed the RPSL certificate.
2. We know Bacon had access to the Perkins Bacon records and did, in fact, publish a two volume work on the line engraved penny within 10 years of signing the certificate with the assistance of the then manager of Perkins Bacon, so he had access to all their records and correspondence.
3. He was a prominent philatelist who very shortly after signing the certificate became keeper of the Royal Collection, a position he kept for many years.
4. Bacon subsequently was elected president of the RPSL.

Even with the passage of time is he likely to have just signed off on this without any in-depth research and enquiry of Perkins Bacon at the time, knowing the rarity of the stamp?

[emason]

If plates were worked on by hand to correct wear and damage (an example of a 2d plate 8 where the numbers had been strengthened was posted way back in this thread) then it's not impossible to imagine an engraver going cross-eyed re-engraving a load of 73s making a mistake and engraving 77 instead. Then it being corrected once noticed on printed sheets.

The plates weren't engraved - it was the transfer roller impression that was engraved with the plate number, so it only needed to be done once. The entire plate of 240 impressions was made from just the one transfer roller.

[adw]

Yes, but subsequent repairs were sometimes done by hand by an engraver, as discussed earlier in the thread.

[emason]

Yes, but subsequent repairs were sometimes done by hand by an engraver, as discussed earlier in the thread.

Usually to strengthen the frame lines, never the plate number. The plate number is raised on the plate- that's why it appears uninked. Altering the plate number by engraving would remove metal from the plate resulting in extra ink showing on the stamp. Remember it is recess printed.

[adw]

These issues were discussed earlier in the thread, but hard to find now! It was demonstrated that the raised plate number could be changed by an engraver.

[emason]

These issues were discussed earlier in the thread, but hard to find now! It was demonstrated that the raised plate number could be changed by an engraver.

I don't think it was demonstrated - rather it was speculated.

[adw]

Abed actually hired an engraver to demonstrate that it was possible, he got them to engrave a 73 within diamonds at the same size as a penny red, photograph it then change it to 77. He posted photographs of the results, but that was years ago now. Maybe Abed will reply with a link.

[adw]

Found it!

The sixth image in this rather long post:

Cover from Guernsey to Brussels franked with three copies of the 1859 1d rose red showing a plate number 77, and research into plate 77 and the three provenanced plate number 77 stamps.

The foregoing is a brief summary, in two parts.

Firstly the story behind my cover and my research into its authenticity, the connection between plate 73 and 77 and the expert views on it.

Secondly, some of the information that I have on plate 77 and the stamps showing a plate number 77.

I feel I must state from the outset that while I favour the findings of my research into plate 77, and which I believe casts doubt about plate 77 actually printing the existing and accepted copies showing a plate number 77. I am certainly not against looking at other research which disputes my findings with a view to changing my mind. The possibility that plate 77 printed the provenanced stamps undoubtedly exists. I have no axe to grind either way.

My prime objective has always been to prove that my cover is genuine beyond any reasonable doubt, and I believe I have done this. Now whether the other stamps come from plate 77 or not should not, in any way, influence the fact that my three stamps are genuine and originate from plate 73.

Research into plate 77 stamps may go on for many years to come. Or may even end soon if students of this issue believe there is no case to answer and that further research on this subject should not continue.

The cover from Guernsey to Belgium franked with three copies showing a plate number 77.

Discovery of the cover

I discovered this 1865 cover from Guernsey to Brussels in a large collection of GB and Channel Islands collection of stamps and covers which was purchased from the continent some ten years ago or so.

The cover was mounted in an album and the leaf on which it was mounted was annotated, I believe in Flemish. I recall that it annotated by hand and arrows the Guernsey duplex, the PD mark and both the transit and arrival markings.

Plate 73 connection

Having eliminated plates 71 and 177 by comparing the corner letters, I discovered on further investigations that the corner letters of my three plate number 77 stamps matched exactly those of plate 73 stamps of similar positions.

This I confirmed through matching the corner letters and by the high position of the left-hand '7' in the right hand panel and the constant flaw in the top right 'S' box on stamp SK. As can be seen from this image.

Having discovered that the three stamps on the cover showed a plate number 77, I was compelled to initiate some further research of mine into its authenticity.

Why alter plate 73 stamps to plate 77 and how?

This is a very valid question which does need addressing. We know it did happen, but why did it happen and how?

Of course we may never know the whole story, but this does not stop us from searching for possible reasons.

I believe that one strong possibility is in an effort to quickly engrave plate numbers on some impressions on which the plate number was imperceptible. We know that 66/67 heads were re-entered on plate 73, and that the plate did require repair. In fact quite a few of the earliest plates did need regular repairs and re-entries.

An 'experimental' printing perhaps which was not adopted.

Here are images of three pairs of plate 73 stamps in which one stamp shows a hardly perceptible plate number.

Could the number 77 have been a marker number which could be easily engraved by hand directly on the plate and onto impressions on which the number was not visible and which would be corrected later by the re-application of the plate 73 roller? There was much pressure on these plates to print stamps and keeping them out of commission for as short a time as possible was vital.

Here is an image of a plate 73 stamp dated 1865 showing a weak number. This meant that this was an early problem that needed addressing.

As to how alter the number on the plate- I commissioned an expert engraver to engrave two 73 on a piece of steel roughly the same size as the stamp and then alter one 73 into a 77. This he did in ten minutes which means that in a matter of a few hours a plate could be corrected and back on the press. We know that plates were repaired and corrected at that time.

Here is an image of the engraving experiment.

Expert opinions

Please forgive this short anecdote but I do feel it is very apt in my case.

I asked a friend what was the first thing that came to his mind if he saw a tall man with a blooded hand and a knife standing over an old man lying flat on the ground. His reply was immediately that the tall man may have attacked the old man.

To that I replied, what if this tall man was in the kitchen cutting up a large joint of beef and looking out of the window sees an old man fall on the ground with a stroke. In his panic to run out and help, he forgets to put the knife down?

I believe that this was exactly the way of thinking that made the two expert bodies, the RPSL and the PF, give my cover a fake certificate.

I believe that The Royal by ensuring that the stamps on the cover matched plate 73 stamps, decided to damn it without further investigations. Understandably perhaps, as they would not have been aware that plate 77 may not have printed any of the existing stamps. Asked for the way of faking, they confirmed in writing a cut and paste scenario, probably believing that an abrading and painting option was not possible.

The PF, knowing that the Royal gave the cover a fake certificate, and not having access to plate studies looked at the stamps under 'white light' and by noticing a colour difference between the two 7's at 10x magnification under this white light, decided to also condemn the item .

As a matter of interest, other experts damned the cover based on the following grounds:

1- '7's fluoresce under UV light
2- Stamps are faked from plate 71 stamps
3- All the '7's are different so it is a fake

And a few other 'experts' declared it a fake by viewing images or reading the accompanying text only!!

In my view the image below in itself puts paid to both faking certificates. There is no doubting that this is an original figure '7' printed as part of the whole impression.

Above is a micrograph image by the RSSL of just one of the right hand '7's, which clearly shows the paper fibres to be totally untampered with, and as can be very clearly seen, some of these fibres run from outside the diamond into the '7'.

This is nothing but conclusive proof that the area of the right hand '7' has not been tampered with as alleged by the Philatelic Foundation, and certainly no sign of another '7' cut out from another stamp as alleged by the RPSL.

Full details of my defence against the faking allegation of Richard Debney of the PF is found on page 26 of this thread.

All I can say in conclusion is that had it not been for perseverance and forensic science, then if the 'experts' had their way, a perfectly genuine world class philatelic gem would have been consigned to the dustbin for all time and some good research into plate 77 would have never come to the fore.

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 plate77. 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. The 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!

Researching into the British Library archives I was advised that a roller impression of plate 77 existed. I obtained a copy, enlarged and reversed it. On studying this impression I discovered that the two dashes next to each '7' on the right hand side and which were a part of the design and on the master die impression, were missing on all three copies. All other features of course are of no relevance, as they would have been identical on all the stamps that were printed from the master die, from which all roller impressions come.

Furthermore on studying serious enlargements of stamps AB, BA and PH, both photographically and using Photoshop, I was not satisfied that the '7's on each of stamps AB, BA and PH, were similar in shape and position.

Added to this were the incredible odds of finding the existing copies from these few sheets amongst the 12 billion or so stamps printed, further doubt was generated. Especially the astronomical odds of finding two adjacent copies PH and PI.

To me all this evidence cast a doubt on whether plate 77 printed these stamps. Of course, all these copies could have come from plate 77, but unless research and conclusive proof was ever forthcoming then in my mind at least this must remain an open question.

It is quite unlikely that copies AB, BA and PH come from plate 73 as none exactly match the corner letters, although some do come very close. I do need others to be look into this in order to support this point. I will therefore keep an open mind.

Once again I have no axe to grind either way. I do not own any of them and I therefore feel that there is a duty for those who own their copies to perhaps carry out their own research to prove or disprove that their copies come from plate 77. From my side, I will do all I can within my limited research arsenal, to try and come up with some possible answers, if any do exist.

Images of the '77' from the plate 77 roller impression and the provenanced plate 77 stamps.

Please remember that plate 77 only printed a small handful of sheets and therefore one would certainly expect these first impressions to be sharp and pristine.


The plate 77 roller impression- right hand '77' - note the important and prominent dashes next to each figure '7'

The plate 77 roller impression- left hand '77'-

The complete plate 77 roller impression right hand panel which shows the row of dashes.

Tapling BA right hand '77'

Royal AB right hand '77'

Fletcher PH right hand '77'

Note the absence of the dashes and the broken top to the left hand 7.


The right hand '77' from stamp PI- extracted from a printed image.

Although not very clear, you will notice the oddly shaped right hand '7' and the left hand '7' which has a top bar, unlike copies AB, BA and PH! It appears that both 7's have no dashes next to them.


Tapling BA left hand '77'

Royal AB left hand '77'

Fletcher PH left hand '77'

Notice the differently shaped 7's and the clearly different positions where they fall on the intersection. This should not happen if the stamps come from one roller impression.

Based on these 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.

-Where these unused copies removed from the top two rows intentionally? If so why release the remaining valuable sheet into the public domain? Or where 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 where 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. See the misplaced plate 73 images below.

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.

I know that we must match the corner letters with that of other plates, and perhaps we should look at all plates numbered 71-99, as both '7's may have been re-engraved seeing that both dashes are missing and both '7's look suspect and possibly re-engraved.

I feel that by just comparing the shapes of the '7's and where they fall with that of other stamps may not be enough evidence in my view as a re-engraving possibility is always present on both '7's.

The published information:

As far as published information on 'plate 77', no doubt that the most information I found on plate 77 stamps was printed in E D Bacon's book:

The Line-Engraved Stamps of Great Britain Vols I and II Printed by Perkins Bacon & Co
Edward Denny Bacon MVO 1920

This is what he cites about plate 77 stamps. As you will notice items 2 and 3 of it are based on total conjecture.

1 - As far as the official rejection of the plates Bacon states the following:

"As regards Plates 75 and 77, the only new information we have found of these is contained in a letter of Mr Ormond Hill to Perkins, Bacon & Co., dated February 7th, 1863, in which he wrote: 'I am very sorry to be under the necessity of rejecting the two postage plates on account of the irregularity of the placing of the heads.'

No mention is made in the letter of the numbers of the plates, but the reference can only be to Plates 75 and 77, impressions from which were no doubt submitted at the same time as those of Plates 76 and 78 to 81, which were all registered on the same day as Mr. Hill condemned Plates 75 and 77."


2 - As far as plate 77 stamps 'PH' and 'PI' are concerned E D Bacon states the following:

"Both stamps still remain on a portion of the envelope or letter-sheet they franked and are obliterated with the number "15" surrounded by heavy bars, which was also a cancellation mark used in the London Head Office. The One Penny value is lettered PI. Both the used specimens, which came from lower rows of the sheet than the unused copies, are very badly centred as regards the perforation and in this respect confirm the reason given for the rejection of the plate. "

Everyone collecting this issue is aware that the better centred copies are the more valuable.

Here is an image of plate 73 stamps showing practically an identical misplacement of perforations on one stamp as per copies PH and PI and yet plate 73 was not rejected. The plate must have been really poor in alignment in order for it to be rejected.

3 - Explanation regarding the existence of plate 77 stamps on the market - E D Bacon states the following:

"The existence of the six specimens proves that a sheet or more must have been printed and perforated, no doubt as a trial, after which the plate was condemned as unfit for use. These trial stamps may then have been mixed in with the ordinary stock and put into circulation in the usual way, or they may have been put on one side and, perhaps after an interval, used by some official or other individual who came across them."

A totally understandable and a possible explanation.

But it is based on 'may then' and 'perhaps'. This is conjecture and as such not conclusive. If there is any other indication that other options can exists as to the possible fact that these stamps may come from other re-engraved plates, then this must be investigated in full before one can make any conclusions as to what has actually happened.

We must again remember that:

1 - These trial sheets should have been accounted for and destroyed.
2 - The stamps do not have the dashes from the plate 77 roller
3 - The stamps have different looking 7's that do not always fall at the intersection.
4 - We are asked to believe conjecture as opposed to fact as far as their existence is concerned.

Of course we may end up accepting that stamps AB, BA and PH actually do come from plate 77 after having successfully explained all the above points.

Until then I believe that there is much research to be done, and in my view serious forensic scientific examinations should be carried out, such as that carried out on my stamps, in order to prove that the other accepted copies, PI, LL, MI and NC, and any other, are also genuine.


Abed H Najjar

[adw]

And on the subject of known recutting of plate numbers:

Abed, can you explain why the recut 7s on the Plate 73 impressions would not be crisp, presuming the plate number had been recut? If the expectation is that stamps printed from Plate 77 should have very crisp plate numbers (due to so few sheets actually being printed and so no wear), surely the recut 7s should also be sharp, given the (apparantly) very short life of the printing with the 'incorrect' plate number on the Plate 73 impression you implied.

Or, have I got this wrong?

That's an excellent question and point Peter.

I said many months ago that the claimed recut 7s simply do not look the same as any other recut numeral I have seen before.

This is obviously a 2d blue, from plate 8. It is a state 2 print after the left numeral 8 has been recut.

The white line comprising it displays as uniform in width. This looks nothing like the second 7s on your cover Abed.

Scott

[GB1840]

The recuts of numerals on the plate 8 repairs involved removing metal from the raised numeral, therefore they appear thinner (Osborne describes this in some detail in his book on the 2d Blues Repairs Plates 1 to 15), quite a different process that would be required to change a numeral from a 3 to 7 for example, which would require removing and building up metal.

It would be instructive if Abed gave some substance to his experiment of changing a numeral from a 3 to a 7 in 10 minutes on a hardened steel plate.

[Global Admin]

The full size image of the changing of a plate 73 to 77 by a skilled engraver.

[GB1840]

Thanks Glen

It would be interesting to understand the engraving process employed, e.g whether metal was added as well as removed, and if so how it was achieved.

[Global Admin]

I have no ides - but unlike some here who idly speculated from their armchairs that such things were 'totally impossible', Abed spent much good money, and much time, clearly proving it was.

This is nothing but conclusive proof that the area of the right hand '7' has not been tampered with as alleged by the Philatelic Foundation, and certainly no sign of another '7' cut out from another stamp as alleged by the RPSL.

Full details of my defence against the faking allegation of Richard Debney of the PF is found on page 26 of this thread.

All I can say in conclusion is that had it not been for perseverance and forensic science, then if the 'experts' had their way, a perfectly genuine world class philatelic gem would have been consigned to the dustbin for all time and some good research into plate 77 would have never come to the fore.

And remember these words above were written 14 years back, when the RPSL and the Philatelic Foundation had both issued absurd totally brain dead 'Expert Certificates' that the 3 stamps on the Victor Hugo cover were 'forged'.


1. The RPSL claimed - 'SUMWUN GLOOD ON DA NUMBARRHS'

2. The PF claimed - 'SUMWUN PAINT ON DA NUMBARRHS' - based on Richard Debney's 10 x hand held magnifier highly unscientific 'examination'! That saw him booted off the PF 'Expert' Committee.

BOTH those totally absurd and laughable 'Certificates' were later torn up and cancelled, and THREE (3) Certificates were later issued, including from the PF, stating the stamps and cover were all genuine, and no tampering had taken place.

As Abed stated here 14 years back - if the 'experts' had their way, a perfectly genuine world class philatelic gem would have been consigned to the dustbin for all time

A less determined owner would have given up at that point. Negative, Blinkered, Blockheads, have stymied many an important stamp discovery over the years - sadly.

If it were not for this board and the discussions here, I suspect the item would still be sitting sadly in an album, with 2 'negative' Certificates as a fake, and not the seven figure piece it is today.

Remember, the Victor Hugo handwriting only was chanced upon Many YEARS into this story when Abed was trying to decipher the partial address on the cover. When he deciphered whom it was adressed to, he then saw they was Hugo's publisher, and even luckier, Sotherby's Handwriting Expert later confirmed it was in the distinctive handwriting of Victor Hugo himself. Just a very lucky break, as anything connected to Victor Hugo has its own strong global following.

Victor Hugo was known near entirely as a WRITER, and not really known as a PAINTER, but even his paintings have fetched 10 times estimate, or well over $US500,000 at auction – who knows, one of them might also be a stamp collector!

https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/vibrant-demand-at-chri ... ction-594/

I again go back to the Sweden Tre Skilling Yellow error of colour stamp, that routinely has changed hands for $ millions since. As recently as the 1970s a large gaggle of the top Swedish 'Stamp Experts and Specialists' all openly declared it was totally fake, and variously made from gluing 2 stamps together, and other similar juvenile nonsense wackadoodle theories. TODAY everyone agrees it is totally genuine, and I saw it at the huge New York Expo in the Javits Center competitively exhibited - as GENUINE.

Same story - the owners at the time had far more brains than those negative old goats, with minds totally closed to actual facts, and the owners used science to prove they were wrong.

This Victor Hugo cover has followed that exact same path.

The last word in philately is NEVER written.

Glen

[Global Admin]

I wrote this here 11 years back - before these Brain Dead RPSL and PF laughable 'Certificates' were both torn up and discredited -

Pertinax - not sure where the "gigantic "if" is coming from? It is like saying the reality there are 24 hours in a day, or the earth is not flat, is a "gigantic "if".

All stamps clearly show the Plate number 77. No-one, even you, disagrees with that.

There is a box of world standard forensic reports, and University lab reports using state-of-the-art equipment, stating those numbers are not tampered with in any way, so they had those "77" Plate numbers printed on there by the printer, a century and a half back.

Hence all stamps are "genuine" - i.e. as produced by the printer, and not later faked.

Not a "gigantic if" that the printer produced them, but a "gigantic certainty" that was so.

If this was a Court Of Law, that much would be accepted as proven 100% beyond all doubt, via several independent and respected sources.

The only bit we as philatelists need to focus on is WHY the printer produced at least one sheet with the Plate number 77 showing on these, and possibly other units.

New major finds are made each month in stamps, often on material a century or more old.

I sat next to the FIP Commissioner for the "EXPO 2011" at the stampboards dinner this month.

He is from Sweden, and is clearly a leading philatelist.

I asked him if he felt the Sweden Tre Skilling Yellow was in his view genuine, and he replied: "It is absolutely genuine". Two different Swedish FIP Commissioner told me the same thing in Melbourne last year.

In 1974 that stamp 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 $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.

The 9 alleged 'experts' all concluded it was a fake - possibly a fake of the original stamp, that some of them also thought was a fake anyway!

So here we are 40 years later, and Feldman trots it out each few years, and it sells for $ millions each time. Despite what these alleged "Sweden experts" all unanimously decreed - that it was a total fake.

The gaggle of 9 "leading experts" of not that many years ago, now look like 9 Prize Gooses. As indeed will many folks in decades to come, regarding this GB cover - from the RPSL and PF down.

The owner of one of the world's leading stamp auction houses told me (well before the barrage of tests were completed or known) - he regards the Plate 77 cover as un-faked, and a major piece in British Philately.

He was happy then to run it to Auction as a major piece. Exactly as Feldman has done numerous times with the Tre Skilling Yellow, to multi million dollar outcomes.

Experienced dealers have good noses and MOTIVE is Point #1 of any "smell test" re any alleged fake.

Had this cover turned up in an auction with an estimate of £100,000 "as is" - THAT does not "smell" right.

Nope, here the owner publicises the item, and spends 50,000 quid or whatever on a barrage of science to prove it is kosher. That "smells" right.

I have written far more on that Swedish Tre Skilling stamp than ANYONE else in the English language has, and as I have always stated, believe it was produced by the printer, in that colour

There are far more serious GB collectors, than there are of Sweden. The Plate 77 cover would sell, and sell for a very high figure - I have stated that from Day #1 as well.

Clearly Pertinax would not be a bidder.

That changes nothing. It is a major discovery, and is one of the key pieces of 19th Century GB Philately. As I have stated from Day #1.

The evidence all supports that, and we have no evidence to the contrary other than those scandalously amateur views of the RPSL and PF that have been debunked as total nonsense by real global experts on paper, earlier in this thread.

Glen

[GB1840]

I have no ides - but unlike some here who idly speculated from their armchairs that such things were 'totally impossible', Abed spent much good money, and much time, clearly proving it was.

Glen

Yes, we all understand and have read your personal views many times. Sticking to the point in question though you should also be questioning this, not just accepting it as fact.

If Abed claims an engraver could change a plate no. In 10 minutes, which would have had to involve adding and removing metal if it was a true demonstration then he needs to explain how this was achieved, the tools required and the process involved if anyone is to believe a similar technique could have been used by PB 150 years ago on a hardened steel plate and which would have needed to be robust enough to be then used to print from the altered plate, and changed back again, presumably by the same technique to print 1000s more sheets (in the case of plate 73) without apparent change to the appearance of the stamps or the plate.

If there is nothing to hide why has he withheld such important information which would help his case to suggest how PB could have deliberately changed plate numbers on a few plate impressions only to reverse them afterwards? The probability is this demonstration is flawed if put under any scientific scrutiny.

[Global Admin]

As posted, I have no idea of the technique used. I simply see the results.

The fact remains, an engraver was paid to clearly show it could be done fast and simply, and produced the results shown. Added to the veracity of the stamps on the cover - and any others that bear '77' numbers and plate to 73 or other plates.

Why would anyone 'question' a procedure that has been undertaken in practice. You might - I do not.

No-one among the armchair doubters did their own tests of course.

[mozzerb]

As posted, I have no idea of the technique used. I simply see the results.

The fact remains, an engraver was paid to clearly show it could be done fast and simply, and produced the results shown. Added to the veracity of the stamps on the cover - and any others that bear '77' numbers and plate to 73 or other plates.

Why would anyone 'question' a procedure that has been undertaken in practice. You might - I do not.

No-one among the armchair doubters did their own tests of course.

It added to the verisimilitude, I'm not sure it added much to the veracity. It showed it could be done, which is helpful to counter the argument that it couldn't, but has nothing to say about the claim that it was done.

Looking at the pictures again now I'm wondering about the scale. Is that given anywhere?

[Allanswood]

I still can't tell if that 7 is in recess or raised - it needs to be a number standing on its own with no metal around it and not simply cut into the steel.

[mozzerb]

I still can't tell if that 7 is in recess or raised - it needs to be a number standing on its own with no metal around it and not simply cut into the steel.

The "signature" is white like the number surrounds, so presumably the 7s are raised as they should be.

[GB1840]

I am not suggesting it wasn't done as some sort of demonstration, but trying to understand whether what was done can directly relate to similar work on a steel plate from 1860s and be practical for the purpose in mind. After all he makes a claim of taking just 10 minutes and implying it is a simple process that PB could have used.

Tools used (hand tools or modern), hardness of steel, and was anything (metal?) added to form a new number that stands proud and is surrounded by ink. We know PB could remove material from a plate (as the repairs to 2d plate 8 figures show) but to add material is a far more complex process.

I am not a metallurgist but to add material that would be discrete from the parent plate material (unless some sort of welding was performed which wasn't available at the time) and that could withstand the application of pressure on a plate printing many 1000s of sheets (after being changed back to 73 which has to have been done) seems hard to accept.

Just showing the diagrams and saying it could be done just seems insufficient if Abed really wants experts to believe PB could have done this. Maybe there is a lot more detail available that could explain the process and Abed can provide this.

[gavin-h]

If Abed claims an engraver could change a plate no. In 10 minutes, which would have had to involve adding and removing metal if it was a true demonstration then he needs to explain how this was achieved, the tools required and the process involved if anyone is to believe a similar technique could have been used by PB 150 years ago on a hardened steel plate and which would have needed to be robust enough to be then used to print from the altered plate, and changed back again, presumably by the same technique to print 1000s more sheets (in the case of plate 73) without apparent change to the appearance of the stamps or the plate.

And bear in mind that at "10 minutes per 7", there are 2 x 7 per stamp and 240 stamps per sheet, so in total that's 4800 minutes or 80 hours to change a full plate. And, presumably, the same again to change them back to 3s afterwards.

For the overall amount of effort, I think we MUST question the reasons and techniques involved in doing it and whether anyone would authorise such work to be carried out for little or no apparent gain.

[Global Admin]

And bear in mind that at "10 minutes per 7", there are 2 x 7 per stamp and 240 stamps per sheet, so in total that's 4800 minutes or 80 hours to change a full plate.

Where anywhere on this 3600 post thread, does anyone say or impute that all 240 impressions were altered? TWICE - all being re-engraved back to '3' according to your bizarrely odd theory! That is madness - they'll simply move on to the next plate - there WERE 150 or so of them - you are aware of that I guess?

You also ARE aware (I presume) of the accepted corrections to many units on plate 73? Happened with most plates, as routine printer 'make ready' adjustments, until each entire plate was retired.

All carried out on an as needed basis - NOT for 'little or no apparent gain' as you state. Same as for stamp printing plates for every country.

'we MUST question the reasons and techniques involved' Huh? We know the reasons plate repairs were made, and we know the technique used.

It is 105% clear that these 3 stamps on the Victor Hugo cover were printed by Perkins Bacon, with '77' plate numbers on them, with corner letters plating them to '73'. That is long proven to be the case, with 3 recent Expert Certificates.

I have not seen YOUR explanation of how this occurred.

Your 'interesting' version of how it most likely, possibly, maybe, did NOT occur, is hardly adding to the knowledge data base.

Glen

[adw]

We know PB could remove material from a plate (as the repairs to 2d plate 8 figures show) but to add material is a far more complex process.

It just occurred to me that a raised 7 on the printing plate probably needs less metal than a raised 3.

If the engraver can't add metal, only move around the metal already in the worn or damaged area, is that why he changed a 3 to a 7? We know PB weren't above cutting corners when it suited them.

[capetriangle]

We know PB could remove material from a plate (as the repairs to 2d plate 8 figures show) but to add material is a far more complex process.

It just occurred to me that a raised 7 on the printing plate probably needs less metal than a raised 3.

If the engraver can't add metal, only move around the metal already in the worn or damaged area, is that why he changed a 3 to a 7? We know PB weren't above cutting corners when it suited them.

Neither the "7" or the "3" was raised on the printing plate.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

[mozzerb]

Neither the "7" or the "3" was raised on the printing plate.

They're raised relative to the "diamond" around them, which is the main thing.

[adw]

Neither the "7" or the "3" was raised on the printing plate.

They're raised relative to the "diamond" around them, which is the main thing.

Yes, that's what I meant. Strictly speaking, nothing is raised, everything is cut into a smooth plate, but the numbers are raised above the area immediately surrounding them.

[capetriangle]

Neither the "7" or the "3" was raised on the printing plate.

They're raised relative to the "diamond" around them, which is the main thing.

I was about to amend my post raised nor recessed on the printing plate.

Kindest regards

Richard

[Global Admin]

Maybe the plate numbers were all painted in Richard?

That was the view you Richard Dedney boldly 'staked your philatelic reputation on' as I recall, right here after issuing the original laughable Philatelic Foundation Certificate? (That was before they tore it up, after examining it carefully, and then re-issued it correctly - to save THEIR reputation.)

I continue to be willing to put at stake my 32-year professional philatelic reputation on this item being a fake.

[mozzerb]

Where anywhere on this 3600 post thread, does anyone say or impute that all 240 impressions were altered? TWICE - all being re-engraved back to '3' according to your bizarrely odd theory! That is madness - they'll simply move on to the next plate - there WERE 150 or so of them - you are aware of that I guess?

Actually, being re-engraved back to '3' according to your bizarrely odd theory, for the reasons rehashed for the nth time a few posts ago. Please go back and check.

As for why 240 impressions, it's been pointed out before that it piles up even more coincidence if the three stamps on this cover just so happened to be the only ones altered. Why would they change only some stamps on a plate and then print with it, thus producing sheets of stamps with two different numbers? Sure, they could have done, but it doesn't make a lot of sense even relative to the implausibility of the starting point of them making changes like this in the first place.

No idea what you're trying to say with "move on to the next plate", but there certainly weren't 150 of them by 1865.

You also ARE aware (I presume) of the accepted corrections to many units on plate 73? Happened with most plates, as routine printer 'make ready' adjustments, until each entire plate was retired.

All carried out on an as needed basis - NOT for 'little or no apparent gain' as you state. Same as for stamp printing plates for every country.

'we MUST question the reasons and techniques involved' Huh? We know the reasons plate repairs were made, and we know the technique used.

You ARE aware (I presume) that the accepted corrections to many units on plate 73 were made in 1868, so hardly relevant to a cover from 1865?

We know the reasons for plate repairs, yes, but this wouldn't have BEEN a plate repair, it would have been an actual alteration of a type that wasn't otherwise done. We should certainly question the reasons for such a change, because "little or no apparent gain" if anything understates the bizarre nature of it.

[Global Admin]

mozzerb - so you are agreeing with Gavin-h that all 240 corner letters were altered, and later all altered back.

Gotcha.

We are in the presence of PHILATELIC GENIUSES here.

Oops ...now we see you are having a shilling each way - they COULD actually have done it on a few units on the plate - you now agree on that at least - such a rock solid line of argument.

Why would they change only some stamps on a plate and then print with it, thus producing sheets of stamps with two different numbers? Sure, they could have done, but it doesn't make a lot of sense ....

The numbers certainly got onto the plate SOMEHOW -- we do know that for a FACT.

capetriangle swears to this day, they were all painted in - he is the lone voice on the planet with that totally loopy belief -- but hey, marching to the beat of a different drum is not actually illegal - especially in the USA!

He is apparently not quite sure if the plate '77' numbers were raised, or recessed, or flat, on the steel plate. He is looking up more info on the internet on that tricky one.