Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

Mozzerb





Your posts have always been well thought out and pragmatic.

May I suggest that we leave our minds open, as far as the veracity of these two conflicting statements, just for a little while longer.

While the above may be true, there will be more information to come out soon that will need some serious deliberation and concrete explanations before we can make a final informed decision as to the origin of the accepted plate 77 stamps.

I firmly believe that the story of plate 77 is very far from being cut and dry as many wish to think.

Abed H Najjar

I came to this rather late - but just one query - why are the duplex postmarks on the stamps so wishy-washy? The postmark ink of the period was soot and linseed oil - nice and black, like the french postmark also visible. But the English postmarks look more as if they were done with rubber stamps.

It depends a lot on how fresh the ink was and whether the stamper did more than one cover in between inkings, though. Poor quality strikes are fairly routine.

(PS -- it does say in the rules in the welcome email that your first post should be on the intro thread. Better nip over there and post before the mods get cross.)

The Guernsey, "PD" of London, and Belgium cds on central flap all appear perfectly normal to me?

And all nearly the same ink intensity.

Cancels can be light or dark depending on how recently the ink-pad was topped up.

Glen

occamsrazor

Being one of at least two people on this board who have examined the part cover I can assure you that there are no problems with the postmarks or postal history aspects - save any manipulation near the five suspect "7's."

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

I'm not going to argue, but the Bruxelles cancel (and its offset) looks absolutely right, the 'PD' is presumably in red, and the Guernsey cancels just look wrong in the scan.

I'd be interested in the comments of an expert dealer in GB line-engraved on this point - someone who has seen thousands of covers.

occhamsrazor

There is nothing wrong with any of the three strikes of the "324" duplex cancels.

The one on stamp PL is obvious since it appears clearly on the stamp and cover - datestamp at left.

On stamp SK the "324" killer has been rotated through 90 degrees with the datestamp showing faintly on the stamp above - SL.

On stamp SL the "324" appears on the stamp with the datestamp above it, falling off the cover.

On both stamps SK and SL the "324" killers are horizontal and inverted.

This is not rocket science and is obvious to anyone who has seen the part cover and should be obvious to most reading this.

This is obviously the simplest explanation and should surely be favored by someone referring to himself as 'occhamsrazor.'

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

I wish I had said that!

_________________
Peter
Hawthorn - AFL Premiers 1961, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 2008.

What is the reasoning behind questioning the cancels? Real or fake, dark or lightly struck, who would care? The cancel doesn't alter the plate.

Is it a question about the cover's origin or date of use?

_________________
Greg - Looking for Goulburn Australia Cancels and Grangemouth Scotland Cancels and Covers
Member of the S.T.A.M.P Club for Slightly Twisted And Mad Philatelists - Motto: "Bring back the lick!"

Allanswood

(1) Precisely and (2) Of course not.

Typo in my post above, RL rather than PL. Clumsy.

Kindest regards, Richard

When examining any conundrum, looking at all known facts is very good policy.

The Guernsey cancels are, certainly on the light side, and that is well worth raising for discussion.

If I were a forger of a plate 77 from another plate, when the common stamp was already on cover I'd do three things for SURE.

1. Choose a cover already with a 1d stamp affixed that had the existing cancel(s) WELL AWAY from either existing Plate number. If I am going to try and to fake a 77 by whatever means, I do NOT want to have to fake the cancel ink exactly as well - that is near impossible to do, and thus not have it leap out as faked cancel ink on a simple UV check. Abed's cover clearly fails this bog basic common sense test.

2. Choose a cover with just ONE 1d stamp on it to fake. One third the incredibly complex faking work, and one third the chance of it being detected as a fake. Abed's cover clearly fails this bog basic common sense test.

3. Choose a cover on that very thick 130 gsm type paper used widely at the time for envelopes. That way when our forger is painting in all the new 7s as the PF state occurs, this 'bleed" of ink along the paper capillaries of the coarse paper - that will of course go to back of stamp and onto envelope paper, will not be so evident - especially when you do it 6 times. The paper on the Guernsey envelope is of the thinnest type generally encouraged. As it is a part cover opened out, holding it up to a strong light will show the 6 painted in or glued on number 7s the PF and RPS variously state were used. Abed's cover clearly fails this bog basic common sense test.

Ladies and Gentlemen - let's celebrate EITHER the dumbest faker of all time - or a genuine cover.

But at least the postmark is not at issue here - that much seems agreed.

How the 6 x 77s all got there is still under discussion.

Glen

Global Administrator

Trivial point, Glen, but is is only the five second "7's" that were/needed to be faked as the one on the right side of stamp SL is scuffed away.

Kindest regards, Richard

A superb and most valid point capetriangle - I'd overlooked that entirely.

With your permission I'll add that as point 4 of what no faker would ever do.

Capetriangle and Abed Najar being the 2 ?

Anyone else here seen the actual item ?

p.s. I've not seen the item, don't collect GB and am not expressing any opinion which I might or might not have on this

_________________
Hatter

Global Administrator

If "still under discussion," it seems that the main proponent has taken a vacation after teasing us, last month, with the promise of new information.

Kindest regards, Richard

hatter



I do believe it is just "we happy two."

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

I can guarantee you at least one other very senior philatelist who has posted on this very thread, has VERY carefully inspected the cover.

I have not seen it sadly - however as an experienced dealer your instincts go an awful long way in this business, and points 1-4 above sealed the deal for me WAY before any forensic tests were undertaken.

NO forger is going to have picked this sorry looking part cover, or indeed ANY cover/part cover with 3 stamps - it just does not fly, or make any sense at all, as all clear thinking folks will surely agree when the dust settles.

Doubtless when it is is some Gold Medal GB collection at some future point, I'll have a chance to take a closer look at the frame.

I am not looking to get into a row.

I have seen hundreds of GB covers from the period and many thousands of stamps, and the postmarks in the scan just look 'wrong'. Could I have 'stampmann's opinion?

As to why it matters - if the postmarks are wrong, then surely the cover is wrong. If they are right I am inclined to believe the cover is right.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

One more 'believer' then.

capetriangle and I both agree in recent posts the cancels are unquestionably kosher. About the only thing we have agreed on in this entire thread.

He has examined it several times in detail, as have his colleagues, and I do not believe any doubt whatever as to the veracity of the cancels, has been made by any of them.

If we could somehow determine the SENDER and ascertain if that person was on Guernsey at this time, it would seal the matter surely?

Any guesses?

Glen

Show it to a line-engraved expert dealer - Andrew Claridge or Bill Barrell perhaps. Their opinions are good enough for me.

hatter



I am aware of this gentleman. He posts using an obscure 'handle,' in order to preserve his privacy, which is his absolute right. It is my belief that his views support my views in general terms, rather than those of Abed.

So, publicly at least, there have been two examiners of the item, Abed and myself who have made public postings on the thread.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

Dear readers

The Global Administrator has asked us to research the sender.

Perhaps I can answer this question here and now.

Close investigation of the addressee on the cover and its journey has both revealed and led to a remarkable discovery.

The letter was in fact sent by the famed literary and political figure Victor Hugo.

Victor Hugo is, without doubt, the most famous figure ever to have lived in the Channel Islands. He lived in Guernsey between 1855 and 1870.

Victor Hugo, the author of classic works such as The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Les Miserables which was written while living in Guernsey in 1862 sent this cover to his Publishers Lacroix and Verboeckhoven in Brussels on the 27th November 1865.

Lacroix Verboekhoven's offices were are at Impasse du Parc, Rue Royal, Brussels. Exactly as on the cover.

The writing is that of Victor Hugo and this has been confirmed by the manuscripts expert at Messers Sothebys Paris.

What we have here is a plate 77 cover sent by no less that one of the world's most iconic literary figures.

What more fitting sender can this cover have?

Abed H Najjar

Andrew and Bill are indeed both expert GB dealers, but surely if this thread has shown anything, it's that a largely "gut feel" opinion based on a visual inspection (or on no inspection at all) is not good enough when assessing an item like this -- not theirs, nor Glen's, nor Richard's, nor anyone else's. You have to take into consideration more in-depth evidence than that.

On the subject of the cancels, from the scan there seems to be some staining at the top of the envelope which may have affected the part of the cancel that overlaps it, and a more whitish area around the stamps themselves. It's not so implausible that someone has in the past removed the stamps, to assess whether they were what they seemed to be, and then replaced them -- it is (or was) often done.

But surely the cover was sent from London, not from Guernsey?

It's got a Guernsey duplex cancel ...

The mention of "London" looks like a routing instruction -- i.e. via there and Ostende, not via France.

Victor Hugo, eh? If he signed it lower left as people often did, and somebody cut out the autograph, that would at least explain why it's only a part-cover.

What a wonderful twist to the tale.

Well without knowing that, I stated the cover was genuine.

Knowing it was in Victor Hugo's hand clearly is not the cover a forger would choose - my guess is any cover or letter in his hand is worth £100s no matter what the content?

What wording did Sothebys handwriting folks use - "looks like", "might be", possibly is" etc?

Glen

Global administrator




A high-resolution image of the cover was sent to Sotheby’s offices in Paris for an opinion and the following confirmation was received from Mr. Adrien Legendre, Spécialiste en Livres & Manuscrits, Sotheby's. (Specialist in Books and Manuscripts, Sotheby’s):

“In my opinion, the hand-writing on the envelope is Victor Hugo's”

Much of Victor Hugo's writings can be found on the internet. Readers are welcome to compare the writing on the letter with any of them.

Abed H Najjar

occhamsrazor

I, for one would, certainly welcome the opinion of Bill Barrell on the part cover, frankly, more so regarding the five suspect "7's," than the postmarks.

I am, of course, well aware of the name of Andrew Claridge, but he came to prominence in England (as an adult) long after I left for the U.S. in 1979.

I believe he has partnered with another former colleague of mine, Andrew J. Lajer, another prominent GB specialist dealer. Both of these two gentleman have rather uncharitably been referred to in print by one Gavin Littaur (another name from the past) as the "Andrews sisters." (in an article about auction participation)

Similar to an opinion from Mr. Claridge, an opinion from Mr. Lajer on the part cover would be most welcome, at least to me, maybe not so much to Abed and Glen.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

Abed,

What a piece of sleuthing. This cover has always had intrigue, and not a little mystique, but now it has dead set glamour. What a find.

The great Victor Hugo and the 77s - the Gods must be smiling on you.

Clive

Don't think it makes much difference to the "would a forger choose this?" question -- they'd have to know it was in Hugo's hand, which few people would. No-one here spotted that.

Reminds me of the old-timer who had a "Philatelic Terms Illustrated" display, and had given the largely disparate material a theme by choosing stuff that wasn't valuable and overprinting it all with a "country" name of "Upper Crique". One night he showed it to a club and, as per his usual spiel, explained that the apparent rare Dutch syncopated perf was in fact a fake.

Of course, an expert in Dutch stamps was present, and after inspection informed him in irate tones that he had just ruined a perfectly genuine example of one of the rarest types with his damn fool overprint.

Here's a picture of the only item handwritten by him I've seen, a 1855 registered item to someone who was apparently a well-known figure in French literary circles. (It came up recently at one of the Chartwell sales -- lot 1516 in the 29th June 2011 sales. Naturally, Alan Holyoake was the successful bidder )

My thoughts too.

Adds an extra layer of interest, to what was already a stamp classic cover.

The "Stanley Gibbons Collect Autographs" 2008 edition rates Victor Hugo quite strongly, and is certainly not something a forger would be messing with.

What a connection.

Abed ... how on earth did you discover it was written by Victor Hugo?

Abed

If Victor Hugo addressed the letter, how come the great "handwriting authority," Robert Radley, failed to point that out.

I, of course, have no opinion on the issue, having never seen examples of Victor Hugo's handwriting, nor being a "handwriting authority."

Certainly, more important people were more likely to (1) not only have written more letters than the great unwashed and, also, (2) to have had their correspondence saved.

It has no relevance to the item's authenticity, however, in my opinion, although, as pointed out by mozzerb, could explain why the item is a part cover.

Kindest regards, Richard

He's an authority on handwriting authentication -- i.e. comparing against a known standard. That doesn't imply you know the handwriting of every famous person ever!

Capetriangle



Roberts Radley's terms of reference were to comment if there was any evidence of tampering on the stamps and to assess and look at the validity of both the RPSL and the PF opinions of faking.

This he did in a report that carries this heading:

"REPORT

FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT IN THE HEARING
OF THE ABOVE MATTER"

In short, he found that both opinions were groundless.

The Hugo connection was never on the agenda, and why should it have been, it was the stamps that I was interested in at that time and not the sender or the addressee.

Abed H Najjar

Well if someone submits a stamp to the PF and asks if it is perf 13 you do not tell them instead it is cancelled at Chicago on May 12 - as you well know, better than most.

This is www.cluchingatstraws.com red herring stuff.

You ask and pay for a specific report. Ask about plate 77 numbers and that is what you get the report on.

The renowned forensic paper Science Expert Radley, just to remind members, stated after intensive examination, that none of the 77s were altered and amended and your Expert Certificate report alleging otherwise, was arrant nonsense.

A view you have written several times you have staked your philatelic reputation upon.

Radley was not asked who addressed the letter, as far as I am aware.

I am sure if you care to stump up your money to ask Radley if it is Victor Hugo's handwriting he'd be delighted to take your dough.

Heck for $100 cash I'd do it for you, as it is a simple task.

Indeed, seeing we have the Sotheby's Expert verifying it already beyond doubt, I'll do it for a cut rate $50. All credit cards gleefully accepted.

Yes you HAVE seen Hugo's handwriting - an example of it is in the SG Catalogue right above your post.

Glen

Curiouser and curiouser… Congratulations on discovering the Victor Hugo connection Abed!

This thread and your cover are becoming an absolutely fascinating “pièce de résistance” with the mixture of philatelic, historical and now literary connections.

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

mozzerb



Struggling with the quote button again. I might have expected a "Bye the way, the handwriting is that of..." Even if not asked!

Even I can recognize the handwriting of Abraham Lincoln (or least to know enough to make sure it is checked out as a possible Cosey fake) and that of Charles Dickens. Not putting myself forward as a handwriting authority in any way!

I had not seen the example of Victor Hugo's handwriting from the Chartwell sale you posted, as stated by the Global Administrator, the posts at that time were coming fast and furious.

I am more than willing to accept the Sotheby's French book expert's opinion on the handwriting issue. As I have already said, it makes no difference to the item's authenticity as a Plate 77.

Kindest regards, Richard

Surely it does very heavily?

One member questioned only today whether the cover emenated from Guernsey in 1865, and imputed the Guernsey cancels might be fake.

Abed has proven Victor Hugo addressed the cover. He lived on Guernsey and Wikipedia states Hugo was their most famous resident ever.

If there is some biography of his that shows he was in residences there on date of letter, it categorically proves the letter and cancels are all genuine.

A famous author addressing a rare cover clearly adds value. If Mark Twain had by chance addressed one of the USA classic cover rarities, it increases and widens the potential market - obviously.

Glen

Global Administrator



Well actually, in addition to confirming the perf. 13, the other information, if relevant - as it would be in the case of the early unofficial Chicago perfs. for Scott nos. 7, 11 and 11A - would be mentioned.

Kindest regards, Richard

ps. Glen, you let yourself open for this one since early dated Chicago cancels are one of the tip-offs for these great rarities.

Global Administrator



We both dismissed occhamsrazor's doubts about the Guernsey cancellations, indeed, you said it one of our only points of agreement.

A common stamp on a cover addressed by a famous person certainly increases markedly the value of the otherwise common cover.

For example, the 1859 cover and A.L.S. letter from David Livingstone forwarded to Madras bearing the commonest Cape triangular 4d., cut in at right, brought £3,300 at the Sotheby's Sir Maxwell Joseph sale in 1982. Without the Livingstone letter headed "Luabo; Zambesi mouth," his signature on the front page, his initial "Dr. L" on the cover at the lower-left, a cut-in single 4d. privately forwarded to Madras, might have brought £100 or so back then.

Kindest regards, Richard

Well not really, it doesn't say anything either way to the question of whether any tampering has taken place. If a faker starts with a genuine existing letter, it makes no difference whether it was sent by a famous person or by a John Smith who is listed in the directories for the Vale at the time.

Clive and Inforapenny

Thank you both so much for your heartening comments. I very much appreciate them.

Abed H Najjar

Mozzerb - So you are saying the handwriting is faked? Or the cancels are faked? Or both?

No, I'm saying -- a fairly obvious point, I should have thought -- that who wrote it makes no practical difference to the question of whether the stamps have been faked or not.

True, you probably wouldn't use a cover known to be from a famous person as a base if you were faking, but if you didn't know that it's just another cover. (And if a previous owner had recognised the handwriting, presumably it wouldn't have turned up unheralded in a mixed lot either.)

All i said was this below as someone surmised the cancels were fake ... what on earth has that got to do with the plate numbers?

Well, since that was in response to capetriangle's comment that "It has no relevance to the item's authenticity", and since the only thing anyone is seriously questioning is the plate numbers and whether bits of cancel in their vicinity would need to be faked, "categorically proves the letter and cancels are all genuine" doesn't mean a lot otherwise.

Of course it is RELEVANT.

Victor Hugo addressing this cover from Guernsey in 1865 proves the Guernsey cancels are not fake.

And as the now clearly genuine cancels are over some 77s, no sane faker would have dreamed of faking anything underneath them.

Not that any experienced person would really doubt the cancels, but doubt is rampant on this piece.

Hm...

I'm surprised (!) the expert was prepared to offer a clear opinion on such a small sample of writing. Victor Hugo's writing is difficult to authenticate unsigned, as he used many different styles (e.g., as on the 1/- embossed cover above). The addressee helps of course, as do the place and date of origin.

None of this is of relevance, however, in determining whether the five plate numbers were subsequently faked or not.

Cheers, Mike

Global Administrator



Yes, but it has nothing to do with the fakery of the five second "7's," once the addressor's identity has been forgotten or is not known.

Kindest regards, Richard

mks1955

Mike, you beat me to it.



But, specifically on this issue, there is almost total agreement.

Kindest regards, Richard