Global Administrator wrote:
Both sides of the argument claim to have science on their sides.
In fairness to those who have not read every post, there is 'science" on only ONE side of the fence.The owner's.
He has spent a huge sum on SCIENCE and detailed reports. No-one else has spent a cent, on science or anything else, but do not want to be seen as incorrect. A basic human weakness of course.
This 66 point SCIENCE report proves to the exact same standard the forensic paper Expert writer uses in law courts globally, that there is ZERO evidence of faking of the 3 x 77's on the cover - http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8808&start=514
The "science" from the PF in the USA ran to an illuminated magnifier IIRC owned by our own "Capetriangle", and the RPS London's "science" deduced the 7s were glued on top.
Both the PF and RPSL "certificates" are totally and categorically debunked as nonsense, in some detail, by the leading paper forensic report liked above.
Please read them folks and stop puffing hot air and theory.
All we know for sure is that these 3 stamps have '77' on them when they usually have 73, and those '77' numbers are not forged. Open minds need to suggest how and why that occurred.
Many other very clear 77s have emerged in the past of course. Member here "stampmann" (Graham Mann) a long term GB 1d red dealer found an undoubted one he showed earlier.
He was told it was "Plate 73 not 77". He never believed that.
Same story with these and their owner.
Clearly others exist showing 77 that have been debunked over the past 150 years.
Why did these occur - that is where open minds are needed.
I must say, anyone who appreciates irony (as the term is generally used) has the bumper family pack here. Glen, on this subject your mind is about as open as North Korean politics, and has been for a long time!
Just to pick a few points from the above, in fairness to those who have not read every post:
The people who say that both sides have science on their side are ... correct. Those who don't think the varieties are authentic don't need to get their own report: they can simply point to the ones Abed Najjar commissioned which show clear compositional differences in the ink in the areas -- and only
the areas -- of the right hand 7's. Surely anyone who hadn't already become a committed partisan on the issue would regard that as a HUGE red flag? One in need of some actual supplementary evidence (not provided as far as I've seen) to show that it could happen naturally?
Incidentally, Scott was basically correct up-thread when he stated that the Radley report doesn't say that the stamps weren't faked per se
, it says that they weren't faked in the ways originally suggested and that were tested for. Radley very properly mentioned other possibilities and pointed out that neither he, nor as far as he knew anyone else in the field, had experience with them with regard to stamp pigments. This does rather jump out at you if you actually read the report (page 11 of this thread) and stop puffing hot air and typing SCIENCE in big letters.
(Would the owner even agree to make the cover available for further testing? It's already been withdrawn from (re)consideration by the RPSL, and I'm informed they can (at submitter's expense) call on specialist equipment from the local university if required.)
Graham Mann really should
have believed it when he was told it was "Plate 73 not 77". If it was the same sort of variety, then it clearly was. (Although now I check back to see his description -- page 1 of the thread -- it probably wouldn't have helped much either way: "The stamp 'EI' was off centre to the left so that the right number could not be seen. However the left could be; the first 7 was complete and the bottom half of the second was obscured by postmark.")
I'm trying very hard to be open-minded on this and not let the argument styles get in the way. The "it's genuine!" side are prone to ranting and abuse, which naturally leads to the feeling that they're all mouth and no trousers. The "it's fake!" side tend to be more sober, although Richard Debney's arguments, while expressed throughout with commendable politeness, have been a mixture of the sound and the very weak. I'm not aware of any even vaguely credible scenario that says how or why the stamps could have been produced as is in 1864-5. As for the science, well it's not clear yet whether this turns out to be the analogue to the duckbilled platypus
or to Piltdown Man
Meanwhile, actual possible lines of further research have been suggested:
(1) Look for the altered states of plate 73 that must surely exist if these stamps are genuine.
(2) Go through the RPSL and BPA certificate records looking for further examples of stamps rejected as having come from plate 73.
(3) Try to find examples of other penny reds that have the same distinct areas of different chemical composition.
Those are just the obvious ones that spring to mind immediately. What's that I hear? Crickets, by the sound of it. Oh look, tumbleweed.