Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

Experts have been completely wrong many times before of course on major rarities and have expressed absurd written views.

As recently as the 1970s pretty much the entire Swedish Philatelic establishment decided the "Tre Skilling Yellow" was a fake, and denounced it thus to the world - stating it was 2 stamps joined together in one of their more extreme denunciations of it.

The owner then needed to spend a fortune on SCIENCE to get some facts together.

Science proved beyond doubt it was un-tampered with, and today it sells for millions.

I believe any serious Sweden collector TODAY agrees it is kosher.

So just 30 years later, the supreme philatelic geniuses of that time, all look like total idiots.

We need open minds - "the last word in Philately is never written".

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 It's already been withdrawn from (re)consideration by the RPSL, and I'm informed they can (at submitter's expense) call on specialist equipment from the local university if required.)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.

No, I luckily am one of the few in this business with an OPEN mind.

I have discovered and reported many major new finds in my 30+ years as a dealer - as I work on facts - not guesswork or prejudice,

Why? As I have seen clueless Committees bungle many things in the past, that a 10 year could have sorted.

So, I stick to FACTS, not emotion. And for stamps that works best.

The mere fact 50 or 100 or 150 years have passed, does not mean MAJOR rarities cannot be discovered by folks with open minds, and a keen eye.

Here is a true one that took place 76 years after issue date from a well researched collecting country.

The late Simon Dunkerley found a 1913 ½d Kangaroo with sideways watermark, in 1989. In a junk lot when sorting for inverted watermarks.

He sent it to the RPSV (he was a member of long standing) and those crusty old fogeys charged him good money to declare it was "treated and faked".



Now anyone with half a brain - indeed with 10% of a stamp brain, knows a SIDEWAYS watermark on a perforated rectangular stamp can't be 'faked' and pass muster visually, much less in fluid, or via UV. Impossible.

Also, the fact that 1913 Roos curl in the direction of paper grain in the palm of your hand, means a sideways print will curl totally opposite to a normal one. Durrrhhh.

Crestfallen, Simon showed it to Rod Perry, who like me works on fact and not guesswork, who of course saw it was entirely kosher. Rod bought it off him for far less than it would be worth with a genuine Cert.

Rod had the brains to mail it to the BPA in London, who of course were not prejudiced as certain members of the RPSV were ("IIIII have never seen it before and IIIIIII do not own one therefore it MUST be forged") and just 2 months after the Royal Victoria fiasco view, gave it the only Cert possible - genuine sideways watermark.



When this was publicised, 2 others were found in very short order. (Each with watermark pointing the other way, therefore at LEAST 2 sheets of 480 were sold.)

They are all worth $10,000s each. SG lists both. One is Cat £20,000 in SG, the other £25,000 in SG.

Indeed I was in New York a year back when the original Dunkerley "treated and faked" find was sold in the Arthur Gray sale for near $A60,000.

Some “fake”.

Yes, I saw that all the other times you posted it. So what? If anyone had actually claimed that finding major unrecorded rarities in random places from time to time was impossible, it would be an excellent counter-argument, but since no-one on this thread has actually claimed that it's fairly irrelevant. Hell, I've made finds of that kind myself.

As for the claim "So, I stick to FACTS, not emotion" ... I guess I'll just leave that to stand or fall on its own merits.

Glen

Global Administrator wrote:
capetriangle wrote:

Both sides of the argument claim to have science on their sides.



Wrong.


This is simply not the case as in from:

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8808&start=1324

pertinax wrote:
FinstP wrote:
So in complete contradiction to what has been said up till now, the scientific evidence is in favour of a deliberate forgery.


FinstP,

Your words are like a breath of fresh air to me...though I must disagree with you.

"We" have been saying the above for months.....that the scientific reports SUPPORT "our" side of the story.

I will apologize in advance if my layering of quotes do not come out as I hope.

Kindest regards, Richard

Glen

Why is this work, the independent analysis of a British University professor of physics, posting here as FinstP, not Science also?

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8808&start=1316



Who also stated, as in:


http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8808&start=1317



Kindest regards, Richard

Richard I have no idea who FinstP is, or what he does for a living. He may toss Burgers or drive buses - I have no way or knowing - nor do you. As he states he does not know you.

I presume he has not inspected the cover.

He has not posted since 2009 so if a totally unknown to anyone member who has not posted since 2009 is your biggest straw to clutch onto, you are sinking in more quicksand than I ever imagined!

Has Homer Simpson ventured a view on this cover?

Radley HAS, and he is a world expert paper forensic expert, and his 60 point detailed report to me is conclusive the cover is not faked.

And he further states the PF and RPSL London Certs are nonsense. And most clearly outlines WHY.

I'll back the detailed and well prepared report of a leading world expert paper forensic scientist, who has inspected the cover in intense detail, over Jack unknown who has not.



<<< snip >>>

Glen



Above from:

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8808&start=1599

Can you show an example showing the first "7" directly above the intersection of the lattice work in the diamond?

This is one of the tests for an established Plate 77.

Kindest regards, Richard

Richard you know and I know that photo records of RPS and BPA for past Certs do not exist for all submissions.

We know for certain however that many "77s" have been submitted. Some will have been laughably faked, and others I have no doubt have showed a clear number "77" and had not been tampered with.

Had the three existing Roo ½ Sideways watermarks all been submitted to the RPSV in the 1980s ALL likely would have been rejected as "treated and faked" - despite us all now knowing they were perfectly genuine.

Graham Mann is convinced his "77" was OK, and he knows 50 times more about 1d Reds than I ever will, and that is good enough for me.

Like the ½d roo there are doubtless other copies out there - rejected in the past by RPS/BPA etc that have unaltered "77" numbers. Graham sold his "fake" cover for a quid or something I recall, as he was disheartened.

You just do not get it Richard.

The infallible "tests" you refer to will NOT apply if these were printed somehow from plate 73 for some strange reason not yet understood.

Some re-engraving or substitution etc might have taken place for some obscure and very temporary reason.

The 3 proven untampered with copies on cover showing number 77 but with otherwise plate 73 corner letter characteristics etc prove that occurred.

WHY it occurred is what we yet do not know. One day we hopefully will.

Glen

You argued constantly with FinstP on pages 27 through 29 of this thread. You also protected his privacy when Abed wished to know his identity. (this from my memory, as I have read every single post on the thread)

He contacted me privately by e-mail. He is a professor at a British University and a Fellow of the Institute of Physics. I will also protect his privacy. The work (x-ray mapping) which was analysed was performed by RSSL, which, of course, was commissioned by Abed.

The chartered chemist Robert Radley, deferred to the work done by RSSL and the work of Dr. Gene Hall - see paragraph 54 of The Radley Report.

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8808&start=514

Other than agreeing with the work of RSSL and Dr. Gene Hall, Mr. Radley had nothing original to say regarding the Science of Chemistry.

Kindest regards, Richard

Glen: On this point, I've corresponded with FinstP (generally a good way of finding out who someone is, and I believe Richard Debney has subsequently also done that, although I assume from the above that you didn't bother). He's a materials physicist with a string of academic publications to his name. He's logged in to Stampboards subsequently since 2009, but stopped posting on this thread due to, well, your behaviour, viz: "he seems to be incapable of reading what people actually write before launching off into a tirade of abuse".

I do agree that the usual "numeral position test" for 77s is irrelevant here though, as that applies to the stamps (that appear to have been) printed from the actual plate 77, and stamps that came from a modified plate 73 would naturally be different.

Glen




No argument there, see we can agree.



Now who is 'clutching at straws.'

I have never examined Grahame Mann's stamp and so have no opinion on it, although I am more than willing to accept the Royal and B. P. A. certificates.

The ½d. Roo with the sideways watermark is an argument you have clearly won.

Kindest regards, Richard

Well whomever FinstP was, it was proven he was full of Scottish hot air. All talk and no evidence whatever, despite being capable of offering it one imagines.

First a grandiose offer here to run free tests on some 1d reds and report back - which of course never occured, as being Scottish he later decided he'd need to be paid.

One can only deduce he had done a few checks, knew he was mistaken in his unproven claims, and went away. A great asset to Philately and research.

But he did share and regale us with us the alleged artistic skills of a 4 foot high Scottish bagpiper. (I kid you not!)

There goes the credibility of Witness A for the prosecution ............

"For our next Expert Witness we call ....................... O. J. Simpson ............"

Glen

FinstP posted pictures of the x-ray mapping, that surely is evidence.

During the reconsideration process at The Philatelic Foundation in New York, something with which I was not involved, the curator Lewis Kaufman took the part cover down to Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C., where it was examined by their Video Spectral Comparator, amongst other processes. This information, I believe, appears on Abed's own website.

As a courtesy, I was shown the scans, and quite frankly the second diamonds, where the disputed "7's" appear, 'lit up like Christmas trees,' much in the same way as the x-ray maps do.

Kindest regards, Richard

While I don’t claim to be an expert, British line-engraved stamps are among my favorite stamps as a collector. The most persuasive argument in my mind regarding whether the stamps on Abed’s cover were altered (or not) comes from considering how the plates for these stamps were produced, and how they might be officially altered.

On the plates used for printing penny red line-engraved stamps, all coloured features seen on the stamps such as lines or lettering are incuse (cut into or punched into the plate), and all white areas are raised, included the all important die numbers (such as 73 or 77). Consequently, it is simply not possible to alter the die numbers by re-cutting on the plate.

Plates for the penny reds with four corner letters and die numbers would have been produced in several steps as follows:

1 A transfer roller in softened (annealed) steel would be made from the original (flat) hardened die which would have blank corner letters and no die number.

2 A die numbers such as 73 or 77 would be engraved (cut) into the roller die, and then it would be hardened.

3 The hardened transfer roller die would then be used to transfer the design (with die numbers) into each of the 240 positions on softened (annealed) steel printing plate.

4 Corner letters would then be hand punched onto the plate (4 x 240, or 960 separate operations!), and the plate would be hardened after information in the plate margins was complete.

5 Finally, imprimatur sheets would be printed and inspected, and if found suitable, the plate would be registered and “put to press”.

Regarding, Abed’s stamps:

As a “block” of three, there are 12 corner letters, and from inspection of these there is no doubt that the origin of the stamps is from plate 73 (this is not disputed).

The question then is about how the die number 77 came to be on the stamps (either printed using an altered plate 73 or from careful post-printing alteration).

The altered plate theory is complicated by the fact that plate 73 had to have been altered TWICE, since it was OK at the beginning (as could be confirmed from examining the imprimatur sheet) and was then used for printing some 529,900 sheets to 5th March 1868 (well past the 27 Nov 1865 date of the cover).

That is, it would have had to be taken out of service, some of the plate numbers altered to 77, then after printing a relatively small number of sheets, taken out of service again, and the die number altered back to 73.

Because the die numbers are in white, the plate itself could not have been altered directly. It would have been necessary to use a roller die, after first softening (annealing) the original plate. Using the original plate 73 roller die would not work since it would require re-cutting the die number and the underlying 3 would clearly show.

The original plate 77 roller die might have been used, however, the precise positioning of the die number 77 on Abed’s stamps apparently does not match that on known genuine plate 77 stamps. Thus a completely new number 77 roller die would have to be prepared and hardened.

After the new roller die re-entries, the plate would have to again be hardened. This whole process would then have to be repeated again to restore the die numbers to read 73.

For this to be the case, one has to swallow a very complex explanation that apparently also requires that there be no trace of multiple re-entries or die number alterations be visible on subsequent plate 73 stamps from the same plate positions, and that plate 73 would have had to be taken out of service, softened, altered and re-hardened TWICE. This just doesn’t make sense to me.

Anyway, that is my two cents worth…

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

Glen



These, like the Certificates themselves, are opinions. They are not philatelic opinions, merely the opinions of a Forensic Handwriting & Document Examiner, the conclusions of which I, pertinax and mozzerb clearly disagree.

On an amusing note, at least to me, you are happy to laud your own thirty plus years experience as a professional philatelist but ready to criticize other professional philatelists with similar years of experience, merely because they do not agree with you.

You are happy to dismiss the work of some scientists for not having examined Abed's part cover, yet you yourself have not examined the item.

Kindest regards, Richard

InforaPenny



To be fair Abed claims this can be done and he commissioned an engraver to do it. See relatively recent prior posts. Such as:

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8808&start=1293

why the above wont turn blue beats me!

Kindest regards, Richard

To be accurate, I don't disagree with the conclusions. I simply don't regard them as the Only Possible Source Of Wisdom. The Radley report establishes a good prima facie case for non-tampering, but other considerations do give grounds for suspicion.

Those X-ray photos (page 27) showing elemental composition differences in precisely the areas in question must surely ring alarm bells for anyone with a reasonably open mind on the subject.

Also, the practical considerations of plate preparation that InforaPenny refers to make it very hard to imagine a set of circumstances in which the stamps could actually have been produced -- something that isn't the case with other oddities mentioned such as the Roo sideways watermark (or among GB stamps, such things as the 1d Venetian with orb watermark or the post-trial Archers).

So I'm willing to allow that they could be, well, duckbilled platypuses -- something that didn't seem as if it could be real but is. If anyone can produce some evidence to shore up the weak points (say via one of the three suggestions of mine above), that would be fascinating and welcome. Common sense, however, suggests that they're very likely to turn out to be hippogriffs -- something that didn't seem as if it could be real and isn't.

mozzerb



I stand corrected.

Kindest regards, Richard

Thanks capetriangle, for pointing out that I should have used "plate number" instead of "die number"! I'm afraid this reveals my numismatic bias as a specialist collector of Victorian coins.

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

InforaPenny

No problem at all.

To the person who managed to turn the line blue in my post four above, I thank you.

Kindest regards, Richard

Revised and corrected below, with thanks to capetriangle …

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

While I don’t claim to be an expert, British line-engraved stamps are among my favorite stamps as a collector. The most persuasive argument in my mind regarding whether the stamps on Abed’s cover were altered (or not) comes from considering how the printing plates for these stamps were produced, and how they might have been officially altered.

On the plates used for printing penny red line-engraved stamps, all coloured features seen on the stamps such as lines or lettering are incuse (cut into or punched into the plate), and all white areas are raised, included the all important plate numbers (such as 73 or 77). Consequently, it is simply not possible to alter the plate numbers by re-cutting on the plate itself.

Plates for the penny reds with four corner letters and plate numbers would have been produced in several steps as follows:

1 A transfer roller in softened (annealed) steel would be made from the original (flat) hardened master die for the stamp design which would have blank spaces for the corner letters and no plate number.

2 Plate numbers such as 73 or 77 would be engraved (cut) into this roller die, and then it would be hardened.

3 The hardened transfer roller die would then be used to transfer the design (now with plate numbers) into each of the 240 positions on softened (annealed) steel printing plate.

4 The corner letters would then be individually hand punched onto the plate (requiring 4 x 240, or 960 separate operations!), and the plate would be hardened after additional information would have been incorporated into the plate margins (PRICE 1d Per Label, etc.).

5 Finally, imprimatur sheets would be printed and inspected, and if found suitable, the plate would be registered and “put to press”.

Regarding, Abed’s stamps:

In Abed’s “block” of three, there are 12 corner letters, and from inspection of these there is no doubt that the origin of the stamps is from plate 73 (this is not disputed).

The question then is about how the plate number 77 came to be on the stamps (either printed using an altered plate 73 or from careful post-printing alteration).

The altered plate theory is very much complicated by the fact that plate 73 would have had to have been altered TWICE, since it was OK at the beginning (as could be confirmed from examining the imprimatur sheet) and was then used for printing some 529,900 sheets up until 5th March 1868 (well past the 27 Nov 1865 date of the cover).

That is, it would have had to be taken out of service, some of the plate numbers on the stamps altered from 73 to 77, then after printing a relatively small number of sheets, taken out of service again, and the plate numbers altered back to 73.

Because the plate numbers are all in white, the plate itself could not have been altered directly. It would have been necessary to use a roller die, after first softening (annealing) the original printing plate. Using the original roller die for plate 73 would not work since it would require cutting a 7 over the 3, and the underlying numeral 3 would clearly show on the printed stamps.

The original plate 77 roller die might have been used, however, the precise positioning of the plate number 77 on Abed’s stamps apparently does not match that on known genuine plate 77 stamps. Thus a new roller die with plate number 77 would have to be prepared and hardened. After the new roller die was used to make the re-entries, the printing plate would have to again be hardened. Later, this entire process would have to be repeated on the printing plate to restore the plate number 73 for printing additional stamps up until March 1868.

For this to be the case, one has to swallow a very complex explanation that apparently also requires that there be no visible trace of multiple re-entries or plate number alterations on subsequent plate 73 stamps printed from the same plate positions, and that the printing plate 73 would have had to be taken out of service, softened, altered and re-hardened TWICE. This just doesn’t make sense to me.

Anyway, that is my two cents worth…

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

I know its just a side point but if this thread were ever printed as a book (unedited) it would currently be about 1500 pages long.

Back to the thread - I didn't think a plate once hardened could ever be softened again?
Like every other plate, why not just roll a new one?

_________________
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!"

Looking at the above steps, why is it not disputed that the stamps are from plate 73?

If 77 was legitimately engraved as per step "2" above, is it not possible that step "4" was bungled, noticed and the plate withdrawn after step "5"?

Just a thought

One of the stamps has a known constant variety from the corresponding position of plate 73 (present on the 73 registration -- aka "imprimatur" -- sheet as I recall) -- so must come from that actual plate. The letter positions for all three stamps match as well, I understand.

Something of that sort did happen with the actual plate 77 -- it was recorded as being too badly laid down to be suitable for perforation. A reasonable assumption is that as per usual practice Ormond Hill had one or more proof sheets sent for approval, and that these had been perforated. The mint copies may well have "leaked" from a sheet he held (such a thing wouldn't be utterly unknown with the Hills, if I remember correctly), and it seems that at least one sheet got into use.

Annealing hardened steel (to soften it) by heating it above some critical temperature for a time, and then cooling it is a standard technique, extensively used in the production of dies for making coins (one which I’d especially familiar which due to my numismatic background).

The production of a printing plate, especially for British line engraved stamps is a very exacting and expensive process requiring a substantial investment of both time and skilled labor. For example, each of the 240 positions on the plate must be precisely laid out and “rocked in” using the roller die with multiple passes, and 960 separate corner letters must be entered by hand punch. Consequently, wherever possible it makes much more sense to repair it than the produce a new one.

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

The classic approach for solving a mystery is to first look for the motive…

It seems to me that one might apply the same approach to investigating the present philatelic mystery of finding the plate 73 stamps with plate number “77” on Abed’s cover.

First, the background facts…

Abed’s cover was posted 27 Nov. 1865 at which time penny reds (with letters in all four corners) were in use up through plate 98 (which had been put to press on 20 March 1865). At this time stamp collecting was still in its infancy with world’s first stamp album (Lallier) only having emerged in 1862.

Among future philatelic greats was Ferrary then age 15, Tapling 10, and George V, himself an infant 5 months old. This age of innocence in philately (a term only a year old) strongly argues that when posted, Abed’s cover was certainly innocent as well.

The question then becomes, had plate 73 somehow been altered with at least some of the positions changed to show “77” on the stamps, then changed back, and if so, what was the motive? Plate 73 itself, which had been registered on 14 May 1861 and only put to press on 1 March 1864, was to continue in use until 5th March 1868 printing a total of 529,900 sheets.

The initial delay before plate 73 was put in use (along that for plates 71, 72, 74 and 75) clearly shows that there was no rush to press, and presumably no obvious sign of any problems with the plate as originally made. Plate 73 was then used in printing for just over 48 months, at an average rate of a little over 11,000 sheets per month. The November date of Abed’s cover would put it about 40% of the working lifetime of plate 73.

This is long enough that is not improbable that some repair or touch-up might be needed. It would be interesting to learn from a specialist or expert on early plates for these penny reds (e.g. plates 71-98) how common and to what extent repairs or minor plate touch-up or other alterations are known.

If common, this would support the notion that alterations may have been necessary in plate 73, if not, this would argue against such a possibility. However, in 1865 it would seem highly unlikely that there would be a deliberate motivation to alter the plate numbers on any stamps to 77 (or 75 for that matter).

Is there evidence that anyone was collecting these current stamps by plate # in 1865? Especially anyone with enough influence to request that plate #77 stamps be made available? And if so, why not plate #75 stamps while they were at it?

To my mind, it would seem that only the Royals would have that level of influence. Adding to the intrigue, it should be pointed out that in fact four sheets of “Royal reprints” of the penny black were made (in 1864-5) using plate 66 of the earlier type of penny red at a request from the palace (perhaps due to Prince Arthur, who was 15 at the time). A key question then might be, is there any evidence that he or any of the other Royals collected by plate number at this early date?

Certainly, honoring such a request would be much more difficult that simply asking that an obsolete plate, which had already been withdrawn from printing and sent to Somerset House, be used to print a few sheets of imperforate stamps in black.

If in fact, plate 73 had been altered to print some stamps marked with plate 77, besides the technical difficulties of making changes at the roller die level, then later changing plate number back to read 73, sheets would have to be perforated, then somehow separated from the ongoing stream of production before delivering them to their Royal “patrons”. This seems highly unlikely to me. Comments?

On the other hand, if alterations of plate 73 to mark stamps as being from plate 77 were a highly fortuitous “accident”, why are not many more such stamps available? Here, it would be especially interesting to study stampmann’s ‘EI’ cover, apparently also from plate 73 but showing plate 77, and sold at Stampex for the princely sum of £1.50!

Where is it today, I wonder… Since both this and Abed’s cover apparently came from box auction lots, from a motivation point of view there is also no obvious reason to suspect that these were deliberately forged. Hence, we seem to be faced with a situation that to quote Winston Churchill is a “riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”.

As members of the jury we are faced with weighing the results of forensic analysis of the stamps themselves (forged or not?), along with a consideration of the unusual circumstances and technical difficulties presented by either official or accidental alterations to plate 73.

We also face the potential semantic question of “what to call a genuine stamp known to be printed from plate 73, but showing plate number 77”.

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

Yes, I know how plates were made and I've punched steel in my time. Punching the entire corners letters would not even take a day. I would have assumed that multiple rolling in of the die was more mechanised with the plate maker watching on. Plates lasted for months, but it didn't take months to make them.

What I was getting at is that returning a finished hardened plate back to its original soft state to be repaired and then hardened again, to me, would ruin the plate. Or at least warp it. The fine details would no longer be as perfect as they were the first time when being cured again.

I know it took time and effort to make each plate, they were constantly being made and there were hundreds of the same plates. I'm sure minor repairs and re-entries were done on the fly to keep a plate usuable. But that would normally mean removing a burr or cleaning a grove, not adding anything. Finally the plate is too worn to continue and a new plate is used.

But what is being suggested is that rather than take metal away (as in punching a corner letter making a grove for ink to sit in and print) metal needs to be added to change from a 3 to a 7 so it will not be inked.

In the Vitorians factory conditions they worked in I would be surprised that anybody noticed a 3 on a few dies was a bit faded in the print and sent the plate back to be altered.

I cannot picture the last 2 paragraphs occuring in my head.

_________________
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!"

The copy illustrated above from SG's stock just sold "to a private client in Australasia for £550,000."

I cannot confirm not deny it was me.

Glen

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

PRESS RELEASE 26th April 2012

196 words:

Stanley Gibbons sell Britain’s most valuable stamp for £550,000

A single example of the elusive ‘plate 77 Penny Red’ has been sold by rare stamp and collectibles dealer, Stanley Gibbons

Just two months after acquiring a rare example of the legendary ‘plate 77 Penny Red’, described as “the finest used example in existence inside or outside a museum” by Stanley Gibbons Director of Great Britain Philately, the company has announced its sale to a private client in Australasia for £550,000.

The original acquisition of the stamp attracted much media attention; being featured on the BBC website as well as gaining a slot on ITV’s Alan Titchmarsh Show where Stanley Gibbons Magazine and Catalogue Editor, Hugh Jefferies, was interviewed about the complexities of stamp valuation.

Its appearance on prime time television was heralded as, ‘a coup for the hobby’ in the philatelic press.

The buyer, who wishes to remain anonymous, purchased the Plate 77 Penny Red through the company’s recently opened Hong Kong office; a move which has allowed the company to provide expert advice and guidance to the maturing markets in Asia and is to be followed up this year with expansion into more new territories.

ENDS

For further information or images or to arrange an interview, please contact:

Louise Reynolds
+44 (0) 1425 481045
lreynolds at stanleygibbons.com

http://www.stanleygibbons.com

InforaPenny,

You make several interesting posts above.

There is indeed no financial motive behind the 'stampmann' cover and the Abed cover, as has been stated before in this thread. Both came from junk lots basically at little or no cost.

That goes a long way to verifying both as showing the number '77' on the stamps despite corner letters making clear that should not be the case.

No-one has doubted that is the issue here - InforaPenny posts add some well laid out discussion possibilities as to HOW it might have occurred. Hopefully that will entice some discussion.

Abed has spent £10,000s on THE most detailed reports ever to have been commissioned on a stamp item is my guess.

The Radley paper forensic report categorically shows the RPSL and PF certs were arrant nonsense in their amateur findings of glued on numbers and abraded out and painted in or scratched in new numbers etc.

That much we know, and science and a world renowned leading forensic paper expert has verified it in writing - HOW the stamps all got to show "77" and not "73" is the piece of the jigsaw not yet answered.

As InforaPenny invoked, courtesy Churchill .... a “riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”.

One day we will know, and hopefully this board will have assisted that path.

Glen

Not getting into the rest of it for the moment, but I don't think this follows.

Rare items turn up in mixed lots on a regular basis, including ones that were formerly in significant collections and that have got "lost". (I picked up one such cover on eBay a while back that I could trace back to a "name" sale I attended in 1999, but in the meantime it had got so "out into the wild" that the dealer I bought it from couldn't even remember where he got it.)

That being so, there's no reason why an item that was (say) faked for an original private sale couldn't do the same. Indeed, it might be easier, as that's the sort of item that might be quietly dumped when the owner realised and then picked up by some random collector.

So basically the circumstances in which an item was found don't necessarily prove anything either way about its genuineness (unless it was found in an actual original archive, not the case here). If it was found in a mixed lot (actually a small GB collection, if I recall what Abed said correctly), that's a small point in its favour, but no stronger than that.

"The Earth Is Flat Society" lives on! Great to hear. I'll donate a groat to fund your next Witch Ducking Festival.

Thank goodness most of us have open minds in philately, or we'd still be pasting imperf 1d blacks onto lampshades, with horse glue, and adding 6 coats of varnish.

1. No master forger, as skilled as the world has ever known - that can fool a modern Forensic Paper Scientist, would have worked tirelessly on 3 stamps when 1 was adequate, and chose a ratty cover, and damaged stamps to do all this on. Just not any forger’s path.

2. And if he DID, someone would have been conned decades back, and there would be records at the Expert Bodies of this cunning faked cover being submitted for a bad Cert. We all know there are NONE.

3. Having done all this skilled work - cleverly hide it ii a junk lot and get zero for it. Stunning tactics.

Bang goes all Flat Earth Theory.

The stamps are real, the numbers are real "77s", as were Stampmanns, I have zero doubt. Inspector Closeau can tell you that much.

HOW they got printed as 77 is the mystery.

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

Our member “stampmann” (Grahame Mann) from Torquay UK who is a long experienced specialist dealer in GB 1d Plate numbers reports above he also found a “77” cover in recent years, and also got a “bad” certificate.

He paid nothing that that either - this master forger sure put in a ton of effort to make zero from it according to the naysayers.

Grahame knows his stuff backwards, and felt sure he had the real McCoy and a plate 77, (E.I.) but dejectedly sold it for £1½d at Stampex described as the plate 73 that he was advised it was by the “experts”.

His May 1992 RPS Cert (which he shows on the board above) says – “Used on cover, is NOT plate 77.”

Understandably he is now angry he sold it for a song, and did not back his better judgement that it showed 77.

Now that SG have just got £550,000 for a single, pretty ordinary, off centred example - with a heavy cancel, the stakes just got MUCH higher.

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

Major new things of great rarity turn up all the time. An auction here is offering this next week and it will likely get $50,000 or so. Found in bundles in an estate.

A LOT less of these recorded than Plate 77s with Certs, so major finds occur all the time. To those with open minds and good eyesight.

*sigh* I don't know why I -- or anyone -- bothers trying to have a discussion with you, Glen. You never ever seem to actually read what we say.

"Major new things of great rarity turn up all the time" ... was precisely the point my post was about. Read it again if you're unsure. Or hell, just actually read it.

The wider point (absent wacko stuff about ducking stools and lampshades) is that while this can happen because items have never previously been recorded, it can also easily happen as a result of collections being sold off by heirs who know squat about them, resulting in information being lost.

They can also get back into circulation because the owner managed to pass the buck to somebody else, perhaps selling off the item for £1.50 as they thought it was a fake, for example.

These are very simple and obvious points, I'd have thought, valid in general rather than specifically concerning Abed's stamps. As my post said: where a "find" was found is generally only weak evidence for whether it's genuine or fake.

Seems like you are imputing "stampmann's" example was also a fake, seeing you use the £1.50 price he on sold his find for.

So, if anyone is not 'reading' the posts it certainly is not me.

Had stampmann or Abed's cover EVER been faked, and offered for expertisation in the past and rejected, the Societies would have a record of both. They keep records. I cannot see why you do not seem to grasp that simple fact.

I repeat as YOU clearly do not read, neither has such a record so they have NEVER been sent for expertisation.

Both covers were totally new to the market that much is clear. As the veracity of the postmarks are unquestioned, we are talking two covers ~150 years old.

Perhaps not obvious to you, but to me they are. I again make the point important new stamp discoveries occur all the time. Often for pieces 50 or 100 years old etc.

Collectors with open minds embrace that reality.

What is this ? Is there a discussion about this stamp somewhere ?

_________________

Collecting - Stamps, poster stamps and covers that feature Kangaroos.
Wanted: Illustrated Tourist cover of "Waratah Park", Sydney, NSW. Australia

Hi Skippy

It's a recent discovery, sideways watermark - the 2nd to be found.

Glen was using it to illustrate his point that major new discoveries are being made.

_________________
mobbor

I do. I also grasp the simple fact that no-one has ever so much as suggested in the first place that someone had submitted them for expertisation before stampmann and Abed did. (As a side point, I doubt very much if anyone has ever actually checked the records of the various expertising bodies to find out whether this is in fact the case, but it's a fair assumption.)

However, since that wasn't my or anybody else's point, I think we can safely ignore it now as irrelevant.

As for stampmann's cover, from the description he gave of it back at the start of this thread -- "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" -- it doesn't sound like a good candidate for a convincing example, given the low visibility of the key features. But if he was so completely convinced the certificate was wrong, he should have kept it regardless.

I again make the point important new stamp discoveries occur all the time. Often for pieces 50 or 100 years old etc. Yes, I know those were your words, but that was my point too. As was the point that not all of those discoveries turn out to be valid.

Anyway, once again I seem to be banging my head against a brick wall trying to have a sensible discussion on this.

I have it on very good authority the buyer of this, for an alleged (and with him that word is surely used advisedly!) £550,000 was SYD based industrial typhoon Sir Ron Brierley.

He used to own SG auctions here etc.

Probably just a breeze for Sir Ron.

Clive

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

I'm sure that I've posted this before - a couple of years ago - but I've just dropped in here for the first time in ages and am suprised to see that stampmann's EI stamp is still being talked about.

What I had posted at that time was that a good friend of mine in the UK who is a well known customer of stampmann and a great GB Line-engraved specialist, has seen either the certificate or a photocopy of the certificate and from the photo on it he has said it is 100% clear the stamp is plate 73 not plate 77.

He also said stampmann knows his opinion and had agreed with it!


Scott

Well stampmann posted quite the opposite here, and I'll always take first hand comments from owners of stamps, over 2nd hand heresay ones.

Question to plating experts - the PI letters are very clear on this stamp.

Are they DIFFERENT letters to plate '73' PI?

Glen

Yes he did at first, but the cert had not been sent by him to his customer at that stage, and after it was he agreed the stamp was 73.

And make no mistake, the stamp was a normal plate 73.

It was not a stamp like the plate 73s on Abed's cover.



Yes they are different.

All the accepted plate 77 stamps that an image is available for have been checked to not only plate 73, but to all plates to 225. They don't match the letter positions of any other plate.

Scott

Interesting.

As I recall we never had a very good image of this until SG offered it for sale?

I recall the mint copies did all plate differently to 73. And the mint copies were all from top left corner letters of a sheet which made my antenna go up, knowing how folks have always loved tearing off top LH corners of sheets.

This PI I recall asking way back if anyone could post an image of a plate 73 'PI' and do not recall anyone being able to do so.

Scott you say with certainty they do not match 73 .. do you recall WHERE you saw that verified?

That should be a common stamp, and hopefully someone can post an image of DIFFERENT shaped/placed letters clearly showing "73" plate numbers.

There's always been a decent image of it - it was the cover item on a Spink sale catalogue from over 10 years ago.

The problem is this thread is so large you can't find anything anymore.


Scott

My thoughts for years are that the 3 x Mint copies being top left corner, and the various used copies being all over the place, is a major clue.

I await to see another 'PI' that is accepted as being from plate 73. I do not think we ever have here?

Glen

It's not really a major clue. The plate was rejected because the impressions were not aligned properly for perforation.

This of course means that some units on the sheet would be well centred while others badly centred.

There's no real reason why all the known 77s could not have come from the same sheet. Equally, they also may have come from more than one sheet. There's no way of knowing for certain.



I wouldn't be surpised if a 73PI hasn't been posted here, because I think it was a clear cut no match to the letter positions of the 77.

For instance, a plate 81PI was posted, because the letters are fairly close to the 77 but on further examination they aren't 100% right.

It was Tim Clarke who did the comparisons of the 77s to all the other plates. He really only needed to look at plates with two digits, and really only plates that existed up to the 1865 date of Abed's cover, but nevertheless he did the full run up to 225. He posted details of this here, but it's buried somewhere in the 30+ pages of posts.

He probably could post an image of 73; as you say it's a common plate.


Scott

Don't worry, I'm due back in my padded cell shortly, but what is that in the diamond in front of the 1st 7 on the left hand side of Sir Ron's copy?

_________________
mobbor

Re Tom Allen's account posted above, this has always bothered me:

"...I could apply a test of my own devising but that if it proved to be fake it would ruin the stamp."

My problem is what sort of test would ruin a fake stamp but leave a genuine one perfect?

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I don't believe this makes sense. I don't believe it's possible.

I strongly suspect he was either writing with poetic licence or being purposely disingenuous because he didn't want the real test known, and that the actual test he used was that of the positioning of the feet of the 7s.

Scott

I see what you mean - it looks a bit like there's a 1 in there doesn't it.

I don't think there is though.


S