Thanks for sharing the history of where the cover came from Abed
I am sure many had wondered that, and original source provenance like that is always most helpful when adding up all the pieces of the jigsaw.
It removes any grey area from the equation. (Like being bought on ebay for a few $100 - "belonged to my sainted Grandma - honest"
So if you have had it for 10 years, all this cunning alleged faking went on at least that far back.
I guess we can rule out laser beams and micro technology then.
I just mused today on the POSTMARK
placement on this trio.
I do not think in the 450 posts so far on this thread, anyone has raised it specifically?
When I look at the trio, is is clear the postmark is just over
some of the second "7s" - which if this cover's stamps are stated to be fake, must clearly be all adjusted too.
Faked either by pasting in clean number 7s cut from other stamps, or painting out the existing "3s" (or whatever number the conspiracy theorists might insert here!) in every case, and somehow painting in a "7" in the 3 cases.
In the latter case, the ink of the painting in would need to match the surrounding 140 year old red ink precisely
in every way, and could not of course leach into the stamp paper, and through to the back.
And just painting in red is not the full deal .. as the red is if fact showing underneath small portions of the white original paper. So a glob of red paint will not suffice. And a wake up call here -- this latter 7 is about 1mm x 2mm in TOTAL size to be forging here.
And the WHITE ink then used to paint in the "7" would also need to match the 140 year old PAPER
as of course the "7" is not white ink at all, but un-printed upon stamp paper
So the faker needs to take his original number 3, cunningly disguise it into a "7" so somehow, and magically make that altered '7' look like it is the original white paper, and only paint in the red bits around it that is surplus to requirements.
the above scenarios are stated to have occurred - by different "Expert" Committees.
So lets for a charitable moment assume one of these scenarios DID occur.
Then we need to look at this photo and accept the black CANCEL ink also needed to be painted or drawn in over the pasted in, or painted in, fake number 7s. And for starters just the correct amount of postmark painting needs occur.
Now as the cancel is IN the area of the latter "7s" but is not heavy, that would be actually be a lot harder to achieve than might be thought.
And of course be in black ink around 140 years old, of PRECISELY the identical colour and chemical composition used back then. (Unobtainable today I'd imagine, but why let minor reality checks derail us here.)
So we are further asked to believe that some of the latter 7s here are fakes . . whether pasted in or painted in, and the applicable cancel in the region is also faked, either painted or drawn in.
And we are further asked to believe that a barrage of high tech ink and paper and chemical detection lab equipment notices or detects NONE
of this alleged forgery, neither does high microscope magnification.
And then after all
this magnificent forgery work, the cover is cunningly smuggled into a large general collection in Europe, and the buyer pays no premium to buy it.
Is this was a "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" segment .. would anyone believe a WORD of it?!