STAMPBOARDS - Postage Stamp Chat Board and Stamp Forum

Anyway, back to this new Forensic report - that I hope we are able to see posted here shortly.

capetriangle wrote:
This is a fascinating subject, but as far as authenticity is concerned there is really nothing to talk about.

Richard Debney

capetriangle wrote:
I cannot remember, to save my life, the name of the author. The report was, I believe, spiral-bound and about a quarter of an inch thick.

.... I spent very little time with the report, and neither Mr. Najjar or Dr. Hall referred to it or the other one in their illustrated talks.

Richard Debney

"Nothing to talk about?" Well, you are fully entitled to your view of course.


You have posted FOUR times above in 4 different posts re a report a "handwriting expert" tendered last week. Your words not mine - a "hand-writing expert".

At least one member above has queried, based on your comment, why the handwriting on the cover is relevant.

I'd agree .. that is totally irrelevant to whether these stamp show the plate number 77 on each of them. That is the ONLY matter of interest to us here

I suggest the reason you took that dismissive path was you are attempting to obfuscate WHO exactly wrote the report you refer to, and exactly WHAT the writer is indeed an expert in.

Unlike you, it seems his examination extended past peering at the cover with a hand held glass. Thank goodness there is some SCIENCE in the examination of these stamps, and not biased speculation to cover your POV, which I suggest is all you have added.

Mr Debney - you are a stamp collector interested in, you tell us here, mainly in Western Australia and Cape Triangles - but not recess printed GB.

You possess, unless I am mistaken, NO formal qualifications whatever in forensic document examination, or any court accreditation as an expert witness in that field - but you are telling us this Internationally known paper forensic expert is totally wrong, and you are still totally right?

But you do agree you were the prime mover on the Philatelic Foundation (PF) "Expert" Committee that branded this cover as a "FAKE" - alleging the "7s" had all been painted in!

Mr Radley (refer CV below) has stated in a highly detailed report, examining your own "Certificate" and covering letters, that your opinion is totally incorrect, and that there is not a single shred of proof whatever to support it.

And let us not be mistaken - there can ONLY be one of 2 outcomes here -

1. The cover is totally FAKED as you claim, which the Philatelic Foundation you served on, (and no longer serve on it seems?) stated so in writing

2. The cover and stamps are 100% GENUINE and un-altered, as Mr Radley - and all the other forensic and expert reports, have concluded.

My bet is on number #2.

Mr Radley is a world expert with several 100 sworn court appearances across the world, and a leading EXPERT in this field, with 9000 cases under his belt and is whom MY money is on as to being correct - of the two possible outcomes!

The onus clearly lies entirely now upon you Mr Debney to produce a detailed report from an equally qualified expert, that refutes all Mr Radley has written in his.

In a Court Of Law proof is what is required. Mr Radley has presented paper and document research PROOF and analysis in hundreds of court trials, that doubtless they have been relied upon by learned Judges, moreso than someone's opposing view with a hand held magnifier.

The most obvious and correct course now is for the PF to issue a new Certificate, without your input as you say you have left there.

Hopefully unlike you, the new committee will go into this with an open mind, taking the time to READ the detailed new EXPERT report, and other reports, stating the 3 stamps and cover are genuine and un-altered, and all showing the Plate number "77" engraved on them.

What say you Mr Debney???

Glen

-------------------------

Your rather glib reference to a "handwriting expert" on 4 occasions so far, refers to no less than to this person -

And I quote from his website -


Robert Radley holds the Degrees of Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Chemistry, and Master of Science in Forensic Science. He also holds the Diploma of the Forensic Science Society in Document Examination and is a Chartered Chemist. He is a Registered Forensic Practitioner.

Mr Radley is a Fellow of The Forensic Science Society, a corresponding member of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, a Fellow of the Academy of Experts, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry.

He has successfully completed the Assessors' Course for the Council of the Registration of Forensic Practitioners, and was an examiner for the Forensic Science Society for 12 years with respect to their Diploma in Document Examination.

He has written numerous papers and publications in forensic science journals on forensic document examination, relating to a variety of aspects of this work. He has presented these to scientific meetings both in this country and abroad. He has been on the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners.

Since 1971, Mr Radley has been consulted in over 9,000 cases involving questioned documents with instructions received from all over the world.

These generally relate to signature authentication and/or handwriting identification together with other areas of document examination which are dealt with on a routine basis, including non-destructive instrumental analysis of inks, paper, alterations, erasures, typewriting, printing, indented and electrostatic writing impressions in documents (ESDA), photocopy examinations, dating queries, determination of sequences of writings etc.

He has trained as a Single Joint Expert and regularly deals with such cases.

He has given evidence on several hundred occasions as an expert witness in the courts throughout the UK and also courts in Australia, New Zealand, Brunei, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malta, The Hague, The Republic of Ireland, Jersey, Cyprus, Germany, Switzerland, Kenya and Gibraltar.

His laboratory is extensively equipped with the necessary instrumentation for the forensic examination of documents.


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


Call me old fashioned, but with all due respect, I'd back his detailed written opinion over yours - formed after checking the cover with a fancy 10 x glass it seems?

GlenStephens wrote:Anyway, back to this new Forensic report - that I hope we are able to see posted here shortly.

I'm sure many readers of this thread will agree with that hope, Glen.

Without that report, the thread is in danger of degenerating into name-calling and finger-pointing, and a subject of this importance deserves better.

I hope we can see the report very soon, and that its content will be given due consideration by all

Glen

I will address your points in order.

I am NOT telling you "it would NOT be easily detectable," quite the contrary, the color changes of the alteration can be seen with the naked eye.

I have no opinion on the David Copperfield magic issue.

OTHER than the Ferrary copy, there are 13 WA 'Inverted Frames' in existance. The number was at one time 14 in total. Then, in the late 1970's (1977?) one appeared in a Kohler auction in Germany with a starting price of DM 2000.

It was bought by Rodney Perry or his agent for DM 9200, my father was the underbidder. Perry placed the stamp (cut to shape) on the front cover of his Australian auction catalogue shortly thereafter. There was an enlarged illustration in color and it was numbered as an 'A' lot.

I believe it brought either A $24,000 or A $26,000. You will have to check this as I am doing this from memory. I believe it was bought by a private collector in Western Australia. The number then went up to 15, only to come down again to 14 when the the Green, "Isleham" copy (No. X) was declared a fake at the Expert Committee of The Royal Philatelic Society London.

The Ferrary copy was bouncing around various Italian or other European auction houses in the 1980's, failing to find a home. It finally landed and as far as I know is owned by an Academic in New Jersey. As far the reason for the strange color, neither of us were alive in 1923, so your guess is as good as mine.

I do have a small collection of line-engraved GB, it includes an important 'May Date' cover and a Plate XI 1d black with a major re-entry on cover.

I have referred to Mr. Robert Radley as a "handwriting authority." (check the posts) I have no opinion on his work, report or qualifications. I have held his report in my hands for under a minute. I have, for the most part, noticed only the facts reported in previous posts.

However, as reported before, neither M. Najjar or Dr. Hall referred to it in their illustrated talks at The Collectors Club last week.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

Whatever expert forensic report is provided on the validity of these stamps, I'm sure it won't change certain opinions held.

And that is solely due to the fact that a retraction at this late stage, with all the publicity surrounding this new discovery, would bring into question the abilities of the expert signatories involved.

gavin-h wrote:

fromdownunder wrote:i think that one of the most interesting issues relating to this cover, which has been asked, but never satisfactorally answered, is WHY would somebody forge such a rarity, on a unique cover, then "hide" it in a somewhat general collection which when sold would only bring a smal % of the "true" value of the item.

Norm,

That one's quite easy to answer: they wouldn't...

...but it's quite possible that the original "collection" to which it belonged was broken up and the significance of the item was lost. Ignorant relatives dispose of stamp collections at boot sales all the time

Subsequently the item may not have been recognised for what it was - or purported to be - and found its way (possibly in several steps) into the collection where Mr Najjar found it.

Disclaimer - this post in no way is meant to suggest the stamps or cover are not genuine; it is merely intended to provide a theory in response to Norm's question.

I suggest the only feasible proposition as to why the cover was found how it was would be to contend that it was not, in fact, found as claimed. The underlying insinuation seems to be heading to the position that the cover was doctored recently and a 'cover story' (sorry, couldn't help myself!) manufactured.

Please note, I do not intend to suggest that any parties to this matter either committed such a fraud or suggested that such a fraud was committeed! I simply want to point out the ultimate result could be of the claims being made.

capetriangle wrote:
OTHER than the Ferrary copy, there are 13 WA 'Inverted Frames' in existence. The number was at one time 14 in total. Then, in the late 1970's (1977?) one appeared in a Kohler auction in Germany with a starting price of DM 2000.

It was bought by Rodney Perry or his agent for DM 9200, my father was the under-bidder.

Well before we get back to the 1d Plate 77, let's get the record straight on WA swans.

Dr Woo might be peeved you do not count his example below as existing .. after all it was this piece that settled once and for all whether it was the frame or the swan that was inverted!

I viewed it first hand in Washington as doubtless you did - are you imputing it too is forged?


And as for the cut to shape #15 you refer to, it was bought in the 1950s by a well know Munich lawyer. It was invoiced for 10,400 Dm when sold in March 1977, which at the time was £2,567 .. a bargain I agree .. I too was an under-bidder.

As to the unusual colour of the ex-Ferrary 4d, I seldom "guess" on such matters when I type them, and no I was not around in 1923, but I repeat that the record shows that - "Number '9' WA Invert was immersed in a chemical solution in 1923 after being boiled" - so I repeat again, Ferrary boiling in water was not the reason it changed shade I'd suggest.

If you do not believe that, well you might need to research your stated area of personal expertise a little deeper.

Glen

Glen

The WA 'Inverted Frame' proving piece was discovered in London in 1937. It is about one third of a stamp and was known, of course, to the Williams brothers who did not give it a number. It is, of course, perfectly genuine. As far as I am concerned the number of 'Inverted Frames' remains at 14.

I have known Arthur Woo for about 13 years and have yet to upset him.

No. XV, the Munich copy hammered down at DM 9200, your price, no doubt, includes the buyer's premium.

My opinion about the Ferrary copy remains unchanged, I have never liked it, and I consider it practically immaterial as to when and how the color was changed. You may well be right though. Like many stamps overs the years it has had varying auction descriptions.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

Anyway, back to the Plate 77 cover -

capetriangle wrote:
I have referred to Mr. Robert Radley as a "handwriting authority." (check the posts) I have no opinion on his work, report or qualifications. I have held his report in my hands for under a minute. I have, for the most part, noticed only the facts reported in previous posts.

I actually find it appalling that a then member of an "Expert" Committee who has gone to print in detail to denounce this cover a FAKE, now admits he has not bothered to look at a recent very detailed SCIENTIFIC report on this cover - for more than a minute!

Radley is a forensic DOCUMENT expert examiner, not a handwriting authority.

He produced a 17 page detailed report, which in DETAIL dissects your written view on the cover and disagrees completely with your findings.

Astounding to me you did not bother to read it.

Yet you still hold your view it is faked, as your eyes tell you it is - indeed aided by your whizz bang 10 x magnifier that detects "Smokin Gun colour mismatches." (Despite the fact even under 40 x magnification Radley imputes your claim is wrong - and there is no evidence whatever of it!)

"I do not note a significant difference in the colouring as suggested, even under magnifications of x 40 (which still allows for a good intercomparison of 1.5 millimetre diameter area with adjacent areas), quite the contrary. I find the lay down of pigmentation and colourant to be uniform in the areas in question relative to adjacent areas." Robert Radley

You have zero formal qualifications in this area, (as do I!) and yet a leading expert forensic DOCUMENT examiner who has issued 9000 such written reports, you appear totally disinterested in reading the opinion of? Even when he directly refutes in detail your clear finding.

If someone wrote a very detailed report saying things I'd stated were not correct, I'd certainly take the time to read it in detail -- and respond to it. I've written monthly stamp column on 3 continents for 30 years and of course I have made errors of fact here and there, but do take care to triple check everything I can, and most especially, respond to any comments raised upon what I write.

One certainly hopes the current Philatelic Foundation Committee takes the time to spend more than a minute glancing at this detailed report, when the cover is re-submitted - which I trust it will be.

The damning refutation is below, to both the Certificate you were instrumental in having issued - and have defended ever since - and in fairness, he damns the view and comments from the RPS London as well. Whose arguments were even more ridiculous - that pieces cut from other stamps had been glued on in essence to all 3 copies.

We all accept science solves many philatelic mysteries. MANY things in stamps once decried as "fake" are now accepted as 100% genuine. (Read above of the multi million dollar Sweden Tre Skilling Yellow, and Australia ½d sideways watermark etc.)

Open minds are good for stamps - NOTHING new would ever be discovered, or any opinions changed, if it were not for open minds.

Richard Debney's mind is sadly, clearly firmly closed on this, as he did not even glance at the detailed 17 page report for one minute - but hopefully others will. The earth would still be flat, and the moon would still be made of green cheese, if people did not have open and enquiring minds.

I have no doubt whatever that this cover will in short order obtain new PF and RPSL Certs confirming that no faking or tampering has taken place to the cover - or the stamps.

I suspect both bodies have suffered enormous international damage to their credibility and reputation by their initial Certificates on this, and in the light of the subsequent barrage of scientific reports comprehensively proving them wrong, will be keen to patch up the mess - ASAP.

All "expert" bodies have made ID errors in the past - as have all dealers - me certainly included. However it is how quickly and decisively folks respond when the errors are highlighted to make things whole, that is the test.

This thread has had over 6,250 page views already by Registered members, and probably 10 times that by guests. The cover, and these absurdly amateur "Certificates" have been the subject of feature articles in International stamp magazines, read by 10,000s more collectors and dealers.

If those reading this know of other keen students of early British philately - please email them the link to this thread, so they can form their own views. It is "real time" international boards like this that have the reach and the immediacy to address matters such as this -

https://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8808&start=450

HOW these 3 stamps got to show the number 77 on them is another chapter entirely. However there is no doubt in MY mind that those number "77"s were printed there by the PO in the 1860s. That has been my personal view since day #1, and my initial thought remains, that this is one of the most important and valuable covers in British philately.

A small section of the 17 page report is shown below, refuting the reasons that the PF and Richard Debney gave for assessing it was forged.

I'll see if I can get the entire report re-produced here, after seeking permission from the stamp's owner to do that.

Very costly microscopes such as this very one, in the hands of forensic lab professors, and exhaustive extra lab tests, all detected no tampering of any kind to the cover or stamps.

Yet "Forged" Certificates exist, alleging by the RPSL glued on number "7"s from other sheets were affixed and postmarks painted back on top. And the PF alleged someone painted in white number 7's over scratched out other numbers, with all the necessary red then painted back in around it, leaving no trace whatever.

Such fakery has allegedly taken place here - on every stamp! All of this - amazingly - undetectable to any scientist .... using leading edge lab tests and equipment. It is like a bad Monty Python script - if it were not so serious.

I'd suggest if this matter were subject to a Court Of Law and a Judge to decide, on the overwhelming balance of scientific evidence, and with ZERO refutation scientific evidence offered by the defence, the cover would be deemed 100% genuine in accordance with the clear scientific evidence supporting it.

Dear Stampboards readers

I feel it is time to put the Radley report out for you all to look at. It is quite long and I will have to seek advise from the administrators of this site as to the best way to present it to you.

May I just add that I have asked Mr Radley to look at all possible ways this item could be faked as such, and to see if it applied in my case. While it is verbose, I think you will find it both educational and interesting. Mr Robert Radley is very highly regarded in his field and you will be reading a highly authoritative document that will stand up in Court.

Abed H Najjar

Abed H Najjar wrote:I feel it is time to put the Radley report out for you all to look at. It is quite long and I will have to seek advise from the administrators of this site as to the best way to present it to you.

I believe you have your own website for this cover? Post it there (assuming it's in some normally readable format such as PDF, RTF, or Word doc file), and link to it from here. Simple. This report has been waved around on this thread like a talisman, let's see what the thing actually says and maybe discuss this on the basis of some additional facts.

Yes this will be done in time.

The Collectors Club site will also post it as a pdf, but for speed and in order to keep the story here while things are under discussion, I will see if I can post it on this site

Here we go - The Radley report

(Admin note .. to read this in much larger font, go to lower right of your screen and change the "100%" to 150% or 200%, and charge it back after reading.)

To me, paragraph 62 is the key finding. There are traces of different elements in the six areas where the second 7 appears. Richard would argue that this is evidence that the stamps have been altered (although I'm curious to see how he explains the 6th one). Abed argues that the trace elements are evidence that a plug was inserted into the original printing plate to change the second digit of the plate number.

The overwhelming evidence of the forensic tests supports Abed's position.

I'm curious to hear more from printing experts. Richard has described the printing process, and the process for altering the specific stamp images in the plates. His description matches that in every reference book I checked, including Fundamentals of Philately. But there is no mention in any of those books of repairs or alterations being done by way of plugs -- that's what I was checking the books for.

I think for Abed's cover to be completely accepted as genuine, there has to be some explanation of the process that created the changed plate number. What we've come up with so far is that plate 73 was used to print many sheets of stamps, then some positions on the plate were re-entered or otherwise repaired. As part of that process, a small number of sheets with plate #77 were printed. This was quickly discovered and corrected, and the plate was repaired again to change the plate number back to 73.

If that is true:

1. Stamps from those positions that show plate 73 printed after the repair would show slightly different 3s in the plate numbers.

2. Those later printings would show the same trace elements that are mentioned in paragraph 62. Stamps from the initial printing would not show the trace elements.

Both of those hypotheses are testable, and would provide further evidence that Abed's cover is genuine -- as well as further proof of the strange process that seems to have created these "plate 77s".

Greg

Dear All

I have just woken up and seen seven posts on the subject. These will take a considerable amount of time to digest.

One point to consider, however, in Glen Stephens' second post, his photo labeled "This is one of 6 UNDOUBTED number '77's' from Abed's cover," the second "7" shows, in my opinion, the yellowish rose-red coloration, the subject of so much dispute.

Does anyone else see it?

Richard Debney

capetriangle wrote: One point to consider, however, in Glen Stephens' second post, his photo labeled "This is one of 6 UNDOUBTED number '77's' from Abed's cover," the second "7" shows, in my opinion, the yellowish rose-red coloration, the subject of so much dispute.

Does anyone else see it?

Yes, especially at the bottom of the 7. I've noticed it in some other images too. I was going to look at my copies (of other plates!) to see if I could see the same thing on them.

Greg

GlenStephens wrote: I'd suggest if this matter were subject to a Court Of Law and a Judge to decide, on the overwhelming balance of scientific evidence, and with ZERO refutation scientific evidence offered by the defence, the cover would be deemed 100% genuine in accordance with the clear scientific evidence supporting it.

This thread has been very interesting and informative to read, and I come back every few days to read the latest updates. From the closeup images posted, and the mass of scientific evidence provided, I would be inclined to believe the item genuine. It's certainly making quite a tale, the origins, the discovery et al.

Just to briefly reply to Glen's comment...not taking sides here, but I would say that there was no scientific evidence tendered by the defence (that is, the expert committee) since that is not really their role or responsibility. They are simply being asked, as philatelic experts, to say what they think the stamp looks like or is, based on their knowledge of stamp printing techniques etc.

If this were a court matter, I'm sure the other party would then commission their own investigations. The owner certainly seems to have built up a substantial body of evidence here though which would be difficult to go against.

Looking at Glen's scan of May 10, 2009 (page 1 of the thread!), the RL stamp seems to have several yellowish areas. To me the border patterns between the 2 and 4 of the postmark and the area above the ENN of penny look just as yellowed as the area of the second 7 of the left-hand 77.

GlenStephens wrote:

This is one of 6 UNDOUBTED number '77's' from Abed's cover.

I'm trying to follow this but the first image isn't appearing - all I see is the microscrope! I think the space between 1d and Plate77 in the URL is killing it for me - or maybe it's the plethora of dots - close.up.blowup.jpg

flip138 wrote:To me the border patterns between the 2 and 4 of the postmark and the area above the ENN of penny look just as yellowed as the area of the second 7 of the left-hand 77.

Radley (below) states there are similar patches all over the stamps. Blow up any area on the stamps and you will likely see it.

IMHO just a total red herring from Mr Debney .. if that is his "Smokin Gun" the argument was lost a long time back.

More speculation is possibly located at https://www.ClutchingAtStraws.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; 8)

Unless we are to believe of course that much of each stamp was rebuilt and tampered with at the same time by this master forger. Now there's a thought.

None of it detectable by science or experts or forensic labs as we know, but never let the facts get in the way of a red herring.

.
I have on several occasions mentioned the paper fibres at high magnification and so I have attached an image of a portion of the '7' from a plate 73 stamp photographed from a microscope.

The image is of the stamp at 80x magnification. The paper fibres are clearly visible. You can see that should one fibre be moved or lifted, then this would be clearly evident.

Abed H Najjar

I feel it is important here to make another post and include a brief summary (verbatim) from Professor Hall's report and from the RSSL report both of which are technical and both of whom have used between them the following state of the art analytical equipment to analyse the ink in both '7's.

1- Raman Microscopy
2- EDXRF ( X-ray microfluorescence) associated with elemntal mapping
3- X-ray microanalysis
4- Scanning electron microscopy

Gene S. Hall, Ph.D., Professor of Analytical Chemistry report - Quote:

"The identical nature of the inks of the three samples effectively rules out the finding that the ink had been painted in."

"Raman examination also confirmed that the pigment was the same in both the basic stamp and the second "7" area."

"There was no difference in the ink composition in the diamond areas surrounding the first and second "7" in the plate numbers."

RSSL's report- Quote:

"No evidence was found of fibre disruption (e.g. through deliberate tamper by scraping, cutting or adding fibres) during topographical examination of the second '7 diamond' regions."

How much more positive evidence do I need to give the 'experts'?

Abed H Najjar

I'd like to thank Mr Debney for defending his opinion here.

I can claim no expertise on the issues, but think that it is easy to perceive slight shade variations across stamps of such age even when there is no tampering... especially when one is strongly expecting to find such. I hope that those with more experience can call such things with a lot more confidence, but the fact that I know that I could fool myself in such an area causes me to somewhat discount his confidence that he has seen such problems with the 7s. But - If I'm reading correctly, he considers the corner letter match with plate 93 totally damming even without detectable tampering of the 7s, and the theories of intermediate plate states with mixed numbers to explain such a chimera to be ridiculous.

Dear All

I am currently struggling with the Radley report. I am having a problem e-mailing it and hence printing it out. So I therefore still have no opinion.

However, I do refer members to the report by Dr. Gene Hall, a doctoral chemist rather than one with a masters, which is available on The Collectors Club website. (under publications)

From his "Conclusions" (Hall -7-) I will quote.

..."The elements Ba, Cr, and P were found only in the diamond area surrounding the second "7" in plate number "77" and were not homogenous and not part of the ink formulation. Their source is probably from the printing process. Barium, P, and Cr were not found in the red ink surrounding the first "7" in plate number "77". The Cr was due to the chemical compound PbCrO4 (chrome yellow) and was confirmed using the complementary technique of Raman spectroscopy."...

Note, I was unable to subscript the "4" in the chemical formula for lead chromate.

Naturally I do not accept that the elements' sources was from the printing process, since they would surely consequently be found throughout the stamp were that the case.

Richard Debney

capetriangle wrote:Dear All

I am currently struggling with the Radley report. I am having a problem e-mailing it and hence printing it out. So I therefore still have no opinion.

So can we get this straight please?

You had a copy of this report in your hands last week and admit above you did not even spend one minute looking at it.

So someone takes the time to post it above it its entirety, and yet you cannot manage to hit the "PRINT" button on it?

Might we detect a supposition that you do not WANT to know what it says, as it of course refutes every word you have written re this cover?

You do however nearly side-step all the other obvious questions, and instead nit pick one obscure technical sentence from one report of Hall's - who by the way in summary TOTALLY disagrees with your premise. Do you have any Chemistry degrees out of interest?

Gene S. Hall, Ph.D., Professor of Analytical Chemistry -"The identical nature of the inks of the three samples effectively rules out the finding that the ink had been painted in."

"Raman examination also confirmed that the pigment was the same in both the basic stamp and the second "7" area. There was no difference in the ink composition in the diamond areas surrounding the first and second "7" in the plate numbers."

As I posted above, this barrage of undoubtedly very expensive top level scientific reports, all saying essentially the same thing, in a Court Of Law would win the day -- EVERY time.

The 4 reports summarised below (as I feel sure you have trouble printing them too as they all contradict your view) are all confirmed by Radley - who finds nothing he disagrees with in them.

The stamp establishment is never terribly keen to accept on face value, something clearly valuable, they did not know existed before.

Most especially a $500,000 type item, that would instantly be one of the rarest pieces in British Philately if certified as genuine.

Right now two certificates have been issued saying these plate numbers are faked, the latter (your PF) Cert saying stamps from another plate have allegedly changed to read 77.

The first RPSL view was plainly absurd, arguing essentially that someone had cut the number "7" out of other stamps, and pasted it over the second "7" on each stamp on cover.

A basic $20 hand held UV lamp would detect that if it were true! As would 20/20 eyesight I'd guess, or a human fingernail.

The other PF Cert - in essence your view - imputed the second original number had been hand-painted out in red, and a new 7 in white painted in on every stamp. Again the most rudimentary checking would reveal this, if it were the case.

Massive blow-ups of the paper fibres of this region have been taken, and they are illustrated in the article online, and show no such manipulation or alteration. A Professor of Analytical Chemistry concurs.

But YOUR trusty little 10x hand held magnifier tells us they are all WRONG!

As you will see in the highly detailed reports here - http://www.johfail.notlong.com - senior forensic Scientists and technical labs, using expensive Raman microscopes, and a million dollars of analytical equipment, see nothing of the sort.

Abed has spent many £1,000's, and a great deal of time, and went out and got highly technical forensic reports on this cover, covering several years

The detailed forensic evidence appears to show those "Expert" views such as yours are simply wrong.

The Forensic Institute, 10th August 2006 - "... there is no evidence of alteration. In summary, using these techniques we did not find evidence that could be established as tampering."

Reading Scientific Services Limited (RSSL), 1st February 2008 - "No evidence was found of fibre disruption (e.g. through deliberate tamper by scraping, cutting or adding fibres) during topographical examination of the second '7 diamond' regions."

The Forensic Science Service, 31st October 2006 - "I find no evidence that the plate numbers have been altered by cutting out portions of other stamps and pasting them onto the stamps examined here."

Rutgers University USA, 19th September , 2008, Gene S. Hall, Ph.D., Professor of Analytical Chemistry - "The identical nature of the inks of the three samples effectively rules out the finding that the ink had been painted in."

"Raman examination also confirmed that the pigment was the same in both the basic stamp and the second "7" area. There was no difference in the ink composition in the diamond areas surrounding the first and second "7" in the plate numbers."

Radley disagrees with NOTHING of the above - which if you even hit the 'print' button, you will discover.

As I have often written in my columns - the last word will NEVER be written in philately, and very major finds occur each year.

Keep an OPEN mind.

I am a great believer that closed or blinkered minds are often the biggest impediment to important new stamp discoveries being recognised for what they are.

Abed need not be disheartened that a few "experts" like you have declared that the 3 stamps on his cover are "faked" - despite the clear written high tech forensic evidence he now has, from a range of sources, that they are not tampered with in any way.

It is their ongoing standing in the philatelic world that will forever bear testament to their incorrect judgment in this matter, not his.

Sadly Committees are not always correct, even when the matter before them to rule upon is very simple.

Luckily they on occasion change their Certificates when compelling scientific evidence from a range of sources is presented that warrants it - and this will be one such case I feel sure.

All major philatelic discoveries have come from philatelists with open minds.

Glen

I will accept no criticism from you regarding the fact that I spent less than one minute with the Radley report last week. Neither Mr. Najjar or Dr. Hall referred to it for one second in their illustrated talks.

I have now managed to print it out in 10 pages which makes it almost as difficult to read as on my computer screen. I will get to it in due course.

The quote that I gave you in my last post was taken from Dr. Hall's "Conclusion" section of his report, which, as I said, is available on The Collectors Club website.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

figmente

Yes, to answer your last point. (save the plate 93 for plate 73 typo)

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

capetriangle wrote:Glen

I will accept no criticism from you regarding the fact that I spent less than one minute with the Radley report last week.

Well you may not like accepting it, but you are going to get it.

It is a sure sign to me you knew it was yet another report that damned your stubborn view these numbers were hand painted in - and a little like the 'Emperor With No Clothes' seemed to assume if you did not read it, all was rosy in the Kingdom!

I could not care less who else discussed it, or looked at it, or referred to it at the NYC meeting. We are talking about YOUR actions - not those of others.

Let's leave heresay to the 'National Enquirer', and stick to the written FACTS as we know them please.

YOU posted above you looked at his detailed new forensic report for under a minute and indeed allegedly could not recall who wrote it.

If you feel that kind of high handed disinterest to a Court Standard expert document totally germane to the genuineness of this item is not a matter for criticism .. well we disagree.

Just to jog your memory -

capetriangle wrote:
At The Collectors Club meeting in New York on September 16, 2009 Mr. Najjar placed on display in front of the frames on the right-hand wall actually two reports. The one I referred to in my post was from a handwriting authority.

.... I cannot remember, to save my life, the name of the author. The report was, I believe, spiral-bound and about a quarter of an inch thick.

Other than noticing the identities of the two Expert Committees involved, I spent very little time with the report

capetriangle wrote:
I have referred to Mr. Robert Radley as a "handwriting authority." (check the posts) I have no opinion on his work, report or qualifications. I have held his report in my hands for under a minute. I have, for the most part, noticed only the facts reported in previous posts.

(Red emphasis mine.)

Sadly in my view we have a situation here, where you have already backed yourself into a very sticky corner by publicly stating you will "stake your thirty-two-year professional reputation" on the fact all the stamps on it, and part of the cancels on it are forged.

And seem hell bent on doing anything possible to obfuscate about everything EXCEPT the overall genuineness of the cover.

Your exact words were -

https://www.glenstephens.com/snaugust09.html

I wrote the prevailing opinion quoted by Mr. Najjar as Expert Opinion "B" and was responsible for the information conveyed to him in the subsequent correspondence. I was aware of the information contained in Expert Opinion "A" prior to writing mine.

I am completely happy with the opinion and am willing to put at stake my thirty-two-year professional reputation upon it.

The clear science from a myriad of reports and experts shows that view to be manifestly wrong, and in my view all your obfuscation about a yellow tinge to one 7 etc (that no-one except you sees in all the reports!) is the classic red herring diversion argument.

You could just as easily fill 2 pages hypothetically discussing the shape of the second 7's etc.

Totally irrelevant, as we have no other copies of these letters to compare them against.

The only BIG PICTURE question at issue here surely is -

Do these 3 stamps have the numbers 77 on them, and were those numbers added by a forger - as you claim - or were they printed like that by the PO in the 1860s?

Alleged yellow tinges, shape of 7s, who might have said what at dinner, current price of gold bullion etc, are all red herring diversions to looking at the BIG PICTURE.

You still stridently believe those 5 numbers, and the painted over postmarks were all FORGED, (and as you say, your philatelic reputation rides on that clear observation to a very heavy extent) and yet it seems the near universal view of those who have bothered to read the Radley and other scientific reports, is that there is no evidence of forgery or tampering of numbers or postmarks.

In such a clear cut matter one side only will be proven correct. These stamps below are all genuine and un-altered OR all these obvious "77" numbers and the postmarks over parts of them are all forged.

It is a remarkably simple matter we are discussing when one boils it down.

Seeing your reputation is at stake (your own words) is your reputation worth a few $1000, in order for you to commission your own independent report from another Professor of Analytical Chemistry? To offer some SCIENCE to support your view, rather than you think on a scan of unknown origin and resolution, there may be a tinge of yellow somewhere - not that this has any relevance wahtever to the BIG PICTURE at hand?

Glen

There is a legitimate argument to be made that ALL of your opinions about this item are invalid because you have not even examined it.

Richard Debney

Richard, I've never been to the moon either but much smarter people than I, assure me it exists.

Science is a wonderful thing at times.

All I am doing is highlighting the on the record science that leading experts who HAVE examined the cover in enormous detail have concluded.

The fact they ALL differ in their overall view to yours, tells us something most important I suggest.

Let's cut to the chase, as you did not respond to this obvious question -

Seeing your reputation is at stake (your own words) is your reputation worth a few $1000, in order for you to commission your own independent report from another Professor of Analytical Chemistry? To offer some SCIENCE to support your view?

Glen

As I have said before, I believe the forensic/scientific examination confirms rather than contradicts the observed result.

And to answer your quoted question, I will not spend a dime of my own money commissioning my own scientific report on the item.

It is now 2.30 AM in New York and I am going to bed.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

What an entertaining debate concerning the "science of philately".

As Glen says: "I am a great believer that closed or blinkered minds are often the biggest impediment to important new stamp discoveries being recognised for what they are".

All sides should keep an open mind concerning new discoveries until a full scientific examination is done.

Here is what Professor Hall said about the trace elements:

"The elements Ba, Cr, and P were found only in the diamond area surrounding the second "7" in plate
number "77" and were not homogenous and not part of the ink formulation."

In my view the presence of trace elements in the suspect area is without doubt an indication that work on the plate in that area was carried out.

I really hope those who disagree with these findings and call this cover a fake, thankfully only one as far as I can see, can actually give us some concrete facts that we can work on rather than taking up board space by saying NOTHING of any note.

WE NEED CONCRETE EVIDENCE FROM SCEPTICS AS TO HOW AND WHY THIS ITEM IS A FAKE. NOTHING ELSE IN MY VIEW WILL NOW SUFFICE.

GlenStephens wrote:
Seeing your reputation is at stake (your own words) is your reputation worth a few $1000, in order for you to commission your own independent report from another Professor of Analytical Chemistry? To offer some SCIENCE to support your view?

capetriangle wrote:
Glen

And to answer your quoted question, I will not spend a dime of my own money commissioning my own scientific report on the item.

This does not surprise me one bit, and speaks volumes to many I am sure, of the validity and accuracy of your views. Many folks would feel their professional reputations are worth more than a dime.

There is an widely used expression in Australia - "Put your money where your mouth is" but I am not sure what that translates to in American.

I am sympathetic to the Philatelic Foundation in all this, to see their name heavily attached to the strident and intractable view of someone who once represented their name as an "expert", who will do or spend nothing whatever to back his "expert" assertions, other than obfuscate about alleged faint tinges of yellow on 3rd party scans, and who refuses to read valid and detailed research, or lift a finger to rebut that research.

One wonders when news of this matter spreads even wider, just how many other Certificates issued by the PF in this 15-20 year period will be re-submitted with a view to new eyes, and "Expert" members with new vision re-assessing the items(s)?

Sad really. The nightmare possibility all Expert bodies must dread.

capetriangle wrote:
I am a former 15-year employee (expert) at The Philatelic Foundation and have been a consultant to them since 1979.

Hi Abed,you write

"The elements Ba, Cr, and P were found only in the diamond area surrounding the second "7" in plate number "77" and were not homogenous and not part of the ink formulation."

I would be interested to know a little more about these elements and there possible "use" ? Whilst still happy to take this cover as genuine on the facts so far presented, would not any attempt to alter such a stamp or area of it best be attempted with contemporary materials.

As such, I would be looking for ways to use ink abstracted from another penny red of as similar age as possible to the host stamp/cover. Is there then any possibility that any or all of these elements found and mentioned could have been used in this or any similar process instead of the supposed/presumed reason of plate alteration work PRIOR to printing?

I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, one of the "smoking guns" catching out our well known and prolific British forger Shaun Greenhalgh mentioned on my previous post was the presence of certain trace elements on an ancient Egyptian carving that had not existed at the time (this due to his work being accomplished on said piece with a new angle grinder!)

Tas Philatelist wrote:All sides should keep an open mind concerning new discoveries until a full scientific examination is done. It can be embarrassing when a new discovery turns out to be fake: http://www.glenstephens.com/linnsMarch8-99.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, that example has crossed my mind a few times during this discussion.

Part of the discussion around the Aussie one was "how could it exist?" Various theories were floated about patching a faulty sheet with the wrong stamp, and so on.

The most interesting part of this discussion for me is also "how could this exist?" Why would three plate 73 stamps have a plate # of 77? I think that's a far more interesting question than "Is it genuine?" I'm pretty much convinced by the scientific evidence that Abed's cover is kosher. If so, we're left with the interesting challenge of understanding how it came to be.

So the plates were changed with a substance that left traces of three elements. I know nothing of metallurgy. What substance that could have been used to plug or repair a plate have left those three trace elements? Was that substance actually used back then?

Greg

I add my voice to that of Greg and Highlander.

OK, so it's genuine.

How did it come about?

All the effort and money that has been spent proving it genuine does not answer the basic question of should this exist or not, or how it came about.

Without the proper plating studies/reconstructions to show the sequence of events that resulted in 73 becoming 77, these and others like it remain curiosities, rather than important items in their own right.

As an expert himself, certainly Abed must understand this.

Glen

I am not in the least surprised that you are not surprised.

The Australian expression exists here in America.

As far as the attachment of The Philatelic Foundation's name is concerned, that was accomplished by Mr. Najjar when he placed on public display, last week, the Radley report, the one I freely admit I had held in my hands at THAT time for less than one minute, (an action you love to criticize me for and for which I will accept none) the report which I am still studying and until that study is competed, have no opinion.

The defense of my personal opinion came in the The Collectors Club Philatelist (March - April 2009) article I wrote (available on their website under publications) when The Philatelic Foundation was known as Expert Opinion "B."

I do not "obfuscate about alleged faint tinges of yellow on 3rd party scans," I have actually seen them, the "areas of yellowish rose-red" coloration, five times, on the item itself. As I said in my article "At least four of my former colleagues, all fine philatelists, agreed with my findings."

As far as the clients of The Philatelic Foundation is concerned I firmly believe that virtually all of them are happy with the opinions expressed on their certificates. For those who are not there is a reconsideration process in place.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

capetriangle wrote: As far as the clients of The Philatelic Foundation is concerned I firmly believe that virtually all of them are happy with the opinions expressed on their certificates. For those who are not there is a reconsideration process in place.

The two strangest certificates I've ever seen (from legitimate bodies) were from The Philatelic Foundation. One was a post fiscal from Victoria that was certified to be from the Victorian era -- it gave the Scott number. But the perforations showed that the stamp was from a much later issue with the same design. They had completely misidentified the stamp.

The other was a New Zealand stamp where they seem not to have checked the watermark. Again, the watermark showed that it wasn't the issue they thought it was. It was almost as if they just looked it up in Scott (which didn't list the later watermark). If they'd checked Gibbons (which does list both) they would have seen their error. The NZ stamp also had some pretty serious damage, which showed clearly in the photo on the certificate but wasn't mentioned.

I still have the NZ one. If I can find it I'll post it when I get home tonight. I've been thinking of starting a new thread on certificates anyway. There's one I'd like to get everyone's feedback on. (The stamp is an Azores overprint -- fun!)

Greg

Thank you Gentlemen for the input and I entirely agree with you all that much research needs to be carried out in order to understand how this plate 77 stamp came to be. If the stamps on this cover are a curiosity then I am sure we can agree that all the others fall in the same boat.

I have already provided details of an official document IR79/79 that states that plate 77 was never put to press and no sheets were printed from it. Furthermore the document states that the plate was defaced one year before the printing date. So where did these stamps showing a plate 77, and which do not match the roller impression, and which all have differing '7's come from???

What we do not understand is not neccessarily faked. Printers at that time, for whatever reason printed stamps that showed a number 77. ED Bacon and others must have looked into the records very carefully and could find anything of use apart from some conjecture which he published in his books and which can be totally negated with logic.

I know we have to find answers, if that could ever be done with so few copies known, and I have and am putting every effort that I can to find good reason for their existence and also for the trace elements which were found and to for which I am very grateful, suffice to say I am making good progress and will continue to post on this WONDERFUL site.

Thank you all for your input, few other items have ever amassed such interest and I am grateful to 'some' for making this debate rather amusing.

Abed H Najjar

PS Greg - you have beaten me to it. Brilliant idea about a thread on certs.

OK, so it seems clear from that report that the stamps have not been altered, at least not by any means short of technology out of Star Trek. If there are no smoking-gun traces of fibre damage that would seem to shift the burden of proof firmly back in the opposite direction -- which would mean that the question posed by those trace elements has been, if not actually answered, at least made moot. (Even if it wasn't a smoking gun, a measurable difference in precisely those areas and no others was clearly at least a whiff of gunpowder in the air.)

On the other hand, I'm not sure the current theory being put forward to explain their presence is more than a handwave. If I'm reading the suggestions correctly, the idea is that plugs of metal were inserted into various positions of plate 73 to change the number? What possible purpose could that have served to a busy printer? And how would they have done this? It's a recess-printed stamp, they'd essentially be replacing hollows on the plate with other hollows. Also, note that the chromium at least was specifically in the form of lead chromate (a yellow pigment favoured in the 19th century -- apparently they even used to use it to colour candy!

The mind boggles) as Hall's report states, not the metal. (His 'probably from the printing process' also sounds like a handwave. AFAIK he's a chemist, not a printer, so I don't think we need to take that as a scientific conclusion, especially as hypothesising that something about a printed item is due to 'the printing process' is not exactly going out on a limb.) Barium is a reasonably plausible contaminant for lead chromate, but I can't see it having been used much or at all in its metallic form back in the 1860s (you extract it by electrolysis, and it's highly reactive with both air and water).

The original theory put forward was that certain positions of plate 73 were to be re-entered, and that by mistake the die for plate 77 was used. On the face of it, this looked like a plausible theory of the 'cock-up' variety, giving a reason for stamps that are clearly from plate 73 (based on the corner squares -- blank on the dies -- and lettering) to have the number 77 on them, and backed up by the other earlier rejected example. Without checking back through all 500+ posts of this thread, I can't recall anything totally contradicting that. Anyone?

Oh, and my own handwave for the presence of trace elements in those areas would be more along the lines of an earlier owner gently testing the area with some tool or chemical that had picked up a trace of lead chromate. Also completely pulled out of thin air, but at least it doesn't require the printers to have done something that apparently had no purpose other than to confuse later philatelists.

For all those interested

I have now read Mr. Radley's report in full for this item so much in dispute, studying it for almost two days. To probably no one's surprise it has not changed my opinion about the item's authenticity. I do have some observations to make on points made in the report which I believe members might find of interest. These are purely my personal opinions.

Firstly, I am a little surprised that report was commissioned at all since Mr. Radley's website indicates that he does not work for private individuals.

Taking the report in order:

SUMMARY OF OPINION

(i) It was not the entire basis, it was that together with the undisputed fact that the stamps plate to Plate 73.

(iii) As a philatelic expert I would suggest that it is no more difficult than the repairs, adding margins and frame lines, to the Hawaiian Missionary stamps as outlined in my post of "Wed Sep 23, 2009 03:00:42 am."

EXAMINATION

(16 and 17) Here Mr. Radley and I are in total agreement. As I said in my CCP article "To be absolutely fair to Mr. Najjar I do very much continue to support what he calls the "painted-in" option rather than the "cut-and paste" option of Expert Opinion "A." Whilst it is a little gratifying to me to have my opinion confirmed by Mr. Radley, I am more than a little sympathetic to the members of the Expert Committee of The Royal Philatelic Society London. Throughout my 30-year consultancy at The Philatelic Foundation (15 years as an employee) I have attended many expert discussions where the observation "I can't tell you how it was done but I can tell you it is bad." has been made with absolutely no adverse consequences.

(18) Again total agreement, the item showed nothing adverse when examined in long wave ultraviolet light at The Philatelic Foundation.

(19 - 22) It would be fascinating to me to see how Mr. Radley would fare with the finest repair work done on Hawaiian Missionary stamps.

(23) It is not known when this fakery was achieved, no one is disputing the age of the stamps, no one is suggesting that the stamps came into existance
after the introduction of the power brush or powder blaster.

(29) The "original colourant" was not matched, it does not appear identical, hence the "yellowish rose-red" color.

(30) Much disagreement, as would be expected by my critics. Certainly there are differences in shade throughout the stamps.

(33) Sizing agents have certainly been known to have been applied in sophisticated cases to prevent 'feathering.'

(34) This is simply not true, remember the '7' is uninked paper on the stamps and this is recess printing. Whether or not Mr. Radley's die is engraved with a '7' or a relief die as in relief or surface printing, the '7' would print in color.

(35) ..."(t)he paper fibres surrounding the '7's in question are not in a significantly depressed are(a) of the paper."... They should not be depressed at all, they should be in relief, remember this is a line-engraved stamp.

(36) Postmarks have been successfully added to stamps for years. It is only really in modern times with the used of color copiers that they have become easy to spot due to the tiniest ink splatter patterns.

(40) This seems to both confirm and contradict the conclusions of Dr. Gene Hall.

(44) Here Mr. Radley seems to observe what was seen by the Experts at The Royal Philatelic Society London.

(45) Speculative

(47) I just do not understand this paragraph.

(49 and 50) Total agreement

(53) I have no opinion on infrared reflectance. The result here seems to confirm the conclusions of Dr. Gene Hall, which as I have contended confirms rather than contradicts the observed result.

(54) See my answer to paragraph (40)

(55 - 59) Somewhat repetitive, though to which I am in complete agreement.

(61) Naturally I disagree with Mr. Radley about the "significant difference in the colouring as suggested." Although I can agree with him concerning the slight differences in shade throughout the stamps.

(62) This seems to contradict Dr. Gene Hall's conclusion.

Richard Debney

Abed H Najjar wrote:I have already provided details of an official document IR79/79 that states that plate 77 was never put to press and no sheets were printed from it.

Just as an addendum -- if that's the one that gives the plates and was shown in your articles, it doesn't necessarily follow that no sheets were ever physically printed from it, just that there was no official record of sheets printed in production because there wasn't any production run.

I think it was Scott/pertinax(?) who pointed out that as a practical matter Ormond Hill had to have been looking at a perforated sheet to be able to tell that it wasn't suitable for perforating (unless one or more positions on the plate were so appallingly out of place as to be glaringly obvious from a glance, I suppose), which sounded reasonable. In this case there would have been (up to six?) test sheets printed.

One member of the mulready group has compared the lettering of the Tapling 77 against all the known plates and reports not finding a match for any of them (I'd better not pre-empt him by quoting him here, but I hope he'll post) -- that would presumably imply that there are actual 77s about as well as re-entered 73s, and they would had to have come from test sheets of some kind (if genuine!).

capetriangle wrote:
(47) I just do not understand this paragraph.

#47 seems crystal clear to me.

Getting back again to the BIG PICTURE ... it is the nub of what you said occurred to this stamp with the fakery. i.e. someone cunningly changed all those 3s to 7s.


You clearly do not understand par 46 either, as you do not comment. Indeed you do not comment as YOUR Forger theory said re - 'The challenge of changing a 3 to a 7'.

https://www.collectorsclub.org/Publications.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"IF the right hand 7 is smoothly abraded down"

Clever forger - to grind away all that paper and not disturb any paper fibres wouldn't you say?

Radley is pointing out in #47 the bleeding obvious - that it is impossible to do all that forging and not leave screamingly clear evidence of it in some or all of the 5 places this clever forger friend of yours worked on.

That is probably why you do not understand it. And of course again why NO forger (except your clever dastardly man of course) would ever have picked a cover with THREE stamps to work on. Absurd.

Try painting on a porous stamp with red ink, with a tiny 1 hair camel brush and sees how much it runs down the paper fibres. Impossible to do it 5 times in a 2mm x 2mm square and get away with it leaving no evidence that rudimentary inspection would not detect.

And I repeat for the umpteenth time, your forger needed to find 150 year red ink to do all this magic - with the EXACT physical and chemical characteristics to what the PO used. Ditto the black ink to then over-cancel once again.

capetriangle wrote:(19 - 22) It would be fascinating to me to see how Mr. Radley would fare with the finest repair work done on Hawaiian Missionary stamps.

Richard, it certainly would - perhaps he could be commissioned to carry out a similar examination on a "known" finely repaired stamp, and the results should be made public

I entirely agree with Mozzerb, if any of the stamps that exist are from plate 77, then they would have come from the one or two trial sheets. (E D Bacon cites one or two). However none of them match the roller impression and the 7's look different and the Tapling copy and the Royal copy have short tops, I personally very much doubt that they do come from these two sheets. What are the odds of finding these copies amongst the 13.5billion copies printed. I would need convincing on this one, but unlike others my mind is AWAYS OPEN.

Matching the corner letters may give some answers and I am also looking into that.

Abed H Najjar

Just to nitpick some of the rhetoric here, because if you're going to mock the man, he deserves a bit of counter-snark. (Frankly, I think Richard Debney has been remarkably polite, however much of a losing battle he's fighting; I'd have reached for the flamethrower long ago.)

GlenStephens wrote:And of course again why NO forger (except your clever dastardly man of course) would ever have picked a cover with THREE stamps to work on. Absurd.

Oh, I don't know. You do one stamp. If you screw up, you find another cover and try again with the lessons learned. If you feel confident, you do the next stamp. At any time after the first, if you screw up so badly that it's irretrievable, you have the options of removing the successful forgeries and calling it stamp(s) on piece, or you could (for example) abrade away the screwed-up bit and leave only the bits that worked. Although in the latter case, clearly no-one would believe it wasn't faked if one of the stamps was damaged like that. Oh hang on ... If you do more than one, you create a presumption of innocence and can relax in the knowledge that people will point out how no forger could possibly be foolish enough to do more than the bare minimum necessary and therefore it must be genuine. Damn, how dastardly!

GlenStephens wrote:Try painting on a porous stamp with red ink, with a tiny 1 hair camel brush and sees how much it runs down the paper fibres. Impossible to do it 5 times in a 2mm x 2mm square and get away with it leaving no evidence that rudimentary inspection would not detect.

Rudimentary eh? Wow, that's a strong word. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall a minor bombshell discovery a while back that suggested that flaws on certain WWII Colonial higher values may have been hand retouched by the printers by painting in the missing bits (to avoid expensive reprinting with scarce materials). That might merely have been a cute cover story for fakery, of course, but there was apparently some provenance to the items in question, and they'd certainly been inspected. Also, we know that there actually are people able to do ultra-fine detail work. You couldn't do it, I couldn't do it, but hey, someone had to engrave the damn stamp dies in the first place ...

GlenStephens wrote:And I repeat for the umpteenth time, your forger needed to find 150 year red ink to do all this magic - with the EXACT physical and chemical characteristics to what the PO used.

Don't know about you, but my first thought if I planned to have a go at this (given that you don't just need old recipe ink, you need ink that looks and tests old when dried) would be to scrape some from another stamp of the same issue, find a basically inert organic solvent that softened the bits just enough to work with and evaporated in a reasonable amount of time, and make up a mixture out of that. It's not like you need gallons of the stuff. Even better, take the ink from another stamp from the same sheet, say one from the same cover. Although in the latter case, clearly no-one would believe it wasn't faked if one of the stamps was damaged like that. Oh hang on ...

No, I don't suppose it would work either (although I'm not in the habit of forging stamps and have never tried it, I hasten to add). It's certainly at least as plausible as some of the metal-plug-in-the-plate theorising going on (i.e., not very). But Richard Debney's suggestions weren't a priori as ridiculous as you make out, even if a detailed examination makes them untenable.

Right. Moving on to something more substantial:

Abed H Najjar wrote: What are the odds of finding these copies amongst the 13.5billion copies printed.

Pretty good actually it's a comic strip (sorry, couldn't resist, h/t Doonesbury). They wouldn't be random copies -- they'd have to have been copies that came from sheets given to a senior official for checking, kept around for (e.g.) testing purposes and subsequently 'leaked'. Not exactly unknown, there seems to be a ton of GB QV archive material on the market. Clearly two and possibly all three of the mint copies came from the same block?

It's a bit like the argument that it's unlikely to find three unknown 77s all at once -- except that they're not selected at random from the entire population of 1d reds, they're on the same cover, so you'd expect them to be from the same plate. Once you know that, the probabilities cluster -- it's more unlikely to the extent that covers with multiples are scarcer than covers with singles, but they're not so scarce that the probability of three is orders of magnitude worse than the probability of one.

Abed H Najjar wrote: Matching the corner letters may give some answers and I am also looking into that.

What really would be useful to see -- I seem to remember asking for this on about page 6 or 7, but I guess no-one had the stamps? -- are the accepted second states of these letterings for plate 73, which would presumably actually be the third states. That way a comparison could be made looking for characteristics that matched them and the stamps on cover but not the first states, which if found would be a significant bit of evidence.

Yes I do agree Mozzerb the three mint copies, AB, BA and AC which are from the top of the sheet may have come from these trial sheets. I still doubt it however for the reasons stated earlier. I do need convincing.

I am talking about the used copies that exist and which have been found within the public domain. The odds on these coming from the trials I do feel is astronomical, but anything is possible. If an official leaked a top block, knowing full well it is a desirable item, why put the rest of the valuable sheets in the public domain, should they not have been destroyed? Of course we can ask all sorts of questions, but can we ever be sure?

My guess is that the mint copies may well have been fabricated from an exisiting early plate? This probability can not be discounted. Anything could have happened, we can only make informed guesses. I think Raman testing on the provenanced copies will be of great help. I do hope that this will be done one day.

Hi Abed
I would like to ask a question regarding the
Inland Revenue document IR79/79, pages 40-41, held
at the National Archives (Figure 3) document - that you made reference to in your report.
The left column that list the plate numbers ( 70 - 80 ) appears to have had corrections done to it (correct sequencing numbers appear to be pasted over the original entries )starting with plate 74 and ending with plate 80!

I would like to ask you if there was ever any reason given to you for this correction being done ?

Just an interested observer..
Paul

Thanks Paul for your quiery.
I have noticed this and believe it is probably due to an error in the numbering down the list. Probably having written down the numbers wrongly, the registrar may have realised his error and insted of correcting the numbers he pasted a piece long paper over them and rewrote them. Perhaps for neatness sake rather than anything else.
Abed H Najjar