GB 1864 1d red stamp rare Plate 77 - newly found Victor Hugo cover

[GlenStephens]

No-one has explained how

One doesn't need to know how something was faked, to know that it is indeed a fake!

Scott

Correction - one needs some PROOF something is faked, before it can be declared so - by intelligent people.

The scientific proof has been supplied in buckets that no tampering took place on this cover. Many detailed reports that cost many £1000s. Which in a Court Of Law would have this matter closed for all time.

Mr Debney and his hand held glass say it HAS been faked but admits on this thread he will not spend a dime of HIS money to offer any proof or evidence to back him up.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

[pertinax]

Many detailed reports that cost many £1000s.

You can prove anything if you throw enough money at it.

[GlenStephens]

You can prove anything if you throw enough money at it.

Several 1000 very wealthy folks behind bars right now would disagree with this absurb comment Scott.

And often they are there because of science and forensics.

[PeterS]

Many detailed reports that cost many £1000s.

You can prove anything if you throw enough money at it.

I really don't know what the basis of this statement is? The implication is that you can buy any opinion if you pay enough for it. I am sure that you are right, provided you don't care who issues the opinion and you don't care about veracity.

The simple fact is that, in the end, something that can have a physical proof (as opposed to opinion) cannot obtain teh proof unless there is an underlying fact to prove.

I also take considerable exception to the suggestion that it is not up to someone giving an opinion, in this case that the cover is faked, to be able to back up that opinion with reasonable and verifyable evidence. That includes at least a reasonable explanation of how the fake was perpetrated, backed up by some sort of physical evidence to support the explanation.

It is all well and good to claim that the subsequent scientific facts (when quoted selectively) 'support' an assertion the cover was faked. However, what was the underlying evidence of fact when the damning opinions were first promulgated? What analysis was carried out to determine the fakery and its method?

Surely certifying bodies would have a definite interest in determining whether a new method of forgery was abroad? What if the 'forger' were to pick stamps that could not so easily be plated to perform the dastardly deed? Isn't it in the interests of everyone that such new methods be exposed??

[mozzerb]

I do not remember making this observation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I have never proposed the use of the 77 roller die at all on any of the stamps. Others may have.

OK, it's late at night where I am, and I have to be up early(ish) in the morning, so I don't have time to track back over everything that's been said here and elsewhere ... but unless my memory is way off, you did bring that impression of the plate 77 roller die into play, and state that the dashes were evidence of an original use of it. If you don't propose that the 77 die was ever used, what on earth is the point of mentioning the dashes in the side diamonds as evidence in the first place? For example, a few posts later: "What is to stop any of us saying the Tapling copy or the Royal copies are fake. Afterall they do not in any way shape or form match the plate 77 roller impression".

On some of the Aussie issues I know, they've repaired plates by inserting a plug into the plate and engraving the correction onto that. Was that method never used for these?

Would those be letterpress/typographed issues? For those, the bit that prints is in relief and fitting together X number of cliches to make a plate is effective, so removing one impression from the plate and substituting another works reasonably easily. I believe examples are known from the GB KGV issues. For an intaglio/recess plate with the design in the form of hollows in the plate, where the entire plate was laid down in one go as impressions in a single piece of steel, this doesn't sound as if it would work so well.

I don't actually have a dog in this fight, other than general interest and irritation that certain things seem to be stated without much in the way of plausibility to back them up, but I would like to see convincing theories. As of the moment, the evidence is that the paper fibres don't show indications of tampering.

The burden of proof then shifts to the people who hold it's a fake to provide examples of fakes sufficiently good to pass this kind of analysis, but even without that it doesn't follow that any given theory to explain how the stamps came about will do. Right?

[capetriangle]

To those concerned

The observed results of examination are more than sufficient proof for me, especially when coupled with philatelic judgement.

The "yellowish rose-red" areas can be seen with the naked eye let alone with my much maligned "White Light" LED 10X magnifier. These radical differences in color at precisely the five wrong spots are so suspicious they warrant the moniker of "the smoking gun."

I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to spend any of my own money on this issue. As far as I am concerned the time spent to analyse Mr. Najjar's 29-page article in The CCP and write my rebuttal in addition to the time spent writing posts here is more than sufficient.

I do accept that it is possible to know that something has been faked and not know precisely how that fakery was achieved. Again I am sympathetic to the members of the Expert Committee of The Royal Philatelic Society London.

However, I might not have said "You can prove anything if you throw enough money at it," since I certainly do not believe that however much money Mr. Najjar throws at the subject will result in a successful outcome for him. He is obviously well-educated, well-funded, persistent and has influential friends.

However, I do believe sanity will prevail, and that the sea-change necessary in Great Britain philately (the acceptance of Plate 77 stamps as originating from Plate 73) for his position to be successful will not be accomplished.

Time will tell.

Richard Debney

[mycroft]

G'Day Everybody:

I have been following all the entertaining words spoken by everybody re the 3 Plate 77 stamps on the cover.

Here is my rant.

For starters why would anybody pick out this cover to fake (pig out) away. The cover is not in good shape. 1864 Plates on cover are so common even about 150 years later I would think that you could with not a whole lot of effort find a very presentable cover with a nice reasonably centred stamp to play with. Especially in the UK where there must be tens of thousands of them. Oh and a stamp where the tying cancel is no where near the plate numbers they would be cancel free. You just want to diddle with the stamp not the cancel too.

It is a no brainer that you would deal with a single stamp not three. For petes sake not only are there 3 stamps that need to be worked on here but also they are badly off centre and 2, one in particular is very faulty.

Any Plate 177 that I have seen that that was modified to pass for a Plate 77 it was easily seen for what it really was and without a magnifying glass. The work that would have to be done to fix the plate number to make it look perfectly real; on 3 stamps 6 times just sounds so unbelievable as to be almost funny if it wasn't for the fact that it would be so astronomically difficult or a really down right impossible exercise. The ins and outs of this have already been discussed.

I have looked at the colour scans of these stamps in several different places both printed versions and on the internet and am of the opinion that they are absolutely genuine. (OK boys hit me!) And that their source were the printers Perkins Bacon who printed all the GB line engraved issues. One question under discussion that may never be solved is how exactly the known Plate 77's were printed and issued but I do think that a small number got issued in the normal way which is how they got used.

I really wonder about some people on these expertizing committees, they can act a bit full of it when they see something that they have never seen before therefore it cannot possibly exist or be the real thing. Oh and then try to get a straight answer back from them as to why. How bout just stating what appears to be reasonably the obvious honest truth instead of making up untruths (lying even) when stating an opinion.

The owner of the cover has gone to great lengths to get these stamps scientifically expertised which is of much help and the results obtained make fools out of the so called expertisers who suppled him the 2 certificates. They make them look like country bumpkins!

I have been a collector for over 40 years and a dealer for 25 years specializing in GB line engraved issues from the Penny Blacks to the Plates. I have had a stock of the 1864 1d's in excess of 1/4 of a million copies. Does that mean I'm familiar with these stamps? Yes I think so as I have handled so many. I sincerely doubt that I would change my mind about the genuineness of the stamps and the cover if I was able to see it in person. The evidence to me is overwhelming that they are real the scans surely show that.

I know a bit about these issues but you can never know enough and you learn something new every day even from the most unexpected sources. One can never be too smug in this business either as a collector or dealer or even as a member of an expertising committee.

One problem with many collectors regarding something "very old" which they own is that "It must be valuable" Never mind the fact that it is still common. The reverse of that perhaps is give some expert committee something rare and unique to consider "something as wonderful as this item" and they will do everything in their power to say that it is not. Hmm what if one of the chaps on the committee owned it would the result be different? I wonder if being envious can change ones opinion on something.

Last thing I would like to say is wouldn't be great if we could all get together in a pub with Abed with his cover and sit down and have a nice cool pint or two. And talk it over (and fight some more).

[capetriangle]

mozzerb

I agree with you entirely.

However, there are only about 200 Hawaiian Missionaries, and since the two or three major sales during the last fifteen years they are well dispersed, so on a practical matter it might difficult to facilitate examination by someone such as Mr. Radley.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

[Abed H Najjar]

Pertinax

"All this proves is that ink has been removed from certain places - perhaps even another stamp/s altogether - and has been used to do the painting."

Have you ever thought about that??

Yes I have Perinax- I am experienced and pragmatic enough to look at all options. I do not put my neck out like a fool making assertions I can not back up.

You use the classic skeptic word 'Perhaps', and what do you mean 'certain places'. Are you suggesting that the ink has been taken out the stamps themselves?

I just can not believe that a serious philatelist can make such statements.

Let us look at your absurd suggestion and ask some questions to which I am sure you will have no proven answers. Just your usual conjecture.

-How do you bind the particles into a paint or apply them so that they adhere well to the fibres.
-How do you remove the ink from the areas without damaging or disturbing the fibres. You are looking at an area 1.5mm in length.
-How do you apply it to make it look natural
-How does it adhere to the fibres in a way that it does not fall off or be easily removed
-Why does close examination using microscopy show absolutely even dispersion of the ink within the fibres exactly similar to the rest of the stamp. This can not be if you have cleaned an area and reapplied particles.

You may wish to note that experiments along these lines were carried out by the RSSL and scanning electron microscopy picked it up without any problem. The fibre structure and ther ink deposits on them have been studied in detail and there is no earthly way these could have been disturbed. Had they been disturbed then there would be tell-tale signs.

We have used the latest state of the art technology on this one. Can you not understand that if there was the slightest thing wrong it would have been picked up.

Once again if you did bother to read informed work you would stop your rediculous guesswork.

The skeptics are really grasping at straws with this one.

As far as the plate being used late and the article on retouching- I will have to wait and see what it says before I comment. One thing I can say is that this alteration to the plate was done very early in its working life. I do not see why being in commission until 1868 has any relavence here. Much repair work and head re-entries were carried out on the early plates.

Abed H Najjar

Oh Richard- You keep mentioning the Grinnells.
Please start a new thread on this one so we I not want to cloud this issue with them. One thing I can say is that Professor Hall who examined this cover did all the work the investigative analytical work on them and his work was used in the RPSL published work.
Can I give you any better reference than that?

[Abed H Najjar]

Mycroft

You just don't know how touching it is to see someone like you write such a heartening comment. It makes it all worthwhile. Thank you.

My God they some seem to be throwing it all towards me at the moment. I have never felt such animosity in my life!

Your comment:
Last thing I would like to say is wouldn't be great if we could all get together in a pub with Abed with his cover and sit down and have a nice cool pint or two. And talk it over (and fight some more).

Nothing would give me more pleasure and thank you aagin.

Abed H Najjar

[pertinax]

stop your rediculous guesswork

???

Guesswork? What guesswork?

I have irrefutably proven that the known plate 77s do not come from any other plate.

To me that's end of story.

EVERYTHING else, the scientific reports, the ancilliary suggestions/theories etc posted here and elsewhere (including ones by me), all of it is gobbledegook that serves only one end - to muddy the waters and take attention away from the inevitable conclusion that these stamps are faked.

Oh and please don't tell me I need to have an open mind again. The suggestion that I don't simply because I disagree with you is really wearing very thin.

Scott

[stampmann]

Oh dear this debate seems to be getting a little heated and many points seem to be repeated over and over.

Let me stand back and look at the argument. It seems to me that Abed's piece is an enigma. Chemical analysis and forensics indicate that there has been no 'fakery'. Logic also argues, as Glen and others have said many times over, that a faker does not pick a piece that necessitates 5 or six alterations then only to 'lose' it in a general collection. I

f a faker is so clever that he can deceive modern science and technology he would surely have had an in depth knowledge of the other characteristics of plate 73 and alter other parts of the stamp(s) to hide their origin?

Other than the second number 7 everything else suggests plate 73 just as with my cover 18 years ago.

I have read here many criticisms of the expert committees. In a recent conversation with a gentleman who from time to time is used by the RPS as a consultant, told me that his practise is that unless he can be absolutely certain that an item is correct he will not put his name to it. If he has the slightest doubt then he will not.

I now think that the committees cannot be certain in their own minds that these stamps are from plate 77 and having doubts they cannot be blamed for not giving a 'good' certificate. However if they say that they have been faked then they must say how and if faced with a counter argument that proves scientifically that the stamps have not been tampered with then they are forced to either re-certify or prove their case!

My RPS cert said "not 77" the BPA said "not 77 but plate 73". Neither used the word "fake".

Others have made the point; how come it has it taken so long for this piece to come to light. Surely it would have been checked by the original collector or collectors. Well not necessarily so. Maybe it was not collected for its plate number but for its Channel Island cancel. 99% of 1d plates on cover that I have had have had their plate numbers pencilled on the front somewhere.

If they have not then it suggests they have not been checked. Abed's piece has no number written on it nor did my cover (mine I suspect came from an original correspondence).

Elsewhere I read that there are lots of certifiers that Abed could try and I am surprised that Abed has not contacted any more. I suppose it could be argued that this piece is now so famous and controversial that none of the others would want to give an opinion.

After many postings and pages we have not resolved conclusively the problem which is how can stamps bearing number 77 which have not been tampered with be printed from plate 73 (or any other).
Lots of theories including some from me but they are only theories.

At the end of the day and as much as I admire Abed's tenacity I do not think that this piece will ever be accepted simply be cause of the controversy surrounding it. However it is probably already a very valuable item as it stands.

Finally some one two or three pages back someone asked how I sold mine. Well it went over the counter at Stampex for £1.50 as a 73 probably in 1992 or 1993. The annoying thing is it was to someone I knew but for the life of me I cannot remember who!!!

[capetriangle]

Abed

I have not mentioned the Grinnells at all, and will not do so, my references have been to real Missionaries.

KIndest regards

Richard Debney

[stampmann]

But perhaps you didn't realise there was a wider, more important implication in your words.

You made me realise that we don't need to do a comparison of checkletter positions against matched letterings at all - all we need to do is compare the position of the first 7 on any stamp from any letter position of those plates

Scott you are right about the positioning of the first 7 on all plates from 71-79 and I admit I had completely forgotten about until I read this post. I first heard of this a long time ago from a well known former employee of Robson Lowe's. One thing I could never understand was the complete manufacturing process of each of the plates. I always understood that the master die was impressed in the roller six times and the roller then applied to the plate. Now when was the plate number added? I would not have thought to the die as it would mean a new die for each plate. I guess the die had no plate number. The plate number must have been hand cut into the roller. Therefore unless we have examples of plate 77 stamps that come from each of the six different roller impressions we cannot be certain that the tip of the first 7 is always at the apex of the engine work triangle. It may be that it is on some impressions but not others. In which case some 77s would obey the rule and others not. I do not think there are enough a credited 77s to be certain that we have examples of every roller impression. What are your thoughts or have I got the process wrong?

[mozzerb]

I always understood that the master die was impressed in the roller six times and the roller then applied to the plate. Now when was the plate number added? I would not have thought to the die as it would mean a new die for each plate. I guess the die had no plate number. The plate number must have been hand cut into the roller. Therefore unless we have examples of plate 77 stamps that come from each of the six different roller impressions

Open to correction here but I thought that it was stated previously (or elsewhere?) that each roller had the die for six different plates? -- i.e. transfer master die without plate number to roller six times, hand-engrave a different plate number on each one, and use the roller to make a batch of plates -- and that's why the '77 position check' is a simple(ish) way to spot fakes made from plate 177.

[pertinax]

Exactly mozzerb.

Grahame, you are correct in all you say except the last part where you say all six reliefs on the roller must have had 77 on them.

Each of the six had a different number - only one of the six reliefs was used to make each plate, so that the precise positioning of the plate numbers within their space was the same on all 240 plate impressions.

See page 162 of Bacon where he reports that roller No 2 was made on 29 April, 1861 and the six reliefs were engraved with 76 to 81 inclusive.

Also, six was not always the number of reliefs on a roller; sometimes it was less, sometimes more (roller No 1 of this series had seven).

Scott

[stampmann]

Open to correction here but I thought that it was stated previously (or elsewhere?) that each roller had the die for six different plates? -- i.e. transfer master die without plate number to roller six times, hand-engrave a different plate number on each one, and use the roller to make a batch of plates -- and that's why the '77 position check' is a simple(ish) way to spot fakes made from plate 177.

Thanks mozzer. I had not heard that before. It seems an odd way though as when the impressions were laid down on the plate it would be easy to make an error by impressing the wrong one accidently. Perhaps putting a 73 impression or impressions onto plate 77 and then correcting by hand. Equally the opposite error putting 77 onto 73. Why is it that all the first 7s of all the 70s have one position and only the 7 of 77 is significantly different?

[mozzerb]

Why is it that all the first 7s of all the 70s have one position and only the 7 of 77 is significantly different?

To be honest they didn't look all that different to me, but then Scott's ebay images (of the other plates) were quite small. I'd like to see them same-size and 'stacked'.

[pertinax]

Why is it that all the first 7s of all the 70s have one position and only the 7 of 77 is significantly different?

They don't, they are all different from each other.

Grahame, are you able to pluck nice clean stamps clearly showing the plates 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 78 and 79 from your stock and send me scans of them at 800dpi so I can do a better grouping so it becomes clearer than the scan I have posted?

Scott

[stampmann]

Exactly mozzerb.

Grahame, you are correct in all you say except the last part where you say all six reliefs on the roller must have had 77 on them.

Each of the six had a different number - only one of the six reliefs was used to make each plate, so that the precise positioning of the plate numbers within their space was the same on all 240 plate impressions.

See page 162 of Bacon where he reports that roller No 2 was made on 29 April, 1861 and the six reliefs were engraved with 76 to 81 inclusive.

Also, six was not always the number of reliefs on a roller; sometimes it was less, sometimes more (roller No 1 of this series had seven).

Scott

Thanks Scott and I have just realised that 73 and 77 were not on the same roller so my hypothesis of an error falls apart. However I am still left with the question as to why the 77 first 7 is different to all the others which are very similarly positioned to each other?

[stampmann]

Grahame, are you able to pluck nice clean stamps clearly showing the plates 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 78 and 79 from your stock and send me scans of them at 800dpi so I can do a better grouping so it becomes clearer than the scan I have posted?

Scott

I can Scott but can you give me a few days. I promised Abed some scans and haven't done it yet. I shouldn't really be on the board at the moment as I am preparing my October price list and updating my site. If I haven't done the scans by Friday e-mail me and nag me.

[pertinax]

OK, thanks Grahame.

[GlenStephens]

I have been a collector for over 40 years and a dealer for 25 years specializing in GB line engraved issues from the Penny Blacks to the Plates. I have had a stock of the 1864 1d's in excess of 1/4 of a million copies.

Does that mean I'm familiar with these stamps? Yes I think so as I have handled so many. I sincerely doubt that I would change my mind about the genuineness of the stamps and the cover if I was able to see it in person. The evidence to me is overwhelming that they are real the scans surely show that.

Welcome to the boards mycroft, and with your depth of knowledge and if you have a stock of 250,000 copies of this stamp, I am sure can add some FACTS to this thread, rather than the dogmatic hot air we keep inhaling from a person who probably has handled only a handful of 1d reds in his lifetime.

Scans are dead easy to load on this board -- a tutorial is here -

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=284

[GlenStephens]

I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to spend any of my own money on this issue.

Of course you do unless you wish to be seen as you are now - as someone baying at the moon here - page and page after page, trying vainly to defend your absurd Certificate - and offering not ONE fact to support it.

This is what a leading world expert in paper forensics says of your view. i.e. it is NONSENSE.

Intelligent readers, in the absence of a shred of any evidence WHATEVER from you will draw their own conclusions as to which is correct.

[stampmann]

rather than the dogmatic hot air we keep inhaling from a person who probably has handled only a handful of 1d reds in his lifetime.

Hope you don't mean me Glen. I've only been dealing SG43 (Scott#33) 1d plates for 30 years

[Highlander]

A very fresh mint plate 71 from my own collection but just to show how fickle some of the plate numbers can be, bearing in mind this is a very fresh mint stamp. It wouldn't take much would it?

[GlenStephens]

rather than the dogmatic hot air we keep inhaling from a person who probably has handled only a handful of 1d reds in his lifetime.

Hope you don't mean me Glen. I've only been dealing SG43 (Scott#33) 1d plates for 30 years

Nope, just someone who USED to be a member of the PF Expert Committee, and who now no longer is.

But posts here as if he still is.

Members can draw from that FACT what they wish.

Sadly the PF needs to pick up the mess for erroneous "Expert" views and re-issue Certs when a barrage of scientific FACTS prove them to be horribly wrong.

[stampmann]

A very fresh mint plate 71 from my own collection but just to show how fickle some of the plate numbers can be, bearing in mind this is a very fresh mint stamp. It wouldn't take much would it?

You are absolutely right. Plates 71 & 73 are the best candidates for the forger/faker. However as Pertinax has mentioned earlier the positioning of the first 7 is crucial. As I have recently learnt (see earlier posts) there is just one impression of each 'plate' on the roller. Therefore every stamp on the plate is identical. The first 7 of all plate 77 stamps must touch the point of the engine work diamond. Abed's three and my EI do not. This does not mean that they are fakes but does indicate that they do not come from the original plate 77. The only alternative is that they come from other plates that have for some reason, briefly had their numbers altered or they are fakes. Abed's evidence states that his stamps have not been tampered with so what is the explanation? By the way that is a nice 71 and far from common mint. Underpriced in my opinion it is in the top 10 for scarcity mint.

[Greg Ioannou]

We're being asked to choose between two near-impossibilities:

1. A cover can be altered so perfectly that the changes cannot be detected using the latest high-tech forensic tools.

2. A stamp plate was changed in the middle of its period of use in a way we can't understand, for no apparent reason, then almost immediately changed back in such a way that the previous alteration is undetectable.

One of those two impossibilities is true. Or there is a third possibility we're not seeing, which seems just as unlikely.

At this point, I don't think it makes all that much sense to steadfastly stick to either position. One side needs to show how the fakery was done. The other needs to show how the plate was altered. Until one of those happens, we're at a standoff.

Greg

[capetriangle]

Glen

Again, I have absolutely no reason to spend any of my own money on this issue. It is The PF's certificate, not mine, I do not issue certificates. I do share their opinion on this and have admitted writing the prevailing opinion in my CCP article.

I think you will find that my posts do not go on for "page after page after page," unlike yours, indeed you will find that I have no comments on some aspects. Since you mentioned my name in your August "Philatelic Exporter"
article and it appeared in at least two posts here, before I joined a week and a half ago, what do you expect anyone to do, roll over and ignore the situation.

I have already dealt with the Radley report in my one lengthy post on the subject. As I stated there, the opinions expressed were purely personal.

I continue to be a consultant to The PF, as I have since 1979, and as I have stated before was an employee there for 15 years. (1993 - 2008)

I do have the facts of my own observation and firmly believe that my view, and those of The Philatelic Foundation and The Royal Philatelic Society London (notwithstanding the tiniest of differences) will prevail.

Time will tell.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

[capetriangle]

Greg

No doubt about it, "we're at a standoff."

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

[Abed H Najjar]

Richard Denbey Quote:

"I do have the facts of my own observation and firmly believe that my view, and those of The Philatelic Foundation and The Royal Philatelic Society London (notwithstanding the tiniest of differences) will prevail."


Can I understand it that there are bits of '7's stuck over the '3's, the RPSL opinion, or that "Abrading to uninked paper and painting" as the PF state is how it has been faked?

What tiniest of diffrences?

You are poles apart as far as faking is concerned. You do not even agree on a common method of faking.

Please tell me if my understanding of the above is correct.

Abed H Najjar

[erich]

We're being asked to choose between two near-impossibilities:

1. A cover can be altered so perfectly that the changes cannot be detected using the latest high-tech forensic tools.

2. A stamp plate was changed in the middle of its period of use in a way we can't understand, for no apparent reason, then almost immediately changed back in such a way that the previous alteration is undetectable.

One of those two impossibilities is true. Or there is a third possibility we're not seeing, which seems just as unlikely.

At this point, I don't think it makes all that much sense to steadfastly stick to either position. One side need to show how the fakery was done. The other needs to show how the plate was altered. Until one of those happens, we're at a standoff.

Greg

That's what it seems like. It would seem to me that if the plate was altered and not quickly changed back, there would be a lot more plate 77's floating around. Consider US Scott 505 (the 5c red Washington-Franklin) which appeared in two positions out of 100 on one plate of 2c stamps. The 505 is not a common stamp, but is not a major rarity either (you can find a couple dozen on eBay, and a dealer with a decent stock of US will probably have one).

[mozzerb]

We're being asked to choose between two near-impossibilities:

1. A cover can be altered so perfectly that the changes cannot be detected using the latest high-tech forensic tools.

2. A stamp plate was changed in the middle of its period of use in a way we can't understand, for no apparent reason, then almost immediately changed back in such a way that the previous alteration is undetectable.

One of those two impossibilities is true. Or there is a third possibility we're not seeing, which seems just as unlikely.

At this point, I don't think it makes all that much sense to steadfastly stick to either position. One side need to show how the fakery was done. The other needs to show how the plate was altered. Until one of those happens, we're at a standoff.

Greg

YES, THIS. (Sorry, speaking in nettish again.)

[gavin-h]

We're being asked to choose between two near-impossibilities:

1. A cover can be altered so perfectly that the changes cannot be detected using the latest high-tech forensic tools.

2. A stamp plate was changed in the middle of its period of use in a way we can't understand, for no apparent reason, then almost immediately changed back in such a way that the previous alteration is undetectable.

One of those two impossibilities is true. Or there is a third possibility we're not seeing, which seems just as unlikely.

At this point, I don't think it makes all that much sense to steadfastly stick to either position. One side need to show how the fakery was done. The other needs to show how the plate was altered. Until one of those happens, we're at a standoff.

Greg

Third possibility:

3. The plate from which the stamps on the cover were produced was altered at a later date. And altered, whether from a disused but not destroyed plate (or part of a plate) with the objective of producing fake stamps. Not stamps "faked by alteration" but stamps "faked by creation", or in other words by making complete fake stamps rather than some vaguely ridiculous "cut and paste" process.

This is purely speculative but, if true, would prove both Mr Debney's and Mr Najjar's positions to be wrong...

[mozzerb]

notwithstanding the tiniest of differences

Richard, I'm impressed by the calmness of your posts here, even though I think the research reports have made a strong case for genuineness that really does require a strongly technical counter, but this comment really is every bit as silly as Abed says it is. You seem to be contending that it doesn't matter that the two certifying bodies put forward totally different faking scenarios, just so long as they both said it was faked. Which sounds on a par with (say) two committees certifying a stamp as totally different shades, but it doesn't matter because hey, at least they agreed that it wasn't the standard shade ...

(I don't blame you for not wanting to put up money on an item you don't own, although you know, I'd be prepared to chip in for a test or two for a half interest. )

[mozzerb]

3. The plate from which the stamps on the cover were produced was altered at a later date. And altered, whether from a disused but not destroyed plate (or part of a plate) with the objective of producing fake stamps. Not stamps "faked by alteration" but stamps "faked by creation", or in other words by making complete fake stamps rather than some vaguely ridiculous "cut and paste" process.

Faked when though? Pre-1865, you mean, so that they had these stamps available to use on a letter posted in Guernsey? Or later, and then they proceeded to fake the cover? Who, how, and why are also obvious questions to ask here -- not sure what you're driving at.

[Abed H Najjar]

Pertinax

"I have irrefutably proven that the known plate 77s do not come from any other plate.

To me that's end of story."


No you have cerainly not done that. All you have done is to compare corner letters on plate 70's stamps and the position of the '7's.

To you this may be enough but to me it is certainly NOT.

There is MUCH more to the story of plate 77 stamps than you think, and left to your unwavering thinking, philately will come to a standstill.

This stamp is a true enigma and we need a lot of research before we can ever be sure. There is great doubt in my mind that the exsiting copies come from plate 77 and I agree with you time will tell. I may be wrong but at least I will keep my options open until we can all be better informed.

Some questions to consider:
1- Why do none of the exisitng plate number 77 stamps match the plate 77 roller imppression. In my view the Tapling and the Royal copies certainly do not match the roller impression at all. Are they faked?? Of course not. We must then try to explain this enigma.
2- Why, if they can only come from the one or two trial sheets, are there that many copies known. I am quite sure that there are certainly more genuine copies than those we know of.
3- How can you say that what is accepted, the six or seven copies known is all there is. Apart form subjective expert opinions to say that only these are genuine and that everything else is not, is an something that must be questioned. And my god do we know about subjective opinions!!!

You still have not, nor has anyone else who advovcates that my item is faked, told me how it was faked. I have proved quite conclusively it has not been tampered with and it is up to other to prove it has. You just can not run away from this fact. If you can not prove it is a fake then it must be genuine. Whether it is from plate 73 or not is another issue. If you call something a fake you must have the conviction to explain why. How else can anyone ever take your opinion seriously?

I must repeat once again that you can not touch the fibres on this stamp without leaving easily detectable signs. The matrix is too shallow and the fibres very fragile and can be easily diturbed at the slightest of touches. Now if Riachard Debney or Pertinax know better of how we can do this and alter five '3's to five '7's WITHOUT disturbing the fibres then PLEASE share this information with me.

Abed H Najjar

[Abed H Najjar]

Mozzerb

May I just add my penny's worth here.

The cover is dated November 1865 and so any engraving or alteration for whatever reason, and we may speculate for ages, I believe would have been done very early during its working life.

As far as the Guernsey connection is concerned. The cover is inscribed 'London to Ostende', the sender may have wanted to send it from London and took it with him to Guernsey were he sent it from there (likely in my view), or he may have sent it from Guernsey direct, via London. I does not have a London transit mark but it has Belgian TPO transit and a Brussels arrival. All the dates tally

Abed H Najjar

[pertinax]

No you have cerainly not done that. All you have done is to compare corner letters on plate 70's stamps and the position of the '7's.

To you this may be enough but to me it is certainly NOT.

Abed,

This comment above shows, when it all boils down, just how little you really do know about the philatelic science of these stamps.

We are just going around in circles. Both our are positions are clear.

I will not posting again unless there is some actual new information.

Scott

[mozzerb]

The cover is inscribed 'London to Ostende', the sender may have wanted to send it from London and took it with him to Guernsey were he sent it from there (likely in my view), or he may have sent it from Guernsey direct, via London. I does not have a London transit mark but it has Belgian TPO transit and a Brussels arrival.

Assuming the illustration on the front page of the CCP posted on the first page of this thread is the whole thing, it doesn't actually say "London to Ostende", just "London" with "Ostende" below it? The names/words written on it (Belgique, Bruxelles, pressée) are the French forms, all of which does perhaps more suggest a Guernsey origin than a London traveller. I'd guess that if the missing left portion were still there it would read "Via London and Ostende" -- as that portion and the flap are gone, there's scope for a London transit postmark to have been there. (The PD in circle is I think the Guernsey one, although the illustrations of those in the SG CI PH catalogue are so poor it's hard to tell!)

[capetriangle]

Abed, mozzerb, others

Both Expert Committees call the item faked. Sure there are slight differences in opinion as to how this fakery was achieved which I referred to as "tiniest differences." However, the similarities are enormous and fundamental.

Richard Debney

[Abed H Najjar]

Pertinax

No problem at all- I will leave it for others to judge my knowledge of the philatelic science of these stamps.

Oh yes. Please let me know when you have found out how you think my item has been faked, if you ever can!

I will be very intersted to hear your view.

Abed H Najjar

[Abed H Najjar]

Richard Debney

"Both Expert Committees call the item faked. Sure there are slight differences in opinion as to how this fakery was achieved which I referred to as "tiniest differences." However, the similarities are enormous and fundamental."

WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT RICHARD???

Please make some sense that I can understand. How can sticking a piece of paper with a '7' on it be the same as abrading the hell out of a fragile piece of paper and then painting it.

We are at risk of turning this thread into a comedy.

What is going on, is this 'expert' for real???

Abed H Najjar

[PeterS]

Yes Abed, I was somewhat surprised by Richards' observation as well. The only similarity in the certificates seems to be the assertion that the stamps are fake.

The one suggesting paper glued on is now so funny (considering the forensic evidence) it could be added to 'Worlds Greatest Bloopers'. Certainly does not inspire any sort of confidence in those particular 'experts'.

I still want to see refutation of the scientific evidence. I repeat my earlier statement that such a brilliant forgery should ring alarm bells amongst the 'experts' (similar to the furore around the Sperati forgeries in the 1940s). Surely they must have an urgent need, desire, to work out how the forery was perpetrated????

As a side note, the Sperati forgeries are (in many cases) actually quite a bit more valuable than the 'real' stamps! Maybe, if this assumed master forger truly existed (exists?) then the output will end up being of similar value to future collectors.

[plsllvn]

The cover is inscribed 'London to Ostende', the sender may have wanted to send it from London and took it with him to Guernsey were he sent it from there (likely in my view), or he may have sent it from Guernsey direct, via London. I does not have a London transit mark but it has Belgian TPO transit and a Brussels arrival.

Assuming the illustration on the front page of the CCP posted on the first page of this thread is the whole thing, it doesn't actually say "London to Ostende", just "London" with "Ostende" below it? The names/words written on it (Belgique, Bruxelles, pressée) are the French forms, all of which does perhaps more suggest a Guernsey origin than a London traveller. I'd guess that if the missing left portion were still there it would read "Via London and Ostende" -- as that portion and the flap are gone, there's scope for a London transit postmark to have been there. (The PD in circle is I think the Guernsey one, although the illustrations of those in the SG CI PH catalogue are so poor it's hard to tell!)

Is one day the standard delivery time from Guernsey to BRUXEL(LES)?

1. The Guernsey duplex handstamp G16b showing the pointed "4" in "324" was
in use in Guernsey between 1862 and 1867. The cover, which is dated November 27,
1865, falls within these dates. All three stamps are canceled by this handstamp, which
includes the "Guernsey A" cds of "NO 27 65."
2. The "PD" (Paid to Destination) in a circle mark, which was applied in red, was
added to letters going beyond France, indicating payment for the English and French
postage. This "PD" mark, SG type 342, was in use in Guernsey between 1866-1873.
The mark on this cover precedes this date by two months.
3. ANGLETERRE par Brest transit c.d.s. ? NO 65.
4. BRUXEL(LES) arrival c.d.s of 28 NO 65.
5. The cover was mailed correctly at the 3d rate, the rate required to send mail
from Great Britain to Belgium at that time.

[capetriangle]

Abed, PeterS

The similarities in the certificates (that both call the item fake) are vastly more important than the differences here, at least in my opinion. After all, Abed, I assume you would not have gone to the trouble of obtaining a Foundation opinion at all should the Royal have given you a favorable one.

I have already explained to you how I believe this fakery was achieved. I very much continue to support the "painted-in" option rather than the "cut-and-paste" option. Yes, its interesting, but as far as authenticity is concerned it really does not matter that much.

If you don't like the philatelic opinions, why don't you simply submit to the BPA in London and let them sort it out. However, I am willing to predict the result and also that you will not care for it.

Richard Debney

[mozzerb]

Is one day the standard delivery time from Guernsey to BRUXEL(LES)?

Not nowadays, but I wouldn't be surprised in those days. Actually, that TPO datestamp would be "Angleterre par Ouest" not Brest? From a bit of Googling around it seemed to be fairly standard on mail to Belgium. The code letter A in the Guernsey duplex would normally be first despatch of the day, not later than 9am, I suspect -- even allowing time for sorting, a few hours each for sea crossings and a few more on trains across England and Belgium, you'd expect it to have got from Guernsey to Brussels by the following evening at worst.

[Allanswood]

Abed, mozzerb, others

Both Expert Committees call the item faked. Sure there are slight differences in opinion as to how this fakery was achieved which I referred to as "tiniest differences." However, the similarities are enormous and fundamental.

Richard Debney

Whatever you are smoking, it must be good stuff.

To call these jackass views below, as having the "tiniest differences" seems to prove how little you appear to really know about stamps.

The RPS said the latter 7s - all cut from other stamps had all been PASTED onto the cover -- in all 5 or 6 positions.

As I have typed many times, a 10 year old could have refuted that was the case, and surely goes down as one of the more amateur and foolhardy opinions ever issued by them.

A human fingernail could have detected that - had it occurred, much less a rudimentary check with a UV lamp.

You and the PF .... knowing full well the verdict of the RPS, (as you have admitted in writing) issued your nearly as amateur and foolhardy an opinion, that the numbers have all been painted in - after the paper had been hacked or abraded away, which I suspect is the main reason you are not allowed to sit on the PF Expert Committee going forward. It is pure Fantasyland stuff - like the RPS view.

Anyone capable of making such an absurd and embarrassing boo boo - and oddly very publicly owing up to it, and defending it to the hilt in the face of a barrage of SCIENCE proving it was nonsense, does not deserve to be given the chance to mis-describe any future submissions from anyone - IMHO.

Many may believe the Philatelic Foundation appears to have acted most widely by removing your right to sit on their "Expert" Committee, before more damage is done to their reputation by such actions.

To style these as "tiniest differences" is like saying the difference in appearance between a 1d Black and a £5 Orange is "tiny".

To claim these 2 erroneous "Certificates" which the reasons for the alleged faking show "the similarities are enormous" is philatelic ignorance of the highest order -- they are WORLDS apart.

I would not mind betting collectors who have had negative PF Certificates issued with you on the Committee, might be lining up for re-review, and compensation where applicable. And the wider this thread is read, the more of them there will be.

All your posts are it seems squarely aimed at covering your rear end, and seeing you are incapable of adding a single FACT to back them up, have failed that test miserably I'd say.

To now make even more idiotic comments that the 2 certs have "similarities(that are) are enormous" digs your reputation hole even deeper.

You have been asked several times to "Put up or shut up" - and you refuse to do either.

Both "Certificates" are absurd and wrong in my view, but are MILES apart in stating how the the alleged faking allegedly took place ... faking which we all know Science cannot see in any way.

Surely only a Philatelic Fool would say that?

[PeterS]

Abed, PeterS

The similarities in the certificates (that both call the item fake) are vastly more important than the differences here, at least in my opinion.

Richard, do you really stand by this??? If so, I am staggered. Two opinions with completely different views (evidence, by your assertion) to support the claim of the cover being a fake?? Yet you claim these differences are unimportant, they both claim the cover is a fake and that is all that matters??? Really???

"M'lud, the victim was shot." says the first expert witness. "M'lud, the victim died of natural causes." says the second. The judge ponders and says, "Let's not quibble, you are both basically saying the same thing, the victim is dead. Next case!"