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

[capetriangle]

At the risk of being controversial, Abed should be displaying this at London 2022. He could put it in a frame along with extracts from the scientific information, reports etc. The organisers could make a frame available. Would attract a lot of foot traffic.

Why would the organizers want to display such an obvious fake?

Presumably Abed would insist on displaying it as a genuine rarity, which presumably the Royal (as one of the leading organizers of the show) could not tolerate?

Kindest regards

Richard

[Global Admin]

It has 3 Expert Committee Certificates as being genuine. And a raft of SCIENCE and real forensic and paper Experts supporting them. All agreeing the stamps and cover are genuine and untampered with in any way

And none fom anywhere saying otherwise - except the original Cert you signed for the Philatelic Foundation in New York, that they later tore up, after accepting that your 'Summwun Paynt On Da Nunmahhs' view, formed via your trusted 10 power handheld magnifier, was just arrant nonsense, and wrote a correct Certificate for it, stating it was 100% genuine in all respects. And removed you from their 'Expert' committee soon after.

You posted here years back you staked your 'Philatelic Reputation' on your daffy conclusion, and you clearly lost that one hands down and were refuted universally. Why you choose to invite that disastrous standpoint to be raised here, time and time again, only you would know.

The Royal have no opinion on it anymore. They too tore up their equally nonsense original Certificate, 'Summwun Glood On Da Nunmahhs' and officially cancelled it.

All your 'presumed' brain fart scenarios above are designed to (you hope) save face for you, and you know none will occur.

We need to learn from history and Science here, rather than acting like Ostriches. The entire Swedish Philatelic Established originally loudly and publicly branded the Sweden Tre Skilling Banco unique rarity as an outright FAKE.

Exactly like the GB Plate 77 trio on Victor Hugo cover, that many in the British Stamp Establishment, and the RPSL, and initial PF dopey assertions decried originally. That of course they both later tore up and threw away, SCIENCE made them all look like head in the sand idiots in the end.

And the Sweden stamp then went on to sell for many millions each outing, and is UNIVERSALLY accepted as perfectly genuine, in Sweden and elsewhere. Philately always moves on and learns from earlier dopey mistakes.

[GB1840]

Everyone now accepts Abed's stamps came from the printing plate used to originally print plate 73, the check letter positions confirm this to be the case, particularly SK with the variety as shown recently. This is also mentioned on one of the certificates. We also know from the PB public records that plate 73 was repaired late in its life and it is known this repair included SK which therefore exists in two states.

Perhaps Abed wants to show that plate 73 (or a few letterings from the plate) was for some reason altered to show 77, then later changed again to show 73 prior to the late repair. Highly implausible for Perkins Bacon to have done so, but perhaps possible. Even if this was the case they remain at best a later state of plate 73.

Alternatively Abed must prove that all the accepted examples from plate 77 also come from either the altered plate 73 or another altered plate. However it has been shown that the check letter positions from the accepted examples do not match any other issued plate, but are unique. If it is therefore accepted examples from the plate 77 exist, then his stamps cannot be from that plate.

Therefore I doubt Abed will want to show this at London 2022, or anywhere else without a plausible explanation to these questions.

[GB 789]

Surely with all the controversy with this item, the proof of acceptance will only happen if this item comes on the market and is actually purchased by another collector/investor.

Otherwise, it has a similar impression to that of that ‘earliest 1d black’ item with the ‘3 years of research’ that apparently was attached to it. The market spoke and it wasn’t sold which suggests what everyone else thought about the claims made about its origin.

Likewise with this plate 77, until the market is given an opportunity to assess this item and have chance to actually buy it, it won’t be universally accepted as a plate 77 despite what the current owner may wish.

[The Pom]

I think the evidence backing up this item is somewhat more solid than that which Holyoake cooked up for his 1d Black.

People seeking to verify/discredit this cover should, I suggest, split their work into two sections:

1. Are the stamps as printed, or have they been physically tampered with? The evidence to support the stamps being as printed seems to vastly outweigh that to the contrary.

2. What was the sequence of events that caused an apparent combination of plate 77 number & plate 73 corner letters?

Unless I've missed a conclusive definition, there also seems to be a lack of unanimity over what constitutes a "Plate 77" stamp.

Is it:

A: A stamp printed from plate 77, or

B: A stamp with 77 on each side, even if check letters suggest it came from another plate?

[emason]

Unless I've missed a conclusive definition, there also seems to be a lack of unanimity over what constitutes a "Plate 77" stamp.

Is it:

A: A stamp printed from plate 77, or

B: A stamp with 77 on each side, even if check letters suggest it came from another plate?

The plate is a physical half inch thick piece of steel.
Plate 73 is a different piece of steel from plate 77.
Stamps printed from plate 73 are from plate 73, irrespective of what numbers are shown on the stamps.

See this post by Allanswood
30 Aug 2017, 12.59

https://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?p=5058771&hilit=steel#p5058771

[norvic]

Surely with all the controversy with this item, the proof of acceptance will only happen if this item comes on the market and is actually purchased by another collector/investor.

Even if it comes to market and sells, it won't prove anything other than what has been demonstrated.

The buyer can 'accept' it as anything he wants, but it is now so well documented for what it is (unlike the Wallace document) that there caan be little doubt.

[mozzerb]

Unless I've missed a conclusive definition, there also seems to be a lack of unanimity over what constitutes a "Plate 77" stamp.

Is it:

A: A stamp printed from plate 77, or

B: A stamp with 77 on each side, even if check letters suggest it came from another plate?

A, unequivocally. Identifying the plates manufactured, in sequence, was the whole point of the plate numbers -- so even if a plate was rejected (as 77 was, also 69, 70, 75, 126 and 128) the number of the next plate made carried on the sequence, and the rejected number wasn't reused.

B would not even be a concept except in the context of this cover. The stamps are from plate 73, although sloppy commenting on this thread and elsewhere calls them "plate 77s".

Regarding the physical evidence, this flurry of posts today reminded me that it was reported at the time that the RPSL conducted their own tests when the cover was resubmitted to them back in 2015, but Abed Najjar refused permission for the results to be published. The obvious inference is that they weren't favourable, and that's not a good look.

I've also been arguing for years that preferably you need to do "control" tests to give context to the positive reports that have been published, on two types of GB LE item -- (1) a known fake (e.g. where before and after photographs exist) which has been altered in a way affecting the paper, (2) a known plate repair. In other words, you want to see what stamps with the two possible statuses of these stamps actually look like under the same tests.

[Global Admin]

The buyer can 'accept' it as anything he wants, but it is now so well documented for what it is (unlike the Wallace document) that there can be little doubt.

Agree of course.

This Victor Hugo addressed Plate 77 cover now has THREE very carefully researched Expert Committee Certificates stating it is genuine. And none saying anything otherwise.

Richard Debney is still solo howling to the moon that it is 'an obvious fake' - which says more about Richard Debney's lack of philatelic knowledge, and ability to learn from solid Science, than anything else. His infamous hand held 10 power magnifier failed him again.

'capetriangle' was proved comprehensively wrong on this cover being 'fake' in any way, by his peers, and he again in 2022 for goodness sakes, keeps bleating and alleging, offering zero no proof whatsoever, that it is 'an obvious fake'.

Indeed, the original loopy PF Certificate he was part of, was torn up, and a correct one later issued in 2013 - (see below) stating the stamp and cover were GENUINE, and his services as an 'Expert' there, was also torn up soon after. That speaks volumes, surely.

The Philatelic Foundation, and all others who issued Certificates, and all world leading paper forensic and science experts have agreed there was no faking that took place in any way on this cover. Not 'obvious' to anyone except lone wolf Debney.

Debney is likely the only person on this planet who retains the wacky 'Summwun Paynt On Da Nunmahhs' view, covering all 6 plate numbers on all 3 stamps. What an absurd suggestion for anyone to EVER make. It defies belief.

Clearly the bog basic term or concept of 'capillary action' was/is not known to him, when using paint on very fibrous roughed up and abraded distressed paper! His philatelic reputation was publicly staked here on that view - by him - and over the next 10+ years the stamp world, from minds far wiser than his, and Science, all proved him totally wrong.

No-one yet knows on a technical level, HOW all those 3 stamps ended up with Plate number 77 engraved on them. But they all do. All the Certificaes agree. What we do know, conclusively, is that NO FAKERY of any kind, was or has been involved, and Perkins Bacon printed them thus.

Like the Sweden Tre Skilling Yellow - the bunch of Swedish leading 'Experts' (sic) who initially came out jointly, publicly saying it was 'an obvious fake' (see above) are now shown forever to be total ignorant Philatelic fools - and their names are above. Their pig-headed stupidity haunted them forever thereafter. Science totally won out over their Flat Earth negativity. It always does, in every field.

Maybe Richard might move to ''Expertising' Sweden? He certainly has the right background.

Or maybe Alan Holyoake might sign him up, to verify his Wallace Document 1d Black was the World's First Stamp EVER Printed. He pays well, I am sure. 'STOP PRESS - Defrocked one time PF 'expert' Richard Debney now states the Wallace Document bears the very first 1d Black ever Printed. Indeed, printed a day earlier than the Perkins Bacon records show.' That piece has been laughed at globally already, so Richard adding his esteemed views seems rather appropriate. His trusty hand held magnifier might come into play again?

Whatever, this comment remains arrant nonsense - Richard is acting just like Trump, still claiming he easily won the US election - nothing like boring facts will sway their loopy views - very American really -

Why would the organizers want to display such an obvious fake?

Kindest regards

Richard

We have in the RED corner - Richard Debney in New York using his handheld 10 x magnifier, 15 years back saying - 'Summwun Paynt On Da Nunmahhs' ....... and THEN we have in the BLUE corner - a barrage of SCIENCE proving comprehensively that those comments were simply lame brained and stupid -

https://www.victorhugocover.com/scientific

[corpman]

HEY DEBNEY

You truly are a pig-headed impish childish disgrace.

OMG are you really that idiotic.

You have been slammed yet again. You are way beyond made to look foolish.

In fact if I were to google the phrase "biggest moronic idiot in the philatelic world", I bet that your name would be top of the list.

A wise man learns from his mistakes.
A wiser man learns from other people's mistakes.
A complete incompotent idiotic imbecile like yourself can never learn from anything.

There is none so blind as those who will not look.

Let me dumb it down for you Debney:

I am refering to YOU!!!!

[Global Admin]

In fact if I were to google the phrase "biggest moronic idiot in the philatelic world", I bet that your name would be top of the list.

Now calm down please.

And I just did google that phrase, and none of us are in there -

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=+%22bigge ... c+world%22

Stamps only gets ONE mention - and I am certain this was not Richard -

Worthy candidates include a man stealing a ride home by hitching a shopping trolley to the back of a train, only to be dragged two miles to his death before the train was able to stop; and the terrorist who posted a letter bomb with insufficient postage stamps and who, on its return, unthinkingly opened his own letter.


I've met Richard Debney several times, and he really is a very nice chap in real life. Sadly, he just can't learn from this one, and move on, for some odd reason - and even weirder, keeps on deliberately raising it here, to start it all over again.

His last post is solely to blame for the ongoing debate here this weekend.

The cover is very clearly genuine and untampered with. The owner seems to have no current plans to sell or exhibit it, and that is his call entirely, and the pointless and impertinent speculation on either, is just a waste of bandwidth.

Glen

[Global Admin]

One thing most collectors never develop, is the 'sniff test' that experienced dealers gain only from many decades of experience. One can't get a University Degree for it, or learn it from the internet, or from a stamp magazine, or a Bulletin Board etc. After 45 years of selling stamps full time, one develops it.

Here below are my exact words posted on this discovery FOURTEEN years back. Typed many YEARS before it was - by pure fluke, identified as being in the now verified handwriting of famed novelist Victor Hugo, to his publishers, of Les Miserables and The Hunchback of Notre Dame etc, in Brussels, Belgium. Greatly increasing its value and importance of course.

And typed well before Richard Debney even joined here as a member.

I was writing it when all it had was a BAD RPSL Cert, and a BAD PF Certificate. Both of which have much later now been torn up, and both exposed as arrant prejudiced, amateur nonsense.

I was then flying in the face of two 'accepted' Certs from both sides of the Atlantic, (never wise!) but could see neither stacked up as being correct, and was happy to argue why, and feel sure I was part responsible for both being torn up. The final word in Philately is NEVER written. Thank Goodness - or Sweden's very rarest stamp would still now not be accepted as genuine.

EVERY leading dealer and Auction House I have spoken to over the past decade or so, all agree 100% this cover is perfectly genuine, and a very desirable piece. Also using the 'sniff test' I assume. (And the 3 'Genuine In All Respects' Certificates.)

Those words below I believe still hold true 14 years on, and I would change none of them. NO mega skilled stampr faker would choose THREE stamps to fake, one very heavily scuffed and abraded, and one very clearly creased AND TORN, and all woefully centred, on a pretty ugly part cover. NEVER. Basic common sense - simply does not begin to pass the 'sniff test'

What sort of IDIOT faker would try and paint a new '77' onto the outer abraded corner stamp - any ink painted into in that heavily scuffed up and abraded, loose fibre region, would capillary spread by several mm instantly. Bog basic COMMON SENSE to not even try it.



(My 2009 post from here verbatim -)


Let us think sensibly here for a moment -

A Faker's Check List -

I have a logical brain I believe, and think to myself that if someone was determined to fake a plate '77' on cover, there are at least 3 things they would do.

1. Stick to a SINGLE stamp on cover to alter ... FAR less work, and far less chance of getting caught out, or messing it up.

2. Select a NICE looking well centred stamp to fake, to maximise the return if accepted as genuine.

3. Pick a nice clean complete cover to work on, for the same reasons as #2.



These 3 totally obvious features are all missing here. A tatty looking part cover, with 3 woefully centred stamps, one badly scuffed and damaged, and one badly creased.

And the obvious fact it turned up unheralded in Europe in a mixed lot, points further to no large profit gain being involved here.

This is EXACTLY why, given the compelling scientific evidence supporting my view, I believe all 3 stamps to be perfectly genuine and unaltered, and all are showing plate number "77".

Let's get serious ..... if PROFIT was the motive - as it is with ALL fakes - and with a MILLION 1d red covers on earth to choose from, at only a quid apiece to work on, WHO in their right mind would pick this rather ugly partial thing, with shockingly centred stamps, and clear damage to 2 of them as their faker canvas? Does not stack up at ALL.

Glen

[emason]

This Victor Hugo addressed Plate 77 cover now has THREE very carefully researched Expert Committee Certificates stating it is genuine. And none saying anything otherwise.

Do any of these "very carefully researched " certificates mention that the stamps were actually printed from plate 73?

[Global Admin]

Bill, have you actually READ this thread? Never a bad policy.

The certificates are posted here, and on abed's website - take a look if you wish - one is shown 4 posts above.

[capetriangle]

All concerned

I seem to have opened a small hornet's nest as a result of my last post.

I have no problem with the personal attacks.

I believe I am correct in saying that none of the eight posters since my recent one have ever examined the part cover.

The observed result of that examination is that there are are distinct differences in color - a yellowish rose-red as opposed to a lake-red - over the five second "7's" (no need on the right-hand second "7" of stamp SL since clearly rubbed).

I have never encountered anyone (an examiner) who has not confirmed this when it was been pointed out to them.

This color difference even shows (to my eyes at least) in the enlarged scans here on the thread.

The term 'Summwun Paynt On Da Nunmahhs' is a journalistic corruption. It is derived from correspondence between the PF and Abed where the phrase "pigment/paint/color/dye or similar" was used. This phrase also appears in my CCP article. It was deliberately non-committal. See my post to Abed of November 19, 2009 on page 26 of this thread)

I have no problem with the maintenance of my opinion which some have described as pig-headedness, since science confirms the observed result.

Abed's own commissioned science (the work of RSSL) was independently examined by the poster FinstP a British University Physics Professor (specialist subject thin layer coatings) who confirmed my results (see pages 27-29 of the thread) and concluded that lead chromate was the key much to the annoyance of Abed.

From my post of October 1, 2009:

Glen, others

What would cause me to change my view would be:

(1) to see a sea-change in Great Britain philately in that there is an acceptance that Plate 77's can plate to stamps from other Plates, and

(2) to see the item get a good BPA certificate bearing any two of the following signatures: Michael C. Lea, A. F. Norris, John Taylor or F. V. Twining.

I would then be in a similar position as the famous American writer and atheist H. L. Mencken when asked what he would say if when he died, he went to Heaven and was met at the Pearly Gates by Jesus and St. Peter.
"Gentlemen, I was wrong" was the response.

Richard Debney

Sadly Mr. Twining has since passed away.

Abed, of course, continues to be unhelpful in this matter - as a result of his refusal to post the complete wording of the Sismondo certificate.

Enough for now.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

[Global Admin]

I have never encountered anyone (an examiner) who has not confirmed this when it was been pointed out to them.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

So all these esteemed PROFESSIONALS below, who have all examined the cover, concur with your loopy, and now totally discredited view?

Answer - NO.

More importantly, all also totally refute your absurd daft nonsense that 'Summwun Paynt On Da 6 Nunmahhs'

You really seem keen to keep digging that hole of foolishness deeper Richard.

It truly is like watching Trump keep insisting he won your election. Very sad to see.

[capetriangle]

None of the entities above rendered philatelic opinions.

I was wondering when I would to see the Trump reference come in here? (which I found amusing)

Kindest regards

Richard

[Global Admin]

None of the entities above rendered philatelic opinions.

Richard

They are SCIENTISTS, CHEMISTS and LEADING PAPER FORENSIC EXPERTS - all overturning in minute detail your loopy theory 'Summwun Paynt On Da 6 Nunmahhs'

What are YOUR scientific qualifications??? That you own a hand held magnifier and a pair of tweezers?


All sane commentators on this matter have stated ''painting in'' the number 7 over a 2 or 3 or 8 etc is impossible to do, and not be readily and easily detected.

No-one needs a $100,000 VSC 6000 to determine that, (that had examined the cover) on a painted in Plate 77 number, or on a WA 2d Error of colour etc. Or indeed the WA Swan Inverted Frame that was painted in and fooled many for decades.

They simply need a bowl of hot water, which will IMMEDIATELY reveal such fakeries in the first instance, in most cases as the painted in ink runs into the water.

And if one really wants to get serious, in the case of a stamp of great value, you call in scientists and forensic paper experts -

Robert Radley is a Chartered Chemist, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemists, and a SMALL part of his detailed report is below on the Plate 77 cover.

All the other leading Expertisers who have given clean Certificates to the Plate 77 cover as "Genuine in all respects" clearly also all own a ton more specialised equipment to use.

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."

So ''painting in'' is and can be readily identified, and had been rejected entirely here by EXPERTS.

Glen

(The fact you are ''amused'' that you and Trump are both still howling at the moon over a lost cause is rather sad actually.)

[mozzerb]

Do any of these "very carefully researched " certificates mention that the stamps were actually printed from plate 73?

The APS certificate states this explicitly. The PF certificate states that they are from plate 77. The two pages of the Sismondo certificate that have been publicly posted don't mention plate 73, but Abed informs me (by email) that a later page states that they are from that plate. (No, I don't know why he doesn't just post the whole of the damn thing. I've given up trying to make sense of it.)

[Global Admin]

Robert Radley, MSc, C Chem, FRSC, FSSoc, Dip, FAE, RFP, unlike capetriangle or any others here - is super qualified, and has been a Court Expert Witness many 100s of times his website says, in matters exactly such as this, all over the globe - for a half centrury.

Here below is ONE section of the detailed 64 page Radley Report section on the Philatelic Foundation opinion, that capetriangle agrees was based on his loopy view, and he stands by.

That view is discredited ENTIRELY and comprehensively, beyond all doubt in the following. Professor Hall Ph.D concurs on the chemistry side that zero tampering has taken place. If capetriangle feels there is one shred of doubt cast here that the stamps and cover are tampered with in any way after those detailed reports, well he is living on a different planet than anyone else.

And has been posted many times before - if this were a Court, the PF/Debney original stated view "we claim all the 3s were scratched/scraped/abraded off, and new 7s all painted in" would be laughed out of any Superior Court this planet after reading Radley's findings alone.

The original Debney based PF Certificate and the RPS Certificate were not worth the paper they are written on, and are an ongoing and total disgrace to these 2 alleged "Expert" bodies. Both have since now been torn up. Even a blind 10 year old would not have stated the 7s were glued on - and that is what the RPSL did.


So here we go for those new to this discussion – Richard Debney’s infamous PF 'Certificate' was tossed into the dustbin of history by a real Expert on paper and ink - they agreed and issued a correct version, and sacked him -

Richard Debney possesses a 10x hand held magnifier, and a pig-headed refusal to accept any facts or science.

Contrast that to Robert Radley, MSc, C Chem, FRSC, FSSoc, Dip, FAE, RFP, who for 50 years was instructed by a large number of solicitors in the UK and abroad, as well as all major clearing Banks in England and many other banks and solicitors worldwide.

His other clients include insurance and finance companies, Local Government Authorities, Trading Standards Departments, the British Armed Forces, various Building Societies, The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the CPS and SFO, the US Department of Justice, and a wide variety of private and public companies.

Radley has written numerous papers on a variety of aspects of questioned document examination and has presented these to scientific meetings which he regularly attended both in this country and abroad. He has been on the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners.

Cases are received from all over the world. These generally relate to the areas of signature authentication and/or handwriting identification whilst other casework dealt with on a routine basis includes non-destructive instrumental analysis of inks (and if necessary chemical analysis), alterations, document manipulation, erasures, typewriting/printing, writing impressions in documents (ESDA), photocopy examinations, paper, dating queries, etc.

He has given evidence on several hundred occasions in the courts throughout the UK, Republic of Ireland, Jersey, Cyprus, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Brunei, Hong Kong, Singapore, Gibraltar, Malta, South Africa, Kenya, Canada, Trinidad and the British Virgin Islands.

His 64 page detailed report on this Plate 77 Victor Hugo cover ripped apart Debney's absurd theory in great detail and in summary stated it was utter nonsense.

I must ask Richard Debney if he feels the earth is flat. Fodder for another thread.

Glen

[capetriangle]

Glen

(The fact you are ''amused'' that you and Trump are both still howling at the moon over a lost cause is rather sad actually.)

Glen, Glen, please, you are missing the point here. We are both equally critical of Trump.

Please never accuse me of being a Trumpite or a believer in Trumpism.

I will reply to the more important balance of your post in due course.

Kindest regards

Richard

[Global Admin]

I will reply to the more important balance of your post in due course.

Kindest regards

Richard

You keep on dementedly clutching at straws.

THIS below is what you stated, word for word, in summary - 'Summwun Paynt On Da 6 Nunmahhs' and this is what an WORLD PAPER FORENSIC EXPERT replied to you. He tore it totally apart as arrant nonsense.

The PF then tore up your mad Cert, (most unusual) and issued a correct one, and booted you out. End of story.

Let it go.


Start a 'Summwun Paynt On Da 6 Nunmahhs' Facebook page, and get 3 visitors, your hairdresser excluded, but why bore others here again with the same lame dreamy story? Just wasting the time of everyone. It has been totally debunked, a decade or so back.

Like the Sweden Tre Skilling Yellow, philately won, Science prevailed, and the gaggle of Swedish dopes who all decreed it as a fake, are laughed at forever. and their reputations were totally ruined. It is called progress.

Come up with some new SCIENCE to back your wacky theory, or do not bother please. Reports signed by real names. You never once have. Not - ''someone unnamed and anonymous, a decade or more back, I vaguely recall, once apparently said something remotely like .....''

Cooda, wooda, shooda. All frantically clutching at straws, and wasting bandwidth.

Get over it.

Glen

[emason]

Do any of these "very carefully researched " certificates mention that the stamps were actually printed from plate 73?

The APS certificate states this explicitly. The PF certificate states that they are from plate 77. The two pages of the Sismondo certificate that have been publicly posted don't mention plate 73, but Abed informs me (by email) that a later page states that they are from that plate. (No, I don't know why he doesn't just post the whole of the damn thing. I've given up trying to make sense of it.)

Thank you Maurice.

[GB1840]

Do any of these "very carefully researched " certificates mention that the stamps were actually printed from plate 73?

The APS certificate states this explicitly. The PF certificate states that they are from plate 77. The two pages of the Sismondo certificate that have been publicly posted don't mention plate 73, but Abed informs me (by email) that a later page states that they are from that plate. (No, I don't know why he doesn't just post the whole of the damn thing. I've given up trying to make sense of it.)

Thank you Maurice.

So, these 3 so called 'very carefully researched certificates' cannot even agree on what the stamps are! Precise wording is critical here.

On the basis it is agreed they are stamps from plate 73 but altered to show 77 (either faked as some believe or the plate was altered by PB as others including Abed attest) Abed's only hope now is to show that all the accepted plate 77s are also from officially altered plates, and therefore no genuine stamps exist from the plate that was originally laid down as plate 77. But then stamps from plate 77 would have to be removed from the catalogue and replaced with a new description for these altered stamps.

However the evidence so far suggests genuine stamps from plate 77 do exist as the check letter positions of those accepted plate 77 stamps (where good enough images are available) have been shown not to match those of any other issued plate.

[Global Admin]

and therefore no genuine stamps exist from the plate that was originally laid down as plate 77.

Early in the thread there was a suggestion that perhaps that might well be the case.

One thought was, that a special run might have been done for Royalty/Big Shots etc asking for them .. hence the top left-hand corner 3 x existing mint examples. Maybe re-engraved from an existing plate was a suggestion?

Who really knows? Seems a bit of an ask seeing there are lettered copies recorded from well down the sheet, but I do recall the idea being suggested at some point. I have no thoughts either way on that. Food for another thread.

Although this seems to possibly hint that maybe PB did things, now and again, that might not have been officially recorded/notified/logged at all times! -

[mozzerb]

It would be more useful if you actually mentioned what you were quoting from ...

PB certainly do appear to have played fast and loose with the composition of the inks they used in order to save money, but taking liberties with the actual plates was a trickier proposition.

[Global Admin]

My apologies - as you have told us endlessly what a keen student you are of these issues, I assumed you'd own the relevant literature - Perkins Bacon's 1929 Supplement, page 26.

Anyway stranger things have occurred in there I am sure. Those 3 mint copies from top left corner always perplexed me.

[Global Admin]

FWIW .. digging back I found Abed's post on the earlier Plate 77 examples which in part said - and I had not thought before on the CENTRING of all the previous reported copies. None were any worse than other plates. Yet supposedly Plate 77 the plate was rejected on that basis. Very curious, to me anyway.

Plate 77

With so few copies known of stamps showing a plate number 77, there was no reason to question the fact that they were printed from plate 77. However the fact that the stamps on my cover showing a plate number 77 actually came from plate 73, forced me to research and look further into plate 77.

Apart from a few published words here and there, essentially stating that copies are known to exist from plate 77, little else of value that I could find existed, until I examined Inland Revenue document IR79/79.

It was this official document which stated that plate 77 was:

1- Not registered
2- Not put to press (on the day this issue went to press 1st March 1864)
3- No impressions were printed from it
4- Defaced over a year before the printing date

That made me wonder about the status of the existing and accepted plate 77 stamps. Namely, the Tapling copy BA and the Fletcher copy PH and the Royal copy AB.

There is no doubt that if the existing provenanced copies come from plate 77, then they must have originated from the one or two very badly perforated trial sheets that were printed over one year before the official printing date of 1st Mar 1864.

Those sheets which should have been accounted for and destroyed at that time, must have however been stored somewhere, then found one year later, 'gummed' and released 'in error' but not perhaps before someone removed stamps from the top two rows!

Based on the existing images philatelists with an interest, and students of this issue, can decide whether to just accept the fact, without further question, that these stamps come from plate 77 or not.

I personally do not think they conclusively do and feel that there is much more research to be done before we can be sure. If others however wish to keep the status quo then I will be the last to want to change their mind.

Bear in mind however a few more points:

- Only the mint copies AB, BA and AC come from the top of the sheet and all the used copies come from other places on the sheet.

- Were these unused copies removed from the top two rows intentionally? If so why release the remaining valuable sheet into the public domain? Or were they known to be rare and removed from a sheet that was purposefully re-engraved 77 from another plate printed for normal use to be naturally released to the public?

- These sheets once rejected by Hill in 1863 should have been returned, accounted for and destroyed. For what reason were they kept for over one year - Remember plate 75 was rejected at the same time, yet no 'purposefully' removed copies from that plate exist?

- Plate 77 was rejected because of the fact that it was badly laid down for perforation. None of the existing and provenanced copies however are badly centred enough to warrant that.

I have no doubt that others will put up an answer for each of these points in order to support plate 77, but we do need to address the other points made as well so that this fact can be taken as certain.

Abed H Najjar

[mozzerb]

My apologies - as you have told us endlessly what a keen student you are of these issues, I assumed you'd own the relevant literature - Perkins Bacon's 1929 Supplement, page 26.

Nah, I haven't, that was just your imagination as usual.

By that garbled reference, I assume you mean Supplement to the line-engraved postage stamps of Great Britain printed by Perkins, Bacon & Co by Edward Denny Bacon? I don't have a copy of that, although I do have access to the original 1920 work it's a supplement to. (However, both the letters referred to in the quote you posted are in that work, and I'm not sure what EDB was thinking of referring to the "two extra letters". In context the "steel punches" mentioned clearly refer to the actual hand punches, which of course were used for punching all the letters.)

FWIW .. digging back I found Abed's post on the earlier Plate 77 examples which in part said - and I had not thought before on the CENTRING of all the previous reported copies. None were any worse than other plates. Yet supposedly Plate 77 the plate was rejected on that basis. Very curious, to me anyway.

Not really? The problem with rejected plates was that the plate as a whole was badly laid out, meaning it would have been necessary to make too many adjustments when perforating it. Individual stamps can and do have any kind of centring, and the top rows especially will usually be reasonable.

[Global Admin]

Much focus has been on the 3 x Victor Hugo cover examples and how they might exist. All are clearly genuine and untampered with - that much is abundantly clear - how it occured, is the ongoing question.

However, VERY little attention has been focused on the ''accepted'' Plate 77 copies, some of which clearly differ from their ''accepted'' bedfellows.

Abed is the only person on this board to have closely examined the Royal Collection and Tapling Plate 77 stamps, AND the original roller die impression, AND the British Library ''PH'' example, which differs from those above. He has taken detailed photos, and added them here years back. I show them below.

The focus here then still oddly stayed on the Victor Hugo cover, and the not on the far more obvious question - why even the ''accepted'' copies differed in their ''77'' numbers.

Which all agree MUST be identical on them all, IF they all were printed from Plate 77. It seems clear they were not.

It is very clear many ''77'' numbers known are not as clear and sharp as they WOULD be, if printed off a new steel plate.

Tom Allen and Nissen bought the ''AC'' copy in odd circumstances outlined below here. It has gum but oddly the King's stamp - ''AB'' - that he already owned at this time, does not have gum. Both very clearly were once a joined pair.

Re the Mint 1d Plate 77s I found this interesting first-hand account from Tom Allen, who bought a great deal of material for the Royal Collection, and indeed, was asked to be Keeper Of The Royal Collection (by Wilson) when Sir John Wilson retired.

Allen was one of the few dealers ever invited to join the RPS London, and was on their Expert Committee for over 20 years, 1954-1975.

Wonder what his "Secret Test" for Plate 77 was?

In this post I will study the number '77' from the plate 77 roller impression courtesy of The British Library, and compare it with images of the number '77' from stamps BA, AB and PH. There is no doubt in my mind that what we will observe will raise serious questions as to the credibility of the accepted fact that plate 77 did print the existing and provenanced stamps showing a plate number 77.

For the record, I have personally handled copies BA and PH and viewed them under 80x magnification using my microscope which I took with me to the British Library. I also have high resolution images of them both.

I have personally handled copy AB at the Palace and have a high resolution image of that stamp too. I have also studied high resolution images from The British Library of the roller impression for plates 73 and 77 which I have enlarged to A1 and studied.

For the provenanced stamps to come from plate 77, then they must exactly match the plate 77 roller impression. Here are images of the following:

1 - The roller impression of the whole stamp from the plate 77 roller - Image 1

2 - The right hand panel in which the plate number was engraved. Note the very important row of dots inside each diamond and on, or near which, the plate number would have been engraved. This row of dots is a part of the design and is on the master die. Also illustrated is the same panel for the roller impression for plate 73 and the same panel from stamp BA - Images 2,3 and 4

3 - Enlargements of the number '77' on the right hand and left hand panels. Note the vital importance of the two clear dashes next to each figure '7' on the right hand panel - Images 5 and 6

The following statements below from Pertinax confirm that in his view stamps AB, and BA come from the plate 77 roller impression and hence the printed 'proposed imprimatur sheet'.

In fact this is the only other way that the genuine stamps could have ever been produced.

- 'I believe of course they came from the actual 77 plate, and nowhere else - however it is that that came about. And the plate 77 roller relief impression proves it.'

- 'The 7's on stamps AB and BA 'match each other exactly'

- 'show no deviation whatsoever between them'

- 'on both the British Library stamp and the Royal Collection stamp, are all in EXACTLY the same position'

- 'all the known plate 77 stamps match each other'

What will be shown now is that stamps AB, BA and PH, DO NOT match the roller impression and are not identical or match each other as stated above by Pertinax.

Here are the images of the figure '77' from the Tapling BA, Royal AB, and Fletcher PH. Both right and left hand panels.

Right hand '77' panel for copies BA, AB and PH

Left hand '77' panel for copies BA, AB and PH

What we notice above is without doubt number 7's that look different, tired, worn, weak and dissimilar, and not the crisp, clear and identical impressions that would be expected from a plate that has only printed a few sheets from one roller impression. Most importantly they also DO NOT match the plate 77 roller impression.

Obviously in this case there is not an '..engraver or printer worth his salt would let such stamps into the public domain.' As stated by a board member.

Please note the following:

- Firstly, what is immediately clear is the total absence of the two dashes next to the two 7's. These must appear if plate 77 printed these stamps. They are an integral part of the design, and to accept their absence without question is wrong. After all, the plate did not print too many sheets and any impressions from it should have been pristine. They are present in every other diamond but absent from the 77 diamonds!!! These dashes are absent on all the three stamps AB, BA and PH. They are also absent, as far as I can see, from copies PI and LL from which I only have images.

- Secondly, all the 7s must have a crisp new look as they should, and they do not. They all look different in one way or another, varying thicknesses and shapes, they also have a weak look. Notice the shortness, to varying degrees, of the top bar to the left hand 7. It is faint to practically absent in copy PH. This deformity has no excuse from a new plate. Furthermore note the upright of the right hand 7s on the right panel look solid, the Tapling copy is solid but curved. The thicker right hand 7 of copy PH with its dropped top looks nothing like the others and the right hand 7 on the left panel of this stamp has practically no diagonal. Also importantly are the 77's in stamps PI and LL which look somewhat different again to those posted above. I however only have images from photo copies of these.

- Thirdly and also of great importance, one should very carefully examine where all the 7's fall. They must all fall in exactly the same place EVERY TIME and must look identical if they came from the one roller impression. They certainly do not. In particular look at the two 7's on the left hand panel from the Tapling copy, they both fall to the right of the intersection. The others fall right, left or central.

In view of the above clear inconsistencies we must therefore question the origin of these stamps, as there are now enough irregular features to put forward against plate 77 printing them. The examination of the copies AB, BA and PH above cast a serious doubt, in my view conclusive doubt, that they do come from plate 77.

Had the Tapling copy BA come up for expertisation, would an expert body not question its appearance as compared with the roller impression, assuming they had a copy of the impression?

I am the first to admit that on these stamps inking vagaries, in that, some parts of a character may not be complete can happen, however the features are always the same, and only in the case of a worn impression can some detail be lost.

I have studied and compared features from several thousands of these stamps and have not come up with inconsistencies of the nature seen on the 77s on the three stamps AB, BA and PH.

The plate was rejected because of being badly laid down for perforation and yet ALL the exiting copies, from the top to the bottom of the sheet, do not show any signs of this defect. Even this fact goes against the theory that they come from plate 77.

I will repeat what I stated earlier in one of my previous posts:

'I believe that what we will conclude one day is that the printers of the time, even the best, for whatever reason and we may never know, did do things that beggar belief.'

Abed H Najjar

So there is a clearly lot more to the story of how the handful of stamps showing Plate 77 came into being.

Maybe after 160 years we will never know, but there are not many of them out there.

Do we know WHEN the Royal Collection copy was obtained?

Reading the chart above - no 'finds' in the 19th Century seem confirmed ... seems odd for an 1864 RARITY?

Glen


So the discussion moves on -- WHY do the ''Accepted'' copies of Plate 77 NOT all have the same Plate numbers that clearly they all MUST do, that matches the roller die 77 numbers? Would they all get RPS Certificates if submitted today. Quite clearly not. We do not have clear images of them all, but just from the 3 copies detailed above, even those do not match up as can be seen above.

Pertinax agreed here that 3 of the accepted Plate 77 copies do not all match at all. After first stating here they HAD to all match, if all were Plate 77s. So he agrees there is a major dilemma here. What about the other recorded examples? Do any of those match these 3?

I come here with tail between my legs to admit that several days ago I realised that part of what I was putting forward is not correct.

What I had said in the most recent exchanges was that I believed the second 7s on all the known plate 77 stamps would all match in terms of position and shape.

I had however forgotten that Abed's article included an image of the Fletcher Collection plate 77 stamp (PH), and from that it is apparent that the horizontal to the right-hand second 7 has a definite tilt downwards. This is not matched on the other 77s illustrated - AB and BA.

So to that extent, I was wrong.

Scott

Quite apart from the shapes of the 7s differing, WHY do no ''accepted'' copies show any of the raised 'dashes' before the 7 in the plate diamonds?

They ARE clearly there on the roller die as all can see. AND these raised dash lines print clearly on all other sections of the latticework, on either side of the plate numbers. Also as all can see.

Are ALL the ''accepted'' Plate 77s from another altered plate or plates? What is clear is they certainly are NOT made from the Plate 77 roller die.

How can this be?

[Parisboy]

Maybe a daft question, but is there any record of the number of stamp sheets and their plates that were actually sent to Guernsey during that period? Was a batch of 73s printed especially for the island? Assuming Hugo bought the stamps locally of course.

Chris.

[mozzerb]

Maybe a daft question, but is there any record of the number of stamp sheets and their plates that were actually sent to Guernsey during that period? Was a batch of 73s printed especially for the island? Assuming Hugo bought the stamps locally of course.

General practice seems simply to have been that when a requisition came in, they just got the next batch from stock. So Guernsey wouldn't have been treated any different from anywhere else.

You can see the same effect with the known used surface printed "Abnormals" and similar -- they turn up from a variety of random offices (e.g. a number of the 10d watermark variant are from the British Post Office in Constantinople AFAIR).

There would presumably once have been a record of how many sheets were sent to each office, but not which plates they were from, and I can't recall a mention that such records have survived.

[The Pom]

Do we know WHEN the Royal Collection copy was obtained?

Reading the chart above - no 'finds' in the 19th Century seem confirmed ... seems odd for an 1864 RARITY.

Glen

Did people collect to that degree of specialisation in the 19th century?

Most of the earliest albums/catalogues are fairly simplified compared to what we're used to now, hence the number of finds still being made today.

[mozzerb]

Did people collect to that degree of specialisation in the 19th century?

Most of the earliest albums/catalogues are fairly simplified compared to what we're used to now, hence the number of finds still being made today.

To the best of my recollection I made a post on this thread some time back (translation -- fairly sure I remember this correctly, but I'm not going to faff around trying to find it, anyone who wants to is welcome) noting that when I looked in a SG catalogue of c.1900, it didn't list the individual plate numbers -- merely noting that there were many of them and certain ones were not used. It did (again IIRC) mention the existence and rarity of a 77, although also reported a plate 70(?) which is no longer listed.

Some people did collect more specialised material -- note the Tapling Collection in the British Library, donated 1891, has all the 1d red plates -- but the average collector probably didn't bother, especially as collecting all-world or all-Empire was a common thing.

(If the catalogue turns up I'll be able to confirm this or otherwise, but I couldn't find it on a brief look just now. Eh, should be around somewhere.)

[nigelc]

.
I remember vaguely reading somewhere that in the early days of collecting (back in the 1860s/70s?) there was criticism from many British collectors that French collectors were spending too much time looking for minor differences between stamps.

[capetriangle]

.
I remember vaguely reading somewhere that in the early days of collecting (back in the 1860s/70s?) there was criticism from many British collectors that French collectors were spending too much time looking for minor differences between stamps.

The "British School" of collecting involved the trimming of imperforate margins to as close to the design as possible and the removal of the perforations which were not considered significant.

The "French School" of collecting left everything intact.

You won't hear me say this too often but, "Thank Heavens for the French."

Kindest regards

Richard

[ViccyVFU]

Reading the chart above - no 'finds' in the 19th Century seem confirmed ... seems odd for an 1864 RARITY.

Did people collect to that degree of specialisation in the 19th century?

Most of the earliest albums/catalogues are fairly simplified compared to what we're used to now, hence the number of finds still being made today.

I think specialism, as in "an album for just UK", came in "mid 1890's".

Here's one (a first edition), from 1896

Relevant page for the penny reds ...
The numbers shown underneath are H L'Estrange Ewens numbers (Pricelist in back of album)

Here's the relevant entry from the H L Ewens catalogue, sixth edition, 1898

By the end of the century, I guess the hunt was "just really starting" ....

[Global Admin]

By the end of the century, I guess the hunt was "just really starting" ....

And KGV was then well in his twenties, even thirties, being born 1865.

His absolute passion when younger was stamp collecting as is well documented -

The oft made suggestion that perhaps a special later printing was made of stamps bearing number ''77'' for Royalty/Big Shots might have some merit?

H L'Estrange Ewens catalogue in 1896 from the helpful post above, is stating watermarked Plate 77 copies ''are known''. That info will have been the same in the 1880s, or possibly ever earlier.

Clearly no used copies were recorded until about WWI. Stranger still.

Glen

[polisciguy2011]

It wouldn't shock me if there was a special printing for George V. Didn't he have the one legitimate used copy of the 2d Tyrian plum?

[Global Admin]

Not quite.

Although over 24 million stamps were printed of this 2d Tyrian Plum in early May 1910, and delivered to the Inland Revenue, release to the post offices was cancelled after the King’s death on May 6.

The existing 2d bi-coloured stamps were used up instead. All the “Tyrian” stock was destroyed, apart from a few examples which survived from the official records, although a mint copy turned up in a “junk lot” in 1993!

A mint corner of this rare 2d KEVII stamp was invoiced for £102,000 late 2011 by Spink in London.

About 12 are recorded, 3 in the Royal Collection.

The only COVER that exists was addressed - to KGV!

KGV was pretty famous for ''engineering'' stamp items he wanted.

On his global Royal Tours as Prince Of Wales, and Heir Apparent, and later as King, he was legendary for raping and plundering the stamp archives of any Commonwealth country he visited.

Glen

[mozzerb]

The oft made suggestion that perhaps a special later printing was made of stamps bearing number 77 for Royalty/Big Shots might have some merit?

As an explanation for the accepted mint examples? Not impossible, but very speculative -- you would expect some record of it, even if only as gossip among the contemporary collecting fraternity. The 1865 "Royal Reprint" of the Penny Black (actually from Die II Plate 66) has a documented request from Ormond Hill to PB AFAIK.

As an explanation for the cover, no merit at all really, since it's dated 1865 when KGV was in his cradle and collectors were still trying to work out what had even been issued -- let alone getting special reprints of specialist items and then passing some of them on to French authors in the Channel Islands to use on their commercial mail.

(As mentioned above. the used Tyrian Plum is a different case. The handwriting on the envelope is said to be that of Frederick Atterbury, Secretary and Controller of Stamps at the Inland Revenue.)

[Global Admin]

Did people collect to that degree of specialisation in the 19th century?

They most certainly did.

The Tapling Collection donated to the public in 1891 had all the known 1d red plates, as we know.

[mozzerb]

Nissen was born around 1880 -

https://www.abps.org.uk/who-was-who-in-philately/#glossary-n

[Global Admin]

Tracked down the date info --- the purchase of AC was reported in late 1919 by Chas Nissen (the discovery is recorded on the front page of The British Philatelist, October 1919, Volume XII Number 8). It is stated - "Our publishers have shewn us an unused copy from the very rare plate 77 of the old Red Penny.

KGV bought his 'AB' copy only a year earlier for 500 quid. Hmmmm. Both had originally been a joined pair. Almost certainly flogged to middlemen Bridge and Kay, by the same mystery man, who approached Nissen.

Nissen was the first dealer to discover the 1/- Stock Exchange Forgeries in the 1890s, that had defrauded the PO of a massive sum on Telegram use in London, some 25 years earlier.

Nissen also came up with the idea that every ‘single’ penny black stamp could be plated by defining certain distinctive characteristics of each printed plate, then describing the specific characteristics of each individual stamp and then producing photographs of every position: AA to AL down to TA to TL (240 on each plate) and later co-authored the first handbook on this. ''The Plating of the Penny Black Postage Stamp of Great Britain, 1840'' for which he received The Crawford Medal for philatelic literature, from The Royal Philatelic Society London.

[Global Admin]

Back to the discussion. HOW is it that used copies like the ''PH'' Fletcher example in the British Museum are 'accepted' as being ''Plate 77'' when they most clearly are not matching the mint ones in 77 numbers position, and neither of the 3 match the roller dies for Plate 77?

Would all 3 get clear RPS Certs today? Clearly that could not be possible.

Actually none of them came from the Plate 77 Roller die printed sheet, it seems clear, to further complicate matters.

Based on the data and images we now have, does ANY member here truly believe all 3 stamps came from the one test print sheet of Plate 77?

So what went on? Several of the traditional ''accepted'' copies are sadly now lost or destroyed etc, and cannot be examined.

More than likely none of the 3 above has had a Cert issued at any time, by anyone, as they were bequests and gleefully accepted ''as is''.

KGV bought AB from Bridger and Kay stamp dealers on 8th August 1918 for a price of £499/9/- This sale is recorded in their original handwritten sales ledger from 1918. It has no gum, or very small part gum.

Glen

Neither GB 1d Red stamp printed using the Plate 77 master die?

[ViccyVFU]

Based on the data and images we now have, does ANY member here truly believe all 3 stamps came from the one test print sheet of Plate 77?

Yep, I believe they did. Abeds comparison has picked a deliberately out of focus image to lead you down a path.

"You are being Hollyoake'd"

Use a better quality scan, and its all good

Position BA against the master die.

[Global Admin]

Might be ''all good'' in Harrowgate, but I do not see the dashes in the '7' diamond shaped boxes even on the ''BA'' example via the VERY clear scan you offer to 'assist' us all. Does anyone else? There are none.

Nor do I see the left arm of the first 7 going out near as far as it should to the left on ANY of them. Does anyone?

This allegedly was a brand new plate where crispness of numbers and other fine detail is at its best.

You have not inspected either mint copy, nor the roller die.










I do not see dashes here, and there are no out of focus scans, as you rather churlishly and pointlessly allege - indeed there are mega blown up clear comparative scans above.

are there to help assist Philately solve this kibble. They have zero bearing on the cover. We are talking here only of the ''ACCEPTED'' mint examples, and the very relevant Master Plate.

Indeed pertinax, a noted student of this issue, came back and recanted his view all 3 stamps were, and had to be, showing all the same shape numbers, to his apology statement below, that the 77 figures of the 3 stamps were NOT the same after he studied it.

In case you are confused we are discussing PH, AB and BA, as we have good scans - and as to whether they are (a) the same and (b) were printed with the 77 Master Die. No other corner letters.


Pertinax agreed here that 3 of the accepted Plate 77 copies do not all match at all. After first stating here they HAD to all match, if all were Plate 77s. So he agrees there is a major dilemma here. What about the other recorded examples? Do any of those match these 3?

I come here with tail between my legs to admit that several days ago I realised that part of what I was putting forward is not correct.

What I had said in the most recent exchanges was that I believed the second 7s on all the known plate 77 stamps would all match in terms of position and shape.

I had however forgotten that Abed's article included an image of the Fletcher Collection plate 77 stamp (PH), and from that it is apparent that the horizontal to the right-hand second 7 has a definite tilt downwards. This is not matched on the other 77s illustrated - AB and BA.

So to that extent, I was wrong.

Scott

Let's stick right now to discussing the ''accepted'' Plate 77s please, as they are not all that many blindly assume, it seems clear, and they quite simply do not match each other. OR the Master Die for Plate 77.

My feeling is examining this closer might solve our mystery somewhat.

As I have typed endlessly over 45 years - ''The last word in Philately is NEVER written.'' Thank goodness for the hobby.


Not only does the right 7 of 'PH' have a very evident downwards tilting top arm - NONE of the dashes in diamonds are present as per Master Die, and as per Master die not ONE of the left-hand arms of 7 are near long enough. They all look more like '1' than '7'.

On the Master die the length of the top bars of both 7s is the same. Anyone disagree? Plain as day.

Right hand numbers 77 numerals of BA - AB - PH

[GB1840]

Well I do not see the dashes in the '7' diamond shaped boxes even on the ''BA'' example via the VERY clear scan you offer. Does anyone else? There are none.

They are visible on the left panels of AB, BA (very clearly) and PH (from the scans in Abed's 2008 CCP article), less so or not visible on other examples, so I think variable in nature, possibly affected by uneven pressure exerted during the roller transfer process. A question perhaps is do they show consistently around the numerals on early prints of stamps from other plates, or are they typically variable in nature?

We know without any doubt that Abed's stamps plate to plate 73, also I believe it is agreed that at least some of the 'accepted' plate 77s (those where detailed examination of check letter positions has been performed) do not plate to any other issued plates, so this still must suggest genuine stamps from plate 77 do exist.

[Global Admin]

GB1840 so your answer seems a clear 'YES' to the question, agreeing with Pertinax, in that letters BA, AB, PH differ between them in their 77 engraved plate numbers? i.e. they were not printed from the same plate.

Which plate some may have emanated from need not concern us now, but a consensus that at least some of the 8 or 9 still existing 'accepted' copies clearly differ, is the first step.

All we are hopefully doing is focusing solely on visible dissimilarities among the once historically 'accepted' examples. That may well lead to somewhere useful.

Glen

[mozzerb]

They are visible on the left panels of AB, BA (very clearly) and PH (from the scans in Abed's 2008 CCP article), less so or not visible on other examples, so I think variable in nature, possibly affected by uneven pressure exerted during the roller transfer process. A question perhaps is do they show consistently around the numerals on early prints of stamps from other plates, or are they typically variable in nature?

The registration sheet photos on The Postal Museum website should be useful to answer that question?

They'd also answer another question that this latest round of posts raised for me: if/how often there are any noticeable variations in the numbers on these stamps (for a given plate)? Since all the impressions came from the same master there shouldn't in principle be any, but in practice uneven pressure there too could cause some variation, as could damage.

(And no, I don't have the spare time to examine them, I'm afraid. If anyone does, that would be very handy in giving a "control" for the general case, rather than focusing solely on the few stamps with 77 on them.)