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

[Global Admin]

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.

If the images are of decent resolution, that might well be very useful to research these traditionally ''accepted'' Plate 77s more.

Impressions from a new plate we all know should be the clearest and sharpest ever in its life.

The bent down top arm of the 7 on PH will not be damage on a new plate, the raised dashes will print well (if they are there) and much more relevant, the very short top left arms of the THREE '7's bear no relation to the roller die.

Be interesting to see if all other top '7' arms are the same on the sheet, and look more like '1's.

We are looking at the RIGHT-hand numbers and dashes (indeed lack of those) on these 3 stamps, BA, AB, PH, and they are not the same.

[mozzerb]

If the images are of decent resolution, that might well be very useful to research these traditionally ''accepted'' Plate 77s more.

400dpi IIRC. Not ideal, but not too bad.

[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.

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.

Thank you, it was just a question that was bugging me.

[GB1840]

If the images are of decent resolution, that might well be very useful to research these traditionally ''accepted'' Plate 77s more.

400dpi IIRC. Not ideal, but not too bad.

This is all I could get off the PO site, nowhere near good enough, or is better available somewhere? Someone may have examples of the registration sheet photographs that could be purchased which would be better.

[Global Admin]

Please hit the ADD ATTACHMENT as final step when adding images.

Yes not very clean that one sadly - thanks for trying it tho!

The image below another member posted is a better size, as it very helpfully and clearly shows no dashes on RH side on 'BA' and the stunted left arm of first 7. They are both perfectly sharp on left-hand side of stamp in 7 Diamonds, as per roller die so there clearly is some issue at play.

4am Wednesday, better get some work done .. hopefully other clear images can be sourced of the RH sides of 'accepted' Plate 77s.

[mozzerb]

The image below another member posted is a better size, as it very helpfully and clearly shows no dashes on RH side on 'BA' and the stunted left arm of first 7. They are both perfectly sharp on left-hand side of stamp in 7 Diamonds, as per roller die so there clearly is some issue at play.

As someone (Scott?) pointed out way back in the early part of this thread (which is in dire need of an index by now): one is an impression of the steel roller die on paper -- and which should therefore be very sharp and show every detail -- and one is the result of transferring that roller into an impression on a thick steel plate and then inking the impression and printing it -- which offers scope for imperfection and variation.

The best way to get a sense of how things worked is still going to be the same sort of comparisons on other plates. A pity the images from TPM aren't adequate for the task -- maybe contact someone like Alan Druce who IIRC has several imprimaturs from each plate? (Then again, for comparisons with the used examples ordinary used stamps would do, and there seem to be a reasonable number of people doing plate reconstructions of these.)

[highlandtiger]

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! -

Not wishing to put myself in the firing line on a topic that I'm only just learning about, (and find absolutely fascinating), but I was shot down by yourself, during the Hollyoake Penny Black thread for daring to suggest the very thing you are suggesting could have happened in this instance . ie, that the "records" aren't necessarily 100% accurate.

[highlandtiger]

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.

My earliest copy of the SG British Empire Catalogue is from 1897, and here is an image of what you were referring to.

[Global Admin]

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! -

Not wishing to put myself in the firing line on a topic that I'm only just learning about, (and find absolutely fascinating), but I was shot down by yourself, during the Hollyoake Penny Black thread for daring to suggest the very thing you are suggesting could have happened in this instance . i.e., that the "records" aren't necessarily 100% accurate.

Ha!

Glad you are finding the thread fascinating, and hope you too can help solve the puzzles we are looking at with the VERY clear variances between these three 'accepted' Plate 77 examples, and the Master Die itself. Cannot be possible, so there must be a reason.

In that Holyoake thread, we were discussing how meticulously Perkins Bacon were in 1840 at the ONSET of what was an absolutely massive, and mega pound, new business relationship -- printing all the stamps for the UK Post Office.

The contract was new for them, and for the Government, so I am sure everyone was super careful on both sides. Most especially on the onset. Totally understandable.

Mega billions of stamps were printed later by Perkins Bacon in the next 25 years, by the time these Plate numbers were issued in 1864, and it is natural things got into a very comfy groove, and it all ran very smoothly, and no-one was quite as uptight and finicky and vigilant as they were in 1840. (Rather like Marriage!)

There certainly were careful records kept of the NUMBERS printed, as that was essentially revenue, but in-house engravers and sideographers that might have amended or retouched any plates for operational or other reasons, will have been often an internal PB affair to note - or not.

Perkins Bacon points to this reality themselves in 1858 (18 years after the 1d Black but well BEFORE the 1d Red Plates were ever issued) as we have seen - 'Ormond Hill does NOT need to know much detail about any amendments or alterations we make, outside the total costs, and numbers printed, as that is our affair internally, as clearly too much detail muddles and confuses him' essentially -

As a sidebar, for what it is worth -

Philbrick and Westoby record in "An Appendix to the Postage and Telegraph Stamps of Great Britain" Published circa 1881) that a few specimens of 77 that were printed "were not issued to the public, and were either kept in the office, or distributed amongst amateurs".


And for the PB records books - as it is clearly outlined, are not 100% complete -

[Global Admin]

My earliest copy of the SG British Empire Catalogue is from 1897, and here is an image of what you were referring to.

You have added to the history of this stamp already in your first post on it.

Your SG extract I have highlighted to show SG had a copy in stock in 1897. That is new info. KGV bought his mint one in 1918 From Bridger and Kay and Nissen bought AC in 1919 from the mystery man who walked in the door. So it was neither of those.

This SG one can only be the Hughes-Hughes or the Crocker copy. Now both lost to philately it seems, whichever one it was. They may indeed be the same stamp.

As has the 'AC' vanished too it seems - - Nissen sold it, and it was in a collection stolen in 1965 - 57 years back, and not seen since.

Now only TWO mint copies seem to exist now -- safely locked away from collectors.

The 'BA' stamp was later sold to Per Gjerding (it was shown in his collection at the London Exhibition in 1928 where it was described as “the most sought for stamp at the exhibition (see London Philatelist, December 1928 page 282 and Stamp Lover December 1928 page 189). The stamp does not appear in the Per Gjerding auction sale by HR Harmer in January 1956 (sales 2601/2602 on 16th and 17th January 1956) so must have been sold separately before then.

It was bought by Chas Nissen and sold by him as part of a collection to J R de Phillp (see British Philatelist August 1941 page 44 and September 1941 page 52). It was later sold to Major Raphael on 4th November 1959 at a Robson Lowe auction (sales 1875-76 Lot 171 where it was described a "fine with much original gum".), and then disappeared in 1965 when his collection was stolen and no trace of it has been seen since then.

Only Two mint 1d Red Plate 77 stamps exist - both locked away TIGHT!

This chart is of course over a decade old and needs to be re-done.

A lot less are out there, than it might appear on the surface!

'LL' discovered by Mr NV le Gallais in 1906. RPSL Cert 1915. Very defective. Sold at War Auction 1916 for £50. Now owned J.W.Phillips.

'NC' has not been seen since its RUMOURED discovery in a 1994 Harmers Junk lot, no image exists, and may have failed to obtain a Certificate, so is probably not genuine.

[highlandtiger]

I have a collection of old SG catalogues. After the 1897 one, my next one is 1900. In this one it says "we have had a second"

This implies that between 1897 and 1900 it was sold.

My 1903 copy says the same. My next one is 1909. In this one they actually list all the plate numbers and values. So between 1903 and 1909 the collecting craze for plate numbers was sufficient enough to warrant them listed individually.

[Erinmania]

According to Wikipedia William Hughes-Hughes sold his collection for £3000 to Stanley Gibbons in 1896 and with it I assume his mint Plate 77 as referenced by the Gibbons catalogue entry for 1897. Logically this will be the copy bought by L'Estrange Ewen (Weekly Stamp News) who sold it to J H Crocker. A Plate 77 is known to have been in Crocker's collection by 1902 ( The Philatelic Record 1902 p132) but the exact date of purchase is not given.

There does not appear to be any record that Hughes-Hughes sold a Plate 77 to Ferrary or did Gibbons for that matter and it only seems to be an assumption that Ferrary ever owned one. It does not appear to be listed in the catalogues produced for the sale of his collection and if one had been bought surely its provenance would have come to light by now.

The question arises was the Hughes-Hughes/Crocker stamp one and the same ?
In any event the stamp was lost in a fire in 1906.

Apparently Gibbons interviewed Hughes-Hughes in the January 1896 edition of "Stamp Monthly". I do not have access to this article but it is odd if they did not record the corner letters.

[Parisboy]

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.

My earliest copy of the SG British Empire Catalogue is from 1897, and here is an image of what you were referring to.

My 1902 copy says the same, word for word.

Chris.

[CMJ]

Apparently Gibbons interviewed Hughes-Hughes in the January 1896 edition of "Stamp Monthly". I do not have access to this article but it is odd if they did not record the corner letters.

There are three references to the purchase of the Hughes-Hughes collection in various Gibbons' publictions

January 1896 - Stanley Gibbons Monthy Journal
3 February 1906 - Gibbons Stamp Weekly
March 1931 - Gibbons Stamp Monthly

Unfortunately, whilst all three mention that the collection contained a 1d plate 77, no mention is made of the lettering.

Gibbons Monthly Journal - Jan 1896

[GB 789]

Apparently Gibbons interviewed Hughes-Hughes in the January 1896 edition of "Stamp Monthly". I do not have access to this article but it is odd if they did not record the corner letters.

There are three references to the purchase of the Hughes-Hughes collection in various Gibbons' publictions

January 1896 - Stanley Gibbons Monthy Journal
3 February 1906 - Gibbons Stamp Weekly
March 1931 - Gibbons Stamp Monthly

Unfortunately, whilst all three mention that the collection contained a 1d plate 77, no mention is made of the lettering.

Love the mention by the author from that 1896 extract about the purchased stamps being ‘real stamps - not modern rubbish!’

From 1896, I guess they would be likely referring to the multi coloured 1887 Jubillee stamps in use in Britain then, clearly not a fan of ‘change’!

It’s amazing how much has changed within this hobby yet at the same time very little has changed - collectors still today moaning about modern rubbish. The difference perhaps is that we today see those jubilees as ‘classic’ issues instead. Maybe in 125 years, Royal Mail’s latest issues will be seen as classics? Perhaps not!

Apologies for the off topic post, just a very interesting extract.

[Global Admin]

The question arises was the Hughes-Hughes/Crocker stamp one and the same ? In any event the stamp was lost in a fire in 1906.

Seems 100% certain this was the case as outlined earlier. Only 2 mint copies now exist. AB and BA.

The Hughes-Hughes stamp was almost certainly lettered 'AA'.



'William Hughes-Hughes who was one of the founder members of the Royal Philatelic Society London. He was a Barrister of the Inner Temple, and his collection was started around 1859 and discontinued about 1874. When interviewed by the Stanley Gibbons Monthly Journal in January 1896 (when the stamp was bought from him by Gibbons as part of his "Great Collection") he stated that the whole collection had only cost him £69 as most of his stamps had been obtained "through influential connections".

The article also mentions that all of the stamps are stuck down tight and have to be cut out, so presumably this example would have been sold unused rather than mint. (KGV adjoining 'AB' copy also is no gum -- Hmmmm.) Although Bacon mentions this stamp as being in the Ferrary collection I can find no evidence of this (it didn't appear among the listed items sold at the Ferrary sales in Paris.)

In fact this same stamp was sold to stamp dealer Herbert L'Estrange Ewen, who in turn sold it to Henry J Crocker in America (see The Philatelic Record June 1902 page 132) where it was lost in a fire that followed the San Francisco earthquake of 1906.

This stamp is also referred to in the 29th February 1908 issue of "The Postage Stamp" as follows - "Gibbons' catalogue after stating that a specimen of plate 77 is in the Tapling collection adds "and we have had a second". This second copy Mr Ewen in his Weekly Stamp News informs us was bought by him and sold to Mr H.J. Crocker, being burnt along with the rest of the latter's collection of British stamps in the San Francisco collection. The Tapling copy is therefore unique." (The KGV 'AB' and 'AC' not bought until WWI of course)


So the undoubted facts are, we have a well-connected Barrister owned a mint Plate 77, (almost certainly lettered 'AA') that later was destroyed by fire in the USA. 'William Hughes-Hughes started collecting in 1859 and ceased in 1874. GB Penny Reds were printed in this exact period. So he obtained it during this period.

William Hughes-Hughes was a leading Barrister, he himself told the Stanley Gibbons Monthly Journal in January 1896 that his entire stamp collection he sold for £3000 to Stanley Gibbons in 1896 had cost him only cost him £69 as most of his stamps had been obtained "through influential connections". Barristers are the most cautious of beasts.

It is a direct quote from him, and clearly he had nothing to hide re accepting freebies from insiders. This is an era when Police proceedings had taken place to reclaim a copy of the still unrecorded Plate 70 - as clearly stated in the Perkins Bacon handbook.

Thomas Tapling, another foremost collector of his time, started collecting in 1865. He also had an ‘unused’ plate 77 stamp 'BA' around the time they were current.

If 'AA' was the destroyed by fire copy in 1906, that started with it being given to William Hughes-Hughes as we know was the case, common sense tells us that 'BB' and 'BC' copies likely vanished around the same time.

A really irregular block of 4 seems less likely to have been 'lifted', than one of SIX - and see Ormond Hill's direct request to PB in post below asking for SIX of all the early and VERY valuable already Crown Colony stamps be reprinted for him, and supplied FREE to him, around this time 'for his collector friends'

[Global Admin]

Perhaps Tapling and Hughes-Hughes etc, were friends of Ormond Hill?

He clearly had a documented proven history of actively soliciting STAMP FREEBIES from Perkins Bacon, just BEFORE Plate 77 was made, of known to be VERY valuable stamps for “two or three of my friends who are collectors.”

Ormond Hill, as early as 1861 (that we have written records of - just BEFORE Plate 77 was made!) made the following ‘irregular’ requests from Perkins Bacon, as outlined in Percy De Worms work “Beginning of the End” which offer clear evidence that firstly, serious stamp collecting was certainly being practised at that time, and secondly, that irregular transactions were taking place for collectors via ''friends in high places''.

The more I read of the background and official records, the more convinced I am, that the MINT Plate 77 copies were distributed by Ormond Hill to buddies. The obvious images we have of used copies like 'PH' that do not match the mint copies in their '77' lettering, and none of them matching the roller die, points to other Funny Business of some kind going on.


​Request made by Ormond Hill on the 18/4/1861

“Two or three of my friends who are collectors of Postage Stamps have asked me to procure for them specimens of new or uncommon stamps whenever I have it in my power.”
​

To which J B Bacon replied on the 24/4/1861:

“in reply I beg to state that I shall have much pleasure in complying with your request.”

​
This request asks for ‘uncommon’ stamps which clearly implies that collectors at that time understood their importance and value. Clearly, and very worryingly, Messrs Perkins Bacon were ready to oblige Mr Hill!

Leading Barrister ​William Hughes-Hughes, mentioned above, had an unused ‘Plate 77’ stamp in his collection - formed while these stamps were current, a most ‘uncommon’ stamp, and he states it was obtained for nothing "through influential connections" .... was he one of Ormond Hill’s ‘friends’?

Request made by Ormond Hill on the 24/4/1861

“I do not wish to give you the trouble of printing specially for me on any account.”

​This request is of great interest in that, did it imply that if Ormond Hill desired it, Perkins Bacon would have printed stamps especially for him?

​
Request made by Ormond Hill on the 1/11/1861

“I desired specimens for an Official collection and entirely for an official purpose.”


Ormond Hill's requests for Special Stamps from Perkins Bacon of course lost Perkins Bacon the entire Crown Agents account to Da La Rue - FOREVER, when PB obligingly reprinted early imperfs from the Colonies in blocks of 6, to give to Ormond Hill AT HIS SPECIFIC REQUEST, for his stamp collecting buddies.

PB applied a 'CANCELLED' handstamp to them, and SG list them for around £15,000 apiece these days.

Hill gave these to friends, and when the ''You Know What'' hit the fan, Ormond Hill then slithered back to the corny story they were in fact for an ''Official Collection''. Despite his earlier letter asking these to be supplied to him, stating they were for “two or three of my friends who are collectors”.

I have in stock the very finest Ormond Hill ''CANCELLED'' 6d NSW Imperf in stock (above - the Royal Collection example is very badly damaged) indeed it was printed from the ORIGINAL PB plates - 15 years after it was issued! So 'Funny Business' most certainly did go on with Perkins Bacon and Ormond Hill, deliberately and knowingly creating very valuable things for collectors, and Hill's buddies - that much is crystal clear, and is very clearly detailed in the official correspondence.

For most of these Ormond Hill 'CANCELLED' reprints, only 4 examples exist, and one of those is usually in Royal Collection, but that is not always the case.

NSW 1854-60 6d Diadem Imperforate Plate Proof in Dull Brown without watermark, and with portion of 'CANCELLED' obliteration from Perkins Bacon. Position 6 from the block of 6 of these famous specimens prepared in 1861 for presentation to members of the Hill family. Ex 'Manwood' and Jaffe. Invoiced for $A20,000 at Jaffe sale in 2005, when the full SG cat for this was just £5,500. Today's SG is 3 times higher at £16,000.

Six examples each of the so-called 'Ormond Hill Specimens' were produced by Perkins Bacon for all of 'their' many Colonies, at the request of Ormond Hill, Rowland Hill's nephew and gifted to him, an action that resulted in the Agent for the Crown Colonies terminating Perkins Bacon's printing contracts, and demanding they hand back all printing plates and material they held.

The 'CANCELLED' handstamp was applied to blocks of 6 that were later separated, often with scissors or a blade, resulting in many of the individual stamps being cut-into or having trimmed perfs on one or more sides or being even worse damaged. (NB: for NSW, no issued stamps were available, so Plate Proofs retained by the printers Perkins Bacon were utilised - of which this is one)

Glen

[Global Admin]

More recent background on this Ormond Hill/Perkins Bacon scandal from Feldman's -


The Perkins Bacon “CANCELLED” Handstamp

by Ricky Verra - David Feldman, Switzerland | Jun 4, 2020 |

For this article, I will highlight the “CANCELLED” handstamps found on stamps gifted by Perkins Bacon.

Peter Jaffé’s seminal book, “CANCELLED by Perkins Bacon”, gives a detailed account about this fascinating story, which led to Perkins Bacon being stripped of their printing contracts for the Crown Agents.

The story begins in 1861 with Ormond Hill, nephew of Sir Rowland Hill, with a letter he sent to Joshua Butters Bacon, the head of Perkins Bacon, requesting any remainder stamps he may have for “two or three of my friends who are collectors”.

Bacon was more than happy to comply with Ormond’s request, and stated in his reply that “the Queensland and others as we now have, as well as any made hereafter, shall be sent agreeably to your wishes”, and even offered more than 4 of each if needed. Hill, obviously very keen to get a hold of these stamps, replied the same day asking for six of each.

A few months later, six “obliterated impressions” of each of all the postage stamps they still held were sent to Pearson Hill, son of Sir Rowland Hill, with the suggestion to take two of each for himself and Rowland and forward the rest to Ormond.

Within two months of this sending, things turned sour as Air Penrose Julyan, the Agent General for the Crown Colonies, got wind of this arrangement, and took great offence, as indicated in a letter from Perkins Bacon to Pearson: “ (Penrose Julyan) considered it a culpable act on our part”, and that he said they “should never let a single impression go out of our hands in any state whatever”. The letter finishes with Perkins Bacon expressing incredulity about what they had done.

Ormond Hill responded with annoyance at this news, and seemingly changed his story by explaining in his response that he desired the stamps “for an Official collection and entirely for an official purpose.” He offered to return the stamps, but just as quickly then asked if Perkins Bacon had any objection to him giving away “any of the superfluous impressions”; which he evidently did.

The final line of his letter raises questions though as to the number of each stamp he received, as he stated that “you will remember you sent me four of each kind in most cases”. Jaffé doesn’t suggest this, but it struck me that perhaps that was Ormond’s suggestive way of keeping two of each if indeed Perkins Bacon requested they be returned.

However with the examples that Jaffé has recorded, there is certainly the possibility that only four examples of some issues may have been sent to the Hill family.

The end result was that Sir Penrose Julyan insisted on the surrender of dies and plates that Perkins Bacon held for the British Colonies, which were transferred to him in August 1862, of which the majority were then passed on to De La Rue for further printings.

Stamps from 20 different British Colonies (plus Chile) have been recorded as being struck with this handstamp and sent to the Hill family.

Ormond Hill was cheerfully being handed as freebies that he requested, stamps already recognised as being rare. There were blocks 6 of the New Zealand 1855 Wmk Large Star Chalon set 3. showing the “CANCELLED” barred oval - all rare stamps with ANY cancel, and with this cancel is now £90,000 per set 3 in Gibbons. And absolutely no-one thought this was irregular in any way, until Sir Penrose Julyan got wind of it?

There were blocks 6 each of the New Zealand 1855 Wmk Large Star Chalon set 3. showing the “CANCELLED” barred oval - all rare stamps with ANY cancel, and with this cancel is now £90,000 per set 3 in SG.

So there we have it - Sir Penrose Julyan, the Agent-General for the Crown Colonies, became outraged when he became aware of what he believed to be underhand dealings, agreeing to Ormond Hill's cheeky request, calling the arrangement 'an act of culpability' on Perkins Bacon's behalf for ever agreeing to it.

He was quoted as saying that "not a single impression should ever go out of our hands in any state whatever". Perkins Bacon were aghast at what had taken place, accepting that the stamps – with or without the "cancelled" obliteration – were not theirs to release into the public domain.

Ormond Hill responded with annoyance at this news, claiming he wanted the stamps “for an official collection and entirely for an official purpose", although he did (sort of) offer to return them.

Joshua Butters Bacon, head of Perkins Bacon, himself shrugged off the affair on the grounds that the 'CANCELLED' stamps had been given to a ‘gentleman’. (And one who approved payments to Perkins Bacon for their work it seems clear!)

https://www.empirephilatelists.com/blog/jacob-perkins-and-th ... handstamps

Sir Penrose Julyan had no jurisdiction over the very regular contact that Ormond Hill had with Perkins Bacon for many years printing UK stamps. Perkins Bacon were billing the PO an absolute fortune for their stamps, and Ormond Hill seems to have been their main contact. One can imagine that a view prevailed from the PB top level, (and their actions support this) that whatever Hill asked for within reason, was to be agreed to.


And we still wonder how Plate 77s seem to have reached the market! Hmmmm.

Glen

[GB1840]

Printing for 'favours' is clearly recorded, although at the time of the request PB felt they were not doing anything underhand, but following a relatively straightforward request from the authorities, clearly unwise for them as it turned out. The stamps were cancelled to prevent fraudulent use and printed from existing unmodified plates which would not have presented any particular problem or cost to them.

However it's a big leap for them to have somehow modified an existing plate (73) to show a 77, print some specimens (that were not cancelled) for favour, and subsequently reverse the plate alteration back to 73.

To modify a plate would have been a very technically challenging exercise to undertake requiring a number of engineering processes (which need to be understood) and certainly would have been time consuming with consequent expense for PB, who were always very cost conscious.

An important point that has to be considered in the discussion is that It has been shown (although I don't know if Abed accepts this point or not) that the check letters of at least some of the accepted plate 77s (that have been examined in detail) do not match those from plate 73 or any other issued plate, this suggests to me that genuine examples from plate 77 do exist (most likely from a trial sheet pulled to check perforation alignment).

Whatever the truth of how Abed's stamps arose they are accepted as not being from the plate laid down as 77, but something else.

[Global Admin]

An important point that has to be considered in the discussion is that It has been shown (although I don't know if Abed accepts this point or not) that the check letters of at least some of the accepted plate 77s (that have been examined in detail) do not match those from plate 73 or any other issued plate, this suggests to me that genuine examples from plate 77 do exist (most likely from a trial sheet pulled to check perforation alignment).

Not sure if you have read this thread, but this was agreed a decade back by everyone, and no-one has disagreed since. Not sure why raising well documented ancient history is occurring? We need the stamp world to focus on ALL stamps with 77 on them. Little past attention has been on that. And there are clearly discrepancies there. Disregard the cover - the 'accepted' 77s do not match, and need more examination.

We can see for certain in posts this week, that the 'accepted' plate 77s certainly do NOT match each other, and none of them match the roller die, top arms of RH 7 are wildly wrong on all of them, so clearly there is far more to this than meets the eye. The few 'accepted' copies clearly came from different plates. No-one has disputed this.

What is clear is that PB and Ormond Hill were VERY cosy with each other, and Ormond Hill CERTAINLY asked in writing that they supply him with unusual and interesting 'uncommon' GB goodies for his mates in this era. Fact.

Do not forget Ormond Hill in Somerset House was approving MASSIVE accounts to PB for several DECADES. ''The piper plays the tune.''

Request made by Ormond Hill on the 18/4/1861

“Two or three of my friends who are collectors of Postage Stamps have asked me to procure for them specimens of new or uncommon stamps whenever I have it in my power.”
​

To which J B Bacon replied on the 24/4/1861:

“in reply I beg to state that I shall have much pleasure in complying with your request.”


I strongly suggest you and others read Percy de Worms publication on the CANCELLED stamps scandal. Where all the relevant correspondence is reproduced. Another letter is below.

AFTER PB were caught out on the CANCELLED scandal, they wrote to Hill saying they'd GLADLY DO IT AGAIN! And PB seemed miffed that Sir Penrose Julyan, the head of another British Government stamp issuing department, was annoying them with his 'petty' responses for handing out clearly rare and obsolete stamps as freebies to Hill. If they WROTE this stuff, and they clearly did, gawd knows what went on face to face.

[emason]

I don't see how PB could have supplied anything other than complete imperforate sheets to anyone, as they didn't perforate any GB sheets, only stamps for the Colonies.

PB supplied whole imperforate sheets to the Treasury who then did the perforating as only they had the Napier comb perforating machines. So any supply by favour of individual GB stamps, could only have come from the Treasury or one of its associated offices.

[Global Admin]

Perforation is pretty simple. GB 1d Reds were all perf 14. Perkins Bacon surely perforated many perf 14 Colonies issues.

[emason]

Perforation is pretty simple. GB 1d Reds were all perf 14. Perkins Bacon surely perforated many perf 14 Colonies issues.

The perforating machines that PB had were all line perforators for Colonial stamps. I have never heard of any QV GB stamp being found line perforated.

[Global Admin]

Back to GB - I recall reading the only way the 'accepted' Plate 77 sheets could have existed, was that one of the ungummed imperf sheets were mysteriously gummed and perforated a YEAR after it was rejected by Ormond Hill (!) and then part of that sheet/sheets had part of top row/s purloined, by persons unknown, with no records being made, and then part of same or other sheet/s magically found their way into normal sheet stock - despite the said top row/rows being missing. Correct in summary?

And these used '77'' numbers were not all matching the purloined mint copies. And none matched the roller die. Correct?

And the stamp world has glibly swallowed this for 120 years, as all just a happy accident and asked no questions?


The Plate 77 trial sheet, together with that from Plate 75 were rejected by Ormond Hill in a letter sent to Perkins Bacon dated 7th February 1863, over one year before this issue went to press.
​
Ormond Hill must have handled and rejected the Plate 77 trial sheet. This sheet (and any others) from this plate should have been destroyed. If, however, this trial sheet was not destroyed, then it would be one possible origin from which the 'accepted' Plate 77 stamps ‘may’ have come from.

Plate 77 was never registered or put to press, and no sheets from it exist in the British Postal Museum. Plate 77 was partially defaced on the 4th February 1864 before this issue was put to press.

If the imperf trial sheet, which should have been destroyed, was ‘officially’ released in error then it would have had first to have been stored ‘somewhere’ for over a year, and then ‘perforated and gummed’ and ‘officially’ released to the public on or after April 1864.



We KNOW that top margin ungummed copies (below) were purloined from many imperf sheets. Why not the 77? We are asked to believe the IMPERF sheet was uniquely, hidden away for over a year, for reasons unknown and unrecorded, and then went to Somerset House to be GUMMED AND PERFORATED. Despite being a clearly rejected laid out plate.

OK ... let's suppose it did, to be open-minded. Then why did the Mint AB and AC from the top row NOT have the top margin selvedge, as was the fashion, and was the logical way to break up a sheet, if a Big Shot nicked or canoodled or begged them??

It makes no sense at all. Indeed, why not liberate a stamp leaving intact the marginal imprint wordings as all these below were? The OBVIOUS stamps to take off any top of sheet. We KNOW the Mint 'AC' told sold to Nissen/Allen did NOT have the top margin. We KNOW the King's stamp 'AB' did not have it either. BOTH of course had imprint wording above them, as can be seen from these other early Plate Numbers. Bizarre.

Why did the perforated mint AB and AC MINT Plate 1d Red 77s NOT have the top marginal imprint wording?? WHY would they ever have been torn off?

​I have not read this book - has anyone? Does it get into detail on 1d Red Plates?

[GB1840]

The book briefly describes these stamps and illustrates BA, but it does not go into much more detail than that stated elsewhere. It suggests in the interests of economy part of poorly perforated sheets could have been issued with the balance destroyed.

It would be reasonable that at least one trial sheet was printed and perforated from plate 77 in order for it to have been checked for alignment.

I agree further research should also be concentrated on the accepted 77s, we do not have good images of many, but it has been shown (e.g. Ref. GBJ 48/2 for one article on the subject) from the analysis of the check letter positions of the mint copies that these do not come from any other issued plate and therefore it is reasonable to conclude these did print from plate 77.

[Global Admin]

GB1840 - thanks, had not seen this book and wondered how detailed it got.

Your comment that PART sheets might have been issued for sale is also most interesting.

Agree it makes logical sense Ormond Hill saw a perforated sheet of '77' early on, in order to pronounce that it perforated poorly. It was revenue - what happened to it? Surely normal policy was to keep it on file?

We actually do have good images of several '77' copies thankfully.

I never was certain if BA and AB were from an original purloined mint block. I guess all have simply ASSUMED so, as that was an easy assumption to make. And for a century PH was also ASSUMED to be from the same sheet, or at least the same plate, when clearly it was not.

Scott Treacey, Pertinax agreed here this is the case, withdrawing his early comment here that it MUST have identical shape 77 numbers to be from same plate, and one deformed '7' is clearly nothing even remotely like the others.

From these very clear images we have below, it appears not even on the mint copies, and again neither detail matches the roller die for 77.

I agree with you that they do not appear to match any other plate. So the easy assumption for any of us to make is 'they therefore must be from 77'.

But personally I do not agree we can safely just blindly assume they were from '77' as the clear images prove they are not. No dashes in the number diamond is very relevant, and the top arms of first 7 on RH side that looks like a '1' just simply cannot be from the 77 Die that exists.

Not all mysteries in life have simple and neat solutions.

I agree further research should also be concentrated on the 'accepted' 77s

Agree again, and images like this are doing just that I believe.

GB 1d Red alleged Plate 77 mint stamps that differ from each other.

[GB1840]

We KNOW that top margin ungummed copies (below) were purloined from many imperf sheets. Why not the 77? We are asked to believe the IMPERF sheet was uniquely, hidden away for over a year, for reasons unknown and unrecorded, and then went to Somerset House to be GUMMED AND PERFORATED. Despite being a clearly rejected laid out plate.

OK ... let's suppose it did, to be open-minded. Then why did the Mint AB and AC from the top row NOT have the top margin selvedge, as was the fashion, and was the logical way to break up a sheet, if a Big Shot nicked or canoodled or begged them??

It makes no sense at all. Indeed, why not liberate a stamp leaving intact the marginal imprint wordings as all these below were? The OBVIOUS stamps to take off any top of sheet. We KNOW the Mint 'AC' told sold to Nissen/Allen did NOT have the top margin. We KNOW the King's stamp 'AB' did not have it either. BOTH of course had imprint wording above them, as can be seen from these other early Plate Numbers. Bizarre.

Imprimaturs were removed from the registration sheets at various times, by official warrants from 1883 through to 1934, these removals being described in some detail in the book by Alan Druce. In all there were a total of 8 removals with a number of sets handed out each time, in 1883 for example 12 copies were removed from each sheet to form collections.

If a trial sheet from plate 77 was pulled it would have to have been then perforated at the time, in order to check the alignment (and there being no imperforate registration sheet) so it would be more likely for the selvedge to have been removed at some point depending on when and how they leaked out.

[mozzerb]

We KNOW that top margin ungummed copies (below) were purloined from many imperf sheets. Why not the 77? We are asked to believe the IMPERF sheet was uniquely, hidden away for over a year, for reasons unknown and unrecorded, and then went to Somerset House to be GUMMED AND PERFORATED. Despite being a clearly rejected laid out plate.

OK ... let's suppose it did, to be open-minded. Then why did the Mint AB and AC from the top row NOT have the top margin selvedge, as was the fashion, and was the logical way to break up a sheet, if a Big Shot nicked or canoodled or begged them??

It makes no sense at all. Indeed, why not liberate a stamp leaving intact the marginal imprint wordings as all these below were? The OBVIOUS stamps to take off any top of sheet. We KNOW the Mint 'AC' told sold to Nissen/Allen did NOT have the top margin. We KNOW the King's stamp 'AB' did not have it either. BOTH of course had imprint wording above them, as can be seen from these other early Plate Numbers. Bizarre.

Imprimaturs were removed from the registration sheets at various times, by official warrants from 1883 through to 1934, these removals being described in some detail in the book by Alan Druce. In all there were a total of 8 removals with a number of sets handed out each time, in 1883 for example 12 copies were removed from each sheet to form collections.

If a trial sheet from plate 77 was pulled it would have to have been then perforated at the time, in order to check the alignment (and there being no imperforate registration sheet) so it would be more likely for the selvedge to have been removed at some point depending on when and how they leaked out.

Don't recall seeing this before -- I just got an email to say a new post had been made, over a year after it happened! Email holdups seem to be an annoying "feature" of phpBB boards these days. Anyway, GB1840 was correct.

The copies later removed from the registration ("imprimatur") sheets are basically irrelevant to plate 77, for the simple reason that there never was a plate 77 registration sheet. Such a sheet was only taken and filed away once the plate had been accepted for printing, and 77 wasn't. There's no registration sheet for the other plates that weren't used either (indeed in those cases no surviving prints).

It's unlikely that any record of exactly what happened will turn up after all this time, but a reasonable guess at a scenario would be:

One or more pulls from plate 77 were run through the perforator at Somerset House as a standard test, and it was decided that the plate was too poorly laid out overall to be acceptable. Parts of the sheet(s) that were not too bad were put into stock and eventually issued (hence the used copies).

Ormond Hill (or some other official) retained a block or part sheet of the perforated stamps that weren't issued, I suspect probably just to use as an example in some record of how PB were screwing up (this being the fourth out of the last nine plates to be rejected after 69, 70 and 75, although the last one for some time). At some point when collectors started taking an interest -- possibly many years later -- Hill (or whoever) recalled that these stamps existed, and did a friend or friends a favour by taking a block of four out (hence the mint copies).

None of this would have any obvious connection to plate 73 being "edited" to read 77 sometime in 1864-65 and then changed back again. Quite apart from the technical challenges involved, I've never seen any remotely credible scenario for why such a thing would have been done.

[twinklefeet]

None of this would have any obvious connection to plate 73 being "edited" to read 77 sometime in 1864-65 and then changed back again. Quite apart from the technical challenges involved, I've never seen any remotely credible scenario for why such a thing would have been done.

Agreed 100%.

So is the coincidence of it being handled by none other than Victor Hugo! Come on now, out of All the peasants who faded into oblivion, what really would be the chance of THREE Penny red plate 77's gracing the hands of the most famous celebrity in Europe in that Moment?

That's like Einstein posting out inverted Jenny's to his aunty!

veritas vincit

-TF (‘’,)

[Global Admin]

Whom the part cover was addressed by, has absolutely NO connection to the plate numbers thereon.

You have READ this thread 'twinklefeet'? Clearly the answer is NO.

This part cover was owned, and discussed, and even expertised, for over a decade, when the owner, and all others had zero idea to whom it was addressed, much less whose handwriting it bore.

In isolation could YOU determine from the cover fragment above, WHO it was addressed to - of course not. The street name has changed totally in the interim 160 years.

Only some clever detective work, years after it was first expertised and discussed here, was the address deciphered, which was to a book publisher in Belgium. An obvious fact if you had READ this thread.

A bit of googling revealed that this publisher handled Victor Hugo's material. An enquiry to Sotheby’s Paris handwriting expert, Mr. Adrien Legendre, Spécialiste en Livres & Manuscrits, confirmed without doubt, that the distinctive hand was of Victor Hugo, who was exiled in Belgium, then Jersey, then Guernsey, due to the very real fears Napoleon III might dispose of him etc, based on his scathing public views on Napoleon.

All of which you'd know if you'd actually read this thread 'twinklefeet'. If it was addressed to 'Fred Smith' the undoubted '77' plate numbers are unchanged. You'd also know if you had bothered to read the thread, that a lot of letters written by Victor Hugo still exist.

This quite spectacular cover which sold last year by Spink, was sent and signed by Victor Hugo - I guess you also feel this one is a fabrication of some kind?

Wrong again.

1/- was the highest face value then printed in the UK, so 13 of them were needed. Not philatelic in any way. I am annoyed I did not buy it, as it sold very cheaply IMHO.

From the Spink Auction description -

1855 (10 Jan.) large parcel label to Paris bearing 1847-54 Embossed 1/- (14) and 6d. cancelled by "409" numerals and with Jersey despatch c.d.s. at left - sent by Victor Hugo when he was exiled in Jersey with his autograph address.

The 1/- stamps are in three strips of four and a pair with slightly mixed margins and a few with the edges cut-to-shape; bears a very good strike of the distinctive Jersey crowned "registered" strike in black (the earliest of only two known example in black) plus a second strike which has been partly covered by one of the adhesives, there is also a London tall type crowned "registered" in red and "P-D" in oval, French "chargé" in red along with a Calais transit c.d.s.

Addressed to Madame de Girardin at Pavillon Marbeuf and with handwritten note across the lower corner which translates, 'The postal service can dispense itself from opening this packet, as it only contains absolutely insignificant drawings' and with the bold signature "Victor Hugo".

Sent by Book Post, the rate being 2/- for the first 32 ounces and 6d. for each additional 8 ounces, adding the 6d. for registration, the package weighed between 6½ and 7 pounds. A stunning and highly important document, holding inestimable significance to a variety of collectors. This is the earliest recorded use of the Jersey registered handstamp in black and one of the largest known frankings of the 1/- Embossed stamp; also a highly significant item for the document or 'Les Miserables' ephemera collector.

Madame Girardin exercised considerable personal influence in contemporary literary society, and in her drawing-room were often to be found Théophile Gautier, Honoré de Balzac, Alfred de Musset and Victor Hugo. When Victor Hugo was exiled to Jersey she came from Paris on an extended visit to see him in September 1853. Judging by the date, it would seem certain that this package would have carried a manuscript for his most famous novel, Les Miserables.

[Global Admin]

At some point when collectors started taking an interest -- possibly many years later -- Hill (or whoever) recalled that these stamps existed, and did a friend or friends a favour by taking a block of four out (hence the mint copies).

Well clearly at least it seems a mint block of SIX (not 4) was purloined, based on the corner letters we know of in mint. 'AA' was presumably Philbrick/Crocker and burnt in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. They did own a mint copy, (which Gibbons sold) but sadly the lettering has never been confirmed, and 'AA' is simply an assumption. We do know for sure it had no gum - odd if it was purloined from the archives. Ditto 'BA' - no gum.

AB and AC were not even known to exist until 1918 and1919 - some 55 years after the sheet was printed. later. When they both mysteriously were sold to the trade in London within a few months. Hmmmm.

'AB' has only bare traces of some gum that cannot be stated to be original gum, 'AC' we know has part gum, and we also know 'BA' has NO gum as did 'AA' or whatever lettering the Crocker copy had. Even weirder.

If a trial sheet from plate 77 was pulled it would have to have been then perforated at the time, in order to check the alignment (and there being no imperforate registration sheet) so it would be more likely for the selvedge to have been removed at some point depending on when and how they leaked out.

We know the top left block as all existing units CUT APART with scissors.

WHY - if a corner block from a sheet, was the selvedge not retained on 2 sides? And why do most of the mint copies have no gum?

[mozzerb]

We know the top left block as all existing units CUT APART with scissors.

WHY - if a corner block from a sheet, was the selvedge not retained on 2 sides? And why do most of the mint copies have no gum?

No gum would actually be a point in favour of it being a test sheet -- the registration sheets weren't gummed either.

As to the absent selvedge/scissor cuts, it can only be speculation, but a reasonable speculative guess would be that it was because the margin was stuck down in some file (which maybe would explain the missing gum too). Weirdly, cutting rather than tearing the perforations wasn't all that unusual -- you quite often see Victorian GB stamps with trimmed perforations (and there were probably plenty more that were discarded by early collectors as damaged). I suppose it must have felt more convenient, although I don't see why.

[Global Admin]

SG are auctioning this pretty ugly example in July est £70,000-90,000.

https://thestrand.com/auctions/calendar/list#/lots/eea53c65- ... 20Part%201


Description:

1864 1d Rose red Pl.77. Fine used example of this famous stamp lettered LL lightly cancelled by a London District "80" numeral, clipped perfs at top and left yet despite this it is a very fresh and highly desirable example with cancellation clear of plate numbers. One of the three surviving examples in private hands. An Iconic stamp of Great Britain and World philately. RPSL Certificate (1914) Ex. Latto. Cat £600,000.

Discovered in Mr N V le Gallais in 1906 and passed to C.E.J. Crallan of Jersey who sent it to the RPSL for certification. The certificate is dated December 14 1914 and signed by E.D. Bacon. The stamp was donated by Crallan and sold in the Daily Telegraph stamp auction in London on 28 September 1915 by Puttick and Simpson. The sale was in aid of the Belgian Relief Fund, raised £50 and was purchased by W.S. Brocklehurst.

It was sold again in 1955 by Robson Lowe, Lot 635, 9/10 November, Sales 1474­77 and again at Robson Lowe sale on 10 May 1966 where it made £375. It was owned by Dr Latto who exhibited it in 1974, it then passed onto John Phillips who purchased the item pre-sale via Vessey auctions in 1987 where a price of £18,000 was agreed between John Phillips and Dr Latto the stamp was then withdrawn from the sale, John only displayed the stamp once, to The Great Britain Philatelic Society in 2010.

Country:

GREAT BRITAIN
SG Number:

43

[Global Admin]

The good thing about the 'LL' stamp emerging after 50 years, is that we now have a clear image of it. Up to now all we had was a fuzzy black and white image from a newspaper or sale catalogue.

Let's back this up a bit.

The accepted story that seems to be is agreed is that a few trial pulls were made of
the newly made Plate 77, and they were perforated to check the final appearance. correct?

It was deemed the plate was not laid down precisely enough and the finished perforated sheets were deemed too badly centred to sell, and this (and some other) plates were not proceeded with for general printing. Correct?

In theory none of these sheets were sold, but it is speculated they worked their way into general stock. Correct?

Right so far?

So, we are talking of stamps that must have almost imprimatur sharpness, early plate impressions here. Correct?

The 3 mint copies we have good images of. Judge Philbrick described them as having 'very fine impressions'. We can clearly see that. Correct?

Now we see detail of letter 'LL' which has a RPSL Cert from 110 years back, and no other Cert. WHY? When did SG last offer a GB stamp at £90,000 est, with a 110 year old Cert? Maybe they had them take a look and were told not to bother formally submitting. VERY odd.

No way is this stamp from same plate as the 3 mint copies. It has been posted MANY times here the crappy and ancient images of the used copies was hindering real comparisons.

Does anyone here agree these close ups of 'LL' demonstrate a sharp, proof like impression? I think NOT!

This blow up is from the mega size image on SG site offering superb detail.

The diadem detail on this compared to the AB example are WORLD's apart. You cannot ever discern the Pearls as they are so heavily worn. And the top ornaments - Thistle etc can barely be made out.

There is no way known these were from the same sheet. This 'LL' plate had made a million or so impressions I'd suggest.

[Global Admin]

And keen eyes will certainly be looking at the right-hand second 7.

Funny that area to the right of it seems SUCH a deeper colour. Hmmmm.

[GB 789]

The deeper colour around the plate number is purely coincidental in this case - look at the varying degrees of light to dark red patches behind the queen’s head and around ‘POSTAGE’.

I have collected the 1d red stars and plates issues for many years and this is perfectly normal variance of shading on these stamps.

Added into this is that this stamp has been known about for well over a century. Any ‘faking shenanigans would have been carried out previous to this with primitive technology back then and would now be easily detected by modern technology. This has not been the case which is why this stamp will have no problem selling whereas the stamp that started this thread off certainly will do.

The fact that this SG plate 77 does have 110 years of provenance adds massively to its appeal. Any ‘new’ plate 77 finds are always going to be suspect because of the modern technological ability to create such fakes.

I really don’t think these two examples of ‘potential’ plate 77 can be compared in any meaningful way. One is accepted by the majority of the philatelic community and one is subject to very fierce debate!

[GB1840]

I guess any potential buyer can request an extension for a new certificate prior to bidding, but the current one signed by EDB has good authority.

It would be a relatively straightforward exercise to confirm that the check letters do not match those from any other issued plate (this probably has already been performed before but we now have a better scan) and if this is the case it would provide strong support for it being genuine.

[Global Admin]

Philip Kinns of Gibbons (the seller) is a member of the BPA Expertising Committee so why was it not presented to them for a current Cert??

Answer - as even Blind Freddie can see 'LL' was NOT printed at the same time from the same sharp new plates as the 3 mint '77' copies. Even you do not contest this.

I actually doubt it has been faked (and the BPA, or anyone else, can very readily determine if those corner letters match other plates) - but the obvious fact remains 'LL' is a muddy heavily worn impression, from a much used plate - WHY? Who knows. It is technically 'impossible'. This is why the BPA has not issued a current Cert I'd suggest - they are not fools.

Same as the 3 stamps on the Victor Hugo cover - we can see WHAT they are, and all 3 RECENT Expert Certs, using modern technology, (not a 110 year old one) clearly agree they are not tampered with in any way. What went on?

THAT is what this thread is all about, and 'LL' simply adds fuel to the fire, that something odd was occurring.

So, we are talking of Mint stamps that must have almost imprimatur sharpness, early plate impressions here. Correct?

The 3 mint copies we have good images of. Judge Philbrick described them as having 'very fine impressions'. We can clearly see that. Correct?

Now we see detail of letter 'LL' which has a RPSL Cert from 110 years back, and no other Cert. WHY? When did SG last offer a SG stamp at £60,000, with a 110 year old Cert? Maybe they had them take a look and were told not to bother formally submitting. VERY odd.

No way is this stamp from same plate as the 3 mint copies. It has been posted MANY times here the crappy and ancient images of the used copies was hindering real comparisons.

Does anyone here agree these close ups of 'LL' demonstrate a sharp, proof like impression? I think NOT!

This blow up is from the mega size image on SG site offering superb detail.

The diadem detail on this compared to the AB example are WORLD's apart. You cannot ever discern the Pearls as they are so heavily worn. And the top ornaments - Thistle etc can barely be made out.

There is no way known these were from the same sheet. This 'LL' plate had made a million or so impressions I'd suggest.

[pertinax]

I guess any potential buyer can request an extension for a new certificate prior to bidding, but the current one signed by EDB has good authority.

It would be a relatively straightforward exercise to confirm that the check letters do not match those from any other issued plate (this probably has already been performed before but we now have a better scan) and if this is the case it would provide strong support for it being genuine.

What will rule out (probably all) of the issued plates, very quickly and without needing to look at checkletter positions, is that narrow space between stamp LL and stamp ML below, that is now more obvious on the large image.

When I saw this I immediately checked it against the registration sheet for plate 73 - no match.

Scott

[satsuma]

And keen eyes will certainly be looking at the right-hand second 7.

Funny that area to the right of it seems SUCH a deeper colour. Hmmmm.

The size of the second 7's crossbar is also substantially greater than that of the first 7.

[emason]

The LL stamp wasn't discovered until 1906 - 42 years after being printed. During that time anything could have happened to it to account for its present condition. As an unloved poor example it might have been at the bottom of the proverbial budgie's cage for all we know.

[Global Admin]

Funny that area to the right of it seems SUCH a deeper colour. Hmmmm.

The size of the second 7's crossbar is also substantially greater than that of the first 7.

And sharp eyes will of course have focused on the lack of dashes next to the right hand 7s on the mint.

No-one seems to have here yet. They MUST appear if printed from plate 77.

This is like those newspaper 'spot the difference' puzzles.

One can now see why the BPA likely rejected the idea of a new Certificate.

[mozzerb]

One can now see why the BPA likely rejected the idea of a new Certificate.

Yes, they were obviously told to by the Bavarian Illuminati (who of course take their orders from the Boy Scouts, but everyone knows that).

... what? Hey, if you're going to pull conspiracy theories out of your backside, might as well be baroque about it.

[GB1840]

Surely any request for a new certificate would be at the request of the current owner (or a potential buyer as mentioned before) and is not the auctioneer's responsibility?

[Global Admin]

Many years ago I was advised that the position of the downward leg of the '7' in relation to the concentric circles at the sides of the stamp are a key aid in identifying plate 77.

In a genuine Plate 77, these point directly at the lowest point where the concentric circles intersect. On the other plates they simply do not.

Indeed, as illustrated here:

On the 77 the foot of the 7s pretty much hits the precise intersection of the white curved white lines below.

On 177 the foot is slightly further left.

Scott

The 'LL' with the ancient 110 year old Cert, and with a fuzzy heavily worn plate impression, clearly does not conform to this 'rule'.

Apart from the dashes beside '7' anomaly, that no-one has addressed!

[GB1840]

The LL stamp wasn't discovered until 1906 - 42 years after being printed. During that time anything could have happened to it to account for its present condition. As an unloved poor example it might have been at the bottom of the proverbial budgie's cage for all we know.

Another possibility is the plate on press was not fully bedded in at the time the sheet was pulled, it took time on press for this to occur as reported by PB with early sheets often being rejected prior to an acceptable registration sheet being printed. Clearly the plate was rejected very early with few sheets printed.

[mozzerb]

Here's an extract of LLs from the images of the registration sheets on The Postal Museum site for all the plates from 71 to 98 (the last plate registered before the date of the Hugo cover, if you were wondering). I've also added 177 and the 77 image as close as I can get to matching size. Compare away.

From a quick look the narrow gap to ML in the Latto/Phillips copy doesn't seem to fit with any of them.(Could have been faked from some other plate in the range 99-225 of course, but the natural starting point if you're going to do this is either 177 or a stamp in the range 71-79.

(Looking at the registration sheet images, it was quite notable just how poor the alignment still was on these early 1864 issue plates. The impressions were visibly "drifting" upwards from left to right as you approached the L column.)















Best I can do for size. The image EXIF info says they're 430dpi, although I have my doubts about the accuracy of that -- pixel size for the image of the whole sheet is about 2000x3500, while a scan of an A4 page at 300dpi is about 2500x3500. Yes, this is annoyingly small and TPM need to get higher resolution images made.

(Note: these images are stored in the "general random files" folder on the GBPS site, as phpBB seemed keen to add a linebreak after each one when I tried to inline them as attachments. There may well be a workaround if anyone wants to faff around looking for it, but otherwise, someone may want to convert them to uploads in the Stampboards image folders. I'll leave them in the GBPS folder indefinitely, but I can't guarantee they won't get deleted at some point.)

[pertinax]

Yes not only is the gap below to ML noticeably narrow, ML also seems to be placed further to the left than it should be.

Scott

[emason]

The left side of the NE square of ML seems to extend upwards into the margin between it and LL.
This should help in any comparison with other plates.

[Global Admin]

Yes not only is the gap below to ML noticeably narrow, ML also seems to be placed further to the left than it should be.

Scott

Yes an astute observation. Checking the file imprimatur images, looking only at this alignment will very rapidly bring it down to a few possibilities, so the corner letters of those can then be checked.

Looking at the good images mozzerb posted above, makes it very quick to eliminate near all at a quick glance, due to this clear misalignment.