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

[Allanswood]

Has SG changed the coding on their website? I can't get a decent image to save it. My click to zoom does nothing and open in new window is blocked and "save image as" does not work.

[Global Admin]

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.

Funny how the 2 mint examples have superb sharp detail. As one would clearly expect from first prints off a brand new steel plate.

Images showing this detail very clearly are as follows -

Perkins Bacon advised the FIRST area to show wear on any plate was the hair and crown - all totally worn away to a blur on this 'LL' copy, that no-one here has agreed could come from a brand-new plate.

This plate is so badly worn that the diamonds and pearls and hair on the impression are largely worn away as clearly here from the sharp new SG scans. This stamp has NEVER been examined in detail before, as a rather blurry monocolour image was all that existed

The very heavy wear is beyond dispute. What SG are now auctioning was clearly NOT printed from the laid down '77' plate, that much is obvious. It is either a forgery, or a strange anomaly.

The Victor Hugo cover has 3 recent Expert Photo Certificates stating there are no alterations whatever to the SIX different '77' numbers or any tampering. Yet it plates to '73' - no-one disputes that. So we get back to the question as to 'HOW and WHY and WHEN'.

'LL' will never get a CURRENT BPA or RPSL Certificate as a genuine Plate 77. Which is why it is offered with a 110 year old one estimated £70,000 - £90,000 as a badly mutilated single.

'LL' was in fact the FIRST used '77' copy discovered, so there was nothing the RPSL had to readily compare it too, when they issued a Certificate 110 years back.

If they had bothered to check the transfer roller die impressions in the British Library they'd have seen the horizontal dashes before each '7' were absent on 'LL' as clearly shown on previous page here, meaning it cannot have come from the original '77' plate. IMPOSSIBLE.

The heavy plate wear on 'LL' also of course discounts it from being a pull from any newly completed plate.

ALL other 'used' copies of '77' were discovered after this 'LL' stamp.

'They surely could have compared it to the mint copies AB/AC' we may logically suggest. WRONG. THEY had never appeared anywhere when the RPS expertised this 'LL' - 110 years back!

The purchase of mint '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 mint '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.

Both had originally been a joined pair. 'AB' was almost certainly flogged to middlemen dealer Bridger and Kay, by the very same mystery man, who approached Nissen unannounced at his shop, who then bought 'AC' after conducting 'tests' on it, to ensure that number 7 was not painted on etc.

Both clearly having been a joined pair from sources unknown. Both these mint examples FIRST sold some 60 years after the issue date of the Plate 77 stamps. And many years AFTER the first 'used' copy appeared - this new Gibbons offered 'LL'.

Glen


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 was asked to be Keeper Of The Royal Collection (by Wilson) when Sir John Wilson retired.

He 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.

[Allanswood]

Just for comparison and to record better images of Plate 77, I have found a better (larger and more true to life) image of the "Fletcher" example PH now in the British Library Collection.

Did someone say that the '7''s should all intersect the crossing of the curved lines?

The Fletcher Plate 77 PH Penny Red

I think we now have decent coloured examples of all known.

[Global Admin]

Did someone say that the '7''s should all intersect the crossing of the curved lines?

Yes pertinax stated this was a clear test - neither this 'LL' or the 'PH' can be Plate 77s.

The 'PH' was a gift and has no cert, and 'LL' has a 110 year old 'Cert' issued before the mint and other used copies had been discovered.

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'.

[GB1840]

Current bid in the SG auction is £95,000 with the sale opening in 7 hours or so, so above the higher estimate already.

[Global Admin]

Current bid in the SG auction is £95,000 with the sale opening in 7 hours or so, so above the higher estimate already.

As P.T. Barnum said - 'there is a sucker born every minute.'

Over $200,000 (so far) for a highly defective dogggggggggggggggggggggggggggg.

Not ONE person here has disputed the following -

The very heavy wear is beyond dispute. What SG are now auctioning was clearly NOT printed from the laid down '77' plate, that much is obvious. It is either a forgery, or a strange anomaly.

The Victor Hugo cover has 3 recent Expert Photo Certificates stating there are no alterations whatever to the SIX different '77' numbers, or any tampering whatever. Yet it plates to '73' - no-one disputes that. So we get back to the question as to 'HOW and WHY and WHEN'.

'LL' will never get a CURRENT BPA or RPSL Certificate as a genuine Plate 77. Which is why it is offered with a 110 year old one estimated £70,000 - £90,000 as a badly mutilated single.

'LL' was in fact the FIRST used '77' copy discovered, so there was nothing the RPSL had to readily compare it too, when they issued a Certificate 110 years back.

If they had bothered to check the transfer roller die impressions in the British Library they'd have seen the horizontal dashes before each '7' were absent on 'LL' as clearly shown on previous page here, meaning it cannot have come from the original '77' plate. IMPOSSIBLE.

The heavy plate wear on 'LL' also of course discounts it from being a pull from any newly completed plate.

ALL other 'used' copies of '77' were discovered after this 'LL' stamp.

'They surely could have compared it to the mint copies AB/AC' we may logically suggest. WRONG. THEY had never appeared anywhere when the RPS expertised this 'LL' - 110 years back!

[Global Admin]

And no-one has disputed this -

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.

[mozzerb]

Current bid in the SG auction is £95,000 with the sale opening in 7 hours or so, so above the higher estimate already.

As P.T. Barnum said - 'there is a sucker born every minute.'

Over $200,000 (so far) for a highly defective dog.

Not ONE person here has disputed the following -

It wasn't worth the effort. You do you.

(Oh okay, one point. Given the discussion about spacing compared to the other plates above, what plate do you think this LL was modified from? It's not 73, so are we supposed to assume Perkins Bacon were merrily changing the numbers on more than one plate to 77?)

As for the bidders, if they have any sense they will have asked for an extension for a new certificate. And yes, it's in horrible condition, but for a famous rarity you often have no choice about that if you want one.

[Global Admin]

Is this 'LL' example a 'famous rarity'?

I think not.

Simply another 'mystery' like the Victor Hugo cover.

It has not had a remotely clear image for a half century, and now we do, it clearly is not printed from a sharp new plate. NO-ONE here has disputed that obvious reality. The 7s do not align within the diamonds as they MUST.

Vendor and SG do not have to agree to any Extension, seeing it is offered 'with a Cert'. And I'd suggest they will not agree to that Extension.

BPA very clearly do not like it, and the RPS will run a million miles before they touch another 'Plate 77' submission, after their last catastrophic train wreck! Their childish deliberation - 'Sumwum glood on da numbahs' and clumsy backflip, will not be forgotten for decades.

[GB1840]

Current bid in the SG auction is £95,000 with the sale opening in 7 hours or so, so above the higher estimate already.

Not ONE person here has disputed the following -

The very heavy wear is beyond dispute. What SG are now auctioning was clearly NOT printed from the laid down '77' plate, that much is obvious. It is either a forgery, or a strange anomaly.


The heavy plate wear on 'LL' also of course discounts it from being a pull from any newly completed plate.

Since plates took time to bed down on a press the first sheets printed were often rejected until an acceptable whole sheet was printed, therefore the appearance of this example may be explained by being from a partly poorly printed early sheet.

[Global Admin]

Since plates took time to bed down on a press the first sheets printed were often rejected until an acceptable whole sheet was printed, therefore the appearance of this example may be explained by being from a partly poorly printed early sheet.

April 1 was months back. You ARE kidding right?

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.

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.

[mozzerb]

Is this 'LL' example a 'famous rarity'?

I think not.

A "Plate 77 penny red" is a famous rarity, one of the "iconic" GB stamps. If it wasn't, only specialists would care about the cover this thread is about in the first place.

[satsuma]

Perhaps I've taken an untoward liberty here, but I heartily dislike scans of rarities that are not square to the image.

Here is the image straightened, and with some of the aging to the colour reversed. An interesting aspect is now obvious, namely the placement of the bottom right L compared to the one above it.

LL Plate 77

[Allanswood]

I don't understand you Satsuma, all the corner letters were individually hand punched.

[pertinax]

I don't understand you Satsuma, all the corner letters were individually hand punched.

Yeah, I don't understand why it's 'an interesting aspect' either.

Scott

[satsuma]

Well, I was under the impression that the experts could quite often pick the plate of these stamps from the alignment of the letters.

I hadn't noticed how poorly aligned it was from the original image, but did notice it once it was straightened.

If others have already considered this alignment insignificant then so be that.

However my understanding was also that this was the first time a reasonable quality image had been available and perhaps it had escaped notice.

[mozzerb]

The hand-punching means the position of the letters varies (slightly or obviously) from plate to plate. How the letters on a particular stamp in isolation align with each other doesn't really matter -- it only helps when you have something to compare to.

[Global Admin]

Satsuma the exact placements of the corner letter is HOW we know the Victor Hugo stamps all Plate to Plate 73.

But they all read '77'. HOW and WHEN that occurred at the printers, no one yet knows.

Three Expert Committees, and a raft of other science, state all 6 numbers on the cover are untampered with, and are unaltered. So they were never forged, but were printed thus by Perkins Bacon.

Which is why this 'LL' is a new mystery. Now that we have finally a good image after 50 years. We can now see it was printed from a heavily worn plate. So either someone has forged the '77' numbers, or the printer also changed them late in the life of the plate etc, for some reason.

Those are the only 2 sane conclusions. Refer Arthur Conan Doyle below.

Clearly 'LL' was never printed from a new plate of any kind. Everyone can see that. So it is no more 'a SG Catalogued 77' as are the Victor Hugo trio - not a soul here disputes that.

[Rigs]

Clearly it was never printed from a new plate of any kind. So it is no more 'an SG Catalogued 77' as are the Victor Hugo trio - not a soul here disputes that.

Well that’s not quite true.

Emason pointed out that anything could have happened to the LL in the 42 years between its printing and the certificate.

I.e to contribute to its well worn state, as you have often highlighted.

It could have been run over by a horse and carriage a dozen times for all we know.

Either way it is not conclusive, however unlikely.

.

[Global Admin]

Yes it might have spent 30 minutes in a Hoover Washing machine. The paper will have disintegrated within 60 seconds into tiny fragments of lint of course, but otherwise a total genius and world class brilliant theory.

Rough handling will not diminish all the finely engraved detail on the head and crown, and magically leave clear 77 plate numbers. Blind Freddie can see that.

Anything else humorous you can source from www.ClutchingAtStraws.com ?

It is a very roughy scissor trimmed charity mix single, printed from a heavily worn plate. We can all see that.

These are postage stamps. They are not metal COINS with 3 dimensional highly raised design high points in places that wear first with circulation and handling, metal to metal. They are flat paper.

A mint AB/BA '77' at the base of a junk box will RETAIN all the fine design lines - period. Yes, it might get torn or creased, but the sharp lines of design will remain.

THIS stamp below in a box of junk for years will RETAIN the fine printing detail - it is not a 3 dimensional metal coin - Bog Basic Philately - you think all those sharply printed pearls in the diadem just 'disappear' by some kind of Voodoo Magic, just by being in a duplicates box etc ???

A typical razor sharp impression from the brand new laid down plate '77'.


A fuzzy and heavily worn impression from a plate that has printed a million or more stamps, and all fine detail is long gone, as a Blind Nun can readily see. Remember this was taken from a super sharp hi-res image supplied by Gibbons Auctions - this is as sharp as the stamp is - i.e. plate is heavily worn in all areas!

[GB1840]

Since plates took time to bed down on a press the first sheets printed were often rejected until an acceptable whole sheet was printed, therefore the appearance of this example may be explained by being from a partly poorly printed early sheet.

April 1 was months back. You ARE kidding right?

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.

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.

Well I do know what the date is and was basing my comments on my understanding of the printing process as detailed in works such as by Alan Druce and Bacon which demonstrates what I was saying, namely it took time to settle a new plate at press before acceptable sheets were obtained, therefore it is not unreasonable that this stamp came from such a sheet, we know very few sheets were printed and it is unlikely the plate was ever properly settled on press.

[Global Admin]

If for one second you are trying to tell us this note indicates the initial prints from a brand new steel plate gave heavily worn and faded impressions typical of a million pass usage you are entitled to your bizarre opinion.

Bacon was *** NOT *** saying that at all.

[GB 789]

This stamp may well have survived for those first 40 years on a cover in some solicitors office locked away. This is a VERY likely explanation as regular lots of 1d reds on covers from solicitor/estate lots still come up for sale even today. It is certainly not unreasonable to argue this is the case for the bad shape of the stamp after spending 40 years in a smoky office environment.

This would explain the condition, particularly if it was roughly cut off the cover before washing.

[Global Admin]

This stamp may well have survived for those first 40 years on a cover in some solicitors office locked away. This is a VERY likely explanation as regular lots of 1d reds on covers from solicitor/estate lots still come up for sale even today.

It is certainly not unreasonable to argue this is the case for the bad shape of the stamp after spending 40 years in a smoky office environment.

This would explain the condition, particularly if it was roughly cut off the cover before washing.

OMG.

The arrant nonsense grows thicker.

'NEWS FLASH - Storage in a bundle, in a solicitors' office, somehow totally magically abrades all fine lines and detail, and clarity, and design crispness off all areas on early plate impression, GB 1d red Plate stamps.' © ℗ ® © ™ World Copyright Is Hence Claimed for This Froot Loop Brain Fart - by 'GB 789' - 2023.

Odd it never also affected 1840 1d Blacks and 2d Blues stored for 100 years in legal offices ... but Hey Ho .......

[GB 789]

No more loopy than some of the things already posted on here by some on this thread!

Of course the condition could deteriorate if it was wrapped in a solicitor’s file being regularly opened and rubbed against other correspondence in said file. I collect 1d red stars on cover and I’d conservatively estimate that 50% of covers today are either addressed to or from a solicitor - that is the reality.

It is very likely this stamp could have been on such a cover - far more likely than the printer making changes to a widely used plate yet only one example has come to light. Now that is a conspiracy theory in my eyes and you’re welcome to your views.

When this thread’s controversial plate 77 cover comes to auction and makes £100,000 then you will have a point otherwise it is ALL here say and speculation from ALL SIDES!

Umm as for your stamp illustrated, perhaps take a look on eBay or similar to see just how many of these stamps are in poor condition- the one you show is superb used - about 0.1% of them look like that!

[Global Admin]

No more loopy than some of the things already posted on here by some on this thread!

We are actually just focusing on your groundbreaking Froot Loop explanation here as to how a brand new steel plate prints a stamp with the clear characteristics of a plate runs of millions. ''It came from a LEGAL OFFICE FILE.'' One of mannnnnny of your loopy theories debunked here, on many threads, but this gets the Gold Medal I must say.

You've had more bans here for wacky statements and claims that anyone else has and you are continuing your train wreck performance here.

[GB 789]

I believe there are a good many EXPERTS in this field, such as Pertinax and emason, who have already suggested reasons for the state of this stamp. I added another potential reason. I have no clue why you are in such a rush to dismiss years of research to say the SG stamp isn’t plate 77 just because you want the other plate 73 stamps to be believed by the collecting community.

As I said, the day that plate 73/77 cover goes up for auction is the day we all see the reality of what philately believes. I for one can’t wait!

[Global Admin]

I have no clue why you are in such a rush to dismiss years of research to say the SG stamp isn’t plate 77

This is a rhetoric question -- have you actually READ the last few pages?? Of course you have not.

There have been no 'years of research of 'LL'' as you totally ignorantly claim - no-one here had even seen a decent image of it until 2 weeks back.

BPA clearly will not touch it, and neither will the RPSL.

Now that we HAVE seen a good image - just to dumb it down for you - it is NOT printed from the new plate 77. The last 3 pages tells you why. No-one disagrees. A Blind Nun can see it. Just adds to the mystery of what went on.

Despite your obtuse waffling to the contrary, Pertinax has NEVER stated here he feels this 'LL' stamp is from the original Plate 77, or that its heavily worn state is explainable in any way. Never. THAT speaks volumes. Do actually READ what others post. Unlike you, he IS an expert on these issues,

Your 'potential reason' offered was dumber than dirt. But thanks so much for inventing it.

Go back to making up more wacko theories about Solicitor office storage abrading all fine detail printing off 1d plate stamps. You are on a World Class Monty Python winner there. Quit while you are well behind.

[mozzerb]

One reason the stamp looks fuzzy is that the image itself is fuzzy (as often seems to happen with supposedly high res scans). The same thing affects the PH image posted earlier on this thread. The images below are before and after versions defuzzed as best I can in Paint Shop Pro (if we have any Photoshop experts who can do better, be my guest):

PH doesn't look especially crisp either compared to your average registration sheet copy ("imprimatur"), and it's in much better condition -- the paper on LL is yellowed and looks pretty worn and scuffed, and it's obviously been in the wars. In both cases, though, hardly "most of the detail has already gone"

Scott and Kevin may want to comment, but my recollection of how this sort of intaglio printing works is that to get a really crisp impression, you need to take some care to ink properly and force the paper into the recesses, especially the finer details (and those finer details have to be properly transferred into the plate from the roller, of course). Both PH and LL look to be plausibly what you might get from a quick test print to bed in the plate and get a sheet or two for inspection.

What's the Glen Stephens interpretation of LL?

Is it just a fake from some other 1d plate, and if so, which one? (We already basically ruled out 71-98 and 177 based on the inter-row gap comparison with the imprimatur sheets.)

Or is it supposed to be like Abed's stamps, from a plate that had the number changed to 77 and then (presumably) back again? (Not plate 73, for the same imprimatur comparison considerations.)

No-one has yet come up with a non-cerealesque explanation for why (or indeed how) this would have been done to one plate. The theory that it was done to more of them sounds like the jumbo size family pack version.

[Rigs]

(if we have any Photoshop experts who can do better, be my guest):

So I have taken the original and applied an unsharp filter to address the fuzziness (original top, adjusted below).

Also adjusted contrast and colour balance re yellowness, but I fully admit this is subjective without having the original.

Bear in mind for any image: 'Garbage in, garbage out' - there is really little you can do unless a decent scan to start with.

If there is a more 'sharper hi-res scan' from Gibbons please supply.

I think the yellowness does indicate it has led a hard life in the East End where who knows what environment it was subjected to, as opposed to its mint cousin over at Windsor Castle, but probably agree with Glen that is hard to imagine it being pulled from a new plate?
.

[Global Admin]

What's the Glen Stephens interpretation of 'LL'?

As stated several times, we can all observe this stamp is very clearly printed from a heavily worn plate, affecting ALL engraved detail on the stamp, which cannot be correct, if printed from the newly produced 77 plate. (Unless it was once stored in a Solicitor's office of course, where all engraved fine detail magically evaporates and vanishes, we are unreliably assured. )

It must have originated via (a late?) repair of some kind, to an existing plate. Which one, and when, is the challenge to discover for Philatelists.

The dashes on 'LL' around the '7' do not tally in any way with those on the Master Die impressions of Plate 77, that we can readily study, and have excellent images of, so 'LL' cannot have come from the brand new '77' plate.

The current 109 year old RPSL Certificate is totally meaningless today, as they essentially had really nothing to compare this with, when it was discovered over 100 years back in 1906.

NO other used copies had been found in 1914, and the 2 mint copies that mysteriously appeared around end of WWI, that were once a joined pair (one is in The Royal Collection) had not been discovered or reported either.

It was examined by RPSL in 1914, it was established by them there was no tampering to the numbers, that they could detect, and it got a Certificate stating it clearly bore the plate number '77'. In 1914 that is the best they could do, given the paucity of info to hand in 1914.

My PERSONAL belief is that these '77' numbers are NOT forged or tampered with.

Exactly the same story as with the Victor Hugo cover, which has 3 such modern Clear Certificates, using far more detailed and exhaustive testing, also saying all '77' numbers are original and untampered with. And which of course also do not come from the new '77' plate.

Do SG bother to SHOW their 109 year old RPSL Certificate on their clunky website? (And was it issued before or after WW1 started?) If so, can someone load it here please so we can see the wording, before it scrolls off forever, as things doubtless do, at Zog Planet Gibbons.

https://thestrand.com/

Their exasperating and clunky 'Auction Site' keeps totally collapsing, giving me a message saying -

Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (see the browser console for more information).

If 'Auctions' are the magical way out their bottomless pit of losses, as the SG CEO stated in their last report, (10 years too late) they need to lift their game several levels. (That should indeed be the SG company motto.)

[satsuma]

Glen, the auction entry does not show the certificate.

[Global Admin]

Glen, the auction entry does not show the certificate.

Pretty dumb, but it IS Gibbons we are discussing.

Can someone, or did someone, ask for a copy of that 1914 Certificate please, before the lot is mailed to the 'lucky' buyer?

It will be MOST relevant to record here.

Some genius paid £110,000 plus 20% = £132,000 Buyer Fee, plus gawd knows whatever else in fees and taxes and insurance etc, for a stamp clearly not printed from the new Plate 77.

Over $A250,000 for a woof-woof doggggggggy.

[mozzerb]

It must have originated via (a late?) repair of some kind, to an existing plate. Which one, and when, is the challenge to discover for Philatelists.

Why would they do this? What possible even vaguely sane reason could there be for changing the plate numbers on at least two plates to the number of an unused plate? And then printing stamps from each, but only enough to create huge rarities? Do you really find this plausible?

Yeah, sure, stranger things have happened, but not that often. At least if you argue that LL was a simple fake you're arguing for an everyday event.

BTW, if it's what you say it is, then £110,000 is a bargain price. It's the only recorded example of a genuine stamp reading '77' but not from plate 73 or the actual plate 77.

Scan of the John Philips album page with 1914 certificate attached -- this is the only plate 77 I've actually handled. (Well, handled the sheet it was on -- I did the writeup for his display to the GBPS back in 2010, and rather gingerly carried this and some other sheets downstairs at the RPSL for scanning.)

[Global Admin]

Well done to mozzerb for preserving what these dolts at SG did not - the actual 1914 RPSL Certificate from December 14, 1914 - the only piece of paper or evidence of examination of any kind that states this defective used dog 'LL' came from 'Plate 77'.

We know that Britain declared war in July 1914, and the battles of the Western Front were in full swing mid December 1914.

Perhaps in 'normal' times someone at the RPSL might have suggested the common sense path of comparing this with the ONE known mint then copy extant in the Institution, in which case they clearly would see there was no possible match of the impressions on both. We will never know.

TODAY all this can be done. And no RPSL Certificate would be issued TODAY with this wording.

I do know that with the mass troop mobilisation here in the early war era all sorts of things that were once orderly and normal, no longer were. Stamp printing in late 1914 and early 1915 was in a totally chaotic state, and the 100s of different shades of the 1d red KGV due to ink supply issues and new untrained staff as the other men had all enlisted rapidly, created havoc to the normal vigilance systems, and quality control.

And so it may well have been at the RPSL Expert Committee.

A tad more careful checking would have torpedoed this Cert being issued.

Glen

[GB1840]

If for one second you are trying to tell us this note indicates the initial prints from a brand new steel plate gave heavily worn and faded impressions typical of a million pass usage you are entitled to your bizarre opinion.

Bacon was *** NOT *** saying that at all.

Well what do you think they were saying then? To achieve a well defined impression for all 240 units the pressure and ink had to be applied evenly over the whole plate, and it clearly took the printers time to set their presses up to achieve this, why were many of the early sheets spoiled and rejected? It is not a long stretch of the imagination to believe the first sheets from a new plate did not print sufficiently well for all impressions to show the fine detail required, I can't go back as neither can you to inspect the sheets, so I am just providing what I believe is a reasonable possible explanation, combined with as others have said how this stamp may have been treated in it's lifetime.

You're happy to extol theories about PB messing around changing a plate (or maybe now 2 different plates) then changing them back again for no apparent reason at huge cost and technical difficulty but blind to any reasonable alternative suggestion.

Maybe Abed (who must be reading this) can come out and put forward his latest theories to support why PB would change a plate (or two) print a sheet and change the plate (or two) back again, I am sure all here would be happy to listen to any reasoned explanations of how and why PB would have done this.

[mozzerb]

We know that Britain declared war in July 1914, and the battles of the Western Front were in full swing mid December 1914.

Perhaps in 'normal' times someone at the RPSL might have suggested the common sense path of comparing this with the ONE known mint then copy extant in the Institution, in which case they clearly would see there was no possible match of the impressions on both. We will never know.

TODAY all this can be done. And no RPSL Certificate would be issued TODAY with this wording.

I do know that with the mass troop mobilisation here in the early war era all sorts of things that were once orderly and normal, no longer were. Stamp printing in late 1914 and early 1915 was in a totally chaotic state, and the 100s of different shades of the 1d red KGV due to ink supply issues and new untrained staff as the other men had all enlisted rapidly, created havoc to the normal vigilance systems, and quality control.

And so it may well have been at the RPSL Expert Committee.

OK, this story seems to have been developed by using a high altitude atmospheric extraction heuristic(*).

I'd be astonished if Bacon hadn't compared the LL stamp with the known example (examples? the Tapling copy at least -- can't remember when KGV acquired his, but Bacon would certainly have had access to that if pre-1914).

All the WW1 stuff is pretty much irrelevant -- by mid-December 1914 the kind of relatively leisured and wealthy people comprising the RPSL expert committee wouldn't have been much affected by military matters, especially a quasi-civil-servant like Bacon. (And at that point militarily they'd just finished the Race to the Sea and were still adjusting to the idea of static warfare.)


(*) i.e. pulled out of thin air. (That's me being polite.)

[Global Admin]

I'd be astonished if Bacon hadn't compared the LL stamp with the known example (examples? the Tapling copy at least -- can't remember when KGV acquired his, but Bacon would certainly have had access to that if pre-1914).

All the WW1 stuff is pretty much irrelevant

As has been posted THREE times in the last recent pages alone, KGV bought his mint copy after the END of WWI. (Hint that is after 1914)

That is a FACT.

Do you have a shred of PROOF the RPSL compared this 'LL' doggie to anything? Nope.

Do you have any proof that none, if not most, of the RPS Expert Committee were involved in proudly serving your country in WWI. Nope.

(Speaking of 'high altitude atmospheric extraction heuristics')

[mozzerb]

Do you have a shred of PROOF the RPSL compared this 'LL' doggie to anything? Nope.

Do you have any proof that none, if not most, of the RPS Expert Committee were involved in proudly serving your country in WWI. Nope.

Do you have any proof that the RPSL didn't take the obvious commonsense step of comparing the stamp to a known example -- which is after all the bog standard basic action to take when expertising? Nope, of course you don't.

The second paragraph there -- eh, that's so incoherent I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

[Global Admin]

It is not a long stretch of the imagination to believe the first sheets from a new plate did not print sufficiently well for all impressions to show the fine detail required, I can't go back as neither can you to inspect the sheets, so I am just providing what I believe is a reasonable possible explanation

Sorry it is fantasyland nonsense, and not 'a reasonable explanation.' as to why 'LL' is from a plate of a million impressions etc.


I worked for some years at a Rupert Murdoch large daily newspaper here, and then in a leading advertising company. This is 55 years back when all Newspapers and ads were made entirely from in hot metal and zinco half tone engraved image blocks.

No computers of any kind involved in any aspect of it.

Many times each day, in both jobs, I was down at ‘The Stone’, surrounded by lead, and 100s of men in Industrial Revolution style aprons, and rows and very noisy prehistoric Dinosaur looking linotype machines, working with molten hot lead, cranking and spitting out each line of type an inch or so high. Unchanged from 100 years before. The Perkins Bacon letterpress section of the 1860s would have looked VERY much like it.

99% of stamp collectors have never been involved with the printing business at this level. (Or any level.) A shame really. Working full time in this field does help one understand the real-world process of printing.

I worked with galley proofs many times each day in both jobs. What is a galley proof? It is a large sheet of damp paper placed onto the metal 'Forme' of lead linotype lettering of various font sizes, indispersed with half tone zinco images, locked tight with large metal corner screw clamps, bearing 2 pages of a broadsheet newspaper – FAR larger than any sheet of printed stamps.

The Forme is inked with an inked wide roller, quickly rolled over the clamped up type and zincos, and the paper is placed on top and THEN an uninked roller is ran over the top of that, pressing the damp paper into the lead letters and half tone etched blocks. This is a working Galley Proof.

It is basic LETTERPRESS -- basically the same technique as Gutenberg used.

The end result – a rather accurate print of the subject matter.

Is it a 100% accurate recording of all detail – generally not. Why? As hand inking is never as even or accurate as a machine roller inking of the plate. It is simply a working proof to show everything is where it should be.

HOWEVER, a working test proof of this nature may not always print the colour 100% evenly, but it will **NOT** lose fine detail on the 99% of the plate it does print as you impute occurred.

Get it? A well inked section will print the plate or Forme clearly on the Galley paper. One does *NOT** lose all fine detail and definition as this sad ‘LL’ exhibits.

NOTHING Perkins Bacon did, I repeat **NOTHING**, could have produced such a sorry result from a new Plate on a hand pull. NOTHING. A brand new plate has sharp detail over all units on the plate. Even if only HALF a stamp was inked that half would show the fine detail.

This ‘LL’ has lost ALL fine definition due to being a million or so impressions being made from the plate. Why did they make 150 or so different 1d plates? As the plates wore, all details got fuzzy, and were deemed necessary for replacement.

Remember Perkins Bacon were Master Security Printers. This was not a high school newspaper being made here, but highly detailed postage stamps from the BEST in the business globally. PB did this day in and day out for decades using the finest craftsmen in the business. A hand pull will be VERY good, and it will carry superb detail from a new plate of the well inked areas.

This ‘LL’ is an impression from a VERY worn plate, with the ‘77’ numbers possibly re-entered for some reason we do not know why. I repeat that is our puzzle here. It is clearly a worn impression. THAT is a fact.

Glen

[Global Admin]

Do you have any proof that the RPSL didn't take the obvious commonsense step of comparing the stamp to a known example

Yes - they'd never have issued a cert if they had compared it. Simple as that. Which is why it will never get an new cert from them or BPA.

Crisp impression from a never used plate, versus a fuzzy dog. Even the RPS would get that one right!

Well into WWI .. other more weighty things focusing the attention of those not serving, and I am sure you'll be also proved wrong none of the RPS Committee were serving your country in latter 1914 making nonsense of your totally unsourced fantasy statement they were - 'relatively leisured and wealthy people comprising the RPSL expert committee' Some well credentialed ex Military personnel from India and Boer War etc being among them would not surprise me one bit.

[satsuma]

The signatory to the opinion, Bacon, was also the person who prepared the Tapling collection for the British museum.

So he must have at least seen the only then known mint copy prior to giving his opinion.

Whether he actually compared them is always going to be arguable, but as keeper of the Royal collection and later knighted for that service, it seems unlikely he'd put his name to the opinion without appropriate diligence.

[mozzerb]

The Perkins Bacon letterpress section of the 1860s would have looked VERY much like it.
...
It is basic LETTERPRESS -- basically the same technique as Gutenberg used.

What the hell are you on about? These aren't letterpress stamps, they're intaglio/recess/line engraved (whichever term you prefer).

[Global Admin]

Sigh.

The principle of taking a progress proof is essentially the same. Paper onto inked plate. Got it?

And a newly made plate will NOT give a washed our worn impression in either case. Got it?

Perkins Bacon certainly had a letterpress section and it would have looked remarked like what I described visiting many times a day.

Can I dumb it down any further for you? Always happy to assist.

[Global Admin]

The signatory to the opinion, Bacon

Bacon was actually the RPS signatory conveying the opinion of the entire EXPERT COMMITTEE as we see above.

He may or may not have been a member of the Committee. He may or may not have agreed it was kosher. More than likely he was and Chairman generally, but it was not his sole view.

Tom Carter signed RPSV Certs for decades and never was part of the Committee. He just passed on their findings to the submitter.

Robert Lamb signed 1,000 of APS certs and never ventured an option. Just the nominated functionary.

The BPA and Brandon etc list WHO was on each Committee for each stamp submitted. FAR more transparent.

[mozzerb]

The principle of taking a progress proof is essentially the same. Paper onto inked plate. Got it?

And a newly made plate will NOT give a washed our worn impression in either case. Got it?

Perkins Bacon certainly had a letterpress section and it would have looked remarked like what I described visiting many times a day.

So what? They didn't use it for printing penny reds. (And in 1864, even a letterpress section wouldn't have looked all that much like what you saw at a newspaper, after a century of developments in printing technology.)

And yes, "bring paper and ink together" is the basis of all printing, wow, what a revelation. The important point is how PB were doing it at the time.

From my recollection of watching it done at a London international, on an original press (the one now in the British Library, IIRC?) and using an original plate (the one without corner letters, so not used that much), it was a very manual process, and the quality varied.

[Global Admin]

"bring paper and ink together" is the basis of all printing

Well done.

A brand new steel plate = crisp sharp image impression on that paper. Not hard to follow really.

Whether in mass production, or in the hand proofing process. Same rules.

This heavily worn plate stamp 'LL' was clearly printed from NEITHER version - someone just paid $A250,000 for a well worn impression, late plate life retouch, in the ugliest condition possible on a stamp - horridly centred, and badly cut into and hacked on TWO sides.

[flip138]

Could the cognoscenti establish which plate other than 77 gives a match to the LL lettering and spacing of this stamp from its neighbours? I gather that some have been eliminated already. If none of them match, then you are left with plate 77 as the only credible option, regardless of the printing quality.

[mozzerb]

Could the cognoscenti establish which plate other than 77 gives a match to the LL lettering and spacing of this stamp from its neighbours? I gather that some have been eliminated already. If none of them match, then you are left with plate 77 as the only credible option, regardless of the printing quality.

Well yes, exactly.

If I have the time (and energy) I'll extract the other LL images from the Postal Museum registration sheet pictures. If anyone else wants to do this they are totally welcome.

[norvic]

Do you have any proof that none, if not most, of the RPS Expert Committee were involved in proudly serving your country in WWI. Nope.

At the risk of digression - but you brought it up - and having read books about WWI recruitment from the masses (including Men of Letters about the Post Office Rifles), I would refer you to this edited extract from Wikipedia.

Volunteer Army

In 1914, the British had about 5.5 million men of military age, with another 500,000 reaching the age of 18 each year. The first call was for 100,000 volunteers, made on 11 August, followed by another 100,000 on 28 August. By 12 September, almost half a million men had enlisted. Around 250,000 underage boys also volunteered, either by lying about their age or giving false names. These were always rejected if the lie was discovered.

One early peculiarity was the formation of 'pals battalions': groups of men from the same factory, football team, bank or similar, joining and fighting together. The idea was first suggested at a public meeting by Lord Derby. Within three days, he had enough volunteers for three battalions. Lord Kitchener gave official approval for the measure almost instantly and the response was impressive.

From the start Kitchener insisted that the British must build a massive army for a long war, arguing that the British were obliged to mobilise to the same extent as the French and Germans. His goal was 70 divisions, and the Adjutant General asked for 92,000 recruits per month, well above the number volunteering (see the graph). The obvious remedy was conscription, which was a hotly debated political issue. Many Liberals, including Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, were ideologically opposed to compulsion, but by 1915 they were wavering.

15 July 1915 the National Registration Act was passed by the British Government, exactly one month later there was a census of every citizen aged 15 to 65, approximately 29 million forms completed.

As there were too few volunteers to fill the ranks, the Military Service Bill was introduced in January 1916, with compulsory conscription for the first time in Britain's history. Every unmarried man and childless widower between 18 and 41 was

to be enlisted (with some exceptions).

Doubtless there are other papers which describe how the upper classes might have avoided conscription - easy to get a medically unfit certificate perhaps. I don't know. But certainly by Christmas 2014 there was no general conscription and the vast majority of enlisted men were of the working classes.