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

[adw]

As for why 240 impressions, it's been pointed out before that it piles up even more coincidence if the three stamps on this cover just so happened to be the only ones altered. Why would they change only some stamps on a plate and then print with it, thus producing sheets of stamps with two different numbers?

Because only a part of the plate was damaged, affected by rust or whatever?

In 1865 plate 73 still had a lot of life left in it so it seems plausible that most of the plate didn't require attention, it wasn't worn out.

[Global Admin]

Further to the above, the 3 stamps on cover are from a corner of the sheet.

If the plate was in storage upright it is conceivable damage to one corner was possible. The Australia 1d Red KGV had surface rust on 2 units whilst in storage (both are rare) and the substituted clichés were effected for those 2 units.

[mozzerb]

mozzerb - so you are agreeing with Gavin-h that all 240 corner letters were altered, and later all altered back.

Gotcha.

We are in the presence of PHILATELIC GENIUSES here.

Oops ...now we see you are having a shilling each way - they COULD actually have done it on a few units on the plate - you now agree on that at least - such a rock solid line of argument.

Well, I thought I was pointing out the implications of your position, and even giving you an 'out' by allowing the claim that only some positions would have been altered, but sure, go ahead and argue ... whatever the hell it is you're talking about here.

I ask this in the full awareness that it's probably futile, since asking you to explain anything usually is, but what actually is your theory about why the change was made? Or even suggestion? Or even wild speculation?

(BTW, just to save time, let's not bother with the "repair marker" idea that was floated in the early part of this thread, eh? The idea that repairs would have been marked by making small easily overlookable changes to the actual plate -- changes that would need to be reversed again -- as opposed to making a note in the repairs book, or taking the same amount of time to just do the repair, never made any sense.)

[GB1840]

We know PB could remove material from a plate (as the repairs to 2d plate 8 figures show) but to add material is a far more complex process.

It just occurred to me that a raised 7 on the printing plate probably needs less metal than a raised 3.

If the engraver can't add metal, only move around the metal already in the worn or damaged area, is that why he changed a 3 to a 7? We know PB weren't above cutting corners when it suited them.

Remember Abed's theory requires it to be changed back again, all extra expense and the new 7 would not be worn, so why change it back? If the original 3 was worn they might trim it but not to make a 7, there would be no reason an engraver would do this in his normal work.

PB may have cut corners to save cost on occasions but this would be an additional expense for no apparent reason unless done for a 'favour'.

It remains to be shown that metal could be moved around or added to create a different numeral, hence my questioning Abed' demonstration.

[capetriangle]

capetriangle swears to this day, they were all painted in - he is the lone voice on the planet with that totally loopy belief -- but hey, marching to the beat of a different drum is not actually illegal - especially in the USA!

He is apparently not quite sure if the plate '77' numbers were raised, or recessed, or flat, on the steel plate. He is looking up more info on the internet on that tricky one.

Actually the term used in correspondence with Abed was deliberately more vague than mere "paint." The phrase "paint, pigment, dye or similar" comes to mind. Remember, at that time, we did not know that Abed's chemist (Prof. Hall at Rutgers) had discovered the presence of lead chromate on the offending places.

Also FinstP, the professor of Physics at the Scottish University (now Emerita) whose subject was thin layer coatings, was yet to confirm that science had confirmed my observed result. (see pages 27-30 of the thread)

You are absolutely correct, I continue to support the truthfulness of the original PF certificate and I continue to be willing to stake my now 46-year professional philatelic reputation on it.

More Interesting is that the high-end Great Britain Line Engraved collecting community has not supported the "great cockamamie idea," the idea that a few stamps from Plate 73 would be changed to Plate 77 and then back again. As pointed out by Pertinax, a decade and a half ago, the purpose of repairing any plate was to get more use from it.

I have always known that the plate '77' numbers were flat on the steel plate.

Kindest regards

Richard

[Global Admin]

So the 6 numbers were all painted on - you STILL maintain this? 14 years on?

Despite three (3) later Expert Committee Photo Certificates that state they were not tampered with in any way, being fully aware of your curious view - after yours was torn up.

AND after the huge paper forensic Robert Radley Expert Report, that you admit here you did not bother to read when it was placed in front of you in New York, that methodically and systematically demolished that froot loop theory apart - point by point? With SCIENCE - not an opinion.

And you STILL state all 3 stamps are 'faked'. Is the earth still flat - just checking?

As they say - opinions are like ........

Maybe the plate numbers were all painted in Richard?

That was the view you Richard Dedney boldly 'staked your philatelic reputation on' as I recall, right here after issuing the original laughable Philatelic Foundation Certificate? (That was before they tore it up, after examining it carefully, and then re-issued it correctly - to save THEIR reputation.)

I continue to be willing to put at stake my 32-year professional philatelic reputation on this item being a fake.

[capetriangle]

Glen

Trivial point, it was only 5 numbers. So yes, I still maintain that the numbers have been altered.

Remember I am, I believe, the only person on the board (apart from Abed) who has actually examined the cover.

I immediately saw the distinct differences in color over the 5 places (yellowish rose-red as opposed to lake-red), long before I knew about the presence of lead chromate. These differences can even be detected in some of the enlarged Stampboards images. I feely concede that this opinion was formulated in less than 5 seconds examination (once the usual Plate 177 had been ruled out).

At this time I was unaware of positions of the "77" test for a true Plate 77, not being a specialist Great Britain philatelist.

Regarding the Radley report, I freely admit that the first time I saw it at the Collectors Club meeting that I did not read it, so what, I have since read it and replied to it, point by point, on the thread.

As far as the science of chemistry is concerned Radley with a master's degree deferred to Prof. Hall with a PhD. I have never found fault with any of Prof. Hall's findings, after all he discovered lead chromate, which was confirmed by FinstP, the Scottish professor of physics, as being "the key" (see page 29 of the thread).

So I still state that all three of the stamps are faked.

Kindest regards

Richard

[Global Admin]

Robert Radley M.Sc., C.Chem., F.R.S.C., F.S.Soc.Dip., F.A.E., R.F.P. is a globally acclaimed forensic document examiner - you are not.

Radley confirmed in vast detail no tampering had occurred on the stamps or cover. And HE did examine it! He ripped apart your nonsense amateur view 'SUMWUN PAYNT IN DA NUMBARHS' in great detail. He examined it MINUTELY -- under state of the art forensic equipment. YOU used a 10 x magnifier.

A wad of REAL science and forensics, and three Expert Committee Certificates later - Case Closed.

Except you still feel they are 'all fake' - gotcha. 'The Crime Of The Century'. And Elvis is still alive and working at Walmart Tallahassee.


Well I'll side with a foot high pile of super detailed reports, and THREE leading Stamp Expert Committee Certificates, and from proper accredited scientists and globally recognised forensic Experts who HAVE all seen the cover, and HAVE all examined it in great detail, and agree unequivocally in writing that it is untampered with in any way.

You may still believe the world is flat - you too are fully entitled to hold that view. Are you Swedish by any chance?

=========

The following world renowned independent scientific bodies and globally regarded Experts, in addition to the THREE Expert Stamp Committees, who have directly examined the stamps and the Victor Hugo cover, and provided reports that fully endorse non-tampering:

- Professor Allan Jamieson - The Forensic Institute
- Robert Radley - The Forensic Document Laboratory
- Professor Gene Hall - Rutgers University
- The Reading Scientific Services Laboratories
- Dr Hans Hagemann – The University of Geneva

Between them, they have used the following scientific methods of investigation on this cover:

- Foster Freeman VSC6000 comparator
- (UV and IR light examinations)
- Scanning electron microscopy in both topographic and back-scattered modes
- Raman spectroscopy
- X-ray fluoroscopy (EDXRF)
- Profilometry and surface topography
- Confocal microscopy
- Light microscopy

YOU used a 10 x magnifer.


Below are some extracts from the scientific and forensic reports that endorse non tampering. Note the prevalence of the words ‘no evidence’.

Robert Radley M.Sc., C.Chem., F.R.S.C., F.S.Soc.Dip., F.A.E., R.F.P. The Forensic Document Laboratory - July 2009

“(iii) I find no evidence of substance to significantly support the proposition that the stamps in question have been modified by an obliteration of a numeral ’3′ from a ‘plate 73′ stamp and subsequent alteration of the’3′ to a numeral ’7′. The technical difficulties in modifying a ‘plate 73′ stamp to a ‘plate 77′ stamp are immense and from a detailed examination of the cover in question, I find the combined evidence is inconsistent with such a procedure having been adopted.”

Professor Gene S. Hall, Ph.D., Analytical Chemist: ICPMS, FT-IR, Raman, and XRF Laboratory Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology - Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey - September 2008

“The analyses were performed in my instrumental analytical chemistry laboratory here at Rutgers. Using Raman and micro energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence, I can confirm that I found no evidence to support the hypothesis that paper fibers were removed or added to the second “7 diamond region” on all three stamps. In addition, the chemistry of the inks surrounding all “7″ are identical except for differences in concentration which is due to the resolution (40 microns) of the X-ray beam used to analyze the area which would show concentration differences on a micro scale.”

“Two complementary micro analytical techniques of Raman spectroscopy and EDXRF were used to analyze the elemental and chemical composition of the 1d Plate 77 and 73 postage stamps. The red ink on the stamps is composed of HgS (vermillion) and Pb2O3 (red lead). There was no difference in the ink composition in the diamond areas surrounding the first and second “7” in the plate numbers. The elements Ba, Cr, and P were found only in the diamond area surrounding the second “7” in plate number “77” and were not homogenous and not part of the ink formulation. Their source is probably from the printing process.”

Mr Tom Ray - Microscopy Laboratory Manager The Reading Scientific Services Laboratories - January 2009

“I can confirm that by using a range of microscopy techniques (i.e. stereo light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy using secondary and back-scattered imaging modes), we found no evidence in terms of fibre disruption (such as deliberate tamper by scraping, cutting or adding fibres) during topographical examination of the second ’7 diamond’ regions on all three stamps.”

The sample was also examined by light microscopy using a Keyence VHX-600E digital microscope to determine the nature of the characteristic features- February 2012

“In conclusion, no evidence was found of the addition or bleaching away of additional layers of pigment in order to change a ’3′ into a ’7′, or any fibre disruption (e.g. through deliberate tamper by scraping, cutting or the addition of fibres) during depth composition examination of the second ’7 diamond’ regions on any of the stamps examined. Again, there is no evidence that extra layers of pigment have been added in order to convert a ’3′ to a ’7′. Individual fibres from the paper can be traced, again showing no evidence of tamper.”

Dr. Hans Hagemann University of Geneva - October 2010

”Further inspection of the paper fibers do not suggest any mechanical action (scraping) on the stamps, in agreement with the observations in the report.

The Raman studies performed by Prof. G.S. Hall are very good. They show that the composition of the red ink is the same in the stamps of the envelope and a reference stamp from plate 73.”

Professor Allan Jamieson The Forensic Institute - July 2012

“Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the scientifically logical conclusion is that the stamps have not been faked.”


This esteemed bunch of leading scientists and forensic experts, and THREE Expert Committee Certs ... or stamp collector Richard Debney - Science and Physics and Chemistry qualifications ZERO - armed with his trusty 10 x magnifier. Tough choice.

[adw]

More Interesting is that the high-end Great Britain Line Engraved collecting community has not supported the "great cockamamie idea," the idea that a few stamps from Plate 73 would be changed to Plate 77 and then back again. As pointed out by Pertinax, a decade and a half ago, the purpose of repairing any plate was to get more use from it.

Are the high-end GB line engraved collecting community concerned that a fake can show no apparent disturbance of paper fibres at various magnifications?

If these three stamps are faked, it's extraordinarily well done. The only hard evidence of anything amiss is the chemical differences around the second 7s (and here I think the apparent removal of aluminium and mercury is more significant than anything added) so a plate 225 on cover faked in this way would surely be extremely dangerous.

[Global Admin]

As far as the science of chemistry is concerned Radley with a master's degree deferred to Prof. Hall with a PhD. I have never found fault with any of Prof. Hall's findings

Richard, you really are shooting yourself in the foot with BOTH barrels today.

Great to see you state you have 'never found fault' with any of Professor Hall's, from Rutgers University, scholastic findings on this cover.

Robert Radley M.Sc., C.Chem., F.R.S.C., F.S.Soc.Dip., F.A.E., R.F.P. stated in writing that your loopy thought bubble was utter nonsense, and SO did Professor Hall.

After all these year's, your brain cells might have forgotten WHAT he said - that you cheerfully agree with totally now - please let me remind you -


"Dear Abed,

I am writing this note to you so that there is no misunderstanding in regards to my non-destructive elemental and chemical analyses of the stamps in question.

I have examined the stamps using non-destructive micro energy dispersive X-ray Fluorescence (µEDXRF) to map the elemental distribution around the two “7”.

The elemental analyses revealed the trace elements Cr (chromium), Ba (barium), and Pb (lead). Then, I used Raman spectroscopy to analyze the same areas that I used for EDXRF to determine the chemical composition of the inks. Raman and EDXRF are complimentary techniques and these findings should be given consideration with their IR and UV light observations. These light observations do not provide elemental information which is the key to solving the problem of authenticity of your stamps.

Having the elemental and chemical compound identification puts a chemical fingerprint on the stamps that can be used to rule out the idea that the number “3” was changed to the number “7”. Furthermore, using Raman I have found that the ink that printed the right hand “7” is identical to the ink that printed the whole stamp, namely HgS (mercury sulphide) (cinnabar/vermilion) and PbO2 (lead oxide, red lead).

The trace PbCrO4 (lead chromate) content that appears as yellow-orange spots around the suspect “7” is not homogenous and it does not form an offending ink. It appears that these impurities could have come from hardened steel in the form of elemental Cr and PbCrO4. Raman is very sensitive to fluorescent pigments and none were detected in the area of the suspect “7”.

I can conclude based on validated accepted analytical testing methods of micro Raman and micro EDXRF that the “3” was not changed to the number “7” on your stamps. In addition, there is no appearance of the paper fiber being disturbed if the number “3” had been changed to the number “7”"

Case closed - once again. You are totally out of your league on this one. You probably failed chemistry at school, but these guys actually do this for a living - at a high level.

Glen

I feely concede that this opinion was formulated in less than 5 seconds examination

So I still state that all three of the stamps are faked.

Kindest regards

Richard

So you and your trusty 10 x magnifier decided within in '5 seconds' (your own words) it was totally faked, yet a RAFT of leading scientists and chemists and paper Forensic examiners have all studied it in great detail, and totally torpedoed your Wacko '5 second' Verdict.

Little wonder the PF dispensed with your 'Expert' (sic) services.

Case TOTALLY closed.

[capetriangle]

From a FinstP post on page 29 of the thread:

Our man obtained some genuine ink from the company stocks and painstakingly spotted in the outline of a 7 in the RH diamond leading to an uneven (not homogeneous) distribution of elements within the RH diamond. Unfortunately, he ended up with the wrong formulation and although it was good enough to fool most eyes (not Richard Debney's) it was not good enough to fool scientific analysis.

From a pertinax post on page 27 of the thread:

FinstP wrote:
So in complete contradiction to what has been said up till now, the scientific evidence is in favour of a deliberate forgery.
FinstP,

Your words are like a breath of fresh air to me...though I must disagree with you.

"We" have been saying the above for months.....that the scientific reports SUPPORT "our" side of the story.

At least one of the reports goes on to say what Abed has ad nauseum quoted. Something about the difference in the chemical composition 'being homogenous'. This means nothing, and it is precisely where the report ceases to be scientific and becomes an opinion. For whoever wrote this has assumed, to the exclusion of every other possibility, that the 'extra' chemicals don't matter so long as they do not derive from introduced ink.

Scott

The cover does not have either a B.P.A. or Royal certificate and is not likely to get either one soon. It currently has a P.F. certificate which I regard as incorrect, also a Sergio Sismondo certificate which we are still waiting for Abed to fully post. Additionally it has an A.P.S. certificate which I regard as ambiguous.

You are clearly more skilled than I am with the use of colored fonts and bold face.

However, enough for now.

Kindest regards

Richard

[mozzerb]

Must have been a number of years since I read that letter from Professor Hall (it's not the detailed report, it's a summary for Abed's use), and a couple of things jumped out.

(If anyone wants to hunt down the full report, please link it here. I don't have the energy, especially after losing a lengthy draft. I took a look at Professor Hall's research page at Rutgers -- if you do the same, you probably shouldn't click on the link he gives to his article about detecting fake fish oil. Whatever was there immediately caused my laptop to seize up to the point of requiring a hard reset.)

Anyway, the gist of what I was going to say related to this bit (emphasis Glen's, as if you couldn't have guessed):

Having the elemental and chemical compound identification puts a chemical fingerprint on the stamps that can be used to rule out the idea that the number “3” was changed to the number “7”. Furthermore, using Raman I have found that the ink that printed the right hand “7” is identical to the ink that printed the whole stamp, namely HgS (mercury sulphide) (cinnabar/vermilion) and PbO2 (lead oxide, red lead).

The trace PbCrO4 (lead chromate) content that appears as yellow-orange spots around the suspect “7” is not homogenous and it does not form an offending ink. It appears that these impurities could have come from hardened steel in the form of elemental Cr and PbCrO4. Raman is very sensitive to fluorescent pigments and none were detected in the area of the suspect “7”.

I thought there was a quantitative analysis of some kind around, but this isn't it -- it just shows what compounds were present, not the proportions. Enough to rule out the use of a modern ink with some completely different composition, but a stretch as evidence to rule out any kind of change.

(I've always thought that the way to fake something like this would be to use another penny red as a source of matching pigment. In fact in this case, the pigment missing from the "scuffed" part of one of the stamps would match perfectly even down to the proportions.)

I hadn't noticed before that this describes the lead chromate as 'yellow-orange spots around the suspect “7”'. If there were enough of them I suppose that would explain the yellowish tinge that Richard and others say they can see (after blending by the eye). It's a peculiar thing, and Professor Hall seems to be rather handwaving an explanation. (He's clearly an expert in methods of chemical analysis, but that doesn't automatically make him an expert in methods of printing, or indeed methods of forgery.)

[Global Admin]

Our man obtained some genuine ink from the company stocks and painstakingly spotted in the outline of a 7 in the RH diamond leading to an uneven (not homogeneous) distribution of elements within the RH diamond. Unfortunately, he ended up with the wrong formulation and although it was good enough to fool most eyes (not Richard Debney's) it was not good enough to fool scientific analysis.

You and your shadow alter ego really should go into Pulp Fiction writing Richard.

The 'Scientific analysis' very clearly states this FOURTEEN YEAR OLD fantasy opinion did NOT occur and no-one except you was 'fooled' - READ this page alone for the EVIDENCE.

The number '3's would still be there, and would be clearly seen using SEM and EDXRF elemental mapping. There are NO traces of any '3's anywhere, and that is a scientific proven FACT. Proven in reports on this very page, from REAL Experts, who HAVE examined the cover, and shown clearly in this image. Do you READ anything?

This SEM Back scattered image of the 77 proves that there is no evidence of any 3s and that both 7s are clear and original

Richard - you have all the qualifications for a Fantasy Fiction Writer. YOU spotted this amazing fake 'IN FIVE SECONDS' - you very proudly tell us!

You clearly have ZERO chemical, or scientific, or any formal qualifications, but truly minor impediments like that will not stop you. All the three PHILATELIC Expert Certificates totally tossed your zany ideas out the door, and your 'reputation', which was staked on this cover being forged. As you clearly know nothing about stamps or chemistry or science - give fiction publishing a shot. New horizons etc.

You state here the armoury of Philatelic and highly credentialed Scientific and Forensic Experts ''are ALL wrong, wrong, wrong - and I am right''. Sounds a lot like Donald Trump's standard response. Must be an American thing? Let's see how that stance works for him. It has certainly failed abjectly for you.

It is like watching a drowning man clutching frantically for a lifebuoy - that rather sadly is not there.

So, to get it clear - your loopy storyline goes like this - ... 'SUMWUN' somehow found a tub of exact formula uncontaminated Perkins Bacon recess printing ink from 180 years back (!!!!) and then painstakingly painted in SIX number '3's to make them all into '7's. Quite brilliant work. On BOTH counts.

THEN, after the world's very smartest stamp faker completed this truly amazing feat, he placed the cover into a box of other mediocre GB material, and it sold for a song in Europe, as the faked '77s' were not noted or mentioned in any way, on the tatty part cover. SUPERB STUFF. What a stunning criminal brain!

It was indeed the world's dumbest master forger, to pick a tatty part cover, with both sides of THREE stamps needed to forge this so cunningly, rather than a nice clean cover with ONE well centred stamp affixed.

One of the 3 stamp sides was so scuffed/abraded that touching a paint dipped one strand camel's hairbrush into the '7' area would see that red ink run into 100 different directions along abraded paper fibre strands due to capillary action. Again, read the Radley Report, who advises you clearly of this bog basic paper fibre capillary reality, that non chemists like you have never thought of.

Radley rips your quite childish argument into shreds, in minute Expert detail like that. He is a globally acclaimed forensic paper examiner. YOU can spot 'fakes' like this in literally '5 seconds' you cheerfully proclaim. A stunning ability. A shame it is simply not true. Nor possible.

The only tiny flaw in this Wackadoodle Fiction, was that the endless REAL scientist and expert reports summarised here above on this VERY page, that have stated and time again, there is ZERO evidence of this alleged painting and alteration about which you bluster occurred. Under huge magnification, of all the 7s and the paper fibres in and around them. Never happened.

Your Hero Professor Hall who you 'agree with' states that fact plainly. Reedin and comprahenshun is clearly not your strong suit - go READ his letter above. Professor Hall categorically torpedoes your theory totally. Yet he is your idol?? 'I have never found fault with any of Prof. Hall's findings'. You really can't make this stuff up.

You sadly will not make a good Fiction Writer Richard. 'SUMWUN PAYNT ON DA NUMBAHS' should be your working title. With magically sourced 170 year old recess red printing ink from Perkins Bacon of the EXACT chemical composition. SOOOOO well faked, there is zero trace whatever of the underlying '3' they of course needed to scrape/abrade away, before your CRAZY theory of 'PAYNT IN' 6 x new number 7s was then remotely possible. Again, you really can't make this stuff up.

Dredging up this 14 year old post from an unnamed, once member, of just 26 posts, who may or may not have existed, who refused SIX times to show any images of the alleged 'research' he/she had done on 1d reds, and who certainly never examined the cover as the real experts did, might fund you? Their procrastinations were debunked then, and have been, by a further conga line of REAL Experts since. Stick to adding YOUR new observations here. (We know you have none, but the invitation is there.) Not dredging up 14-year-old now totally disproven arrant nonsense from a totally anonymous person.

Why is this person not posting their fiction here, 14 years AFTER it has been later debunked by real experts and reports? Hmmmm. As I recall a sum of MONEY was sought from you to do so? Then they ceased to side with your Fiction. Hmmmm. Great fantasy fiction novel fodder.

Back to the REAL world of 2023, not 2009 - YOUR knowledge of recess stamp printing is so poor, you do not know for sure whether the '7s' on the metal printing plate are level with, above, or are found under the plate surface, as you showed in the past 24 hours. You changed your story twice, after being challenged, and STILL got it wrong. Highly impressive for an alleged stamp 'Expert''. There are only THREE possibilities.

Time for a new career, it really is Richard. Because stamp detective work is one you have failed at miserably. All evidence from science and Expert Reports debunk your mad theory. I bet you ARE Swedish. YOU likely also think the Tre Skilling Yellow is a fake made from gluing 2 different stamps together etc? NINE Neanderthal contrary *NUTTERS* there also held that firm view only decades back. Maybe THEY had access to 180 year old printer ink??? Maybe they can make another, by hand painting one in - there is a thought for your next Fiction book when this one flops?

Feel free to add any new FACTS to this thread Richard, but re-posting all this 14 year old petulant childish 3rd hand dribble, now that you have been exposed again, is just derailing this serious thread. Where intelligent philatelic minds have moved on from 14 years back, and are focused on finding HOW this genuine cover came to exist.

YOU have nothing to lose - your reputation is totally gone, that much was established years back, but most of us want to sort the truth right here, as to HOW this '73' to '77' change occurred. There will be an explanation.

Go publish your Oprah best selling fiction work - 'SUMWUN PAYNT ON DA NUMBAHS' - by non-expert in anything - RICHARD DEBNEY - I wish you well. I will not buy one, but I'll ask my library to order one in, so others can share in the wonder of the American fiction.

In the meantime, others here will no doubt work out one day, how '77' got engraved onto at least 3 stamp positions from plate 73.

'The Last Word In Philately Is Never Written'.

Glen

[Highlander]

That SEM image does little if anything to show, let alone prove, the second 7 was printed by and at the same time and means as the rest of the image.

It is totally different in character than the first 7, we all know to be genuine of course, and is frankly far too solid and uniform with far straighter edges than any of the other image depicts.

[Global Admin]

Really? Looks very convincing to me.

Can you point out exactly where the altered/overpainted '3' is, in the second 7 box? That is the clear task for YOU to demonstrate, for your comment to have any relevance, of any kind. There will of course be silence on that score from you.

Maybe in the Scottish Highlands it shows more clearly?? Maybe after a few more single malts you can see a numeral '6' or '4' in there too?

To repeat, from Experts, what you clearly have not read - there are NO traces of any '3's anywhere, using any technology, and that is a scientific proven FACT. Proven in detailed reports on this very page, from REAL Experts, who HAVE examined the cover, and which is shown VERY clearly in this, and many other super high rez magnified images posted here using SEM and EDXRF elemental mapping etc.

It is accepted that there is zero trace of any tampering, and rehashing meaningless Dorothy Dix stuff simply derails this discussion.

And if the second 7 was recut for whatever reason, ipso facto, wouldn't it make that numeral sharper and less worn than the first 7? Durrrhhh.

i.e. 'solid and uniform with far straighter edges'



We are TRYING to keep this thread focused on explanations and theories on HOW some units show '77', that plate to '73' as these do. And possibly others do too.

That FACT is long proven ..... the 'Why' is where the discussion is at.

Any member who is keen to read up on the ancient posts here from ¬15 years back, when the now totally discredited and torn up original idiotic RPSL and PF Certificates were all that existed, and before there was an outbreak of common sense and detailed study - go for your life. However we do NOT need them rehashed here again.

Let it be a sober lesson however, that closed minds, and pig headed negativity, even in the face of proven facts, are a very BAD thing for Philately. (Ask any Swede.)

There will be a logical explanation as to how this occurred, and as always, you will read it here first on stampboards.

Glen

[capetriangle]

Even more frantically clutching at straws, 14-years-old jabbering nonsense deleted - as all members were CLEARLY just advised would be the case. Add something USEFUL and intelligent to help solve this puzzle by all means. Or do not bother. 1000 thanks for your ongoing cooperation. Admin



Kindest regards

Richard

[pennyblack1]

Hi Richard, I have seen and examined the cover several times, I and others are still investigating the plate 77 theories, just don't have the need to espouse all here given some of the strangely vitriolic comments that are often made by some which just muddies waters.

Nothing has been proved conclusively one way or the other as far as I am concerned (although plenty of evidence for both sides has been written about of course), but I do possess certain facts that have not been discussed yet...as I say, we are still researching, on plate 77 in general I should stress,

Best regards,

Robin

[Global Admin]

pennyblack1 / Robin,

To establish and reiterate your 'expert background' to the newer members, I'll remind all readers that your last post here over 2 years back claimed that the 'BA' mint '77' stamp in the Tapling collection was 're-perforated', and that dipping these stamps into Liquid Nitrogen allows anyone to split them into 1 molecule thick.

(Robin, totally FREE education session for you (again) - you can't see an individual molecule with your eyes or even a microscope. They are 100,000 times smaller than the width of a hair. The smallest molecule is made of two atoms stuck together, while a large molecule can be a combination of 100,000 atoms or more.)

See below - I truly am not making this up. Nobody could.

Any more groundbreaking 'research' you can add to your work on these stamps Robin? That's where we are at now, as posted above. Over two years on, your new input is that for YOU 'the jury is still out'. Whoopee.

For most sane observers it was settled years back, and the Jury made a clear determination basedc on very clear unchallenged facts. By Expert Committees, and forensic paper experts, and many leading Scientists, who have rigorously examined the cover. The fact you are still unsure, really matters not one jot. You are still reading up on re-perforating I imagine - you clearly have lots to learn there.

Admittedly none of these amateurs admitted splitting it into a micron thick, or using liquid nitrogen, or stated they were 're-perforated'. Please start a new thread on these exciting discoveries you and your secret friends have allegedly discovered.

Maybe you and capetriangle can become pen pals sharing your very strange theories? He used a hand held 10x Magnifier to form his much globally laughed at PF 'opinion' - now torn up and publicly debunked even by them - maybe he can see a 'Molecule' with it?

Talk about 'muddying the waters'.

Are there are any Radioactive Isotopes you have discovered in these? (You need a Geiger counter for this, not a 10 x Magnifier.) Or have you now worked out how to split these into HALF a molecule thick? (Do you have the vaguest clue as to how super tiny a MOLECULE is??? Clearly not - see above)

For me the jury is most obviously still out on this.

You are entitled to your view. Head in the sand thought processes are, sadly, rather common in the UK stamp world.

The Three (3) clear Expert Certificates, and detailed science and reports all agree the cover or stamps are not altered in any way. Whatever you think.

After all, the view of an anonymous member on a Bulletin Board, with just 8 posts in 12 years, carries enormous weight, especially when made on April 1st.

One of your previous posts here claimed the mint ''BA'' plate 77 in the Taping collection was "re-perforated".

You appear to be UNIQUE globally in holding that wacko view, but you are of course are free to claim it is re-perforated, or forged, or made from a plate 212, or whatever random brain explosion thought crosses your mind. It does not mean any of the above is correct of course.

The Thomas Tapling collection was donated to the British Museum in 1891 and Tapling purchased this stamp far earlier than that. Re-perforated my eye.

Another post you made on this cover stated -

"I do know that forgers can dip stamps in liquid nitrogen or something and then cut paper to the width of a molecule (or whatever the appropriate scientific term is)."

You were asked several times to offer any evidence for this totally loopy claim, and you refused to. You claimed you had an Expert who would back this up. You were asked to name this alleged "Expert" or get him to post here.

And naturally nothing appeared. You received a short ban then, for posting unverified and gibberish nonsense here, and not retracting it, or verifying it, when called to.

Your credibility and stamp "knowledge" is there for all to see. The Brown Cardigan squad strikes again.

Admin


As I posted to you at the time, and 12 years later, it still holds true - all posted well BEFORE it received 3 clear Certificates, and a raft of detailed paper forensics and science, saying stamps and cover were all genuine and untampered with -

Dipping stamps affixed to a cover, in Liquid Nitrogen, and somehow cutting away paper to ''a molecule thick''. I've never read such arrant nonsense.

[pennyblack1]

I would expect nothing less of you Glen, have a great day,

Best regards,

Robin

[Global Admin]

Robin, please pop by again in 2026, that is your usual posting schedule, to tell us you are still reading up on how incredibly tiny a 'molecule' is. April 1 is again, the perfect day to aim at.

Now again, lets stick to adding any new FACTS, as was the request before this meaningless and totally fact free post, not more loopy, and absurdly hare brained, fact free, vague theories.

Glen

[pennyblack1]

Robin, please pop by again in 2026, that is your usual posting schedule, to tell us you are still reading up on how incredibly tiny a 'molecule' is. April 1 is again, the perfect day to aim at.

Now again, lets stick to adding any new FACTS, as was the request before this meaningless and totally fact free post, not more loopy, and absurdly hare brained, fact free, vague theories.

Glen

Well I do have a letter from the Controller at Somerset House in the 1890s saying how he thinks the plate 77s got onto the market, which anyone is welcome to see at Stampex, and I have twice bought and sold a plate 77, but I am sure your knowledge and experience is far greater Glenn than everyone else on here so not really much point sharing any info with you. As I said, have a great day,

Robin

[Global Admin]

And I was on the first NASA Moon Mission, playing the Ukulele.

Post this alleged letter here, that by MAGIC no-one has seen in 130 years, or please go away with all your loopy and totally unfounded make believe posts.

[pennyblack1]

And I was on the first NASA Moon Mission, playing the Ukulele.

Post this alleged letter here, that by MAGIC no-one has seen in 130 years, or please go away with all your loopy and totally unfounded make believe posts.

Most serious collectors know what's what here Glenn, in fact the letter is on public record, and they will be able to view the facts for themselves, anytime - must be past your bed time. Night night

[Global Admin]

So exactly as predicted, you do NOT have this alleged official letter, explaining all the Plate 77 printings, for us Dummies. Next, you'll be telling us Elvis Presley is the new Postmaster at Tooting-Under-Water.

What a waste of space for everyone, your last few posts. Bye Bye. Please go back to dipping covers in Liquid Nitrogen, and splitting them into those molecule thick slivers.


https://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2556

39. Repeated Posting of Disruptive Posts

Members who repeatedly post items that create disruption within forums will be subject to disciplinary action if they choose not to heed the Moderator or Admin warnings to desist - or edit or produce evidence of their claims if asked. Making clearly nonsensical or fanciful claims re monies paid for stamps etc, or items allegedly owned, is disruptive and annoying to others. Do NOT do that on stampboards.com please, or you WILL be quickly detected and disciplined, as we have a VERY savvy membership, and vigilant Moderator team.

[mozzerb]

For the record, pennyblack1 is of course Robin Cassell of Mulready Philatelics, a leading dealer in GB material. He did indeed recently sell the MI plate 77.

As promised, he showed the letter at his stand at Stampex (it's from Purcell, the Controller of Stamps, who had philatelic contacts).

After looking at it I wouldn't call it a game changer, but it does show an official view from not too long after the first examples turned up.

[Global Admin]

But the key question is - has this guy dipped this letter into Liquid Nitrogen? Enquiring minds need to know.

This letter is still his private little secret - his choice sadly. What it is with Brits not sharing information? Maybe he is still googling 'the width of a molecule'? This inexplicable anal secrecy holds back wider philatelic knowledge. He was invited to scan it up, and just kept playing childish Silly Buggers.

Does this Robin Cassell still feel the mint Plate 77 stamps in the Tapling Collection is 're-perforated' as he stated here before, that it was - in HIS 'professional' view?

Maybe he also believes Elvis is alive, and working at Stanley Gibbons? Or is trying to turn Mars Bars into Gold Bullion by dipping into Bovril at low heat for 17 minutes? Nothing would surprise me from this true observational genius.

"I do know that forgers can dip stamps in liquid nitrogen or something and then cut paper to the width of a molecule (or whatever the appropriate scientific term is)."

[emason]

What it is with Brits not sharing information?

That's a secret.

[mozzerb]

"I do know that forgers can dip stamps in liquid nitrogen or something and then cut paper to the width of a molecule (or whatever the appropriate scientific term is)."

Oh, regarding the liquid nitrogen thing -- yes, that was rather garbled. I presume it's from seeing something that notes that if you dip organic materials such as paper in it (temperature –196°C / –320°F), they tend to become extremely brittle, and with great care you could flake off thin sections.

No, they wouldn't be the width of a molecule, but I expect they could be much thinner than you could normally do with a blade. This might be something a forger could use, although a quick Google suggests the stuff is more likely to be used by people trying to detect forgeries.

[Global Admin]

"I do know that forgers can dip stamps in liquid nitrogen or something and then cut paper to the width of a molecule (or whatever the appropriate scientific term is)."

Oh, regarding the liquid nitrogen thing -- yes, that was rather garbled. I presume it's from seeing something that notes that if you dip organic materials such as paper in it (temperature –196°C / –320°F), they tend to become extremely brittle, and with great care you could flake off thin sections.

No, they wouldn't be the width of a molecule

Phew I am glad you made that crystal clear for all of us. Do the numbers '77' then appear via this amazing 'flaking off' process or are more tricks involved? Now as to his claim of the ''re-perforated'' Tapling Library Mint Plate 77 - you appear to be Robin Cassell's Official Media Spokesperson .. any gobbleygook waffling explanation of that one, that he has approved?

Just to remind readers of the real world here -

''You can't see an individual molecule with your eyes, or even a microscope. They are 100,000 times smaller than the width of a hair. The smallest molecule is made of two atoms stuck together, while a large molecule can be a combination of 100,000 atoms or more.''

Anyway Robin Cassell is clearly too busy dreaming up wacky theories, to have time to scan his show stopping letter. A Shame.

Until then, lets focus on the Plate 77 cover thanks.

[mozzerb]

you appear to be Robin Cassell's Official Media Spokesperson .. any gobbleygook waffling explanation of that one, that he has approved?

I'm not even sure Robin would approve of me posting -- haven't asked him -- but as usual I try to correct some of the nonsense posted here, with ... well, information from the real world.

'You can't see an individual molecule with your eyes, or even a microscope.

Just for the record, of course you can see an individual molecule with a microscope, it's been possible for decades -- just not an ordinary optical microscope, you need an electron microscope.

Until then, lets focus on the Plate 77 cover thanks.

Sure. Do you have any useful suggestions about it? There's always a first time, I guess.

[satsuma]

For the record, pennyblack1 is of course Robin Cassell of Mulready Philatelics, a leading dealer in GB material. He did indeed recently sell the MI plate 77.

As promised, he showed the letter at his stand at Stampex (it's from Purcell, the Controller of Stamps, who had philatelic contacts).

After looking at it I wouldn't call it a game changer, but it does show an official view from not too long after the first examples turned up.

So why don't you advise what it says in precis?

[mozzerb]

So why don't you advise what it says in precis?

Simply because it was understood that I wouldn't -- I gather he's working on an assessment of plate 77 in general, to be published at some later date when ready (not sure if that means an article or a longer length).

I actually agree with Glen (now there's a rarity) that it's irritating when people get secretive about things, but what comments I did make are hopefully being as fair as I can to all parties, giving my general impression of it without going into details. (Abed has been especially secretive, to the point that I've given up expecting clear statements from him.) But I can understand why people wouldn't want to publish on what is now a train wreck of a thread.