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

Post by **admin** » 05 Aug 2009 00:54

Ian, yes sadly they index far less detail on sites than they once did.

Members can see how this site looked when we had only 500 members in 2007 - and 25,000 posts - and not today's 500,000+ !

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://stampboards.com

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 05 Aug 2009 01:11

Just a point of interest.

We all seem to accept that both stamps PH and PI are genuine.

Does anyone know what are the odds of finding TWO plate number 77 stamps that are ADJACENT amongst the billions printed. In my view highly astronomical at the least. Should this not fuel speculation that a would-be forger had a pair of stamps to work on. Yet no one has ever questioned their authenticity and are both accepted as genuine.

Just for the record I do think that both PH and PI are genuine although I have never handled copy PI.

Philately will always throw up the incredible and this is why it will always be the most fascinating of hobbies. Who can guarantee that we will never see another 1c British Guyana or another Mauritius ball invitation with a Post Office stamp or even another cover with three plate 77s on it?

Abed H Najjar

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 05 Aug 2009 01:15

Abed H Najjar wrote: Philately will always throw up the incredible and this is why it will always be the most fascinating of hobbies. Who can guarantee that we will never see another 1c British Guiana or another Mauritius ball invitation with a Post Office stamp or even another cover with three plate 77s on it?

Abed H Najjar

That's part of the appeal -- the chance of making a find like yours. It can sometimes feel like a big treasure hunt. The other part that I find really appealing is what we're doing here: problem solving and research.

Greg

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 05 Aug 2009 01:17

Abed H Najjar wrote:Just a point of interest.

We all seem to accept that both stamps PH and PI are genuine.

And we've been accepting that NC is good, when it has (so far as we know) never been subjected to any sorts of testing. For all we know it's a 177 that's been doctored.

Greg

Post by **admin** » 05 Aug 2009 01:56

Thanks to the great and continued generosity of our friends at the Australia Post Philatelic section, the winner of each month's votes for BEST THREAD will receive a superb prize - over and above the 10 carat blue diamond next to their user name.

They will win the superb 2008 Annual Collection shown above. 8)

Retail of this album is $99.95, and Australia Post will also generously ship it secure airmail ANYWHERE in the world.

Aust Post $100+ prize for the Month's most helpful tip/post - July's winner .....

By a unanimous vote by the Moderator Group (a first ever!) - and by near all members posting on the main thread - is -

"GB 1864 1d red - the rare plate 77 - newly discovered cover?" by Pertinax

https://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8808

Congratulations Pertinax ..... and Scott, let me have a mailing address to pass onto AP please for your prize!

Over 500 posts already, and 5,000 page views - and it even made the front cover of the just posted "Stamp News" this month, (below) and covers EIGHT pages inside!

This thread may well have drawn together the exact right mix of stamp minds from all corners of the globe, to analyse this new find in detail, and the other recorded copies, to decide on the balance of fact if this new find is genuine or not.

Without a Bulletin Board such as this, that allows "instant" communication between philatelists in England, Canada, Scotland, Vietnam, Australia, Ireland and the USA etc - that feedback could never occur.

If you google the simple term "GB 1d Plate 77" the FIRST 4 matches are to this board! And that exact term has been on 10,000's of web pages.

https://www.google.com/search?q=GB+plate+77&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=

It is also the TOP 2 matches on Yahoo -

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGknHXRnhK7BIBzXxXNyoA ... -top&sao=1

So 1000s more philatelists will stumble across this thread as time goes on, due to our No 1 rating match on google and Yahoo.

I hope this board, and our combined discussion and research and analysis, and joint problem solving, has paved the way to seeing this cover accepted, as it surely is, as one of the most significant covers in British Philately - and 100% genuine.

Without this thread the matter would likely have quietly faded away, as the printed word is not updated daily and as vibrant as we can be. This ratty cover with two "bad" certs would have been consigned to the dustbin of philatelic history, with the ongoing naysayer whispering campaign, of a few old school tie die-hards smearing it forever.

Exactly as specialist 1d red dealer Graham Mann's "77" cover was, in very similar circumstances - he sold it for £1.50 after getting two "bad" certs. He had no stampboards.com to seek further opinions from back then. All those involved here should be congratulated for taking the time to help make history on this one!

This thread has changed the way a serious top level stamp discussion can take place. This has NEVER occurred before AFAIK, and thus the thread certainly deserves to be "Thread Of The Month"!

As I have often typed - "The last word in philately is NEVER written."

Glen

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 05 Aug 2009 01:59

Abed H Najjar wrote:Just a point of interest.

We all seem to accept that both stamps PH and PI are genuine.

Now you're all getting to where I am at. I have handled PI and didn't know it had since been sold.

It looked good to me but had a 1920 cert. which as I mentioned before, is really too old to have any cred. these days. Abed's look ok to me as did mine.

I repeat they are all ok or none are. If Abed's are fakes then someone has got to come up with an explanation to how they were done and forget a cut & paste or paint job Abed would have seen that before he sent them off!

I think all the known 77s should be re-examined along with Abed's and let the 'experts' explain themselves properly if they think that any or all are faked.

renecgh · Post by **renecgh** » 05 Aug 2009 02:15

Very nice

and interesting information about the GB 1864 1d red - plate 77.

Even for someone who doesn't collect the 1d red stamps.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 05 Aug 2009 08:49

Aust Post $100+ prize for the Month's most helpful tip/post - July's winner .....

By a unanimous vote by the Moderator Group (a first ever!) - and by near all members posting on the main thread - is -

"GB 1864 1d red - the rare plate 77 - newly discovered cover?" by Pertinax

Wow, many thanks!

Scott

Post by **GlenStephens** » 06 Aug 2009 03:36

Well done Pertinax .. AP will mail the album direct to you.

My Scott Vol #3 is 2007 and #77 is $US150K mint and $130K used.

Can someone with a 2010 please post here the current value? Thanks.

Didge · Post by **Didge** » 06 Aug 2009 08:18

Scott,

Well done mate.

Tim

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 07 Aug 2009 21:18

Got my copy of the trade magazine "The Philatelic Exporter" this morning. Excellent 3 page article by Glen Stephens. Well done Glen and keep up the good work.

Post by **admin** » 07 Aug 2009 21:25

Thanks Graham .. I has assumed that was out there a while back?

Will get some other UK dealers looking in hopefully.

My "Plate 77" article is in "Stamp News" here in full .... over double the length of the "Exporter" piece, as space precluded them running it all, as it is an incredibly long piece.

http://www.glenstephens.com/snaugust09.html

In that magazine it takes up EIGHT x A4 pages with no ads .. all solid text and photos, plus the full front cover as well.

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 07 Aug 2009 23:25

My pleasure Glen and thank you for spelling my name correctly in the article if not here.

A thought has occurred to me. If Abed's piece has been shown to have born the numbers 77 from day one and not to have been tampered with in any way at all, does it NEED a certificate? With all the publicity to date if Abed put it to auction with all the written evidence he has, I bet it would fetch a bomb! The certificating bodies are not gods and only ever express an opinion. If that opinion is proven to be wrong then wrong it is. Surely the evidence Abed has is actually better than any certificate. What do others think?

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 08 Aug 2009 11:21

stampmann,

NO, without that piece of paper from the Royal London the item will be virtually unsellable as any potential purchaser would want to include it in his/her exhibit and the judges will automatically request a certificate for it before it can be included in the exhibit the next time. If it is re-entered (pun intended) without a certificate then the exhibitor will lose 5 points which will relegate it to a lower medal level.

It's time it went for a trip to Devonshire Street,

David B.

iomoon · Post by **iomoon** » 08 Aug 2009 11:26

David,

perhaps the potential buyer would not want to include it in an exhibit.

If I remember correctly, companies like Mystic will buy such items for their advertising value.

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 08 Aug 2009 12:06

David Benson wrote:NO, without that piece of paper from the Royal London the item will be virtually unsellable as any potential purchaser would want to include it in his/her exhibit and the judges will automatically request a certificate for it before it can be included in the exhibit the next time. If it is re-entered (pun intended) without a certificate then the exhibitor will lose 5 points which will relegate it to a lower medal level.

Hardly 'unsellable' -- which would imply that no-one would be interested in buying it. I imagine a number of collectors would be in the market for this item regardless of certificate given the publicity surrounding the cover and the extensive testing done on it. I'd also imagine any (sensible) judge would take that into account when evaluating it for the purposes of exhibition marking.

Also, it might not only appeal to collectors. As iomoon said, there's a fairly high advertising value on the item. IIRC, the 'twice used pre May 6th' Mulready was bought by a Japanese bank for something like £1.3million.

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 08 Aug 2009 12:26

Jim,

p

perhaps the potential buyer would not want to include it in an exhibit.

That is the Million Dollar/Pounds question, potential exhibitors are the major buyers of major items, without them the realisation would be much lower,

I am sure that any Auction House that accepted the item would inform the seller that it would be advisable to have a certificate,

like I said many times, it is about time it went to the Royal again,

Mozzer,

re. Hardly 'unsellable' -- which would imply that no-one would be interested in buying it. I imagine a number of collectors would be in the market for this item regardless of certificate given the publicity surrounding the cover and the extensive testing done on it. I'd also imagine any (sensible) judge would take that into account when evaluating it for the purposes of exhibition marking.

The Auction House and the seller would agree on a minimum reserve, that figure would be high enough to preclude a lot of potential bidders. It doesn't matter what publicity it has, it means nothing without the certificate. Judges have strict rules to adhere to and questionable items (like this one without a certificate) have to have good certificate before it can be entered in an exhibit again.

David B.

figmente · Post by **figmente** » 08 Aug 2009 12:48

So you would consider the tre skilling yellow would be unexhibitable? and unsalable?

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 08 Aug 2009 12:58

why does everyone bring up the 3 Skilling Yellow, there is no comparison.

That item has been known for a long time and is accepted as a great rarity and would enhance any collection with or without a certificate, this item is relatively unknown and its authenticity as being printed from Plate # 77 is in doubt. Even if it gets a good certificate as having 77's at each side but printed from another plate is possible, it would still be accepted as a great rarity.

I did not say it would be unexhibitable, I said that it would get a warning that it would need a certificate before being shown again otherwise it would lose points next time it was shown and the major players (and spenders) would not want to have points lost,

David B.

OttawaMike · Post by **OttawaMike** » 08 Aug 2009 13:04

When is the last time one of the other 77's has been shown in an exhibit?

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 08 Aug 2009 13:08

Ottawa,

I wouldn't have a clue but I bet they had Royal Certificates if they were in competitive exhibitions, if they were in display class or Court of Honour they mightn't have had them,

David B.

Post by **admin** » 08 Aug 2009 13:23

David Benson wrote:Why does everyone bring up the 3 Skilling Yellow, there is no comparison.

That item has been known for a long time and is accepted as a great rarity and would enhance any collection with or without a certificate

I disagree. The comparison is EXACT.

Indeed in that case, NINE leading "experts" in Sweden all publicly denounced it as a fake.

You say it is accepted as "a great Rarity". You'd have been alone in holding that view in the mid 1970s I'd suggest. In fact I doubt you held that view then.

How quickly perceptions can change.

It still changes hands for millions. It has NEVER got a Certificate that I am aware of.

The fact the owners had the brains to pay for a barrage of high tech scientific tests to prove these 9 prejudiced idiots were wrong, is WHY the stamp is now regarded by you and others apparently as "a great Rarity".

Had the owners NOT done that in the 1970s, it may well have languished in the dustbin of philatelic history. Branded by a few old fashioned nuts as "Fake" and stayed that way untested by actual SCIENCE based on their view.

The 2 Swedish senior FIP judges I spoke to in MEL recently about this stamps told me that the current belief among experts is that this stamps is "100% genuine".

When I asked why that was, given the barrage of denunciation of their fellows in the mid 70s, one of them said - "as scientific testing is so much better now than it was then".

Case closed.

--------------

https://www.glenstephens.com/snaugust09.html

I have written in the past detailed research articles on the Sweden 1857 'Tre Skilling Yellow Banco' - one is here - https://www.chohthu.notlong.com

Again highly controversial, and again no-one has a clue as to EXACTLY how this stamp came to be. Or if it is genuine - or not.

In 1974 it was exhibited at the stand of Frimarkshuset A.B. the well known Swedish dealers, at 'Stockholmia 74'.

The stamp was then offered to the Swedish Postal Museum for purchase at $US1,000,000.

The curator Gilbert Svensson had always suspected it to be a forgery, and arranged for it to be handed over to a group of nine Swedish stamp "experts" to examine.

These "experts" concluded it was a fake - possibly a fake of the original stamp that some of them also thought was a fake anyway!

They stated that one third of the stamp was of a different paper type than the rest. And it differed in exterior appearance from early photographs.

One of the experts Friedrich Schaffer pointed the finger at original dealer owner Lichtenstein as the forger/creator of this 'fake'. The experts publicly claimed the story of the original Backman sale in 1885 was a lie.

In "Stamp Collecting" May 1975 it was stated that photo-micrographic tests had shown that the forger bleached a genuine lightly used 8 Skilling Banco to rid it of colour, and then printed a fake 3 Skilling stamp image on top. (i.e. the technique always used cleverly by Jean Sperati.)

After all these damning reports, owner Berlingen and Frimarkshuset A.B. then paid for a very detailed scientific and X-Ray report in 1975, by a Professor of Medial Biophysics, on the paper and ink etc, which pointed they claim, to the stamp being a genuine colour error.

So who really knows? The 'Tre Skilling Banco' allegedly sold in 1996 for a world record Swiss Francs 2.87 million ($US2.3 million) to Hans LernestÃ¥l, a Swedish dealer.

The stamp was not offered with a Expert Certificate of any kind in the 1990 or 1996 Auctions - indeed I do not believe any Expertising Committee at any time has ever given it a Certificate as being a genuine error of colour.

The stamp has been crudely re-perforated along the top, and has a sizeable slit at the side .. neither mentioned at all in the 1990 David Feldman auction - which had a deluxe catalogue issued for just this one stamp!

So Abed Najjar might take heart from that story.

Nine Swedish "experts" all decreed the Sweden "Tre Skilling Yellow Banco" to be a fake, yet science apparently proved it otherwise, and even with no Certificate it still sells for millions at auction!

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 08 Aug 2009 13:24

David Benson wrote:I did not say it would be unexhibitable, I said that it would get a warning that it would need a certificate before being shown again otherwise it would lose points next time it was shown and the major players (and spenders) would not want to have points lost

Is that an actual rule or a 'nudge nudge, wink wink' sort of thing? And does it only apply to stamps? Certainly most international postal history exhibits are probably loaded with rarities that don't have a certificate of any kind.

To judge from previous posts, at least one of the accepted Plate 77s has a cert that's about a century old. It's good to have, but not the absolute be-all and end-all for a controversial item, especially where the expert committee opinion is actually strongly disputed rather than just moaned about.

As for the 3sk yellow. it's presumably brought up because it's a famous example of something that many people have considered to be a forgery yet is still generally regarded as genuine and important. It doesn't really matter when such an item was discovered -- if it's genuine it's important, if it's not it's not.

And there are other disputed rarities -- e.g. I seem to remember a GSM article about a rare Sarawak provisional overprint which suggested that the four examples with different setting regarded as fakes might well be the genuine article, and the accepted types fakes or reprints! Certs are less important than other documentation in such circumstances.

Post by **admin** » 08 Aug 2009 13:30

OttawaMike wrote:
When is the last time one of the other 77's has been shown in an exhibit?

Rather interestingly, the mega million collection of GB formed by multi Billionaire Bill Gross did not have a Plate 77.

http://www.stampboards.com/images/stampauctionnetwork/F/F93.cfm
http://www.stampboards.com/images/stampauctionnetwork/F/F94.cfm

figmente · Post by **figmente** » 08 Aug 2009 15:12

A much nearer comparison might be the 1913 USA strip of 3 rotary press perf 11 Harding - the certifiers were quick to declare it false... Apparently they feel safe in rejecting out of hand any really surprising find.

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 08 Aug 2009 15:17

re

Is that an actual rule or a 'nudge nudge, wink wink' sort of thing? And does it only apply to stamps? Certainly most international postal history exhibits are probably loaded with rarities that don't have a certificate of any kind.

Yes, it is an actual rule, it is only when material whether it be stamps or Postal History items are queried it comes into play, if the judges realsie that a certificate is not needed then the material is not queried.

Glen, it is a free world, you can have your opinion and I can have mine, I think your wrong and you think I'm wrong but that doesn't mean that I am right or you are right. Regarding the Sweden 3sk. many experts over the years though it was a Proof that was accidently used, some though it was a colour changeling, who knows what others thought but like I said it is now accepted and I doubt it would be entered in a competitive exhibition.

re.

scientific testing is so much better now than it was then

100% reasoning why it should be resubmitted for a new certificate.

The other major problem is that if and when the item hits the auction block and any bidder asks for an extension, what happens then will depend on the wording of the auction lot. Unless the Auction House agrees to an extension it is going to lose a lot of potential bids,

David B.

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 08 Aug 2009 15:22

Talking about certificates,

many, many years ago there was a well known collector in Sydney of Czech origin who came to Australia just before WWII, he brought with him his collection and one of his prized items was the Czech 1919 overprint 4k. on Granite paper. He sent it to London for his freebie once a year certificate and it came back BAD. He then informed them that it was definitely genuine as he had bought it at the Prague GPO in 1919 with all the other difficult to get items. It was resubmitted and came back GOOD,

David B.

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 08 Aug 2009 15:34

Glen,

all I am suggesting is that it should be sent to the Royal for a new up to date certificate, do you have any problem with that,

David B.

figmente · Post by **figmente** » 08 Aug 2009 16:01

David Benson wrote:Talking about certificates,

many, many years ago there was a well known collector in Sydney of Czech origin who came to Australia just before WWII, he brought with him his collection and one of his prized items was the Czech 1919 overprint 4k. on Granite paper. He sent it to London for his freebie once a year certificate and it came back BAD. He then informed them that it was definitely genuine as he had bought it at the Prague GPO in 1919 with all the other difficult to get items. It was resubmitted and came back GOOD,

David B.

Very scary - if they had passed to another owner before being submitted would they be fakes forevermore?

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 08 Aug 2009 16:09

re

Very scary - if they had passed to another owner before being submitted would they be fakes forevermore?

can't answer that, he was a very good friend of mine and he gave up collecting Czech material many years before and wanted to dispose of the items he had. He expected it to come back clean and was shocked when it didn't. He knew there was no way of selling it without a cert. and what he did was the only think he could do, reapply for a new one with more facts, exactly what should happen with the 77's, reapply with more facts, without a new cert. the owner may as well sell it on Ebay AS IS,

David B.

Post by **admin** » 08 Aug 2009 17:31

David Benson wrote:Glen,

All I am suggesting is that it should be sent to the Royal for a new up to date certificate, do you have any problem with that,

David B.

It is rather like Bill Clinton flying to North Korea this week to get the female "spies" back.

Before his plane left the USA, it is quite obvious he had received a clear rock solid assurance from the Koreans he would succeed.

Sadly Abed does not seem to have that assurance ... yet.

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 08 Aug 2009 17:47

Glen,

Sadly Abed does not seem to have that assurance

I made a comment a few weeks ago that Abed should privately approach some members of the expert committee and ask them for advice,

I am sure that all of the experts of the Royal who handle GB Line Engraveds are aware of the current situation and that the item will now be seen in a different light (pun intended) than it was when it was given the incredulous comments it received before.

David B.

Post by **admin** » 08 Aug 2009 18:24

David Benson wrote:Glen,

Sadly Abed does not seem to have that assurance
I made a comment a few weeks ago that Abed should privately approach some members of the expert committee and ask them for advice,

I am sure that all of the experts of the Royal who handle GB Line Engraved are aware of the current situation, and that the item will now be seen in a different light (pun intended) than it was when it was given the incredulous comments it received before.

David B.

Yes, that will be the obvious path David, but clearly Abed needs to get some private assurance from someone at RPSL, that his detailed scientific tests have proved their original view wrong, and that they are prepared to now issue a more intelligent assessment of the cover - BEFORE he re-submits it. (Like Clinton got!)

In fact their original view, that someone had pasted 6 x number '7's' cut out of 6 other stamps over the trio on cover, and then neatly painted over the cancels where needed, was just so absurd it defies belief, and must go down as the most ridiculous "Expert" Certificate the RPSL have ever issued. A human fingernail, or $20 UV light would readily have detected that in 30 seconds, had it been the case.

It has harmed the RPSL reputation as "experts" of any kind immeasurably in my view, and each month that goes on they suffer more and more. This thread alone has had over 5000 views from Registered members, and 3 times that from visitors. Plus the magazine articles having another a similar number of readers.

google "GB 1d plate 77" and this thread is the number one match. Indeed we are 3 of the top 4 matches. So many more 1000's of collectors will see this thread going forward.

I feel sure RPSL would be delighted to issue a revised Certificate to cover their posteriors on this cover, citing "scientific evidence" as the reason for the flip-flop.

I do recall when Simon Dunkerley was issued this equally childish RPSV Cert below, and the BPA totally disagreed a month or two later, declaring it a genuine sideways watermark, the RPSV privately expressed an urgent desire to re-examine the stamp and "re-expertise" it to cover their backs.

This was after this dumb Cert was illustrated in my articles at the time, and i understand the RPSV received a great amount of negative feedback, for even dreaming of issuing it.

AFAIK, Simon did not agree to this. And 20 years on it still comes up to haunt them.

Post by **admin** » 08 Aug 2009 23:19

figmente wrote:
A much nearer comparison might be the 1913 USA strip of 3 rotary press perf 11 Harding - the certifiers were quick to declare it false ... Apparently they feel safe in rejecting out of hand any really surprising find.

You do need to buy "Stamp News" and keep up with the CURRENT news! 8)

But it DOES prove that even after 85 years major new discoveries CAN occur.
.
And like the 1d Plate 77 cover, and ½d roo sideways watermark initially, they are rejected out of hand as "fake" - as that is the easy and lazy solution.

---------------

https://www.glenstephens.com/sndecember07.html

Junk box find sells for $US165,000

The stamps involved were a quite ordinary looking used strip of the USA 1923 2¢ black, President Warren G. Harding stamps. It sold for $US165,000 at auction in New York on October 20, 2007.

They were found by Lawrence Cohen of Plymouth, New Hampshire in an accumulation of about 150,000 copies of this stamp that were roughly stored in shoeboxes.

This stamp design is very common, and I imagine every single reader with a USA collection has at least one copy in their album.

Those stamps you have will be from the rotary press 10 x 10 (Scott 612) or flat-plate press perf 11 x 11 (Scott 610.)

For some reason some sheets were perforated 11 x 11 from the ROTARY press printing (Scott 613) and they are very valuable. Only used copies are known.

Now this is where it gets tricky. Scott states that the way to differentiate between flat-press perf 11, and rotary press perf 11 is that the flat press versions measure 19.25 mm x 22.25 mm, and the rotary press printings are at least 19.25 x 22.5 mm.

Every tried to measure a QUARTER of a millimetre accurately on a stamp? It is the tiniest of measurements. And getting it right can mean you are a million dollars in front.

To complicate things further - all three stamps on this newly discovered strip are less than 22.5 mm high. This caused some experts to proclaim it was faked - and not the rare Scott 613.

However after waiting 18 months for experts to make up their mind, the strip finally got a Certificate of Genuineness, and was auctioned October 20 as 3 x genuine Scott 613s.

The PF Expert Committee declared them to be "lightly cleaned" and the auctioneer Matthew Bennett vigorously disputed this. In their auction write up, of that statement they: "expressed our emphatic disagreement."

As you can see the right hand stamp has a badly pulled perf at top right - not mentioned by auctioneer in his long glowing description - nor the expertiser apparently!

Given the American fetish for perfect centering, all known copies fall way short of the "ideal" appearance.

However this is the only strip recorded, and hence the strong above estimate, invoice price of $US165,000.

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 09 Aug 2009 00:42

admin wrote:
Now this is where it gets tricky. Scott states that the way to differentiate between flat-press perf 11, and rotary press perf 11 is that the flat press versions measure 19.25 mm x 22.25 mm, and the rotary press printings are at least 19.25 x 22.5 mm.

Every tried to measure a QUARTER of a millimetre accurately on a stamp? It is the tiniest of measurements. And getting it right can mean you are a million dollars in front.

It's quite easy. I keep this on my desk to help check perf 11s for rotary printings.

It is a damaged rotary press perf 10. I've cut out the four corners. When I lay it over the top of a perf 11, the design won't line up -- UNLESS it is the rare perf 11 rotary printing.

Greg

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 09 Aug 2009 00:51

admin wrote:

It might help to be a bit more systematic about this. Which plate 77s do we have images of, and which plate does each one seem to be from? Other than Abed's three, we have images of the following:

AB
AC
BA
PH
PI

and it seems that no images exist for any of the others. So in effect we only have eight to play with, and three of those (Abed's) are from plate 73.

But they cluster nicely (in fact, perhaps suspiciously nicely) into two groups:

PI looks like it has a strong chance of being from plate 81. Given that PH seems to be the adjacent stamp, is it from 81 too?

And AB, AC and BA seem to be from the same sheet. We don't seem to have progressed far in plating them. I suspect if you plate one, you've plated all three.

Greg

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 09 Aug 2009 20:50

Greg you might like to include EI. This being the one I found which although bearing the no.77 like Abed's was not given a certificate. An image of it should be available farther back in this thread.

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 09 Aug 2009 23:51

stampmann wrote:Greg you might like to include EI. This being the one I found which although bearing the no.77 like Abed's was not given a certificate. An image of it should be available farther back in this thread.

Right -- sorry. I'd forgotten about that one because it wasn't on Abed's original list.

I guess it clusters with Abed's three as known plate 73s.

Greg

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 09 Aug 2009 23:56

admin wrote:Rather interestingly, the mega million collection of GB formed by multi Billionaire Bill Gross did not have a Plate 77.

Neither did Reginald Phillips, who built the spectacular collection housed in Britain's National Postal Museum. I just thought to check Robson Lowe's book on that collection.

Greg

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 09 Aug 2009 23:58

Scott, do you have a list of which positions on plate 73 were re-engraved? And on plate 81?

Greg

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 10 Aug 2009 19:38

Greg Ioannou wrote:
I guess it clusters with Abed's three as known plate 73s.

Greg

Yes that's probably the best allocation for it. You can see from the cert that the Royal said not 77. The BPA actually said "not 77 but 73". Unfortunately I cannot find the BPA cert. If I do I will post a scan.

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » 10 Aug 2009 21:11

Graeme , have you contacted anyone at BPA as they will have copies of all certificates they have issued?

I also note that most of the certificating bodies (if not all) charge a % of catalogue price (around 2%) so it could be an expensive certificate for Abed's cover or maybe a cheap one if Gibbon's no longer list this plate

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 10 Aug 2009 22:51

Highlander wrote:Graeme , have you contacted anyone at BPA as they will have copies of all certificates they have issued?

I have had this morning, a long chat with a contact at the BPA and it is possible that they will be able to come up with a copy but it may take some finding.

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 10 Aug 2009 22:57

Highlander wrote:Graeme , have you contacted anyone at BPA as they will have copies of all certificates they have issued?

As we've mentioned before, it would be great to get access to the records of BPA and the other certificate-issuing bodies to see what other plate 77s they've turned down -- and especially to get copies of their photos.

None of us has the necessary connections to approach them?

Greg

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » 10 Aug 2009 23:11

Good luck Graeme and I would add that they have been helpful with me in the past in re-uniting a lost stamp with it's certificate they had previously issued.

Not sure if they would keep referenced records as Greg (and all of us I am sure) would like to see on actual numbers of certificates issued or indeed declined against this or any other particular item?

Kevin Morgan · Post by **Kevin Morgan** » 16 Aug 2009 09:49

"Letter To The Editor" I just received at "Stamp News" and posted here for the interest of members.

-----------------

Dear Kevin:

Thank you for sending me a copy of Stamp News Australasia August 2009 edition, at the apparent request of Allan Berry. Although your cover note indicated "Page 30," I believe the reason was the cover story that was by Glen Stephens on pages 12 through 19.

As the editor of the "little known USA specialist journal," that ran the original article on Plate 77, I thought I might comment on a few points raised in Glen Stephens's article in Stamp News Australasia.

First, the Collectors Club Philatelist is in its 88th year of publication, and is the journal of the Collectors Club (New York), which is widely recognised as being on a similar international level as the Royal Philatelic Society London in the U.S.A. Indeed, the two organisations have held a number of exchange meetings during recent years.

The journal has been in full colour for five years, prompting other journals to join the use of colour. The CCP received a gold medal and the "best periodical" award in the National Philatelic Literature Exhibition recently held in Palmerston North, New Zealand, last June and also the same top award two years ago. It has also recently received the highest award by a periodical in F.I.P. international competition, other than a commercial journal produced by Vaccari, being short of that one by a single point.

The CCP offers a wide range of articles, all of which involve new discoveries or new ways of looking at old material. The Collectors Club may have a smaller membership than the RPSL, but it does include many of the top-level philatelists worldwide.

To call it a little-known specialist journal does it a disservice. But then, I can understand that local journals are well-known, but may not have much circulation outside their base. As such, I must confess that I had never heard of Stamp News Australasia until I received the copy with this article, although I have been acquainted with Australian Stamp Monthly. Also, John Gartner and Bill Purves persuaded me to join the RPSV many years ago, but unfortunately I had to let that membership lapse.

As concerns the article, I spent considerable time with Abed Najjar in constructing a solid presentation of the facts about the stamps and cover since it was sure to be scrutinised carefully. I'm flattered that you used scans of some of the CCP article to illustrate your article, although it might have been a good idea to give credit to the original article, as is customary. The text from page 12 listing the stamps was taken directly from the journal, for example.

It is important to note that I would not have run the article if it had seemed to be without merit. Indeed, the first half of the discussion is now reasonably well accomplishedâ€”that the stamps and cover have not been manipulated. I made the arrangements for Abed Najjar to visit Professor Gene Hall at Rutgers University to complete the tests referred to in the article, and observed them being conducted. I might add that I also have a substantial background in scientific analysis.

One comment should be made about the note in the same article of the ½d green Kangaroo with sideways watermark. As a former collector of the Australian States and being the AIEP expert for New Zealand, I should mention that the mesh of the paper would be a positive test for any such watermark. The mesh is well-established for the various early Commonwealth watermarks, so a corresponding mesh would make it obvious that the watermark could not have been manipulated.

Also, as far as the reference about "substituted clichés" may be concerned, that may well be the case with typographed plates, but do not have any cross-relationship with intaglio steel plates, other than to be used as an analogy.

Finally, the tre skilling banco and the British Guiana 1 cent black on magenta surfaced paper have both been queried in the past, but both have been rather well acquitted of the doubts raised about them.

I am most interested in the next step on Plate 77, which will involve trying to find where the "accepted" copies originated. They are, in my opinion, not necessarily any less valuable if they have been created by Perkins, Bacon in the process of repairing plates. The study will be most interesting, and I anticipate that the further findings will be published in the world-recognized journal, The Collectors Club Philatelist.

Yours sincerely,

Robert P. Odenweller, RDP, Hon.. FRPSL, FRPSNZ

Editor, The Collectors Club Philatelist

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 16 Aug 2009 20:56

Kevin Morgan wrote: I am most interested in the next step on Plate 77, which will involve trying to find where the "accepted" copies originated. They are, in my opinion, not necessarily any less valuable if they have been created by Perkins, Bacon in the process of repairing plates. The study will be most interesting, and I anticipate that the further findings will be published in the world-recognized journal, The Collectors Club Philatelist.

Mr. Odenweller is thinking along the lines that I am! The answer must lie in the re-examination of the 'accepted' 77s. It does not matter if any were or were not printed from the manufactured plate 77.

If a stamp bears the number 77 and can be shown to have been printed as 77 then it IS a 77 regardless of what plate was actually used!

It can only be a fake if it was PRINTED with a different number and subsequently altered. The value would not really alter particularly as they are still very very rare!

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 17 Aug 2009 11:53

re

Mr. Odenweller is thinking along the lines that I am! The answer must lie in the re-examination of the 'accepted' 77s. It does not matter if any were or were not printed from the manufactured plate 77.

If a stamp bears the number 77 and can be shown to have been printed as 77 then it IS a 77 regardless of what plate was actually used!

The answer is no, a plate 77 has to be printed from plate 77, if it is proven that it was printed from another plate then it is the other plate with the figures 77.

The number one problem is that is has to be declared genuine by the highest authority regarding British stamps and that is the Royal Philatelic Society, London, without that declaration it is deemed to be not genuine. Whether it is regarded as a 77 from Plate 77 or from another plate is another problem which will be decided by the outcome on the wording on the certificate if proven genuine.

I am glad that Capt. Odenweller made his comments and was surprised with some of his comments especially about the Collectors Club Journal and also about the Collectors Club and agree with him that it is regarded as equal in stature (well almost) with the Royal of London.

I also of course agree with him about using the Swedish 3sk. Yellow as a similar problem whihc in my opinion is ridiculous.

I repeat " AS LONG AS THE ITEM IS NOT RESUBMITTED TO THE ROYAL LONDON, IT WILL LAY IN LIMBO FOREVER ".

I have no idea what the outcome will be but I do know that is has been privately discussed with some members of the Royal London Expertisation group and some of them still believe it be a fake, that is why it HAS to be resubmitted. It will get much better treatment now than it originally received because of the publicity,

David B.

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 17 Aug 2009 11:56

Glen,

that was an interesting comment by Capt. Odernweller regarding the weave of the paper, I never though of it and presumably the certifiers who inspected the item and gave it the bad certificate didn't either,

David B.

Post by **admin** » 17 Aug 2009 16:18

David Benson wrote:
I also of course agree with him about using the Swedish 3sk. Yellow as a similar problem which in my opinion is ridiculous.

David please do not totally twist other person's comments, to support your absolutely lone argument here, that the Tre Skilling Banco history is NOT very similar to the Plate 77!

The comment Odenweller actually made, directly referring to my magazine point that the histories of the The Sweden Skilling Banco and the Plate 77 are most similar .. was this - verbatim - .

"Finally, the tre skilling banco and the British Guiana 1 cent black on magenta surfaced paper have both been queried in the past, but both have been rather well acquitted of the doubts raised about them."

i.e. his comments agree entirely with mine - and refute your curious view. Both stamps were comprehesively Pooh-poohed by the "establishment" in their home countries as "fakes", (in Sweden by NINE alleged "Experts") when science later showed both are undoubtedly genuine.

https://www.glenstephens.com/snaugust09.html

And yes I do agree with you that Odenweller's comment re the Australia ½d Roo sideways watermark mesh is clearly correct. First watermark Kangaroos when placed into the palm of one's hand always "curl" from the heat of the palm, along the direction of the paper grain .... which is a constant.

Odenweller of course had a sizeable and significant collection of Australasia -- I recall Harmers of Sydney had his States in a name sale about 30 years back? So he knows his stuff re this part of the world too.

I can only repeat part of what I said in my article he refers to, re the ½d "Sideways Watermark" Roo:

Najjar need not be disheartened that a few "experts" have declared that the 3 stamps on his cover are "faked" - despite the clear written high tech forensic evidence he now has, that they are not tampered with in any way.

Sadly Committees are not always correct, even when the matter before them to rule upon is very simple. All major philatelic discoveries have come from philatelists with open minds.

Now anyone in stamps with half a brain - indeed with 10% of a philatelic brain, should know a SIDEWAYS watermark on a rectangular perforated stamp with lumpy perfs can't be "faked" and pass muster even visually.

Much less the simplest of tests in watermark fluid or via UV, or via any more extensive checking. Child's play. It simply CANNOT be done on a rectangular perforated stamp, and fool anyone.

All Committees now and again make errors on very technical things like shades, dies, and other often subjective things, but to declare an obvious sideways watermark was "faked" is totally beyond belief.

Rod Perry had the good sense to mail it to the BPA in London later in 1989, who of course were not prejudiced, as certain members of the RPSV Expert Committee back then apparently were, and they gave it the only Certificate possible - "Sideways watermark - is genuine."

Stanley Gibbons and other major catalogues listed and priced it soon afterwards. "

=================

So if the Royal in Melbourne got an Australian stamp Certificate so horribly wrong as they did below, (that a 10 year old kid could have seen at a glance was in obvious error) it certainly follows the Royal in London need to take a new and un-biased re-look at the GB Plate 77 cover, given the huge weight of SCIENTIFIC evidence that shows their amateur initial view was just arrant nonsense.

Their stated view that gluing on 6 x number "7s" cut from other stamps, and then painting in the postmarks over them where needed, is something so clumsy and so easy to spot, it would not even work on ebay! And that is saying something.