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

[mozzerb]

I am talking about the used copies that exist and which have been found within the public domain. The odds on these coming from the trials I do feel is astronomical, but anything is possible.

Hmm. The Abnormals might be a comparison here -- I can't recall the exact figures, but I believe the numbers of used copies of the various types known (where recorded used) range from about three to seventeen. They would have come from trial sheets. There are, what, five recorded used 77s? So it's not beyond the bounds of possibility, especially as some have been missing for ages and therefore might have been misidentified. (Or indeed, from plate 73.)

And yes, testing difficult items with a range of spectroscopic techniques is a good idea, as I've argued elsewhere. The trouble I suppose is that it's expensive, so not economic for things that aren't rare and valuable.

[GlenStephens]

And I repeat for the umpteenth time, your forger needed to find 150 year red ink to do all this magic - with the EXACT physical and chemical characteristics to what the PO used.

Don't know about you, but my first thought if I planned to have a go at this (given that you don't just need old recipe ink, you need ink that looks and tests old when dried) would be to scrape some from another stamp of the same issue, find a basically inert organic solvent that softened the bits just enough to work with and evaporated in a reasonable amount of time, and make up a mixture out of that. It's not like you need gallons of the stuff.

Even better, take the ink from another stamp from the same sheet, say one from the same cover. Although in the latter case, clearly no-one would believe it wasn't faked if one of the stamps was damaged like that.

mozzerb - at first I thought this was meant to be humorous but on re-reading it, I really do believe you were serious.

If you were, the PF have a job wating for you on their "Expert" Comitteee .. you have the necessary attributes it seems. A most vivid imagination apparently being the main one.

Now there is a magic solution for us that no-one for some reason thought of yet.

Just simply "take" the 150 year old ink off another 1d red stamp ... no way will that, and the modern "inert" solvent base (the one not invented yet that fails to leaves a distinct chemical fingerprint) or course the resultant totally shorter paper cellulose fibres in the mix be detectable by those totallly ameteur Foresnic labs and clueless Professors in Chemistry. Ha! The 'Perfect Crime'.

And yes ... far wiser still to take a stamp off the same cover to work with. Great idea!

None of these darn scientists will notice a bloody great gaping square inch hole where you peeled it from! Or that the resultant rate is totally wrong. Or that the remains of the original postmark now look strangely out of place.

But wait .. these stamps a re a pound a 1000 .. buy a few somewhere. The fact they have picked up all finds of chemical residue by not being where the cover has been for 150 years is a mere trifle not to bother about.

The PF awaits your application!

And when this master forgery has all taken place, SOMEHOW creating perfectly matching red ink under microscopic analysis, out of other old used stamps, and painting it on many stamps perfectly, with a single stand camel hair brush, don't forget to slip this masterpiece in unannounced into a general collection in Europe and get nothing for it .. . then no-one can accuse you of profiting from this great forgery work.

The 'Perfect Crime' indeed.

[mozzerb]

mozzerb - at first I thought this was meant to be humorous but on re-reading it, I really do believe you were serious.

Ah well. They always do say the English sense of humour is wasted on the rude colonials, who can't tell the difference between what is and what isn't.

[GlenStephens]

I can't recall the exact figures, but I believe the numbers of used copies of the various types known (where recorded used) range from about three to seventeen. They would have come from trial sheets.

Wait up there Sherlock.

"They would have come from trial sheets?" Why So?

Sadly several are not traceable today to check, but like Abed's trio, may well show undoubted "77" numbers on them as his do, with no realistic real chance that they are faked, but show corner letters of another plate .. 73 or whatever.

HOW or WHY that occurred, as has been stated many times is a mystery, but there seems little doubt the "77" was printed on there by the PO.

Abed's chart -

[Greg Ioannou]

Abed, how definitive is this list? I'm beginning to suspect there are actually a lot more plate 77s out there than are on this list. That mint JI and used QC, for instance, must exist somewhere -- and they are conceivably genuine. And there's that other one on cover that got a bad certificate. I wonder how many others have wrongly been turned down by the various certifying bodies?

Greg

[GlenStephens]

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 Wilson retired.

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

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

From an earlier post. . the "RK" existing is of course speculative, (but would be likely at least) and it would be better if Barry removed it!

My view has long been that the top left corner block of 6 were most likely taken from some kind of press sheet due to the scissor cut perfs on the ones we can examine.

No-one has yet speculated on the "secret test" outlined above, but a strong guess would be dipping a Q-Tip type object in soapy water and "testing" that on each last 7.

Anything painted in will of will likely run and/or seep to back - thus "ruining" the stamp as Allen mentions - if it is fake.

Now even if a totally genuine copy had that occur to it, under lab examination there would be evidence of this to an expert paper examiner, from the residue of detergent and probably non sterile water used etc.

Who knows if such a simple test was used on Abed's stamps at some time, and if it was may well explain the minor trace element variances in the '7' diamond era.

I can certainly imagine if we tested Allen's (apparently genuine) mint stamp above - it would show some strange things under specialist examination in the "7" area - based on his "secret test".

[GlenStephens]

Back'O'Bourke kindly updated the grid postions to remove the RK -

[Abed H Najjar]

Greg

The list is based on the documented evidence that I could find on the generally accepted copies. I am quite sure that one or two more copies have genuine certs and have not come to light and also others that are genuine do exist but with fake certificates. The list Glen Stephens has pasted is one I compiled based on what I could find and is accepted as genuine.

I maintain that while it is an exceptionally rare stamp, copies do exist. I estimate, and this is really only a guess, that as much as 10,000 copies have been printed. I REPEAT, this is only a guess based on my research into this stamp and in my view this would confirm my belief, that for whatever reason, and we may never know, copies of these stamps with a plate number 77 were printed from other plates. I did go into some details as to possibly why this was done during my talk in New York and if anyone wishes to know please advise me. I do not wish to take up time and space on this board with theories unless requested.

This is all conjecture as practically nothing is known about this stamp, we can all put forward theories and ideas but who is to say what is right or wrong. We can only look at the balance of probabilities and make informed judgements.

I just can not believe that all the existing copies come from the one or two trial sheets released 'in error' amongst the c.13.5 billion stamps printed of this value.

It is sad however that serious philatelists and serious students of stamps as we are, many of whom have practiced this hobby for decades, have published books and papers, and many of whom have the experience both scientific and otherwise to make informed opinions and views, and the large majority of which are not colour blind and with good eyesight that could differentiate between the shades of red and other colours, have to rely on experts and expert bodies to tell us what is right or wrong. Theirs is apparently the FINAL WORD.

God save pragmatism and open minds.

Abed H Najjar

[mozzerb]

I can't recall the exact figures, but I believe the numbers of used copies of the various types known (where recorded used) range from about three to seventeen. They would have come from trial sheets.

Wait up there Sherlock.

"They would have come from trial sheets?" Why So?

Because that's the way the sources say the process worked at De La Rue, as indeed has been referred to numerous times already in this thread. A similar sort of process seems to have been in operation at Perkins, Bacon by the look of it.

As a rule, X number of trial sheets (six is the commonly accepted number) were printed from a new plate and inspected. One was kept as a reference (imprimatur sheet) and the rest placed into stock (if approved). If it so happened that the plate in question was not used for production runs in the same format (because it was a reserve plate that never got brought into use before the value was discontinued or redesigned, or the colour of the stamps had been changed by the time it came into production use), but the sheets already printed had been issued, the result was a very rare stamp from those few 'abnormal' trial sheets. Hence 'they would have come from trial sheets'.

It doesn't seem to require Sherlockian levels of insight to comprehend the meaning of this phrase here ...

[capetriangle]

Glen

The Challenge of Changing a "3" to a "7"

This was dealt with in my Collectors Club Philatelist article. It only contains opinions for which you do not care so there is really no need to readdress it.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

[GlenStephens]

Because that's the way the sources say the process worked at De La Rue, as indeed has been referred to numerous times already in this thread.

This was in fact established on page 1 of this thread, and is from where I have always imagined the existing MINT copies originated.

Nice neat little corner block of 6 for someone to have snipped off.

Your comment referred specifically to the USED copies. None of which come from anywhere near the top left of the sheet.

You have stated - "They would have come from trial sheets" and were simply asked 'why so'.

What evidence do you have any of these used copies came from a trial sheet? No-one else does, so I'd be pleased to hear if you do.

Let's see it please -- otherwise it seems reasonable to speculate ALL the used copies known - like Abed's untampered with trio may all clearly show the number 77, are definitely not "177s" but bear corner letter charcteristics shared with some other plate.

Why -- no-one knows. Yet.

[prof2000]

Weren't the trial sheets imperforate when sent for approval, then if the plate was approved one was kept for the imprimatur sheet (still not perforated) and the remainder were then perforated and put into stock.

Surely if the plate was rejected as being too out of line to be perforated properly, then there should be NO perforated copies in existence. Could be barking up the wrong tree here but that's my limited knowledge of the process.

Is it possible that the existing plate 77's are coincident reentries where the wrong roller die has been used?

Fascinating topic!

[Greg Ioannou]

Is it possible that the existing plate 77's are coincident reentries where the wrong roller die has been used?

That would seem to be the likely answer, except that the impressions clearly plate as plate 73, but say plate 77, which would not be the case if it was simply a wrong roller. So something has been altered by someone somewhere.

Greg

[GlenStephens]

Surely if the plate was rejected as being too out of line to be perforated properly, then there should be NO perforated copies in existence.

I recall someone posting that Hill would not know if the laid down plate was so badly aligned that the lower rows would always be poorly perforated in it went to press, UNLESS at least one trial sheet was fed into the fixed perforate to see the end result.

That does seem logical?

[capetriangle]

Glen

One minor point, enough with the sarcastic use of quotation marks. Nobody refers to you as a stamp "dealer" now do they?

Thank you

Richard Debney

[mozzerb]

Your comment referred specifically to the USED copies. None of which come from anywhere near the top left of the sheet.

*sigh* No, it referred specifically to the used Abnormals. You know, the stamps the previous sentence of that post was about, introduced as a useful comparison? Not the Plate 77s, used or unused, from whatever source, which I then went on to talk about -- arguing that the existence of said Abnormals showed that it wasn't actually impossible for stamps from trial sheets to get out and be used and that the numbers known were comparable.

Hence the 100 years or so of evidence that they -- the Abnormals, just for the avoidance of doubt -- came from trial sheets. Basic English. If, of course, you actually read the sentence ...

[Abed H Najjar]

Glen

The Challenge of Changing a "3" to a "7"

This was dealt with in my Collectors Club Philatelist article. It only contains opinions for which you do not care so there is really no need to readdress it.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

Richard, I CARE, SO PLEASE let me address your Challenge issue of changing the numbers, as written by you in your rebuttal to my article in the Collectors Club Journal.

I did read your rebuttal very carefully and of course replied to it in the same issue. What I feel must be brought to the attention of all readers is the following statement which you make as far as the alteration of the numbers from '3's to '7's, which in fact is what is claimed to have been faked, and of course behind your reasoning about the very subjective colour difference issue that you claim you can see.

Dear readers please take the time to read this carefully.

The Challenge of Changing a "3" to a "7"
If the right-hand diamond containing the second "7" of each "77" is smoothly
abraded down to clean uninked paper and the small 1.5 mm diameter area surrounding
filled in by the application of "pigment/paint/color/dye or similar" leaving a white
"7" visible, the process could be accomplished. The cancellations shown near the
second "7s" in Figure 11 on page 283 are truly amorphous and could easily have
been created. Moreover, though this is highly speculative, the abraded/scuffed area
on stamp SL in the right-hand tablet could be the result of a failed attempt at abrasion
by the faker. That the part cover shows the correct rate is immaterial to its authenticity
or lack thereof as a Plate 77. Using the method described above a "2" is just as easy
to manipulate as a "3," the faker simply used what was available to him. When the
fakery was performed and the circumstances of the item's discovery, that it was in an
old-time collection on the continent, are of no relevance to its authenticity.

As you can see he starts with the word 'If'.

Why start with an 'If'? If he states that the item is faked then he must be definite about this fact and this statement must not be subject to any 'Ifs'

Let us now look and analyse this 'Gem' of a statement- One which has damned a perfectly genuine world class rarity and rendered it potentially valueless.

Debney states that each of the second '7's has been 'abraded down to clean uninked paper'.

Now I can understand abrading a piece of thick card or paper down to its clean surface but I can not see how you can abrade a piece of fragile 1860's paper made from only a few layers of interwoven paper fibre matrix, and on which the ink particles adhere very closely throughout, without damaging the whole structure.

Scanning electron microscope evidence and 80-100x microscopy all show the fibres to be intact, as can be seen from these scanning electron microscope scans from the RSSL.

https://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz184/abednajjar/RSSL20report.jpg

MOD - Image deleted by member.

Now having abraded this fragile paper down to its 'clean unlinked' surface the forger applies a 'pigment/paint/color/dye or similar'. If a dye then this would seep throughout the 'remaining' paper fibres and if a pigment or paint then this would leave blotches which are very easily detectible and certainly show up on all the analytical equipment used as can be seen from this reading from the analysis made by Professor Hall. There is no way the two peaks can match so well if the ink was not identical between the two '7's. In any event I feel that it is quite impossible both quantitatively and qualitatively to produce two batches of identical inks without access to state of the art analytical equipment and even then I feel this task would be of the utmost difficulty.

'If' he did succeed in his dastardly deed, my guess is that the forger will have a piece of art that would look like something that has come out of playschool.

I am sure students of this issue will agree with me when I say that one can see shade/colour differences between one stamp and another and also sometimes within the stamp itself, after all, the ink was applied by hand and this may not have always given a uniform layer. Furthermore ink in large quantities was being mixed and one would expect some colour difference within the same batch due to, at times, poor mixing.

How can anyone ever take Debney's claims seriously I will never know, and to have the audacity to question the work of professionals who have been in forensic science for years and who carry out work for major institutions is totally beyond me. I have put forward as concrete as evidence of authenticity as any man can against what is in my view totally absurd and inconclusive guesswork.

In my view serious philately has been dealt a sad blow in having to contend with, and argue against, such poor, speculative and totally unfounded opinions.

[capetriangle]

Abed

I have just seen your post. I am just about to go to the City and will be at a stampshow in Albany tomorrow. I will reply in due course.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

[samkelly]

Given the professional examination I would accept the item as genuine, as would a Court of Law. No doubt it will end up in the Queen of England's collection, being declared genuine.

Sam

[David Benson]

Abed,

it is about time that you bit the bullet and make an appointment to see the Secretary of the Royal London, Expertising Committee and resubmit the item with the new evidence that you have obtained since it was last considered by them. Anything else you do is wasting your time, their time and thousands of words on various boards worldwide.

I am sure they will give your item more consideration than they did before and that their top experts will fully investigate all the details of the various reports and investigations.

There are a few possible outcomes,

1. They are totally genuine printed from Plate 77.
2. They are totally genuine, showing Plate 77 but printed from another plate.
3. They are fake.
4. They can't decide.

I concede that I don't know and I am glad I am not on the committee that has to make the deliberations,

David B.

[Abed H Najjar]

Thank you David for your valued suggestion.

I can entirely see your thinking and will say the following to your four possible outcomes:

1. They are totally genuine printed from Plate 77.

We know that they are genuine but not from plate 77, in fact there is enough doubt cast that would question the fact that any of the accepted plate 77 stamps actually come from plate77.

2. They are totally genuine, showing Plate 77 but printed from another plate.

Yes this is the correct verdict, they come from plate 73. We also know that they are genuine based on the fact that all the forensic evidence shows them to be untampered with, all the pragmatists and serious collectors who have examined them could NOT see anything wrong with them and finally all the sceptics who have damned these stamps have given us NOT ONE SHRED of credible or justifiable and proven evidence that they are faked and finally both fake certificates have been discredited.

3. They are fake.

They are not and this is backed by intensive state of the art analysis and the views of highly respected forensic document examiners, see 2 above.

4. They can't decide.

NO. If an expert committee can't decide when presented with official documents, intensive research, state of the art forensic results and reports from renowned international forensic document examiners, then they should not be in this trade.

Now the way I see it, the Royal has declared this cover a fake based on an opinion which has been totally discredited using state of the art forensic results and reports from renowned international forensic document examiners.

This can only mean one thing- The item is genuine.

Therefore if we look at your list above we can see that option 2 is the applicable one. Therefore, the only correct, just and fair thing to do is to issue a new certificate stating something along the following lines:

The three stamps showing a plate number 77 are genuine but do not originate from plate77.

As I believe is probably the case with all the other accepted plate 77 stamps.

Perhaps one day I will gather enough heart to reapproach them and hope that my years of hard work and my belief in this item will be justly rewarded.

[Tim Clarke]

Hallo everyone. I'm a new boy here and this is my first posting.

As a collector of Alphabet III perforated stars and 4 corner letter 1d reds for a long time you can imagine how fascinating a topic this is for me.

I would like to thank Abed for showing everyone this cover as it has stimulated a lot of interest and discussion about my favourite stamp (the 1d red)!

I thought people might like to hear about some research I have done relating to the four corner letter 1d reds which relates to all this discussion, so in no particular order, here goes!

Firstly, I don't think that there's any doubt that some stamps were printed from plate 77 and perforated. Perkins Bacon would have printed some sheets and sent them to the Inland Revenue who would have perforated them to see how they would have come out. They didn't look good because of poor alignment so it was decided to scrap the plate. The exact number of sheets printed can never been never be known for certain but that doesn't really matter.

There's no way that all the effort of making a plate would have been made and then it not tested to see if it was OK. I can prove this too because have made some progress in terms of looking at the known copies of 77 and have managed to establish that the Tapling stamp's corner letters (BA) don't match any other plate's corner letters so must have been printed from plate 77. I am now working my way through the other known copies that I have images of and it will be interesting to see if that applies to them as well.

Here is a bit of history relating to 77s and if anyone can add any more that would be great as I'm trying to get every scrap of information I can about these stamps.

Anyway, here's some history that I've cobbled together and I'd be really interested to hear about anything else to do with these stamps.

AA or CA? - The W Hughes-Hughes stamp and the HJ Crocker stamp that are sometimes mentioned as different stamps might be the same stamp. Word was that an unused irregular block of 4 was discovered back in the 1870s ((AA/CA maybe), AB, AC and BA) and split into individual stamps. I think AA/CA was in the collection of William Hughes-Hughes who was one of the founder members of the Royal and the stamp was bought from him/his estate by Gibbons in 1896.

My notes say that Gibbons didn't sell this stamp to Ferrary and that Ferrary never had a plate 77 but rather it was sold to H Estrange Ewen and then he sold it to Henry J Crocker in America where it went up in smoke in 1906 in San Francisco. I have no image of this stamp.

AB - Is an unused stamp now in the Royal Philatelic collection. I have a good image of this stamp.

BA Is an unused stamp now in the British Library from the Tapling collection. I am confident that this stamp is from the original plate 77. This confidence is based on the fact that I have examined every single stamp with the check letters BA from ALL the plates in between 71 and 225 and NONE of the positions match the Tapling stamp. This proves that some stamps were printed from plate 77. I have a good image of this stamp.

AC - Once belonged to Per Gjerding, J de R Philip and Chas Nissen. It was found in 1919, was sold originally to J. de R. Philip, then sold to Major Raphael in 1959, and disappeared in 1965 when his collection was stolen. I have a good image of this stamp.

LL Was discovered by NV le Gallais in 1906 and passed to GEJ Crallan of Jersey. It's obliterated 80 in circle with lines outside as per EC London head office 1856 - 1874. Stamp sold in the Daily Telegraph stamp auction by Puttick and Simpson on a day of bad weather in aid of Belgian Relief Fund, London 28/9/1915 and raised £50. It was bought by WS Brocklehurst and sold again in 1955. the RPSL cert is dated 14th December 1914 and numbered 4900. I very poor image of this stamp.

MI - Found in a box of stamps in 1944 by Percy Jackson who was a 1d red fan interested in recons and repairs and varieties and sold for £220.00. J de Philip owned at some point - I have no image of this stamp.

NC - Found in a bulk lot of stamps - I have no image of this stamp.

PH Found in 1920 and now in the Fletcher collection in the British Library. I believe this was found in the same box as PI (the Johnson and Readhead box) and some articles say that three were found at that time. It was originally sold to HCV Adams and then Fletcher. I have a good image of this stamp.

PI Cancelled 15 surrounded heavy bars, as used London Head Office. With 4d red (1920 cert?). J de R Philip owned at some point. I have a good image of this stamp.

As I say, I'm continuing to research all this so if anyone has any more chunks (or scraps) of information or even hearsay it would be great to hear it. Any missing images would be great too.

As far as the cover goes there's now so much information and so many opinions I'm not sure whether it's worth adding any of my own although I would certainly certainly be very interested in looking at the cover if the opportunity arises!

Tim

[GlenStephens]

BA Is an unused stamp now in the British Library from the Tapling collection. I am confident that this stamp is from the original plate 77. This confidence is based on the fact that I have examined every single stamp with the check letters BA from ALL the plates in between 71 and 225 and NONE of the positions match the Tapling stamp. This proves that some stamps were printed from plate 77. I have a good image of this stamp.

AC - Once belonged to Per Gjerding, J de R Philip and Chas Nissen. It was found in 1919, was sold originally to J. de R. Philip, then sold to Major Raphael in 1959, and disappeared in 1965 when his collection was stolen. I have a good image of this stamp.

Welcome Tim .. great to have attracted another GB 1d specialist after my client email a few hours back!

You guys with the detailed knowledge will be the ones to seal this puzzle.

Pertinax posted this below a while back re "BA" and good to see you can confirm it lines up with no other early plates re corner letters.

It goes further to confirm my long help view the top left corner block was snipped from a trial sheet actually printed by a new plate.

I'd LOVE you to post the good photo of "AC" you have on file. Pix are a cinch here.. even Abed sorted that out yesterday! Primer is here -

https://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=284

Scott - which plate did the Tapling collection "77" corner letters match do you recall?

AFAIK no-one has established this yet.

As I said in October last, the onus is on Abed to do this - not only the Tapling stamp, but all the others too.

Only reference to the precise check-letter positions of the stamps will prove anything.

If any of the stamps cannot be allocated to another plate by this method, then that will be pretty conclusive proof those are actually from plate 77.

Scott

[Abed H Najjar]

Thank you Tim for your valued opinion.

I note you have mentioned more information as to where aech copy comes from expanding on the text I have produced earlier.

Here are some FACT I could muster on this enigma.

I do feel it is useful to 'try' and find any evidence that the accepted stamps showing a plate number 77 were printed from plate 77, which was produced using a roller with a number 77 engraved on it.

For this reason I am putting forwards some facts and views in order that we can have some input and ideas to see if these stamps could have come from a plate 77, or not.

Evidence that plate 77 DID NOT print the existing stamps that show a plate number 77.

1- Plate rejected due to stated fact: 'Incorrectly laid down for perforation' (IR79/79)
2- Plate not registered (IR79/79)
3- Plate not put to press (IR79/79)
4- No sheets were printed from it (IR79/79)
5- Plate partially defaced 4th Feb 1863. Over one year before the printing date of 1st March 1864
6- No imprimatur sheet produced or documented or registered at Somerset house
7- Existing copies do not show the dashes, a major feature on the plate 77 roller impression.
8- The right hand number '7' on both panels shows differences in features and position which can not be as such if the '7's have been derived from one roller impression.

Evidence that plate 77 DID print the existing stamps that show a plate number 77.

1- Stamps with a plate number 77 do exist, but have they been printed from this plate?

What we know about plate 77 stamps.

Data from the Perkins Bacon records Vol. II by Percy de Worms confirming that the plate was completed state:
1861 September 23 Finishing Postage Plate No. 77

E D Bacon cites the following comment in his book The Line-Engraved Stamps of Great Britain Vols. I and II Printed by Perkins Bacon & Co 1920-

"The existence of the six specimens proves that a sheet or more must have been printed and perforated, no doubt as a trial, after which the plate was condemned as unfit for use. These trial stamps may then have been mixed in with the ordinary stock and put into circulation in the usual way, or they may have been put on one side and, perhaps after an interval, used by some official or other individual who came across them."

We know that the trial sheets were produced because the plate was rejected by Ormond Hill at Somerset House in a letter to Perkins Bacon on the 7th February 1863.

Evidence-

The plate was rejected because a statement which appears in manuscript next to the plate 77 entry states: 'incorrectly laid down for perforation'.

This naturally means that the sheet would not perforate well. Very probably because the perforations would fall badly over the stamps. However if we examine all the perforations of the existing copies we note that none of them show perforations which are unnatural to this issue, and we do have plate 77 stamps from all over the sheet. So I do not believe that this factor was applicable to the known and accepted copies.

Are we to accept therefore that these rejected one or more trial sheets that should have been destroyed are the source of the existing copies?

OK. Let us accept the fact that an 'official' removed the top two rows from one trial sheet because he knew their value, would he knowingly have released the remainder 'sheets' to the public? And when was this done, when the issue was released in April 1864, one year after they were printed. If so, who would have stored rejected badly perforated sheets for one year and why?

It 'could have happened' but it just does not add up in my mind. Furthermore none of the existing stamps match the roller impression and all show measurable differences from each other. This can not happen in stamps originating from one impression.

Another point is a mathematical one. What are the odds of finding the 'used' copies amongst the 13.5billion stamps printed if they came from the small handful of sheets released to the public 'in error'?

There is too much conjecture with this stamp. I know GB archive material comes on the market, but this was not archive material, if it was then where are the sheets from plate 70 and 75.

My mind is undoubtedly always open to suggestions but at least for now there are too many facts that do not add up to make me believe that these stamps come from plate77.

Advocates of plate 77 stamps originating from plate 77 must give more solid evidence than 'perhaps and maybe'. The evidence is too much weighted in the opposite direction.

Like other students I have examined the provenance copies at first hand and I am not certain that they match the roller impression for this stamp. They MUST if they come from the plate and 77 roller. The Tapling copy is available on the internet for very fine inspection and I suggest members look at it. Where are the dashes, why does the left hand '7' have a broken top and very much an engraved-like upright, why do the 7's on all the known copies fall at different levels. We must give answers to these questions before we can be conclusive that these stamps come from plate 77. Matching the corner letters is a first class way to start but what if the engraving was done on a coincidental head re-entry would they match then?

Look how many head re-entries were carried out on the early plates.
Plate 72 13
Plate 73 67
Plate 80 3
Plate 81 49
Plate 85 87
Plate 90 3

How can we be so certain?

There is much to be studied and I do not think we can be matter-of-fact about anything yet until conclusive evidence has been put done, until then it is all a matter of conjecture. This of course does not mean that all the accepted copies including the three on the cover are not all genuine.

[mozzerb]

There is much to be studied and I do not think we can be matter-of-fact about anything yet until conclusive evidence has been put done, until then it is all a matter of conjecture. This of course does not mean that all the accepted copies including the three on the cover are not all genuine.

Agreed. Can I issue a plea to any specialists in QV LE reading this -- it would be really useful to those of us who aren't if we could look beyond the 77s, and see as many examples as possible of the general pattern of usages/effects of repairs to other LE plates to get a comparative idea of what is and isn't normal variation for these issues. (For example, are there comparable features to the dashes on the 77 die on the dies for other plates?

If so, how well do they show up on printed stamps? How much can inking variations shift apparent corner letter positions, if at all? I don't know, but I'd like to, and presumably somebody already does.) I'm not sure a new 'good' cert would actually make much difference now (except as vindication, of course) -- the interesting questions are about how the stamps came to exist in this format, and whether things previously accepted need to be revised.

[Tim Clarke]

Well, I don't think that there's any doubt that some stamps were printed from 77. If anyone would like to take the time to go through my sheet recons and the reference stamps that I've crossed checked any doubtful matches against I can certainly prove that the Tapling stamp was printed from a plate different to all the other 4 corner letter plates with a number 77 on it.

I have made good progress cross checking the other examples and it will be interesting to see whether all the other "accepted" copies have the same result. If the Tapling stamp came from a re-entered plate 73 or any other plate then there would be a check letter match. On plate 73 re-entries the check letters usually look thinner than in state one but if there's any letter movement it's really tiny.

It's actually quite easy to eliminate possible matches on these stamps as far as check letter positions go because of having 4 letters. With the earlier stars it's not uncommon for the 2 letters to be close in position to another stamp's and it to be sometimes difficult to plate stamps by check letter alone but it's rare to find a stamp that needs double-checking with 4 check letters to compare.

The fact that some stamps were printed from a "true" plate 77 is not really connected to establishing the genuineness (is that a word?!) of the stamps on your cover. I think I'm right in saying that everyone agrees that the stamps are plate 73 stamps which have a 77 instead of a 73 on them but at this stage there are significantly different views of how that came to pass.

I think I'd have to see see the stamps and maybe compare them with some other 73s with those check letter positions in the different states too before commenting further on that one.

Cheers!

Tim

[Abed H Najjar]

Thank you Tim for your input, I am delighted to see you take an active part in the ressearch and of course very grateful.

I would also be delighted to show you the item and to discuss things with you. You can email me on my email as follows

abed[at]btconnect.com

In fact any other reader who wishes to make contact with me is welcome to do so

Abed H Najjar

[Abed H Najjar]

Tim we must look beyond a plate with a '7' on it. Both '7's have no dashes and both look suspect, so there is also good reason to suggest that it may even be an 80's plate etc.. Why? I will never know but this possibility CAN NOT be discounted. Raman testing copies AB, and BA would be very helpful!!

I have proved, through private experiments with experienced engravers, that a plate number can easily be altered in the laboratory and so this would not have been beyond the very capable engravers of that time.

What if the mint copies AB, AC and BA were fabricated at a later date from an 80's plate and copies which were cut with scissors were leaked out to wealthy collectors???

We must leave all options open. I have been mulling over this plate 77 conundrum for over 5 years!!

Abed H Najjar

[lavache2004]

I have some experience with high resolution microscopy and Raman spectroscopy applied to stamps (from the Third Reich and occupied areas).

All the postings I read (I did not read all of them!) are very interesting, and I am curious about some things (I am NOT expert in GB stamps):

1. Are there studies DATING the envelope and/or the stamps?

2. Could this piece be a 19-th century forgery?

[aethelwulf]

The exact number of sheets printed can never been never be known for certain but that doesn't really matter.

AA or CA? - The W Hughes-Hughes stamp and the HJ Crocker stamp that are sometimes mentioned as different stamps might be the same stamp. Word was that an unused irregular block of 4 was discovered back in the 1870s ((AA/CA maybe), AB, AC and BA) and split into individual stamps. I think AA/CA was in the collection of William Hughes-Hughes

1. How many sheets were printed (if they were) does matter, simply for economic reasons, it affects the rarity of the item and thus market value, if it can be shown that 10,000 copies are out there as Abed guesses, that would put downward pressure on the value of 77's, whilst possibly having an interesting stimulus effect on the value of Penny Red hoards from adventurers taking a dip to see if they can find one.

Further to that, knowing how many were printed is a detail, minor or not, in the history of the printing of this stamp. As a serious student who has stated he would be happy to have any scrap of information, that is a detail that seems important!

2. Can you clarify what you wrote here about the block of 4 (red highlighted). You wrote AA/CA, and also AC, which is suggesting to me a block of 6 then...

[aethelwulf]

Evidence that plate 77 DID NOT print the existing stamps that show a plate number 77.

1- Plate rejected due to stated fact: 'Incorrectly laid down for perforation' (IR79/79)
2- Plate not registered (IR79/79)
3- Plate not put to press (IR79/79)
4- No sheets were printed from it (IR79/79)
5- Plate partially defaced 4th Feb 1863. Over one year before the printing date of 1st March 1864
6- No imprimatur sheet produced or documented or registered at Somerset house
7- Existing copies do not show the dashes, a major feature on the plate 77 roller impression.
8- The right hand number '7' on both panels shows differences in features and position which can not be as such if the '7's have been derived from one roller impression.

Simply speculation here, but could a little flexibility be taken in what was recorded in this document, IR79/79?

Point 3: When they say "put to press", someone could have acted a bit bureacractic about that, looking on that as meaning 'put into full-time permanent service', and if it was not, writing 'no'.

Point 4: Regarding their statement 'no sheets printed from it', any trial sheets that were printed from it could have been viewed as being 'unofficial' (for lack of a better word). Maybe someone responsible for making these records only considered sheets destined for stock (sale in post offices) to qualify for point 4. This may be a poor comparison, but the existence of the Gulag was said not to be when it was.

Point 5: This is a long-shot now, but looking at the graphic representation of known copies, their is the top block (that is widely viewed as being snipped off for presentation/saving), and then the remaining copies are all from the bottom third or so of the sheet. There is a large gap in between. They stated the plate was "partially" defaced...maybe they just scratched marks across the middle, thus defacing those stamp images, and somehow the plate was used later to make one or a few sheets, and the defaced stamps were discarded, but the ones with 'good' images were saved?

Maybe the process for registering a plate etc was discussed before, but maybe an anomaly occurred in the handling of this plate. Something as simple as new staff who made a mistake?

[aethelwulf]

A final thought, this is something I thought of before but didn't mention, I don't recall if anyone else did in this thread either:

Have you tried to decipher the address to which the cover was written? It may be incidental, and is certainly an aside from the technicalities of printing, but it helps to put into context the origins of this piece. And could the origin of Guernsey (somewhat off the beaten path) hold any significance/clue?

Regards,
Jeremy

[Abed H Najjar]

Evidence that plate 77 DID NOT print the existing stamps that show a plate number 77.

1- Plate rejected due to stated fact: 'Incorrectly laid down for perforation' (IR79/79)
2- Plate not registered (IR79/79)
3- Plate not put to press (IR79/79)
4- No sheets were printed from it (IR79/79)
5- Plate partially defaced 4th Feb 1863. Over one year before the printing date of 1st March 1864
6- No imprimatur sheet produced or documented or registered at Somerset house
7- Existing copies do not show the dashes, a major feature on the plate 77 roller impression.
8- The right hand number '7' on both panels shows differences in features and position which can not be as such if the '7's have been derived from one roller impression.

Simply speculation here, but could a little flexibility be taken in what was recorded in this document, IR79/79?

These details come from Inland Revenue document IR79/79

I do not think this is speculation because we are looking at details from an official inland revenue document which records the information on each plate and when it was put to press, how many sheets were printed from it, when it was defaced etc. The printing figures stated for each plate is generally the accepted and published figure.

The details printed above applied to plates 70, 75 and 77.

We just can not just disregard these details as speculation.

Abed H Najjar

[aethelwulf]

Evidence that plate 77 DID NOT print the existing stamps that show a plate number 77.

1- Plate rejected due to stated fact: 'Incorrectly laid down for perforation' (IR79/79)
2- Plate not registered (IR79/79)
3- Plate not put to press (IR79/79)
4- No sheets were printed from it (IR79/79)
5- Plate partially defaced 4th Feb 1863. Over one year before the printing date of 1st March 1864
6- No imprimatur sheet produced or documented or registered at Somerset house
7- Existing copies do not show the dashes, a major feature on the plate 77 roller impression.
8- The right hand number '7' on both panels shows differences in features and position which can not be as such if the '7's have been derived from one roller impression.

Simply speculation here, but could a little flexibility be taken in what was recorded in this document, IR79/79?

These details come from Inland Revenue document IR79/79

I do not think this is speculation because we are looking at details from an official inland revenue document which records the information on each plate and when it was put to press, how many sheets were printed from it, when it was defaced etc. The printing figures stated for each plate is generally the accepted and published figure.

The details printed above applied to plates 70, 75 and 77.

We just can not just disregard these details as speculation.

Abed H Najjar

Sorry, what I meant to say was that my suggestions with relation to what is written in the document were my speculations. I wasn't questioning your stating of these details, or disregarding the information, just pondering 'what if what was in the mind of the person who wrote this document is different from our interpretation today'.

If it is accepted as fact that the plate was not registered, put to press, or that sheets were printed from it, then how could the 77's be printed? Hence my suggestion that someone at the printer, when recording the details originally, took a different interpretation of these lines and wrote what they did. One would hope the qualifications of the staff would not be so lax however.

[Tim Clarke]

Athelwulf posed some questions -

I have put my responses in orange

1. How many sheets were printed (if they were) (they were) does matter, simply for economic reasons, it affects the rarity of the item and thus market value, if it can be shown that 10,000 copies are out there as Abed guesses, that would put downward pressure on the value of 77's, whilst possibly having an interesting stimulus effect on the value of Penny Red hoards from adventurers taking a dip to see if they can find one. What I meant was that it doesn't matter if they printed one test sheet or a dozen. We know that it wasn't many and that a genuine plate 77 stamp is a very rare stamp indeed. 10,000 is an impossible figure. I think most 1d red collectors over the last 100 years would have already had a pretty good search through their stamps for a 77!!

Further to that, knowing how many were printed is a detail, minor or not, in the history of the printing of this stamp. As a serious student who has stated he would be happy to have any scrap of information, that is a detail that seems important! Well, I don't think the exact number of sheets is that important as we know it was a very small number, most likely half a dozen.

2. Can you clarify what you wrote here about the block of 4 (red highlighted). You wrote AA/CA, and also AC, which is suggesting to me a block of 6 then... Yes, I didn't explain that very well. What I was trying to say is that the missing stamp destroyed in the fire I have seen described as both AA and CA with more references to AA than CA. This could be an error or it could mean that both stamps had been collected at some point.

[Abed H Najjar]

Tim

I know I 'guessed' 10,000.

This nothing to a definitive stamp from which c13.5 billion were printed. The vast majoity of which would have been lost or destroyed or perhaps one or two still in attics.

I base this figure on what is available used.

I may well be completely wrong. But I certainly doubt that what is around comes from the small handful of trial sheets printed.

Abed H Najjar

[Tim Clarke]

Abed,

I think you make a very good point about the numbers but I reckon that the mint stamps at least were put to one side and kept by someone with knowledge of their scarcity so their survival on that basis is not so surprising.

Tim

[Abed H Najjar]

I love dealing with pragmatism-

Open minds will hopefully solve this conundrum one day!!

Thank you

Abed H Najjar

[GlenStephens]

Folks, not another one is likely to turn up due to this discussion.

These '77s' have been worth an absolute FORTUNE for over a century. The fact a used one sold for 50 quid in 1915 tells us that .. many months wages for a working man.

BILLIONS have been peered at carefully is my guess. I agree many more than are recorded must have been sold.

A pretty accurate 5% rule of thumb survival rate is often used for things not detected at the time.

Guess what 5% of one full sheet gives us .. about the number recorded above!

[jugoslavija_post]

HJ Crocker destroyed his collection?!?! Imagine all the treasures in there!

[GlenStephens]

HJ Crocker destroyed his collection?!?! Imagine all the treasures in there!

Well the massive 1906 San Francisco fire destroyed the collection, not Crocker.

[jugoslavija_post]

That's why I live in Chicago!

[GlenStephens]

That's why I live in Chicago!

You mean that city which burned to the ground in the 1880s?

[pertinax]

Evidence that plate 77 DID NOT print the existing stamps that show a plate number 77.


6- No imprimatur sheet produced or documented or registered at Somerset house

I haven't been here for a while, but I want to make comment on the above statement.

The process was that Perkins Bacon would print sheet/s from the new plates they had just completed, and these sheets - still imperforate - would be submitted to Somerset House for approval that the plate could be put to press.

Only once Somerset House was happy with the printed sheet submitted, did the sheet become the imprimatur sheet. It was then retained at Somerset House.

For this reason the statement 'No imprimatur sheet produced....or registered...' is only half true.

Yes, the sheet was not registered in the end, but a proposed imprimatur sheet was indeed produced. This sheet was delivered to Somerset House on 7 February 1863 at the same time as sheets for plates 76, 78, 79 and 80. A sheet from plate 75 was possibly also among this group.

Those four other sheets were deemed OK, were signed in the margin and on the back as permission those plates go to press, and they were retained in Somerset House.

The sheet from plate 77 was not deemed OK, and Perkins Bacon were advised so by Ormond Hill's letter dated the same day - 7 February 1863.

The phrase 'Plate not put to press' while totally correct, is incorrectly being taken to mean no sheets were printed from plate 77. 'Not put to press' means it was not used in full production. It does not mean no sheets at all were printed.

Inclusion of this in the list of 'Evidence that plate 77 DID NOT print the existing stamps that show a plate number 77' is not at all correct!!


Scott

[Greg Ioannou]

Folks, not another one is likely to turn up due to this discussion.

We keep getting hints and rumours of others. There was that other "plate 73" cover with bad cert -- it may be every bit as good as Abed's three. There's the mint JI and used QC that were used to create the reprints being sold on eBay. And all sorts of stories of collectors bringing copies to stamp club meetings and such. I'm not saying that any one of those is definitely a genuine copy. But I suspect some of them are.

There's a solid core of acknowledged copies, and perhaps as large a pool of unacknowledged, but genuine, ones. And I don't see why this discussion won't eventually unearth one or two more.

Greg

[jugoslavija_post]

That's why I live in Chicago!

You mean that city which burned to the ground in the 1880s?

Well, actually a suburb off to the side.

[stampmann]

There was that other "plate 73" cover with bad cert -- it may be every bit as good as Abed's three. Greg

This thread is now so long it is laborious for readers to go back through it. This is the cover bearing 'EI' that I sent to both the RPS & BPA in 1991.

The BPA stated it was from plate 73. I have recently loaned the cert. To a good friend of mine & Pertinax's "WH". He has 17 examples of plate 73 'EI' in various states.

The 77 of mine does appear to match an example from plate 73. However it has the number 77. This then suggests that Abed's option 2 farther up this page may well be right. Examples bearing 77 originate from 73 and were printed as such and not tampered with later.

Previously I have stated that we cannot be sure that ANY of the USED 77s come from plate 73 until all are re-examined in the light of modern science. Remember that their certs are in the main very old now.

Another point to remember with certificates is that they state "In the opinion of".

No certificate is therefore ever a statement of fact but only the opinion of a committee!

[stampmann]

Previously I have stated that we cannot be sure that ANY of the USED 77s come from plate 73 until all are re-examined in the light of modern science.

Sorry typo; I should have written "Previously I have stated that we cannot be sure that ANY of the USED 77s come from plate 77 until all are re-examined in the light of modern science."

[capetriangle]

Abed

I have now reviewed your post.

That I began a paragraph with the word "If" is irrelevant to the subject at issue.

As I said in my post of "Wed Sep 23, 2009 03:00:42" examination of paper fibres can be a double-edged sword. The balance of your post is, I believe, repetitive and for which I have no further answers.

Your item has already received two fake certificates from two of the world's finest Expert Committees. Rather than maligning the Committees, and at least one of the members, why don't you simply submit the item to other fine philatelic Expert Committees. I would suggest:

The BPA of London
David Brandon of Guildford, Surrey
Sergio Sismondo of Ottawa
Pascal Behr of Paris

Alternatively there are some very fine individual professional philatelists from whom opinions could be sought. These include:

David Beech of The British Library, London
William Crowe AIEP of Danbury, Connecticut
Keith Harmer of Yorktown Heights, New York
Mark Harvey of Haslemere, Surrey
Andrew Lajer of Hurst, Berkshire
Peter Mollet of Ringwood, Hampshire
Dominic Savastano of Spink, London
James Skinner of Sevenoaks, Kent
Greg Todd AIEP of Lymington, Southampton, Hampshire
Michael Wigmore RDPSA of Montagu, Western Cape, South Africa

Of course they are all former colleagues of mine, so you might consider their views suspect.

Another suggestion would be to compare the established Plate 77 stamps with the corresponding Plate 73's and see if their check letters plate to those of Plate 73.
If they did, for my argument it would certainly be troublesome. However, if they did not, I believe it would be devastating for yours.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

[pertinax]

Another suggestion would be to compare the established Plate 77 stamps with the corresponding Plate 73's and see if their check letters plate to those of Plate 73.
If they did, for my argument it would certainly be troublesome. However, if they did not, I believe it would be devastating for yours

I could not agree more. Not just to plate 73 but to all plates up to about 100 (ie about the date of the cover).

At one stage in the discussion here I started to think that the stamps were genuine. I think my words were to the effect of 'it looks increasingly likely they are genuine'.

And I posted my suggestion (not that I was the first to think about this) about them being created by re-entry. I am now certain I am wrong about this.

More importantly, I am now convinced more than ever that the stamps are faked.

They are an absolutely brilliant piece of work - technically speaking.

The only thing that is going to stop them being a 100% undetectable fake is the philatelic science.

It is now established that the BA plate 77 in the British Library did not come from any other plate - all the BAs from other plates have been compared to it, and it doesn't match any of them.

I believe - and it will take time - that each of the known plate 77s will stand up to this same scrutiny. One by one they will be proved to have come from no other plate.

At that point we will have the stamps on this cover standing alone - they look nothing like any of the other 77s, can be proved without any doubt whatsoever to have been printed on plate 73, and have been produced by some method that none of the other 77s have been.

As I said a couple of months ago, this is stronger evidence that they are fake than every scientific report that says otherwise.

Scott