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

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 28 Sep 2009 08:51

pertinax wrote: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.

Scott, I suspect you're right about the known copies -- at least the mint ones which seem to have come from the same block -- but what about the other 77-with-73 characteristics that stampmann had in 1991? Another apparent example from the same apparent plate found independently many years apart does at least suggest two separate sources.

(stampmann, who did you sell it to? Just some random punter as an example of a fake?)

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 28 Sep 2009 10:27

but what about the other 77-with-73 characteristics that stampmann had in 1991?

Obviously, no conclusion at all can be drawn unless we have a detailed image of it.

I would not be at all surprised if fakers are choosing plate 73 because of all the possible numbers - 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 - 3 is the one that gives the best result in terms of combination of the least amount of ink that needs to be removed and least amount of ink that needs to added.

Scott

Post by **GlenStephens** » 28 Sep 2009 10:31

stampmann wrote:
Greg Ioannou wrote: 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.

Exactly. (Your link to your cover did not load for some reason?)

Mr Debney's alleged master faker was certainly busy.

Creating your cover you paid nothing whatever for, and Abed's cover he paid nothing much for.

That suggestion is pure nonsense and the RPSL and the PF are in error saying the stamps were tampered with, simple as that.

Post by **GlenStephens** » 28 Sep 2009 10:35

pertinax wrote:
I would not be at all surprised if fakers are choosing plate 73 because of all the possible numbers - 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 - 3 is the one that gives the best result in terms of combination of the least amount of ink that needs to be removed and least amount of ink that needs to added.

Scott

Nonsense.

A 2 would suit far better! And the alleged painting in suggestion would stand out like a sore thumb to the most basic of tests.

A Q-Tip dipped in soapy water for one! Any red 'painted in' ink would run like mad when water was applied to the final 7 region.

The 'painted' in theory is quite absurd that anyone - much less an "Expert" Committee could seriously put forward.

The WHITE on the "painted in" theory would of course also need to be painted in, as well as the red, as well as the new postmark ink. A half blind 10 year could pick such a fake, much less SIX of them, as a fake cover must contain.

All a figment of the imagination of https://www.CluchingAtStraws.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - and a barrage of high end foresnic tests from chemists and scientists and professors, and forensic experts have confirmed what an absurd POV it was, and confirm there is zero scientific evidence to support it.

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 28 Sep 2009 13:52

pertinax

Thank you for your post. I am in almost total agreement with you.

You would only need to go to Plate 79, since no one disputes the first "7."

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 28 Sep 2009 14:22

Glen

In your last post:

"The WHITE on the 'painted in' theory would of course also need to be painted in, as well as the red, as well as the new postmark ink. A half blind 10 year old could pick such a fake, much less SIX of them, as a fake cover must contain."

Not so, the WHITE is uninked paper, and there were only FIVE of them.

You might be able to spot these had you had the opportunity to examine the cover. After all I noticed them in five seconds of examination.

I will, however, clearly concede computer skills to your 'half blind 10 year old,' as I have yet to figure out how to use the 'quote' option on the board. Quite frankly its almost a miracle I managed the underline option in a post earlier today.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 28 Sep 2009 14:29

capetriangle wrote:Glen

In your last post:

"The WHITE on the 'painted in' theory would of course also need to be painted in, as well as the red, as well as the new postmark ink. A half blind 10 year old could pick such a fake, much less SIX of them, as a fake cover must contain."

Not so, the WHITE is uninked paper, and there were only FIVE of them.

You might be able to spot these had you had the opportunity to examine the cover. After all I noticed them in five seconds of examination.

I will, however, clearly concede computer skills to your 'half blind 10 year old,' as I have yet to figure out how to use the 'quote' option on the board. Quite frankly its almost a miracle I managed the underline option in a post earlier today.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

You would, surely, have to paint in the extraneous white bits of the number '3' if you were turning it into a '7'?? I am not a student of these issues particularly, but even I can see there would be 'left over' white areas to be inked in to change a white '3' to a white '7'! Plus, as Glen points out, you need to fix teh uninked 7 to make it look right.

Post by **GlenStephens** » 28 Sep 2009 14:48

capetriangle wrote:
Not so, the WHITE is uninked paper, and there were only FIVE of them.

Your alleged forger is even better than I first thought.

So your theory you keep on repeating ad nauseum, and expounding without one SHRED of evidence to support it except your trusty hand held 10 x "Star Wars" magnifier, is he used something sharp like a scalpel tip to cut away all this area below that is now red, so that the underlying WHITE stamp paper showed through?

Correct so far???? It is so far fetched I almost can't believe you (or anyone) keep suggesting it occurred, but I want you to say right here in writing that is the case -- in your "EXPERT" opinion, having examined it so thoroughly - as you keep reminding us - also ad nauseum. And as you have stated, your 50 year reputation in stamps (or however long you say it is) rests entirely on this very point - by your own boast.

A true genius he really was. And then, into this area now with disturbed and neatly cut into paper fibres (that the SCIENTISTS say absolutely do not exist, but let's not be sidetracked here by facts as your theory is more entertaining than reality) he paints in all the surrounding area with his little brush.

Not just once he cunningly does this, but 5 times or 6 times .. he is so clever and skillful it does not worry him. Those stupid scientists will never be believed after all, when the PHILATELIC FOUNDATION is out there making collective jackasses of themselves publicly! Which I might add will severely damage their reputation, whether this gets a clean ticket from them or not.

Dipped carefully into an ink magically exactly the exact same chemical compound, and 150 year old ink produced from Mars or Jupiter - he paints it into all the other red ink areas he needs to fill in. And yet magically again, NONE of this new 'painting in' runs into the new channels and hollows created by your theory, that the forger cut or laser beam blasted away, all the existing red ink and the top layer of the porous paper of course.

NASA or the FBI should have the guy working for them, they really should. And David Copperfield really should take some tips from him.

The area we are taking about below is 2mm x 2mm .. less than the size of any one character of this text. Yet 5 or 6 times your alleged forger produces this miracle of faking in these tiny little squares - undetectable to an absolute baggage of space age leading edge equipment used by REAL experts, but CUNNINGLY it does not escape the eagle eye of RICHARD DEBNEY!

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 28 Sep 2009 15:21

PeterS

An area very slightly larger than the original "3" is abraded down to uninked paper, then a silhouette of a "7" is left by repainting in the "yellowish rose-red" color the area except that occupied by the "7." Remember whether or not it is a "3" or a "7" it is only uninked paper. The repainting needs to be done in one color alone.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 28 Sep 2009 15:35

Nonsense.

A 2 would suit far better!

Really Glen.

How many plate 77s have you faked recently?

But seriously, no a 2 would not be better. The bottom of the diagonal stroke of a 2 meets the curved lines below WAY too high. The ENTIRE diagonal line would have to filled with ink, and a new diagonal line would need to be created by removing all the ink.

But in any case, this was not a theory, just an aside.

The main gist of my post was that I am confident Grahame's stamp will turn out to be another fake, nothing at all to do with the current case. There must be dozens of fakes from each of the other plates in the 70s, and many hundreds of fakes from plate 177s.

I was going to ask Grahame to post a big scan of just the stamp from the cert - since photos scan quite well up to about 800dpi or more - but as he no longer has it, not possible.

Scott

Scott

PeterS · Post by **PeterS** » 28 Sep 2009 16:03

capetriangle wrote:PeterS

An area very slightly larger than the original "3" is abraded down to uninked paper, then a silhouette of a "7" is left by repainting in the "yellowish rose-red" color the area except that occupied by the "7." Remember whether or not it is a "3" or a "7" it is only uninked paper. The repainting needs to be done in one color alone.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

How do you abrade down to the uninked paper without causing damage to the paper? Ink will have been absorbed into the fibres, at least some extent, surely? Or is the process unlike any other engraved printing process I am aware of?

Given the nature of the paper, there HAS to be some absorption into the fibres. Abrading the ink to leave a totally uninked area must have an impact on the underlying paper fibres. Yet the scientific analysis of the paper indicates, as I read it, no such damage.

The writer of the scientific evaluation is an forensic expert in the field of documents and has stated the suggestion of abrading is not a valid finding, given his analysis. Note that his area of expertise is what is relavent here, since it is (by your own assertion) what has (or has not) happened to the paper around the 7s that is the entire basis of your assessment as to the stamps having been altered in a fraudulent manner.

I accept you have seen the cover and I have not. I accept you have experience in this particular area and I have not.

What I cannot accept is your continued assertion that you are right and all the scientific evidence is wrong.

It is, however, patently obvious that you will never change your opinion and that is your right. I hope Abed persists and that, eventually, more open minds are prepared to consider all the evidence.

I do also acknowledge that there seems to be a problem as to how these stamps came to be, given the characteristics that point to a plate 73 printing. That is not, however, sufficient evidence on its own to simply damn the cover as a forgery. Anybody that claims to have absolute knowledge about what happened long before they were born and that all that could be written has been written is a fool.

Digressing, but illustrating the point. The skull that has been in the possession of the Russians since 1945, claimed to be Hitler's, has just been proven (via DNA) to be female. So, for 64 years the acknowledged remains of Hitler were not actually his remains. For all that time, any claim that Hitler escaped from the bunker could be rejected, based on the firm, irrefutable, evidence of the skull. A new scientific technology (DNA in this case) has changed the accepted facts.

By the way, please don't get the idea I think Hitler survived! The Russians simply picked the wrong remains!

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 28 Sep 2009 16:07

Interesting. From where I sit, each side seems to have painted itself into a corner.

The "it's a fake" people have a mountain of scientific evidence against them. What they have in their favour is Richard's assertion (which looks pretty shaky against that evidence) that he can see clear signs of alteration. Their big trump card is that the stamps are without dispute from plate 73.

The "it's genuine" people have a mountain of scientific evidence that something that can't exist, with our current understanding of these stamp issues, does indeed exist.

Abed has compiled a compelling case that something that can't exist does indeed exist. I think he can persuade all doubters that it exists by showing how it can have come to exist. As I said in a previous post, if it was the result of a repair to plate 77, and that botched repair was later corrected, there will be traces of that in the copies printed after the correction, both in subtle changes to the design of the stamp. Surely the 3s of the later printings of the plate 73s won't exactly match, while the 7s will. That is relatively easy to test. Also, the "second diamonds" of the later printed plate 73s would show similar traces element changes to these "plate 77s" -- again, easy enough to test.

Those are two readily testable hypotheses that would, if the tests show the "right" results, blow the doubters' main argument apart.

Richard can similarly blow Abed's scientific evidence apart if he can come up with a equally persuasive scientific counter-case. At the moment, he sounds like that character in the Bugs Bunny cartoons: "I dunno how yez done it, but I knows yez done it!" The nifty 10x magnifying glass really isn't looking all that persuasive at the moment.

I still think the most compelling piece of evidence is the existence that other plate 73 cover. It seems the only argument against it being genuine was that it was from plate 73, not 77. I think it speaks loudly to the probable genuineness of Abed's cover. It's really unfortunate that it effectively no longer exists. Plating the other used "plate 77s" -- assuming they plate as something other than 77 -- would also strengthen Abed's case.

Greg

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 28 Sep 2009 16:14

pertinax wrote:
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.

I suspect the opposite, but we're both just speculating. Only the results of that research will tell the true tale.

In my previous note, I suggested a couple of other pieces of "philatelic research" on plate 73 stamps from those positions that will be just as logically compelling, one way or the other.

I do believe someone said here just a day or three ago that he had the stamps needed to do such a study.

Greg

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 28 Sep 2009 17:10

Richard,

Would it be possible for you to explain why you did not include in your list of expertising groups that you mentioned that you did not include the other well known US based group, especially as they frenquently mention that they have " state of the art " equipment.

David B.

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 28 Sep 2009 18:13

I'd be somewhat concerned that the "other guys" are advertising for GS specialists to expertize for them:

http://www.stamps.org/Services/ser_ExpertizingCommittee.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aussie specialists too, for that matter. Hmmm.

Greg

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 28 Sep 2009 22:18

The "it's a fake" people have a mountain of scientific evidence against them.

No we don't.

We have a scientific report that concludes there are traces of Ba, Cr and P in the areas around all six of the second 7s, that is not anywhere else on the stamps!

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 28 Sep 2009 22:55

Your scientific IGNORANCE worries me Scott.

If you bother to read Professor Hall's report, assuming you can understand it, it specifically states that these TRACE elements, DO NOT FORM PART OF AN OFFENDING INK.

These trace elements in they eyes of the informed, can only be due to contamination in the plate in the '7' area as would be expected in the case of re-engraving.

Professor Hall went into great lengths at the talk and discussed in detail the examinations and the the ratios of the elemnets present. There is no way one can argue for an offending ink. DO YOU KNOW MORE THAN HE DOES? please tell us if you do and your scientific background.

PLEASE ALSO TELL ME HOW YOU THINK IT HAS BEEN FAKED. PERHAPS I MAY TAKE YOUR VIEWS MORE SERIOUSLY IF YOU CAN BE MORE SPECIFIC. WHAT RICHARD DEBNEY HAS ADVOCATED IS A WAY OF FAKING HAS BEEN PROVED SCIENTIFICALLY TO BE TOTALLY ABSURD.

You may convince those who sadly may not know better, but you certainly look rather absurd with your negative and totally skeptical views in front of those who have studied the item very carefully and others who have exmined it in detail and who can see nothiong wrong with it.

YOU HAVE NOT EVEN SEEN IT. HOW CAN YOU BE SO NEGATIVE.

Why is copy LL which has a 1920's RPS cerificate any more genuine than this which has certificates of authenticity as an untampered with item from some of the WORLD'S leading paper examiners and state of the art analytical erquipment.

What a sad day for serious philately and new thinking if the likes of you and your opinionS are allowed to reign.

Abed H Najjar

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 28 Sep 2009 23:11

Dear All,

This is an important post, even if I say so myself!

In this post I will prove incontrovertably that the current known plate 77s stamps do not come from any other plate.

Until this afternoon I had thought the only way to prove or disprove that the known 77s came from another plate was to conduct a comparison of each, against matched letterings for each from all the other plates, looking for identical or not checkletter positions. Quite a task to assemble matching stamps for each of the 9(?) known 77s, which would take time.

I now realise there is a faster way. In fact, so fast that I've already done it! And just as accurate.

What twigged me to it was something that Richard said.

Richard kindly corrected me by saying of the checkletter comparison:

You would only need to go to Plate 79, since no one disputes the first "7."

Yes indeed - 100% correct. Thanks Richard.

But perhaps you didn't realise there was a wider, more important implication in your words.

You made me realise that we don't need to do a comparison of checkletter positions against matched letterings at all - all we need to do is compare the position of the first 7 on any stamp from any letter position of those plates!!!!!

I have spent some time on eBay looking at scans in listings, and have come up with the following:

The scans are small I admit, but it is clear that in each case on plates 71, 72, 74, 76, 78 and 79, the first number 7 on the right has its foot placed at a position that is, to varying degrees on each plate, discernably to the left of the junction of the two white curved lines below. I did not include plate 73 as we already know the same to be the case from the plate 73 stamps on Abed's cover.

This is totally at odds with the positioning of the foot of the first 7 on the right on the known 77s - all of which have it placed right in the junction of the curved lines - as per the last image above.

This categorically and incontrovertably proves that the known plate 77 stamps do not come from any other plate.

If anyone has stamps from those plates - ANY lettering will do - that have a nice, clear plate number on the right side, please send scan of them at 800dpi and I will put together a collage that is larger and easier to see.

[email protected]

Cheers,
Scott

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 28 Sep 2009 23:20

YOU HAVE NOT EVEN SEEN IT.

Surely you're not suggesting that seeing the item in the flesh is better than the large, very clear images that are doing the rounds?

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 28 Sep 2009 23:25

A very interesting post Scott.

I wish I was back in England and not in the Emirates where I am now as I would have put some useful images up which include the roller impression enlargement which the accepted 77s must match. I think you will all be interested to compare them. There are differences.

Food for thought. What if these stamps came from an 80's or even a 90's plate as I have advocated as a possibility before?

This option can not be eliminated at all.

There are too many 77's around to accept that they have come from the one or two trial sheets.

Abed H Najjar

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 28 Sep 2009 23:28

What if these stamps came from an 80's or even a 90's plate as I have advocated as a possibility before?

Abed,

A MAJOR part of your case has just fallen apart, and you are simply clutching at straws with the above comment.

What I have said before has now come true - we are at the position where all the other 77s can be proved to have been produced by a method that the stamps on your cover have not. Your stamps stand alone. End of story.

Scott

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 28 Sep 2009 23:28

pertinax wrote:
YOU HAVE NOT EVEN SEEN IT.
Surely you're not suggesting that seeing the item in the flesh is better than the large, very clear images that are doing the rounds?

Of course I am.

There is nothing better than handling an item at first hand. Surely as a serious philatelist yourself you can see that!

Abed H Najjar

sherro · Post by **sherro** » 28 Sep 2009 23:43

MOD HAT ON

This is a truly memorable and fabulous debate. Let's ensure that the line between debate and attack isn't crossed

MOD HAT OFF

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 28 Sep 2009 23:45

These trace elements in they eyes of the informed, can only be due to contamination in the plate in the '7' area as would be expected in the case of re-engraving.

No scientist can actually prove this, just suggest it.

There is just as much chance that a mouse ran over the cover and left a drop of piddle in each of the six places.

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 28 Sep 2009 23:46

No it is not the end of the story Scott.

I do have the nuisnace factor of the closed minded skeptics to contend with but I am sure those in philately who have the experiene and the open mind will see that the right comes through in the end

You still have not told me how it has been faked. Do that and then I will take your luddite views more seriously.

If you had it in your collection, knowing as I do, it is genuine and untampered with, knowing as I do, you have opened eyes to totally new thinking on this stamp, knowing as I do, that you have all the scientific evidenec behind you, knowing as I do that the two expert bodies who declared it a fake have been shot down, Whould you put it in your little album and mark it a fake? I very much doubt that.

Abed H Najjar

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 29 Sep 2009 00:00

Scott quote

'No scientist can actually prove this, just suggest it.'

Sorry Scott once again you have proved how little you have studied the report, if at all.

The statement re the trace elements is conclusive. They are homogenous and do not form part of an offending ink. If you can read scientific data(!) please look up his report on The Collectors Club site. You may become a little more enlightened and your posts would be better informed.

Abed H Najjar

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 29 Sep 2009 00:06

The statement re the trace elements is conclusive.

I agree - the chemical composition of the areas of all six second 7s is different to the rest of the stamps.

Are you saying this is not so?

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 29 Sep 2009 00:12

EXactly- in the re-engraved 7s and no where else.

-We know the paper is untampoered with
-We know the ink is the same
-We know that a 73 has been changed to a 77

Can you not see that the trace elements would be a confirming factor to this. Someone has worked on the plate and has left these within the diamonds.

They are even there in the scuffed 6th '7' which no forger would be able to see or get near.

How much more sense does pragmatism need.

Abed H Najjar

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 29 Sep 2009 00:23

I agree with everything above except this:

Someone has worked on the plate

On the contrary, someone has worked on the stamps!

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 29 Sep 2009 00:31

I have proved my stamps have not been tampered with and have evidence from:

Prof. Hall- Rutgers University
Reading Scientific Services
Robert Radley

They have used
-Raman Microscopy
-Microanalysis with elemental mapping
-Microfluorescence
-Scanning electron microscopy
-80-100x micrsoxopy
- UV, IR etc etc.

All say the item has not been tampered with and the ink is the same.

This of course excludes the very many who have now examined it and can not see anything wrong with it.

Now Scott please give me your evidence of faking. In other words P.U.O.S.U.

Abed H Najjar

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 29 Sep 2009 00:38

PeterS, Greg

As I have said before, due to having examined some wonderful and undisputed repair work done on Hawaiian Missionaries, ones where added margins and painted-in frame lines appear completely seamless with no fibre disruption whatsoever when viewed using The PF's stereo microscope, I have no problem with this issue. It is a matter of philatelic judgement, something which Dr. Hall or Mr. Radley do not have or claim to have.

I have already dealt with Mr. Radley's report in a prior post. There is much in it at which I am in total agreement, some of it appears contradictory, at least in my opinion. Additionally I believe he shows a lack of understanding regarding philatelic printing which was brought out in my responses to his paragraphs '34' and '35.'

In Dr. Hall's conclusion he states that the trace element chromium (Cr) found only in the areas of the second "7's" was due to the presence of lead chromate (chrome yellow), a common pigment in inks, paints, etc. How Mr. Najjar attributes this and the other two trace elements, Barium (Ba) and Phosphorus (P) to something from amendments to the printing plate I cannot understand.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 29 Sep 2009 00:51

Richard

Your views on abrading and painting, the grounds of faking in your opinion, have been totally discredited.

To try and answer your last post:

Phosphorus is a contaminant of steel and may well be disturbed if steel is engraved and this may be one answer, phosphoric acid on the other hand is a weak acid and is used for rust removal. It may well have been applied during the engraving proccess.

This all happened over 150 years ago and we do not know all the trade secrets of the engravers, printers and plate makers. I know this is a great rarity but why are the skeptics being so bloody mindedly difficult when the matter is so easy to understand?

I can wager that many rare stamps if put to scrutiny will put up enigmas we do not understand or can not answer. This does not mean they are fake.

Abed H Najjar

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 29 Sep 2009 01:02

Abed H Najjar wrote:Can you not see that the trace elements would be a confirming factor to this. Someone has worked on the plate and has left these within the diamonds.

Hang on, let's get this straight. Your contention here seems to be that someone made alterations directly to these areas of the plate (and no others), thus causing contamination? But you also contend that the dashes in the diamonds show use of the 77 roller die to re-enter? These two seem mutually exclusive, although the latter form (re-entry rather than re-engraving) does at least sound like something that might have been done by mistake.

If the idea is that trace elements in the metal transferred themselves to the plate in measurable quantities, I think you too are coming up with a handwave without actual scientific data to back it up, unless there's spectrographic evidence of such available from other such repairs. Remember the report said that lead chromate was present, not metallic chromium -- i.e. a common yellow pigment, not metal traces. Some other source of contamination seems more likely (as I suggested above, possibly as a result of a previous owner testing the stamps!).

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 29 Sep 2009 01:08

David Benson

I appreciate your question, but I believe it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 29 Sep 2009 01:14

Abed

I couldn't disagree with you more. This is an opinion I am sure you were able to predict.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 29 Sep 2009 03:20

mozzerb wrote: Hang on, let's get this straight. Your contention here seems to be that someone made alterations directly to these areas of the plate (and no others), thus causing contamination? But you also contend that the dashes in the diamonds show use of the 77 roller die to re-enter? These two seem mutually exclusive, although the latter form (re-entry rather than re-engraving) does at least sound like something that might have been done by mistake.

It would have to be re-engraving -- re-entry would leave the stamps plating as 77, not 73.

And you're right, why would there be no changes to any other area of the stamp?

Your question about the dashes is troubling.

Greg

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 29 Sep 2009 03:28

Greg Ioannou wrote:It would have to be re-engraving -- re-entry would leave the stamps plating as 77, not 73.

Strictly speaking AFAIK a properly lined-up re-entry wouldn't change the corner squares because they were blank on the dies -- i.e. it would weaken the corner letters but not 'overwrite' them. (I've seen photos of other re-entries with weakened letters.) I got the impression that this was the basic theory being proposed early on in this thread, but a range of others seem to have been thrown around since then!

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 29 Sep 2009 04:12

Greg

I believe you are absolutely right, it would have to be either re-engraving, re-touching or re-cutting but again it would result in recesses on the plate and the consequent printing in color.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » 29 Sep 2009 05:26

Can hardly wait for the next episode!I am still greatly puzzled by the discovery of the trace elements around the area of the 2nd 7 including the damaged stamp!
Firstly Abed you still mention the possibility that these stamps come from a plate numered in the 80's ? This would surely under your hoped for theory mean the contaminents would be present in that area also?
I had suggested earlier that a reason needed to be shown for the exact nature and use of these elements as without it the case does not look as strong to me for them being genuine I am afraid.
I would also strongly contend that it is not for Scott or any other doubter to PROVE how they were faked at all.
Abed, do you have evidence of these trace elements on any other stamps as it seems many, many have been through the re-engraving process?Also, whilst freely admitting I have very little knowledge of the actual processes employed I also find it slightly confusing that an engraver would then employ different tools or materials for this process to have so contaminated this area?
You also mention the possible use of phosphoric acid as a reason for one of the trace elements present.Do we know that this substance was used in the engraving or printing process at that time?

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 29 Sep 2009 05:39

Mozzerb quote:

"But you also contend that the dashes in the diamonds show use of the 77 roller die to re-enter? These two seem mutually exclusive, although the latter form (re-entry rather than re-engraving) does at least sound like something that might have been done by mistake."

-I do not remember making this observation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I have never proposed the use of the 77 roller die at all on any of the stamps. Others may have.

-I have no doubt that the trace elements chromium and lead are from the compound lead chromate which was found at trace (molecular) levels and not formed any part of an offending ink. It was found only in the five altered right hand 7's and also in the area of the scuffed sixth.

We can but guess as to why it was there. Engravers at that time had their own exclusive and perhaps trade secrets and this compound may well have been one. Perhaps as a preservative or a hadening agent, to pack a deeper groove. I don't know and your guess is as good as mine. I am working on it however and would love to find the answer.

We must remeber this all happened 150 years ago, how on earth other than guesswork and without published data can we ever know. There must be so many trade secrets that even today we still have no answers. Even the process of mummification carried out 2000+ years ago was not still fully understood until recently and even then we can still ask questions.

Abed H Najjar

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 29 Sep 2009 05:44

capetriangle wrote:Greg

I believe you are absolutely right, it would have to be either re-engraving, re-touching or re-cutting but again it would result in recesses on the plate and the consequent printing in color.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

Thanks, Richard

On some of the Aussie issues I know, they've repaired plates by inserting a plug into the plate and engraving the correction onto that. Was that method never used for these?

Greg

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 29 Sep 2009 05:57

Highlander- I do appreciate your input, your questions and open mind.

Perhaps I would pick you up on this cmment:

"I would also strongly contend that it is not for Scott or any other doubter to PROVE how they were faked at all."

Do you think it is right to disparage an item without giving grounds why?

I do not believe this is a fair way to go through serious philately.

If Scott contends it is a fake, he must then do the right thing and tell us why and how. Two expert bodies have done that and both have given reasons as to why. Of course both were proven wrong.

What is to stop any of us saying the Tapling copy or the Royal copies are fake. Afterall they do not in any way shape or form match the plate 77 roller impression. But without concrete evidence of faking no one has the right to do so.

Abed H Najjar

OttawaMike · Post by **OttawaMike** » 29 Sep 2009 06:01

I have been following this debate with interest, as I am sure others have been as well.

There seems to be a fundamental disagreement as to the source of these trace elements in the area of the "7"'s.

Would it not be revealing to test for these elements on other contemporary stamps where it is known that a re-entry has been done?

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 29 Sep 2009 06:09

I agree with ther trace elements issue. It would be good to see if they appear anywhere else where work was done. Thier absence or presence in no way influences wether the stamps on the cover are faked or not. They are there for whatever reason, we may never know but they do not mean faking in any way. THey are not a part of an offending ink.

For the sake of repeating myself I will post this monce again in new case viewers have missed it.

Gene S. Hall, Ph.D., Professor of Analytical Chemistry, Rutgers University- report - Quote:

"The identical nature of the inks of the three samples effectively rules out the finding that the ink had been painted in."

"Raman examination also confirmed that the pigment was the same in both the basic stamp and the second "7" area."

"There was no difference in the ink composition in the diamond areas surrounding the first and second "7" in the plate numbers."

RSSL's report- Quote:

"No evidence was found of fibre disruption (e.g. through deliberate tamper by scraping, cutting or adding fibres) during topographical examination of the second '7 diamond' regions."

Robert Radleys positive conclusions are posted earlier.

Abed H Najjar

erich · Post by **erich** » 29 Sep 2009 06:31

I'm trying to follow all of this rather late. Is the contention at this point that there may be two types of Plate 77:

(1) Some mint examples that came from the top left corner of a trial sheet printed from the real Plate 77, after which it was determined that the plate was not up to quality and not used.

(2) Some used examples that (it is proposed) exist because several cliches in the lower part of plate 73 were repaired, and somehow the plate was changed to 77 on these. The debate is over whether any other means (like altering the stamp) could have produced these stamps, which match plate 73 except for the plate number.

[and the stamps of type (1) could not have been produced by repair on some plate other than 73, because the non-plate-number characteristics do not match any existing plate.]

Reading the history of the known examples, I just have to say it's amazing what people find in box lots sometimes.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 29 Sep 2009 07:52

Abed,

"The identical nature of the inks of the three samples effectively rules out the finding that the ink had been painted in."

"Raman examination also confirmed that the pigment was the same in both the basic stamp and the second "7" area."

"There was no difference in the ink composition in the diamond areas surrounding the first and second "7" in the plate numbers."

All this proves is that ink has been removed from certain places - perhaps even another stamp/s altogether - and has been used to do the painting.

Have you ever thought about that??

Scott

Post by **GlenStephens** » 29 Sep 2009 08:10

No-one has explained how this alleged master forger managed to cut slices into the paper to make a white "7" where a 3 (or whatever number) used to be there ... 5 or 6 times, and then go painting red ink all around the cuts, that magically did not run into new grooves and valleys on these tiny areas, and do it so well no modern paper analysis detected it.

Indeed the alalysis shows that NO tampering has occred to the paper fibres.

The suggestion of 'painting in', is total nonsense. Which is why our 'expert' above cannot assist with one shred of PROOF.

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 29 Sep 2009 08:19

Greg

"On some of the Aussie issues I know, they've repaired plates by inserting a plug into the plate and engraving the correction onto that. Was that method never used for these?"

Not as far as I am aware of.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 29 Sep 2009 08:27

No-one has explained how

One doesn't need to know how something was faked, to know that it is indeed a fake!

Scott

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 29 Sep 2009 08:33

"On some of the Aussie issues I know, they've repaired plates by inserting a plug into the plate and engraving the correction onto that. Was that method never used for these?"

Not as far as I am aware of.

Nor I.

The whole suggestion of a retouch to the second 7s will be blown out of the water in a reply to Abed's article in the GB Journal.

What continues to not be appreciated is that plate 73 was still at press as late as 1868, and so any retouch as suggested must have been re-retouched just as quickly if this is to be true.

But a close study of a couple of dozen stamps from each of the letterings of this cover will establish, without question, that such retouches and re-retouches never took place!

Scott