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

Post by **admin** » 29 Jul 2009 20:19

David you may well be right.

Seeing the RPS originally alluded to someone gluing 6 x number 7s over the existing underlying numbers, I wonder if they'd be happy to eat humble pie?

That view was incredibly childish IMHO, not matter WHAT the real story is on these!

However it would be nice if they took an un-biased look at these with an open mind this time, bearing in mind the weight of forensic evidence obtained since their last "Opinion", totally supports no tampering whatever.

The average 10 year can be sure that pasting over number 7s on this would be detectable with a fingernail, much less a magnifier.

THEN the alleged faker needs to paint over a postmark over that 7.

How anyone sane believes all that would not be detected on police standard forensic lab equipment is beyond me.

Spot all the glued in number 7s, and the re-painted over postmarks, that elude barrages of scientific testing. Yeah RIGHT!

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 29 Jul 2009 20:27

I hope I am not repeating something already posted or asked but isn't it time to re-submit the item for expertisation (is there such a word?)

Jonah · Post by **Jonah** » 29 Jul 2009 20:42

Ok here, in my opinion is, a better challenge to the world of philately.

We have 3 stamps now 100% forensically proven to not being tampered with. To what degree have the Tapling and Royal plate 77 mint stamps been tested?

Whilst there how about challenging any other owner of a certified plate 77 1d red to step forward and provide their example to forensic science for testing. It would be interesting to see how many would actually willingly offer theirs up.

I'm sure the philatelic world would be watching with baited breath to see the results.

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 29 Jul 2009 21:00

Jonah wrote:Ok here, in my opinion is, a better challenge to the world of philately.

We have 3 stamps now 100% forensically proven to not being tampered with. To what degree have the Tapling and Royal plate 77 mint stamps been tested?

Whilst there how about challenging any other owner of a certified plate 77 1d red to step forward and provide their example to forensic science for testing. It would be interesting to see how many would actually willingly offer theirs up.

I'm sure the philatelic world would be watching with baited breath to see the results.

I think that is the nub of the problem. The mint/unused ones may well be from a 'trial' sheet as has been suggested earlier. However I suspect that all the accredited used ones including Abed's three and the single on cover I once had) do not come the original '77' plate.

As has been discussed earlier there now many theories as to how they have come to exist. I doubt that any are true fakes (e.g. paint or cut & paste jobs) but I do think they ALL come from a plate other than 77 which was erroneously altered and then corrected. There are probably more 77s in existence than we realise.

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 29 Jul 2009 21:09

A further thought. Perhaps it would be better to remove plate 77 from all listings and catalogues until they have all been re-submitted and subjected to modern examination. After all we discredit many certificates that are old (e.g. GB Official overprints). Most 77s have certificates as old as 90 years.

Post by **admin** » 29 Jul 2009 21:18

stampmann -- as I posted in my article, SG have curiously done this in recent years - an no-one has offered any theory as to WHY:

The last Stanley Gibbons catalogue value given on this stamp was £160,000 for a used copy (no price mint), clearly a very desirable and valuable stamp.

Oddly and inexplicably, Gibbons have stopped quoting ANY figure for this stamp in the past 2 years. Anyone know WHY?

Only a few years back they listed and showed both mint AND used prices - at very similar figures to each other. It was £100K mint and £80K used in 2004 "Part 1" for example.

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

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 29 Jul 2009 21:31

Yes it is true that they give no value because I guess it is impossible to judge. However I am suggesting that they remove the stamp altogether until such time that the known examples have been re-examined. After all they do not list 70 or 75 etc.

I once saw a stamp with a 1902 certificate say ing not plate 70 but 76. It looked very much like a 70 to me but that's another story.

I suggest the complete delisting of 77 until using modern technology at least one can be proven beyond doubt to be genuine. After all Abed's three have been subjected to more in depth testing than any of the accepted ones and his are still not accepted!

Jonah · Post by **Jonah** » 29 Jul 2009 21:36

stampmann wrote:Yes it is true that they give no value because I guess it is impossible to judge. However I am suggesting that they remove the stamp altogether until such time that the known examples have been re-examined. After all they do not list 70 or 75 etc.

I once saw a stamp with a 1902 certificate say ing not plate 70 but 76. It looked very much like a 70 to me but that's another story.

I suggest the complete delisting of 77 until using modern technology at least one can be proven beyond doubt to be genuine. After all Abed's three have been subjected to more in depth testing than any of the accepted ones and his are still not accepted!

Which hits exactly on the jist of my earlier post. Stamps with 80 year old certs, obviously at the time inspected by the only technology around then, ( the Mk I eyeball) ,dont seem to be questioned at all yet new discoveries do...cmon wheres the level playing field!

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 29 Jul 2009 21:51

Sorry Jonah but you are not quite right. Here in the UK we tend to dismiss Official overprints whose certs are older than 20 or 25 years. Simply because these days a comparascope is used which was not available in the past. Rarer GB Officials were commonly forged and some expertly so. It is surprising how many previously held 'good' stamps are not!

Nguyen · Post by **Nguyen** » 29 Jul 2009 22:30

I skipped some of your fascinating stories and arguments, but it seems no one has revealed the cover's whereabouts. How it came along, and why so late?

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 29 Jul 2009 22:43

Nguyen wrote:I skipped some of your fascinating stories and arguments, but it seems no one has revealed the cover's whereabouts. How it came along, and why so late?

It is in the UK and owned by Abed Najjar. I believe he bought it in Europe. He has made several posts on this site so I guess that if wants to reveal its origin he will.

Why so late? Well things still turn up. If you look back through these posts you will see that I had an apparent 77 on cover some years ago. I got mine in a box lot at auction. It was a clean cover and obviously had not been closely looked at.

For example an attic in Wales recently revealed a dusty correspondence going back to 1840. Amongst the covers was 1d black plate 11!

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 30 Jul 2009 03:56

admin wrote:stampmann -- as I posted in my article, SG have curiously done this in recent years - an no-one has offered any theory as to WHY:

The last Stanley Gibbons catalogue value given on this stamp was £160,000 for a used copy (no price mint), clearly a very desirable and valuable stamp.

Oddly and inexplicably, Gibbons have stopped quoting ANY figure for this stamp in the past 2 years. Anyone know WHY?

Only a few years back they listed and showed both mint AND used prices - at very similar figures to each other. It was £100K mint and £80K used in 2004 "Part 1" for example.

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

Presumably this is a standard sort of move for SG or indeed any other catalogue publisher ? Once a really rare stamp gets past the level of £100K or so it's essentially pointless putting a catalogue value on it. Any copies sold will fetch what they fetch at auction or via some private deal and no-one involved is going to take much notice of what some publisher guesses it might be worth. I don't have a catalogue handy but don't they do the same sort of thing with the British Guinea 1c black on magenta and the Post Office Mauritius and other famous 'gold medal' items?

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 30 Jul 2009 08:52

They are not really backtracking, many more facts have emerged since the certificate was issued and Scott's theory gives some credence on how it could have occurred.

I think they would only look at it seriously again if it can be proved that all the other 77s are also from other plates.

If it turns out that it can be proved the others are not from any other plate, then that would mean the cover stands alone - and in my view would be stronger evidence that it is faked, than the tests that say it hasn't been!

Scott

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 30 Jul 2009 09:00

pertinax wrote:
If it turns out that it can be proved the others are not from any other plate, then that would mean the cover stands alone - and in my view would be stronger evidence that it is faked, than the tests that say it hasn't been!Scott

Yes, exactly. Which is why I think the attempt to properly plate the other known copies is especially interesting.

Greg

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 30 Jul 2009 09:33

pertinax wrote:
They are not really backtracking, many more facts have emerged since the certificate was issued and Scott's theory gives some credence on how it could have occurred.
I think they would only look at it seriously again if it can be proved that all the other 77s are also from other plates.

If it turns out that it can be proved the others are not from any other plate, then that would mean the cover stands alone - and in my view would be stronger evidence that it is faked, than the tests that say it hasn't been!

Scott

Depends on the nature of the tests -- if a proper document forensics expert with a reputation to protect has had a go at it and says they can't find anything wrong, I think the burden of proof shifts at least to neutral. The cover stampmann had strikes me as a point in favour.

Incidentally, what is the state of play with regard to the attempt to match the Royal/BL copies with known plates?

(me, earlier) According to the Williams brothers, the AC plate 77 was found in 1919, was sold originally to J. de R. Phillp, sold to Major Raphael in 1959, and disappeared in 1965 when his collection was stolen.

There must presumably have been a 'name' catalogue for the de Phillp sale? Although my impression is that auctioneers in 1959 were stingy with the illustrations, I might be wrong, and if they were going to illustrate any items a Plate 77 seems like a good choice.

If anyone has access to a big philatelic library such as the Royal or the National (unfortunately I'm not a member of either) and can track down an illustration in either the catalogue or some publicity material in a contemporary stamp magazine, that would provide an additional accepted-as-genuine copy for purposes of comparison. Anyone up for that?

Nguyen · Post by **Nguyen** » 30 Jul 2009 11:40

stampmann wrote:It is in the UK and owned by Abed Najjar. I believe he bought it in Europe. He has made several posts on this site so I guess that if wants to reveal its origin he will.

Why so late? Well things still turn up. If you look back through these posts you will see that I had an apparent 77 on cover some years ago. I got mine in a box lot at auction. It was a clean cover and obviously had not been closely looked at.

For example an attic in Wales recently revealed a dusty correspondence going back to 1840. Amongst the covers was 1d black plate 11!

Thank you very much, Stampmann! I did read about your GBP 1.50 item, and have decided for myself that all certificates should be under scrutiny.

I was just thrilled by Glen's stories with the Tre Skilling Banco, among others. In many cases, the stories behind an item are a factor determining its value.

If Abed did aquire it from Europe, he may have got it from a lot of many covers, or from a non-expert. Hope he could somehow some day tell us.

David Benson · Post by **David Benson** » 30 Jul 2009 11:55

Abed,

Have you spoken privately to any of the Royal GB expertisers?

They may give you some private comments as to the best method in approaching the Royal again as it has to be done someday or the item will be in limbo forever,

David B.

Nguyen · Post by **Nguyen** » 30 Jul 2009 13:12

Sorry to waste your time. Just want to share that plate #81 does not match #77.

I notice in particular the curves on the upper Ps:

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 30 Jul 2009 13:18

Nguyen, those actually look very similar to me.

Greg

iomoon · Post by **iomoon** » 30 Jul 2009 13:27

The upper P looks similar, the lower P looks dissimilar.

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 30 Jul 2009 17:21

iomoon wrote:The upper P looks similar, the lower P looks dissimilar.

The lower one looks similar to me too, allowing for centring ...

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 30 Jul 2009 18:22

pertinax wrote:
They are not really backtracking, many more facts have emerged since the certificate was issued and Scott's theory gives some credence on how it could have occurred.
I think they would only look at it seriously again if it can be proved that all the other 77s are also from other plates.

If it turns out that it can be proved the others are not from any other plate, then that would mean the cover stands alone - and in my view would be stronger evidence that it is faked, than the tests that say it hasn't been!

Scott

I do think it is time now to question ALL 77s. As I posted earlier the listing of 77 should be removed until ALL have been re-examined. 90 year old certificates cannot be held as good when the technology of the day was not what we now have,. Surely It is time to start over again. In fact I do not think ANY certificate should be immortal!

Members of any expert committee of 90 years ago are no longer with us! Were those 'old' 77s re-examined what would today's findings be?

I reckon that any cert should be invalid after say 40 years and a new one, if wanted, obtained.

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 30 Jul 2009 22:59

mozzerb wrote: The lower one looks similar to me too, allowing for centring ...

When doing this sort of thing I pay more attention to the position of letters than to their shape. The shape will change over time (as the plate wears) but not so the position.

And the positions of all four corner letters look very similar on the two stamps. The only thing I'm seeing that makes me wonder is the upper P, which looks higher on plate 81 than on 77.

Greg

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 31 Jul 2009 03:55

Greg Ioannou wrote:And the positions of all four corner letters look very similar on the two stamps. The only thing I'm seeing that makes me wonder is the upper P, which looks higher on plate 81 than on 77.

A rough pixel count on the image (rough because the images perhaps aren't hi-res enough to to be clearcut -- edges are blurred) gave the result that the bottom of the loop on the P is the same distance from the bottom of the corner square on both to within 1 pixel (about 19 pixels). The foot of the P was shorter on the 77 by about 3 pixels, which would account for it looking higher -- could this be due to plate wear/re-entry/filling in of the base of the letter by dried ink residue/random inking variation?

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 31 Jul 2009 04:09

mozzerb wrote:A rough pixel count on the image (rough because the images perhaps aren't hi-res enough to to be clearcut -- edges are blurred) gave the result that the bottom of the loop on the P is the same distance from the bottom of the corner square on both to within 1 pixel (about 19 pixels). The foot of the P was shorter on the 77 by about 3 pixels, which would account for it looking higher -- could this be due to plate wear/re-entry/filling in of the base of the letter by dried ink residue/random inking variation?

That's an interesting way of doing it. Yes, a short P could be due to any of those things. I think the plate 77 stamp shows less plate wear than the 81, by the way. Look at the serifs of some of the letters (especially the E in PENNY). They are much sharper on the 77.

Anyone know these well enough to tell if that's the first or second state of the plate 81? I'm guessing second.

Greg

Post by **admin** » 04 Aug 2009 00:15

The August "Stamp News" has just been mailed out worldwide.

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

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

All Australian readers can pick up a copy at their nearest newsagent of course, but for anyone overseas who is following this story and wants a copy(ies) for their files, or discussion at next club meet etc, please let me know - glen[at]glenstephens.com and I can get one mailed to you at cost, and payment via paypal etc is fast and easy.

Glen

Post by **admin** » 04 Aug 2009 02:31

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 jin the RPS London, and was on their Expert Comitteee for over 20 years, 1954-1975.

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

The OTHER snippet under it, is here just to make members smile.

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 04 Aug 2009 05:36

Here's another image of the stamp they were talking about, plate 77 position AC.

That's taken from Wiggins, The Postage Stamps of Great Britain, Part 2 (1962). Sorry it is so grainy.

Greg

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 04 Aug 2009 07:45

Greg Ioannou wrote:Here's another image of the stamp they were talking about, plate 77 position AC.

That's taken from Wiggins, The Postage Stamps of Great Britain, Part 2 (1962). Sorry it is so grainy.

Greg

Don't be, that's very interesting! For comparison the three 'archive' copies look like this (taken from the illustrations in the PJGB for speed, so also a bit grainy: AB Royal, BA Tapling, PH Fletcher):

Looking at the perfs, I'd say it's very likely that AB and AC were once a pair (although someone seems to have taken the shears to the top of AC). As a candidate from the same sheet the BA copy looks more or less all right at the sides, but both AB and AC are 'short' in comparison. Can perforator slippage at the edge of a sheet do this? (Paging Ray Simpson ...)

Also of interest: PH and the PI on piece look very much like they were once a pair, and the postmarks are both probably the London head office (dragging in images from upthread):

The LL stamp might be, if you can make anything of this:

Neither seem to be from the same sheet as Abed's stamps or Grahame's rejected copy -- these are badly centred but differently so:

https://www.stampsuk.com/plate77/77IN.GIF
MOD - Image deleted by member.

Make of this what you will ...

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 04 Aug 2009 11:16

AB and AC are both scissor-cut across the top. They were pretty clearly once a pair. The centring of BA suggests it was once part of the same sheet.

Greg

Post by **GlenStephens** » 04 Aug 2009 11:21

Clearly from Tom Allen's first hand account above of buying it with Nissen, AC was sold to the King who owned it, (and it is still there - AB).

So, where is it now?

Post by **GlenStephens** » 04 Aug 2009 13:06

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 04 Aug 2009 13:24

Mozzerb, I did a summary of the centring of the 77s -- it is on about the third page of this discussion.

Greg

OttawaMike · Post by **OttawaMike** » 04 Aug 2009 13:43

Forgive me if this has already been discussed.

Given the difficulty in getting a good cert for this find, I'm curious about the other relatively recent discovery. Did the one found in 1994 get a good cert?

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 04 Aug 2009 17:13

Greg Ioannou wrote:Mozzerb, I did a summary of the centring of the 77s -- it is on about the third page of this discussion.

Greg

Sorry, must have missed it when I was tracking back for images! Still, doesn't hurt to re-summarise every now and again, it's easy to get lost in a thread this long.

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 04 Aug 2009 20:54

OttawaMike wrote:Forgive me if this has already been discussed.

Given the difficulty in getting a good cert for this find, I'm curious about the other relatively recent discovery. Did the one found in 1994 get a good cert?

Sorry have I missed something. Which one is this?

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 04 Aug 2009 23:09

stampmann wrote:
OttawaMike wrote:Forgive me if this has already been discussed.

Given the difficulty in getting a good cert for this find, I'm curious about the other relatively recent discovery. Did the one found in 1994 get a good cert?
Sorry have I missed something. Which one is this?

The used NC. I have most if not all of the Harmers' 1994 auction catalogues, but the stamp doesn't seem to be in any of them. Does anyone know how/when this one was sold?

Greg

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 04 Aug 2009 23:21

Thanks Greg

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 04 Aug 2009 23:29

My research resulted in finding out that Stamp NC was purchased by a London based specialist in GB who discovered it in a collection.

I spoke to the person who found it and he advised me that it was sold on. He never kept a photocopy of it.

From what I gathered it was sold without a certificate. The new purchaser may have applied for a cert. I do not know.

Abed H Najjar

Post by **ozstamps** » 04 Aug 2009 23:44

Abed .. so no copy was sold by Harmer in 1994 as far as we know?

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 04 Aug 2009 23:49

Abed that is very interesting. Some years ago the dealer A de Ternant (Barry Thompson) had on his website as 'promotion' that he had sold "The Plate 77".

I wonder if it was this one. Unfortunately Barry passed away some years ago.

I am waiting a phone call from someone who knew him well who may have more information.

Anything more and I will post it here.

If it has never been certificated I bet if it was they'd say 73!!!!

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 05 Aug 2009 00:07

Forgive me. I should have stated that the collection was purchased from Harmers as far as we know!

Abed H Najjar

Post by **ozstamps** » 05 Aug 2009 00:15

Abed H Najjar wrote:Forgive me. I should have stated that the collection was purchased from Harmers as far as we know!

Abed H Najjar

He "discovered" a plate 77 in a collection sold by Harmers, undescribed as thus?

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 05 Aug 2009 00:22

Abed that is very interesting. Some years ago the dealer A de Ternant (Barry Thompson) had on his website as 'promotion' that he had sold "The Plate 77".

I wonder if it was this one. Unfortunately Barry passed away some years ago.

No.

The one that Barry Thompson sold was the PI stamp on piece with the 4d. The reference is still on his ME page:

http://members.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=bt56" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

which incredibly is still there, though the link to the image is fruitless. Nevertheless, I recall that that is the 'plate 77' he had sold, and he told me it was to someone in the US.

Scott

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 05 Aug 2009 00:30

ozstamps wrote:
Abed H Najjar wrote:Forgive me. I should have stated that the collection was purchased from Harmers as far as we know!

Abed H Najjar
He "discovered" a plate 77 in a collection sold by Harmers, undescribed as thus?

Then Glen I found mine in a box of covers in Phillips. The lot was a collection plus 50 or so covers. Only two years ago I found a block of four unmounted mint Ed.VII 1/2d blue green INVERTED WATERMARK. In a collection at auction I got £6,500.00 for it. It was undescribed. Describers spend in my opinion only a few minutes if that on collections. I am glad they miss things aren't you!

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 05 Aug 2009 00:31

Here's the image -

https://web.archive.org/web/20041206094717/www.btinternet.com/~de.ternant/page2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's from the Waybackmachine. I don't need it but suggest that anybody who does should capture it from here.

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 05 Aug 2009 00:36

Wait a minute I am getting puzzled. I thought the PI on piece was that that I was permitted to examine in 1991. I didn't realise it had been sold.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 05 Aug 2009 00:42

norvic wrote:Here's the image -

https://web.archive.org/web/20041206094717/www.btinternet.com/~de.ternant/page2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's from the Waybackmachine. I don't need it but suggest that anybody who does should capture it from here.

Thanks norvic.

That proves what I'm saying - that the 77 sold by Barry T was the PI stamp.

Scott

Post by **ozstamps** » 05 Aug 2009 00:42

norvic wrote:Here's the image -

https://web.archive.org/web/20041206094717/www.btinternet.com/~de.ternant/page2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's from the Waybackmachine. I don't need it but suggest that anybody who does should capture it from here.

Thanks Ian .. we had a much larger image of this posted a few 100 posts back!

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 05 Aug 2009 00:49

It's a point worth remembering, and I'll put it in a separate thread, that the Way back archive has been copying pages for years. Images are not always there: of the images originally linked to that my eBay page, this was the only one still present.