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

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 06 Oct 2008 03:15

Admin Edit - August 2017 - this thread is now many 1,000s of messages long. Finding any of the reports and Certificates and matters referred to in it, is near impossible now.

The cover owner Abed Najir has a website where most of this can be located. A rather clunky site in parts, but it WILL save you hours of searching the 1,000s of posts here for one report or image etc

https://victorhugocover.com/

He VERY annoyingly has changed url domains a few times in the past 10 years, and many reference later in this thread to the previous domain links are now dead, as he did not renew those domains for the sake of a few £ a year.

He now has now done it AGAIN in 2021 - exasperating -

https://www.victorhugocover.com/cover

Admin

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

Has anyone heard anything about what is believed to be the new discovery of an L-shaped block of three of this stamp?

Apparently there is an article in a publication called "The Collectors Club Philatelist".

If it's true - WOW!!

Scott

iomoon · Post by **iomoon** » 06 Oct 2008 03:30

Scott,

I don't see anything in their recent publications

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 06 Oct 2008 03:32

No, it's not there yet apparently.

I'm told the hard copy is out but it's not up on the site yet.

Post by **admin** » 06 Oct 2008 06:46

What a find, at SG £160,000 per stamp.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » 06 Oct 2008 07:00

I really wish there was an instructional site to explain to novices in this area (me!) how to plate 1d reds.... sob

Post by **admin** » 06 Oct 2008 07:21

Jack wrote:I really wish there was an instructional site to explain to novices in this area (me!) how to plate 1d reds.... sob

Jack these 1858 are dead easy to see ... the plate number is there visible to the naked eye on both sides of each stamp!

I sold this set last week off my rarity page, that I'd bought from an estate that day.

Plates 71 to 225 on UK made 'Collecta' printed leaves.

They do not even bother to leave space for the rare 77 as you can see!

Most albums don't, as at £160.000 USED it is not going to be affordable for most collectors. 8)

This set is cat about £2,000 and I sold it for $A650, so that at least is acheiveable price wise, by most collectors.

Glen

Jack · Post by **Jack** » 06 Oct 2008 07:32

I rest my case...

iomoon · Post by **iomoon** » 06 Oct 2008 09:24

Jack wrote:I really wish there was an instructional site to explain to novices in this area (me!) how to plate 1d reds.... sob

Jack, as Glen writes, the four corner lettered penny reds are easy to plate because it is written on them.

The two lettered penny reds are a lot more difficult, beyond the perf verses imperf separation. Though some of the earlier imperfs with maltese crosses and lots of "individuality" are relatively easy.

Scott is the man to write it. Hint, hint.
Though he would probably argue that the SG Victoria specialized does a pretty good job.

tallanent · Post by **tallanent** » 06 Oct 2008 10:11

For those that would like to read the article, it is below -

http://www.collectorsclub.org/CCP/2008/1d%20Rose-Red%20Plate%2077.pdf

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 06 Oct 2008 10:41

I have now seen the scan, but not read the article.

But just wanted to clarify -

The item is three singles, not an irregular block of three.

They are on part cover to Belgium.

The cover is dated 1865 (which negates the chance that this is a misreading of the plate number as 77 when really 177, since plate 177 didn't exist then).

And from the very few lines I have read, there appears to some doubt it's genuine; at least that's what I think it's saying on the third page.

I'll have to read the whole thing obviously.

Scott

iomoon · Post by **iomoon** » 06 Oct 2008 11:07

The letter combinations would be possible from someone buying a single set of stamps at the PO.

However, what is not addressed is why such a sheet should have found its way to Guernsey. Though the return address suggests they were written by someone who started the letter in London.

In summary it seems that chemically the second 7 (7's?) have a slightly different composition.

There is no evidence of scuffing or alteration except for one stamp.

The variation between stamps is no larger than seen on more common issues.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 06 Oct 2008 11:19

The variation between stamps is no larger than seen on more common issues.

I couldn't agree more!

sherro · Post by **sherro** » 06 Oct 2008 11:33

It's a fascinating article that should be read by everyone. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. My take on the article is that the 77 is a re-engraved 73, so these were not printed from plate 77 if any stamps were ever actually printed from plate 77

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 06 Oct 2008 11:59

if any stamps were ever actually printed from plate 77

It is certain that some were indeed printed from this plate.

The practice was that a few sheets (possibly as many as six) were printed from a new plate and these were submitted to Somerset House for approval to put that plate to press. They were all imperforate.

When approved, one sheet was retained there as the registration (or 'imprimatur') sheet. The rest were returned to the printer and put into stock.

If the plate was not approved, all the sheets were returned to be placed in the pile of items to be first accounted for, then destroyed.

This is exactly what happened to plate 77. We know the plate must have reached this point because there still exists a letter from Ormond Hill to Perkins Bacon, telling them that he was rejecting two plates as they were not aligned in plumb enough to allow proper perforating. Although this letter does not mention the two plates by number, it can only have been plates 75 and 77 since the date of the letter is the same as the date on which the other plates submitted at the same time (76 and 78 to 81) were registered - namely 7 Feb 1863.

In short, Ormond Hill must have been looking at at least one printed sheet from plate 77 (and for that matter from plate 75) to have made this decision - and possibly as many as six sheets.

It is from this/these sheets that it has been, till now, accepted that plate 77 stamps came from. That somehow they escaped the furnace. And quite frankly I am as yet unconvinced this is incorrect.

All he seems to have proved so far is that the stamps on the (his?) cover come from plate 73.

I await the next instalment...

Scott

sherro · Post by **sherro** » 06 Oct 2008 12:04

How does that summation explain the wear on the known plate 77 stamps? Surely, if only one sheet was printed from the plate, they should be crisp, pristine impressions, which the article states is not the case?

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 06 Oct 2008 12:10

Well, plate wear is one of my babies - I specialise in plate repairs which is almost always necessitated by plate wear.

Suffice to say I can see none in three 77 stamps he mentions.

sherro · Post by **sherro** » 06 Oct 2008 12:13

You should take him to task on that then Scott. I can't wait for part 2 of the article.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 06 Oct 2008 12:17

Here is a nice big scan of the Tapling/British Library stamp:

I might believe the author if, in the next instalment, he is able to identify which of the other plates this has come from.

This should not be too difficult as the four checkletters are relatively distinctive in their positions and when all four are factored in to one stamp it should be simple:

A at UL - slightly low, slight right.
B at UR - slightly high, slightly right, slightly tilted left.
B at LL - slightly high, more or less central otherwise, tilted to the right, and is an unusual shape being longer/taller than the upper B.
A at LR - pretty much central, (right leg slightly short?).
And then there is blurring outside the upper B square that is probably constant.

Scott

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 06 Oct 2008 12:33

I assume that what he is building up to is a claim that at some point the plate 77 transfer roller relief was used to re-enter some impressions on one or more plates. (Or possibly less likely, that this was done by hand recutting of the side numbers on the plate/s.)

This would produce a hybrid plate where the impressions not so operated on displayed the original number, and the repaired units display 77.

I am tempted to immediately say RUBBISH to this (and below is why), but am prepared to at least await the rest of the article.

If the above were true, then there should be many many more 'plate 77' stamps available. The whole point of such repairing is to extend the life of a plate that is otherwise coming to the end of its useful life. To repair a plate and then only print a few sheets from it defies logic. And of course there are at least a few dozen specialists in this specific area, who are out there looking for them - and know exactly what to look for, believe me!

And I repeat that all he's done so far is prove the stamps on the cover are from plate 73 - and I wonder if he owns it!

Scott

tallanent · Post by **tallanent** » 06 Oct 2008 13:10

I agree Scott ...

Also the illustrations he shows on page 276 of the example in the Royal collection and the two in the British Library are to my eye produced from the same roller, with the variations he notes caused probably by the inkink / wiping of the plate

As for the fact that he seems to be heading towards that the plate 77 roller impression was used to repair one of the other plates - there have been a number of such claims of hybrid plates over the years - all of which have been proved to be just due to wear or over / under inking.

ALLAN

iomoon · Post by **iomoon** » 06 Oct 2008 14:45

This one seems to defy logic.

If an original plate was altered from 73 to 77, why only produce one of each after so much work on three separate plate positions. I may be wrong, but I don't think any of the other known examples of plate 77 are from these three positions - suspect in itself.

If two of the three were more palpably 77's, how come they are only 3 of 11(?) known and discovered only 140 years later.

To have all three on one cover would be explicable, but perhaps beyond the realm of winning the New York lottery by finding it.

Post by **admin** » 06 Oct 2008 14:57

tallanent wrote:For those that would like to read the article (17 pages) the scans are at https://philatelics.org/~allan/shrop/Articles/pg67.html

Photo of the 3 are shown here:

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 09 Oct 2008 15:37

I thought I'd mention that it has been suggested on another chat site that the claim threepence is the correct rate for this item is wrong.

Apparently 3d is the rate via Ostende, but the rate via France - as in this item - is 4d.

Scott

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 18 Oct 2008 03:23

For those not in the know I have dealt in early GB for nearly 30 years. Much of my business has been in supplying SG43/4 1d plates with specific check letters. In that period I have probably had the best part of a million of the little beasties pass through my hands!

Some two years ago I had a phone call from Abed Najjar with a request for specific letterings from plate 73. We soon got chatting about the stamp in general but he did not explain why he wanted them until I told him how I felt that back in the early 1990s I had found a plate 77 on cover.

The cover came from a box lot that I had bought at the now defunct Phillips auction. There were a dozen or so covers all to the same address and from the mid 1860s. I do not think they had ever been out on the market before.

One cover appeared to bear a plate 77. The stamp 'EI' was off centre to the left so that the right number could not be seen.

However the left could be; the first 7 was complete and the bottom half of the second was obscured by postmark.

This second 7 had a distinct flat top. I sent it to the RPS for certification and got the reply "not plate 77". Not convinced I sent it to the BPA. I got the reply not 77 but 73!

I assume this was given because the letter positions matched that of plate 73. I later sold the cover at Stampex for a princely £1.50. OH HOW I WISH I HAD NOT!!

When I told Abed he opened up and explained what and why he was researching. He is not out to make a fortune but has got his teeth into a mystery which he wants to clear up.

I know he has spent several thousand pounds on forensic examination of his cover.

Please do read his article carefully as it really is most interesting.

What intrigues me is

1) that if the Perkins Bacon records say the plate was not registered then surely no registration sheets would have been printed.
2) what faker would trouble to alter three stamps on the cover when just a single would be priceless.
3) to alter the 3 of 73 to a 7 is difficult as the numerals do not have anything in common. the 3 is never flat topped but always round.
4) far easier to change a 177 to a 77 which is often done.

Now as Abed has had proved as I understand it, the chemical constitution of the ink is identical and there is no evidence that the second 7s of his three have been tampered with.

The only way would be to alter the plate by hand which would not be difficult for a skilled engraver
.
I understand the plate underwent repairs towards the end of its life.

One possibility could be that to to repair some illegible numbers the wrong "7" was recut. Bare in mind that the plate is in mirror image perhaps the engraver mistakenly recut the 3 to a 7 on some impressions on the plate thinking he was actually recutting the 7.

After printing a small number of sheets the error was spotted and corrected. This would give rise to a small quantity of 77s being in existence.

Another possibility is that it was deliberately done for some reason.

At the time of my mysterious 77 on cover I was able to compare it to one of the accepted or "genuine" 77s as the owner is a long standing customer and lives fairly local to me. He brought it to my house in a pocket book!!!!

I noticed that it had received its cert. in 1929 or thereabouts. At that time were its letter positions measured?

We must always have open minds and to coin a modern phrase "think outside the box".

There is the case of plate 70 to consider. I have seen one with a 1902 cert saying it was 76. Easy to fake yes and sometimes the 6 can be confused with a 0 but this one looked convincing to me.

I know of another "70" residing in Spain.

then there is 75 126 and 128 to consider.

What if all these numbers were created deliberately from a few impressions on retiring plates so that someone could have a complete set of numbers. After all I am led to believe that the 1d plate printed in black was done for young Royal collectors.......

Even today discoveries can be made. Only last year my eldest son found in a collection that I had put to one side, the first and only recorded example of plate 103 with the the 'Copestake' under print on the front (upright) as well as the back. Gibbons now list this in the Specialised as PP36c. Unfortunately it is badly damaged but I was still able to get a decent price for it!

Just because stamps have been around for nearly 170 years now we must never fall into the trap of thinking that we know it all.

I admire Abed's work and wish him well.

Do do read his article and let us all have open minds.
.

crosscrescent · Post by **crosscrescent** » 18 Oct 2008 11:33

Stampmann

Thanks for that very interesting post.
Enjoyed reading it and it sure makes that stamp more outstanding when we get to read stories like this.

Cheers
Andrew

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 18 Oct 2008 13:26

Graham (stampmann),

You make some interesting and valid points; some that I have been mulling over in my mind in the last few weeks.

Some further comments:

1) that if the Perkins Bacon records say the plate was not registered then surely no registration sheets would have been printed.

Yes, there had to be. Ormond Hill had to be looking at something in order to determine that the plate was not laid down properly for perforating. If he did not have a printed sheet in front of him, then the only other way he could have decided this is if he had gone to Perkins Bacon and viewed the actual plate - from which it would have been significantly more difficult to make this determination. It is well documented that sheets were pulled off new plates, prior to them being registered, for submission to Somerset House.

4) far easier to change a 177 to a 77 which is often done.

But very easily debunked as faked, see here (about two thirds down):

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?p=146826&highlight=#146826

The only way would be to alter the plate by hand which would not be difficult for a skilled engraver

I do not believe this could be achieved by hand recutting; there is far too much steel that would need to be repositioned (so to speak) to change a 3 to a 7 for it to have been an operation by hand. And then hand cutting them back to a 3 after the error was realised....almost impossible in my opinion. Much more likely, if one subscribes to this theory, that the original roller for 77 was employed.

I understand the plate underwent repairs towards the end of its life.

Correct. The operative words here being 'towards the end of its life'. The Perkins Bacon records confirm plate 73 went for repair on 31 Jan 1868, when 67 'heads' were re-entered. The subject cover is dated 1865. If such an operation occurred, it must have been very early in the life of 73 as it was put to press on 1 March 1864.

*****************

I assume the plate 77 stamp brought around to you, was lettered LL and owned by a collector whose initials are JP? If so, the RPSL cert is dated 14 Dec 1914 and numbered 4900. As you imply, I wonder if such scrutiny of these was around then, and if it's really a 77 at all!

The theory that an error occurred in an operation of some sort on plate 73, and that this was noticed quickly and corrected, is of course entirely plausible at first look. However I believe two things militate against this being possible:

1. For the number known to have survived, the number of sheets printed before correction of such an error must have been extremely small. Certainly less than 50, probably less than 20, even less than 10. I'm not sure I believe this is possible.

2. I have been told, but have not seen, that stamp BA of plate 73 has different checkletter positions to the plate 77 BA in the British Library - a scan of which is posted earlier in this topic. Graham, if you have a copy of stamp BA plate 73, perhaps you could post a nice big scan please to confirm this. If what I have been told is correct, then the scenario of a quickly corrected error must have happened to (at least) two plates. This of course, makes this unlikely series of events doubly unlikely than it already was! Nevertheless, as I have always said, and as you ask, I keep an open mind; but it must be shown what other plate every accepted/currently known plate 77 is from, by reference to the checkletters. I would assume this will be covered in the next part of the article.

What if all these numbers were created deliberately from a few impressions on retiring plates so that someone could have a complete set of numbers. After all I am led to believe that the 1d plate printed in black was done for young Royal collectors.......

I am certain that I have read details of where George V bought his plate 77. If the above is so, and some were created for Royal collectors: 1) Why did George need to buy his? and 2) Why are the other unregistered plates not in the Royal Collection as well?

I know that my earlier posts on this topic have been quite negative, perhaps even overly so. The position of devil's advocate must surely be played here. I'm sure Abed knew he would come in for criticism - it's all part of the process.

One final word, that believe it or not, may actually help Abed's case. Has he seen the short article in the GBPS Newsletter of May/June 2002, where a collector shows a stamp that has - as clear as day, no question about it - plate 194 on the right side and 104 on the left? And the reply in the next issue from another collector, who went through all his plate 104s and 194s and found that quite a few of the 194s also had this? As I say - could help Abed's case. Or could simply prove that the 'plate 70' you know of in Spain is just a 76 or 79.

Scott Treacey

iomoon · Post by **iomoon** » 18 Oct 2008 13:53

Grahame

Repeating my earlier post.

The fact that all three stamps are from different positions on the plate would probably have required the entire plate to have been recut in a similar manner, if such was the case.

To then, have only produced one sheet from such a dedicated piece of work is beyond the realm of my credibility.

However, my mind is still open and I look forward to seeing part II.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 18 Oct 2008 14:07

...even an error as profound as the B-blank seen below, had an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 sheets printed* before the error was corrected.

Scott

* Ken Statham's The Essential Guide to the Great Britain Line Engraved 1d and 2d stars. Volume 5, page 1035.

Post by **ozstamps** » 18 Oct 2008 20:53

pertinax wrote:

One final word, that believe it or not, may actually help Abed's case. Has he seen the short article in the GBPS Newsletter of May/June 2002, where a collector shows a stamp that has - as clear as day, no question about it - plate 194 on the right side and 104 on the left?

And the reply in the next issue from another collector, who went through all his plate 104s and 194s and found that quite a few of the 194s also had this? As I say - could help Abed's case. Or could simply prove that the 'plate 70' you know of in Spain is just a 76 or 79.

Scott Treacey

How interesting.

Stampmann .. some great points too. As you say the last word is NEVER written on philately.

.

Glen

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 18 Oct 2008 20:57

Firstly how kind and interesting to see such a response.

Thank you Scott. Now your points are very interesting indeed:

Yes, there had to be. Ormond Hill had to be looking at something in order to determine that the plate was not laid down properly for perforating."

If he did not have a printed sheet in front of him, then the only other way he could have decided this is if he had gone to Perkins Bacon and viewed the actual plate - from which it would have been significantly more difficult to make this determination.

It is well documented that sheets were pulled off new plates, prior to them being registered, for submission to Somerset House.

My stamp EI was badly centred and this is why I was kindly shown ....yes you are right "JP"'s 77. It was many years ago now and I was going by memory. Again relying on memory I recall that his too is badly centred (by the by he now has the PP36c my son discovered). I agree that I have always understood that 77 was rejected for the reasons you give.

However with stamp being issued in 1864 and any registration sheet printed in late 62 or early 63 it is more likely that those sheets would not have been issued. Further more a high proportion of the accepted 77s are mint. Too higher proportion in my opininion. The survival quantities of mint 1d plates is very interesting. Plate numbers below 140 are far less common than those above.

Quantities above plate 200 even more common and yes 225 is no rarity mint. At one time I had as many as 9 in stock. However the early plates can be difficult to find. The real toughies mint are: 71 72 73 74 but the hardest are 82 83 & 88. Although plate 114 carries a high cat. mint and is not common it is easier than these last three.

There is a good reason for this. In 1880 when 1d plates came to end collectors and dealers quickly bought what was available in post offices. I am sure Stanley Gibbons bought loads after all that is why the 4½d Jubilee is so common mint. Gibbons bought the residual stocks.

I believe they also bought up all the 1d plates overprinted 'Cyprus'. Knowing how difficult the early plates are to find mint if they were only 5 or 6 registration sheets printed for 77 mint ones ought to be non-existant!

I do not believe this could be achieved by hand recutting

Abed told me that he has researched this and a skilled engraver he knows claims its not difficult.

I agree that it was a longtime before 'B Blank' was spotted and rectified and of course the 1½d OP-PC was never spotted. It was disovered by an American in the 1890s probably because he was reconstructing by top letters instead of bottom!

It is just as reasonable then for an error to be spotted early or not at all.

I am encouraging Abed to join this site because it is his work and research not mine.

Can anyone tell me how to work the quote thing!
.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 18 Oct 2008 21:33

Further more a high proportion of the accepted 77s are mint. Too higher proportion in my opinion.

I couldn't agree more, Grahame!

To use the quote thing, there is a tab labelled 'Quote' above where you type any post. Simply click this before and after what you want to quote and voilÃ !

Scott

PS Did you have a chance to see of you have a copy of BA plate 73?

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 18 Oct 2008 22:09

Thanks Scott I will now be able to do it properly.

Sorry forgot about 73 BA. Have just checked (keep my stock sorted by lettering) but to no avail. It is also on Abed's wants list and he has not got one yet. As and when I get one it will go to Abed but not until I have scanned it for you.

I should mention that whereas we have been discussing plate 73/77 Abed is aware that there could be other plates involved. To that end I have a wants list from him for the letterings and plates required. A number have been found for him but there are others still needed...I'll get them sooner or later...just a matter of time.

Post by **admin** » 18 Oct 2008 22:12

Grahame .. posting scans here is a CINCH! -

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=284

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 18 Oct 2008 22:21

OK, thanks Grahame.

I may be able to get a scan from the person who told me about it.

Scott

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 18 Oct 2008 23:51

I apologise for the size of the first scan, I am trying to get a larger one so it is absolutely certain as to plate.

In the meantime I am assured these three stamps are from plate 73. It is clear they are all from the same plate as they have checkletter positions that match.

It is also clear they are different from the BA plate 77 stamp in the British Library.

So as I say a couple of posts above, any theory that 77s come from a quickly corrected error must involve the same thing on at least two different plates.

Scott

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 19 Oct 2008 02:06

You are right Scott and this seems to be part of the mystery as I understand it. There appears that there might be more than one plate involved. I only wish that Arbed would post here and clarify things.

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 21 Oct 2008 19:47

Scott, that is a great scan of the 'BA' 77. Imagine that if it were a fake or from a recut plate then being mint it could have come from any plate. I am tempted to try and get a 'BA' from each of the plates 71-225. If then its letter positions match no others then it would prove that it must come from a unique plate. Yours or anyone's thoughts please?

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 21 Oct 2008 19:52

Absolutely - that's what I've been saying.

Exactly what Abed has to do with not just the BA stamp, but every currently accepted 77.

Scott

stampmann · Post by **stampmann** » 21 Oct 2008 21:45

I believe Abed is going in that direction but just how many plates he's checked or checking I do not. I wonder if it is possible to get an image of every known 77. Some owners may not be too happy if some bright spark proved their 77 to be dodgy! Better to have an old 'clean' cert. than lay the stamp open to modern scrutiny so they might not be to keen to make an image available. Unless of course they already exist in the public domain.

Arbed phoned me yesterday and I suggested he join this site because he can better present his case than I can. It will really make the topic interesting if he does!

Kaygeevee · Post by **Kaygeevee** » 07 Feb 2009 02:30

Just thought I would give this most interesting post a bump up, has there been any further developments?

Best Regards David

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 09 Feb 2009 20:02

The second part of the article has been published, though I admit to not having got around to reading it yet.

I suppose I'll have to at some stage, but I notice that this topic has gone quiet not just here but elsewhere as well.

Not sure if that might mean anything...

Scott

Tas Philatelist · Post by **Tas Philatelist** » 15 Feb 2009 21:14

Scott, have there been any further developments concerning this item?

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 10 May 2009 19:19

Dear Collectors

I am pleased to advise you all that all my work, research and findings into the GB 1d red plate 77 are now on a website I have had specially built for it. You are all welcomed to visit the site and study its contents.

The address is https://www.victorhugocover.com/cover

How I wish that collectors could handle this cover, as only by doing that would you see the good in it.

In my view it is impossible to tamper with a line engraved stamp, let alone three stamps in five different places and to this extent without leaving obvious signs that would easily be detected through good philately.

Suffice to say that the extensive forensic testing I had carried out on this item by internationally acclaimed bodies could not see any sign of tampering whatsoever. How and why these stamps were produced in this way, I believe, will be a matter of conjecture for a long time.

Thanks and regards

Abed H Najjar

Post by **GlenStephens** » 10 May 2009 20:28

I know nearly nothing about GB 1d Plates, and the scholarly posts above from pertinax and stampmann above are a great read, and both really know their stuff.

However I do know a lot about stamps in general, and my BS meter is very well tuned.

It is my personal view that these these 3 stamps are not faked, and all show plate "77" clearly on them.

How or why that occurred I have no idea, but that's clearly what they all show. IMHO.

Near impossible to fake, other than being 3 x touched up 177's that would be readily spotted and de-bunked - and it is shown the corner letters do not match plate 177 anyway.

Right now two certs have been issued saying these plate numbers are faked with 73 changed to 77 -

https://www.stampboards.com/images/philatelics/~allan/shrop/Articles/pg77.html

I feel sure those 'expert' views are both wrong. The detailed forensic evidence shows those views are now simply absurd.

The Forensic Institute - 10th August 2006
...there is no evidence of alteration. In summary, using these techniques we did not find evidence that could be established as tampering.

Reading Scientific Services Limited (RSSL) - 1st February 2008
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.

The Forensic Science Service - 31st October 2006
I find no evidence that the plate numbers have been altered by cutting out portions of other stamps and pasting them onto the stamps examined here.

Rutgers University- 19th September , 2008
Gene S. Hall, Ph.D., Professor of Analytical Chemistry
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.

I cannot see how these could now fail to get a RPS/BPA cert as "Plates 77 on cover - are genuine".

If that occurs, this will be the stamp find of this CENTURY .. for certain.

As I have often written in my columns - the last word in NEVER written in philately and major finds occur each year.

For those who know others interested in this subject, please invite them to add to this thread:

https://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8808&p=484383

And great to see Abed H Najjar make his first post .... after over 6 months as a member!

There appears to be no forensic support for any tampering of the stamps:

https://www.1dplate77.com/pdf/COVER-DETAILS.pdf

A great thread, and I'm delighted stampboards appears to be where it was first discussed at length .... and I am nominating this as the "thread of the month".

traralgon3844 · Post by **traralgon3844** » 10 May 2009 20:37

It is interesting to note that from what I can glean from the previous posts, that Plate 77 was rejected because the impressions were out of alignment and they would be poorly perforated.

As are these stamps.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 10 May 2009 22:46

It is interesting to note that from what I can glean from the previous posts, that Plate 77 was rejected because the impressions were out of alignment and they would be poorly perforated.

As are these stamps.

But this means nothing to the argument.

Even Abed would agree, that it has been proved categorically that the three stamps do not come from plate 77.

How the 77s got on them is another matter, but they were not printed from the same piece of steel that was rejected because of poor placement of the impressions, that was numbered 77.

They came from a completely different steel plate.

The fact that they are badly centred, therefore means nothing at all.

Scott

Post by **GlenStephens** » 10 May 2009 22:57

All 3 stamps have the plate number "77" on both sides, and it is my belief those plate numbers were printed there by the stamp printers back ~140 years back, and have not been faked or altered.

HOW it got there is another argument, and for the purposes of a Cert is totally irrelevant, as there seems no doubt these are all showing clearly as "Plate 77" stamps - and genuine.

pertinax · Post by **pertinax** » 10 May 2009 23:05

and have not been faked or altered.

My point is that even if this is so, they were not printed on the same steel plate that was plate 77.

I'm sure even Abed agrees with this.

Post by **GlenStephens** » 10 May 2009 23:15

Scott it does not really matter one jot.

If the stamps have "77" engraved on them on both sides - as these all do - and were sold like that by the PO - they are collectible - and Certifiable as "Plate 77" unless they are faked or doctored.

Several of the other recorded and Certified "Plate 77's" may well be identical to these ... we will never know, as the whereabouts of them are not all known today

Post by **gavin-h** » 11 May 2009 01:25

pertinax wrote:...they were not printed from the same piece of steel that was rejected because of poor placement of the impressions, that was numbered 77.

They came from a completely different steel plate.

Scott,

Can you be absolutely certain of that

Is it known beyond doubt what happened to that piece of steel after it was rejected.

Without any "it is assumed" or "was stated to" or other hearsay

STAMPBOARDS - Postage Stamp Chat Board and Stamp Forum

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

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

Plate 73 to 77

Plate 77 etc.

Plate 77!!!!!!!!

Plate 73/77

Plate 77 etc.

plate 77 contd.

Re: GB 1d red - the rare plate 77 of 1864

Re: GB 1d red - the rare plate 77 of 1864

Re: GB 1d red - the rare plate 77 of 1864

Re: GB 1d red - the rare plate 77 of 1864

Re: GB 1d red - the rare plate 77 of 1864

Re: GB 1d red - the rare plate 77 of 1864

Re: GB 1864 1d red - the rare plate 77 - newly discovered cover?

Re: GB 1864 1d red - the rare plate 77 - newly discovered cover?

Re: GB 1864 1d red - the rare plate 77 - newly discovered cover?

Re: GB 1864 1d red - the rare plate 77 - newly discovered cover?

Re: GB 1864 1d red - the rare plate 77 - newly discovered co

Who is online