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

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 24 Sep 2009 00:36

Dear All

I have just woken up and seen seven posts on the subject. These will take a considerable amount of time to digest.

One point to consider, however, in Glen Stephens' second post, his photo labeled "This is one of 6 UNDOUBTED number '77's' from Abed's cover," the second "7" shows, in my opinion, the yellowish rose-red coloration, the subject of so much dispute.

Does anyone else see it?

Richard Debney

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 24 Sep 2009 00:49

capetriangle wrote: One point to consider, however, in Glen Stephens' second post, his photo labeled "This is one of 6 UNDOUBTED number '77's' from Abed's cover," the second "7" shows, in my opinion, the yellowish rose-red coloration, the subject of so much dispute.

Does anyone else see it?

Yes, especially at the bottom of the 7. I've noticed it in some other images too. I was going to look at my copies (of other plates!) to see if I could see the same thing on them.

Greg

aethelwulf · Post by **aethelwulf** » 24 Sep 2009 02:06

GlenStephens wrote: I'd suggest if this matter were subject to a Court Of Law and a Judge to decide, on the overwhelming balance of scientific evidence, and with ZERO refutation scientific evidence offered by the defence, the cover would be deemed 100% genuine in accordance with the clear scientific evidence supporting it.

This thread has been very interesting and informative to read, and I come back every few days to read the latest updates. From the closeup images posted, and the mass of scientific evidence provided, I would be inclined to believe the item genuine. It's certainly making quite a tale, the origins, the discovery et al.

Just to briefly reply to Glen's comment...not taking sides here, but I would say that there was no scientific evidence tendered by the defence (that is, the expert committee) since that is not really their role or responsibility. They are simply being asked, as philatelic experts, to say what they think the stamp looks like or is, based on their knowledge of stamp printing techniques etc.

If this were a court matter, I'm sure the other party would then commission their own investigations. The owner certainly seems to have built up a substantial body of evidence here though which would be difficult to go against.

flip138 · Post by **flip138** » 24 Sep 2009 02:52

Looking at Glen's scan of May 10, 2009 (page 1 of the thread!), the RL stamp seems to have several yellowish areas. To me the border patterns between the 2 and 4 of the postmark and the area above the ENN of penny look just as yellowed as the area of the second 7 of the left-hand 77.

norvic · Post by **norvic** » 24 Sep 2009 03:23

GlenStephens wrote:

This is one of 6 UNDOUBTED number '77's' from Abed's cover.

I'm trying to follow this but the first image isn't appearing - all I see is the microscrope! I think the space between 1d and Plate77 in the URL is killing it for me - or maybe it's the plethora of dots - close.up.blowup.jpg

Post by **GlenStephens** » 24 Sep 2009 03:27

flip138 wrote:To me the border patterns between the 2 and 4 of the postmark and the area above the ENN of penny look just as yellowed as the area of the second 7 of the left-hand 77.

Radley (below) states there are similar patches all over the stamps. Blow up any area on the stamps and you will likely see it.

IMHO just a total red herring from Mr Debney .. if that is his "Smokin Gun" the argument was lost a long time back.

More speculation is possibly located at https://www.ClutchingAtStraws.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; 8)

Unless we are to believe of course that much of each stamp was rebuilt and tampered with at the same time by this master forger. Now there's a thought.

None of it detectable by science or experts or forensic labs as we know, but never let the facts get in the way of a red herring.

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 24 Sep 2009 06:54

.
I have on several occasions mentioned the paper fibres at high magnification and so I have attached an image of a portion of the '7' from a plate 73 stamp photographed from a microscope.

The image is of the stamp at 80x magnification. The paper fibres are clearly visible. You can see that should one fibre be moved or lifted, then this would be clearly evident.

Abed H Najjar

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 24 Sep 2009 07:09

I feel it is important here to make another post and include a brief summary (verbatim) from Professor Hall's report and from the RSSL report both of which are technical and both of whom have used between them the following state of the art analytical equipment to analyse the ink in both '7's.

1- Raman Microscopy
2- EDXRF ( X-ray microfluorescence) associated with elemntal mapping
3- X-ray microanalysis
4- Scanning electron microscopy

Gene S. Hall, Ph.D., Professor of Analytical Chemistry 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."

How much more positive evidence do I need to give the 'experts'?

Abed H Najjar

figmente · Post by **figmente** » 24 Sep 2009 11:12

I'd like to thank Mr Debney for defending his opinion here.

I can claim no expertise on the issues, but think that it is easy to perceive slight shade variations across stamps of such age even when there is no tampering... especially when one is strongly expecting to find such. I hope that those with more experience can call such things with a lot more confidence, but the fact that I know that I could fool myself in such an area causes me to somewhat discount his confidence that he has seen such problems with the 7s. But - If I'm reading correctly, he considers the corner letter match with plate 93 totally damming even without detectable tampering of the 7s, and the theories of intermediate plate states with mixed numbers to explain such a chimera to be ridiculous.

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 24 Sep 2009 12:19

Dear All

I am currently struggling with the Radley report. I am having a problem e-mailing it and hence printing it out. So I therefore still have no opinion.

However, I do refer members to the report by Dr. Gene Hall, a doctoral chemist rather than one with a masters, which is available on The Collectors Club website. (under publications)

From his "Conclusions" (Hall -7-) I will quote.

..."The elements Ba, Cr, and P were found only in the diamond area surrounding the second "7" in plate number "77" and were not homogenous and not part of the ink formulation. Their source is probably from the printing process. Barium, P, and Cr were not found in the red ink surrounding the first "7" in plate number "77". The Cr was due to the chemical compound PbCrO4 (chrome yellow) and was confirmed using the complementary technique of Raman spectroscopy."...

Note, I was unable to subscript the "4" in the chemical formula for lead chromate.

Naturally I do not accept that the elements' sources was from the printing process, since they would surely consequently be found throughout the stamp were that the case.

Richard Debney

Post by **GlenStephens** » 24 Sep 2009 12:54

capetriangle wrote:Dear All

I am currently struggling with the Radley report. I am having a problem e-mailing it and hence printing it out. So I therefore still have no opinion.

So can we get this straight please?

You had a copy of this report in your hands last week and admit above you did not even spend one minute looking at it.

So someone takes the time to post it above it its entirety, and yet you cannot manage to hit the "PRINT" button on it?

Might we detect a supposition that you do not WANT to know what it says, as it of course refutes every word you have written re this cover?

You do however nearly side-step all the other obvious questions, and instead nit pick one obscure technical sentence from one report of Hall's - who by the way in summary TOTALLY disagrees with your premise. Do you have any Chemistry degrees out of interest?

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."

As I posted above, this barrage of undoubtedly very expensive top level scientific reports, all saying essentially the same thing, in a Court Of Law would win the day -- EVERY time.

The 4 reports summarised below (as I feel sure you have trouble printing them too as they all contradict your view) are all confirmed by Radley - who finds nothing he disagrees with in them.

The stamp establishment is never terribly keen to accept on face value, something clearly valuable, they did not know existed before.

Most especially a $500,000 type item, that would instantly be one of the rarest pieces in British Philately if certified as genuine.

Right now two certificates have been issued saying these plate numbers are faked, the latter (your PF) Cert saying stamps from another plate have allegedly changed to read 77.

The first RPSL view was plainly absurd, arguing essentially that someone had cut the number "7" out of other stamps, and pasted it over the second "7" on each stamp on cover.

A basic $20 hand held UV lamp would detect that if it were true! As would 20/20 eyesight I'd guess, or a human fingernail.

The other PF Cert - in essence your view - imputed the second original number had been hand-painted out in red, and a new 7 in white painted in on every stamp. Again the most rudimentary checking would reveal this, if it were the case.

Massive blow-ups of the paper fibres of this region have been taken, and they are illustrated in the article online, and show no such manipulation or alteration. A Professor of Analytical Chemistry concurs.

But YOUR trusty little 10x hand held magnifier tells us they are all WRONG!

As you will see in the highly detailed reports here - http://www.johfail.notlong.com - senior forensic Scientists and technical labs, using expensive Raman microscopes, and a million dollars of analytical equipment, see nothing of the sort.

Abed has spent many £1,000's, and a great deal of time, and went out and got highly technical forensic reports on this cover, covering several years

The detailed forensic evidence appears to show those "Expert" views such as yours are simply wrong.

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 USA, 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."

Radley disagrees with NOTHING of the above - which if you even hit the 'print' button, you will discover.

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

Keep an OPEN mind.

I am a great believer that closed or blinkered minds are often the biggest impediment to important new stamp discoveries being recognised for what they are.

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

It is their ongoing standing in the philatelic world that will forever bear testament to their incorrect judgment in this matter, not his.

Sadly Committees are not always correct, even when the matter before them to rule upon is very simple.

Luckily they on occasion change their Certificates when compelling scientific evidence from a range of sources is presented that warrants it - and this will be one such case I feel sure.

All major philatelic discoveries have come from philatelists with open minds.

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 24 Sep 2009 13:49

Glen

I will accept no criticism from you regarding the fact that I spent less than one minute with the Radley report last week. Neither Mr. Najjar or Dr. Hall referred to it for one second in their illustrated talks.

I have now managed to print it out in 10 pages which makes it almost as difficult to read as on my computer screen. I will get to it in due course.

The quote that I gave you in my last post was taken from Dr. Hall's "Conclusion" section of his report, which, as I said, is available on The Collectors Club website.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 24 Sep 2009 14:36

figmente

Yes, to answer your last point. (save the plate 93 for plate 73 typo)

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

Post by **GlenStephens** » 24 Sep 2009 16:09

capetriangle wrote:Glen

I will accept no criticism from you regarding the fact that I spent less than one minute with the Radley report last week.

Well you may not like accepting it, but you are going to get it.

It is a sure sign to me you knew it was yet another report that damned your stubborn view these numbers were hand painted in - and a little like the 'Emperor With No Clothes' seemed to assume if you did not read it, all was rosy in the Kingdom!

I could not care less who else discussed it, or looked at it, or referred to it at the NYC meeting. We are talking about YOUR actions - not those of others.

Let's leave heresay to the 'National Enquirer', and stick to the written FACTS as we know them please.

YOU posted above you looked at his detailed new forensic report for under a minute and indeed allegedly could not recall who wrote it.

If you feel that kind of high handed disinterest to a Court Standard expert document totally germane to the genuineness of this item is not a matter for criticism .. well we disagree.

Just to jog your memory -

capetriangle wrote:
At The Collectors Club meeting in New York on September 16, 2009 Mr. Najjar placed on display in front of the frames on the right-hand wall actually two reports. The one I referred to in my post was from a handwriting authority.

.... I cannot remember, to save my life, the name of the author. The report was, I believe, spiral-bound and about a quarter of an inch thick.

Other than noticing the identities of the two Expert Committees involved, I spent very little time with the report

capetriangle wrote:
I have referred to Mr. Robert Radley as a "handwriting authority." (check the posts) I have no opinion on his work, report or qualifications. I have held his report in my hands for under a minute. I have, for the most part, noticed only the facts reported in previous posts.

(Red emphasis mine.)

Sadly in my view we have a situation here, where you have already backed yourself into a very sticky corner by publicly stating you will "stake your thirty-two-year professional reputation" on the fact all the stamps on it, and part of the cancels on it are forged.

And seem hell bent on doing anything possible to obfuscate about everything EXCEPT the overall genuineness of the cover.

Your exact words were -

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

I wrote the prevailing opinion quoted by Mr. Najjar as Expert Opinion "B" and was responsible for the information conveyed to him in the subsequent correspondence. I was aware of the information contained in Expert Opinion "A" prior to writing mine.

I am completely happy with the opinion and am willing to put at stake my thirty-two-year professional reputation upon it.

The clear science from a myriad of reports and experts shows that view to be manifestly wrong, and in my view all your obfuscation about a yellow tinge to one 7 etc (that no-one except you sees in all the reports!) is the classic red herring diversion argument.

You could just as easily fill 2 pages hypothetically discussing the shape of the second 7's etc.

Totally irrelevant, as we have no other copies of these letters to compare them against.

The only BIG PICTURE question at issue here surely is -

Do these 3 stamps have the numbers 77 on them, and were those numbers added by a forger - as you claim - or were they printed like that by the PO in the 1860s?

Alleged yellow tinges, shape of 7s, who might have said what at dinner, current price of gold bullion etc, are all red herring diversions to looking at the BIG PICTURE.

You still stridently believe those 5 numbers, and the painted over postmarks were all FORGED, (and as you say, your philatelic reputation rides on that clear observation to a very heavy extent) and yet it seems the near universal view of those who have bothered to read the Radley and other scientific reports, is that there is no evidence of forgery or tampering of numbers or postmarks.

In such a clear cut matter one side only will be proven correct. These stamps below are all genuine and un-altered OR all these obvious "77" numbers and the postmarks over parts of them are all forged.

It is a remarkably simple matter we are discussing when one boils it down.

Seeing your reputation is at stake (your own words) is your reputation worth a few $1000, in order for you to commission your own independent report from another Professor of Analytical Chemistry? To offer some SCIENCE to support your view, rather than you think on a scan of unknown origin and resolution, there may be a tinge of yellow somewhere - not that this has any relevance wahtever to the BIG PICTURE at hand?

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 24 Sep 2009 16:46

Glen

There is a legitimate argument to be made that ALL of your opinions about this item are invalid because you have not even examined it.

Richard Debney

Post by **GlenStephens** » 24 Sep 2009 17:00

Richard, I've never been to the moon either but much smarter people than I, assure me it exists.

Science is a wonderful thing at times.

All I am doing is highlighting the on the record science that leading experts who HAVE examined the cover in enormous detail have concluded.

The fact they ALL differ in their overall view to yours, tells us something most important I suggest.

Let's cut to the chase, as you did not respond to this obvious question -

Seeing your reputation is at stake (your own words) is your reputation worth a few $1000, in order for you to commission your own independent report from another Professor of Analytical Chemistry? To offer some SCIENCE to support your view?

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 24 Sep 2009 17:34

Glen

As I have said before, I believe the forensic/scientific examination confirms rather than contradicts the observed result.

And to answer your quoted question, I will not spend a dime of my own money commissioning my own scientific report on the item.

It is now 2.30 AM in New York and I am going to bed.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

Tas Philatelist · Post by **Tas Philatelist** » 24 Sep 2009 17:46

What an entertaining debate concerning the "science of philately".

As Glen says: "I am a great believer that closed or blinkered minds are often the biggest impediment to important new stamp discoveries being recognised for what they are".

All sides should keep an open mind concerning new discoveries until a full scientific examination is done.

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 24 Sep 2009 17:48

Here is what Professor Hall said about the trace elements:

"The elements Ba, Cr, and P were found only in the diamond area surrounding the second "7" in plate
number "77" and were not homogenous and not part of the ink formulation."

In my view the presence of trace elements in the suspect area is without doubt an indication that work on the plate in that area was carried out.

I really hope those who disagree with these findings and call this cover a fake, thankfully only one as far as I can see, can actually give us some concrete facts that we can work on rather than taking up board space by saying NOTHING of any note.

WE NEED CONCRETE EVIDENCE FROM SCEPTICS AS TO HOW AND WHY THIS ITEM IS A FAKE. NOTHING ELSE IN MY VIEW WILL NOW SUFFICE.

Post by **GlenStephens** » 24 Sep 2009 19:35

GlenStephens wrote:
Seeing your reputation is at stake (your own words) is your reputation worth a few $1000, in order for you to commission your own independent report from another Professor of Analytical Chemistry? To offer some SCIENCE to support your view?

capetriangle wrote:
Glen

And to answer your quoted question, I will not spend a dime of my own money commissioning my own scientific report on the item.

This does not surprise me one bit, and speaks volumes to many I am sure, of the validity and accuracy of your views. Many folks would feel their professional reputations are worth more than a dime.

There is an widely used expression in Australia - "Put your money where your mouth is" but I am not sure what that translates to in American.

I am sympathetic to the Philatelic Foundation in all this, to see their name heavily attached to the strident and intractable view of someone who once represented their name as an "expert", who will do or spend nothing whatever to back his "expert" assertions, other than obfuscate about alleged faint tinges of yellow on 3rd party scans, and who refuses to read valid and detailed research, or lift a finger to rebut that research.

One wonders when news of this matter spreads even wider, just how many other Certificates issued by the PF in this 15-20 year period will be re-submitted with a view to new eyes, and "Expert" members with new vision re-assessing the items(s)?

Sad really. The nightmare possibility all Expert bodies must dread.

capetriangle wrote:
I am a former 15-year employee (expert) at The Philatelic Foundation and have been a consultant to them since 1979.

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » 24 Sep 2009 21:17

Hi Abed,you write

"The elements Ba, Cr, and P were found only in the diamond area surrounding the second "7" in plate number "77" and were not homogenous and not part of the ink formulation."

I would be interested to know a little more about these elements and there possible "use" ? Whilst still happy to take this cover as genuine on the facts so far presented, would not any attempt to alter such a stamp or area of it best be attempted with contemporary materials.

As such, I would be looking for ways to use ink abstracted from another penny red of as similar age as possible to the host stamp/cover. Is there then any possibility that any or all of these elements found and mentioned could have been used in this or any similar process instead of the supposed/presumed reason of plate alteration work PRIOR to printing?

I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, one of the "smoking guns" catching out our well known and prolific British forger Shaun Greenhalgh mentioned on my previous post was the presence of certain trace elements on an ancient Egyptian carving that had not existed at the time (this due to his work being accomplished on said piece with a new angle grinder!)

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 24 Sep 2009 23:08

Tas Philatelist wrote:All sides should keep an open mind concerning new discoveries until a full scientific examination is done. It can be embarrassing when a new discovery turns out to be fake: http://www.glenstephens.com/linnsMarch8-99.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, that example has crossed my mind a few times during this discussion.

Part of the discussion around the Aussie one was "how could it exist?" Various theories were floated about patching a faulty sheet with the wrong stamp, and so on.

The most interesting part of this discussion for me is also "how could this exist?" Why would three plate 73 stamps have a plate # of 77? I think that's a far more interesting question than "Is it genuine?" I'm pretty much convinced by the scientific evidence that Abed's cover is kosher. If so, we're left with the interesting challenge of understanding how it came to be.

So the plates were changed with a substance that left traces of three elements. I know nothing of metallurgy. What substance that could have been used to plug or repair a plate have left those three trace elements? Was that substance actually used back then?

Greg

mikeg · Post by **mikeg** » 24 Sep 2009 23:55

I add my voice to that of Greg and Highlander.

OK, so it's genuine.

How did it come about?

All the effort and money that has been spent proving it genuine does not answer the basic question of should this exist or not, or how it came about.

Without the proper plating studies/reconstructions to show the sequence of events that resulted in 73 becoming 77, these and others like it remain curiosities, rather than important items in their own right.

As an expert himself, certainly Abed must understand this.

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 25 Sep 2009 00:31

Glen

I am not in the least surprised that you are not surprised.

The Australian expression exists here in America.

As far as the attachment of The Philatelic Foundation's name is concerned, that was accomplished by Mr. Najjar when he placed on public display, last week, the Radley report, the one I freely admit I had held in my hands at THAT time for less than one minute, (an action you love to criticize me for and for which I will accept none) the report which I am still studying and until that study is competed, have no opinion.

The defense of my personal opinion came in the The Collectors Club Philatelist (March - April 2009) article I wrote (available on their website under publications) when The Philatelic Foundation was known as Expert Opinion "B."

I do not "obfuscate about alleged faint tinges of yellow on 3rd party scans," I have actually seen them, the "areas of yellowish rose-red" coloration, five times, on the item itself. As I said in my article "At least four of my former colleagues, all fine philatelists, agreed with my findings."

As far as the clients of The Philatelic Foundation is concerned I firmly believe that virtually all of them are happy with the opinions expressed on their certificates. For those who are not there is a reconsideration process in place.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 25 Sep 2009 00:52

capetriangle wrote: As far as the clients of The Philatelic Foundation is concerned I firmly believe that virtually all of them are happy with the opinions expressed on their certificates. For those who are not there is a reconsideration process in place.

The two strangest certificates I've ever seen (from legitimate bodies) were from The Philatelic Foundation. One was a post fiscal from Victoria that was certified to be from the Victorian era -- it gave the Scott number. But the perforations showed that the stamp was from a much later issue with the same design. They had completely misidentified the stamp.

The other was a New Zealand stamp where they seem not to have checked the watermark. Again, the watermark showed that it wasn't the issue they thought it was. It was almost as if they just looked it up in Scott (which didn't list the later watermark). If they'd checked Gibbons (which does list both) they would have seen their error. The NZ stamp also had some pretty serious damage, which showed clearly in the photo on the certificate but wasn't mentioned.

I still have the NZ one. If I can find it I'll post it when I get home tonight. I've been thinking of starting a new thread on certificates anyway. There's one I'd like to get everyone's feedback on. (The stamp is an Azores overprint -- fun!)

Greg

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 25 Sep 2009 01:06

Thank you Gentlemen for the input and I entirely agree with you all that much research needs to be carried out in order to understand how this plate 77 stamp came to be. If the stamps on this cover are a curiosity then I am sure we can agree that all the others fall in the same boat.

I have already provided details of an official document IR79/79 that states that plate 77 was never put to press and no sheets were printed from it. Furthermore the document states that the plate was defaced one year before the printing date. So where did these stamps showing a plate 77, and which do not match the roller impression, and which all have differing '7's come from???

What we do not understand is not neccessarily faked. Printers at that time, for whatever reason printed stamps that showed a number 77. ED Bacon and others must have looked into the records very carefully and could find anything of use apart from some conjecture which he published in his books and which can be totally negated with logic.

I know we have to find answers, if that could ever be done with so few copies known, and I have and am putting every effort that I can to find good reason for their existence and also for the trace elements which were found and to for which I am very grateful, suffice to say I am making good progress and will continue to post on this WONDERFUL site.

Thank you all for your input, few other items have ever amassed such interest and I am grateful to 'some' for making this debate rather amusing.

Abed H Najjar

PS Greg - you have beaten me to it. Brilliant idea about a thread on certs.

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 25 Sep 2009 04:45

OK, so it seems clear from that report that the stamps have not been altered, at least not by any means short of technology out of Star Trek. If there are no smoking-gun traces of fibre damage that would seem to shift the burden of proof firmly back in the opposite direction -- which would mean that the question posed by those trace elements has been, if not actually answered, at least made moot. (Even if it wasn't a smoking gun, a measurable difference in precisely those areas and no others was clearly at least a whiff of gunpowder in the air.)

On the other hand, I'm not sure the current theory being put forward to explain their presence is more than a handwave. If I'm reading the suggestions correctly, the idea is that plugs of metal were inserted into various positions of plate 73 to change the number? What possible purpose could that have served to a busy printer? And how would they have done this? It's a recess-printed stamp, they'd essentially be replacing hollows on the plate with other hollows. Also, note that the chromium at least was specifically in the form of lead chromate (a yellow pigment favoured in the 19th century -- apparently they even used to use it to colour candy!

The mind boggles) as Hall's report states, not the metal. (His 'probably from the printing process' also sounds like a handwave. AFAIK he's a chemist, not a printer, so I don't think we need to take that as a scientific conclusion, especially as hypothesising that something about a printed item is due to 'the printing process' is not exactly going out on a limb.) Barium is a reasonably plausible contaminant for lead chromate, but I can't see it having been used much or at all in its metallic form back in the 1860s (you extract it by electrolysis, and it's highly reactive with both air and water).

The original theory put forward was that certain positions of plate 73 were to be re-entered, and that by mistake the die for plate 77 was used. On the face of it, this looked like a plausible theory of the 'cock-up' variety, giving a reason for stamps that are clearly from plate 73 (based on the corner squares -- blank on the dies -- and lettering) to have the number 77 on them, and backed up by the other earlier rejected example. Without checking back through all 500+ posts of this thread, I can't recall anything totally contradicting that. Anyone?

Oh, and my own handwave for the presence of trace elements in those areas would be more along the lines of an earlier owner gently testing the area with some tool or chemical that had picked up a trace of lead chromate. Also completely pulled out of thin air, but at least it doesn't require the printers to have done something that apparently had no purpose other than to confuse later philatelists.

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 25 Sep 2009 05:11

For all those interested

I have now read Mr. Radley's report in full for this item so much in dispute, studying it for almost two days. To probably no one's surprise it has not changed my opinion about the item's authenticity. I do have some observations to make on points made in the report which I believe members might find of interest. These are purely my personal opinions.

Firstly, I am a little surprised that report was commissioned at all since Mr. Radley's website indicates that he does not work for private individuals.

Taking the report in order:

SUMMARY OF OPINION

(i) It was not the entire basis, it was that together with the undisputed fact that the stamps plate to Plate 73.

(iii) As a philatelic expert I would suggest that it is no more difficult than the repairs, adding margins and frame lines, to the Hawaiian Missionary stamps as outlined in my post of "Wed Sep 23, 2009 03:00:42 am."

EXAMINATION

(16 and 17) Here Mr. Radley and I are in total agreement. As I said in my CCP article "To be absolutely fair to Mr. Najjar I do very much continue to support what he calls the "painted-in" option rather than the "cut-and paste" option of Expert Opinion "A." Whilst it is a little gratifying to me to have my opinion confirmed by Mr. Radley, I am more than a little sympathetic to the members of the Expert Committee of The Royal Philatelic Society London. Throughout my 30-year consultancy at The Philatelic Foundation (15 years as an employee) I have attended many expert discussions where the observation "I can't tell you how it was done but I can tell you it is bad." has been made with absolutely no adverse consequences.

(18) Again total agreement, the item showed nothing adverse when examined in long wave ultraviolet light at The Philatelic Foundation.

(19 - 22) It would be fascinating to me to see how Mr. Radley would fare with the finest repair work done on Hawaiian Missionary stamps.

(23) It is not known when this fakery was achieved, no one is disputing the age of the stamps, no one is suggesting that the stamps came into existance
after the introduction of the power brush or powder blaster.

(29) The "original colourant" was not matched, it does not appear identical, hence the "yellowish rose-red" color.

(30) Much disagreement, as would be expected by my critics. Certainly there are differences in shade throughout the stamps.

(33) Sizing agents have certainly been known to have been applied in sophisticated cases to prevent 'feathering.'

(34) This is simply not true, remember the '7' is uninked paper on the stamps and this is recess printing. Whether or not Mr. Radley's die is engraved with a '7' or a relief die as in relief or surface printing, the '7' would print in color.

(35) ..."(t)he paper fibres surrounding the '7's in question are not in a significantly depressed are(a) of the paper."... They should not be depressed at all, they should be in relief, remember this is a line-engraved stamp.

(36) Postmarks have been successfully added to stamps for years. It is only really in modern times with the used of color copiers that they have become easy to spot due to the tiniest ink splatter patterns.

(40) This seems to both confirm and contradict the conclusions of Dr. Gene Hall.

(44) Here Mr. Radley seems to observe what was seen by the Experts at The Royal Philatelic Society London.

(45) Speculative

(47) I just do not understand this paragraph.

(49 and 50) Total agreement

(53) I have no opinion on infrared reflectance. The result here seems to confirm the conclusions of Dr. Gene Hall, which as I have contended confirms rather than contradicts the observed result.

(54) See my answer to paragraph (40)

(55 - 59) Somewhat repetitive, though to which I am in complete agreement.

(61) Naturally I disagree with Mr. Radley about the "significant difference in the colouring as suggested." Although I can agree with him concerning the slight differences in shade throughout the stamps.

(62) This seems to contradict Dr. Gene Hall's conclusion.

Richard Debney

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 25 Sep 2009 05:37

Abed H Najjar wrote:I have already provided details of an official document IR79/79 that states that plate 77 was never put to press and no sheets were printed from it.

Just as an addendum -- if that's the one that gives the plates and was shown in your articles, it doesn't necessarily follow that no sheets were ever physically printed from it, just that there was no official record of sheets printed in production because there wasn't any production run.

I think it was Scott/pertinax(?) who pointed out that as a practical matter Ormond Hill had to have been looking at a perforated sheet to be able to tell that it wasn't suitable for perforating (unless one or more positions on the plate were so appallingly out of place as to be glaringly obvious from a glance, I suppose), which sounded reasonable. In this case there would have been (up to six?) test sheets printed.

One member of the mulready group has compared the lettering of the Tapling 77 against all the known plates and reports not finding a match for any of them (I'd better not pre-empt him by quoting him here, but I hope he'll post) -- that would presumably imply that there are actual 77s about as well as re-entered 73s, and they would had to have come from test sheets of some kind (if genuine!).

Post by **GlenStephens** » 25 Sep 2009 05:41

capetriangle wrote:
(47) I just do not understand this paragraph.

#47 seems crystal clear to me.

Getting back again to the BIG PICTURE ... it is the nub of what you said occurred to this stamp with the fakery. i.e. someone cunningly changed all those 3s to 7s.

You clearly do not understand par 46 either, as you do not comment. Indeed you do not comment as YOUR Forger theory said re - 'The challenge of changing a 3 to a 7'.

https://www.collectorsclub.org/Publications.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"IF the right hand 7 is smoothly abraded down"

Clever forger - to grind away all that paper and not disturb any paper fibres wouldn't you say?

Radley is pointing out in #47 the bleeding obvious - that it is impossible to do all that forging and not leave screamingly clear evidence of it in some or all of the 5 places this clever forger friend of yours worked on.

That is probably why you do not understand it.

And of course again why NO forger (except your clever dastardly man of course) would ever have picked a cover with THREE stamps to work on. Absurd.

Try painting on a porous stamp with red ink, with a tiny 1 hair camel brush and sees how much it runs down the paper fibres. Impossible to do it 5 times in a 2mm x 2mm square and get away with it leaving no evidence that rudimentary inspection would not detect.

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

Post by **gavin-h** » 25 Sep 2009 06:13

capetriangle wrote:(19 - 22) It would be fascinating to me to see how Mr. Radley would fare with the finest repair work done on Hawaiian Missionary stamps.

Richard, it certainly would - perhaps he could be commissioned to carry out a similar examination on a "known" finely repaired stamp, and the results should be made public

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 25 Sep 2009 06:18

I entirely agree with Mozzerb, if any of the stamps that exist are from plate 77, then they would have come from the one or two trial sheets. (E D Bacon cites one or two). However none of them match the roller impression and the 7's look different and the Tapling copy and the Royal copy have short tops, I personally very much doubt that they do come from these two sheets. What are the odds of finding these copies amongst the 13.5billion copies printed. I would need convincing on this one, but unlike others my mind is AWAYS OPEN.

Matching the corner letters may give some answers and I am also looking into that.

Abed H Najjar

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 25 Sep 2009 07:42

Just to nitpick some of the rhetoric here, because if you're going to mock the man, he deserves a bit of counter-snark. (Frankly, I think Richard Debney has been remarkably polite, however much of a losing battle he's fighting; I'd have reached for the flamethrower long ago.)

GlenStephens wrote:And of course again why NO forger (except your clever dastardly man of course) would ever have picked a cover with THREE stamps to work on. Absurd.

Oh, I don't know. You do one stamp. If you screw up, you find another cover and try again with the lessons learned. If you feel confident, you do the next stamp. At any time after the first, if you screw up so badly that it's irretrievable, you have the options of removing the successful forgeries and calling it stamp(s) on piece, or you could (for example) abrade away the screwed-up bit and leave only the bits that worked. Although in the latter case, clearly no-one would believe it wasn't faked if one of the stamps was damaged like that. Oh hang on ... If you do more than one, you create a presumption of innocence and can relax in the knowledge that people will point out how no forger could possibly be foolish enough to do more than the bare minimum necessary and therefore it must be genuine. Damn, how dastardly!

GlenStephens wrote:Try painting on a porous stamp with red ink, with a tiny 1 hair camel brush and sees how much it runs down the paper fibres. Impossible to do it 5 times in a 2mm x 2mm square and get away with it leaving no evidence that rudimentary inspection would not detect.

Rudimentary eh? Wow, that's a strong word. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall a minor bombshell discovery a while back that suggested that flaws on certain WWII Colonial higher values may have been hand retouched by the printers by painting in the missing bits (to avoid expensive reprinting with scarce materials). That might merely have been a cute cover story for fakery, of course, but there was apparently some provenance to the items in question, and they'd certainly been inspected. Also, we know that there actually are people able to do ultra-fine detail work. You couldn't do it, I couldn't do it, but hey, someone had to engrave the damn stamp dies in the first place ...

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

Don't know about you, but my first thought if I planned to have a go at this (given that you don't just need old recipe ink, you need ink that looks and tests old when dried) would be to scrape some from another stamp of the same issue, find a basically inert organic solvent that softened the bits just enough to work with and evaporated in a reasonable amount of time, and make up a mixture out of that. It's not like you need gallons of the stuff. Even better, take the ink from another stamp from the same sheet, say one from the same cover. Although in the latter case, clearly no-one would believe it wasn't faked if one of the stamps was damaged like that. Oh hang on ...

No, I don't suppose it would work either (although I'm not in the habit of forging stamps and have never tried it, I hasten to add). It's certainly at least as plausible as some of the metal-plug-in-the-plate theorising going on (i.e., not very). But Richard Debney's suggestions weren't a priori as ridiculous as you make out, even if a detailed examination makes them untenable.

Right. Moving on to something more substantial:

Abed H Najjar wrote: What are the odds of finding these copies amongst the 13.5billion copies printed.

Pretty good actually it's a comic strip (sorry, couldn't resist, h/t Doonesbury). They wouldn't be random copies -- they'd have to have been copies that came from sheets given to a senior official for checking, kept around for (e.g.) testing purposes and subsequently 'leaked'. Not exactly unknown, there seems to be a ton of GB QV archive material on the market. Clearly two and possibly all three of the mint copies came from the same block?

It's a bit like the argument that it's unlikely to find three unknown 77s all at once -- except that they're not selected at random from the entire population of 1d reds, they're on the same cover, so you'd expect them to be from the same plate. Once you know that, the probabilities cluster -- it's more unlikely to the extent that covers with multiples are scarcer than covers with singles, but they're not so scarce that the probability of three is orders of magnitude worse than the probability of one.

Abed H Najjar wrote: Matching the corner letters may give some answers and I am also looking into that.

What really would be useful to see -- I seem to remember asking for this on about page 6 or 7, but I guess no-one had the stamps? -- are the accepted second states of these letterings for plate 73, which would presumably actually be the third states. That way a comparison could be made looking for characteristics that matched them and the stamps on cover but not the first states, which if found would be a significant bit of evidence.

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 25 Sep 2009 08:22

Yes I do agree Mozzerb the three mint copies, AB, BA and AC which are from the top of the sheet may have come from these trial sheets. I still doubt it however for the reasons stated earlier. I do need convincing.

I am talking about the used copies that exist and which have been found within the public domain. The odds on these coming from the trials I do feel is astronomical, but anything is possible. If an official leaked a top block, knowing full well it is a desirable item, why put the rest of the valuable sheets in the public domain, should they not have been destroyed? Of course we can ask all sorts of questions, but can we ever be sure?

My guess is that the mint copies may well have been fabricated from an exisiting early plate? This probability can not be discounted. Anything could have happened, we can only make informed guesses. I think Raman testing on the provenanced copies will be of great help. I do hope that this will be done one day.

plsllvn · Post by **plsllvn** » 25 Sep 2009 08:31

Hi Abed
I would like to ask a question regarding the
Inland Revenue document IR79/79, pages 40-41, held
at the National Archives (Figure 3) document - that you made reference to in your report.
The left column that list the plate numbers ( 70 - 80 ) appears to have had corrections done to it (correct sequencing numbers appear to be pasted over the original entries )starting with plate 74 and ending with plate 80!

I would like to ask you if there was ever any reason given to you for this correction being done ?

Just an interested observer..
Paul

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 25 Sep 2009 08:55

Thanks Paul for your quiery.
I have noticed this and believe it is probably due to an error in the numbering down the list. Probably having written down the numbers wrongly, the registrar may have realised his error and insted of correcting the numbers he pasted a piece long paper over them and rewrote them. Perhaps for neatness sake rather than anything else.
Abed H Najjar

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 25 Sep 2009 08:57

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

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

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

Post by **GlenStephens** » 25 Sep 2009 11:13

mozzerb wrote:

GlenStephens wrote:And I repeat for the umpteenth time, your forger needed to find 150 year red ink to do all this magic - with the EXACT physical and chemical characteristics to what the PO used.
Don't know about you, but my first thought if I planned to have a go at this (given that you don't just need old recipe ink, you need ink that looks and tests old when dried) would be to scrape some from another stamp of the same issue, find a basically inert organic solvent that softened the bits just enough to work with and evaporated in a reasonable amount of time, and make up a mixture out of that. It's not like you need gallons of the stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The PF awaits your application!

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

The 'Perfect Crime' indeed.

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 25 Sep 2009 11:54

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

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

Post by **GlenStephens** » 25 Sep 2009 12:06

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

Wait up there Sherlock.

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

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

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

Abed's chart -

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 25 Sep 2009 12:38

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

Greg

Post by **GlenStephens** » 25 Sep 2009 13:13

admin wrote:Re the Mint 1d Plate 77s I found this interesting first hand account from Tom Allen, who bought a great deal of material for the Royal Collection, and was asked to be Keeper Of The Royal Collection (by Wilson) when Wilson retired.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post by **GlenStephens** » 25 Sep 2009 14:23

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

Abed H Najjar · Post by **Abed H Najjar** » 25 Sep 2009 19:59

Greg

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

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

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

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

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

God save pragmatism and open minds.

Abed H Najjar

mozzerb · Post by **mozzerb** » 25 Sep 2009 22:44

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

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

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

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

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

capetriangle · Post by **capetriangle** » 26 Sep 2009 00:02

Glen

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

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

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

Post by **GlenStephens** » 26 Sep 2009 00:19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why -- no-one knows. Yet.

prof2000 · Post by **prof2000** » 26 Sep 2009 00:55

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

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

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

Fascinating topic!

Greg Ioannou · Post by **Greg Ioannou** » 26 Sep 2009 01:01

prof2000 wrote:Is it possible that the existing plate 77's are coincident reentries where the wrong roller die has been used?

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

Greg

Post by **GlenStephens** » 26 Sep 2009 01:14

prof2000 wrote:
Surely if the plate was rejected as being too out of line to be perforated properly, then there should be NO perforated copies in existence.

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

That does seem logical?