1- No documented evidence exists which confirms that plate 77 imprimatur sheets were produced and 'officially' released to the public in the normal way in 1864. Every sheet printed and released officially from every plate has been recorded in the archives of the printers and in the Inland Revenue records office. None are recorded for plate 77 which was defaced in 1863.

2- Plate 77 was rejected because it was badly laid down for perforation and yet none of the known stamps are any more unusually badly centred than the mass of stamps from this issue. Knowingly perforating such a sheet will give stamps of all sorts of shapes and sizes- so why do that? Adjacent stamps AB/AC and PH/ PI luckily do exist. If these stamps were placed next to each other we will note 'normal' sized stamps and 'normal' spacing between them. This point is illustrated in the document E D Bacon on plate 77.

3- None of the existing stamps showing a plate number 77 match important features on the plate 77 roller impression.

4- A vast deviation exists between the shape and position of both 7s in the figure 77 when compared with the roller impression and with each other. This can not happen with images from one impression. (See the image below and the link ' Comparing the plate number '77')

5- The possibility that the number 77 was engraved on impressions which may have needed repair by re-entry, bizarre as it is, can not be dismissed. It could have happened.

6- G C Ackerman states in 'Penny Plates Study Circle Notes ' 'There is evidence of repair work not recorded in the Engraving book'. This is not in the least surprising for an issue of stamps which was produced from about 150 plates, was printed over a period of about 15 years and from which circa 55 million sheets of 240 stamps were printed, i.e. 13,200,000,000 stamps. There are facets of this issue which to date have not been fully researched.

7- The fact that 'unadopted 'two on one dies' were produced for the printing of this issue were not documented in the printer's record books, certainly means that the possiblilty of plate '77' stamps being produced in an unorthodox manner may also not be documented.

http://www.1dplate77.com/1dplate77/BacondieIII.htm

8- Engraving the number 77 is a very easy task to carry out on a plate as has been proven 'in the laboratory'. The number 77 was not used and so would have made a good temporary marker number. The subsequent repair of this amended impression by re-entry using the correct roller impression is very easy. http://www.1dplate77.com/1dplate77/Eengraving.htm

9- The discovery of an 1865 cover franked with three plate 73 stamps which show the number 77 indicates that this, perhaps temporary repair measure was, for whatever reason, adopted.

10- The three stamps on cover originate from an early repaired plate 73 in which stamps SK, SL and RL show the number 77. GC Ackerman documents in 'Penny Plates Study Circle Notes' that stamps SK and RL are amongst the 67 heads that were repaired by re-entry.

11- The accepted plate 77 stamp PI is an exact match to its plate 81 equivalent. Plate 81 was also one of the early plates to be repaired. GC Ackerman documents in 'Penny Plates Study Circle Notes' that stamp PI was amongst the 49 heads that were repaired by re-entry.

12- The Postal Authorities were not concerned with the plate number, which more than likely was a plate reference number. This fact would therefore make its alteration a perfectly ethical thing to do. So why not alter it if by doing so the Printers could remedy a problem that may arise with a printing plate?

13- Philately abounds with the 'incredible' so why is it so difficult to accept that this perfectly legitimate and highly achievable task could not have been carried out by Perkins Bacon. One must always keep in mind the incredible pressure that was exerted on the printers by the strong demand for a continuous supply of stamps which had to be produced from a large number of plates which had to remain in commission. Any temporary remedy for a failing plate would have therefore had to have been addressed with great urgency. This could have been one remedy.

14- Incredible odds exist of finding a plate 77 stamp from the one or two imprimatur sheets that may have been released. It is much more likely, mathematically, that they originate from re-engraved plates from which a larger number must have been produced.

15- A very strong possibility exists that some examples from the large number of stamps submitted for expertisation over the past 90 years or so and dismissed as fake plate 77 stamps are actually genuine. One must bear in mind here the discredited 'fake' opinions of the two expert bodies on the three stamps on the cover. Both opinions have been discredited scientifically and found to be completely wrong and unfounded with one claiming a cut and paste scenario and the other abrading and painting. With such completely wrong opinions in expertisation being expressed by some experts, does it not follow that some fake opinions expressed in the past may also be wrong or questionable? In the case of the three stamps on the cover, they were dismissed as fakes because they matched plate 73 stamps as far as the corner letters are concerned. Could other plate 77 stamps matching other plates have also been dismissed as fakes for the same reason? The expressed fake opinion on  the stamps which are clearly not plate 177 or 71 fakes should now be reassessed in order to help uncover the truth behind this most compelling of philatelic enigmas.

16- Sufficient correspondence exits between Ormond Hill, Pekins Bacon and the Crown Agents to, at least, raise suspicion that favours and other activities may well have taken place and which, in part, was not then seen to be breaking any rules. Some pages from Percy de Worms book 'Beginning of the End' have been posted here. These should be read and digested in full as they will make for some most interesting and very enlightening reading. Furthermore it is very clear from the correspondence that Perkins Bacon would have had to exercise great diligence when accounting for plates and printed stamps of any kind. This can only endorse the fact that any rejected sheets would have been accounted for and destroyed.

Please note the following letters which may support this point:

- Letter of April 24th 1861 from Perkins Bacon

- Letter of 25th October 1861 from Perkins Bacon

- Letter of 3rd April 1862 from Perkins Bacon

- Letter of 7th June 1862 from Perkins Bacon

- Letter of 22nd Oct. 1861 from The Crown Agents

This does make the suggestion on the opposite column that the 'rejected' plate 77 sheets which should have been destroyed but were actually perforated and gummed and then released a year after their production a rather difficult concept to accept.

Other letters talk about stamps being made available for officials and collectors. Is it then beyond the bounds of reason that stamps with a plate number 77 could have been 'produced' for exactly this purpose?

Please note the following letters which may perhaps support this line of thinking:

- Letter of 18th April 1861 from Ormond Hill

- Letter of 24th April 1861 from Ormond Hill- A serious hidden implication here!

- Letter of 1st November 1861 from Ormond Hill

It is worthwhile remembering here that the unused stamps AB, AC and BA showing a plate number 77 were cut with scissors from the top of the sheet while all the other used examples were found at random within the public domain. If this indeed was the case, then collectors on both 'sides' would have been satisfied and no misdemeanor would have been exercised.

(Percy de Worms)

Abed H Najjar

1- The existing stamps showing a plate number 77 could only come from the imperforate imprimatur sheets which 'may' have been printed from the rejected plate 77 before February 1863. Plate 77 was defaced in February 1863 and so clearly was not available for printing on the 1st March 1864 when this issue was put to press.

These imperforate rejected sheets, if they did exist, and which should have been destroyed would have been very badly centred. These sheets were 'retained and stored' for over one year. They were then 'intentionally' perforated, with difficulty, as they would not have been well centred for the perforator, producing stamps of differing sizes. Finally they were gummed and released, but not before someone knowing their importance and value removed stamps AB, AC and BA with scissors and 'released' the remaining handful of examples into the public domain to be discovered amongst the c.13.2 billion stamps that were printed from this issue!

E D Bacon is the only philatelist, as far as I can find, who went on record in an effort to explain how these stamps may have come to exist. Needless to say he would have carefully studied all the existing correspondence from Perkins Bacon at that time and would have also investigated the printing record books.

I have carefully studied his comments on this stamp and have produced this paper. It is abundantly clear that even E D Bacon was at a loss to explain the origin of these stamps, basing his views entirely on conjecture!

http://1dplate77.com/1dplate77/EDBaconon18581dplate77.htm

Note:

It is important to stress that the impression on these stamps must be pristine, must match the roller impression from which they originate and all the '77' impressions must be identical to that on the roller impression and to each other. Close examination of the provenanced and accepted examples shows that this is not the case.

Any credible support for the 'imprimatur' option must be able to answer the question of why the '7's are all different and the two dashes, which are an integral part of the master die, are missing.

The re-engraving option certainly does answer both questions quite convincingly.

These two links will illustrate this point:

Comparing the plate number '77'

http://www.1dplate77.com/1dplate77/imprimaturs.htm

Any substantiated evidence that the accepted stamps showing a plate number 77 do come from the plate 77 imprimatur sheet(s) would be very welcomed indeed

	Tapling stamp BA- left hand panel
	Fletcher stamp PH- left hand panel
	Stamp LL left hand panel
Note the shape and position of all the 7's. How can these come from one roller impression?