<E D Bacon on 1858 1d plate 77>

While there is absolutely no doubt that plate 77 was prepared and rejected, tangible and substantiated evidence is still required in order to ascertain that this plate actually printed the existing and accepted stamps showing a plate number 77.

This report discusses the only known documented reasoning for the existence of plate 77 stamps as argued and published by the major philatelic authority- E D Bacon.

Roller plate 77 left hand panel (top) Tapling plate 77 left hand panel- note how completely different the position of the 7's are.

As far as documented evidence of note that would substantiate the case for plate 77 printing the existing stamps, the following book; 'The Line-Engraved Stamps of Great Britain Vols I and II Printed by Perkins Bacon & Co Edward Denny Bacon MVO 1920' by E D Bacon carries ‘seemingly’ the most useful ‘explanations or evidence’. Little to no other tangible explanations or evidence have been documented elsewhere that I could find.

1- As far as the official rejection of the plates Bacon states the following:

“As regards Plates 75 and 77, the only new information we have found of these is contained in a letter of Mr. Ormond Hill to Perkins, Bacon & Co., dated February 7th, 1863, in which he wrote: ‘I am very sorry to be under the necessity of rejecting the two postage plates on account of the irregularity of the placing of the heads.’ No mention is made in the letter of the numbers of the plates, but the reference can only be to Plates 75 and 77, impressions from which were no doubt submitted at the same time as those of Plates 76 and 78 to 81, which were all registered on the same day as Mr. Hill condemned Plates 75 and 77.”

In my view this statement is correct.

2- As far as plate 77 stamps ‘PH’ and ‘PI’ are concerned E D Bacon states the following:

“Both stamps still remain on a portion of the envelope or letter-sheet they franked and are obliterated with the number “15” surrounded by heavy bars, which was also a cancellation mark used in the London Head Office. The One Penny value is lettered PI. Both the used specimens, which came from lower rows of the sheet than the unused copies, are very badly centred as regards the perforation and in this respect confirm the reason given for the rejection of the plate."

In my view this statement is wanting.

Any serious collector of this issue will confirm that misplacement of the perforations is not an uncommon occurrence in this issue. It is in fact the well centred copies that are most sought after. Bacon cites that the bad centring on stamps PH and PI ‘confirms’ the reason behind rejecting plate 77. While it is true that the plate was rejected because it was badly laid down for perforation, the two stamps although misperforated, are by no means a reason for rejection. The perforations are simply misplaced downwards and very probably a perforating machine setting problem. Ironically the three 'plate 77' stamps on cover all show the same misplacement of perforation but in the other direction. Stamps from plate 73 exist equally and similarly badly misperforated and yet the plate was not rejected. To further illustrate this observation a pair of stamps from plate 225 with an identical shift to those of stamps PH and PI is also illustrated showing a massive perforation shift. In fact such shifts of the perforations can be found on stamps from practically every plate. We can therefore safely discard this point made by Bacon.

It is also worthwhile noting that stamp PH is very probably cancelled with the barred no '1' London cancel and not the oval barred '15' cancel as cited by Bacon.

In my view rejecting a valuable plate on the basis of being unfit for perforation must have been when the stamp impressions were seriously out of alignment vertically, horizontally or even diagonally and probably and equally importantly if the impressions were too close to each other which meant that the perforating pins would drill the plate number out rendering it imperceptible and perhaps showing it on an adjacent stamp hence having two plate numbers on one side.

The illustrations below will clearly illustrate the point of misplaced perforations on stamps printed from plates that were accepted and widely used to print this issue.

Above: stamps PH and PI (the two ‘plate 77’ copies Bacon cites in his book)

both showing bad centring due to a downwards misplacement of the perforations.

Above: four examples of stamps from plate 73 with misplaced perforations similar to those of stamps PH and PI as above

and yet plate 73 was not rejected as per Bacon’s theory. Note also the gross misperforations to the right and left.

Above: a strong shift of the perforations on a pair of plate 225 stamps exactly as with that on stamps PH and Pi and yet plate 225 was not rejected!

3- Explanation regarding the existence of plate 77 stamps on the market - E D Bacon states the following:

“The existence of the six specimens proves that a sheet or more must have been printed and perforated, no doubt as a trial, after which the plate was condemned as unfit for use. These trial stamps may then have been mixed in with the ordinary stock and put into circulation in the usual way, or they may have been put on one side and, perhaps after an interval, used by some official or other individual who came across them.”

In my view this statement is totally built on conjecture with no existing proof or evidence whatsoever to support it.

Firstly:

“The existence of the six specimens proves..”

The fact that stamps showing a plate number 77 do exist does not in any way ‘prove’ that they must come from a specific plate, and certainly not, if evidence is available to the contrary as is the case with this plate.

Secondly:

“..may then have been mixed..”
“..may have been put..”
“..perhaps after an interval..”

The three assertions above are totally built on conjecture.

Thirdly:

"..These trial stamps may then have been mixed in with the ordinary stock and put into circulation in the usual way, or they may have been put on one side and, perhaps after an interval, used by some official or other individual who came across them.”

Again more guesswork from E D Bacon in an attempt to explain the existence of these stamps. But what is interesting this time is the fact that the sheets '..may have been mixed in with the ordinary stock' or '..used by an official or other individual who came across them'.

I believe that this explanation which is given by E D Bacon somehow stretches the imagination. More importantly there is no evidence to support it at all. It is totally understandable that explanations were sought for the existence of this stamp, even a 'long-shot' such as this.

Some interesting points to keep in mind here. These sheets, if they ever existed, would have been rejected, imperforate and ungummed trial sheets that should have been destroyed together with the plate 75 sheets trial sheets.

The questions to ask are the following:

1- Why and where were these imperforate and ungummed sheets (which were and printed over a year before the printing of this issue) stored?

(These trial sheets, if they existed must have been printed between 23 September 1861, the date the plate was completed and 4 February 1863, the date the plate was partially defaced, approximately 1 year and four months before this issue went to press).

2- How could these sheets suddenly appear away from a very busy printing press, unaccounted for, and then be perforated knowing the result will be stamps of all shapes and sizes?

3- Would such a badly perforated sheet then be gummed?

4- Would the plate number of such a sheet, which should have been recorded against the number of sheets printed by the plate that produced it, not have been noticed not to tally with an existing plate. Bear in mind that the exact number of sheets produced by each plate was recorded?

Most importantly, we must not forget that none of the existing stamps match the roller impression which produced the 240 impressions on the plate, and all the '7's appear differently on these stamps. (see link below)

Furthermore can we seriously accept the incredible odds that exist in which the used examples, which would have originated from one or more trial sheets, which were released ‘in error’ amongst a total of c.13.2 billion stamps that were printed?

If however these stamps were actually imprimaturs, and this is now very doubtful indeed, then it appears that the individual who handled them must have been stamp 'savvy' as clearly stamps AB, BA and AC from the top of the sheet were removed from the sheet with scissors, the remainder of this 'windfall' was released to the public. A bizarre thing to do!!

It is understandable that explanations were sought for the existence of this stamp, however no one had seriously studied the plate number 77 printed on them. Had this been done then it would have soon became apparent to the pragmatist that the 7’s were all dissimilar and fell in different places. Furthermore no one compared the printed impressions against the roller impression from the master die. The printed stamps undoubtedly differ from the roller impression in that they lack the dashes against each 77.

Finally no one could have imagined the scenario that these stamps may have been produced by engraving existing plates. This likely origin, most unusual that it is, does explain all the anomalies that exist without too much conjecture.

These links will assist in the making of an informed view.

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

http://www.1dplate77.com/1dplate77/77comparisons.htm