The two 'expert' certificates of opinion from

The Royal Philatelic Society London (RPSL) and

The Philatelic Foundation New York,

which state that the stamps on the cover have been faked/altered.

 

Below are the two scientifically discredited expert opinions that could potentially make an incredible and perfectly genuine 'World Class Philatelic Gem' such as this relatively worthless.

 

This is a classic example of  'subjective opinions' from two major philatelic expertising bodies declaring three perfectly genuine stamps as fakes on two completely different grounds!

While I is fully understand that these are only 'opinions' I do however firmly believe that those expressing them must exercise the greatest of care when doing so. A fake opinion from these experts can render an item totally worthless. In this case, it is clear that this is not a 'run of the mill rarity', in fact this cover can be regarded as a world class philatelic gem of the greatest importance. Therefore an opinion on its authenticity whether genuine or fake must be beyond reproach and must be made in the full knowledge that it must stand up to scrutiny. In this case sadly this principle was not adhered to. The reader will clearly see that two 'flimsy' excuses for faking have been used and each one in turn has been discredited scientifically. It would have been much more acceptable for the two expert bodies below not to have expressed an opinion at all rather than express an opinion that is suspect or open to criticism and scientific ridicule.

 

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why these plate 77 stamps can not exist as such and be perfectly genuine.

Re-engraving a number on a plate is indeed a very possible thing to do and can be easily reversed to the original state by re-entry. The story of plate 77, as can be seen on this website, is very far from the current 'obvious' thinking.

The reverse side of this certificate shows a picture of the cover with the three stamps showing a plate number 77

The fact that the certificate is signed by five experts including the Chairman Patrick Pearson indicates that all five experts have carefully examined the item and agreed with one common reason of faking, in that three plate 73 stamps have been altered to show a plate number 77. In other words the 'five' right hand visible '7's have been faked from the 'five' '3's which formed the second right-hand digit of a plate number '73' which was already printed on the stamps.

As a result of this totally incredulous expertising opinion from The Royal Philatelic Society London (RPSL), letter was sent to Mr. Patrick Pearson, the Chairman of the expert committee at The Royal Philatelic Society London (RPSL) on the 23rd September 2006 requesting further information as to the faking method. A reply from Mr. Patrick Pearson was received on the 3rd October 2006 in which the following statement was made:

“The corner letters on the stamps on your cover exactly matched those of plate 73. Further there is a slight indentation on all these stamps where the ‘3’s’ would have been and on examination these have been replaced by ‘7’s’, probably from some defective copies of other plate 71 - 79.”

The letter of the 3rd October 2006 sent by the Chairman Mr. Patrick Pearson, outlining the method of faking would have presumably been sent with the full knowledge of the experts who signed the certificate. This would perhaps mean that they all agree with the method of faking outlined in that letter which is essentially one of 'cut and paste'!

The position of The Royal Philatelic Society was therefore made very clear and was also confirmed in writing.

To me this totally unacceptable and most bizarre of opinions which can make a world class philatelic gem such as this relatively worthless needed full investigation and addressing. The cover was therefore sent to several international forensic organisations, all of whom totally dismissed the reasons for faking given by The Royal Philatelic Society London (RPSL).

Robert W Radley M.Sc., C.Chem., F.R.S.C., F.S.Soc.Dip., F.A.E., R.F.P. of The Forensic Document Laboratory who thoroughly investigated the cover and the stamps concluded the following in his report which had this statement on the front page:

 

"The Report has been produced "FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT IN THE HEARING OF THE ABOVE MATTER".

 

states the following:

" SUMMARY OF OPINION
4. Further to my examination of the documents in question, a more detailed outline of which follows, my findings and opinions are summarised below.
5. (i) The stamps in question have not been modified by some form of inlaying process utilising elements of another stamp or stamps and such a possibility has clearly not occurred. This proposition is, I understand, the basis of the RPSL rejection of this item as being genuine. I this statement find to be demonstrably incorrect and therefore I consider the ground for issuing of the certificate is wholly unwarranted and incorrect factually.
6. (ii) Similarly, I do not consider that the scientific evidence supports the comments of the Philatelic Foundation concerning the reasons given for their rejection of the cover in question.
7. (iii) I find no evidence of substance to significantly support the proposition that the stamps in question have been modified by an obliteration of a numeral ‘3’ from a ‘plate 73’ stamp and subsequent alteration of the ‘3’ to a numeral ‘7’. The technical difficulties in modifying a ‘plate 73’ stamp to a ‘plate 77’ stamp are immense and from a detailed examination of the cover in question, I find the combined evidence is inconsistent with such a procedure having been adopted."

 

The Reading Scientific Services Limited (RSSL) made the following statement in writing:

"I can confirm that by using a range of microscopy techniques (i.e. stereo light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy using secondary and back-scattered imaging modes), we found no evidence in terms of fibre disruption (such as deliberate tamper by scraping, cutting or adding fibres) during topographical examination of the second ‘7 diamond’ regions on all three stamps."

Professor Gene S. Hall, Ph.D., Professor of Analytical Chemistry, Rutgers University made the following statement in writing:

"Using Raman and micro energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence, I can confirm that I found no evidence to support the hypothesis that paper fibers were removed or added to the second “7 diamond region” on all three stamps. In addition, the chemistry of the inks surrounding all “7” are identical except for differences in concentration which is due to the resolution (40 microns) of the X-ray beam used to analyze the area which would show concentration differences on a micro scale."

The following micrograph image from the RSSL clearly shows how completely unfounded the opinion from the Royal Philatelic Society London (RPSL) really is. There is absolutely no sign of any '7' from any another stamp adhering to the paper. There is also no indication of an incision being made within the diamond in order that a '7' from another stamp can be inserted in its place. The paper fibres can be clearly seen to be totally undisturbed and running in and out of the diamond.

 

RSSL micrograph image of the figure '77'- stamp SK

 

Below are scanning electron microscope images of the right hand '7's on stamps SK (top pair) and SL (bottom pair), in topographic mode produced by the RSSL clearly showing that the paper fibres have not been disturbed or tampered with. There are no incision marks, nothing inserted nor stuck on  to the surface.

 

 

Both the RSSL and Professor Gene Hall at Rutgers University also found the paper fibres undisturbed and the ink the same between the two '7's. Further details on the forensic work carried out on these stamps can be read on the following link.

http://www.1dplate77.com/1dplate77/foensicscience3.htm

 

 

Richard Debney the expert at The Philatelic foundation made the following statement in an article published in The Collectors Club Philatelist:

"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." 

In his article he further makes what in my view is a most bizarre statement regarding the possible method of faking:

"The Challenge of Changing a “3” to a “7”
If the right-hand diamond containing the second “7” of each “77” is smoothly abraded down to clean uninked paper and the small 1.5 mm diameter area surrounding filled in by the application of “pigment/paint/color/dye or similar” leaving a white “7” visible, the process could be accomplished."

Furthermore the following wording was agreed with the Philatelic Foundation:

“Using a 10 power magnifying glass you have noticed readily apparent repairs/alterations to all the right hand figures in order to make them resemble a figure ‘7.’ The five small localized areas of 1.5mm in diameter containing this figure are covered by a yellowish rose-red colour as opposed to the lake red colour of the stamp. This is presumably due to the skilful application of a pigment/paint/colour/dye or similar in order to complete the faking process. This accounts for the colour difference between these five small areas and the colour of the stamps.”

 

Richard Debney proceded to make the following interesting, and in my view, a most laughable comment:

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

Based on the statements in the article and the confirmation above, The Philatelic Foundation through their expert Richard Debney, clearly imply that the stamps were faked through 'abrading down to clean uninked paper and then filling the area by the application of a "pigment/paint/colour/dye or similar". There is also a shade difference between the '7' and the rest of the stamp. These 'observations' presumably formed the reasons for issuing the 'fake' certificate.

The item was represented to the Philatelic Foundation for reconsideration of opinion on the 17th September 2009 and a letter was received on the 29th of March advising the following:

'Additionally on March 18, 2010 it was subjected to a variety of analyses including the use of high magnification, ultra violet light, filters and ink and paper reflectivity scans. The analysis was done using a VSC 6000 Video Spectral Comparator..' and then further stated the following '..the expert committee decided not to change its original opinion'.

On the 29th of March a further letter signed by Lewis Kaufman, the Curator at The Philatelic Foundation, was received stating the following:

THE EXPERT COMMITTEE respectfully retains the opinion expresses on the following, which is returned herewith.. "The stamps are not from Plate 77, rather, the second digit of each stamp has been altered to resemble a "7".

It is evidently clear that The Philatelic Foundation, who were handed copies of the forensic reports by Robert Radley, The RSSL and Professor Gene Hall when the item was handed back for reconsideration, have chosen to disregard these expert opinions and retain their view that the figure '7' has been altered!!

I find it nothing short of incredible how the opinions from world renowned experts such as these can be completely disregarded in this way without the solid and concrete grounds that are needed to do so. Is this what serious philately has come to?

Despite the fact that the Reading Scientific Laboratories, Professor Gene Hall and Robert Radley stated that the fibres have not been disturbed and despite the fact that EDXRF and Raman have proved that the printing ink is similar, The Philatelic foundation, in their wisdom, still maintained that the stamps have been 'altered'!!

 

This statement was made by Professor Gene Hall's in his full report regarding his findings using EDXRF. "...EDXRF also revealed that the diamond inked area around the second “7” in plate number “77” contained the same elements (Hg, S, Pb, Ca, K, Al, Si) as in the diamond inked area around the first “7”..." He further stated in his prelimenary report: “The other bands (“bumps”) in the Raman spectra are from HgS. There was PbCrO4 in only particles in the ink and the concentration was very low. This does not jive with the “painted in” theory. From the XRF and Raman, if the color was painted in, then there would be a distribution and higher concentration of Ba, Cr, and Pb in the diamond area. This was not the case.” The basic question which the experts who advocate faking really do need to answer convincingly is the following: How could a faking ink be produced by a forger that would contain exactly the same seven elements (Hg, S, Pb, Ca, K, Al, Si) both qualitatively and quantitatively as those that were found in the printing ink, furthermore, how on earth would the forger have known the exact elements that made up the printing ink in this particular stamp? If ever proof was needed that the ink is the same between both '7's then I can not see what better proof than this can exist. Surely any pragmatist can see that!

 

It is most likely that what the foundation observed using the VSC6000, which is an imaging system that can view from UV to visible IR light with a magnification capability, were darkened areas around the right hand '7' under IR light and some fibre disturbance on some areas of the '7's.

Observations alone do not necessarily mean faking if they can be adequately explained as can be easily done in this case. Furthermore concluding that these observations meant that faking had taken place without further investigations to confirm that this is the case is completely unjust. This is not a 'run of the mill' rare item, what we have here is a world class philatelic gem and to condemn it based on observations alone would be a philatelic travesty.

 

Explanation of the observations of darkened areas under infra red light: Under IR light the area of the right hand '7' will show up somewhat darker to the rest of the stamp indicating a differential absorption of the IR light in that area. Trace chromium, which we know through EDXRF and Raman studies to exist in that area, can most certainly account for this phenomenon. Chromium, even in very low concentrations, will show very strong infra red luminescence. The internet abounds with scientific research about and using this phenomenon, but the following enclosed pdf of a report on infra red luninescence and minerals is written in a language which most can understand. The report entitled 'Infra red Luminescence of Minerals' is a Geological Survey Bulletin written by David F Barnes, 1958 / United States Department of the Interior. The following is an important statement made in the report on page 93: "By far the most brilliant infrared luminescence results from the chromium ion which gives a series of strong emission bands centered near the border between the visible and infrared." Please read the abstract, page 80, 90, 93-94 and 97-99 http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1052c/report.pdf   Explanation of the observations of so the so called 'colour difference' seen under white light as observed by Richard Debney et al.: Theodore Maiman who invented the first Ruby Laser in 1960 used the principle that the electrons in the chromium atoms in a ruby crystal will be excited to a higher energy level by the blue and green wavelengths in the white light, and upon their return to their normal state will emit the characteristic ruby red colour. It is very probably this colour shade that would have been noticed by Debney et al. when observing the stamps with a magnifying glass using white light.

 

The observations that were noted by The Philatelic Foundation have already been noticed by myself in earlier examination using IR light and light microscopy and this is why I resorted to EDXRF, Raman microscopy and scanning electron microscopy in order to investigate further the origin of these 'observations/anomalies'. The chosen examinations could now be done at atomic levels as far as the ink is concerned (EDXRF/Raman), and single fibre levels as far as the paper is concerned (SEM). The analytical instruments now used can provide 'answers' to the 'observations' obtained from comparators, magnifiers and the like.

Using Raman and EDXRF  trace chromium atoms/ions were detected which, according to Professor Gene Hall, are 'microscopic', 'not homogenous' and 'do not form a part of the ink formulation', 'Their source is probably from the printing process'. These ions would account for the darkened areas around the right-hand '7's. Any opinion of faking/alteration can not be deduced from this observation. On the contrary, if evidence was ever needed that the engravers did work on that area of the plate then this is certainly one indication. To prove faking one would need to prove that the whole area was disturbed, which is clearly not the case as can be seen on the micrographs, and then painted with an offending ink, which was also not the case as we know through Raman and EDXRF findings. As far as the disturbed fibres are concerned, these are miniscular and very confined. The micrographs and SEM images clearly show paper fibres running in and out of the diamond area and clearly show that the area is undisturbed.

 

Needless to say that the cover was sent for examination to several international forensic organisations and experts, all of whom totally dismissed the reasons for faking given by The Philatelic Foundation.

1- Robert W Radley M.Sc., C.Chem., F.R.S.C., F.S.Soc.Dip., F.A.E., R.F.P. of The Forensic Document Laboratory who thoroughly investigated the cover and the stamps concluded the following in his report which had this statement on the front page::

 

"The Report has been produced "FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT IN THE HEARING OF THE ABOVE MATTER".

 

" SUMMARY OF OPINION
4. Further to my examination of the documents in question, a more detailed outline of which follows, my findings and opinions are summarised below.
5. (i) The stamps in question have not been modified by some form of inlaying process utilising elements of another stamp or stamps and such a possibility has clearly not occurred. This proposition is, I understand, the basis of the RPSL rejection of this item as being genuine. I this statement find to be demonstrably incorrect and therefore I consider the ground for issuing of the certificate is wholly unwarranted and incorrect factually.
6. (ii) Similarly, I do not consider that the scientific evidence supports the comments of the Philatelic Foundation concerning the reasons given for their rejection of the cover in question.
7. (iii) I find no evidence of substance to significantly support the proposition that the stamps in question have been modified by an obliteration of a numeral ‘3’ from a ‘plate 73’ stamp and subsequent alteration of the ‘3’ to a numeral ‘7’. The technical difficulties in modifying a ‘plate 73’ stamp to a ‘plate 77’ stamp are immense and from a detailed examination of the cover in question, I find the combined evidence is inconsistent with such a procedure having been adopted."

 

2- Professor Gene Hall, Rutgers University, as well as producing a scientific report made the following statement in a letter:

"Using Raman and micro energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence, I can confirm that I found no evidence to support the hypothesis that paper fibers were removed or added to the second “7 diamond region” on all three stamps. In addition, the chemistry of the inks surrounding all “7” are identical except for differences in concentration which is due to the resolution (40 microns) of the X-ray beam used to analyze the area which would show concentration differences on a micro scale."

His prelimenary report stated the following:

"It is important to note at this point that the pigment in the second “7” (Sample B) matches that of the rest of the stamp (Sample A) as well as that of the control copy (Sample C). The identical nature of the inks of the three samples effectively rules out the finding that the ink had been painted in."

As far as Professor Gene Hall's experince is concerned this is what Joseph Blumberg wrote:

The following micrograph image will clearly show how completely unfounded the opinion from The Philatelic Foundation really is. The paper fibres can be clearly seen to be totally undisturbed and running in and out of the diamond, clearly ruling out the 'abrading to uninked paper' possibility. Furthermore there is no sign of painting whatsoever. The areas that need alteration dictate that a white colourant would be required. One must bear in mind that opinions of faking based on observations alone, and which can not be substantiated with full supporting and relevant evidence, are totally worthless.  As is clearly the case with this opinion.

Both the RSSL and Professor Gene Hall at Rutgers University also found the paper fibres undisturbed and the ink the same between the two '7's. Further details on the forensic work carried out on these stamps can be read on the following link.

http://www.1dplate77.com/1dplate77/foensicscience3.htm

The trace elements found are covered on this link

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

 

RSSL micrograph image of the figure '77'- Clearly no evidence of the so called 'abrading to uninked paper' and 'filling in' can be seen. In fact the fibres can be seen to run in and out of the right hand diamond.

 

This is a microscope image of the paper fibres at 80x magnification. It is very clear that the fibres are interwoven and matted together. Tampering of any kind will clearly disturb this feature and will be easily seen under microscopy. Furthermore the fibres can be clearly seen to be coloured and there are ink residues amongst them. How can these fibres be cleaned in some selective areas which should be white and these residues removed without damaging the whole matrix? The suggenstion by Richard Debney from The Philatelic Foundation that the stamp ' is smoothly abraded down to clean uninked paper' does seem quite bizarree to say the least when looking at this image.