expertisation

The faking opinions of the ‘Experts’ and ‘Expert Bodies'

on the 1865 Guernsey cover franked with three stamps showing plate number '77'

A grave injustice of this calibre in philately must not be allowed to happen in this the 21st century.

Abed H Najjar

1865 cover from Guernsey to Brussels franked with three stamps from plate 73

re-engraved with the number 77.

While the existence of this incredible item is quite difficult to believe. There is absolutely no reason on earth why it can not exist and be perfectly genuine.

Philately will always throw at us the 'unbelievable' and this is what makes it such a fascinating hobby.

There is no doubt that 'Science' must now play a major role in the authentication of rarities.

It certainly appears in this case that what ‘some’ philatelists do not understand, can not explain or an item whose existence they will not accept, must therefore be faked!

It is also clear in this case that the 'observation equipment' used by philatelic experts and the observations obtained from them have lead to wrong and questionable conclusions being drawn. Findings taken in isolation in order to further a faking case disregarding the ‘whole’ picture cannot be valid or conclusive. A single isolated point of doubt which may have an explanation and which cannot be integrated within the ‘whole’ is worthless.

For philatelic experts who claim faking and for the others who support them, every piece of evidence must fit together, stand up to scrutiny and make full sense in order to stand uncorrected and be accepted as such. In this case however, I am afraid that the antagonists claiming ‘fake’ do not have a credible case because every anomaly has an answer or a possible explanation and every faking opinion has been discredited scientifically.

The sadness of this whole expertising episode is that this philatelic gem has had to rely on wanting ‘subjective’ opinions from those who have proven, in this case, to be totally lacking in the ability to express them correctly. This is exactly why I have taken the forensic science route and resorted to the opinions of leading experts in the field of forensic science. Science is not subjective and has no axe to grind. It will give the results as they are.

In this case we are actually looking at the possibility of tampering and counterfeit. Leading scientists are far better experienced and much better equipped with state of the art equipment to give us the reliable answers that we need than 'some' philatelic experts who will readily give a 'suspect' opinion relying on magnifying glasses, light microscopes or comparators!

The image below shows the incredible fete a would-be forger has to attempt in order to alter a figure '3' into a figure '7', five times and on three stamps in an area less than 2mm wide and in which each number '7' is tied to the cover by a part of the duplex cancellation. The cancel falls over every figure that needs to be altered.

Above is the figure '3' from a plate 73 stamp that needs to be altered into the figure '7' seen below it from stamp SK

This is the right hand '7' from the right hand panel from the Fletcher stamp PH.

Very much a malformed figure, differing from the other '7's in this position on the other accepted plate 77 stamps,

and yet accepted as genuine.

While I 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 every 'flimsy' excuse for faking has been used and each one in turn has been discredited scientifically. It would have been much more acceptable the experts outlined below not to have expressed an opinion at all rather than express an opinion that is suspect, open to criticism and scientific ridicule.

The experts in this paper will be designated as Expert A, Expert B etc. The aim behind this paper is to show the widely differing opinions of faking of which ‘no two’ are the same. Each opinion will be briefly outlined and some comments posted for note.

Expert A: Viewed the cover and replied in writing

All the ‘7’s fluoresce under UV light.

This opinion has been discredited by scientists who have investigated these stamps under different wavelengths of UV light and have found all '7's not to fluoresce.

Expert B: Viewed the cover and replied in writing

All the stamps are faked from plate 71.

This completely wrong option can be very safely dismissed. Firstly the plate numbers; the left hand '7's, have no resemblance to those of plate 71, which are in turn quite distinctive in appearance, and secondly these stamps do not match the corner letter positions of their counterpart plate 71 stamps.

Expert C: Viewed the cover as a 1200dpi image sent to them by e-mail and replied by e-mail

All the 7’s are different so it is a fake.

A little study of the 7’s on the accepted stamps will also show they are also all different. Does this mean that the Tapling copy stamp BA is also a fake. Stamp BA clearly shows '7's that are different. The fake opinion was expressed without even handling the item.

Expert D: Viewed the cover and issued a ‘fake’ certificate. A long correspondence exits.

The fake certificate which was signed by five committee experts states that the stamps have been faked from plate 73 stamps. A letter from the Chairman confirmed that ‘7’s from other stamps have been used for faking, in fact a cut and paste scenario. This is undoubtedly the most 'incredible' of all the ‘fake’ opinions that have been expressed. No doubt that the stamps would have been viewed on a Foster Freeman compartator and if this is the best analysis and conclusion we can get from observations using this machine, then perhaps there is little more one can say!

The stamps have been proven scientifically not to have any bits of ‘7’s stuck to them so both certificate and the explanatory letter have been disproved scientifically. This was done using the services of leading forensic experts who used the following:

- light microscopy

- scanning electron microscopy-topographic mode

- Raman microscopy

- EDXRF

- UV and IR light examinations.

This opinion has also been specifically dismissed in a comprehensive report produced by

Robert W Radley M.Sc., C.Chem., F.R.S.C., F.S.Soc.Dip., F.A.E., R.F.P.

The Report has been produced "FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT IN THE HEARING OF THE ABOVE MATTER". It therefore carries a lot of weight.

Expert E: Viewed the cover and issued a ‘fake’ certificate. A correspondence and published articles exit.

Articles and a correspondence essentially state that the stamps have been faked through ‘abrading and painting’ and under white light the right-hand ‘7’s appear a different shade of red. One main 'shining light' in this expert committee has taken responsibility for his ‘fake’ opinion basing it mainly on his observations using a relatively ‘simple’ scientific phenomenon, white light, which was obtained from a magnifying glass.

First of all we can totally disregard a ‘faking ink’ used as a paint because we know for a fact that the ink is identical in all of the 7’s though Raman and EDXRF findings. Furthermore through Raman and EDRF findings we also know that there is trace chromium around the right-hand ‘7’ which is not homogenous and not a part of an offending ink, in other words a plate contaminant. This can only endorse the fact that this area was worked on on the plate. A very strong indication and a possible endorsement for re-engraving. It is in fact this trace chromium which may be causing the shade difference that may exist under white light. My research into this possible phenomenon shows that this may well be ‘The Ruby Laser’ effect. Trace chromium ions of even less than 1% can cause this effect through differential absorption of the red light. Chromium ions will also show a response under infra red light and appear darker, again due to differential absorption of the red light.

Professor Gene Hall's report makes the following comments regarding the chromium which was detected using Raman and EDXRF:

"..with the addition of microscopic particles that contained PbCrO4".

Note the words 'microscopic particles'. An offending faking ink can not be made form microscopic particles

"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."

Once again a confirmation that the chromium was a plate contaminant and not part of an offending faking ink.

As far as the abrading and paper disturbance is concerned, then in order to alter a complete figure throughout the area and remove the ink totally from the areas where it should not be seen, then serious disturbance would be required, the success of which is extremely questionable and the results of which would be clearly evident on a scanning electron microscope or under microscopy at 140x magnification. There is no doubt that there are some fibres 'standing' on perhaps two of the ‘7’s but this could be due to the metallic projections on the newly engraved ‘7’ which would not be recessed and as such could tear at the fragile paper fibres on printing impact. The 'whole' area and 'not a few fibres' must be disturbed for faking to take place. Micrographs and scanning electron microscopy show the fibres in the area under question to be totally untampered with.

The stamps have been proven scientifically not to have been abraded or painted, and this was done using the services of leading forensic experts who used the following: