The Cover and the three'plate 77' stamps have been scientifically proven to be untampered with by World Class Forensic Scientists. In spite of this they were declared fake by some philatelic experts.The experts who examined the cover could not even agree on one form of faking between them!Is this the philatelic justice aworld class gem deserves?Images for stamp SK showing the constant flaw in the top 'S' box, another confirmation that this stamp originates from plate 73. The number '77' is very clear and evident. Certainly as clear and as evident as any of the other accepted plate 77 stamps. In addition, this stamp has a barrage of scientific evidence to confirm its authenticity. No other plate 77 stamp has been subjected to such intense scientific scrutiny by specialists in their field.
Below: The right hand figure '77' from the right hand panel of stamp SK. Note that part of the Guernsey Duplex' cancel lies directly over both '7's.
Below: The right hand figure '73' from the right hand panel of a plate 73 stamp.
The question to ask is how can the figure '3' shown above be altered into a figure '7', five times, on three stamps, in a way that can not be detected by scanning electron microscopy, EDXRF, Raman spectroscopy and by the worldwide forensic experts who have examined these stamps thoroughly and who have found the fibres to be untampered with and the chemistry of the inks identical surrounding all the '7's. Trace chromium contaminant which is not homogenous nor does it form a part of an offending ink was also found, indicating that work was carried out on the plate.
Above is a micrograph image of the same area showing the paper fibres to be intact and untampered with. One must bear in mind that the area that needs to be faked is miniscular, measuring about 2mm wide and the figure '7' measures 0.6 and 0.8mm!
On the left is the figure '3' from a plate 73 stamp and on the right the figure '7' from stamp SK. The Philatelic Foundation of New York claim that this was altered through 'abrading and painting' and the Royal Philatelic Society London implied that it is faked through a 'cut and paste' method! Details of the two certificates which state that the cover and the stamps showing a plate number 77 have been faked/altered. Each 'expert' body claiming a completely different form of faking from the other! Should Philatelic Gems of this calibre rely on subjective opinions from experts based only on 'observations', as is clearly the case with this cover? The faking opinion of the'philatelic experts' and the'philatelic expert bodies'In the case of this cover, we have five completely different opinions of ‘fake’, each of which has been discredited scientifically. We also have unanimous agreement through forensic examinations from renowned forensic experts using state of the art scientific equipment indicating that the paper is untampered with and the ink the same (barring trace contaminants). The 1865 cover franked with three stamps showing a plate number 77-Forensic science andthe forensic expert findingsWhat we are undoubtedly looking at here is the possibility of tampering and counterfeit. Leading forensic scientists are far more experienced and much better equipped with state of the art analytical equipment to give us the reliable answers that we need. This is a classic example of the invaluable role forensic science can play in philately and postage stamp authentication. Comparing the plate number on the roller impressions with that on the printed stampsIt is fortuitous that the roller impression for every plate from this issue is recorded in an archived volume held at The British Library. These impression can provide invaluable evidence for the research into the genesis of stamps showing a plate number 77.
Comparing the heads from the imprimaturs with those from the accepted plate 77 stampsThis document shows a comparison between the features and detail of an 1858 imprimatur head with those of plate 77 stamps AB, BA and PH which also must come from an imprimatur sheet if they were actually printed from plate 77. The comparisons show that there is some variation in some features of the impression.
Plate 73Detail, information andpossible statesThis paper discusses the facts and figures behind this plate together with details that are relevant to perhaps understanding the possible reasons for engraving some heads with the number '77'.The 1st May 1840 cover and the1865 'Plate 77' cover-Comparing the extent of the forensic evidence between the two
The Tre Skilling Banco-A classic example of wanting expert opinionsThis is a classic and very similar example of an accepted world class rarity whose origin is unknown but plausible and accepted explanations have been put forward as to its existence. In this case there are two ways that this unique stamp could have come to be, either a 3skilling cliche was inserted in error into an 8skilling plate or the 3skilling plate was printed in error in the 8skilling colour. The former seems to be the more accepted explanation. And similar to the three plate 77 stamps on cover, it was science that proved the undoubted genuineness of this item and not the 'experts' who, all along, claimed that this unique Gem was faked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treskilling_Yellow www.glenstephens.com/sndecember04.html Background information on the1858-79 issue, plate 77 stamps and the 1865 cover franked with three stamps showing a plate number 77 |
The newly discovered cover franked with three examples of this iconic stampFacts, Research and Food for thought! Ever since the discovery of the first 1864 1d rose-red stamp showing a plate number 77 towards the end of the nineteenth century, all philatelists and scholars of the stamps of Great Britain, without exception, believe(d) that plate 77 printed the eight or so recorded copies showing a plate number 77. With such few examples existing there were no grounds for philatelic study, and there was therefore no reason to doubt this fact which was, and still is, undisputed by all. It is only now that thanks to the discovery of a most remarkable part cover franked with three copies of this iconic stamp that questions have been raised over the way the accepted stamps showing a plate number 77 were printed. The corner letters on the stamps on the cover matched those from plate 73, and this revelation could mean that all the stamps showing a plate number 77 were produced from other re-engraved plates. This cover has without doubt opened the doors to research on plate 77 hitherto never executed before. My research into this subject has not found any evidence that plate 77 printed any of the stamps known today. On the contrary my studies have very strongly suggested the opposite to be true. Not only is there no absolute evidence that plate 77 printed the existing stamps, but all the evidence that I have unearthed suggests that plate 77 never printed any of the stamps known today and which show a plate number 77. It is therefore reasonable to assume that either all the existing and accepted stamps showing a plate number 77 come from the few plate 77 imprimatur sheets, or, much more likely, that these stamps come from other plates of that issue that were re-engraved with the number 77. Perhaps intentionally as a marker number or in error or perhaps even by way of a 'clandestine' printing in order to produce stamps with a plate number 77 for collectors. First appearance of the accepted plate 77s Unlike many of the rare iconic stamps that exist and on which much has been written, there is little to no useful information documented on the history or the printing of plate 77 stamps. The renowned champion of Great Britain philately Sir Edward Denny Bacon did make an attempt at explaining the existence of these stamps in his book 'The Line Engraved Stamps of Great Britain Vols I and II, printed by Perkins Bacon & Co. 1920. His views have been outlined and put to scrutiny and question in this paper that I have written. http://www.1dplate77.com/1dplate77/EDBaconon18581dplate77.htm Of course the production and defacement dates for the plate 77 roller impression and for plate 77 are published, however any information in other literature about the genesis of this stamp is merely confined to the fact that 'copies from plate 77 do exist'. I have compiled the arguments and the evidence which may help us make an informed decision as to where these stamps come from. While there is no absolute documented evidence that confirms where stamps showing a plate 77 come from, one can only rely on any available evidence and plausible arguments that exist and which can be used to make an informed decision based on which side the weight of such evidence and arguments lie. Needless to say each option will have its protagonists and antagonists and I trust that the arguments below will assist in the making of an informed opinion. Arguments for and against plate77. The fact that the figure '77' on the printed stamps varies in shape and position between one stamp and another and with the roller impression must give grounds for concern as to the origin of these stamps, it must also be a very strong indicator for plate engraving. I have examined countless hundreds of stamps from this issue to see if there was a variation in the position of the number and found that their position in every case was the same; as expected, in view of the fact they all originate from one roller. These two documents will help illustrate this point. http://1dplate77.com/1dplate77/Comaprisonswiththerollerimpressions.htm and Plate engraving, Below are images of the left and right hand '77's from the roller impression for plate 77 and compared to them are the '77's from Tapling stamp BA and stamp LL which has a 1914 RPS certificate signed by E D Bacon. All stamps from the roller impression must be identical to it. However as can be observed, the differences are quite stunning and very clear indeed. Surely these anomalies must raise the suspicion of serious collectors. The differences in shapes and in particular the positions against the intersection do not indicate that these come from a plate 77 imprimatur sheet that was produced from the plate 77 roller. How can these anomalies in feature, shape and position be explained in any way other than engraving? Comparing the figure '77'
As far as the cover is concerned it is safe to say that very few philatelic gems have gone through this much detailed forensic analysis in order to prove their genuineness. In fact there is little else left that is practical or useful to carry out as far as scientific or forensic examination. The stamps and cover have been examined using Raman spectroscopy, EDXRF, elemental mapping, scanning electron microscopy as well as infra red and ultra violet light examinations. Furthermore the services of some of the world’s most renowned forensic examiners were used. Not one scientific examination or comment has been detrimental or has in any way cast doubt on the genuineness of the stamps and cover. This is a far cry from the opinions of the ‘renowned’ philatelic experts whose opinions of faking ranged from the ‘cut and paste’ to the ‘abrading and painting’ options. In fact no two experts have agreed on one form of faking. See 'Expertisation and Expert Opinions', Forensic science reports and findings The cover was submitted to the Royal Philatelic Society London and The Philatelic Foundation, both of which issued faked/altered certificates based on two completely different grounds. Needless to say both opinions have been scientifically found to be wrong and completely unfounded. There is absolutely no doubt that these two sad opinions, which, between them, have disparaged a perfectly genuine item of the greatest rarity, must now open the doors and allow the services of advanced science to assist in the authentication of questionable philatelic gems. This would undoubtedly eliminate the 'subjective element' which can be disastrous, as in this case. Full details on the expertisation of the 1865 1d plate 77 cover to Guernsey can be read on these links. Royal Philatelic Society London and The Philatelic Foundation.
Philatelic sceptics and deniers in this the Twenty First Century can not impose their will and opinion without the proof and the evidence that is necessary to back it up. Those who claim a philatelic item is a fake must have the conclusive evidence that is needed to support their opinion. Sadly this did not apply to this case. Despite several requests for this evidence from either expert body that declared the stamps as faked, none was given. http://www.1dplate77.com/1dplate77/IsthisthephilatelicJusticeaworldclassphilatelicgemdeserves.htm It is important to add here that Science is not subjective and will give us the results as they are. The sooner philatelists accept it as a 'friend' the sooner this wonderful hobby will benefit from the great service that Science will give philately. Forensic Science in Philately and Postage Stamp Authentication , and analysis of faked plate 75 and plate 77 stamps. The unique role which science can play in establishing the authenticity of a great find is clearly illustrated in this attachment, whereby EDXRF has been used to establish the authenticity of an incredible new find, the GV Burma 4As error of colour. The examination and authentication of this stamp clearly shows the limitations of the philatelic experts. Raman spectroscopy and EDXRF in ink analysis It is the advanced technology of today that has put paid to the authentication dilemma of the Hawaiian Missionary stamps of 1851, 'The Grinells', whereby Professor Gene Hall at Rutgers University was able to analyse the stamps and cancellations and offer some answers. Professor Gene Hall also carried out similar scientific examinations on the three stamps on cover and has found the ink to be identical between the two '7's and the paper fibres intact. I was indeed privileged to have Professor Hall attend my talk at the Collectors Club of New York on the 16th September 2009, whereby he explained his analytical findings after examining the cover and the three 'Plate 77' stamps. Scans of the article published in the Collectors Club Philatelist are attached here. The cover has been the subject of serious discussion between philatelists on the widely viewed internet Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum- Stampboards.com. Readers may wish to trawl through the interesting, involved, and at times heated discussion which occupies 32 pages. Seldom has a philatelic rarity such as this been exposed so openly and discussed in such depth as this cover has been. The following link will take you to the appropriate pages on Stampboards.com. http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8808
I wish to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to The Collectors Club, the 'Collectors Club Philatelist' journal and in particular Mr. Robert P. Odenweller RDP, the editor. There is no doubt that without their help and assistance and their sincere quest to publish ground-breaking information, this story may still be locked away somewhere awaiting recognition. It is thanks to the foresight of such bodies and individuals that new ways of thinking are introduced and achievement is acknowledged. Special thanks go to Mr. David Beech, Head of the Philatelic Collections at The British Library for all his help and assistance with my work. Abed H Najjar April 2009 Last updated 14th December 2011 Further research is required in order to answer the following four burning questions- There is no doubt that what has been done at Perkins Bacon, whereby an existing plate number was altered to a plate number ‘77’, is a highly irregular occurrence that is quite difficult to believe or understand, however it did happen. The questions to ask now are two-fold. Firstly could this alteration have been done and then corrected to its original state, and secondly, why was this alteration done? While we know that the answer to the first question is certainly yes (plate engraving), we may have to hazard at a guess in order to answer the second part of the question as there is no mention of any work of this kind in the Engraving Books. PerkinsBaconEngraving books. On reflection we find that there are four possible reasons for this occurrence which are in need of research and investigation by serious philatelists. 1- Could these stamps be a result of temporary repair work carried out on the printing plate, either intentional or through a misunderstanding? The major task that lies ahead for serious collectors and researchers While we can be sure that the three stamps on the cover match their plate 73 counterpart and that stamp PI also matches its plate 81 counterpart, research is needed in order to establish where the other stamps come from. The possibility that 'any' genuine' plate 77 stamps could come from 'other' or the early 1858 repaired plates namely plates 72, 73, 80, 81, 85 and 90 certainly does exist and can not now be dismissed.
We know that the impressions on several plates were repaired, re-entered and the frame lines recut. This must have been an ever continuing process over the years that this issue was at press. Is it not possible also that the corner letters were also re-punched in order to strengthen them? And if this was the case would there not be very slight variations, in some cases, even if miniscular, in their shape and 'exact' position? To blindly accept that these stamps must come from plate 77 imprimaturs, which is the only other way they could have originated, without exhaustive research and convincing answers to the anomalies that exist would be in my view very wrong as the balance of evidence at the moment does lie on the side of re-engraved plates. There is no doubt that something 'went on' at Perkins Bacon with regard to plate 77 stamps. What was it? PerkinsBaconEngraving books. There is certainly much more to this issue than meets the 'simple' eye and the objective of this this website is to try and get to the truth as to how these stamps came to be- no more and no less. E D Bacon on the fundamental 'repair date' on the earliest plates of 31st January-25th February 1868and his view on the origin of plate 77 stampsThe widely accepted and documented fundamental repair date for the early plates of 'Jan.-Feb. 1868,' as recorded by E D Bacon and said to originate from the Perkins Bacon Engraving books, must now be questioned in the light of compelling evidence that has been collated and which indicates that this date is ‘too late’ for these major repairs to have been carried out. Why would the printers wish to carry out serious repairs to plates that have reached the end of their working life and a few weeks before their defacement, does need some understanding. My research paper on this subject is posted here: E D Bacon on re-entry date Furthermore plates are known to have been repaired or re-entered and the work not documented in the Engraving books. The following most interesting compilation will bring this fundamental point home. Perkins Bacon Engraving books. G C Ackerman states in his introduction in 'Penny Plates Study Circle Notes': "ln addition there is evidence of repairs not recorded in the Engraving Book some of these were found by Dr. Osborne." G C Ackerman also states the following most interesting point in a footnote at the end of plate 80, one of the early repaired plates: " Note. The repairs to SA, SB, TA, TB, TC were described by Dr. Osborne in 'Repaired Impressions'. He states that SB and TA are known used in a repaired state prior to the 'official 'repair of 25.2.68."
Furthermore, E D Bacon, who was the only person to go on record in an attempt to explain the origin of these stamps, based his arguments on total conjecture, all of which I have also seriously questioned in another research paper which is included in this attachment.. Here is another useful and interesting letter from Perkins Bacon regarding the dies and plates. Bacon Letter 2- Could these stamps have been intentionally 'made' for collectors? ‘I do not wish to give you the trouble of printing specially for me on any acct.’A most interesting statement made by Ormond Hill in a letter to Perkins Bacon in 1861. Ormond Hill letter. In fact 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' are enclosed here and which make for some very interesting and enlightening reading. Percy de Worms Evidence that plate numbers were collected in the early yearsIt is widely accepted that plate numbers were collected in the early years of GB philately. This is now supported by evidence that endorses this fact with a collection of the 1858-79 issue of penny plates on cover dating between 1865 and 1880. The enclosed article which was published in the GBJ is posted here for information. Penny Plates on cover 3- Could these stamps be a result of both temporary repair work and an effort to produce stamps with a plate number 77 for collectors? The following links provide possible evidence that this may well be the case. http://www.1dplate77.com/1dplate77/provenance.htm Ormond Hill letter http://www.1dplate77.com/1dplate77/73.htm 4- Could these stamps have originated from a plate 77 imprimatur sheet? The arguments and discussion in this document outlines how the the accepted stamps showing a plate number 77 could originate from plate 77. There is however no reliable or concrete evidence that has come to light that would confirm that this was indeed the case. Arguments for and against plate77. These images which compare the plate 77 stamps with the imprimaturs of this issue are also of great use. http://www.1dplate77.com/1dplate77/imprimaturs.htm It is abundantly clear that the GB philatelic authority Edward Denny Bacon, firmly believed, as expected, that the accepted stamps showing a plate number 77 all came from the imprimatur sheet(s) that may have been printed from this plate. He did attempt to explain their existence through the 'imprimatur sheet' theory, basing his views on total conjecture. He is the only philatelic authority that I could find to go on record in an attempt to explain their origin. This paper that I have produced outlines his thinking and the arguments against it. http://www.1dplate77.com/1dplate77/EDBaconon18581dplate77.htm The fact that some of the accepted 'plate 77' stamps can not be exactly matched, as far as corner letters are concerned, to any other existing plate does not in any way mean that these stamps must come from plate 77, and certainly not if: 1- These stamps lack features that are clearly present on all the stamps from this issue and ones that originate from the master die 2- All the 7's on these stamps differ greatly on all the known examples, indicating that the numbers were re-engraved. 3- The accepted stamps do not have the crisp clean impressions of an imprimatur stamp and show vagaries in features 4- The possibility exists that the corner letters may have been re-punched to strengthen a worn impression and so may not match 'exactly'. Furthermore the fact that earlier plates may have been used to produce some of these stamps, although difficult to accept, may well have been the case. One must therefore not rule out any possibility, strange as it may sound, until full and comprehensive research has been carried out. It would be a philatelic travesty to stop research into the origin of this stamp believing that because the corner letters do not match any other plate then the accepted stamps must come from plate 77. Any substantiated evidence or proof that the accepted stamps showing a plate number 77 do come from the plate 77 imprimatur sheet(s), which indeed is the only other source they could come from, would be very welcomed indeed. |
