Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

Well, one could get a solicitor to act as liaison and ensure the legalities were followed, presumably.

Richard, you may have overlooked my question about the Hawaiian Missionaries and the tests carried out on them -- what was the answer?

mozzerb

The point that I make about the Hawaiian Missionaries is that the quality of the repair work performed on some of them is so good as to be indistinguishable had you not known for certain that it had been done.

In other words the only way of spotting the repair work is from before and after photographs.

For instance the repair work is not visible in long wave ultra violet light or using a stereo microscope.

Now the UV light used at the PF office in New York is the finest one I have seen anywhere in the world. It sits in its own custom-made closet to block out ambient light. It was obtained from a scientific instruments manufacturer, somewhere on Long Island, NY, if I recall correctly. The bulb itself is quite large, expensive and gets extremely hot. It is turned on in the morning and off when the office closes at night.

The point that I making about the PF lamp here is that it is NOT one of the small hand-held devices that (a) you see on TV shows or (b) sold by Vera Trinder or SG.

There is a Bausch & Lomb stereo microscope at the PF office which runs up in magnification levels to the hundreds. This is an extremely useful device as it shows paper fibers clearly at the individual level.

I have no doubt that Mr. Radley has similar equipment in his own laboratory.

I have always speculated about how Mr. Radley would fare with the kind of Hawaiian Missionaries that are so well repaired that, under examination, they cause the experts at the PF to mutter amongst themselves:

"Gee, if you didn't know it had been done you would never spot it."

or "European craftsmanship"

Now the chance of Mr. Radley ever encountering such a stamp is extremely remote.

There are, after all, only about 200 Missionaries and many have been rebacked or mounted on card. Virtually all have been repaired and they are perfectly collectable that way. In my tenure at the PF I have examined around 50% of them. (merely because of the recent dispersal of several major collections)

Even should Mr. Radley encounter one of these truly difficult Missionaries he would not have access to the before photographs that are necessary even for the PF experts to identify the repairs. I can remember cases of encountering other philatelic professionals, who when told that one of their stamps is repaired, frankly throw "arm-waving hissy fits." Words like "I have the before picture" and, of course, being shown it shuts them up completely, many times with profuse apologies.

It is because of this kind of situation, that Mr. Radley was unable to spot the alterations on Abed's part cover that were so obvious to all of the experts at the PF (five people in total) that causes me to ask the question "How would he fare on really difficult stamps such as the Hawaiian Missionaries?"

It, of course, causes me to have serious questions about his competence when examining stamps to the point of feeling "This man does not know what he is talking about, he should stick to documents." I, of course, have absolutely no opinion about Mr. Radley when it comes to his expertise in handwriting and documents.

No doubt the above will cause a barrage of critical comments, mostly from the advocates in favor of the part cover. But that is something I am more than used to by now.

Kindest regards, Richard

Yes, that was the point I thought you were making, and it's good to have some more details -- because obviously if before and after photographs really are the only way to distinguish such work, then that's an absolutely key point in your favour, and I was wondering why you hadn't brought it up again (and again and again ...).

Of course, that assumes that your interpretation of the data is as accurate as you believe it to be, and I'd want to know more. A few points:


Frankly, I'm not too bothered what the UV lamp shows. It's a very basic test compared to the paper fibre analysis.


Now that's more like it, and the main thing I wanted to hear about.


This is the bit that strikes me as key here. Radley is a professional document examiner, the PF experts are professional philatelists.

It's always been possible that Radley overlooked a bet because of unfamiliarity with the particular nature of the stamp printing. (Enough convictions have been overturned because renowned forensic experts turned out to be talking rubbish that you have to bear this in mind, even if it is a 1% possibility.)

However, it's arguably far more likely that the PF experts overlooked a bet because they did not have the expertise in general document examination that would have enabled them to interpret the key information from the stereo microscope correctly (such as spotting the Missionary changes without the aid of "before" photos). After all, I'm sure you would agree that neither you personally nor the rest of the PF committee have studied the general subject of paper alteration in depth. (If that's unfair, please say.)

As I say, the key point on this subject!


I've been wondering that too. I'd really like to see the results, which would obviously be instructive whatever they were.


As I say, although most of his work does seem to revolve around the forgery of handwriting and more general documents, he does have papers and conference presentations on forensic subjects on his CV. I wouldn't care to dismiss him out of hand, even while allowing for the possibility that he may be wrong.

..... Or salivated about in great detail by one Richard Debney, who claimed here these magic little things could do everything - including mow the lawn and make the bed and receipt the Lord's Prayer.

And best of all, allowed you to categorically denounce this cover a fake. Not once but twice for emphasis!

I still laugh when i read those posts.

What a magic little gizmo that surely must be. Mind you for some inexplicable reason I did not rush out and buy one. I never bothered.

Why? Because it led you to state the faking was WORSE when you looked at it again using it. And you stated the stamps had been lifted from the cover and replaced.



The latter is denied emphatically by Abed, and has been mentioned by no-one else except you, so your little light is truly a marvel.

OR you are wrong.

"Lifting" stamps affixed firmly on a cover using 1860s strong glue, requires liquid being painted onto the ENTIRE block of 3 - several times, and/or steam. And needs glue to re-affix - glue that is non-contemporary to the stamps.

Are you serious that all that extensive tampering is obvious to no-one except you?? Not even from the REVERSE where clearly is WILL be evident. (Remember this a partial and opened out cover)

HAD they been "lifted" and the stamps immersed in hot water, that would have been the final test. All your alleged ink "painting in" would have vanished into the soaking water. Agree?

And if any of your well repaired 'Missionaries' had also been soaked in kettle hot water THEY'D split up into pieces.

I soak NOTHING these days from early imperfs as corners, centres, and margins have all floated off in the past. The old repairers were very good, but boiling water defeats their work.

Hence the difference between the 2 stamp items. One is fake, and one is not.

I have never met Radley, spoken to him, or seen his equipment.

However I can BET he is using state of the art REAL lights and microscopes.

And I bet if he was shown a repaired Missionary stamp he would pick it in very short order. YOU do not have a distinguished career in forensic paper science and what 'amazes' YOU or me, is daily bread and butter, for someone who does this for a living and is a leader in his field globally.

admin

You really need to be more careful.



In the first paragraph I am talking about UV lamps.

In the second paragraph you are criticizing my "much-maligned 10x magnifying glass." Surely.

I have never made any comments about the small hand-held UV lights, you have pictured them in posts, that are sold by Vera Trinder or SG except in the above post, IIRC.

Kindest regards, Richard

admin



Again this is from the PF's quality UV lamp and not from my "little light."

I stand by the statement and frankly I do not give a hoot whether or not Abed denies it emphatically.

Kindest regards, Richard

admin



No, the stamps were lifted, altered, then replaced, in my opinion - one derived from a second, more careful, examination using the PF's quality UV lamp.

Kindest regards, Richard

admin



No, myself plus four former colleagues, the experts involved in the PF reconsideration, the five experts at the Royal and the one gentleman at the B.P.A. who rejected the item for submission there.

All told that is at least 11 people not including the PF reconsideration team.

Kindest regards, Richard

So all these 11 or more will agree if I ask them, that the block was lifted, the numbers then all forged, and re-affixed?

admin



They will certainly agree that the item is forged, referring to the alteration of the numbers.

I cannot say for sure how many will agree that the item has been lifted and re-affixed. On that matter I can only say two for sure, since it was my former colleague who pointed this relatively minor feature out to me upon my serendipitous examination when the item was at the PF for reconsideration. Neither he or I were involved in the reconsideration process (PF policy) but it gave me a chance to re-examine the part cover.

Since one of the individuals had sadly died, the most you are going to get is 10 out of 11, were you able to contact everyone.

Kindest regards, Richard

So we are down within minutes from 11+, to possibly one other.

Can I have a name please - I'd like to ask that he confirms that.

admin

No, we are down from possibly 11+ to two, myself and my former colleague. You are just going to have to take my word for that.

I have the right to divulge my opinions but not others, at least by name. It would be a breach of confidentiality for me to divulge his name and I am not going to do so.

The only reason I mentioned this, the fact that the stamps had been removed and re-affixed (way back when at PF reconsideration time) was that I did not want to claim originality for that particular opinion.

Anyhow whether the stamps have been removed and re-affixed is of little importance compared with the alterations performed on the second "7's." And on that issue we have an agreement of 11+

Kindest regards, Richard

You must have failed Math, or comprehension - or both I think.

The PF and the RPS agreed on nothing - it was like the 6 Stooges all making up dopier explanations than the last lot!

Both hare-brained suggestions were comprehensively debunked by Radley. Who used science, and not stuffy prejudice, to form his view.

Glen

So this comes down to something pretty important re credibility.

You state twice the stamps have all been laboriously "lifted" off the cover, faked, and later re-affixed with a more modern adhesive.

I do not recall this was stated in writing by the PF, and appears very much to be your own personal view in that case.

You rapidly changed you claim that 11+ had agreed with this down to possibly 1 and decline to name that alleged person, so I'll take that as you alone still standing.

Abed denies this lifting (as I recall) and there is not other mention of that from anyone other than your one possible mystery un-named colleague.

Typically to "lift" a strongly glued down block, a "wetting agent" is painted onto the stamps to saturate the paper with a soapy type liquid to liquefy the old gum. Generally several times.

This will leaves all KINDS of chemical traces and residue, and will always wrinkle thin envelope paper such as this - and ONLY in the painted area. And most CERTAINLY will leave a "tide mark", as the painting of the wetting agent of course needs to go well outside the outer perfs of the stamps. And when it dries, it obviously stains - generally very visible to the naked eye.

The Chemical labs, all the detailed analysis, and forensic reports, make no mention of all this paper contamination your lifting needed, to occur - IF of course it did occur.

Why do you imagine that was Richard?

I am a pretty dumb ole stamp dealer I agree, but it does occur to me if you are painting in all those 7s you do it from the front not the back. And hence no need to 'lift off' the 3 stamps, and leave all that tell tale foreign chemical residue, AND the "tide marks" on the cover.

If all this occurred it would be noted in writing. It is NOT. You alone appear to hold this view, hence my point re credibility of your other thoughts.

Boy that forger was dumb. Picks 3 horrid centred stamps when he only needed one, lifted it off the cover ruining it forever, and then get nothing for all his work at the end. The Beavis And Butthead of all fakers.

Yet that SKILL to change of these 6 numbers so well, that no forensic trace is left behind.

And dumber still, it occurs to me that to pick this woeful excuse for a part cover to be fiddling with. I'd bet the house that if anyone tried to lift the lower right heavily scuffed corner, portions off the paper would disintegrate in that area.

Do others here agree?

A minor point Radley and real experts would have noted.

Of the million 1d red covers in existence to choose from - all costing a buck apiece, our criminal chose the crummiest one known to do his lifting, painting, and re-gluing.

Like murder - you need motive to establish forgery. That is profit. None was made here, so no case.

If we sent this hare-brained script into Judge Judy, they'd toss it in the bin.

I know it's a minor point, but if I were planning to fake a UNIQUE item by altering a related genuine item, I'd pick a tatty one every time. A perfect example suddenly appearing out of nowhere would smell extremely fishy, whereas with a poor one it could plausibly be argued that it had been previously overlooked. Crumminess has never noticeably affected the price of the 1c black on magenta, after all.

In short, poor condition says nothing a priori about the likelihood of fakery.

admin



On the contrary, it is you who cannot do simple arithmetic.

I will go slowly for you, five people total at the PF (myself and four former colleagues, one of whom has sadly died), five people at the Royal (the ones who signed the certificate) and the gentleman who declined submission at the B.P.A., combined total of 11.

I and one other, a former colleague, believe the item's stamps to be removed and re-affixed, that makes two.

The important thing is that all eleven believe that the numbers of the second "7's have been altered.

Kindest regards, Richard

There is that argument - but if you were a master forger would you pick 3 stamps on your tatty cover, or ONE?

And would you soak it off first, and damage the paper and cover so as to do your painting, when there was zero need to?

It is patent nonsense, and then to sell it all for nothing, and I am amazed anyone who thought on it for more than one minute thinks otherwise.

A gaggle of old chaps in Sweden (wasn't that 11 as well ) thought exactly the same way in the mid 70s of course re the Tre Skilling, so history often repeats.

C'est la vie. Science always wins out.

Glen

No. Well, not unless I was trying the Garak Gambit, I suppose!

Richard



Not quite Richard, all 11+ of you might have agreed that the stamps have been faked BUT:

Five experts said that bits of '7' from other stamps were stuck on.
One expert said it is a fake from plate 71
One expert said the '7's fluoresce
and 2 or more experts at the PF including you say that these stamps were abraded and painted.

You can not even agree between you on ONE form of faking.

How on earth can these opinions be taken seriously.

And yet:

ALL the forensic experts that examined the stamps and all the scientific equipment that was used to examine them, WITHOUT EXCEPTION IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, have confirmed or demonstarted that these stamps have not been tampered-with in any way.

I know this cover is incredible and as such many believe it can not exist and be genuine.

The truth is that it does exist and it is perfectly genuine.

There is absolutely no reason on earth why Perkins Bacon could not have temporarily repaired the plate number on some worn impressions on plate 73 in this way and then printed and released these stamps in the usual way.

Abed H Najjar

Repaired plate 73 to read 77, not such a good repair then.

_________________
Long interest in stamps from Great Britain. Avid collector always after good pre 1930 lots

This is a fascinating thread - I've been reading it for a couple of years now. It does seem to be getting a bit hysterical on the side of the proponents of 'genuineness', though! I'd like to think it is genuinely plate 77, but most of the evidence I've read seems to the contrary.

The plate 73 'substituted number' hypothesis looks more plausible, but still unlikely. Be cautious of scientific analyses - I'm a research chemist myself. If one is paid to find evidence to support a hypothesis, then - however objective - you try to find something encouraging to report.

There are positives and negatives with the surface analysis - but I've not seen anything to compare them with, and think it unwise to draw conclusive assumptions from them at present.

On a separate, but related topic - I'm astonished at the £550000 sale (by Gibbons) of an apparently authentic plate 77. It's a rarity, acknowledged, but other 'abnormals' sell for £10000 or less (such as the 2/- plate 3) and they're probably of comparable rarity?

I'd go for the 6d buff (SG 145) myself - about 45 known, I think, but it's got a whole catalogue number to itself.

Cheers, Mike

Mike

Thanks for the input. I am unsure however what this statement means:



The five major and renowned independent bodies that investigated the stamps were asked to investigate the authenticity of the stamps and to look for evidence of faking and were not asked to find evidence to support any hypothesis. They have no interest in any hypotheses or any axes to grind either way.

Their role was one to investigate the area in question, investigate the paper fibres and the ink and to comment on whether there is any tampering or evidence that a figure '3' was altered into a figure '7'.

Needless to say that they all agree that there was no evidence of tampering of the plate numbers.

Professor Gene Hall, a renowned chemist and forensic scientist, was the main scientist to investigate the Hawaiian Missionary stamps, The Grinnells. He was also one of the independent scientists who was asked to investigate my stamps. He commented as follows:

"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"

This is what the RSSL, a renowned international laboratory service stated:

"The stamps were examined by light microscopy and analysed using a Keyence VHX-600E digital microscope.

Using this analytical method, the second ‘7 diamond’ region on each stamp showed no evidence that additional layers of paint had been added or bleached away to convert a ‘3’ into a ‘7’. No evidence was found of fibre disruption (e.g. through deliberate tamper by scraping, cutting or adding fibres) during topographical examination of the second ‘7 diamond’ regions."

Finally I think that this piece makes an interesting read.

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

Abed H Najjar

Remind me again please Abed just how much it was Stanley Gibbons have offered for this piece? I know there are a lot of zeros in it but struggled to correctly interpret the first digit unlike your piece where the second digit is under question.

_________________
Long interest in stamps from Great Britain. Avid collector always after good pre 1930 lots

If people have concerns of these stamps being faked then it should also be reasonable to question the cover?

Is there enough ink present to support 3 strikes of of the Guernsey duplex cancel and what is exactly tied to what?

From Abed's website



Is the vertical pair "RL,SL"intact or were they carefully re-assembled, also is that a tear/crease on the RL stamp extending out from the "L"?

From Abed's website



Fascinating discussion...

Paul

Abed

Again we seem to be going round and around with essentially the same comments. Some new points though.



Glad to see that you accept this fact, the existence of 11+ people (all experienced philatelic experts) who call your part cover faked.



These people are not counted in the mix, I have no idea who you are referring to, as you have not disclosed their identities, which is your right.

I certainly, now (and have done so since the issuance of the PF certificate) disagree with the individual who said it was a fake from plate 71. However, this disagreement required me to be aware of the disclosed information supplied on the Royal's certificate, i.e. the identification of Plate 73, which we, at the PF, lacked the reference necessary to come to that specific conclusion. The wording on the PF certificate is quite artful stating "The stamps are not from Plate 77, rather the second digit of each stamp has been altered to resemble a "7."

The other expert said that the "7's" fluoresce. I have no comments about this particular opinion, since I did not detect any significant fluorescence in any of the "7's."



Well it was four former colleagues and myself.



This matters not one jot, each of the certificates is perfectly correct, as written.

It is only after the certificates were issued, in the subsequent correspondence referring to faking mechanisms/theories (not generally addressed on certificates) that there is a divergence in the views offered by the PF and Royal groups.

This divergence is referred by you and others (including me, for pure convenience) on the thread and in articles as the "cut and paste" (Royal) and "abrade and paint" (PF) methods of fakery.

The overwhelming majority of submitters at the PF do not engage the organization in correspondence subsequent to the issuance of a certificate. Sure, we used to get the odd irate telephone call, which was dealt with there and then or after consultation.

Speaking now unusually for me, on a purely personal level, for me at the PF, you were an absolute pest, with what appeared to be an endless stream of faxes (sometimes on the hour throughout the day) asking any number of questions requiring answers - all from me. Yes, I did not have to type them up - they were all handwritten - and went out under the signature of the late Alex Rendon, the chairman of the expert committee. (and kindly typed by him also)

To be fair to you, if I recall correctly, you did in at least one of your replies, refer to yourself as a "pest." Never before or since have I agreed with you about anything so much.

I have absolutely no doubt that Patrick Pearson, the then current chairman of the Royal's expert committee, was on the receiving end of a similar barrage of correspondence from you. He might have felt similarly about you as I did. Pure speculation on my part, of course, but this thread is rife with speculation.

Notwithstanding this, as has been stated by me before, I do very much favor the "abrade and paint" theory of faking rather than the "cut and paste" theory of faking.

However, as stated before, this matters not one jot as each of the certificates is perfectly correct, as written.

This argument, the authenticity of you part cover, cannot be won by the inevitability of gradualness, constantly chipping away at the tiniest of details.



Easily, the opinions are the work of specialist philatelists.

I am not aware of any significant disagreement with the work of RSSL or Professor Hall in the science of chemistry by the opponents of your part cover. Similarly, the independent analysis of FinstP in the science of physics of your own commissioned x-ray mapping has not been challenged by anyone with the appropriate qualifications.

The Radley Report is opinion, that of a document and handwriting examiner, who likely has little or no experience with postage stamps.

The Royal and the PF certificates are also opinion, but one which relies on philatelic judgement.

If you are still not happy with the two philatelic opinions why not submit to David Brandon.



If this had occurred it would not have been done on a temporary basis - there would have been thousands of sheets printed. As stated by pertinax the only reason for repairing a plate was to extend its useful life.

Enough for now.

Kindest regards, Richard

p.s. There are no doubt some readers who will criticize me for describing Abed as a "pest." It is purely a personal opinion, one which I believe I am entitled to hold and use having had my integrity challenged by him in print, as on Oct. 5, 2009. (page 18 of the thread)



I have never really discussed our interaction whilst an employee at the PF, will not likely again, so the use of this very apt word will not be repeated.

Perhaps an indirect approach might shed some light on this mystery.

For example, examination of a (relatively large) number of plate 73 stamps from the same positions on the sheet, that is RL, SK and SL and perhaps some nearby stamps such as RK could provide key insight, especially if any datable postal history items are included.

Anything helping to bracket the 27 Nov 1865 date of Abed’s cover would be especially relevant. Since Abed’s cover date would put the stamps in question somewhere near the mid-point of the use of plate 73, if any official alterations were made to the plate one might expect to find “fly speck” differences between stamps from the same plate positions before and after the posited alteration of the plate numbers from 73, to 77 and then back to 73 (a situation seemingly required to explain Abed’s stamps).

Even without datable items, if one had say 10 examples of one of these specific plate 73 plate positions for comparison, it might be reasonable to assume that roughly half would have been from before Abed’s stamps, and roughly half after.

The absence of any observable “fly speck” differences among these stamps would argue against official alterations to the plate. Alternatively, if two distinguishable states of plate 73 are observed, hopefully with multiple stamps of each sub-type, this would argue in Abed’s favor.

Maybe this approach has already been explored. Otherwise I hope this may help provide a new, but indirect, way to address this problem.

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

I've been saying that for years. Glad to have someone agreeing! If anyone's actually tried, it's news to me.

That brings up one of the points which concerned me, actually. I've mentioned comparisons a few times on the assumption that the reason was apparent, but maybe not.

Basically, the obvious missing piece to go with the analyses is a control. Standard scientific practice, yes? Test other cases so you're sure your results are significant. Or in other words, to determine if something is normal or not, you have to know what "normal" is.

So you perform the same spectroscopy tests on a number of other re-entries -- then you don't have to argue that the trace elements around the repair would show the same pattern, you know. You perform the fibre analysis on some known excellent fakes -- then you don't have to assume that the tampering would show, you have pictures of it.

For a philatelic analogy, say you had to determine if a stamp was a rare shade. You might well feel fairly confident that you'd identified it correctly, but even then, your confidence in your identification would be greatly increased and much more demonstrable if you had another example and some normals to compare it with.

Now you can certainly argue that a document examiner has enough general paper expertise to have confidence in his results even without a control -- but why not get him to do the additional checks to dot the i's and cross the t's?

Richard

A Gallant response, but look at it this way;

If you owned a world class Philatelic Gem such as this and you knew that it was genuine beyond any doubt and that you had the support of every scientific piece of evidence behind you, would you tolerate allegations of fakery that you knew were completely unfounded?

I would very much doubt that.

I thought that with my incontrovertible scientific evidence which endorses completely non-tampering, that you would look differently at your opinion, clearly I was wrong and so our discussions will not achieve anything new.

I therefore suggest we call an end to this discussion.

Abed H Najjar

Endless faxes , sometimes on the hour! Then two years on here with no post. You didn't receive any less favourable scientific reports perhaps during this lull in proceedings on your Philatelic Gems that you overlooked bringing to our attention?

_________________
Long interest in stamps from Great Britain. Avid collector always after good pre 1930 lots

Mozzerb



You make a very good point and as a scientist myself I am well aware of the value of 'controls' 'norms' in a comparative study.

Clearly however the 'norm' in this case is staring us all in the face. It is the whole stamp with the exception of the right hand ‘7’ area.

I am sure we can all agree that the rest of the stamp will show the fibre features as they should be and the ink the one that printed it and so comparing the left original ‘7’ which we know is untouched with the right ‘engraved 7’ would be the same as comparing the norm with the suspect.

All the testing was indeed done this way. Comparing the right ‘7’ with the left ‘7’.

It is pointless using a different stamp that would be printed from a differing batch of ink to compare it with these stamps!

The ink that printed the stamps on my cover would be the standard upon which we can check the right-hand suspect ‘7’ and as we know both ‘7’s were proved scientifically to be printed from an identical ink save for the trace elements found in the right hand 7 which were not homogenous or formed a part of any other offending ink.

The RSSL and Professor Hall tested both the right and left hand ‘7’s and compared them to each other using EDXRF and Raman.

The RSSL also tested both right and left ‘7’s using profilometry for, recess features, fibre and inking detail and found all the features between both ‘7’s to be the same.

Scanning electron microscopy images in both topographic and back scattered modes were taken of both ''7's and both were the same.

All the scientists that examined these stamps were given other stamps for comparison purposes and Mr Radley mentions an important point under paragraph 19 of his report.

"I am experienced and practised in the procedures for altering documents including scraping procedure to remove printed detail. I have also been given access to stamps on which I can undertake experiments of removal of colourant which is of assistance bearing in mind the age of the paper. My own experiment on a Penny Red has been completed under high magnification (approximately x30) with a fine surgical scalpel blade...

I hope the above addresses the point of a 'control' or 'norm'.

Abed H Najjar

Highlander



You make an interesting point, possibly Abed has received some less favorable philatelic opinions/reports during the lull?

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

You know something? I got sick of watching Groundhog Day after about three viewings.

Norm

_________________
Geelong, VFA Premiers 1878, 1879, 1800, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1886, AFL Premiers 1925, 1931, 1937, 1951, 1952, 1963, 2007, 2009, 2011, .

Highlander and Capetriangle





Wishful thinking.

In fact I have another positive report from the University of Geneva and one more extremely important report which I wish to remain confidential for now and more marvels to come about this cover in due course.

I can assure you both that there is absolutely nothing to hide as far as this cover is concerned.

It is a sadness to see the totally unfounded scepticism from some on this board.

Abed H Najjar

fromdownunder

I hated Groundhog Day the first and only time I saw it. President Obama said he liked it a couple of days ago.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

Mozzerb and Inforapenny



I am also in full agreement with you both on this.

I have within my very limited means, as far as finding reference material is concerned, looked at plate 73 examples on similar positions. However what we do need are dated covers or stamps that may help in creating a timeline for these repairs.

In fact I looked at several other plates too for anomalies and I feel I have certainly found some exciting new avenues that are in need of research which I believe has never been done before. In fact I do feel that certain accepted facts should now be reconsidered in view of my research.

As far as plate 73 is concerned, I have in fact an early example cancelled Apr 1865 that shows a distinct imperceptibility of the plate number. Subsequently I found others. This could indicate that the plate started to wear in its first year of printing and perhaps engraving a number 7 was a very early failed experiment at a temporary marker/repair which was only adopted for a very short time.

I have much research on this subject that is now almost ready for consideration and which certainly includes some compelling detail and information on plate 77 stamps.

It is only a matter of time before it is presented.

Abed H Najjar

Abed



I, for one, wait with baited breath to see the "marvels."

Kindest regards, Richard

I have enjoyed following this thread for the past two years
since I joined Stampboards. Almost like a soap opera. I also
read Abed's CCP articles.

Until now I have hesitated to join the discussion since GB
Line Engraved is not my area of expertise. In fact, until now
I never even looked closely at the cover. So here goes.

First, based on the position of the 7's, the Plate 77 transfer
roller was clearly not used to produce the stamps on the
cover. The base of the first 7's are too far to the left.

Second, upon looking closely at the stamps on the cover, I
think that Richard's contention that the stamps have been
lifted seems to be a definite possibility - with the stamps
not being restored to their precise original positions.

Is there a 600 dpi (or even a 300 dpi) scan of the stamps
available somewhere? Working with the 72 dpi scan posted
on this page is not very conclusive.

BUT - there is one artifact that I can observe near the 2nd
7 on the left side of SK that I cannot explain.



Note non-continuity of the engine turning below the 7. This
cannot be!!! Absent repairs, all stamps produced from the
same die should be the same in this respect.

This all suggest to me a cut-and-paste job, probably done
at the time the stamps were lifted from the cover.

OK experts, where have I gone astray?

_________________
Jay Carrigan
http://www.jaypex.com

Er ... "limited means"? If you can afford to spend -- what was the last figure quoted? £50K? -- on lab reports, I'm sure you can afford to circulate all the major and minor dealers in GB stamps asking for any plate 73s they have in stock. It's a cheap plate, after all. Or just post a request for scans in the GBPS Newsletter and/or London Philatelist and/or the British stamp magazines.


Also, please don't play games of "I've got a secret!", eh? If you have additional information, just post it. What purpose is served by keeping it "confidential"?

Regarding "controls":


I've been thinking about that, and I don't think it holds in this case.

As far as spectroscopy goes, I agree that, a priori, the ideal control is an agreed-upon untampered printing in the exact same ink, and that the rest of the stamps other than the right diamonds provide that. Identical chemical properties, or even properties that vary randomly over the stamps, go a long way to demonstrating lack of tampering. But that's the point, isn't it? They weren't identical or random. The right hand diamonds and only the right hand diamonds had differences.

That being the case, the rest of the stamps are no use for comparison. If the theory is that chemical tests on the right hand diamonds caused the differences, then the useful control is another stamp on which such tests have been carried out. If the theory is that the re-engraving process left behind traces, the useful control is another contemporary re-entry.

As for paper fibres, the contention from Richard Debney is that it actually is possible to fake (sorry, "repair") a stamp without leaving traces that are apparent under this type of analysis (and that the Hawaiian Missionaries he cites are an example of this). That is itself a claim open to attack, of course, but showing that the left hand diamonds look the same isn't any use for doing that, as if the claim was true then naturally they would. The useful control in this case is a known good quality fake.

Then we really should send him a copy of this thread. He would absolutely fall in love with it.

Norm

_________________
Geelong, VFA Premiers 1878, 1879, 1800, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1886, AFL Premiers 1925, 1931, 1937, 1951, 1952, 1963, 2007, 2009, 2011, .

That does sound like an interesting path, although how many dealers sort covers by plate and date I wonder?!

They are £1 or less covers retail I'd guess, so hardly worth the time to do that?

Jay .. does this assist -- looks OK to me?

Actually, looking at the image higher up this page on the thread, I was surprised to see that the postmarking ink on the cover seemed a lot lighter than on the stamps, but that's something that could be natural variation due to what was in contact with the postmarking die. One to check.


It is visible on the large scan, though it would be useful to repost the relevant scans of the other stamps to see whether they're the same or different? I suppose the obvious counter-argument there would be that the plate positions were repaired and therefore might have differences in the latticework too.

But both are fair points.

I can easily see the discontinuity beneath the right 7.

_________________
Jay Carrigan
http://www.jaypex.com

Seems in order to me.

Remember any stamp on any cover is higher than the envelope paper.

Therefore a light strike of any cds as has occurred here will have more heaviness of the strike on the stamp than the paper, if applied at true 90 degrees.

It is clear this top strike was not made at 90 degrees but was weighted top right of the numeral.

Oddly seeing there are 3 strikes, 2 of the strikes are at right anglers to the others - most unusual and quite an un-natural thing to do when many covers are being cancelled quickly.

If this were a rare CANCEL we were debating here there would be many howling to the moon the cancel was clearly faked for these reasons.

Many times I see things that appear not "tied" that unquestionably 'belong". Even on cheap covers.

A heavily applied strike will have more even spread of the cancel as it compresses the stamp paper.

Occurs on all covers where stamps are tied. And with these thicker barred numerals always the case.

With a crisp cds, far less apparent due to the "bite" of the thin steel ring.

Jay well can you blow up a common plate 73 area of that same corner letters? Is is different?

Remember we are looking at fine detail blown up 20 or 50 or whatever times.

The engine turning on ALL 1d stamps will shows less than perfect loops - I guess using your argument this loop below next to corner letter on same stamp is forged too? It is by no means symmetrical. Less so than the one you mention in my view.

The plate makers at Perkins Bacon 160 years back were not planning for digital zoom generation to dissect their work in such detail.

europhil

The large scan you posted three posts above is the best one on the thread that I have seen that clearly shows the yellowish rose-red coloration above the second "7."

Thank you very much.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

It's great to see something to examine ourselves!

The 'discontinuity' Europhil observed is very clear, & offers something to compare with plate 73.

The postmark is odd. I'm inclined to think it has been lifted & re-placed slightly lower, esp. on the left hand side, so the trio are angled to the right at the base, though not all evidence supports this.

I assume it is the more absorbent nature of the envelope paper that accounts for the differences in the strength of the postmark. This alone may explain why the 2 strong lines below the numeral on the top stamp don't seem to match up with anything.

Just noticed a post in the meantime & I agree they are both excellent scans & there does appear to be discolouration where there shouldn't be.

_________________
mobbor

Sorry, missed Glen's post. I must be unwell, but I agree totally.

_________________
mobbor

admin



Now there I am in complete agreement with you, which is, of course, why the concept of a temporary repair only to be changed promptly back to normal seems unlikely in the extreme.

Kindest regards, Richard