Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

OK .. took this screen shot .. seems like a pretty serious publication. Seems like 'May' and not 'June' though?

Valuable new evidence on the state of the paper fibres. Here's a single-page URL for it which is easier to view:

http://www.labnews.co.uk/news/secrets-rare-stamps-revealed/

Would RSSL consent to publication of the full report rather than the journalistic summary? (Btw, their second smaller picture of a "suspect" 7 -- do they mean by that phrase that it comes from a known fake used for comparison?)


*twitches* You've every right to excoriate Richard Debney for his views, but let's not go that far. It reminds me of the wealthy collector who threatened lawsuits when a journal suggested that one of the items he had bought had been tampered with (it had; the faker later confessed all), and that is an even more dangerous road to go down.

Abed

After an absence from posting for over two years, (your last post was on May 11, 2010 - page 31 of the thread) may I be the first to say in print "Welcome Back."

I have read your recent posts together with the links.

It will no doubt come as no surprise to you but I have never heard of "surface profilometry - which employs a high powered digital microscope." (Laboratory News article)

One question, how is this technique different or better than scanning electron microscopy? - for which you claim the same results.

Kindest regards, Richard

I am no scientist, but while looking for an answer to the same question I found these images below. Showing “surface profilometry” it seems is to measure the paper depth - to demonstrate in this case the final 7 was punched into the paper which would not show, if it were painted in.





Abed has useful info scattered all over the web, in many disjointed places, and via slow loading PDFs, and various web pages.

None with any intra-indexing or cross-indexing, and makes stumbling across these kind of images more luck than good judgement - sadly. 

None link to each other, or pages within the same or other web sites. If all were consolidated into one well laid out webpage, the case would be proven to the biggest sceptic, that no paper tampering or ‘painting-in’ ever took place.

That is all that is needed.

Stampboards is mentioned nowhere, and that is sad, as it is my belief that without the 52,000 global views to this thread, the cover and the 2 'bad' certs would have been tossed with disappointment into a dark corner forever, several years back.

The Philatelic Foundation in New York (PF) said there was number tampering, and were given a later chance to re-consider that view, after being given the extensive forensic paper specialist Radley Report, showing that view was arrant nonsense, but chose not to change their stance.



That curious decision will injure their PF reputation for a very long time, in the minds of very many thinking people.

The RPS London Certificate said the 77 numbers “were faked in each case”. They later claimed, when queried, the 7s were all glued on essentially.



Now issuing a Cert stating “Stamps are from plate 73” as occurred with Stampmann’s cover is one thing, and indeed is arguably correct.

To state the stamps submitted by a leading philatelist – himself an expertiser, and a then member of the RPSL, and author of specialised literature, were all “faked” is a serious and rather pointed comment. Especially when it is later proven beyond reasonable doubt there was no faking involved.

I understand the RPS London are now interested in re-examining the Abed cover, in view of detailed Scientific and forensic reports written since, stating clearly that no tampering of the numbers has ever occurred.

That is common sense, and shows they are least do not have closed minds to science. Their reputation will be damaged substantially and long term in my view, if they do not re-asses this cover more logically.

They might well re-issue a Certificate saying something like – “the 3 stamps plate to Plate 73 but each for some reason bears number 77, that we are satisfied are original and un-altered, so far as one can say”.

I have written on this matter again this week in “Stamp News” which has a large circulation globally - and will draw 100s more eyes onto this thread.

http://www.glenstephens.com/snjune12.html

I still believe common sense will prevail, and this cover will – like the British Guiana and Tre Skilling Banco, out-vote the naysayers. Which in the case of the Banco comprised virtually the ENTIRE Swedish “establishment” in the 1970s saying it was faked, bleached, re-joined, and all kinds of other silly nonsense.

Times change. Science sorted out the Banco as well. Thank goodness.

Glen

admin



Neither of the "7's" would show as anything else but unprinted paper. It is what surrounds them which is suspect.

Kindest regards, Richard

admin



Now there we agree entirely. By the way have you got the second one in upside down?

Kindest regards, Richard

admin

Quote:

I understand the RPS London are now interested in re-examining the Abed cover, in view of detailed Scientific and forensic reports written since, stating clearly that no tampering of the numbers has ever occurred.

Surely Abed shot himself in the foot here when he withdrew the item from reconsideration at the Royal's Expert Committee a couple of years' ago.

Kindest regards, Richard

admin

Glen, I really do like the first image you posted, four posts above, as I can detect in it three shades of red (pink, rose-red and lake-red) and three shades of brown. (deep brown, a pale yellow-brown and a tan-brown)

The shades of brown contribute to the overall yellowish rose-red color of the five spots above the second "7's" in dispute.

To me, at least, it looks as though the more science you guys bring into the discussion the more it confirms the observed result.

Kindest regards, Richard

I wouldn't want to draw any conclusions based on that image being in "natural colour" -- if the other images posted on this thread are anything like accurate, the paper of the original is clearly nowhere near that yellow or the reds that rich.

mozzerb

Well, it was the variations within the shade groups that I was comparing rather than the absolute colors themselves.

Now I do very much agree with you that you cannot make a stamp shade identification based on a color photograph in a book - though I have seen many people try.

Nice to see Abed back isn't it?

Kindest regards, Richard

Just noticed that in passing: from the reasonably detailed Feldman writeup when it was on pre-sale display at the 2010 London international, I don't think it was physical tests of that kind that finally settled the question. What did it IIRC was the discovery of archival documentation that backed up the contention that 8sk yellow stamps from that particular ink batch had been sent to the town of the postmark (and therefore the 3sk error could plausibly have been among them), when there previously had been no record of such a thing.

Same applies here; the RPSL could well decide to give these reds a certificate of the "so far as one can say" type you mention, but it would still need some similar discovery for them to be more than an unexplained anomaly or outlying data point.

Abed, can I suggest that exploring the National Archives at Kew (as opposed to the postal archives in central London) would be a good next step? Stamp production was after all under the overall control of the Inland Revenue until the early 20th century, not the Post Office. A few years ago Ray Simpson and Peter Sargent turned up a wealth of previously unpublished information about the introduction and development of perforation there, so you never know your luck.

Mozzerb

Thank you for your suggestion.

I have already researched the National Archives at Kew some while ago and I have copies of most IR documents for this issue which outline the printing details and other information for all the plates for this issue.

The following headings exist on this document and an entry for each plate is completed.

The entry for plate 77 is as follows:

Current No. Post: 77 Gen:-
Description. Postage Duty: 1d
Preparation Begun: 1861 July 3 Ref: A57
Placed in. Officers safe: 1861 July 3 Som. House S.Room: - Ref: A57
Proof Approved. Date: - Ref: -
Registered Date. Ref: Not registered
Put to Press Date: - Ref: Not put to press
Partially Defaced Date: 1862 Feb 4 Ref: A24
Defaced. Date: 1864 Dec 1 Ref: A75
Impressions Printed. Number: none Ref:-
Total in Stock at and from date. -

A note stating the following is made next to this entry:

Incorrectly laid down for perforation.

The defacement year date should be 1863 and not 1862 in compliance with Hill's letter to Perkins Bacon rejecting the plate.

This document clearly shows that plate 77 was not put to press and that no sheets were printed from it

The specialised researcher I used to investigate these documents at the archives could not find any of the documents referred to as A24, A75 and A57. I wonder what detail they would have had.

I could not find any other reference to this issue or to plate 77. Someone else may perhaps have better luck!

Abed H Najjar

No production sheets, true, but surely there must have been at least one perforated proof sheet in order for them to tell it was unsuitable. Presumptively these are where the known examples come from. The "put to press" date meant the date when it was first used "live" for actual production?

Was there anything in the correspondence files about problems at Perkins Bacon?

Mozzerb



Exactly, if the one or more proof/trial sheets were not destroyed, as they should have been, then the accepted stamps would have come from them and yes the 'put to press date' is the date the Plates started producing sheets for the Post Office. Plate 77 was not one of them.

These stamps must then be classified as trial/proof, or whatever term one wishes to use, examples from plate 77.

In fact everyone, without exception both past and present believes that the accepted stamps must originate from these plate 77 sheets.

Abed H Najjar

Richard - I have always stated just that - that true 7s in any plate of this stamp are not bearing ink of any kind in the 7 area. Under them included, and being part of them! It does seem patently obvious, but some cannot grasp that idea.

You have just entirely contradicted your own curious theory - that these number 7s are PAINTED IN with white paint. How can you have "unprinted" white paper and "painted in white over red" as being the same thing in your head?

Let's go through this all over again for you.

The genuine number 7 will simply be showing the white underlaying paper of the printer's paper roll, and the red will be printed all around it. The "7" being formed by a reverse image on the plate, i.e. no colour ink ever is used to make the 7. untouched white printer paper makes the 7 we see.

The area showing the 7 will of course be LOWER (or thinner in thickness if you will) than the surrounding red, as the thickness of the red ink layer around it adds to the height of that. Like painting a contrast stripe on a wall at home. That stripe paint has thickness if you are able to measure it precisely enough.

You assertion for 5 years has been that all Abed's 7 were originally 3's or some other numbers. And they were forged into 7s.

So someone first needed to abrade (your written theory) all the existing 3s away via some grinder method, and then paint in all the surrounding area in red, and then paint in the 7 in white.

Two thickness's of painting in would RAISE the height level of the 7 - science has just proved to us the 7 can only occur if the genuine is LOWER/THINNER than the red.

Radley has also made the obvious comment that added paint into the area the size of a pinhole will have the red and white added ink running or "diffusing" in all directions along the paper fibres. Capillary action. Be easy to see.

Add a drop of red ink onto a white paper towel and see how the pinhead drop ends up as a half inch wide radius red stain. Capillary action of the paper fibres. There is NO white paper towel in the centre of that drop. 100% RED.

The raft of detailed tests also have showed conclusively that no paper fibres in any 7 box were disturbed or broken as would apply if the area was cut or abraded as your theory relies on entirely. Basic Physics #101. Basic Common Sense #101.

The new "surface profilometry" lab testing that capetriangle conveniently claims not to understand, has been already explained to you, but you still claim you do not understand it, as of course it destroys your 5 year held theory of "painting in".

To remind you - those tests show the 7s were impressed into the white paper and they are in a "valley" lower than the surrounding red ink higher points. Yes one of the '7' photos I posted of that from some website page of Abed's is upside down on his page, I had noticed that, as I am sure Abed now has.

The absurdity of anyone arguing that "painting" took place, is that the underlying white stamp paper will ONLY be white where a 7 was first printed by Perkins Bacon.

If one starts with a 3 and changes it by painting over a 7, every sane person on this globe surely comprehends you need to do this -



All but you it seems can see that is impossible to achieve, without the 6 x number 7s having ink from the necessarily painted in white and red running in all directions via capillary action (read Radley, although common sense tells us that anyway) And that, under any scrutiny would be obvious to the naked eye, especially when done 6 times.

As the inks applied will not be inks sourced 150 years back from the printer in 1860s, their chemical composition will be wildly different to what was used by Perkins Bacon, and even the most basic of tests will have detected that anyway. i.e. the same way art forgers are detected - and the creator of the "Hitler Diaries" etc. In his case inks made only decades apart were detected as wrong by forensic experts like Radley.

The new Science shows conclusively that the 7s were never painted in - it is impossible for that to have occurred, and pass these new tests.

All we need to work out now is how stamps for a brief time, having Plate 73 corner letters ended up bearing "77".

Glen

Not true at all. Sorry. Not even close.

I have written more on the 1857 Sweden Tre Skilling Banco stamp in English than any other person. True.

Took me 20 hours of detailed research work one time to sort the what from the chaff, as a lot of misinformation had been published. And lazily re-quoted by others as fact etc.

And I wrote it before this huge book below was published in several languages, that I later reviewed -



I urge you and others to buy or borrow it, as it outlines in detail the Science used, and the extensive and expensive tests utilised.

History always repeats. As a perfect example of this - as recently as the mid 1970s nearly the entire Sweden highbrow stamp "establishment" branded this stamp an outright forgery.

And like this Plate 77 cover, they outlined some quite bizarre and totally hare-brained theories as to why that should be.

I have asked in person, 3 senior Swedish FIP Commissioners in recent times, if they believe it is fake, and all answered in essence "no, I think we all agree these days in Sweden that it is perfectly genuine'.

That stamp of course now sells for 7 figures each outing. Not bad for an "outright fake" - According to the 9 most senior stamp collectors in Sweden in the mid 1970s.

This total and humiliating back-flip has occurred in a few decades. Abed only needs to be patient for a little while it seems, history shows us!

Science back then proved these Swedish "experts" all completely wrong, and Science will do it again. It always does when errors are made.

All we need are open minds, and to study the evidence, and not use pre-conceived notions. And not come up with idiotic claims that "someone has glued on some extra 7s".

This part of what I wrote and published globally in 2004 -

http://www.glenstephens.com/sndecember04.html

=================

In 1974 it was exhibited at the stand of Frimarkshuset A.B. the well known Swedish dealers in "Stockholmia 74".

The stamp was then offered to the Swedish Postal Museum for $US1,000,000.

The curator Gilbert Svensson had always suspected it to be a forgery, and arranged for it to be handed over to a group of nine Swedish stamp experts to examine.

The experts concluded it was a fake - possibly a fake of the original stamp that some of them also thought was a fake anyway!

They stated that one third of the stamp was of a different paper type than the rest. And it differed in exterior appearance from early photographs.

One of the experts Friedrich Schaffer pointed the finger at original dealer owner Lichtenstein as the forger/creator of this 'fake'. The experts publicly claimed the story of the Backman sale in 1885 was a lie.

Why an Army Lieutenant Colonel would 'lie' about it 40 years later under sworn court oath is a question I asked myself. Curator Svensonn when asked on TV by a reporter as to its true worth said it was: "only worth the modest 7 Crowns that Lichtenstein was supposed to have paid for it - with interest added".

After all these damning reports, owner Berlingen and Frimarkshuset A.B. then paid for a very detailed scientific and X-Ray report in 1975, by a Professor of Medial Biophysics, on the paper and ink etc, which pointed they claim, to the stamp being a genuine colour error.

etc, etc, etc.



And for those seeking perfection in their million dollar rarities, for several times it was offered at huge sums, the total re-perforation along the top, and the sizeable slit in the side were never mentioned!

Glen

There is much in what say that I agree with, however, I have never said or implied that any "white" was used as in below.



Of course, as in all line-engraved stamps the colored areas are very slightly higher than the surrounding unprinted areas - since the colored (printed areas) are forced into the plate recesses under great pressure.

So, the below simply does not apply.



There were no printer's paper rolls, only individual sheets of paper, as I am sure you know fully. (before you criticize I will concede that this is a trivial point bordering on a 'typo')

I have never talked about capillary action on the thread.

Now I do accept the PF's "theory of faking" has pretty much always been described on the thread as "abrade and paint" and that the Royal's "theory of faking" has pretty much always been described on the thread as "cut and paste."

However the actual words used by the PF in correspondence with Abed and in my CCP article have always been deliberately vague, as in "pigment/paint/color/dye or similar."

From my Sep 23, 2009 post (page 11 of the thread)



Enough for now, it is 2.35 am in New York.

Kindest regards, Richard

p.s. only today have I heard of the term "surface profilometry"

That was kind of what I was getting at -- the scientific tests date back to the 1970s, but what Feldman seemed to be saying was that the archive discovery was much more recent (and I think drew on those tests for information about inks etc, as the crucial point was the distinctive printing), and that was the clincher in terms of fitting the stamp into the record as opposed to being an unexplained outlier.

If you still have a copy of the book, what does it say about that situation? Feldman published it, so presumably that was what their 2010 publicity material was drawing on.

Yes, as often occurs in stamps - and indeed with anything in life I guess, is that one breakthrough that overturns established thinking, often leads to new facts and discoveries and advances to then take place.

Most people on this globe at one time used to believe the world was FLAT. Let us never forget that!

Had Berlingen and Frimarkshuset A.B. NOT taken the very expensive steps of commissioning Science to examine the Tre Skilling Banco stamp in great detail, it still today would be regarded as the fake the alleged Swedish experts loudly branded it as.

And so it will prove with Abed's cover, is what I have always thought. Open minds often make interesting discoveries.

Had Abed rolled over and played dead after the two absurd certificates above, 3 less very definite "77"s would exist today.

And more importantly, global discussion like this being initiated, will hopefully see some breakthrough in explaining just how the 77s got there on Plate 73.

"The last word is NEVER written in Philately" as I often type.

I have written on this matter again this week in “Stamp News” which has a large circulation globally - and that will draw 100s more eyes onto this thread.

It already has has around 53,000 page views - as all can see - an ENORMOUS amount for any stamp discussion thread here.

http://www.glenstephens.com/snjune12.html

Maybe one set of those eyes can suggest a plausible solution of some kind?

The short lasting "re-entry" or "retouch" school of thought has not been discredited in any way that I have seen, and indeed, examples of such practice taking place on other 1d Plates, have been given above.

Glen

I wouldn't say that was a "school of thought" -- more "if the stamps are genuine, this is the only conceivable way it could have happened", surely? There could be debate on whether it was a hand retouch or the transfer roller was used, but those are pretty much the only options when modifying a printing plate of the type in question at that era.

The "short-lived" constraint comes of course from non-technical observations, e.g. that there aren't numerous modified 73s about the place.

The bigger question is why this would ever have been done in the first place. Frankly, I suspect the only remotely plausible answer to that is "gigantic cockup at the printers".

Yes we know it is a fact that not many stamps with 77 exist - whether fake or otherwise!

The Expert Committees would have more data of course, but I recall someone posted that 177 with the first 1 disguised with a pinpoint drop of red ink have in the past been the main submissions, and even they are not numerous.

Glen

Mozzerb

In my view you have now made a most important statement:



In fact I would say that, as far as my stamps at least are concerned, this was very probably an intentional "gigantic cockup at the printers".

In other words a possible early 'experiment at a repair' that was deemed unacceptable and abandoned very soon after it started.

Abed H Najjar

Glen



This argument is surely destroyed by simple logic. It is just too fanciful to believe -

1) the idea that this the tiniest of repairs was made to just three stamps on the plate -

2) then that only a few sheets were printed before this 'great mistake' was discovered -

3) then it was changed back -

4) but the handful of the sheets were released -

5) that the only known three examples of this 'great mistake' variety happened to make their way down to Guernsey -

6) they happened to all appear on this one cover -

7) Abed happens to find the one cover in a mixed/collection lot over a hundred years later.

The above simply defies belief.

That anyone could reasonably propose it as a course of action is surely 'clutching at straws,' rather than accepting the much simpler explanation of fakery. To be accepted by the G.B. collecting community this philosophy has to introduce the idea of two types of Plate 77 stamps, which, I simply cannot imagine.

Look at other examples in philately.

The Western Australian 'Inverted Frame,' 97 sheets printed, four examples per sheet, 14 complete examples known to exist.

The Cape of Good Hope Woodblock 'Errors of Color,' one stamp per sheet. 1194 of the 1d. Error and 1568 of the 4d. Error printed. Fifty or so of each value thought to exist.

The U.S. Washington-Franklin 5c. 'Error of Color.' Printed three times in the sheet, collected mostly as Single Error and Double Error blocks of nine and twelve respectively. They exist on the Imperf., Perf. 10 and Perf. 11 issues in relatively large numbers.

These are all instantaneously recognizable Errors, all are huge in comparison to Abed's "variety."

Kindest regards, Richard

Simple logic is like common sense - not nearly as common as many might imagine.

Who says only 3 stamps were involved????? Talk about a closed mind!

All the other points you make defeat your argument, as they are all entirely possible for anyone and any PO.

Why is it "fanciful" a sheet with any error went to Guernsey? Or Herne Bay or Sutton or Aberdeen? What a panic stricken argument!

1 to 3 above are also very plausible. A temporary repair that was not considered suitable (but was issued anyway) is an occurrence in the stamp world there are endless examples of.

This was a stamp being used in the millions per week - all sorts of technical issues clearly occurred with it. It was so common, so long lived, and so often seen that a huge % were tossed in the bin, as no kid needed it as a face different stamp.

What on earth a comparison of the exceedingly common 1d Plate has to do with WA 4d Swans escapes me. Talk about "clutching at straws".

'Simple logic' does not come into it. Open minds do assist the discussion though.

Glen

Richard



Stick to the point Richard. Why, how, when and where are NOT the issue here and as far as logic is concerned, there is nothing whatsoever here that is fanciful or defies it.

The issue in question is that we have three stamps you say have been faked and this is what you have said:



Your '32 year reputation' is at stake here and your faking opinion has been shot to pieces. I suggest you try and justify your opinion with substantiated evidence rather than reverting to 'logic', or is this now your new line of defence?

Abed H Najjar

Abed

You lost the logic argument when you introduced the idea of repairs made directly onto the plate together with a restitution to normal, a significant while ago. Also with the introduction of the idea of two types of Plate 77 stamps, the ones that look like the accepted copies, and yours, which do not.

You lost the science argument as a result of the independent analysis by our stampboards member FinstP, a British University Professor of Physics whose research involves thin films and coatings, of your own commissioned x-ray mapping by RSSL. Also a significant while ago.

Kindest regards, Richard

Richard

You state:



Exactly as I predicted you now revert to FinstP.

I am astounded at the fact that you now rely on a third party you have met on this thread for support.

You very clearly have no argument of your own to get you out of this discredited and completely unfounded opinion of faking

Let us now see what this gentleman, a British University Professor of Physic's had to say about my scientific results:



Now, what FinstP is incredibly saying is that the five diamonds have been painted in white using an ink made up of Titanium oxide and Barium sulphate and then 'red' with lead chromate to produce the ‘7’.

Let us now look at the scientific findings:

EDXRF examinations indicated that trace chromium, titanium, barium and phosphorus were present. Raman examination showed the presence of very minute trace amounts of lead chromate on the 830cm-1 band. Raman however could not detect any compounds for the Barium, titanium and phosphorus. The scientific examinations also showed that these trace elements and did not form a part of an offending ink.

Firstly Barium and Titanium were only found as trace elements and were not present in the ‘high concentrations’ that FinstP claims. Raman spectroscopy did not pick any of these compounds. This major misinterpretation of science is disappointing.

Secondly other scientific examinations using SEM and SEM in backscattered mode, and Surface profilometry have shown the white paper fibres forming the ‘7’ to be original and completely clear of any offending ink. The SEM bs mode images are a wonderful testimonial to that. There are no blobs or dabs of any white or red ink. The paper fibres are clean and run in and out of the matrix changing in colour where they should.

Thirdly there is no evidence whatsoever of any figure ‘3’ which, even if bleached, abraded or somehow removed will still leave traces of ink elements in the area that would clearly show up within the figure ‘7’. The SEM images in backscattered mode only show a perfectly formed dark '7'in keeping with its surroundings and the profilometry tests show no recesses whatsoever that would indicate that a figure '3' was impressed on the paper.

If these diamonds were actually painted white and then in red as FinstP claims, I would wager that you be able to see this with the naked eye.

These are fragile stamps and any tampering on them would be clearly seen. Have you ever tried to see what tampering would do to them. I have, and I can assure you, that you only need to touch these fibres and you would be able to detect this using 80x magnification let alone the barrage of science that I have used.

Richard, stop grasping at straws and accept reality. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with these stamps. They are completely genuine, the sooner you accept this the better you will feel.

Abed H Najjar

Re Member here FinstP - we have had this discussion before.

He/she is but one of 100s of members who works in Science or labs. Not all brag about it, but it is a fact.

They know more about science and forensics than I do that is for sure. I have worked full time on stamps over 30 years, and know much more than they do about stamps - I can guarantee that.

NEITHER of us however know more about paper forensics than Robert Radley. We have his detailed written report, and he is a leading world expert in the field, and unless this FinstP member cares to add more posts and add real evidence re these stamps, we are just going around in circles.

This person had never seen the stamp and that is important.

He/she was a Scot that wanted to charge money for their views here, and that is not how stampboards works. (OR else I'd be wealthier than Bill Gates!)

To re-cap - maybe this member will pop by, and offer some more comment?

Until then lets hear from active members, or read written reports on these stamps, not 2nd guess 3rd parties.

Abed



They are not fragile stamps, they are, in fact, remarkably tough and the tampering on them was easily seen. I would refer you to the Hawaiian Missionaries as examples of fragile stamps but past experience of that seems to irritate you.

By the way, why did you remove the part cover from the reconsideration process at the Royal?

This question was asked by pertinax a couple of years ago and was deemed a reasonable question. So how about an answer?

Kindest regards, Richard

I don't think you're doing yourself any favours with this one, because most of this isn't logical at all. In particular:


Doesn't follow -- if repairs were made, there's no reason why they couldn't have been made to several or many other positions that haven't been seen yet, especially as ...


... these things would have had to happen to account for their non-discovery before now, so at the usual survival rates finding one item would be par for the course.


A slight problem, yes, but if it was a mistake, then presumably no-one would have noticed immediately.


Nothing special about Guernsey in terms of stamp distribution though. It's equally as likely or unlikely as any other office in the kingdom.


See point 1 and 5 respectively -- nothing special about any particular finder either.


Easy enough to imagine, surely, it's no more impossible than (for example) a stamp existing with a normal and a provisional overprint.

If you're arguing that it's hard to imagine a reason for deliberate repairs of this type to the plate, then that's another matter (and obviously a fair point, because it is). But inferential statistics derived from the cover itself don't prove anything either way.

Richard



These are matters that do not concern you in any way. This is a private matter very much in progress and I will reveal any information I need to reveal when I chose to and not when asked.

What should concern you is the unjust fake opinion that you have given to this perfectly genuine item.

As you may be aware, I am an expert who regularly issues certificates of opinion. If I was ever confronted with a certificate of mine in which my opinion was demonstrated to be questionable or wrong, I would, without any question, withdraw it, look into the matter and reissue it if I was given valid information that would convince me to do so. I must however say that this has not happened yet.

There is no doubt that this is the just and correct way of doing things. It is totally unfair to continue to cling to a totally discredited view as you are doing. It serves no purpose, does philately a great disservice and potentially renders a valuable item worthless.

What we have here are not stamps that require specialised knowledge in philately but ones that require specialised knowledge in tampering and counterfeit and this is a field best addressed using scientific analysis and forensic specialists.

What is clearly evident is that you are serving philately very badly by denouncing not just basic common sense but the value of 21st century science and the opinions of leading forensic experts in their field. In my view this is indeed a travesty to say the least.

The world accepted adage ‘innocent until proven guilty’ clearly does not apply to you. It seems that in your case it is guilty, not proven to be guilty and will always be guilty.

Of course you are free to continue to cling to your completely discredited opinion, after all your 32 year reputation is at stake here. You do however have one other option that you could consider, an option that I have no doubt will serve you well if you adopted it!

All I can say is that had it not been for my strong philatelic and scientific background and my strong belief that these stamps are completely genuine, an incredible item such as this, an item that will reveal more revelations in due course, and the wonderful Plate 77 story which will unravel very soon, would have been consigned to the dustbin for all time if ‘experts’ with views like YOURS had their way.

Abed H Najjar

I must agree with you that the paper on these, was far less fragile than many things out there in the era.

However you seem to be contradicting yourself saying any tampering on them was ''easily seen".

As no fakery can be "easily seen" on these stamps - indeed as it was NOT seen at all by Radley in his detailed examination - see below - are you agreeing at last, they are NOT tampered with?




If this is "easily seen" tampering and forging, I need a new optometrist!

Just a comment on this because I've felt all along that you're skating over the point here -- after all, "trace" doesn't mean "insignificant", it means "in very low concentrations relative to the main constituents". As in, most of a batch of ink consists of the same common elements that essentially show up as quantity "lots", the minor impurities show up as traces, and that's the way different batches of inks (or whatever) are distinguished.

All of which is to say, it's a genuinely negative point and can't be dismissed as "but they're only there in traces!" when the point is they shouldn't be there at all unless there was something special about the right hand 7s.

Your suggestion that these traces could be the result of the metalworking done on the plate (metallic/chemical residue) isn't something I've ever found particularly plausible, frankly, especially as the lead and chromium show up as lead chromate not as the elements. The way the plates were used should surely have stripped out anything left behind in that way. But you could prove me wrong on that point by finding the same traces on another contemporary Perkins Bacon retouch.

I'm not that sold on my own suggestion either (traces are the residue of the test for a fake), but that could obviously be checked too.

As for FinstP, when I stumbled across his first and subsequent posts on this thread, to my surprise I found that most actually did offer to do test work for free. He left in disgust after the usual round of insults towards anyone questioning the authenticity of the cover on this thread (although on this go-round these seem to have been greatly toned down, which was a pleasant surprise). I dare say he might help if approached the right way -- he does at least have access to the equipment!

admin

Again Robert Radley deferred in science (chemistry) to Professor Hall who replicated the work of RSSL.

The work of Radley is merely opinion, as is the PF's and the Royal's, but the latter two are philatelic, Radley's is in handwriting and documents.

Glen, you and I are both professional philatelists, we both have over thirty years experience but I somehow get the impression from you that only your thirty years of experience counts and mine does not.

You are more successful than I am - no doubt due to commerce.

Neither of us are scientists (although I started out at University in England studying it - again that does not count), so neither of us can play the game - 'my scientist is better than your scientist.'

It is a secret to nobody that I found the views of FinstP confirming my observed opinion as absolutely delightful. Pertinax referred to them "as a breath of fresh air."

I also found Professor Hall's discovery of the lead chromate over the five localized areas delightful and again the announcement by FinstP, which so irritated Abed, that "lead chromate is the key" similarly delightful.

Why doesn't Abed obtain an opinion from Professor Hall of the independent analysis of FinstP of the x-ray mapping?

Such an opinion would be far more valuable, one professor to another, than anything that Glen Stephens or Richard Debney might have to say on the matter.

Enough for now.

Kindest regards, Richard

I remember you mentioning those as examples of inlays and painting in, with (as I recall) a statement to the effect that this had not been detectable using the same sort of tools Radley used. It was an intriguing statement and (if correct) obviously an extremely valid point, but it begged the question of exactly which tools were used and who was using them.

If that's a basically correct statement of what you said, what equipment was used, was it used by the PF expert committee or outside technical experts, and what were the observations? Obviously, the less expert the users of the equipment, the more questionable their findings.

(If I've misremembered, my apologies, but as pertinax says this thread is too damn hard to find things on now.)

admin



It was to me - it only took five seconds. Remember I claim to see it (and that opinion was confirmed by two members here) in some of your scans on the board.

Kindest regards, Richard

admin



We may already be there.

Kindest regards, Richard

Abed



I think the opinion is just and perfectly correct. I am more than ever now happy with the opinion and more than ever now willing to put at stake my now 35-year professional reputation on it.

Kindest regards, Richard

Richard



One of us is clearly right and the other completely wrong.

Time will no doubt tell and for one I certainly can not not wait for that day.

Think how famous you will become with your 35-year professional reputation on it.

I will let matters rest for now.

Abed

Sigh.

So your sole evidence is that you say you see tampering, and 2 folks here claim they see slightly different colours on a scan.

Have you put up $50,000 of YOUR money backing your views? After all you say you have backed your Global reputation on this result, and trust me mine is worth a great deal more than $50,000. Or $500,000 even.

You seem keen to berate Abed into getting a whole slew of new reports at his cost, to prove the already proven.

This was all touched on a year or so back. Old news.

You could below up a scan of ANY section of ANY 1d red on earth and you will not have even colour at every point - including the Royal Collection example. What a newsflash!

You dismissed the detailed 64 point Radley report when it was given to you to read by Abed in NYC, and you agreed here you flipped though it for maybe one minute, and put it aside. Some keen student of facts and science and forensics.

Your little hand held light was all you needed - not some fancy 64 page detailed analysis report from a world expert using powerful lab microscopes.

As you agree you have never bothered to read it, as you knew it totally kicks the cr*p out of the PF cert you helped write - and the RPSL one, you may be interested to learn from those who HAVE read it is goes into the science in detail, and uses high power microscopes etc.

This man is a world leading paper forensic expert and you are not. And I am not.

As we have many new readers of this thread - here is the Radley Report in full -

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8808&start=514

Read that and you will be astounded ANYONE believes these stamps were faked, yet the RPS and the PF stated they were.

I hope the RPS does get a chance to read the report and look at the stamp again with new eyes.

Then some progress can be made. The PF have dug their grave, and I suggest that vast damage to their reputation has been done in the eyes of the 55,000 collectors reading this thread - so far.

And the similar number who have read my column globally. No-one ever takes a specialised cert from the USA on GB stamps as serious anyway, so no loss there reallyto their credibility.

The RPS London does count, and I have never had any doubt that when they do take another look, the first silly opinion will be shredded.

Glen

mozzerb



I absolutely stand by this. There cannot be two types of Plate 77, the accepted ones which have the second "7's" correctly above the lattice-work intersection and these, the Abed's - much rarer ones, since only three have been found, originating from Plate 73 in a hybrid form. (That assumes that the Abed's are genuine, which, of course, I do not.)

Kindest regards, Richard

Abed



See, we can agree.

Kindest regards, Richard

admin



Not true I have read every word in the Radley Report. I do not agree with some of his findings, this is all old history.

Kindest regards, Richard

I agree with capetriangle on this point. We know that an original Plate 77 was prepared, then rejected because it was unsuitable for printing stamps that were to be perforated. A few stamps from this plate exist, Tapling collection, Royal Philatelic collection, etc. and I think it is generally agreed that these are from the original plate 77. Abed’s stamps are clearly not, as they are somehow (fraudulently or not) derived from plate 73…

Mozzerb, Inforapenny and others who have an interest in Plate 77 stamps,

I will repeat my previous statements the first was made to Richard Debney, I hope you will 'read into it'.




and the second made to Mozzerb



Abed H Najjar

Well, on this I was using the same shorthand of "Plate 77" to mean "stamps with 77 on them" that I thought you were using, but yes, fair enough -- Abed's stamps would not be the true Plate 77, but a second state of Plate 73 of a previously completely unsuspected type.

Obviously though, the existence of two types of "stamps with 77 on them" is not inherently self-contradictory if they came about via different methods, so I'm not sure why you insist on this point.

This thread is going no-where.

Let's hope 'due course' is sooner rather than later, so we can get some revelations.

_________________
mobbor

mozzerb

I take your point about the length of the thread and the degree of difficulty in finding things.

I may have pointed this out before (I am not going to reread everything to check but will apologize in advance, if I have) but to me the quite surprising thing about the Radley Report is the fact that Abed was able to commission it all.

From the Radley website



Abed is acting as a private individual here, surely?

Mr. Radley does not seem to follow his own rules?

Kindest regards, Richard

Well it is clear there are two forms. So using the word 'cannot" is pretty silly.

As has been posted many times by Abed, by me, and by others, the stamps on cover all plate to 73 corner letters, yet have 77 on them.

WHY?

We are not sure yet why. Science has shown the 77s are not altered or manipulated, so this thread hopefully will reveal the cause - whether by re-entry or retouch etc.

Such things are not unheard of in philately for goodness sakes.

It has been self-evident all along no faker will work on SIX numbers, when 1 stamp would be far easier, and less fraught with mishap.

Perkins Bacon clearly printed them as we see them today - how it occurred, is the mystery to me.

Glen

admin

Best not for me to comment on your post above - it would only be repeating what you know I think.

Kindest regards, Richard