Again we seem to be going round and around with essentially the same comments. Some new points though.
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+
Not quite Richard, all 11+ of you might have agreed that the stamps have been faked BUT:
Glad to see that you accept this fact, the existence of 11+ people (all experienced philatelic experts) who call your part cover faked.
One expert said it is a fake from plate 71
One expert said the '7's fluoresce
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."
and 2 or more experts at the PF including you say that these stamps were abraded and painted.
Well it was four former colleagues and myself.
You can not even agree between you on ONE form of faking. 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.
How on earth can these opinions be taken seriously.
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.
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.
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)
Richard in my view you are a man not to be trusted, you are a poor philatelist and a totally useless expert.
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.