Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

Agree with what? You do not say. This below I presume, which is self evident to all who know the first thing about philately.

Why is the common cancel so important to anyone anyway?

As I posted, the conspiracy theorists, IF this were a rare cancel would be howling fake as well.

No Glen, it was your last post before my posts, about the 'discontinuity'.

I did read & don't disagree with your post about the effect of the stamp being higher than the envelope & it's effect on the postmark. That doesn't explain everything I can see.

But even if the stamps were lifted & replaced, it still doesn't prove anything about the genuineness or otherwise of the stamps themselves.

I repeat, it was just wonderful to see such excellent scans so we could observe for ourselves.

_________________
mobbor

mobbor - the "quote" feature is there for just that reason so that members like you do not sidetrack threads with vague -

"I agree totally"

comments, made way after what you agree with.

The large scans of the plate numbers have been posted many times before on this thread, all taken from the original high rez Abed kindly supplied, so nothing new there.

Glen

I sold my GB collection last year, so I have nothing to
compare with.

But, if I understand the production process correctly, every
stamp from every plate produced from Die II should show
identical engine work. Or am I wrong?

The Plate 77 stamp sold by SG and also shown above on this
page does not show this discontinuity.


The illustration I posted was artificially blown up to 4x.
That's why I asked about scans with better than 72 dpi.


I think I see the same discontinuity on RL and also on the
SG stamp, but with 72 dpi scans I can't be sure.


If the discontinuity is an artifact of a repair, frankly I would
have expected better work from PB's craftsmen.

=====

At this point, I'll retire from the discussion and let the
experts make what they will with my contribution. One
thing I can be sure of based on past experience here, there
will not be unanimity.

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

Well I guess over 1800 posts on one topic, over a couple of years, does illustrate there is not total agreement on this cover.

I read recently that HUNDREDS of Americans have been freed from death row on appeal, over recent decades.

The "Justice" system got their cases totally wrong. All the initial verdicts were indeed totally wrong. They were innocent of all charges.

Sometimes examining the evidence and facts carefully, gives a different end result, than the easy path.

Glen

Well, thank heavens we're back on track here.

I note that the previous owner of the world's reputedly most expensive stamp was convicted of murder, but apparently he died before he could be put to death.

My post that was made "way after what I agree with" was actually made just afterwards. It was a separate post because the Global Administrator was posting at the same time.

_________________
mobbor

Sticking to the topic I will be searching online in China I am there for 10 weeks for the plate 77 no matter red or black they have many fakes I understand so I will ask if I discover of course, must be some more lurking around the planet.

Mozzerb

I am sure you can appreciate that the matter of the authenticity of my cover is still very much dynamic and I have certainly every intention of getting it recognised as other collectors with great rarities have done before me.

I will therefore share with this board whatever documents I feel need sharing 'for now', no more and no less.

There is no problem however in advising you that I do have more scientific and other evidence in my favour.

It would be refreshing to see this thread move towards research behind the repairs on the early plates as some have started to do, rather than the pointless focus on trying to disparage three completely genuine stamps.

This was my main hope in rejoining this thread.

Abed H Najjar

Mozzerb



You do make a valid point that needs to be addressed and I have already done that several times but here it is again. I will be brief in explaining it.

I hope we can both agree that the trace elements found in the right hand diamonds could either indicate faking or plate contamination. I can not think of anything else.

Now for these elements to indicate faking we must prove that the area was altered, certainly by tampering and an then an offending ink applied.

However the scientific evidence completely rules out that any painting or alteration of the paper fibres has taken place. We have conclusive scientific visual and analytical evidence that confirms that there is NO painting or any foreign ink applied to the paper and that the paper fibres are intact.

You can not alter a '3' into a '7' without damage to the paper fibres and the application of ink, and this has not happened.

Not one person has been able to prove that there is evidence of alteration or painting. So as intelligent pragmatists we can safely disregard such a proposal unless any someone can prove otherwise. No one has yet.

This leaves us with the plate contamination theory, which in view of the fact that the right-hand '7's were re-engraved using gravers or burins, then it is entirely possible that these trace elements could have been introduced this way either as trace lead chromate or by some other form.

One must keep in mind that an area that needs engraving, despite the plate being wiped clean, may still have ink deposits remaining in the recesses, this may need removing and the area cleaned so that the engraving can be done on a clear area of metal, so a cleaning fluid (mild acid say chromic or phosphoric) may well have been applied to it.

This of course is reasoned conjecture as we may never know the full methods and working processes that Perkins Bacon used.

As far as finding other re-entered or repaired stamps to endorse this fact, well I think while this would be most informative, this exercise would be one of the most difficult things to do. We need to be certain that such stamps if we can ever find them, were the first to be put to press as any contamination would certainly be 'printed out'. However we can never be certain that there was complete uniformity in the working methods at the printers as far as repairs were concerned.

Abed H Najjar

If that is the case then there should be a third state showing plate 73 with the constant variety back, maybe stronger than ever. These 73's are going to be valuable in their own right before long.



Hang on, the white area would have had to be built up on the plate, not engraved.

_________________
It doesn't matter what others think of you. It's what you think of yourself that's important!

The difference due to striking over an edge usually isn't quite as much, but I agree it's not implausible. It just made me wonder if it had been slightly affected because the stamps had been lifted. (Which doesn't necessarily mean "faked". After all, an old-time philatelist who found an apparent plate 77 on cover might well have been suspicious enough to do that to check for problems.)

I've actually seen "two strikes at right-angles" used as an argument against authenticity before (notably in relation to a 1d black/1d red imperf combination cover), but that's something I strongly disagree with. All I can say is, try it -- pretend you have a handstamp in your hand and you're cancelling a pair or block where stamps are vertically above/below each other. A very natural and automatic way to do it is to cancel one and then just turn your wrist to cancel the other, rather than lifting your arm again to move it parallel, thus producing this effect.

As far as I can tell from looking at some random 1d reds from other plates, it's on those too (600dpi (optical) is the maximum my scanner goes up to, time to look at getting a new one maybe!). So yes, that corner glitch could well be a constant die feature.

As for the other one near the plate number, repair work either on the plate or on the stamps could easily put the lattice a bit out of line, so it's probably not a feature that helps either way.

Out of interest here is the front of the cover.

The cancel shows better on this than the close up below that I colour corrected for emphasis.

Since the beginning of this fascinating thread in October 2008, the focus has been almost entirely on Abed’s cover and the philatelic/technical examinations performed. This has not resolved the issue, and a variety of opinions have been formed and stoutly defended.

It may now be time to switch the focus of attention to the surrounding context, as in archeology, where careful study of the archeological context surrounding an artifact, may provide key information for understanding it.


First, it’s undisputed that the stamps on Abed’s cover were printed from Plate 73 based on studies of corner lettering, whereas known Plate 77 stamps (Tapling, Royal collection, etc.) were not. Assuming several official alterations/repairs were made to plate 73, in which at least a few plate numbers were altered from 73, to 77 and then back to 73 (a situation required to explain Abed’s stamps), one might expect to find some “fly speck” differences between stamps from the same plate positions before and after the plate alterations.

It is known that plate 73 was registered on 14 March 1861, first put to press on 1 March 1864, and then used for printing some 529,900 sheets up until 5th March 1868 (well past the 27 Nov 1865 date of Abed’s cover).

If one assumes a roughly constant printing rate during this period and rounds to months, perhaps 21/48 or 44% of the stamps were printed before Abed’s cover and the rest after (since one should allow time for the stamps to be distributed for purchase, etc., lets say roughly 40%).

Thus, one might expect that out of a random sample of used plate 73 stamps from the same positions on the sheet (mainly RL, SK and SL) stamps printed both before and after any possible alterations would be present. Fortunately, based on both Stanley Gibbons and Scott catalogue values suggest that plate 73 stamps are relatively common, with 3 of 240 plate positions being relevant (more than 1%) it should be possible to amass a reasonable number for detailed study.

Additionally, other collectors (perhaps some on this board) who have a plate 73 stamp from the same positions, might be able to provide a detailed scan posted to this thread.

While stamps on dated covers would clearly be best, any plate 73 stamps (used or unused) from these plate positions would be very useful. The key would be to determine whether or not such stamps can be unambiguously divided into two sub-types showing (at a “fly speck” level) evidence for plate alteration (i.e. before and after).

Comparison with the imprimatur sheet or early stamps on dated cover could be used to establish which variant represents the initial state of the plate, and thereby which show the altered state. Give enough examples, statistical analysis could even be applied to the results.

If the result clearly show that two sub-types are present with reasonable populations of each, that would tend to support Abed’s interpretation for plate 73 that at least some of the plate numbers were altered from 73 to 77, then after printing a relatively small number of sheets, it was taken out of service, and the plate numbers altered back to 73.

If no evidence of any such alterations can be found, this would argue against Abed’s hypothesis.

Best Regards,

InforaPenny

Inforappenny

Thank you for kicking the ball into play!

Closed minds have never championed progress.

Abed H Najjar

There are over 100 plate 73 stamps for sale on the Philangles website, if anyone is interested:

https://www.philangles.co.uk/ViewAndBid.aspx

Well, well Abed. If you won't bring to the board scientific results that back up your cover you are 100% certain not to bring to us any that don't favour it are you?

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

Highlander



I am very pleased that you want me to bring to the board more scientific results but I have already posted on this board a mass of scientific information and in turn I would very much welcome your own valued comments on the results that I have already posted on my Raman spectrsocopy and EDXRF findings, the profilometry and surface topography results, the scanning electron microscopy images and all the micrographs which are found throughout this thread and on my website.

Thought out comments on my scientific work from readers such as your self are very important to me and your valued views on the scientific results that are already on this board would be much appreciated.

Abed H Najjar

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Abraham Lincoln attributed quote I understand, quite pertinent and also coincidental his untimely assassination was the very year of this covers birth.

Just a typical current story on forgers and forgeries taken from this mornings BBC web site. The discovery was only made when the forger was facing a possible death penalty for treason. Even a confession of forgery was not going to be enough to save his skin. To do that he would need to produce another!

Han van Meegeren is a candidate for the greatest forger ever. The Dutchman came closest to being acclaimed as an artist in his own right after gaining notoriety forging 17th Century Dutch masters that would fool art-loving Nazis.

While his own paintings were of little interest to critics, his forgeries earned millions and conned, among others, Hitler's deputy Hermann Goering.

Van Meegeren was arrested in 1945 and charged with treason for selling a Vermeer - classified as a Dutch national treasure - to the Nazis. Facing a possible death penalty, he confessed all - that he was a forger.

The Dutch authorities didn't believe him. To prove he was no traitor, he was asked to paint a copy.

"A copy," Van Meegeren is reported to have exclaimed, "I'll do better than that. Give me the materials and I will paint another Vermeer before witnesses."

Full story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18180057

The world of collectables is full of fakes and forgeries , sadly the world of repaired 1d plates is not full of "repaired" plates where some idiot has "accidentally" changed a whole lot of 3's to 7's is it.


Just like Van Meegeren, the onus of proof is squarely on your shoulders and all that has been proven so far is the rather damming fact that they are of plate 73. This fact alone makes it impossible for any chance of any satisfactory comeback on your covers part.

In my eyes , the only possible reason any one would have changed a bunch of 3's to 7's (pre or post printing)would be to produce a forgery, just what you don't wish your cover to be denounced as. You are regrettably in too deep for any outcome other than the impossible to be palatable.

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

Highlander

Thanks for the reply. I do note with much interest that you have not commented on anything scientific on this board which proves the stamps have not been tampered with. It would have been a great plus for you if you could have found irrefutable evidence for faking.

You state



We are not comparing like with like here.

Vermeer fakes and the Grinnels have been reproduced in order to copy an existing rare painting or stamp.

In my case and I am sure you will appreciate, we are looking at faking and counterfeit DIRECTLY on an item. So we can safely disregard this example of yours.



Not quite correct, I have proved that my stamps originate from plate 73 and I have also proved scientifically that they have not been tampered with.

The onus is certainly on those advocating faking to prove and provide undisputed evidence that these stamps have not been faked, no one including you has done that yet.

The adage which I believe still applies:

Innocent until proven guilty clearly does not apply here.



Not so much an 'idiot' as you say but someone who was instructed to carry out this alteration either as part of an experiment that failed or even a misunderstanding at the printers.

I have said it before closed minds never champion progress. Philately as I am sure you know abounds with the unusual and the incredible and this is just another example of this.

Abed H Najjar

I have followed this thread with great interest and am amazed at some of the commentary here.

At this point I must point out the flaw in your statement. Your assertion is that the change from 3 to 7 is deliberate to create a forgery. Frankly I would be surprised if this is so. From personal experience by my own mistakes and that of others this sort of change is an apprentice mistake.

Or it may be a practical joke by the engraver in order to cause the dissension that has been displayed here. Obviously he is not around to appreciate that if so.

Suffice to say the exemplorary work undertaken to study the paper has proved to my satisfaction that they cannot have been changed subsequent to printing.

At times like these I wish we had time travel. umm now there's an idea for a thread.

Be well and keep calm.

Feebletodix

Ah Abed got there first and I defer to him on this

_________________
Weaponsmith for the DemiGods from the plane of Silliness

I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist. A brand-new explanation, with apologies to Steven Moffat:

------------------

The chairman of the expert committee watched the stranger with an air of bemusement. According to the credentials he'd waved at them, he was an acknowledged specialist from -- some place that sounded Irish? Now he thought about it, he couldn't quite remember what they had said. The man looked too young to be an expert philatelist, although he certainly dressed eccentrically enough, bow tie and all.

"I'm sorry, you're who again?" he asked helplessly.

"Yes. Er, that is, no. Sorry. Dr John Smith, pleased to meet you." The stranger waved distractedly, and then returned to examining the penny reds with a small hand-held gadget that emitted a blue light. "Thought so," he muttered. "Why does she do this ..." He turned to them. "Right. Thank you very much. Got to go."

"But -- wait a minute, are they genuine plate 77's?" cried the chairman as he left.

The strange man paused as he reached the doorway. "Yes. Well, in a manner of speaking, anyway. Not quite as the printers intended, obviously." He gave them a wild grin, adjusted his bow tie, and left.

*****

The curly-haired woman stepped away from the slot outside the post office in St Peter Port, into which she had just dropped a letter. By listening carefully, she could hear a wheezing, grinding noise coming from somewhere nearby. "Brakes, dear," she muttered. There was an enigmatic smile on her face as she turned to meet the man that had just appeared from down a unfrequented side street.

"Well, well, look who it is. Fancy meeting you here."

"I got the message. Again," he said grumpily, adjusting his bow tie. "Why can't you just use your phone?"

"It's not as much fun," she replied. "Anyway, I knew you'd work out where and when I was. Earth, Guernsey, November 27th 1865, exactly as it said on the postmark. What could be simpler?"

"And if it had got thrown away before anybody looked at it?"

"Oh, I ran off a whole sheet when I broke into the printers. Post a letter a day and one of them is bound to be discovered." She rolled her eyes at his disapproving expression. "Don't worry, I put it back the way I found it afterwards. Ten minutes work with an atomic rearranger."

"That wasn't what bothered me," he said, obviously trying to keep a smile off his face.

"What was, then?"

"You know perfectly well what. It's a good job they hadn't invented sonic-responsive inks in the early 21st century. When they do, they're going to be extremely confused to find an overprint reading Hello Sweetie."

Pretty silly comparison. Art forgers have always existed.

Science has uncovered them all.

What worked 70 years ago will not work today.

Abed



Surely didn't the Royal certificate of 13 September 2006 simply just tell you that or did you have that information before submitting to the Royal. If so did you disclose it to the committee prior to submission.

If you knew prior and did not disclose, then arguably that might be a little mean-spirited, creating additional work for the committee to do. Or perhaps you were "testing" them to see if they knew their "stuff?"

At the PF we did not have the reference necessary to come to that specific conclusion - so Plate 73 is not mentioned on the issued PF certificate.

Kindest regards, Richard

Feebletodix



You don't see changing something with a value of maybe less than U.S. $5 to a value of maybe now U.S. $2,000,000 (after the SG sale of a real one to an Australian) no financial motive for chicanery.

Kindest regards

Richard Debney

Highlander



Highlander, you hit the nail on the head with this one. I have called this the logic argument though I now refer to it as the philatelic argument which I just do not believe can be defeated.

Kindest regards, Richard

I'm sure most of Joe Public in 1865 may not have been aware of any little numbers on either side of the stamps but you can bet everything you own that every single person having the remotest connection with engraving, printing and producing the stamps new.

So to suggest an apprentice made a mistake 480 times presumably prior to swift and instant dismissal. Enter master engraver who changes them all back to nice little 3's.

Wait a minute, what about the sheet we printed in error after our now sacked apprentice misunderstood your request to repair the plate?Would you like me to destroy it or maybe we could just send it to Guernsey.

Like Richard has asked too I will ask again what if anything did you state the stamps to be when submitting them for expertisation. I recall it is customary to state what you believe a lot to be when submitting.

Indeed can it not be taken at times from the certificate itself and the way it is written. Hence the fact the Royal states "are not from plate 77" is relevant.

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

Let me ask you a serious question - have you EVER submitted an item for Expertisation???????

If you have, and if you filled out the same form as I have, it says simply -

"Information desired"

The submitter asks a question, not gives the opinion.

The PTS does that. That is what you pay the 100 quid or whatever for. THEIR opinion.

If it were me submitting it, I'd have asked -

Information desired - "That it is GB, 1858 SG 43, part cover bearing 3 1d red stamps, each showing number 77, cancelled 324 numeral of Guernsey".

The PTS is free to add as little or as much extra detail, as they see fit.

admin

By PTS, I assume you mean B.P.A.

The B.P.A. does not have submission forms whereas the Royal and the PF do.

Kindest regards, Richard

1.45am, and the brain is fading .. correction, yes RPS not PTS.

The form simply asks for - "Information desired".

Nowhere does it ask or encourage any other info FROM the submitter.

Capetriangle and Highlander



Whether I did or whether I didn't really does not make any difference.

The first thing an expert expertising a 77 would do after suitable preliminary observations is to compare the corner letters with stamps from plate 177 where most fakes come from and then perhaps from plate 71, although the plate number 71 on stamps from this plate are most distinctive. If there is no match then the expert would proceed to look at other plates.

I have no doubt that the Royal did just that and having matched them to plate 73 concluded that they have been faked from this plate. Their reasons for faking are of course common knowledge.

The PF as we have been informed did not do that because they had no reference.

Talk about Lincoln, paintings and apprentices and a whole load of conjecture, while makes for interesting reading, is quite pointless and will not achieve very much.

The main task that you should both be trying to do is to provide solid and irrefutable evidence that my stamps have been faked and this sadly is something you have both failed to do.

Abed H Najjar

Hi there,


Richard, you have taken my comments out of context.

They were made in the context of an alteration to a plate before printing and as such are valid and in the same temporal context your observation of current market value being the motivation is irrelevant. At the time of printing they would have no idea what the market value would be 160 years later.

Highlander, that is a big assumption to make that all of the numbers on the entire plate were changed. It is possible a limited number of changes were made to plate 73 and then corrected once the management discovered the mistake. In such cases where I have had to correct other people's mistakes it is common for the management to sweep the matter under ther rug after discipling the member of staff involved.

Since a minor alteration to the plate number for whatever reason would not invalidate the use it is quite plausible for the printer to despatch the sheets for sale, since it in no way affects either the buyer or the GPO. The management would insist on rectification and would not waste a usable product because of cost and the fear the GPO would find another supplier if they admitted to it.

Regards

Feebletodix

_________________
Weaponsmith for the DemiGods from the plane of Silliness

Feebletodix



This is brilliant. Thank you.

The only thing I would add is yes, it may have been a mistake but it may also have been an intended experimental plate 'marker' on some plates that ended up to be very much a 'bad idea'.

Would you record a blunder or a bad idea? I doubt it.

Abed H Najjar

Abed



I, for one, regard that a task already accomplished, the science of RSSL and Professor Hall, the independent analysis of FinstP, all confirming the observed result.

You do not like it, you mention, more science to come...University of Geneva...and the "one more extremely important report."

When are these two reports going to be divulged...they would seemingly be an opportunity for you to contradict FinstP.

By keeping them secret you might appear to some as though you are acting as some sort of "stamp-tease." Mozzerb has also asked to see them too, so it is not just me.

Kindest regards, Richard

Capetriangle



I am astounded to see you think that the RSSL and Professor Hall agree with you!! I certainly can assure you that they do not.

This is what you said:



This is what the RSSL have said:

"I can confirm that by using a range of microscopy techniques (i.e. stereo light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy using secondary and back-scattered imaging modes), we found no evidence in terms of fibre disruption (such as deliberate tamper by scraping, cutting or adding fibres) during topographical examination of the second ‘7 diamond’ regions on all three stamps."

"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."

This is what Professor Gene Hall said:

"This in reference to your Penny Red, Plate No 77 stamp in which I had the privilege to perform elemental and chemical analyses on the printing ink and paper used on the stamp. The analyses were performed in my instrumental analytical chemistry laboratory here at Rutgers. 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 allthree stamps. In addition, the chemistry of the inks surrounding all “7” are identical except for differences in concentration which is due to the resolution (40microns) of the X-ray beam used to analyze the area which would show concentration differences on a micro scale."

How on earth can these two independent bodies be confirming your 'observations'?

For good measure this is what Robert Radley M.Sc., C.Chem., F.R.S.C., F.S.Soc.Dip., F.A.E., R.F.P. said:

"Similarly, I do not consider that the scientific evidence supports the comments of the Philatelic Foundation concerning the reasons given for their rejection of the cover in question.

7.(iii) I find no evidence of substance to significantly support the proposition that the stamps in question have been modified by an obliteration of a numeral ‘3’ from a ‘plate 73’ stamp and subsequent alteration of the ‘3’ to a numeral ‘7’. The technical difficulties in modifying a ‘plate 73’ stamp to a ‘plate 77’ stamp are immense and from a detailed examination of the cover in question, I find the combined evidence is inconsistent with such a procedure having been adopted."

As far as the independent analysis of FinstP is concerned please refer back to my post of Fri Jun 01, 2012 01:45:07 which fully addresses his opinion.

I honestly think we should now let matters rest and allow those who are making good progress in finding out information on the plate repairs to take priority on this thread.

Abed H Najjar

The only explanation that immediately springs to mind (other than pique, of course) is that they are being kept in reserve as a hole card in ongoing negotiations with an expert committee. Abed? Tests with results that aren't available for inspection by anyone else might as well not have been done.

Incidentally, Richard, regarding the reports on the Missionaries that you mentioned: I've asked before for more details. Obviously if they really do show that the repairs are not apparent under high magnification and close fibre analysis -- a very big claim -- that would go a long, long way to demonstrating your contention that Abed's reports don't prove non-tampering either. But again, a mere statement that this is the case is pretty useless.

Abed

I am not going to concede the science issue to you. I have said before "both sides claim to have science on their side." and I am fine to leave that there. (at least for the time being)

However, you appear not to want that, insisting that you must be correct at every possible opportunity.

Your scientific qualifications far exceed mine, you are a qualified pharmacist, IIRC, but they do not exceed those of FinstP, a British University Professor, the head of a University department, specializing in thin films and coatings, and who, of course, is educated to the PhD level.

We await the release of the University of Geneva report and the "one more extremely important report" you have mentioned before.

Kindest regards, Richard

mozzerb

Regarding the repairs to the Hawaiian Missionaries, the ones that would have been undetectable to PF experts had it not been for before pictures, the statements I have made about these are anecdotal.

You would have had to have been a fly on the wall on the PF office, circa 1995, when the "Honolulu Advertiser" Missionaries were being examined, been able to have looked down our Bausch & Lomb stereo microscope after hearing comments from my former expert colleagues.

Now, it was from a former senior expert at the time at The Philatelic Foundation, William T. Crowe, that I first heard the term "European Craftsmanship."

The repairs themselves often involved the turquoise-blue frame lines being added to and the stereo microscope showed the paper fibers in perfect alignment, similar to Abed's SEM micrographs.

I believe there are some cases in auction catalogues or in the F.F.E. series of handbooks where before and after photographs are illustrated, mainly for covers, IIRC. I have no current access to this information.

Similarly, anecdotal, of course, is the statement made by Abed regarding the discovery of the part cover. We have no way to test his statement in this regard.

Kindest regards, Richard

Ah, OK, thanks. Doubtless these would be in the philatelic libraries. In fact, someone I know with a large personal library may have them (I seem to recall that he's mentioned them before) -- I'll ask.

mozzerb

Try in "Fakes Forgeries and Experts No. 1," (a publication of the A. I. E. P.) and an article entitled "Wondrous transformations" by Albert Louis and Karl Albert Louis.

This article shows work done on Great Britain material, IIRC.

Kindest regards, Richard

I haven't been able to follow this thread 100%, but several have mentioned the idea of supervisors "covering up" the issue and sweeping it under the rug.

Would there have been archives that could be searched for employment records of engravers? Were they part of a guild or other professional organization? I do not know how well these were maintained back then (unlike today with a computer paper trail) but if cases can be found related to individuals employeed (or formerly employed) around this time it might help build a case. Particularly if there was a guild or professional organization.

From a purely stamp scientific approach, it may be impossible to prove one way or another. But perhaps by examining other aspects of a case the suspected outcome can be narrowed.

Fascinating topic either way.

-Jason

_________________
Development Owner of - [*] Stamp Image Bursting Application - http://www.drakeserver.com/
[*] Stamp Album Page Generator - http://code.google.com/p/stamp-pagegen/ - [*] Stamp Web Editor

As posted on this thread before by others far more knowledgable than me on this subject, this plate 73 was recorded as repaired 31st January 1866.

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

Abed

Quote:

How on earth can these two independent bodies be confirming your 'observations'?

I see "yellowish," Professor Gene Hall identified lead chromate (common name chrome yellow), Professor FinstP, said lead chromate is the key. His independent analysis confirmed my observed opinion from x-ray mapping, commissioned by you, performed by RSSL.

Why on earth cannot you leave it, as "both sides claim to have science on their side."

You could then concentrate on the fanciful philatelic argument with the GB line-engraved specialists convincing them that it is possible to have two types of Plate 77 stamps, the established ones and the Abed's, the Plate 73 hybrids.



Assuming Highlander is correct with the date of the Plate 73 repairs, are you now going to claim that all the postmarks on the part cover are misdated i.e. whilst they look to be 1865 they are actually 1866.

Kindest regards, Richard

Richard

In my post of Tue Jun 05, 2012 04:40:48 am I suggested 'we let matters rest now' and you replied



but now I note you kick off again with the science. So please accept my thanks for allowing me to reply about FinstP and the so called 'yellowish' that you see.



Professor Hall who identified the lead chromate in the first place clearly said that it was not homogenous and 'DID NOT FORM A PART OF AN OFFENDING INK'

Your FinstP Professor who you suggest backed up your faking allegations, said that the stamps were painted white with titanium oxide and Barium sulphate. He said that both were present in 'high concentrations' and then 'spotted in the outline of a '7' with lead chromate. In fact Richard both titanium and Barium were present as trace elements and there was no trace of any titanium oxide or barium sulphate found

Richard. It is a fact that this did not happen.

As far as the yellowish shade you see, I must admit that neither I nor anyone I know who has seen it, and many have, can see any shade difference.

In any event if you do see a shade difference then this could only be caused by the differential absorption of light wavelengths by the chromium ions which are notorious for this phenomenon. Chromium ions do behave differently under both white light and IR light and as we know trace chromium does exist as trace lead chromate. The very weak lead chromate peak can be seen on the Raman trace at the c.830cm-1 point.

Richard, as I suggested before let us please leave the science aside for now and focus on the plating research.

You also said:



The recorded repair date is not 1866 but 1868 (two months or so before plate 73 was partially defaced!! However I have no doubt that repairs on this plate went on well before this date.

Abed H Najjar

I was wondering about that ... I remembered it as 1868, although checking back, I see pertinax gave both dates in different posts. I assume one was simply a typo. Losing track here, so were you using pertinax's date as I was, or did you have another reference?

Mozzerb

The repair year date of 1868 for the 1d plates 72, 73, 80, 81, 85, 90 and 100 are recorded in the Line engraved book by ED Bacon. I presume they come from the PB record books.

Abed H Najjar

Abed



Well, by far the best example of this, shows in the europhil post of Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:17:32 pm. The stamp in question, SK, left hand panel, has been shown before in Glen's posts but at a magnification level where the height of the stamp occupies the width of the thread. In europhil's post it is shown at a significantly higher magnification with approximately five of the lattice-work diamonds showing. All these scans, I believe were supplied by you to Glen, so nothing to blame white light for there.

Kindest regards, Richard

Richard

We are grasping at straws here. One highly pixellated image which you use as evidence that five '3's have been altered into five '7's by abrading and painting!

Richard I have the cover and I can categorically tell you there is no shade difference that can be regarded as extraordinary in any way.

Abed H Najjar

Yes, that was europhil quoting from one of Glen's posts. While yes, I can actually see a yellowish tint in that one, I suspect that's an artefact of some colour munging having been done on the image -- note the odd greenish tint at the top where the perf tips/envelope are?

I was simply using Pertinax's date . The apparantly later date though I would suggest as less beneficial to any argument that the plate was "repaired" in 1865 some 3 years prior to recorded repair.

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