Rod, I am simply agreeing with the long published research view from WA Study Group etc, and others that stamp #15 was probably a fake. Don't blame me
- I have NEVER owned it, handled it, or sold it, or ventured a view on it until today, as I had never looked carefully at scans, assuming someone, somewhere had verified it was a genuine stamp at the time in 1977. I have absolutely no
horse in the race.
Rod, you were working out of Melbourne where the great students and Australia States scholars resided, complete with superb libraries, and where the RSPV could one assumes, have readily issued a Certificate as forged - IF
The apparently clueless WA buyer did not bother to ask them either in 1977, and now owns a dud it appears. No wonder he does not want clear scans of it done!
If you are saying none of these very simple resources were consulted when offering a $100,000 type level rarity, that was hitherto unrecorded, and bought cheaply, and came with no cert - I am most surprised.
And NO, to answer your query - I have certainly never
offered a stamp of that value - or indeed even 10% of that that figure, as genuine, without taking some basic steps to try and verify its genuineness, where it was very simple to do at a glance, as in this case.
Rod Perry wrote:
Really? "excellent images" . . . in 1977?: such are generally not available now, yet alone in 1977.
I am just as surprised to read your claim there were no good images of the genuine WA 4d Inverted Frame stamps readily available in 1977. Pre internet, MANY
superb resources existed with good images.
"Stamps Of Fame"
of course was long published by then -
Indeed Williams took a great interest in this stamp and compiled the checklist.
This book below is on my bookshelf as I just bought one for stock. It was published before I was born.
It was sitting on your bookshelf, on Kellow's bookshelf, on Jaffe's bookshelf, and the Royal bookshelf, and many others down there in 1977. And doubtless on the Kohler Auction bookshelf in Germany. A quick look by anyone at that page would have convinced them #15 was a bad fake.
It shows a superb image of GENUINE Inverted Frame from the Royal Collection - photos below taken just now with my $100 handheld camera, as I am not damaging the massive and very expensive book to take scans of something you already own.
One can readily tell at a glance stamp the cut to shape #15 does not match this stamp at all. Total mismatch, on dozens of clear point of reference, even from the fuzzy 1977 scan. ALL genuine inverts of course match in all design data points.
O of "FOUR" totally wrong, even on the fuzzy 1977 scan, and many other simple data points. The distance of top of lettering from outer frame on genuines is FAR
wider at left than on the forged #15 cut to shape, as can readily be seen. Both are very simple visual tests. No design shading lines on fake in the water lower right, and many other screamingly obvious mis-matches.
No ''physical examination needed''
of either, to say for certain
, they do not match in any way.