Forensics

Unfinished.

Chemical analysis

Chemical analysis of one of the numbered diamonds - RSSL report, figs 6a-6e.

Source:http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8808&start=3050

"Elemental analysis of the second '7 diamond' region on each stamp showed that

additional trace elements were present, namely: lead, chromium, barium and

titanium. It was also noted that the elements aluminium and mercury were present

in significantly lower levels than in the surrounding print. X-ray mapping, combined

with SEM examination, demonstrated that the distribution of the elements in

question showed a clear correlation with the diamond lace pattern."

RSSL Report. Bold type, my addition.

Aluminium. Found in alum which was used as the paper size. Areas of the stamp that have been soaked in water will loose some of this, i.e. the white lines as shown. Other areas will be protected by the layer of ink. Why does second diamond show a lack? Was the ink removed?

Mercury. Vermillion was a pigment used on these stamps, and is made from a compound of mercury and sulphur. Being poisonous, it is not used now. Why is it missing from second diamond?

Titanium. An element that was a known contaminant found occasionally in the steel making process, but not used commercially until the early 20th century. Is now a common whitening agent in pigments. Why is it present in the second diamond?

Barium. The pigment titanium white is made with 30% titanium oxide and 70% barium sulphate. Why is it present in the second diamond and nowhere else?

Chromium. Commonly found in pigments. There is also a possible use as a mordant. Again, why only in the second diamond?

The simplest answer to these questions would seem to be that the ink present in the second diamond was removed, and a new diamond printed in it's place using modern pigments. This operation could not have been undertaken by Perkins Bacon for two reasons. Firstly, printing a sheet of penny reds was a one step operation. The same ink was used for the entire sheet, so the ink found in the second diamond would have been exactly the same as found elsewhere. Secondly, titanium was not used commercially within pigments until 1921 [http://www.webexhibits.org/pigments/indiv/overview/titaniumwhite.html] so has to have been added much later in the stamps life. The second diamonds are not contemporary with the rest of the stamp, in fact about 60 years out!

The scan above does not appear on Mr Najjar's present website.

Paper

Below are two scans of the paper behind two of the second diamonds on the Hugo cover.The contention is that there is no sign of paper disturbance. Well, there certainly is no sign of "cutting in", that is replacing one diamond for another with a differing number by using a scalpel. But this is a red herring if the ink can be removed by softening it chemically and removing with a small paint brush. In fact, if you look carefully at these scans, you can see some slight disturbances and can see the outline of each of the diamonds. The scan used on Mt Najjar's website is a different diamond than shown below.

Stampboards

Here follows links to screenshots of my last post at Stampboards.com that were deleted when I was banned. I do go into detail of the Radley report, which is significant.

"Scientifically speaking, mine should now be the yardstick for others to compare with. As we know philatelic experts have claimed that my stamps to have had bits of paper stuck on or have been sanded down and painted.

I have associated science in philately in a way few have done before and by doing so have put myself in the firing line. I do not mind that at all, because I believe in what I am saying and have the ability to respond sensibly. I hope the experts who will 'expertise' my cover will adopt the same approach."

Abed Najjar

http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8808&start=1300

Scientific research should be available for test. I have lots of questions to ask. Yet I cannot. If I cannot test the results, then I can claim that they are not scientific. I would also like to see the full reports of these experts and the briefs that they were given.

Next page - Philatelic expertisation

AP

2018