Origins

“In view of the fact that the three stamps on the Victor Hugo cover showing a plate number 77 originate from plate 73, the spot light should now be shed on all the other accepted stamps in order to see if they actually originate from Plate 77 or from other plates as with those on the Hugo cover. With this in mind below are some details on the only two possible origins of the genuine stamps.” 

http://victorhugocover.com/origin-of-plate-77-stamps/

Abed Najjar

There are three assertions made within this introduction. 

• 1. The stamps from the Victor Hugo cover are from plate 73.

  2. The other plate 77 stamps should be checked to see if they too are from plate 73.

  3. Because all of the plate 77 stamps are from plate 73, the only two possible explanations are described below.

Let's have a look at these points one at a time. 

Firstly, the stamps from the Hugo cover are from plate 73. I absolutely agree with this. How can we know? The four check letters found in the corners of the stamps were punched into the printing plate by hand. Because the job was manual, no two stamps from different plates show the same corner letters in exactly the same position. All of the corner letters on the Hugo stamps match the letters found on plate 73. Therefore, the stamps are from plate 73. 

Next is the implication that all of the other known plate 77s could actually be from plate 73. This theory has already been disproved. A prominent collector of penny plates spent rather a long time at the British Postal Museum comparing the corner letters of all known examples of plate 77 with every single imprimatur sheet. The only comparison that came close was PI plate 81. But even here, they were not identical. None of the known plate 77s matched any stamp from plate 73. This proves that those stamps generally accepted as coming from plate 77 were in fact from plate 77. We are therefore dealing with two very different stamps: those printed from 77 and those that are 73/77 chimeras. 

Another feature that was noticed by Scott Treacy surrounds the plate numbers found within the diamonds at the side of the stamp. Some explanation is necessary. In order to engrave the plate numbers so that they showed up as white areas on the finished stamps, it was necessary to take the still soft transfer roller and engrave the numbers within the side diamonds. The roller was then hardened in the usual way. Because this engraving was completed by hand, it allowed for the possibility of slight differences in the style of the numbers. In this instance we can see slight differences in the plate numbers between plate 73 and plate 77. 

Picture source: http://victorhugocover.com/border-lattice-work-comparisons/ 

Looking at the left side of the stamps, the left hand 7 shows a slight droop from right to left. On plate 73 (the bottom stamp) the cross member of this 7 is perfectly horizontal. 

Looking at the right side of the stamps, the left hand 7 shows a slight shortening of the cross member. It is probable that the engraving on the roller was not deep enough to bring the metal up to the surface of the finished plate. 

Plate 77s exist. Mr Najjar's stamps do not fall into this category. 

Point 3 states that the two options mentioned below are the only possible explanations if all 77s are in fact 73s. However, this has been proved to be incorrect, which I feel allows for alternative theories to be put forward. However, since two possible theories have been put forward, let us have a look through them. 

Origin 1- From the Plate 77 Trial Sheet

There is an important point here that needs to be clarified before we can move on with the discussion. The phrase “trial sheet” is too obtuse for our purposes. 

When Perkins Bacon prepared a new printing plate, the quality of the engraving had to be approved by Government Commissioners. This authority was granted by signatories signing the reverse of the sample sheet, giving their 'Imprimatur', which basically means 'Let it be printed'. This sample sheet – the imprimatur - was then held at Somerset House as a record of that authority and as being a true copy of the printing plate. 

Mr Najjar states: 

“We can safely assume that Ormond Hill must have handled, examined and rejected the Plate 77 trial sheet. This sheet (and any others) should have been destroyed. Now if this trial sheet was the origin of the accepted Plate 77 stamps then it clearly was not.” 

I think that there is a nugget of truth here, but we need to make sure we know what sheet we are taking about. The easiest, possibly the only satisfactory way of checking to see if a new plate would produce sheets that could be successfully perforated would have been to print and gum a sheet of stamps from the new plate and take it to Somerset House for perforation. I do not think that this suggestion appears anywhere within the philatelic literature, but to my mind this 'trial sheet' is the most likely source of the known plate 77s. 

As Mr Najjar states, this sheet would have had to have been accounted for as each and every sheet was carefully counted in and out, though if it had left Perkins Bacon, I would have thought it would have been included within the normal daily output. [If someone reading this is going to look at the PB archives at the Royal any time soon, I would be grateful if you would look at the accounts receivable book covering 1863. There may be some clues hiding there]. Presumably, it would have been accounted for within Somerset House. 

{Update 1 Oct 2023.

One of the dealers at Stampex gave me sight of a photocopy of a hand written letter (by Purcell, controller of stamps) confiming that a proof sheet of the plate was the likely source of the odd plate 77s in circulation. The gist was that this sheet got out and that 'it would not have happened on his watch'. The fact that this gentleman seems to be trying to cover his tracks suggests that he is being more candid than usual to clear his name. I believe that this confirms the 'proof sheet to test perforation' theory.}

Imprimatur sheets, as opposed to 'trial sheets' were not gummed nor perforated, but were accounted for individually by Perkins Bacon. It would seem that an imprimatur sheet for plate 77 was not printed, as it was not needed. 

Mr Najjar speaks about the date of this trial sheet being printed on or before 7th February 1863. This is quite correct. However, it should be remembered that Mr Najjars stamps are not from a trial sheet printed from plate 77, but are in fact from a sheet from plate 73. Therefore any discussion of dates and stamps “being held back” is an irrelevance. 

“Furthermore if this trial sheet is the source of the accepted Plate 77 stamps then all these stamps must show a pristine impression...” 

Well, the mint examples do look pristine. MI on the other hand could hardly be called pristine. But that would not be the point since it has been knocking about for 150 years. What is important is whether it looks like a print from a fresh plate or not. The answer to that question is yes. The lines on the Queen's face are intact, and there are slight ink blurs in the left margin. These blurs are common on new plates but tend to quickly disappear though wear once the plate has seen some use.

“...and of course, identically positioned and identically featured plate numbers and a Border-lattice that is identical on all of them.” 

I disagree with this. I have looked at the sideline comparison and see nothing that cannot be explained by variations due to the method of printing. Remember that the process of printing involved the inking by hand of the plate, the application of a wet piece of handmade paper, the whole lot being squeezed between the rollers of the press (hence the name). And then the whole lot had to dry and shrink.

Also taking a step back, the impressions on the plate all came from the same roller. But, each and every impression on the plate would have received attention from a hand held burin to remove the metal that had been displaced by the engraving process. And then the whole lot was hardened not very far from the melting point of the plate. 

One of the things that turns the study of line engraved stamps from being a science and into something approaching an art is the fact that no two stamps are exactly the same. Even if they are. 

Origin 2- From re-engraved impressions on other Plates from this issue

I would hope that I have done enough to show that the other plate 77s do not in fact come from another printing plate. We are dealing with two different categories of stamps: those from plate 77 and 73/77 chimeras. So when discussing this option, we are limiting our comments just to the three stamps on the Victor Hugo cover. 

“The three stamps on the Victor Hugo cover showing a plate number 77 have been scientifically demonstrated to be untampered with and originate from plate 73. This must points to the fact that the plate was re-engraved with the new number ‘77’ and later corrected by re-entry to its original number ‘73’.” 

I will argue the point about the scientific evidence elsewhere, but first, let us examine the ramifications of the possibility of re-engraving plate 73. Twice. 

But what does Mr Najjar mean by “Re-engraved”? There are two possible meanings here. 

• 1. The first is that the printing plate was re-engraved by hand to make the second 3s on each impression read as 7s. And then after one or more pages were printed, the process was reversed.

  2. The second alternative is that the transfer roller that had the 77 impression was re-entered into the impressions on plate 73, turning them into a 73/77 chimera. After printing a page or more the plate was re-entered again but now using the roller that held the 73 impression.

When looking into the possibility of option 1, we have to be clear of a fundamental feature of altering line engraved impressions. In general, you cannot add metal to a plate, die or roller – you can only cut it away. If you want more ink to show on the finished stamp, you have to remove metal from either the original flat die or the printing plate itself. If you want to show an unprinted (white) area of the stamp, you need to remove metal from the transfer roller. [This is how Perkins Bacon engraved the white lines seen down the sides of these stamps, by using a specially designed lathe that worked directly onto a transfer roller.] There is an exception to this rule. If, for example, a check letter was misplaced when struck, it was possible to close up the indentation made in the plate by rubbing the area with a burin in order to use the metal displaced by the strike to close the area. An oversimplification but, they pushed the metal back in the hole. Most of these instances are not perfect and leave tell tale signs such as 'double letter' varieties that are familiar to collectors. In these cases it has to be remembered that there has to be the excess metal to work with. 

Now turning our attention to the engraver faced with a raised area of metal in the shape of a 3 situated in a shallow. There is a distinct lack of metal for him to make use of! Yes, he can cut away the parts of the 3 that are not needed, but how is he going to re-create the parts of the 7 that are not already a part of the 3. Even if this were possible, then to reverse the procedure? On case hardened steel? No. This is simply too improbable. In any case, this would not be necessary, as the transfer rollers were still available. I am sure that Mr Najjar is referring to the second option of a complete re-entry of the impressions.

Interestingly and after the above was written I found Mr Najjar also showing (http://victorhugocover.com/plate-73-connection/) a low resolution scan showing how a gunsmith could change a 73 to a 77 on a steel plate. However, there are some serious omissions in this evidence. Firstly, as noted the scan is low resolution. Secondly, we have no idea of scale. Thirdly, the condition of the steel is not stated. I have no doubt that a skilled engraver could change a 73 to a 77 when working on unhardened carbon steel. However, I do not believe that an engraver could do this with a case hardened steel plate. Perhaps Mr Najjar would clarify this.

ED Bacon states (Vol1 pg60) that re-entries were performed on plates that were still hardened. A few philatelists including myself agree with him, although there is a camp that thinks that plates were softened before re-entry. The question that this second camp have to answer is why did Perkins Bacon not take advantage of those plates being in a soft condition and re-enter all 240 impressions of the plate before it was re-hardened? The only plates that were completely re-entered were some of those plates that were not hardened in the first place (1, 173-177). If the plate was still hard, Perkins Bacon would have continued to re-enter the plate until such time as the transfer roller was damaged. That was the limiting factor in the number of impressions repaired IMHO. Why not soften the plate? Because that is a very good way of completely ruining the plate due to the close proximity of the melting point of said plate. 

If I was to ask Mr Najjar His opinion of the above, I would imagine that he would suggest that only part of plate 73 was converted into the 73/77 chimera. I would suggest that re-entering impressions PK-TL (10 impressions) could have been a possibility. However, I would stress that this would have been a high risk strategy as plate 73 was still relatively young, with a largely intact case-hardened layer. This would be putting both transfer rollers at great risk, since after the impressions were converted into 73/77 chimera and some(?) sheets run off, it would have needed the reapplication of the 73 roller. 

One point. I have to disagree with one point that Chris Harman made (though I agree with most of what he has stated). He feels that the engraving book of Perkins Bacon will show most or possibly all of the repairs made by the department. From my experience, there are many repairs made that have not been recorded. Granted, some are, but certainly not all. Not too much should be read into the absence of a record of any work on plate 73. 

So, lets assume that Perkins Bacon used the plate 77 transfer roller impression to re-enter ten or a dozen impressions on plate 73. What would be the signs and implications of this? Immediately, there would be the stress caused to the roller impressions since the plate still had a large amount of intact case hardening in place. What about the plate impressions? Normally seen are the reinstatement of what are normally very worn impression details, especially the lines of the face, background latticework and the side lines of the stamp. Often seen on impressions that are re-entered are transfer roller lines (TRLs). Also, because the corner squares on the roller were blank, the check letters on re-entered stamps tend to become thinner due to compression.

Here we can see a close up of the Hugo stamps. There is no sign of any TRLs. The check letters look relatively strong. The lines on the queen's face are not particularly strong, in fact SK looks weak in this area. All three stamps are showing a pronounced weakness down the left side with the network being open. In short, none of these stamps are showing any signs of re-entry. Quite the opposite in fact as they are all showing signs of wear, which should have been corrected by re-entry. These stamps have not been re-entered.

According to Mr Najjar, the workers in the engraving room at Perkins Bacon then applied the roller impression showing 73, thus converting the dozen or so impressions back to what they had been.  This operation in theory should have (again) restored the impressions. There is a phenomenon that impressions that have been re-entered show accelerated signs of wear. This is probably due to damage caused to the physical structure of hardened steel. This effect would have been multiplied if the re-entry process was conducted twice on these impressions. I did read somewhere that Mr Najjar was looking for dated used examples of plate 73. If this is correct, it would be helpful to see what he has found, as the story described should be clear with a range of stamps with the same corner letters all from different points in the plates life.

Mr Najjar on looking into the history of plate 73 states the following:

"It is quite clear from these records that 66/67 heads on plate 73 were repaired by re-entry, although the published repair year date of 31stJanuary 1868 does seem very late indeed for major repairs to be carried out on a plate that has evidently reached the end of its working life. See later.

* The 1868 repair date in my opinion is in need of serious reconsideration in view of the discovery of the Victro Hugo cover."

and;

"The three stamps on the Victor Hugo cover may very well be an intermediate state between these two states."

I cannot see why this should be the case. There are dated examples that back up the official chronological history. The second states of plate 73 are documented, so why is Mr Najjar doubting this? He needs to show some evidence.

I am confused as to what Mr Najjar is arguing here. Does he believe that the impression was re-entered in its entirety, or does he believe that the change was restricted to the figure 3 in the second diamond? I am not convinced by either alternative.

Even if we accept that Perkins Bacon did change plate 73 to plate 77, we are still left with the question 'why'? What possible purpose would there have been in 1865? The argument goes that these stamps were valuable. I would argue that in 1865 they were worth no more than one penny each with perhaps a curiosity value. This is certainly not enough to risk damage to a live printing plate. This is just too improbable. 

Next page - The 1868 repair

AP

2016-23