The important documented repair of 1868

“At times the recorded facts just do not make sense. The late repair date of ‘1868’ to the first plates is one example. This research is aimed at demonstrating that repairs to the early plates were carried out well before the recorded date of ‘1868’. In my opinion, the ‘1868’ repair date is far too late for the repair of plates that had reached the end of their printing life. I do understand that changing a mindset is not easy. The documented data on the early plate repairs has been taken as gospel for decades. In fact this data has been quoted by Christopher Harman RDP Hon FRPSL on behalf of the Expert Committee in his Plate 77 article published in the July-August issue of The London Philatelist. Even if accurate, this date certainly does not mean that earlier repairs were not carried out.”

http://victorhugocover.com/the-important-documented-repair-date-of-1868/

Abed Najjar

The engraving book

When writing, Chris Harman referred to the Perkins Bacon engraving book. It should be remembered that this is a primary source and should only be put aside when solid evidence contradicts. Chris Harman also suggested that all repairs were recorded in this book, which I disagree with. It was in fact unusual for repairs to be recorded at all with most being undocumented, which makes an inclusion even harder to dismiss. There is in fact no reason to doubt what is written, and not too much should be read into the fact that some information is missing.

Mr Najjar’s last comment is correct. For example there were in fact repairs made to plate 85 (the A row) about two years before the final repair, which is not mentioned in the engraving book. However, careful discernment is needed.

Why the late date?

Mr Najjar emphasises the fact that the repairs to these plates took place at the very end of the plate’s life and the number of sheets printed after repair was proportionally very small. The main thrust of his argument is “why bother?”. The answer is simple. It was a quick fix to tide them over a shortage of usable plates at the start of 1868.

Looking at the plate registration history, there was only one plate registered in 1865 (98), and nine plates registered in 1866 (99-107). All plates up to and including 103 were put to press during 1866. That left them with only four plates in reserve available to use. At the start of 1868, they started to use those four plates and made a push to produce new plates. 108 -111 were registered 23 March 1868 and put to press the same day. Plates 112 – 116 were registered 12 May 1868 and again put to press the same day. 117 and 118 were registered and put to press immediately 9 June 1868. It is only when plates 119 – 124 were registered on 15 August, were these plates put into reserve and used as and when needed. Repairing plates 72, 73, 80, 81, 85, 96 and 100 during February bought them enough time to allow for the new plates to reach the presses. Granted, they may have only produced 10-15,000 sheets a piece, but that is all that was needed to bridge the gap. Pulling old plates 'out of retirement' was certainly nothing new for Perkins Bacon. They did exactly the same thing in July 1854 when they needed to catch up with the requirements. The plates brought back into use at that time only printed around 6,000 sheets each.

Evidence that the engraving books are accurate is the fact that finding these later states is a difficult job. They certainly exist, but are scarce. If, as Mr Najjar believes, these repairs took place in 1865, then stamps in the second state would be plentiful. Referring back to plate 85, the A row was repaired some time in 1866. The chances of finding stamps in state one and state two are roughly equal. The A row was also repaired at the 1868 repair as mentioned the in engraving book. These third states are very scarce.

The correspondence between Perkins Bacon and Ormond Hill show that this is an accurate picture of what was happening during this time.

"... I have just received a message from you through Mr Peacock urging me to take steps to prepare plates faster. But here again, I must urge that you are calling on us to make bricks without straw. I quite admit that we are blamable in letting so many of the plates at press become worn without a sufficient stock to replace them, but the fact is, I have left it to you to condemn plates (through your agents), and have exercised no supervision in the matter until I was surprised to discover incidentally that plates which I considered quite faulty were still at press..." Bacon Vol 2, p151.

JP Bacon to O Hill, 2 April 1868.

Repairing the plates would not have held up work of new plates, as a completely different transfer press was used for repairs.

Rejecting the late repair just because it does not seem right is an error, especially when it contradicts a primary source. The relative scarcity of these later states is also an incredibly strong argument for the late date.

Plate 81

" “By this time the plates were worn and thus their case-hardened surface would have become very thin. This permitted the re-entry of the necessary impressions that would have proved exceptionally difficult for the plate in its early, case-hardened state. It should be remembered that the Victor Hugo cover is dated 27 November 1865.” [Chris Harman]

In order to dismiss this statement the imprimatur Plate 81 block JH-JI, KH-KI illustrated below has been specifically chosen for three reasons in order to illustrate that major repairs to some of the early plates were carried out around 1865. Three years before the documented date and the very year the Hugo cover was sent.

1- It features the very important broken right hand figure ‘8’ which resembles a reversed figure ‘3’. This broken number is identical on each stamp on the whole imprimatur sheet of 240 impressions.

2- My research shows that the impressions from plate 81 show repairs to the plate number which produced a complete figure ‘8’ on all 240 impressions three years before the documented repair date of ‘1868’.

3- Evidence of the repairs does not rely on the wear to the impression."

http://victorhugocover.com/the-important-documented-repair-date-of-1868/

Abed Najjar.

I believe that Mr Najjar has completely misunderstood the state of these stamps. The block of four in grey scale is from a photograph of the imprimatur sheet. This is the very earliest state of the plate and, as Mr Najjar states, shows the broken 8 on the right side of each stamp. An explanation of the method used to insert this number into the design is in order. An unhardened transfer roller is pressed onto the hard die so that an impression is taken in relief on the circumference of the roller. This impression does not have a plate number at this time. This raised impression will later be rolled into a flat printing plate, which will allow the plate to hold ink and print a sheet of stamps. Any part of the roller that is level with the roller's surface will not cut into the flat printing plate and will result in an un-printed (white) area on the stamp. In order to make the white '81' on the penny reds above, the engraver had to cut out the numbers by hand removing metal from the impression on the roller to bring the area in relief down to the surface of the roller. When complete, the roller was hardened and used to impress multiple images into the printing plate, all showing the same plate number.

In the case of plate 81, this operation was not completed correctly, as insufficient metal was removed from the right side of the right hand 8 to bring the metal down to the surface level of the roller. It was still slightly in relief, and therefore the resulting impressions on the printing plate could hold ink at this point, blanking out the white area. As Mr Najjar points out, all 240 impressions on the imprimatur show the same flaw.

Mr Najjar then refers to the rather nice block of four shown above "showing ‘8’s that have been repaired." Some examples are shown with a complete 81 dated 1865, which attempts to show the date of this supposed repair. Plate 81 was put to press in March 1864 and by 1865 had started to wear slightly. If we compare the block above with the imprimatur impressions, we can see that the thin ink blurs found in the white margins between the stamps has disappeared, and details on the crown and face are starting to thin.

Were the stamps shown in the block repaired?

There do not appear to be any classic signs of a re-entry: no TRL's; no firming of the details of the background or face; no firmer sides to the stamp. The only difference is the appearance of the full 8 on the right. There is another point that rules out repair by re-entry. The undercut 8 would have still been present on the roller, the reapplication of which would have strengthened the flaw.

The obvious answer is that the small amount of wear the plate suffered was enough for the level of the printing plate to be lowered enough to reach the level that the engraver had cut down to. Looking at the two stamps from the I column, the 8 is fairly clear of ink. Yet look at the H column stamps, especially JH, and you can see a smear of ink at the right side of the 8s. The wear had only just reached the critical level at this point.

A hand repair of the 8s over a year into the plate's life seems would seem a very remote possibility. I do not believe it would have been in any way possible on a hardened plate, certainly not on all 240 impressions as Mr Najjar points out. In fact there is not one recorded case of all 240 stamps on a case-hardened plate being repaired apart from plate 155, and that was unique in that it was softened beforehand.

Here is another example from Mr Najjar, which shows the progression of wear from the imprimatur, to an intermediate example, onto another later example with a fairly clear 81. What we are seeing is a progression of wear over a period, not a sudden improvement as would be seen with a repair. I do not understand Mr Najjar's comment "Evidence of the repairs does not rely on the wear to the impression."

Here is an example of plate 81 dated just after the repair date for this plate (31 January 1868) and thus is almost certainly one of the last examples printed in state 1. It shows a weak head and a full second 8. SI can be found in state 2 where the upper S has been restored by hand and has altered it's appearance. State 2 is scarce.

In my opinion there is no evidence of a general repair in 1865. Neither is there any reason to doubt the late 1868 date for the repairs.

Next page - Forensics

AP

June 2018