Aldred Forgery Of GB Penny Classics

Probably the best forger for my favourite classics...

https://www.ebay.co.uk/ulk/itm/264229902670

Very convincing! What can you tell us about Aldred pennyblackie?

Do any originals exist, with such differences in letter type?
The C and the H are radical.

Looks like Michael Aldred.
EEbay

Not a lot is known of Michael Aldred in terms of his biography etc. The following is what he had to say about his forgeries in his rebuttal to Tonkin:

Firstly I would emphasise that, without exception, I have we offered my material as forgeries and have always described them as such. This being the case, I have no moral issues whatsoever with their sale. My intention was to produce these items purely for interested collectors (and to give me an interesting diversion in retirement), and I am saddened to learn that there are criminal elements out there in the philatelic world who are prepared to doctor my items and attempt to pass them off as genuine.
It was certainly never my intention to become a 'Lowden' or 'Stock Exchange' forger. If it had been, then it is clear that since my earlier material has duped even the most experienced individuals (who see many rare covers on a day-to-day basis), then I would now be Britain's most infamous philatelic forger with a small fortune in the bank. If I had been so-minded, then what could I have got for, say a 1929 PUC FDC with the full set to £1 with 'Congress' cancels? Outlay £400? Sale price £12/15K.
I'm surprised that much of my earlier material has been considered by the trade to be genuine, since I always incorporate subtle clues in my covers to confirm that they are forgeries. For instance, take my forgery of the 1929 Postal Union Congress low values FDC with 'Congress' cancels. They are all addressed to G Hamilton-Smith at Stanley Gibbons. Hamilton-Smith was indeed a director of SG, but he died in 1926, three years before the issue of the PUC stamps. In addition, I deliberately distended the '0' of '10 AM' in the cancel. Many other covers are on modern as opposed to period envelopes,  have cancels of an incorrect size,  have fake addressees, non-existent addresses,  and the like.
It is clear to me that in many instances even rare covers are taken at face value, without any serious scrutiny or research.
I utterly reject Mr Tonkin's assertion that because I have offered items for sale that can be doctored by criminals into 'genuine-looking' items that I have committed a 'criminal offence'. I can't be held liable for the criminal acts of others. If this were the case then just about every stamp dealer in the UK could find himself liable to prosecution. There is much material for sale on ebay other than my own which can be doctored by the criminal fraternity for financial gain.
For instance, would you say that a stamp dealer commits a criminal offence if he sells me a mint 1841 Penny Red to which I subsequently apply a forged Channel Islands Maltese Cross cancel to it and pass it off as genuine? Whether or not the item initially sold is genuine, a forgery or a replica, or whatever you wish to call it, is entirely irrelevant, culpability rests with the individual carrying out the deception.
Although I do not believe that I have any legal obligation to do so, in an effort to assist the stamp trade, I am voluntarily removing my covers from sale.
If the problems are as serious as you say, then I would suggest that the publishers of the major stamp and FDC catalogues should be asked to insert footnotes in their catalogues warning collectors of the existence of my material.
I am now going to have to think of some other things to do with my time, although I shall continue to offer naive replicas of GB stamps off cover. I would emphasise that these are produced reprographically - not from a printing plate. They are all on modern, unwatermarked paper and in most instances the perforation gauge is incorrect. If anyone is duped by these then they should either spend more time studying stamp catalogues or take up another hobby.
I will contact the Royal Philatelic Society to see whether they wish to have specimens of my work for reference.
A copy of this letter has been sent to Bill Tonkin and Tony Buckingham.

Michael Aldred

If these forged stamps are on covers with no possibility of studying the watermarks, it can be very hard to tell they are forgeries. If he can forge the stamps so well, forging the cancellations would be a piece of cake for him.

Just from reading this thread, it seems as though the fakes shown, are pretty 'fresh' looking and high-quality stamps and/or covers. Correct me if this is not his normal MO.

For the early 19th century GB stuff, that seems like a good litmus test: if it looks overly fresh, or clean, then more scrutiny is needed. That should be the rule of thumb anyway, but even more so because of these.

The bigger problem then would be the newer, 20th century material, which could legitimately look clean and fresh, and that is a definite problem.

txstamp, for early line engraved gb stamps, design, paper and watermarks are the main areas to focus when determining authenticity of a stamp. For modern gb stamps, we have other features like phosphorised paper which I believe is harder to forge. Of course if a forger is willing to invest in technology, nothing is impossible.

The printing on these looks pretty convincing.

Does anyone know how they were done; are they laser copies?

Reprography:

https://infogalactic.com/info/Reprography

Thanks Bobby. Interesting site. Still, it doesn't specifically address how the "duplicating" was done in the case of Mr.Aldred. The nuances of shade in the background of the two pence Victoria stamp make me think the equipment used is pretty sophisticated, and not something you would buy off the shelf at a "big box" store.

Anyone keen to study this further can actually purchase a copy of the forgery on ebay. In time to come, an Aldred forgery will probably become a rarity in itself.

Greetings from Michael Aldred. Interested to read the postings related to my work. I've collected stamp forgeries for a good number of years now and have amassed a sizeable collection. My initial purchases were items such as the 'Stock Exchange' and 'Lowden' forgeries. I then branched out into the works of Sperati and other well-known producers. Some forgeries, of course, are very poor and readily identified. Given the fact that I have a number of practical skills, I wondered whether I could do better myself. It seems that over time I have. However from the outset there was never any intention on my behalf to sell items as the genuine article. If there had been then I think I would now be languishing in a villa in a tropical climate somewhere. I always describe and endorse my items as forgeries or facsimiles. However, some of my earlier work was not endorsed as such, since I believed that subtle clues I introduced, (particularly in the case of FDCs), would be readily spotted, particularly by the trade who handle material on a day to day basis. Clearly this was not always the case and unfortunately some items were considered genuine by auction house describers and were sold as such. Where I have been able to identify such instances I have advised the auction houses concerned. It's made for some interesting 'phone calls. 'Lot 1254 you sold on....' 'Yes.' 'I made it.' ..... Joking aside, this was, of course, very serious and very regrettable.

How do we know you are the genuine Michael Aldred ?
Some on sale page 43
https://buckinghamcovers.com/downlo...9reduced.pdf

ha! Will the real Michael Aldred please stand up?

Is Roland56 a forgee or the forger?