Newfoundland #1 Block ?

Does anyone have any idea what this is ? Is it a plate proof block, or a trade sample or a forgery ? Here are some more details:

Paper: does not appear to have a mesh. Opaque hard yellowish white. Paper Thickness = 0.0045in. No Gum

Dimensions: 21.5mm x 22mm (H x V)

Print Quality: Very sharp compared to the #1 reference stamp in the photo. Strange vertical scratches where the ink did not fill in the solid colour space between the bottom left numeral and the letter O from One.

Interesting item, it's better examined in person rather than by image. The first question I'd have, is the item printed from an engraved plate like the originals. There are modern forgeries printed in a manner that simulates intaglio printing, but will not pass close inspection. It does not look like an old forgery or plate proof. The most likely outcome is that it's from a later 1861 / 1862 printing on hard paper.

Thanks archer ... I am not an expert, but it sure looks like a print from an engraved plate to me. The ink stands up on the paper, which is hard, with very little absorption so the line structure is very sharp. I tried taking another picture with side illumination to try to pick up the ink relief. I am not sure how successful it is, but have a look.

The only thing that doesn't look like an engraved print is the back side because I can't make out any indentations from the printing (maybe something but extremely faint). Maybe the paper is just too hard.

archerg ... here is another detail which I think is hard to fake. Two magnified pictures of the upper right corner clover leafs. The first is from the stamp in the top right corner, and the second is from the bottom right stamp. The bottom right stamp shows distinct doubling of the line structure, where as the top right stamp does not.

I will post 1 pic here and the next on the next post to keep the file size under 300k

Here is the second picture of the LR stamp in the block.

No matter the outcome, I complement you on the helpful posted pictures. Excellent job.

According to the 2024 Walsh Catalog

NFLD 1 - 1857 - Dimensions SHOULD be 22 x 22.5mm
NFLD 16 - 1861 - Dimensions SHOULD be 21.75 x 21.75mm


it looks like a forgery block of 4. The T in ST. doesn't look right.
The E in POSTAGE is to close to the frame line.


Trodent

Thanks Trodent for the comment ...

regarding the dimensions, I know the 21.5mm dimension in particular is problematic, considering the die is 22.5mm. But it is difficult to make accurate measurements with a loupe and a ruler. The dimensions provided by Walsh are in steps of 0.25mm, which implies a tolerance of at least +/- 0.1mm. I think the actual measurement is a bit higher, like 21.6mm, but I rounded it to the nearest 1/4mm. Add in the fact that there is no print bleed on this stamp because of the non-absorbing paper, so it will measure slightly shorter, so maybe it is equivalent to the 21.75 provided by Walsh.

I checked the forgery section in the Walsh catalogue as well as the listings on www.stampforgeries.com. Surprisingly, there are not a lot of known forgeries of Newfoundland #1, and the only engraved version is from Oneglia, not one of his better efforts, and clearly does not match. I see the differences you mentioned, but if it is an engraved forgery, then who made the engraving ? I think only Sperati would be capable of this accuracy, but apparently he never copied a #1. Also, the colour looks very close, which is rare for forgeries.

bobr345,

Thank you for taking time to share. I only collect Newfoundland so enjoy these posts.

Hmh... I'm sort of aligned with Trodent in particular the NSSC's information on dimension is a solid marker (rests on Pratt and other data), so I'd be considered about that. Apologies if you disagree. I'm not saying it is a forgery and the E and T sort of look ok but maybe not--hard to tell.

On the other hand, these are not supervaluable mint stamps, so not sure why a forger would bother.

I would ask about the provenance of the block (I feel it is just a block of 4 not a plate proof or anything) - meaning where did you get it, when and from whom?

Lastly, what does the back look like or tell us?

Thanks Tommy,

I appreciate your honesty. This is the purpose and value of this forum.

Here is a picture of the back of the stamp. It is perfectly clean and crisp.

As for the provenance, it is dubious. I bought it on ebay, from a seller in Canada, who does not have much selling history, advertised as a forgery.

I thought it was a forgery also when I bought it, but the colour is so faithful, and the quality of the engraving is such that I can't match it with any known forgeries. Perhaps, it is a modern forgery, but then I am fascinated to know how it was done, because it is masterful, and a bit scary for philatelists.

regards,

This information would have been a bit more valuable in the first posting. (Bold and Red added to your original text.) But an interesting thread, nonetheless.

Printed from a laser-engraved plate? I think maybe the printed lines would show a different, more rounded profile than those made with a burin.

The item bears some similarity to fake classic material that emerged on the market in 2022-2023:

https://www.greenefoundation.ca/new...e-die-proofs

I saw some of these in person. To the lay collector they would be dangerous. I'm not saying your block is this, just offering food for thought.

Thanks archerg,

Very interesting link to the technical report from the VGG foundation. It would be a plausible, and maybe the only, explanation that this item is a modern hi-tech replica.

I have worked in the graphics/printing industry for decades, and I can say with some authority that these are impressive copies combining geometric, texture, and colour accuracy. It would have required a significant and knowledgeable effort to find subjects, create the graphics files and execute the print.

I would like to know more about the printing process.

I marked up a block that RSAG sold. The blue areas show differences. The distance of the "E" of postage to the box is one. The ornaments around the flower elements are also different. The bottom frame line on the genuine is strong and unbroken. There are other differences, but I just picked a few.

The block rogdcam shows has very different spacing between the stamps compared to the block in question. That would make me suspicious that the OP block is real. Does anyone know what the stamp spacing should be?