Newfoundland #1 Block ?

Thanks rogdcam and Germania,

I appreciate the sharp insight. Summarising:

- Die: although there are slight differences, the quality of the die is still impressive. Better than any catalogued engraved forgeries.

- Paper: The dimensions are different from any known issue, so it can't be printed on stamp paper. The paper is high quality and hard, and there is little ink absorption, producing a high relief and realistic print, with good colour match.

- Plate: the plate layout is different from the original, so it is unlikely to be printed from an original plate.

Conclusions:

I can only think of two possibilities:

1. Rogue printing from an original die: the die was created by Perkins Bacon, and they did print a set of unauthorised trade proofs in 1929. I don't think this piece matches any of the known Perkins Bacon proofs, but I guess it is conceivable that further prints were made at the time or some other time. But it is unlikely that they would have escaped notice from the philatelic world.

2. Modern Forgery: as described by the VGG article which archerg provided a link for. The method for creating the print is not described, but I would guess it must be something like a high resolution digital scan used to create a laser etched die, and then printed by a hand press. It would take a lot of know-how and dedicated effort to accomplish this, but I guess the forgers were motivated enough to pull it off.

I am guessing that the latter would be the most likely explanation. Not sure if anyone else could offer any better explanation. Thanks for all the feedback.

I strongly believe that the original block of 4 that Bobr34 posted is a very good forgery. If you compare it to the block of 4 that rogdcam posted, you will distinctly notice in the bottom left corner numeral 1, that the frame line is broken. The spacing between stamps is too perfect and the paper type is also not correct.


Trodent

Why do you not go to this web page

https://bnaps.org/study.php

and send a scan of the item to the Newfoundland study group listed there. I am sure you will get a definitive answer. When you have one please let us know.

AQ

Thanks Anthraquinone,

I just recently joined the BNAPS. It is a good suggestion to send it there if I am looking for further feedback. But I am now convinced convinced that it is a modern forgery. The observation made by Trodent is a good one. The broken frameline in the bottom left corner is perfectly copied on all impressions. This would only be possible if the defect were in the die, but we know that legit stamps don't have this defect. It must be a defect in the forgery die used to make the impressions.

I am pursuing further information about the origins of the stamp, and will post more details if I am successful. Regards, bobr