This account was written some time after the fact and the actual stamp refered to in the text is illustrated in the main section. (Stamp RB). The original account of this meeting has been copied from the hand written text by my father and all appears in blsck type with some of the text as links to illustrate certain points. Text which appears in red italic type jas been added by us as we now feel that these points are incorrect.

     In the 1964 - 1965 season, I purchaced what I thought was a One Penny Black from plate 9 from Robson Lowe auctions. It was described as such and I was very pleased with my acquisition, particularly from such an illustrious source.

     A few weeks later I was reading an article by Robson Lowe about forgeries of plate 9 One Penny Blacks, which when checked against my purchase showed all the indications of being a forgery.

     I contacted the auction house and was invited to go and see Robson Lowe himself. When I went to see him I was shown to his office where he asked me to sit down and discuss the stamp, which he had asked me to bring along. He said straight away that it was indeed the items which he had sold in the auction, that it had been wrongly discribed and that if I wanted, he would reimburse the full cost. Following this he said that he was pleased to see that someone reading his article could identify the forgery and we then talked about the way that they had been produced. As we discussed certain point, he illustrated what he explained with actual items from his reference.

     Following the discussion, we had a coffee and he asked if I would like the cost of the item reembursed, the item replace with a genuine Penny Black from plate 9 or if I would like to keep the item I had purchased. I decided to keep the original purchase. He said that this was a good choice as he felt that this forgery was part of industrial Britain in several ways. He also stated that the forgery was rarer than the original and would eventually realise an equal price, if not more.

     This forgery came about during the industrial revolution. The invention of the photographic process, and the fact that the stamps were black, made this an ideal item for reproduction. He said that it would seem that the original that the forgery was achieved from was an unused block of the original plate 9 stamps from state 1 as they all show the O flaw stage 2.We now belive this to be wrong as our original purchase does not show the O flaw.

     The process was to produce a negative on glass coated with silver preparations, which was then exposed to light whilst in contact with the original block. This was then developed by disolving the blackened silver chrystals on te glass and leaving a negative of the penny black images on the glass. The paper was then prepared in a similar method. It was coated with silver preperation and was then exposed to light through the glass negative. When developed this left a reversed image on the paper, ie. a reproduction of the penny black. This was then a very accurate copy of the original and showed exactly the same flaws as in the original printing.

     The forgeries have a mat black surface print of the photographic process, unlike the raised ink surface of the original line engraved stamps. He then concluded the following .....

1. Forgeries of the mint stamps are very rare.
2. Forgeries with a red maltese cross are the most commonly encounted but these ar scarce.
   These examples do however show a variety of shades and shapes to the maltese cross.
3. Examples can be found with a black maltese cross but these are less common than those found with red crosses.

     He also stated that he had seen two examples, one with a washed blue cros and the other with an almost chestnut brown cross. He felt that diffrent individuals had put the crosses onto the impressions at a later date. Also he noted having seen multiples, all with a red cross, the largest being a block of 6, (two rows of three). The other item he noted, which he stated he had only seen one off, was a cover. He said that the cover appeared genuine but that the stamp was certainly a photographic forgery. He concluded that he felt that none had ever defrauded the Post Office as they were probably made circa 1860 - 1865 to dupe stamp collectors, as the hobby was becoming very fashionable at this time.

     The reverse of these forgeries was also made to look like the original stamps and has a reproduction of the small crown watermark. This was created by using a stencil through which wa applied some form of waterproof substance. This, when dry, was washed over with a stain, (he noted possibly something like weak tea), which when it dried looked like the colour of the paper which has had patatoe gum on it, leaving an impression of the small crown watermark in the stain.

     Another type of forged reverse was noted which is similar in respect of the stenciled small crown watermark, but has the staining applied by what seems to be a crayon or pencil. This staining is also greyer in colour. A third type was also known where no attempt was made to reproduce the colour or watermark on the reverse. On these the paper varies from white to grey due to the natural ageing of the paper.

     These forgeries are becoming very difficult to detect as they are almost as old as the original stamps. This is understandable as were such good reproductions initially and there is only about 25 years betwwen the production of the originals and the forgeries. This problem becomes more difficult with the variety of backs and the various cancellations and is compounded when thins and hinge remainders from previous mounting are taken into consideration.