Penny red help please

I have to agree with Carmen.

Your comment on my post, for example, came across as priggish. I just ignore comments like yours!

Being assertive can come across as aggressive in forums. Folk shouldn't need to be assertive nor submissive, just friendly.

Folk are here to learn and share, including Julian.

Dear Alex,

If you ignore comments like mine why are you suddenly interjecting, the answer responded to was to Carmen and not yourself.

I agree with you wholeheartedly with the fact that people are here to learn and share, Trevor had had over1500 viewings in his plea for help and the only response had been from 1 person giving erroneous information, how can others learn from that ?, Or was my information incorrect ?

I can only hope that Julian and Trevor alike have learned something from the sharing of my information that I have given and nothing more..

As for being priggish I do have somewhat more experience on the subject than the two other people in question .

It's people like yourself that appear to prevent others from learning.

I can see that my knowledge of philately on this forum of yours is not required and will leave at your say so .

This site should be an area of enlightenment and not of erroneous information !

Yours respectfully, Fred.

Just to answer a few questions posed above:

Posts here are for all to read and comment on, the more the merrier. This moderator is a collector and not associated with the sites owner, Stamp Magazine. I responded to a request for help from Julia, the editor in days gone by, when the Magazine threatened to close it. Since I work instant replies are not always possible!

Regarding the original question from Trevor, I posed it to an expert who came back with:

You can see the Williams line on PE clearly so die II. Perf 16 so they must be C4 from plate 3 (=SG21). Also PE plate 3 is a constant variety. A different punch was used for the E which is larger than the other E's on the plate.

Imprimaturs PE PF plate 3.

The books by Roland-Brown you mention Fred, only cover die I.

Good evening Paul,

Part 5 does take die 1 to the point of 1855 as the last ones were put to press 22nd of November 1854, to be honest I only gave them a cursory glance and should have noticed that they were from die ll especially with the heavier shading under the crown.

Your expert appears to be on the ball with his assessment , however, it has taken nearly 3 years for Trevor to get his answer, had I not intervened the answer still wouldn't have been known.

It just goes to show if you persevere with an issue.

I have an interest in these issues but I'm no expert so it's nice to see an expert give his /her opinion without wanting to be paid.

I must point out that a joined pair could never be Die 1 and Die 2.

Hi All,

My oh my, someone getting upset with my ramblings, there's a first and I have not been here for a while and the first thing I open is this. I have always taken an interest with helping anyone even as I stated I had no real knowledge about the stamps. I'm not worried about your remarks Fred but the point is Trev may not have got the answer he wanted but at least I took the time to answer him and pay attention. Making a post and getting no answer is worse if you ask me but I expect Trev had a good chuckle as I had fun with most in here back then .

Nice to see Alex back and Carmen and Paul still here.

Julian

Julian I agree with you and emphatically, making a post and getting no answer is definitely worse, the majority of your observations at the time were very good, and the fact that only you out of over 1500 people that viewed tried to give an explanation, I view you as a good Samaritan.

Let us hope that there is no ill will felt between us

Keep up the good work all the best Fred.