The following article by Dudley Davis was first published in “The Australian Stamp Monthly”, June 1, 1954.

Biggest row ever to develop in philatelic circles in Britain has arisen over what is now generally called the “Sperati Affair!” The trouble arise; from the different attitudes adopted by certain stamp dealers, philatelic editors, and ordinary collectors toward the three announcements released to the world’s press by the British Philatelic Association on March 19.

On that date, the B.P.A. announced that the entire stock of Sperati’s forgeries had come under it’s control; that the Association would soon stage an exhibition of its reference collection of Sperati items; and that it would later publish a record of Sperati’s work.

The book will list all stamps and cancellations imitated by Sperati and the edition will be limited to 500 copies. These will be available only to members of the B.P.A. or of the Royal Philatelic Society, London. Price will be £20 and with each volume will go a reference collection of Sperati material of about that value according to Sperati’s list prices. Each specimen would be indelibly marked on the back.

There has been no noticeable criticism of the B.P.A.’s action in acquiring the stock. Had it not done so, some individual would no doubt have paid the price and then sold these “works of art” as genuine stamps. To this point, all agree that the B.P.A. acted wisely and well in the interests of philately. But beyond this, there is divergence of opinion.

One group, led by Stanley Gibbons Ltd. and Harris Publications Ltd. (Philatelic Magazine and Philatelic Trader), and supported by such well-known dealers as, for instance, W. Houtzamer and Dr. Paul Wolf, say in effect “burn the lot and put them out of circulation once and for all.”

Philatelic Magazine, for instance, writes. “The fact that each specimen is suitably marked on the back in what is claimed to be indelible ink, is, in our view, a totally inadequate safeguard against abuse. If these items are to be allowed to get into the hands of private individuals then a far safer and saner method of defacement would be to perforate them.

Far better, however, would be to limit their distribution to Expert Committees, Study Circles, and the various reputable philatelic societies, in whose hands they would remain accessible solely for reference purposes. The rest, together with all the paraphernalia concerned in their manufacture should be destroyed!”

To this, Philatelic Trader adds another thought:

“Even the best collectors do not live for ever,” it says. “Sooner or later their collections come on the market. Therefore these reproductions are certain to change hands at some time or other, and who can look on the back of every stamp when quickly examining a collection, particularly if it happens to be stuck down?

Opinions differ, moreover, as to the efficacy of any so-called indelible ink against the efforts of an expert interested in removing it.”

Above: Sperati forgery

The B.P.A. and its supporters, which include “Stamp Collecting,” “Stamp Collectors’ Fortnightly,” Mr. Robson Lowe and others, maintain that the more collectors see and know just which stamps Sperati imitated, and what his works look like, the more readily will they be able to distinguish reproductions already circulating, when such come on the market.

Additionally, it is pointed out that the B.P.A. has drawn very heavily on its finances to prevent this material getting into unscrupulous hands.

“Who,” asks “Stamp Collecting,” “was to pay for this bonfire?”

The Association must recoup its outlay in some way and the method proposed is that which was adopted by the Union Philatelique de Geneve in 1928 in respect to the Fournier forgeries.

A further argument against the B.P.A. proposals was advanced by “Philatelic Trader” in these words:

“The national Press is being invited to a preview, and there is considerable concern as to the way in which the way Press will handle their stories.

Any publicity about fakes and imitations is likely to undermine the confidence of the collector and some of our more sensational daily newspapers, in their search for an eye-catching headline, are not likely to bother too much about the niceties of what is and what is not a genuine stamp. Surely this is the wrong way to publicise stamp collecting.”

An editorial in Robson Lowe’s “The Philatelist and Postal Historian” gives the opposite view. It says:

“The uninitiated might think the fact that clever imitations exist would upset the confidence of the collector. The opposite is the case. The character of the collector leads him to adventure. He is anxious to discover things and the fact that a clever forgery exists incites him to study both the genuine arid the imitation and so acquire the knowledge that will enable him to detect one from the other. It is not overstating the case to say that the flood of forgeries that were so prevalent in the latter part of the nineteenth century was the real reason that turned stamp collectors into philatelists.”

Quotations from writings of Sir John Wilson and the late Fred J. Melville are given to support this view and the editorial concludes:

“It is our opinion, confirmed by that of hundreds of collectors of all classes. that the study of Sperati’s work will do much to encourage collectors to examine their treasures more closely, thus stimulating their interest, improving their sense of philatelic appreciation and bringing them added pleasure in this remarkable hobby!”

There are plenty of references to the “Royal” in this wordy storm which might lead some to suppose that it is joined with the B.P.A. in this venture or, at least, that it supports the move. It is only right, therefore, that I should quote the official statement, authorised by Major K. M. Beaumont, President of the Royal, which says:

“The Royal Philatelic Society (London), as such, is not participating officially in the exhibition of Sperati reproductions, nor in the disposal or acquisition of these.”

So the battle rages. Stanley Gibbons Ltd. resigned from the Association in protest and has been followed by the noted philatelic auctioneering firm of Harmer, Rooke & Co.

Robson Lowe has severed business relations with Harris Publications Ltd., as a mark of disapproval of its criticism of the B.P.A. scheme, and his publications will therefore not be sold by the Harris organisation when present stocks run out.

Most collectors stand on the sidelines and daily wonder, “What’s new in the Sperati Affair?”

FOOTNOTE TO SPERATI!

A correspondent of an overseas contemporary writes: “I have what I think are some reprints of a forgery of an original Sperati copy of a Seebeck. Have these been demonetised?”

The Editor’s reply was: “No, but you were when you bought them!” W.P.G.