TUVALU AND THE LEADERS OF THE WORLD – A PHILATELIC SCANDAL

Compiled by Brian Cannon
Word processing by Amanda

Due to so much use of this one article by numerous collectors, dealers and forum users insisting on using it to enforce their inaccurate and biased opinions on stamps produced by the Format International Security Printers as a whole, I have added notes to this article showing the inaccuracies, exaggerations and false statements included within this article which has created much of the controversy over the stamp issues produced by this company in the 1980's.
Until my research on the Format Printing company went public, this article was the only source of information on the company that was available to the public on the internet.

I do not wish to portray Mr. Feigenbaum and associates as ethical or moral in any sense with the production of stamps as far as creating "errors" on purpose. I only wish to show that the compilation of articles made by the Exporter were indeed made with bias against the defendants because they were proven to create "errors" for profits. In a legal sense, the defendants proved they were allowed to produce them via signed contracts. With only the contracts and a few letters used as evidence on the defendants side, the thousands of documents and approximately two tons of stamps that were confiscated and used against them by the prosecution did nothing to find the defendants guilty of any crimes.
The trials actually exposed what the majority of philatelic agencies and stamp printers have been doing since the 1960's and are still doing to this day.

Because of the bias (which is understandable) against the defendants in this trial, the compiled articles use inaccurate statements, over exaggeration of evidence, hearsay and in some parts complete fabrication of non truthful wording.

Because of this one article that was placed onto the internet after the trials, public opinion has been swayed into believing that the Format printers are the only ones guilty of producing "made for collector" errors and varieties. This is simply not true and is easily shown just by what is being sold on the market and what is surfacing in recent times. The standard practices of stamp agencies and printers around the world is to destroy all documentation usually within a year after stamps are issued. This is why the documents used in the trial are so important. Nothing like them has ever been made public before or since the trial.

If The House of Questa, Waddingtons, Cartor or any other printer were placed in the same situation, it would be proven that they to were producing made for collector errors and varieties in the same way. Some not to the same extent, usually creating watermark errors and flyspeck flaws to others that have created "errors" like inverted overprints and such on a massive scale far beyond what the Format Printers did. I show this evidence on other pages on the website.

I have all of the evidence to back up my notes on this page. You may ask what evidence that is....
It is the trial documents used by both sides which can prove everything I note. It is therefore not to wise to try to challenge me on it because as some forum leaders (you know who you are) have tried in the past to disprove what I state, I can easily override it with the documents. Therefore, unless you have documents that can be proven as official there really is nothing you can challenge this with. Words are just words as much of this article is compiled from.

Here we go!

This statement makes the reader think that Philatelists limited secured a contract with Tuvalu in 1975. They did not. The British Crown Agents got the contract. Philatelists Ltd. got the contract starting in 1977. Two stamp agencies that are competitors do not run contracts with the country at the same time. Philatelists Ltd. and the British Crown Agents were competitors. They were never "partners".

This section of the article is based on a writers knowledge from hearsay. If the writer knew anything about the contracts at all they would have known that Philatelists Ltd. contracts do indeed give the country all the above mentioned amenities but their percentages are fabricated I suppose out of the writers own head. The contracts gave the country a specified quantity of stamps for free for use inside the country. The agency had a specified quantity of stamps produced that they would sell to the worldwide market. The agency paid the country a specified and agreed to amount for each issue that was produced for that country. The country was free to profit from the quantities issued to the country as long as sales were restricted to inside the country only. The agency paid for all the amenities mentioned above. They received nothing from gross sales of stamps sold within Tuvalu and the islands. They held no "shareholding" in any "government" anything.
The contract gave the government of Tuvalu an established income that was a dependable source of revenue and was at the time almost their sole source of income for the country.
This is proven by the actual contracts shown as evidence in the trial.
That is right...I have a copy.

Here the article makes you think that Philatelists Ltd. was involved in Tuvalu's philatelic affairs in 1976. Stating Philatelists Ltd. "also" took over control of the designing and printing" and so forth. Until the 1977 contract went into effect Philatelists Ltd. had nothing to do with anything in Tuvalu! They were not about to invest time and funds into giving Tuvalu a philatelic bureau without a contract!

Right here is proof of fabrication and conjecture by the author. The statement "dates of contracts and their details are not known" basically blows the first part of this article apart because it shows the author does not know anything about the contracts at all.

Here also the author shows his true intent in the article. To exaggerate, fabricate and get you on his side of his personal agenda to devalue the stamps and defame the defendants. Stating "During that year alone" for example. The use of one word can formulate a subconscious feeling in unknowing readers and the author uses it in quite professional way throughout this article. Indeed the number is correct of stamps that were issued that year. What the author does though is to include every stamp not noting they were in matched pairs (image stamp plus detail stamp) thus cutting the number in half. The author does not note also that the majority were for the eight different islands or as some relate...atolls...of Tuvalu. I also note that he includes the Automobiles issues in the count as well.

Note the gaps in time in the above portions. 1977, 1980, 1983, next 1987.

Also in January 1987 the London and New York International Stamp Company Ltd. (LYNI) and Philatelic Distribution Corporation Ltd. (PDC) paid £300,000 for the right to reprint certain stamps whether reprinting was subject to the Tuvalu Government giving consent is not certain.

The Government of Tuvalu entered into a contract with Philatelic Distribution Corporation Ltd. (PDC) in June 1987. PDC under a further agreement purchased from the Tuvalu government some 16 million stamps for £65,000. Over 2 million were alleged to be flawed.

A further contract, which was to give rise to litigation, was made on the 17th of October 1987 between PDC and Tuvalu. Tuvalu gave PDC strictly defined rights to design, produce, sell and distribute thematic stamps for Tuvalu and its Islands. Clauses in this contract required stamps to be produced “under the supervision of PDC by a security printers acceptable to the government” and required PDC to “uphold the integrity of the Government”. PDC used the printers, Format International Security Printers, Ltd.

This section is a slurry of sentences about "contracts" which the writer uses to make you think he is knowledgable about them.
The first part stating about the £20 million in stamps. Here you see where Clive Feigenbaum (the enemy) comes into play. What you don't catch, is that it shows up until 1987, he was not involved with the reprinting of LOTW issues.

Now what is really interesting is this. Note the £20 million that was "purchased" by the UK solicitor. Then note the PDC's purchase of 16 million stamps for £65,000 from the Tuvalu government! Get it? The author has used wording to make you think about it in a twisted sense. The first part should be "£20 million face value stamps". The purchase by PDC for £65,000 was the "buy back" of that same stock! the author proposes that the UK solicitor was to "dispose" of the stamps making you think he was going to destroy them. It is all twisted up.

The fact is that Philatelists Ltd. collapsed. The fact is that the Format Printers got into financial difficulties because Philatelists Ltd. collapsed. Association with LOW issues were only a fraction of what the Format Printers were producing for Philatelists Ltd. for countries all over the world. The UK solicitor was representing the newly formed Philatelic Distribution Corporation. The LOTW stamps and the rights to them were simply transfered over from one agency to the other. The new agency (PDC) made a new contract with Tuvalu and the reprint agreement was part of that contract! The author wants you to think that Tuvalu might not have given "consent" to it. They signed, they "consented", and they lost this trial because of it!

In this portion of the article the author tries to make you think that something new happened with the PDC "using" the Format International Security Printers. during the years 1977 to 1987 Philatelists Ltd. used Format and the House of Questa for all printings of Tuvalu stamps. There is nothing new here. PDC just continued to use the same printers.

Here is one more note on this section. Now if Tuvalu did not want "flawed" stamps being sold of their issues....why did they sell PDC 2 million "alleged" flawed stamps. What was the PDC going to do with them. Admire them for all eternity??

“all and any stamps or other articles of Philately and all plates dies artwork materials and other goods....bearing the name of Tuvalu or any of its islands and produced by or for or at the direction or at the direction of any of the Defendants.”

It is here that nobody knows the true facts of what really happened and why the contract with PDC was terminated.

From the trial documents on the defense side of the trial was shown a letter sent to the Tuvalu government dated March 1, 1988 written by Mr. Clive Feigenbaum representing the PDC stating that the Tuvalu government had breached the contract by offering their stamp issues that had been given to them for free for resale in their own country through various ads by competitor agents and dealers to the worldwide market.
Also proposed by the letter was changes to be to made to the contract with Tuvalu to drastically reduce the number of issues being produced for the islands because of bad publicity and non listing in the major catalogs.
This would have been a major blow to the financial income that the Tuvalu government was enjoying over the past ten years from stamp revenues. Being a major source of income it would harm their economy and lining of certain parties pockets within Tuvalu and thus because they knew they were about to lose it, in a desperate attempt to possibly gain one more large financial sum, they started this trial by the accusations noted and filed on March 3, 1988.
The letter basically blew Tuvalu's accusations of breaches apart!

Here the author winds up with accusations. The author consistently uses the word "flawed" stamps. The "flawed" stamps were not all "flawed". They were the limited imperforates, Specimen overprinted and progressive color proofs used for promotions of the series. Yes, 3,000 sets missing color or misperfed were also ordered. That is a lot less than 14,000. I have the invoices for them that were used in the trial. The invoices show the breakdown of what was ordered.
The author uses tactics of vagueness to make you think that Format continued to breach court orders by printing more Tuvalu stamps that were stopped. The stamps being reprinted were protected under the reprint agreement and thus the Tuvalu government lost the case.. Even the mentioned album pages were covered. Therefore in a legal sense the above proposed "breaches" were not breaches at all!

The author tries to portray the reprinting of 21,000 sets as something massive when indeed it was simply a series of LOTW trains for the Tuvalu islands which indeed adds up to the amounts shown. 21,000 sets is the clue. Each set having eight stamp pairs. Add them up and yes, two million stamps, so what?
"This was essentially a repeat of an order".
Nothing of the kind. Earlier orders are for different series and different countries. It is conjecture by the author to make you think the printer was repeatedly ordering the same stamp issues be reprinted over and over again.

Here the author tries to make you think something terrible is happening! Format is printing Tuvalu stamps!
Look at your catalogs. Format printed Tuvalu stamps all the way up to August of 1988 under contract to do so. Of course they had a "substantial" quantity of Tuvalu stamps that had just been printed in April. So why didn't they take them on the spot? Because they couldn't. So they came in a few weeks later and cleared out the archive. Big deal.

In July, 1989, Mr. Feigenbaum, as Chairman and Managing Director of PDC was held guilty of contempt of the court in breaching the order made on 3 March, 1989 and was committed to prison for three months and fined £3,000. F. Hughes, Managing Director of Format and Roger Apsey, Stock Controller of PDC, were given suspended sentences and fines of £750. They were ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis.

Clive Feigenbaum appealed and on the 20th of October, 1989, the Judge of the Court of Appeal "felt the imposition of a prison sentence a very grave punishment" in view of Mr. Feigenbaum's "good record and character". The sentence of three months imprisonment was quashed and there was not order for costs.

First either by design or it being a typo error the order breached was not in 198"9". It was 1988. Indeed Mr. Feigenbaum was held guilty for contempt namely because the director of any company is the one that is named the guilty party when an employee or employees do something considered in contempt of court orders. Apparently an issue or issues were reprinted that were not included in the reprint agreement. Upon the appeal Mr. Feigenbaum had to pay the £3,000 fine but the jail sentence and the order for costs which was £100,000 were quashed. Again an attempt to get money by Tuvalu....failed.

The Philatelic Exporter, Editor and Publisher Graham R. Phillips, June 1992, Pg. 4-5

Some misprints here. 1890s? Let's see, how come The House of Questa isn't on the list? They printed for Philatelists Ltd. and PDC also. Talk about misplaced watermarks, Questa made tons, literally. And what are "imports"?

The Defendants and the Charges

Here the prosecutor obviously makes things look as bad as possible as all do. The author also is in the same state as he will write and show all of the negative aspects to sensationalize the article. Indeed the colonial governments did not order the stamps at all but were given quantities through the philatelic agencies. The agencies are all guilty of ordering varieties of stamps and using them to promote their agendas which was and is to this day for profits.

Police Raids

Here is the use of hearsay. He said she said. Much of the error material that was produced was indeed destroyed. Print orders show that errors were requested but to this day that issue has no errors on the market. Many times "errors" were produced for a set but only one value was used and the other values destroyed. Evidence is now proving many printers have and are doing the same thing to this day.

"Alleged".

Indeed and they more than likely were. This would be the 1988 fish 2nd issue. It is kind of funny because you can look in Stanley gibbons Western Pacific Specialized catalog and see that both the stamps in that issue are listed with inverted watermarks. Now why would Stanley Gibbons list them when Mr. Smith admitted they were purposely made? Oh, that's right.....it was ordered by the Crown agents so therefore they must be ok whereas, if the PDC had ordered them, then they surely would not get listed right?
Proof is now readily available that the House of Questa and other printers were doing the same thing on a massive scale. Check out my page on the 1981 Royal Wedding issues. They just never got "exposed" in a trial. The stamps that are on the market today are all the evidence you need to know this as fact. Stanley Gibbons was heavily involved with Urch Harris, the PDC, The House of Questa and the Crown Agents. But we don't want to bring all that up.....right?

Let's see, large quantities of stamps seized. Yes. Bogus stamps in a stamp dealers study. Maybe we should raid just about every stamp dealers study in the world! I think I have some bogus stamps lying around too! That's right, about 1-2,000 forgeries of LOTW issues printed recently (2014-2015).

Of course he was. He owned some of the companies and financed them. Stamp production does not involve just one company you know.

As they are to this day.

This shows us a witness with prior animosity to the defendants was used. We already know that this witness was in charge when the financial problems Format was having was happening. It is under his watch that the failure of Format to survive occurred. His animosity toward Feigenbaum is completely understandable and this is what some refer to as the "bitter takeover by Feigenbaum". His testimony is therefore biased and indeed should not have even been considered as evidence.... which in the end....was not. On a footnote the three Peeling was referencing was none other than the founders of Questa. Hughes was his partner with Caldew.

Afraid he knew Feigenbaum long before then. Shipments to Urch Harris ect.

Obviously the money was good. This went on for years before PDC. Contracts allowed the agents to request varieties "at their discretion to promote sales".

According to financial records there was nobody owing Format anything near £900,000 ever. Peeling was "bought out" by Feigenbaum. The date here is again wrong. Philatelists collapsed in 1987 not 1985. All in the archived financial documents at Companies House in the UK. You can get a copy on CD for 20 pounds.

Of course he did. Agents have been ordering varieties for years! Nothing new here.

He was talking about the Reprint Agreement. The exclusions were for "limited edition" color proof presentation folders and various limited edition souvenir sheets. Again...the reprint agreement closed this case.

From The Philatelic Exporter, Editor and Publisher Graham R. Phillips, July 1992, Pg. 3

Aart Lagerwaard (Real name is John) was a sworn enemy of Feigenbaum's. The letters he sent to the Tuvalu agency show that he was trying to start his own agency and "take over" production of stamps for Tuvalu. Notes written on the documents show that the officials considered him odd and refused his "self invitation" to visit them to explain himself and his plans.

These were wild and misleading statements made by him. The contract allowed for varieties and anything else the PDC deemed plausible to promote the stamps of Tuvalu. Feigenbaum fired him. In his letter to Tuvalu he states he resigned. His words were all hearsay. Not one to believe that "nobody at the PDC supported Feigenbaum".

Indeed he was not a trustworthy person. Considering he is the one who wrote and designed the Leaders of the World Cricket Players proposal which was basically under the same design as the Leaders of the World Trains and Cars proposals. Considering his under handed attempts at stealing the contract with the Tuvalu Bureau.
Here again the author seems to try to twist the truth. After throwing tea and punches and showing you "cannot be trusted" do you think for a minute the "big boss" isn't going to fire you?

Here we have a complete fabrication of facts and a lie. It is a simple fact that 3,000 progressive color proof sets were ordered and produced by the printer in full panes for just about every issue the Format Printers made at that time. From those panes 250 Presentation Books of each value from certain sets were made. They were numbered and certified that only 250 of them would be sold in that form. Here is where the lie comes in.
The rest of the St. Vincent Locomotives panes were confiscated by the British Metropolitan Police for use in this trial as evidence. The panes were then "held" in the British Metropolitan Police warehouse until 2008 when they were released back to the owner.
They were then sold to an eBay seller who sold them all over a 6-8 month period in 2012 in random lots of 25-100 panes. Where do you think I got the images for the color proofs in the specialized section for the Saint Vincent LOTW Trains? I was one of the buyers! So you tell me....how were they "sold" before Lagerwaard's testimony??

Here the author twists the statements. Inverts are not varieties. Taking two separate statements and combining them to look like Feigenbaum was talking about the inverts. Fabricated by the author to enhance the article.
I note that until 2014 no "inverts" of the 60th birthday issues have "ever" been sold. In that year, they appeared on the market in force. The only thing is....they are forgeries. Never made by the Format Printers. They are completely different in color, paper and gum and are made using a coarse screening making the images of the Queen "blurry" along with the rest of the "stamp". Check out my "Modern Fake Stamps" section to see them.

From The Philatelic Exporter, Editor and Publisher Graham R. Phillips, August 1991, Pg. 3

EIGHT CLEARED OF "DELIBERATE ERRORS" FRAUD

It is interesting here that the following section does not explain why Tuvalu and the prosecution after the months of raids, tons of evidence and reams of documents lost the case in a four hour deliberation by the jurors.
Really it is quite simple.
The contracts allowed them to reprint the stamps and the contracts allowed them to produce varieties of those stamps. There was no evidence of them claiming the "errors" nor the varieties were "accidently" produced.
It is obvious that if Tuvalu had won the case they could have sued and obtained all the stamps to resell and produce more profits for themselves until they could retain another venue of stamp income. Luckily for them they had signed into a trust fund program with Australia and others. Possibly forseeing the failure since they signed in August of 1987.

Most people don't even catch this. "All were awarded costs". That means that all the defendants court costs were awarded back to them. I would think that was a substantial amount!

And those dealers are the ones they should have gone after. They are still making false claims today!

Indeed profits were good for varieties as they are to this day. There are many countries today running their programs on "open contracts". Just look at what is being produced in the way of varieties by them.

And there you have it. What these people did is what has been going on long before they were involved and it continues to this day. Now we have the U.S. post producing 2014 right side up Jenny Airplane "errors" selling for thousands of dollars. Many countries producing imperforates, Specimens, color proofs and just about everything else under the sun. All being produced for collectors to buy. What Clive stated above is exactly what has been going on. Therefore it is only because of this trial and this compiled article which is obviously written in a biased sense that stamps, varieties and errors produced by this printing company have been shunned by collectors and dealers all these years. In comparison to what has been produced and sold by many printers and agencies past and present, what was produced by Format pales in comparison.
The bottom line to this article is that if any number of other printing companies or agencies were to be placed on trial like this, they too would be exposed for doing the exact same thing! Therefore whole sections of stamps in the major catalogs would then have to be shunned as well. Especially stamps produced from the 1970's to now!

brian@tuvaluislands.com

TuvaluIslands.com

All Content Copyright © 2013 Golowe's Collector Stamps, All Rights Reserved

Return to Format International Security Printers Reference Homepage Here.