THE
Stanley Gibbons Philatelic Handbooks.

SAINT VINCENT

WITH
Notes and Publishers’ Prices.

BY
FRANCIS H. NAPIER
AND
E. D. BACON.

STANLEY GIBBONS, LIMITED,
391, STRAND, LONDON.
1895.

THE
Stanley Gibbons Philatelic Handbooks.

SAINT VINCENT.

WITH
NOTES AND PUBLISHERS’ PRICES.

BY
FRANCIS H. NAPIER
AND
E. D. BACON.

London:
STANLEY GIBBONS, LIMITED,
391, STRAND.
1895.

391, Strand, London.

The large number of collectors, not only in this country, but also on the other side of the Atlantic, who now make the postal issues of the various West Indian Colonies of Great Britain the object of their quest, justifies us in believing that the present volume (the fourth of the series) will be received with as much interest as that which has been evinced for the preceding volumes.

The authors of this Handbook, Lieut. F. H. Napier, R.N., and Mr. E. D. Bacon, have in preparation a Handbook on the Stamps of Barbados, which we hope will be ready for publication in the course of the present year.

The prices quoted will in some cases be found higher than the prices given in our General Catalogue and Price List, but it must be borne in mind that those in these Handbooks are specimens of more than average quality, for it is a fact now generally recognized by all philatelists that a specimen in exceptional condition commands a higher price than that which rules for an average specimen.

We have priced only those varieties which we have in stock in certain quantities, but it must not be concluded from this that all those unpriced are of such rarity or value that we are unable to supply them.

STANLEY GIBBONS, Limited.

May, 1895.

SAINT VINCENT.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

The prehistoric times of Philately may be said to have ceased in 1863, when the publication of the Stamp Collector’s Magazine and the Timbre-Poste commenced. The few and meagre catalogues which preceded them in 1862—such as those of Mount Brown and Dr. Gray in England, Moens in Belgium, and Potiquet in France—can only be looked upon as archaic productions, interesting certainly because of their associations, but of no appreciable utility now-a-days to the student of stamps. It is, however, worthy of remark that the difference between imperforate and perforated stamps was then recognized, as they are distinguished from each other in the catalogues both of Moens and Potiquet; this shows that even at that early date the true philatelic spirit was already abroad.

When studying countries of which the philatelic histories begin prior to 1862 or 1863, we are dependent entirely on public notices emanating from postal authorities, official records, and information derived from the books of firms who manufactured the stamps, or supplied the plates, paper &c. for printing them, sources of knowledge not always easy of access. Luckily for our present purpose, seeing that postage stamps were not adopted in St. Vincent until 1861, we are not so dependent on these official or commercial records, having a great number of philatelic works, such as catalogues and periodicals, to rely upon, all of which we have carefully searched and collated; at the same time we have received great assistance from Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co., Limited, the printers of the stamps included under the head of Section I. This Company have been good enough to furnish us with a complete list of every stamp sent out by them to the Island, a copy of which we give in Appendix D, and we acknowledge with thanks our indebtedness to the Managing Director and Secretary, for the valuable material they have so considerately placed at our disposal, which has enabled us to satisfactorily clear up several points that before were more or less obscure. It will also be seen that the list helps in no small degree to form what we hope may be considered a fairly complete history of the stamps of this Island.

Our method of designating and arranging the perforations of the stamps supplied to the Colony by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co. from 1861 to 1882 is a novel one, but we think it will remove the difficulty that has hitherto been felt in classifying the perforations, as it has always seemed impossible to assign any limit to the number of so-called compounds, which, if we are to believe some recently-published catalogues, must indeed be infinite, and incapable of any classification whatsoever. For instance, in one of these catalogues, five simple and seven compound perforations are given to the stamps of 1861; to those of 1866 seven simple and five compound; to those of 1869 four simple and five compound; and so on through later issues. On the other hand, another catalogue, also of recent date, is content to make the general statement that the issues up to 1880 are perforated 11½ to 15, simple and compound. This is at first sight an apparently innocent statement, but in reality it opens up an appalling perspective of interminable lists. We think we shall have justly earned the gratitude of the many philatelists who (as far as it is compatible with strict accuracy) desire above all things simplicity of arrangement, in having banished from the lists all mention of these fanciful perforations, whether simple or compound. The fact is that in the St. Vincent stamps printed by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co., with the exception of one (that is the yellow-green Six Pence of 1862), there are only two simple perforations and one compound, and although this last makes its appearance very frequently, it is always exactly the same in every issue in which it occurs. No doubt the confusion which has arisen has been caused by the too zealous and indiscriminate use of a perforation gauge limited to two centimetres, and applied to single specimens of stamps, which has led true compounds to be confounded with those apparent deviations from the normal gauge arising from irregularities in the spacing of the holes, irregularities existing in both of the two machines used for these stamps by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co., but in a very much greater degree in one of them than in the other.

The whole point of our argument lies in this, that to separate perforations, it is only necessary to differentiate between those produced by distinct machines, and that there is no object in collecting the same stamp over and over again merely because the perforation varies within a space of 2 centimetres, if it can be shewn that the stamps were all perforated by one and the same machine. Hitherto it has been the great aim of collectors and writers to try and gather together every variety of perforation that can be found on a stamp of any one particular issue—this quite regardless of the cause from which these varieties arise. Our method obviously removes many difficulties, and greatly simplifies the arrangement of all stamps that have been perforated by machines in which the pins were irregularly spaced. We further claim that our system is based upon strictly scientific lines, and that it is applicable, not only to St. Vincent, but to the other British Colonies whose stamps were printed and perforated by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co., although it must be borne in mind that in some of these there were other machines used, besides those we describe for St. Vincent.

As in the Notes we go fully into all details of perforation, it is not now necessary to dwell further upon this point; we only wish to insist on the importance of the subject, as it was the uncertainty hitherto regarding it that first induced us to particularly examine the stamps of St. Vincent, and that now leads us to make public the results of our investigations.

In order to make the list of the varieties of perforation as complete as possible, we have during the last three years examined a very large number of St. Vincent stamps, so many that we think it is highly unlikely there still remains anything to be added to the tables of perforations (Appendices B and C), and this in spite of the gaps that will be seen to exist in them.

The history of the use of distinctive postage stamps in St. Vincent dates from May 1st, 1860, when the Colonial Authorities took over from the Imperial Government the entire management of the Post Office of the Island, which, like the posts of many of the other British West Indies, had up to that date been administered by the Postmaster-General of the United Kingdom. The Local Legislature of the Island thereupon passed an Ordinance, known as the “Post Office Act,” which became law on June 14th, 1860. This Act, amongst other things, provided for the appointment of a Colonial Postmaster, a General Post Office for the Island, rates of postage, and the issue of postage stamps. As many of the clauses of the Ordinance possess a good deal of interest for Philatelists, we give, in Appendix A, a copy of those which, from a collector’s point of view, may be considered the more important ones. After the passing of the Act postage stamps were ordered from England, and, as we shall afterwards see, a supply was despatched to the Island on March 27th, 1861. The stamps were no doubt put into use immediately on their arrival, as a statement in the Blue Book of the Colony for 1861 gives the amount received for postage during that year as £158 16s. 5d., as against £78 5s. 4d. for 1860, and the increase is accounted for by the “Sale of Postage Stamps which were obtained in 1861.” This fixes with certainty the date of the first issue, but when we commenced to study those of the later issues, and attempted to make a proper chronological list, we found there were many discrepancies in the published catalogues we consulted; from them we turned to contemporary notices in the pages of the Timbre-Poste, the Stamp Collector’s Magazine, the Philatelist, the Philatelic Record, and other less celebrated periodicals, in hopes of removing our difficulties. Unfortunately Philately was decidedly under a cloud from the middle to near the end of the seventies, and this is just the time during which a number of issues took place in St. Vincent. The Stamp Collectors Magazine ceased with 1874, the Philatelist, never a good source of original information, stopped in 1876, and after that the Timbre-Poste alone filled the breach until the Philatelic Record made its appearance in 1879. It is with regard to this important subject of dates that Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co.’s list has been so extremely useful, as we have thereby been enabled to check the notices scattered through the pages of the various philatelic works we have mentioned. We therefore believe that the dates of issue given by us will be found to be more accurate than those in any previous publication.

With regard to describing the colours of the stamps, we have met with the usual difficulty of at once satisfying our own opinions, and those of various friends whom we have occasionally questioned as to what they would call the colour of such or such a stamp, and we do not think we have got out of the difficulty either better or worse than other compilers of catalogues usually do, the differences of opinion we have met with, as to the proper names by which to call certain shades, being generally hopelessly irreconcilable. No reference to other works is of much use; for instance, we find the one shilling of 1874 called “dirty rose colour” in the Stamp Collector’s Magazine, “dull rose-pink” in the Philatelist, “lilac-rose” in the London Society’s list, “pink” by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co., “rose sale” in Moens’ Catalogue, and “lake” in Messrs. Stanley Gibbons & Co.’s price list. It must be confessed that all this is very confusing, and we are afraid that collectors will always find the task of distinguishing between the earlier red shillings of St. Vincent rather a difficult one. Fortunately there are not many cases in this Colony where the identification of a particular stamp depends on the description of its colour alone, as we are generally helped to the desired conclusion either by the watermark or the perforation.

We think that the two plates of autotype illustrations accompanying this work will be found something more than mere embellishments, and will be of real use to our readers as a means of discriminating between genuine and false surcharges, and also of distinguishing the various perforations alluded to in our text.

There are many interesting questions connected with the perforating machines used by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co., as well as with the papers, unwatermarked and watermarked, employed by them for the numerous British Colonies to which they supplied stamps; but in this handbook we do not propose to enter into these questions more fully than is absolutely necessary for elucidating our subject. We intend to do so at greater length in a handbook of the stamps of Barbados, now in course of preparation. This country is much more complex than St. Vincent, both in its watermarks and perforations, and a thorough knowledge of the stamps of the latter Colony will prove to be of the greatest assistance when the more difficult subject of Barbados comes to be studied.

The stamps of St. Vincent are remarkable, inasmuch as this is the only British Colony that still continues to print the whole of its stamps from line-engraved plates. This is certainly noteworthy when we bear in mind that since the year 1883 the stamps have been printed by Messrs. De La Rue & Co., whose name is generally associated with surface-printed stamps.

The change of printers, although the same plates have always been employed, marks such a distinct epoch in the history of the stamps, that we have thought it advisable to place those furnished by the two different firms under separate headings, and so break up the Reference List into two parts, under the nomenclature of Sections I. and II.

It will be observed that our lists contain no mention whatever of postal fiscals. Such stamps do not exist in St. Vincent, although M. Moens and other writers have chronicled them. All postmarked specimens that may be met with must have either been passed through the post by inadvertence, or been obliterated by favour.

In concluding these remarks we beg to acknowledge with thanks the kindness of Mr. T. Maycock, Mr. M. Giwelb, and Mr. W. H. Peckitt, who have lent us stamps for illustration, and of Messrs. Whitfield King & Co., who sent us for examination a great number of entire sheets of the De La Rue printings, which have been of the greatest assistance to us in writing the notes to Section II. of this Handbook.

REFERENCE LIST.

Section I.

Stamps printed and perforated by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co., London, from 1861 to 1881 inclusive.

Issue 1.

May 1861.

[1] This is a roughly punctured, slightly irregular perforation, varying from 14 to 15, but generally about 14½. See Note to Section I.

Issue 2.

1862.

[2] This is a clean cut, slightly irregular perforation, generally 15½, sometimes 15, and more rarely 14½. See Note to Issue 2.

Issue 3.

1863-1866.

[3] This is a clean cut, very irregular perforation, varying from 11 to nearly 13. See Note to Section I.

[4] Throughout this handbook, in describing perforations made by two machines, the first given measurement denotes the horizontal gauge, and the second the vertical.

Issue 4.

August 1866.

Issue 5.

April 1869.

Issue 6.

September 1869.

Issue 7.

June 1871.

Issue 8.

June 1872.

Issue 9.

Early in 1874.

Issue 10.

1875.

Issue 11.

February 1877.

Issue 12.

July 1877.

Issue 13.

May 1880.

Issue 14.

June 1880.

Issue 15.

September 1881.

Issue 16.

November 1881.

Issue 17.

December 1881.

Issue 18.

December 1881.

Section II.

Stamps printed and perforated by Messrs. De La Rue & Co., London, from 1883 to present time.

Issue 19.

January 1883.

Issue 20.

February 1883.

Issue 21.

October 1883.

Issue 22.

September 1884.

Issue 23.

March 1885.

Issue 24.

April 1885.

Issue 25.

June 1886.

Issue 26.

October 1888.

Issue 27.

August 1889.

Issue 28.

August 1890.

Issue 29.

November 1890 to 1891.

Issue 30.

November 1892.

Issue 31.

March 1893.

NOTES.

Section I.

This section of the Reference List comprises all issues printed and perforated by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co., London; that is, from the first issue of 1861 until the end of 1881, when the last stamps printed by this firm made their appearance. For about half this time unwatermarked paper was used, and afterwards each stamp was watermarked with a star. We shall consider these two papers, as well as their minor varieties, in later notes, but we must here give a detailed description of the perforations, three simple and one compound, found in the stamps included in Section I. During all this time only two perforating machines were employed, except in 1862, when for one particular stamp, namely, the yellow-green Six Pence, another machine was used. With this exception all the stamps printed by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co. were perforated by one or the other of the two first-mentioned machines, and it is of these two that we now propose to treat, leaving the description of the perforation of the 1862 Six Pence to the note on Issue 2, as it is altogether an exceptional stamp, and need not be taken into account just at present.

The two machines we have now to consider were both single-line, or guillotine ones; that is, they made but one line of perforation at a single stroke. These two machines, as well as the perforations made by them, we have elected to call “A” and “B,” so that in the Reference List the perforations of the stamps are called “A” or “B,” or “B × A,” instead of being, as is usual in philatelic writings, labelled with a number denoting the number of holes found in a space of 2 centimetres. Further on we shall endeavour to make plain and justify our reasons for so doing.

The method now in use for describing the perforations of stamps succeeded a previous clumsy and inaccurate system of counting the actual number of notches along the top or bottom of a stamp, as well as those down one side, so that the perforation of each stamp was denoted by two numbers. These numbers depended as much on the size of the stamp as on the spacing of the holes, and we suppose the system proved to be unworkable, as we do not think it was ever adopted in a catalogue, although it was certainly the first manner in which philatelic writers ever specified differences of perforation. It was soon abandoned for the well-known method in general use at the present day.

This latter system, invented by Dr. Legrand, was evidently intended by its original contriver to apply to lines of perforation of which the holes were so regularly spaced that all intervals of 2 centimetres in the same line contained the same number of holes, all these holes being exactly the same distance apart. Irregularity in the spacing of the holes does not seem to have been contemplated, but, as the vast majority of machines make holes spaced at regular intervals, this system of taking a gauge of 2 centimetres, applying it to a line of perforations, and counting the holes contained in that space in order to get a number by which that particular perforation may always be identified, works admirably in practice in by far the greater number of cases. St. Vincent is one of those cases in which it entirely fails to satisfy our requirements (that is, in as far as the stamps of Section I. are concerned), and its misuse has led to the recording of such a bewildering number of different perforations, simple and compound, that no one has ever yet been bold enough to give a properly arranged list of them, or to attempt to explain how so many varieties arose. A description of the two perforations will explain all this.

That made by the A machine is well known in many other British Colonies—Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Ceylon, Grenada, Natal, Queensland, St. Helena, Trinidad, Turks Islands, Western Australia—that is, in most of the Colonies whose stamps were printed from plates prepared by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co., and is one of the best known perforations in the world of Philately. Although its eccentricities are trifling compared with those of its fellow, the B machine, since it was in use in St. Vincent before that one, we take the description of its perforation first.

The gauge in 2 centimetres varies from 14 to 15, this variation arising from a slight, but frequent, irregularity in the spacing of the pins or plungers of the machine. It may be possible by moving a gauge backwards and forwards along a line of perforations to hit off a space of 2 centimetres containing rather more than 15 or fewer than 14 holes, but we have not been able to do so ourselves. With the best of goodwill the limits we have attained are 14 in one direction and 15 in the other, and we rather suspect that the frequent records seen of a gauge of 15½, and sometimes even of 16, in St. Vincent, have all been obtained from the Six Pence of 1862, as that is the perforation with which this stamp (for which the A machine was never used) is most frequently found. The difference of gauge between 14 and 15 can often be found by moving a perforation-gauge a few holes only to the right or left, so it is evident that we can get both extremes on one single side of one particular stamp, and also haply all the measurements which lie between these limits. The variation between 14 and 15 is of course very slight, and since intermediate gauges are those generally found, had we in St. Vincent to deal only with the A machine, we might, with no great degree of inaccuracy, and for the sake of general simplicity, call the perforation of the A machine “14½,” or “14 to 15”; but since it was used so much in conjunction with a far more irregular machine—that is, the one we have called “B”—it is better to treat them both in the same manner, and call the first one “A,” rather than label it with a gauge which, strictly speaking, does not belong to it.

This perforation A, either alone or compounded with B, was in use from the first issue of stamps in 1861 until 1878; after that the B machine was used exclusively up to 1882, when Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co. ceased to supply stamps to the Colony.

We must here call attention to a change which took place about 1871 in the character of the perforation made by the A machine. Up to that time the paper was very seldom even slightly pierced by the pins, or any of it removed—i.e., the perforation is what is called blind. A writer in the Stamp Collector’s Magazine of December, 1866, speaking of St. Vincent stamps, thus describes it: “… the stamps … are perforated (if that term be quite accurate) by an instrument fixed in the machine, which leaves a series of indentations … which does not remove a particle of paper except in a very occasional spot, hardly one in a thousand. On severing the stamps by tearing, a rough indented edge is left…” This is quite correct, and we cannot better the description of the work of the A machine given by this old-time philatelist of nearly thirty years since, who collected and studied stamps in a day when perforation-gauges were not. It is only after 1871 that we generally (but not always) find the pins piercing through the sheet and leaving small holes, the paper being thrust aside and turned back by the passage of the pins through it, but little or any of it being removed. We wish to call particular attention to this point; that is, that the holes are small, and that the portion of paper displaced is not clean-cut or punched out. If this be not attended to, these particular examples of the later work of the A machine may be confused with the clean-cut perforations of 1862, which we have yet to consider.

It is to the vagaries of the B machine that we are principally indebted for the extraordinary number of perforations, simple and compound, that have been ascribed to the stamps of St. Vincent, as well as to those of the few other Colonies for which this machine was used. These Colonies are Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, and Turks Islands. We know of no other instances in which the B machine was used, and in all these it was employed to a very limited extent as compared with its use in St. Vincent. Possibly this limitation was owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of its performance, and to the difficulty of separating the stamps without tearing them.

In examining unsevered blocks perforated by the B machine, the first thing we notice is that the holes cut by it are circular, and of nearly uniform size, and that the pieces of paper are punched out and altogether removed, leaving holes varying from a little less than 1 mm. to a full 1 mm. in diameter, and of which the edges are clean-cut. These holes vary in their spacing to a very great extent, some being separated from edge to edge by a space of 1¼ mm., while between others there is only a thread of paper left. This is not owing to variation in the size of the holes, since measuring from centre to centre we find some holes to be as much as 2¼ mm., and others as little as 1 mm. apart. Besides these extremes all sorts of different measurements are to be found, generally in close proximity to each other, so that it is impossible to get more than a few consecutive holes that measure the same from centre to centre. Under these circumstances, how is it possible to assign in the usual manner any particular gauge to a perforation so erratic? And is it worth while, by the laborious examination of single stamps, to attempt to make a list that we know from the nature of the case must necessarily be interminable? We ourselves are quite content to look on all stamps perforated by the B machine as being of one and the same perforation, and we have so treated them in the Reference List, extending the same system to the perforations of the A machine. At the same time we do not think that any philatelists ought to lay down the law to others perhaps more ardent than themselves in the pursuit of varieties, as to what ought or ought not to be collected, and it is quite open to any such collectors, whenever they find a stamp in these lists said to be “perforated B,” or “perforated A,” to gather together, by what we call the injudicious use of the perforation-gauge, as many examples of the aberrations of the machines as they please, or as their time and purses will permit. We think they will find it in some cases, say in that of the Five Shillings, to be a laborious, an expensive, and above all an unsatisfactory, task.

In order to ascertain the mean gauge of the B machine, the only possible way would be to get a line of perforations representing the whole length of the machine, and measure it. The longest line of perforations we have been able to experiment on is one of 124 mm.; this contains 72 holes, giving a mean gauge of about 11⅔ in the 2 centimetres. In some places in this line nearly 13 holes can be counted in the space of 2 centimetres, in others not more than 11, and all intermediate gauges as well are present in the same line. Indeed one has only to move the perforation-gauge one or perhaps two holes to the right or left to obtain a striking change of gauge. We have seen that the same sort of thing occurs in the perforation done by the A machine, but in a much lesser degree, the variation being only between 14 and 15—here it is from 11 to nearly 13, and is visible at a glance without the aid of the perforation-gauge. The above mean gauge of 11⅔ is very near to the 11½ usually ascribed in catalogues to stamps perforated by the B machine, but even if that be correct as a mean gauge for the whole line, it is very misleading so to call the perforation, as a collector whose solitary specimen might gauge, say 13 x 12½, would naturally suppose that it was a variety differing essentially from those said to gauge 11½. This, as we have seen, it would not be.

As in the case of the A machine, after the B machine had been in use some considerable time (about 1876), its perforations show a change of character, the holes being seldom punched right through; the discs of paper remain in their places, so that when the stamps are severed the edges are very ragged. Otherwise there is no change whatever, the holes, or the marks where they should be, being still circular, and spaced in the same irregular manner.

Besides the two simple perforations A and B, we find one compound when the two machines are used in conjunction for the same sheet. Whenever this compound appears it is invariably the same in all cases; that is, the horizontal lines of perforation are made by the B machine, and the vertical lines by the A machine; or, adopting the philatelic notation now generally accepted, it is “B×A.”

Omitting the Six Pence of 1862, this reduces the possible number of varieties in the perforations of the stamps of Section I. to three in all; and in order to show at a glance how these occur in the different issues, we have arranged them in a table, which will be found under the head of Appendix B.

It will be observed that no one stamp is known with all three varieties of perforation, except the One Penny, bright rose-red, on the unwatermarked paper, and it is not at all certain that all these varieties existed together in any one of the seven different printings that were made of this stamp. Another point we may also note is, that whenever a stamp is to be found with the compound perforation, it also invariably exists with one of the two simple ones, but, with the above exception, never with both.

Our second plate of illustrations consists of six groups of four unsevered stamps each. These are intended to illustrate the various perforations of the A and B machines, and as these are more easily studied on the reverse side than on the face of the stamps, it is the backs of the groups we have had reproduced. Nos. 16 and 17 show the work of the A machine at two different periods of its career. No. 16 is a group of four of the One Penny of 1861, when the perforations made by the A machine were blind; and No. 17 is a similar group of the One Penny of 1871, when the pins generally pierced the paper.

These particular groups were selected by us for illustration as showing a very marked contrast between the character of the perforation of 1861 and that of 1871; but as regards the latter, it is not easy to find such long lines of perforations in which all the holes are pierced through, as in the example we show in No. 17. In these two particular instances, if the central lines of perforation be gauged, the vertical line in No. 16 will be found to be 14 at the bottom and 14½ at the top. Its horizontal line is 15 on the left and 14½ on the right. In No. 17 the vertical line is 14½ at the bottom, higher up it is 15, and at the top it is again 14½. The horizontal line of No. 17 gauges 15 throughout its length. It will be noticed that in no one of these four lines do the two extremes of 14 and 15 both appear; but it must not be inferred from this that such is never the case, and we have now before us a group of four of the Six Pence of 1871, in which both gauges of 14 and 15 are present in the same line, and actually overlap each other. This group would not, however, have been so suitable to illustrate the general character of the A perforation in 1871 as the one we selected, since the holes in it are only pierced through in parts of the lines.

Illustrations Nos. 18 and 19 show the work of the B machine. No. 18 is a group of four of the Four Pence of 1866, and No. 19 a group of four of the One Penny of 1880. These groups speak for themselves, both as regards the irregularity in the spacing of the holes, and the different character of the perforation at the two mentioned dates. In No. 18, in the central vertical line, the space separating the second and third holes, counting from the bottom, may be contrasted with that between the eleventh and twelfth in the same line, as this affords a good example of the irregularity of the machine, and a little search will yield many more such examples, both in No. 18 and in No. 19.

No. 20 is a group of four of the Six Pence of 1877, and shows the compound perforation B×A. In this case the later work of both machines appears. We should have liked to have been able to illustrate the compound perforation as it appears in 1866, when the machines made lines of holes as in illustrations No. 16 and No. 18. The only stamp available for this purpose would have been the One Shilling of 1866, but we have been unable to procure a group of four of these for illustration.

No. 21, which shows the De La Rue perforation 12, has been given so as to allow of its comparison with the early work of the B machine, as shown in No. 18, as it approximates to it in gauge, is like it in character, and even faintly imitates its irregularities. We shall revert to this perforation in our notes to the Issues of Section II.

Issue 1.

May 1861.

• 1d., bright rose-red, many shades from pale to deep.
• 6d., blue-green, slight shades from medium to dark.

These two values constitute the first issue for St. Vincent. They were printed by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co., and sent out to the Colony on March 27th, 1861, the consignment consisting of 934 sheets of the One Penny, and 167 sheets of the Six Pence.[5] Both values were printed from plates engraved in taille-douce, each plate consisting of 60 stamps, arranged in six horizontal rows of ten. The paper used was without watermark, either for the stamps themselves or in the margins, and at least two very distinct sets can be made, one on thick and the other on much thinner paper. The texture is rough, and the colour greyish, sometimes slightly toned by the yellowish gum. There can be no reasonable doubt that the perforation of the first consignment was A, for although we have no direct evidence to that effect, any supposition other than this would involve us in such contradictions that our belief on this point amounts to what is practically a certainty.

We have inserted the imperforate varieties in the list, as, although we have not seen a satisfactory used copy of either value, both stamps have always been described in catalogues from the earliest to the present time. They are, for instance, so given in the catalogue of Mons. Alfred Potiquet, published in Paris in December, 1861, and also in the first edition of Mons. J. B. Moens’ Manuel du collectionneur de Timbres-poste, which appeared early in 1862. We think, therefore, that there can be little doubt that both stamps were issued in the imperforate state. The only postmarked specimen that has come under our notice is one of the One Penny, which is in the “Tapling Collection.” This stamp has fair margins on three sides, but is cut close on the right side, so that it cannot be considered of quite unimpeachable authenticity. Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co.’s books state that each lot of stamps sent out to the Island was perforated and gummed, and this applies to the first as well as to all the other consignments, so that the specimens chronicled by early writers must have come from sheets which were sent out imperforate in error. Looking at the date these varieties were first catalogued, they probably came from sheets out of the lot despatched on March 27th, 1861. Some of the later consignments seem also to have contained imperforate sheets, as we have seen an entire one of the Six Pence, which came out of the lot forwarded on June 15th, 1868. Of late years quite a number of the imperforate stamps have turned up, but we do not believe that any of these ever saw the Colony, and in our opinion they stand upon very different ground to the early chronicled varieties.

Altogether there is such an atmosphere of uncertainty surrounding these imperforate varieties that, had it not been for the references to them in the above-mentioned catalogues, we should have been inclined to have excluded them from the lists, and classed them either as proofs or trials for colour.

The variety of the Six Pence, imperforate vertically, is noted from a horizontal pair recently in the collection of Mr. F. de Coppet of New York, and which was sold at the sale of his stamps on December 12th, 1894. The pair was perforated all round, but imperforate between the two stamps.

[5] See chronological list of Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co.’s printings, and consignments in Appendix D.

Issue 2.

1862.

• 6d., yellow-green, very slight shades, all deep.

This very interesting issue consists of one value only—a yellow-green Six Pence—which not only differs in colour from any other stamp of the same denomination on unwatermarked paper, but has a perforation quite peculiar to itself among the stamps of St. Vincent.

Hitherto when it has figured at all in any catalogue it has been mentioned only as a shade of the green stamp of the first issue, and as far as we are aware no hint has ever yet been given that not only is its colour quite distinct from that of any other Six Pence, but its perforation, being unknown in any other stamp of the Colony, clearly points out that it belongs to one particular printing, and that it is important enough to rank by itself as a separate issue.

That it has remained altogether unchronicled up to now is not exactly the case. In the Stamp Collector’s Magazine of August 1863 it is stated “Saint Vincent. The green of the Six Penny is of a different shade to what it used to be.” This is the only chronicle of it which may be called contemporaneous; but in the same periodical of August 1866, in an article entitled “Postage Stamp Paper and Watermarks,” the writer says, “St. Vincent. The pair of values belonging to this Island, of which the green is found in two distinct hues, seem unwatermarked.”

On referring to Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co.’s list of printings we find that at the date, August, 1863, when it was chronicled in the Stamp Collector’s Magazine, besides the first consignment of March 27th, 1861, two other printings of the Six Pence value had been made and sent out to the Island. It is quite clear to us, from the marked difference in colour and perforation between this stamp and any other Six Pence, that it constituted a printing by itself, and therefore in order to assign it a date we have to choose between July 22nd, 1862, when 167 sheets, consisting of 10,020 stamps, were printed; and May 28th, 1863, when the number of stamps was 40,080 in 668 sheets. Now there can be no hesitation in saying that the probabilities are enormously in favour of the smaller of these two printings being the yellow-green Six Pence, seeing the scarcity of this stamp even in a used state, the unused stamp ranking as one of the rarest of the St. Vincents. It is quite probable that it had been some time in use before it was noticed by the writer in the Stamp Collector’s Magazine; but, on the other hand, although it was sent out to the Island in July, 1862, it may not have been issued for some little time after that. On the whole we do not think we can be far wrong in dating its issue 1862, rather than in the early part of 1863.

Even if the distinctive colour of this stamp did not make its identification very easy, its peculiar perforation would do so. It is the solitary instance in Section I. in which neither the A nor the B machine was used, but a third machine, which we call “C.” This is hardly the proper place for us to enter into a dissertation on the various perforating machines that were employed by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co., and used by them for perforating the stamps of the Colonies for which they held contracts; but, at all events, the C perforation is to be found, not only in this one St. Vincent stamp, but also more or less frequently in those of Bahamas, Barbados, Ceylon, Natal, Queensland, St. Helena, St. Lucia, Trinidad, and Western Australia.

Like the A and B machines, the C machine was a guillotine one, and like them its irregularities prevent us from naming it by any particular gauge. It is generally a rather regular 15½, but also frequently 15, and in some instances we have found it to measure only 14½. It is probable that this machine is also responsible for a perforation of 16, said to have been seen in St. Vincent stamps. It can never be mistaken for the perforation A, for not only is its most frequent gauge a higher one than that to which the A machine usually attains, but its pins, or plungers, make clean-cut circular holes, smaller in size, but otherwise just like the early perforations of the B machine, although, from insufficient care and attention being paid to the working of the machine, it is rather difficult to find specimens that show the holes clean cut on all four sides.

This stamp, like those of the preceding issue, is found on both the thin and the thick paper.

We give two illustrations of this stamp, Nos. 13 and 14, which are taken from the only two unused specimens we have ever seen, or heard of. No. 13 gauges 15½ on all four sides; this is the gauge which is most frequently found in stamps perforated by the C machine. No. 14 is perforated 15 at the bottom and right side; the top and left side are too ragged to be measured with accuracy, but they appear to be the usual 15½. The gauge of 14½ (and that of 16, if it exists) must have been present in a very limited portion of the line of pins, as it is very rarely met with.

Issue 3.

Between 1863 and 1866.

• 1d., bright rose-red; many shades, from pale to deep.
• 6d., blue-green; very slight shades, all dark.

The two stamps constituting this issue differ in no respect from those of Issue I., except in the perforation, which is now B, or B×A, instead of A. It is not possible to say at what precise date the B perforation first came into use. One thing which is certain is, that it, as well as the compound B×A, was known to philatelists as existing in these two values before December, 1866, at which date both perforations A and B as well as the compound B × A, were described by a writer in the Stamp Collector’s Magazine.

It follows from this that the B perforation must have been used for one or more of the printings made before this date.

Now if we turn to the table of the consignments sent out to the island, we see that there had been in all five printings of both values. The first of these, that of March 27th, 1861, was the first issue, and, as we have said, it was perforated A. The second, that of July 22nd, 1862, was, as far as the Six Pence is concerned, incontestably perforated C, and there therefore only remains the printing of the One Penny of that date, and the three printings of both values of May 28th, 1863, March 1st, 1865, and March 14th, 1866. We think it more than probable that when the B machine was first used both values were perforated by it; and we therefore pass over the second printing of the One Penny, and give 1863 to 1866 as the date which most likely belongs to Issue 3. We are thus able to antedate this issue at least three years, all previous catalogues having given 1869 as the earliest date at which the B perforation made its appearance.

It must not be inferred that after the B machine came into use the A machine was discarded, or even that any printing of either value was altogether perforated by the same machine. The perforation A is much too common in both values for it to be supposed for a moment that the first issue only was so perforated. There were in all seven printings of the One Penny, red, and five of the Six Pence, blue-green, on unwatermarked paper, perforated by one or other of these two machines; and as there is little or nothing to choose in point of rarity between the two perforations A and B in either value, it is to be presumed that once the B machine had come into use both machines were used indiscriminately for both values, as long as they continued to be printed.

We are fortified in our opinion that more than one kind of perforation was used for the same printing, by the impossibility of believing that one whole printing of the One Penny, red, was perforated B × A. This variety is so scarce, that the number of specimens known to us can literally be counted on the fingers of one hand. About three years ago we unearthed two specimens from a dealer’s stock. These were mounted on a card, and endorsed as “very scarce” in the handwriting of the late Mr. E. L. Pemberton. Two other specimens are known to us, and all these four are used. It is not possible to believe that 18,000 of these ever existed, and that is the least number of the One Penny ever printed at one time.

The Six Pence with the compound perforation is not known to us, but we think it is a variety that may possibly exist. The writer in the Stamp Collector’s Magazine, in referring to this compound, unfortunately does not specify the denomination of the stamp in which he had “occasionally” noticed it.

As stated in our note to Issue 1, it is quite possible that some of the consignments belonging to this issue, at any rate of the Six Pence, contained a sheet or sheets that missed being perforated.

Issue 4.

August 1866.

• 4d., deep bright blue.
• 1s., dark slate-grey; slight shades.
• 1s., greyish-purple.

The plates for these two values were prepared by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co., early in July, 1866. They contained 30 stamps, arranged in three horizontal rows of 10, so were just half the size of those used for printing the One Penny and Six Pence values.

On July 28th a consignment of stamps printed from them was sent out to the Colony. This consisted of 500 sheets of each of the values; that is, 15,000 stamps of each denomination.

The stamps must have been immediately put in issue, as they were in use in August. They were chronicled in October, both by the Timbre-Poste and the Stamp Collector’s Magazine. The notice in the latter is as follows: “Within the last month or six weeks the number of St. Vincent stamps has been doubled by the emission of a Four Penny, blue, and Shilling, purple-black.” In the Timbre-Poste the colour of the Shilling is called “pourpre,” but in the same publication of April, 1867, M. Moens calls the colour “ardoise.” There is a further notice touching these stamps in the Stamp Collector’s Magazine of December, 1866, which is worth quoting in extenso, as it is a valuable contribution to our knowledge as regards both the colours and perforations of the stamps: “The newly-issued Four Pence and One Shilling have come over with the late mails in entire sheets. The colour of the former is a clear Prussian-blue, while the latter varies, one sheet we have examined being a purple, while the other is a deep slate without the tinge of red in it, which makes a purple. The normal colour is evidently one which requires great nicety in manipulation, a slight difference in mixing forming the two shades, which are very distinct. Like the Penny and Six Pence already known these stamps are on thin woven paper, without watermark, and perforated. The Four Pence is perforated by a machine which removes a little circular piece of the paper, like that in use for the English stamps, but the holes very much wider apart. The sheets of the Shilling stamps are also perforated by a machine, and show the following remarkable peculiarity in the perforation: the horizontal lines which sever the stamps from the rows above and beneath them are, as in the Four Pence, perforated by a succession of small circular holes cut or punched out, but the vertical lines dividing the stamps from their fellows side by side in the row are perforated (if that term be quite accurate) by an instrument fixed in the machine, which leaves a series of indentations much closer than the holes before alluded to, and which does not remove a particle of paper, except in a very occasional spot, hardly one in a thousand. On severing the stamps by tearing, a rough indented edge is left on each side; a ragged edge caused by the holes being too far apart is left above and below. A similar difference has been remarked by us in the former issues, specimens of each of which, completely perforated by either method, may be found, as also occasionally a copy showing both systems on the same stamp.”

We have already in previous notes given extracts from the above to show that the difference between the A and B perforations was thoroughly understood by the writer, and also that the B perforation and the compound B×A both existed in the One Penny and the Six Pence previous to December 1866. We learn from the same source that the two colours of the One Shilling—what we have called “dark slate-grey” and “greyish-purple”—appeared in the same consignment; and, moreover, that part of this consignment of the One Shilling was perforated A, and part of it B×A, both of which statements are confirmed by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co.’s list. We have found the greyish-purple very rare as compared with the other colour.

The One Shilling perforated B×A is certainly much more common than the one with the A perforation, and the greater part of the consignment probably consisted of the compound. No other printings of either of the two values were ever again made in these colours on the unwatermarked paper. The Four Pence is a clear deep blue, and there are practically no shades; but as it has a strong tendency to oxidation, it is to be found in all sorts of deteriorated colours up to nearly black. Out of the 15,000 printed, a great number must have found their way into dealers’ stocks, as it is quite as common unused as used. It continued in use for some years after it had been superseded by a Four Pence of a different colour. The Philatelist of February, 1873, that is three years after the issue of the Four Pence, yellow, says, “The colour of the Four Penny would seem to have reverted to its original hue, our specimens just received by the last mail being a full blue, but unwatermarked as far as we can distinguish.” Were it not for the information we have been fortunate enough to obtain from Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co., this might lead us to believe that another printing of the Four Pence, blue, had been made about the end of 1872; but we know that this was not the case, as only one printing of it was ever made, and the stamps alluded to must have been some of the old stock that were being used up. The One Shilling is given in the London Philatelic Society’s Catalogue as perforated 11½ on all four sides. We have not met with this variety, and do not believe in its existence. If the specimen from which the description was taken is one in the “Tapling Collection,” as seems probable, the particular stamp proves, after examination, to be merely an oxidised copy of the One Shilling, indigo, of the following issue.

Issue 5.

April 1869.

• 1s., indigo.

On February 27th, 1869, Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co. sent out a consignment of 300 sheets (9,000 stamps) of the One Shilling. Their records note no difference between the colour of this stamp and that of the One Shilling of the last issue—they call them both “purple,” although the difference between them is really very great. We think the colour of the new stamp, which is very deep, is best described as “indigo.” The Stamp Collector’s Magazine, which chronicled it in July, 1869, calls it “dark muddy-blue”; the Timbre-Poste of a month earlier, “bleu-sale”; but the colour really does not matter much, as there is no other stamp with which it can be confounded. If any shades of it exist they are certainly very slight, and probably due more to oxidation than to any other cause. It only exists with the B perforation.

We do not know exactly the month of its issue, but since it was sent out late in February, and first chronicled in June, it most likely came into use some time in April.

It is a much rarer stamp than the One Shilling of Issue 4, especially unused, but this is what we might expect to find when we consider that only 9,000 of it were printed, as against 15,000 of the first One Shilling.

Issue 6.

September 1869.

• 4d., deep bright yellow, slight shades.
• 1s., bright brown, slight shades.

On August 13th, 1869, a consignment of stamps of two values—Four Pence and One Shilling—was sent out to the Colony by the printers, the colour of the Four Pence being altered from blue to yellow, and that of the One Shilling from indigo to brown. The consignment consisted of 300 sheets—9000 stamps—of each value.

The One Shilling was the first of these to be chronicled in the philatelic periodicals. It was noticed in Le Timbrophile of September 30th, 1869, and in the Philatelist and the Timbre-Poste of November, but the Stamp Collector’s Magazine did not announce its appearance until the December number of that year. It is therefore certain that the issue of the One Shilling, brown, took place in September, and most probably the Four Pence, yellow, was issued at the same time, although the latter was not chronicled until November 30th, when it was noticed by Le Timbrophile, the other three above-mentioned periodicals not chronicling it until January, 1870.

The Philatelist, speaking of the change of colour, says of the new Four Pence, yellow: “It is now in full service, and proves to be of a very deep rich yellow. The emissions of this Island, for some time two only, now amount to a respectable figure, there being the slate, indigo, and brown Shilling; a dark and light green Sixpenny; the blue and the new yellow Fourpenny; and the Penny in slightly varying shades of red. In addition are varieties of perforation, one being pin-pricked, one fully perforated, and some anomalously presenting both methods in the same stamp. Such emissions as these must shut up all Pendragonites, and puzzle the patronizers of Lallier’s and other exclusive albums.” Here is additional evidence, were such required, of the attention paid in those days by certain writers and collectors to those minutiæ of stamp collecting, which in the aggregate make up what is now understood by the term “Philately.”

Like all the preceding issues these two stamps are on unwatermarked paper, varying from thick to thin, and are perforated B, with gum from yellowish to almost white. The colours of each are nearly uniform, slight shades only being found, the darker shades of the brown Shilling being generally due to oxidation. Only this one printing was ever made in these colours, and as this was limited to 9,000 stamps of each value, it need not be a matter of surprise that they are both fairly rare in the unused state.

The One Shilling is described in Stanley Gibbons’ Monthly Journal for December, 1891, as found perforated 11 by 15½. We have examined the particular specimen by the kindness of the owner, and the stamp turns out to be an unmistakable oxidized copy of the vermilion-red Shilling of Issue 11.

This was the last issue of stamps for St. Vincent to be printed on the unwatermarked paper.

Issue 7.

June 1871.

• 1d., black, shades to grey-black.
• 6d., dull blue-green, rather pale in shade.
• 6d., dark blue-green, slight shades.

With this issue a radical change of paper took place, and the new paper, which was watermarked with a star, continued to be exclusively used as long as Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co. supplied stamps to the Colony. It varies very much in thickness; the thinnest variety is about the same thickness as the thinnest of the unwatermarked paper, but the thickest sometimes approaches card. This is especially noticeable in certain issues, in which the thick paper predominates, and we will refer to this subject in subsequent notes.

The star of the watermark is a six-pointed one, measuring 13 mm. from point to point across the star, and the watermarks in the sheet are so spaced that when the plate has been printed in register each star falls exactly on the centre of a stamp. The lateral distance between the stars from centre to centre is 20⅓ mm., and the vertical 24 mm.; these measurements of course correspond with those of a St. Vincent stamp, plus one margin each way. All the stars in the sheet are disposed with two opposite rays in a vertical line—that is when the stamps are printed in the normal position with regard to the paper. Personally we have not much sympathy with the collection or cataloguing of inverted or reversed watermarks, which we think tends to the undue lengthening out and complicating of lists, to no useful purpose whatever, but we may as well mention that the star watermark is to be found sideways on all the St. Vincent stamps printed on this paper. Of course when in this position two opposite rays are in a horizontal instead of in a vertical line. This peculiarity of position in the watermark is not confined to St. Vincent stamps only, among those of the Colonies for which Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co. used the same paper, as in 1874 it was noticed by philatelists in the stamps of Antigua. A correspondence about the watermarks of these stamps took place early in that year in the pages of the Stamp Collector’s Magazine, and at about the same time the subject was discussed at a meeting of the Philatelic Society, London. Those who are curious in these matters will find all the particulars given in the Stamp Collector’s Magazine, vol. xii., where it appears from the letters printed that an idea prevailed that, as concerned the stamps of Antigua, the paper with the star sideways denoted a later issue. The explanation given by the then President of the London Society was that the change in the position of the watermark was due to “the stars being turned when cleaning the plates, or when they became worn.” This was rather far-fetched, not to say grotesque, nor did it succeed in satisfying all the correspondents of the Stamp Collector’s Magazine. The true solution of the question is, that as the paper was sufficiently large to admit of the plate being printed on it in either position, the printer was quite indifferent as to how the paper was placed, and were it not that this particular watermark is a symmetrical figure we should doubtless occasionally find it inverted, as well as sideways. A variety of the One Penny, with one point of the star up, was indeed chronicled with “inverted” watermark in the Stamp Collector’s Magazine, vol. xii., p. 95, by the same writer who noticed the two different positions of the stars we have just alluded to. The design of the watermark was, however, such that it made no difference which end of the sheet was put first into the press, and it passes our comprehension to know how an inverted watermark could therefore be distinguished.

Although all the stars in St. Vincent stamps are of the same size, owing to the “bits” being hand-made they vary a little in shape, and we have seen faulty ones having one or more rays with the points broken or twisted out of their proper direction. Besides this there are two rather distinct varieties in the shape of the star. These exist side by side in the same sheet. In the star more usually found all the six rays are of similar size; in the other variety the two opposite rays in the vertical line are narrower at the base than the other four, so that they are thinner throughout their length, and end in a more acute angle. This last variety of star is in shape almost exactly like the larger stars found in the paper used by the same firm for printing the stamps of South Australia and certain other Colonies.

In the thicker varieties of paper it is sometimes very difficult to see the watermark. This is especially the case when the specimens are unused and have the gum intact. The change in the colour of the One Penny from red to black marked that stamp at once, so that we find its advent recorded in the Stamp Collector’s Magazine of September 1871, and in the Philatelist and Timbre-Poste of the following month, the last-named periodical being the only one to mention the watermark or perforation, which last was given as 14½. We learn from the list of Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co. that the consignment was sent out on March 28th, 1871, and consisted of 300 sheets (18,000 stamps) of One Penny, black, and a like number of Six Pence, green; and, since the One Penny was chronicled in September, we may assume that the issue took place some time in June. There can be little doubt that the Six Pence was issued with the One Penny, although it was unnoticed at the time by philatelists, probably because the colour was unchanged, and the watermark, owing to the thickness of the paper, not readily seen. It was not until September, 1872, that it was chronicled by M. Moens in the Timbre-Poste, which is the only record of it we can find in any of the philatelic periodicals.

The One Penny, black, is found with two varieties of perforation—A and B × A. It continued in use from the date of its issue, in 1871, until the colour was changed in 1880. Nine printings of it were made, and the last consignment was sent out on August 28th, 1878, making in all the large total of 6000 sheets, or 360,000 stamps. The great majority of these must have been perforated A, since the compound B × A is very much less common, and is even rather scarce unused. We do not know in which particular printing this last variety of perforation occurred. We have the authority of the Timbre-Poste that some at least of the first consignment were perforated A, and the sample stamp attached to the entry in the books of Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co., referring to the despatch of the last consignment in 1878, is also perforated A. In the absence of further information we have, however, catalogued both the two varieties of perforation as belonging to Issue 7.

The Six Pence, green, of which only three printings were made, is always perforated A. It is generally in a blue-green colour, identical with that of the Six Pence, blue-green, of previous issues on unwatermarked paper. It is sometimes, but rarely, met with of a dull green hue, rather pale in shade, and nearer a yellow-green than is the ordinary colour. We have only found one unused specimen of this stamp, nor have we seen many used ones, so we are still a little doubtful whether it is an original colour or not.

There is a rather mystifying chronicle of another green Six Pence in the Timbre-Poste of January, 1876, which was copied by the Philatelist, and which we think it as well to refer to here. M. Moens appears to have overlooked the fact that he had already, in 1872, mentioned the Six Pence, green, with Star watermark—“Le 6p. vert arrive avec étoile en filagramme et piqué 15”; and in January 1876 records it again as “6p. vert foncé piqué 15.” At this time no printing of the Six Pence had taken place since March 1875, so what M. Moens saw could not have been a new variety, and was probably only a specimen, rather darker than usual, of the same stamp he had already chronicled in 1872.

A horizontal pair of the One Penny, black, with no perforation between the stamps, was sold at the sale of Mr. M. P. Castle’s collection of British and Colonial stamps, on May 2nd, 1889, the pair being described erroneously in the catalogue as imperforate horizontally. M. Moens, in his Catalogue Prix Courant, gives the same stamp as existing imperforate, but not having been able to verify it we have omitted it from our list.

Issue 8.

June 1872.

• 1s., bright rose-red, shades.
• 1s., deep rose-red, slight shades.
• 1s., dull red, shades, sometimes with a tinge of yellow in it.

We now come to a series of issues of the One Shilling, which present a good deal of difficulty to collectors, because of the number of colours and shades they contain, all rather closely resembling each other. They are not easy to describe in print, so as to be properly understood, owing chiefly to the great divergence of opinion on the subject of the names of colours, when these are closely allied.

On April 13th, 1872, Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co. despatched 9000 stamps in 300 sheets of the One Shilling value printed in a colour they call in their books “pink,” but this is a description we put out of court at once, especially as the sample stamp in the firm’s books is a rose-red one.

In addition to the sample stamp, Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co. possess an imperforate proof sheet of the stamp in the same colour, but upon unwatermarked paper. This sheet is inscribed on the margin “Patterns for colour. Postage Pink, small quantity of Drop carmine-lake about ½ oz. for 300 sheets.” The technical name of the colour appears consequently to be “carmine-lake.”

The first chronicle of the issue was in the American Journal of Philately of August, 1872, which was quoted by the Timbre-Poste of September. The Philatelical Journal of September says that they have accidentally omitted to chronicle it in August. We give June as the probable date of issue.

As regards the colour of the stamp, the Philatelist of October, when chronicling its issue, says that “the colour is precisely that of the rose penny,” but in the following month it adds to this statement that other specimens have been seen, “all deeper in hue than the penny ones of the same colour.” This, as far as it goes, agrees exactly with our own experience, which is that there are specimens in shades of bright rose-red, all of which may be found in the bright rose-red One Penny of Issues 1 and 3, but that there are others in a deeper rose-red of a slightly different colour, never seen in the One Penny, and due to something more than mere depth of shade. Besides these two colours we find a third, which we have called “dull red,” differing from both of them, and in which a faint tinge of yellow is sometimes to be seen, as if it were turning somewhat towards vermilion. There was only one printing made of this One Shilling, rose-red or dull red, but we have already seen in the case of the One Shilling of Issue 4 that more than one colour may exist in the same printing, from causes connected with the mixing of the ink. The paper of this issue is sometimes found more or less toned by the action of the gum, which seems always to be yellow, and never white; this affects the appearance of some specimens, and adds considerably to the difficulty of limiting the number of colours even to three.

By far the greater number of the stamps of this issue are perforated B. We have seen very few indeed perforated B × A, and all these have been bright rose-red in colour. The only periodical which in chronicling the stamp gave the perforation was the Philatelical Journal, which says that it is “perf. circ. 14½ to 15½” which we would call A; but in 1872 compound perforations were ignored, and the usual plan was to measure only the long side of a stamp, so this record of the perforation probably corresponds to our B × A, as the stamp does not exist perforated A alone, so far as we have been able to discover. The sample stamp kept by the printers is perforated B.