THE PERFORATED PENCE ISSUES
The perforated series of the pence issues of Canada furnishes another
one of those knotty problems for which these stamps are noted. The first
intimation of the improvement that was announced officially appears in
the Report of the Postmaster General for 30th September, 1857, in these
words:--
Moreover, the Department has been led, by the increasing use of
Postage Stamps, to take measures for obtaining the Canadian Postage
Stamps on sheets perforated in the dividing lines, in the manner
adopted in England, to facilitate the separation of a single stamp
from the others on a sheet when required for use.
One would naturally suppose that the stamps would be ordered in this
condition from the manufacturers, and we think they were; but no further
light is thrown upon the matter by the Reports, and other facts that
persist in intruding themselves have given rise to a theory that the
Department either bought perforating machines of its own and operated
upon the stock on hand, or engaged some local concern to perforate the
stock in question. This _might_ have been done, but if so why were the
7-1/2 and 10 pence stamps omitted? Again, had such been the case, it is
passing strange that the 1/2 penny, issued unperforated but two months
before the date of the report, should be approximately twice as common
in that state as perforated. In the case of the 3d., taking stock on
hand the 30th September, 1857, and subsequent deliveries, two-fifths of
the entire issue should have been perforated, which would make the
latter stamps almost as common as the earlier issues; while in the case
of the 6d., under similar conditions, almost the same ratio holds, the
figures being a trifle more in favor of the perforated series. This does
not conform with facts at all, and it can hardly be explained by
supposing that a relatively small stock of but three values was operated
upon in 1857 and the improvement then dropped for a couple of years.
For further proof of the incorrectness of this theory we think the
following fact speaks for itself. Appended to each Postmaster General's
Report are various tables of expenditures. One of these statements is
headed:--
"Sums paid in discharge of Tradesmen's Bills," and in it are found the
amounts paid to various parties named for all kinds of supplies
furnished the Department. This is where the payments to the engravers of
the stamps appear, as well as items for cancelling stamps, post-marks,
etc. Now a careful examination of all items for the years 1857, 1858 and
1859 fails to disclose any payment either for purchase of a perforating
machine or for having the stamps perforated by outside parties. This may
be "negative evidence" but we feel that it has its due weight.
Nevertheless, we find at least two other perforations on stamps of this
issue besides the regulation gauge 12, which has made it appear to some
that the Department might have experimented with means of separation
before settling definitely on the type adopted. The stamp operated upon
was the 3d., probably as being the most commonly employed value, which
would naturally be the case were the perforations the efforts of private
parties. The first "irregular" perforation was listed by Major Evans[60]
as gauging 13, and the London Society's work lists it as well, probably
following the earlier catalog. But Messrs. Corwin and King
state:[61]--"This perforation is totally unknown in America, and we
doubt its existence." Neither the Pack nor the Worthington collection
contains a copy and we think it can be passed by.
[60] A Catalogue for Collectors, page 33.
[61] Metropolitan Philatelist, I: 226.
The next perforation is of gauge 14, and this is well known though of
extreme rarity. Messrs. Corwin and King did not know of over twenty
specimens in 1891. We are fortunate in being able to illustrate a fine
used pair on piece of cover from the Pack collection as No. 128 on Plate
XIII. Most unfortunately, however, as will be noted, some vandal cut the
cover, though perhaps unwittingly, just so as to destroy most of the
postmark and thus lose forever the date and place of mailing. Messrs.
Corwin and King state:[62]--
[62] ibid. I: 275.
We have lately seen a pair of 3d. perf. 14, upon the original cover,
but which, unfortunately, presents a most indistinct dating stamp,
and, although endorsed by the recipient with date of writing, May
30, date of receipt and date of reply, all three year dates are so
indistinctly written that one is unable to tell whether it is 1857
or 1859, although we think the former was the date. Should this be
the case it would seem as though the perf. 14 and another curious
perforation just discovered ... were experimental, or provisional,
pending the receipt from the makers of those perf. 12. Most of the
few stamps perf. 14 which we have seen, appear cut on one or more
sides with the shears, as though the users were not familiar with
the advantages of perforation as a means of separating the stamps,
and adhering in a measure to the old methods. This is one of the
reasons which lead us to believe that these stamps, perf. 14, were
issued before those perf. 12, because the latter are almost
invariably separated by tearing apart as is proper.... The writer
has in his collection seven copies of the 3d. perf. 14, and of these
four specimens show double perforation on one or more sides. It is a
rare occurrence when a double perforation is found upon any of the
stamps so treated by the American Bank Note Co. or their
predecessors, and when we find four out of seven specimens in that
condition, we are justified in stating that these stamps, gauging
14, were never perforated by the makers.
In another part of the article just quoted is the following:[63]--
The American Bank Note Co. and Rawdon, Wright, Hatch and Edson,
their predecessors, have never, according to official information
from them, employed any other gauge than 12, in fact they call 12
their standard and only perforation. Allowing that they did
perforate the ones found perf. 12 (which are the rule, while those
perf. 14 are the exception), then those perf. 14 must have been
certainly operated upon elsewhere than in the shops of the Bank Note
Co., where this perforation is unknown.
[63] Metropolitan Philatelist, I: 226.
From all the foregoing we can seem to make but one deduction for the 3d.
perforated 14 and that is--unofficial. The dated cover, if 1859, would
be but a month before the issue of the decimal stamps, and the regular
"perf. 12" stamps were plentifully supplied at that time. It would
therefore seem that the date must have been 1857, as suggested, which
would have been well ahead of the appearance of the "perf. 12" issues as
we shall see later. Then the fact that the manufacturers cannot be held
responsible for this perforation, and the Department accounts furnish no
item of expenditure directly traceable to such work, make it seem wholly
probable that it was done by private parties for their own or customers'
convenience.
The "curious perforation" alluded to as just discovered was announced by
the Scott Stamp & Coin Co. as follows:[64]--
CANADA.--In a large lot of pence issues purchased by us lately, we
have found two copies of 3 pence on grayish wove paper perforated 13
with oblique parallel cuts. This seems to confirm the theory that
the pence issues of Canada were not perforated by the manufacturers,
but either by the Canadian Government or by some persons authorized
by them, who most likely experimented with different perforating
machines, finally selecting the one perforating 12.
[64] American Journal of Philately, 2d. Series, IV: 23.
With regard to the deductions given, we think that what we have already
presented concerning the unofficial character of the gauge 14
perforation applies with even more force in the present instance, and we
unhesitatingly put these two curios in the "privately perforated" class.
Messrs. Corwin and King give further details as follows:[65]--
As one of them has passed into the possession of the writer, we are
able to particularize somewhat with reference to this particular
perforation.... Our specimen is from the bottom of the sheet, or
else the shears have been used, so that we find the perforation as
it originally existed between each stamp, before separation. This
perforation consists of oblique _curved_ parallel cuts; they are not
straight, but show a very decided curve from right to left, looking
at the face of the stamp. The other sides of our specimen present,
having been torn from the stamp on either side, a very well defined
saw-tooth perforation, very much like that found on the Bremen
stamps, but much coarser, clearly gauging 13. It occurs to us that,
perhaps, this is the 13 perforation listed by the London Society,
although, had a specimen been before the society when the reference
list was compiled, the peculiarity of this style of perforation
would surely have been noted by them.
[65] Metropolitan Philatelist, I: 277.
To return to the general subject, Mr. Donald A. King in his own article
says:[66]--
It is an open question whether these stamps were delivered to the
Canadian Post Office Department in a perforated condition or not.
The manufacturers are wholly unable to throw any light on the
subject; and while there is much to be said in favor of their having
perforated the stamps, there are points against it almost as strong.
In favor of it there is the fact that, at the date that these stamps
were issued, it was more than probable that a firm like the
manufacturers would have perforating machines. The normal gauge of
the perforated set is 12, that being the only size of perforation
ever used by the manufacturers, or their successors, the American
Bank Note Company; indeed, they call 12 their standard and only
gauge.
[66] Monthly Journal, VII: 9.
The stamps in issue from the time of the announcement of perforation in
the Report of 1857, to the appearance of the decimal stamps in 1859,
were the 1/2d., 3d., 6d., 7-1/2d., and 10d. values, but only the first
three appeared with perforations. The first supply of the 10d. stamp, as
we know, was received in January 1855, and was naturally unperforated.
The first and only supply of the 7-1/2d. stamp was received probably in
the second quarter of 1857, and these were all unperforated. The first
supply of the 1/2d. stamp was doubtless delivered about midsummer of
1857, and these were evidently all unperforated. The other supplies
received in the fiscal year of 1857 were 300,000 of the 3d. in September
1856, and the same number again in March 1857, together with the 50,078
of the 6d.[67] Evidently these were still in the unperforated class, as
they were delivered before either the 7-1/2d. or 1/2d. supplies. We must
therefore look to the supplies delivered _after_ the 30th September,
1857, as a basis for reckoning up the perforated series. The values and
quantities given in the stamp accounts (already quoted) are as
follows:--
1/2d. 3d. 6d. 10d.
Rec'd, yr. ending 30th Sept. 1858 1,258,920 900,000 100,000 72,120
Rec'd. half-yr. end'g 30th June, 1859 850,100 449,900 70,000
--------- --------- ------- ------
Total, 2,109,020 1,349,900 170,000 72,120
Balance on hand 30th June, 1859 60,660 21,700 17,578 31,200
(destroyed)
--------- --------- ------- ------
Issued 2,048,360 1,328,200 152,422 40,920
The first thing that confronts us here is a second supply of the 10d.
stamp in this supposed "perforated period," over half of which was
issued for sale, and yet the 10d. stamp is practically unknown in a
perforated condition! We say practically, because the London Society's
work[68] remarks:--"The Seven Pence Halfpenny, green, and Ten Pence,
blue, perforated, exist in the collection of a well known Parisian
collector. The authenticity, however, of the perforations appears to be
doubtful." We think it is more than doubtful, as it is practically
certain that neither value was ever issued in this condition. Messrs.
Corwin and King state:[69]--"We agree with the Society in doubting the
authenticity of the 7-1/2d. and 10 pence, perforated, as these stamps,
thus treated, have never been seen in America, nor can anything be
ascertained from the makers of the Stamps or the Canadian Post Office
Department concerning them." The last statement is hardly convincing,
for neither party referred to can give any more information concerning
the other three values that we know _were_ issued. We can heartily
subscribe to the next remark, however:--"We have no hesitation in
pronouncing them impostors."
[67] Metropolitan Philatelist, XVII: 83.
[68] North American Colonies of Great Britain, page 15.
[69] Metropolitan Philatelist, I: 226.
The date usually assigned to the appearance of the perforated stamps is
January 1858. The London Society gave simply "1857," which is apparently
set down merely because they have just quoted the announcement from the
Postmaster General's Report for that year. Evans and Moens, in their
catalogs, both name the date as November 1858. Unfortunately no more
authoritative statement has been found, except that in Messrs. Corwin
and King's article[70] they say "Mr. Hooper positively states that it
took place in January, 1858." Mr. John R. Hooper was at that time [1890]
connected with the Canadian Post Office Department at Ottawa and took
pains to look up much information for the above-mentioned gentlemen. His
reasons for the "positive statement" are not given, and inasmuch as he
is quoted elsewhere as saying that "the records of the Post Office
Department are silent as to where this perforation was performed and by
whom,"[71] and also seems a little uncertain in some other details, we
feel that further confirmation is needed.
[70] =Metropolitan Philatelist, I=: 275.
[71] =ibid. I=: 226.
In our table above we have given the supplies received after the 30th
September, 1857, and deducted the remainders so as to have the actual
number issued. The 10d. has already proved a stumbling block, for it was
not perforated at all! Next we find the 6d. to the number of 150,000,
when the total issue, including the laid paper, was but 400,000; yet the
catalog value of the imperforates is some $6 for each variety, and of
the perforated stamp at least $30! Can anyone doubt that all these
150,000 6d. stamps were _not_ perforated? In the case of the 3d. we have
one and a third millions to compare with a total issue of three and a
half millions--about a third in the supposed perforated class. Yet the
catalog value of the latter is $2.50 against 36 cents for the wove paper
imperforate alone. With the 1/2d. stamp there are two millions against a
total of three and a third millions, or about two to one in favor of the
supposed perforated stamps, yet the latter are double the catalog price
of the former! The only conclusion to be drawn from these regularly
appearing inconsistencies in each value is that all the supplies after
30th September, 1857 were _not_ perforated, as the 10d. stamp very
glaringly intimates!
If this be so, is it not possible that the order to perforate new
supplies was given to the manufacturers much later than has hitherto
been thought to be the case? It hardly seems likely that this
improvement would be ordered for a few supplies and then dropped, only
to reappear a year and a half later as a permanent feature of the new
set. Once adopted it was more than likely to be retained.
Let us see, then, just for curiosity's sake, what the supplies of the
last six months of issue yield us for data. For the 1/2d. we find
850,000, roughly, with 60,000 remainders. Call it 800,000 issued which,
if perforated, would be a quarter of the total issue of 1/2d. stamps, or
a ratio to the imperforates of one to three. This is not so far away
from the catalog ratio of two to one (inversely, of course) in the value
of the perforated stamps. With the 3d. stamp we have 450,000, roughly,
with 20,000 remainders, say 430,000 issued. Of a total issue of
3,500,000 this represents one-eighth, or a ratio of one to seven. The
inverse ratio of seven to one for catalog value comes pretty close when
we compare $2.50 with 36 cents! In the case of the 6d. there are 70,000
less 17,500 remainders, or 52,500. This is approximately one-eighth the
total issue of 400,000, or again a ratio of one to seven. The inverse
ratio of seven to one for a catalog value would make the perforated
stamp list $42 with the imperforate at $6. But both laid and wove paper
6d. stamps list at approximately $6, whereas if all had been issued on
but one variety of paper we might find perhaps a single list price of
say $4. With this as a basis, the catalog value of $30 for the
perforated 6d. is in as close agreement with our supposition as are the
others. And, best of all, the second supply of the 10d. stamp is
disposed of without any difficulty whatever under this hypothesis!
It may be argued that reasoning thus from catalog prices is too
uncertain to prove of value. Granted in many cases. But here is an issue
from fifty to sixty years old; the stamps were regularly used in
increasing numbers during their years of issue; they have always been
popular and eagerly collected, so that the stock in existence has been
pretty well handled and pretty well distributed. Under these conditions
the catalog prices should by this time reflect fairly accurately the
_relative_ rarity of the main varieties of each stamp at least; and it
is this relative rarity that we are after in order to approximate the
original supplies of the main varieties. The result is certainly of more
than mere interest, the agreement being such that we are tempted to lay
down the following propositions in regard to the perforated stamps for
further proof or disproof:--
_First._ The regular perforation (gauge 12) was done by the
manufacturers and applied to the last requisitions previous to the
change to decimal stamps.
_Second._ The date of the supposed issue of the perforated stamps should
be changed from January 1858, to November 1858 or January 1859.
_Third._ The quantities of perforated stamps issued are placed
approximately at:--1/2d., 789,440; 3d., 428,200; 6d., 52,422.
In further support of the above postulates, we must say that every cover
bearing any one of the three perforated stamps which we have been able
to get a satisfactory date from has been postmarked in _1859_! Not one
has yet been seen which bore a date in 1858 even, and one 6d. from the
Seybold collection, which was dated at Brantford, Dec. 29, 1857, turned
out to be bad. Of course perforated pence stamps are hard to find on
original covers, but it is curious that so far not one has upset the
theory we have laid down.
There is one point left which perhaps needs some attention. The London
Society's work lists a 6d. on _laid_ paper, perforated 12, and Mr. King
has followed by including it in his reference list. This would imply
that the Canadian Government had perforated its stock on hand, in which
might be a few remainders of the early laid paper issue, and naturally
would go far toward confirming that view of the origin of the perforated
series. But this stamp seems to be an unknown quantity, almost as much
so as the 3d. "perforated 13" of Major Evans' Catalogue. Mr. Pack
says:[72]--"I have never heard of the 6d. perforated, on laid paper. It
is catalogued in the Society's publication, but a copy, so far as I can
learn, has never been seen in Canada or in the United States."
[72] =London Philatelist, XVI=: 144.
We have been interested to track this stamp, and have apparently found
the original located in the Tapling collection, now housed at the
British Museum. In a catalog of the Canadian portion of this collection
by Gordon Smith,[73] we find two unused copies listed on _laid_ paper,
one marked "perf. 12" and the other "forged perf." The sequel is found
in the _American Journal of Philately_ for 1891[74] in the following
note:--
There is no longer any mystery in regard to the origin of that
_great rarity_! the perforated 6 pence on laid paper, these stamps
having been perforated for four or five years in the shops of
Messrs. Benjamin Sarpy & Co., Cullum street, London, who openly
boast of having manufactured and sold those in the collection of the
late Hon. T. K. Tapling and other prominent collectors.
[73] =The Stamp News, X=: 43.
[74] =American Journal of Philately=, 2d. Series, IV: 365.
The paper upon which the perforated pence series is found seems to give
further confirmation to the theory that they came from but one or
possibly two printings. Outside of the two lower values on ribbed paper,
which are rare, the series seems to be entirely on a hard, white wove
paper, varying in thickness from a medium to a thicker quality, which is
in every way similar to the paper employed for the succeeding cents
issue. On the thin ribbed paper the London Society (1889) and Messrs.
Corwin and King (1891) list the 1/2d. stamp, but this is not found in
the catalog of the Tapling collection already referred to, nor in the
Pack or Worthington collections; we have therefore listed it with a
query. The 3d. stamp we have seen, however, and Mr. Pack says it "is a
scarce stamp even in used condition, but in unused condition I find it
one of the great rarities of Canada."[75]
[75] =London Philatelist, XVI=: 144.
As noted under Chapter II,[76] the use of split stamps was not usual, as
in Nova Scotia, but Mr. King chronicles the 6d. perforated, in dark
violet, split diagonally and used as a 3d. in like manner to its
unperforated predecessor.
[76] See page 32.