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.

This One Shilling is a very scarce stamp in the unused state.

Issue 9.

_Early in 1874._

1s., pale violet-rose.

We learn from the books of Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co. that on July

28th, 1873, they sent out to the colony a consignment of 300 sheets—9000

stamps—of a One Shilling which they call “pink,” as they did the rose-red

One Shilling of the 1872 printing. Fortunately the sample stamp attached

to their book is there to show us what it was they sent out, and we find

it to be a violet-rose stamp perforated, as are most of this issue, B ×

A. In few other cases in St. Vincent have the records of the firm been

of more use to us, as the stamp remained unchronicled by the periodicals

until quite the end of 1874, and their various descriptions of its colour

are extremely misleading.

At the same time, it seems almost impossible that had it been issued

at once on its arrival in the island, its existence should have been

unsuspected by all philatelic writers for a period of more than a

year, as it was not until September, 1874, that the first chronicle

of it was made in the _Timbre-Poste_, where M. Moens calls its colour

“_rose-sale_”; and we are therefore inclined to believe that its issue

was delayed for at least some months, perhaps until the early part of

1874.

Its colour is a pale violet-rose, always of uniform shade, but, as the

stamp has a strong tendency to oxidation, some very dark specimens may be

found in which the colour has greatly deteriorated.

Like the One Shilling of the preceding issue, it is found perforated

B and B × A. It is scarce unused, and we have seen very few specimens

perforated B, all of which have been used ones.

Issue 10.

_1875._

1s., dark claret, very slight shades.

This One Shilling was printed and sent out to the Colony on March 27th,

1875. The consignment consisted of the same number of stamps as those

of the last two issues. It is not clear in what month its actual issue

took place. It was not chronicled until the _Timbre-Poste_ noticed it in

January 1876, where the colour is called “_lie-de-vin foncé_.” In their

books the printers still adhered to the term “_pink_,” but although no

sample stamp of this printing was preserved, we can be quite certain that

it consisted of 300 sheets of One Shilling, _dark claret_, as both the

other two printings of “pink” Shillings have been accounted for.

In colour it is a rich dark claret, with very slight shades, and even

most of these are due to the deep toning of the paper, as the gum used is

always the darkest to be found in St. Vincent stamps, and the paper is

invariably more or less deeply stained. The perforation is always B.

Although no more of this issue were printed than of the One Shilling,

rose-red, or the One Shilling, pale violet-rose, it is rather more common

unused than either of those two stamps.

Issue 11.

_February 1877._

6d., pale yellow-green.

1s., bright vermilion-red.

The two values in changed colours were sent out to St. Vincent by the

printers on December 30th, 1876, the consignment consisting of 300 sheets

of each value; that is, 18,000 stamps of the Six Pence value and 9,000

of the One Shilling. They were both chronicled by the _Timbre-Poste_ of

April, 1877, and must have been issued some time in February. The Six

Pence remained current until the middle of 1880, and the One Shilling

as long as Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co. supplied stamps to St. Vincent.

Besides the printing of the two values in December, 1876, one other

printing of the Six Pence and two of the One Shilling were made. The

second printing of each value was sent out on August 28th, 1878, and the

third printing of the One Shilling on May 13th, 1880. All these printings

consisted of 300 sheets each, so that the total printed of the Six Pence

of this issue amounted to 36,000, and that of the One Shilling to 27,000

stamps. In the printers’ books sample stamps are attached to all the

entries referring to these printings, with the exception of the second

lot of the One Shilling. The samples of the first printing are perforated

B × A in both values; in that of 1878, the second printing of the Six

Pence is perforated A, and the One Shilling of the 1880 printing is

perforated B.

We have seen from the case of the One Shilling of Issue 4 that more

than one variety of perforation (and even of colour) may exist in the

same printing, nor is it to be expected that in such cases samples of

each variety would be preserved by the printers, since differences of

perforation are more appreciated in philatelic than in printing circles.

There is, however, a circumstance connected with the perforation of the

vermilion Shilling which leads us to believe that the stamps of all these

printings were perforated only as shown in the sample stamps of each

consignment. We know that in 1881 the third printing of the vermilion

Shilling was utilized for making a provisional stamp of Four Pence, and

that all these provisionals are perforated B only. We therefore think it

probable that all of the One Shilling value perforated B × A belong to

the first printing, and all perforated B to the second and third, more

especially as the stamp perforated B is much the commoner of the two

varieties. We have extended this theory to the Six Pence as well, and in

the Reference List we give in brackets after each variety the probable

date of issue of the different perforations.

One thing that is remarkable about the colours of both these stamps

is that there are no appreciable shades of either, the colours being

maintained unchanged in all the printings of each value, although in

the books of Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co. the colour of the first two

printings of the One Shilling is called “scarlet,” and that of the third

“bright red.”

In the unused state the Six Pence is very much rarer perforated A than

with the compound, but the converse is the case with the One Shilling, in

which B × A is by far the rarer perforation. The paper of the stamps of

this issue varies a great deal in thickness, but this is more pronounced

in the Six Pence than in the One Shilling, as the former value is met

with on what can only be described as thin card.

Both values, as well as the One Penny and Six Pence of Issue 7, and other

stamps current during the later years the stamps of Issue 11 were in use,

are not uncommonly found with a curious obliteration of an upright oval,

pointed at the top and bottom, and divided across the centre by a double

line. The upper part contains the letters “G.B.,” and the lower “40 c.”

The cancellation made its appearance upon these three stamps about the

end of 1878, or early in 1879, and was first thought to be a surcharge.

The credit of its explanation is due to the editor of the _Foreign Stamp

Collectors’ Journal_, who made enquiries at the Post-office, and who

stated in the numbers of that journal for December, 1879, and July,

1880, that “in addition to the ordinary mail steamers from the West

Indies, letters are conveyed to England by the French Packets running

intermediately. These letters are stamped as above; the G.B. signifying

‘Grande Bretagne,’ and the 40 C., the amount payable to the French

Post-office for their services.” “The stamp ceased to be employed for its

original purpose some time ago, but is now used instead of the ordinary

cancellation stamp, which is worn out.” Its use as an obliterating stamp

must have been continued at least up to some time in 1882, as we have

frequently seen it on the Halfpenny orange of Issue 18, a stamp which was

not issued until December, 1881.

Issue 12.

_July 1877._

4d., dark deep blue.

A consignment of 200 sheets—6,000 stamps—of the Four Pence value,

printed in very dark deep blue, was sent out to St. Vincent on May

29th, 1877. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we have no

reason to doubt the stamp was immediately put in issue, and that it

was first used in July of the same year, but had it not been for the

record in the books of the printers, we should have had a good deal of

difficulty in assigning a date to it. Most of the principal catalogues,

including the London Society’s list and the current edition of M. Moens’

_Catalogue Prix-Courant_, give 1876 as the date of issue, but the stamp

is not catalogued in the 1877 edition of the last mentioned work. The

solitary chronicle of it we can find in philatelic literature is in the

_Timbre-Poste_ of May, 1878, where we find it recorded in the following

terms: “Réapparition du 4 pence, en bleu foncé, mais avec étoile en

filagramme.”

We think it far more likely that the fact of the stamp being on

watermarked paper should have escaped the notice of M. Moens, than that

its issue should have been delayed for nearly a year after its arrival

in the Colony. The one printing of the Four Pence yellow had been a

small one; it consisted of only 9,000 stamps, as compared with 15,000

of the Four Pence blue, on unwatermarked paper, issued in 1866. We do

not know for what reasons the postal authorities had changed the colour

of this value from blue to yellow, but they could not have been very

important ones, as the blue Four Pence of Issue 4 was, as we have seen,

undoubtedly still allowed to be used in 1873—that is, about four years

after the introduction of the Four Pence, yellow, so it is evident that

the use of the two stamps was concurrent for some time at least. It is

stated in the London Society’s West Indian Catalogue that the Four Pence

value became “disused,” but this cannot have been the case, as we have

the evidence of postmarked specimens of the yellow Four Pence that it

was in use in July, 1876, and we know that a fresh supply of the value

was sent out in 1877. There is therefore every reason to believe that

although the Four Pence, deep blue, of the issue now under consideration

had probably been seen by M. Moens when first issued, he mistook it for

the old blue Four Pence that was still being occasionally used, and it

was not until 1878 that he discovered the difference in the paper, and

chronicled the watermarked stamp in the _Timbre-Poste_. There is every

excuse to be made for this temporary omission, as the great majority of

the issue is printed on the very thick variety of paper which approaches

thin card, and it is a matter of great difficulty to detect the watermark

in this paper, even when it is known to be there.

There was only one very small printing, 6,000 stamps, made of this Four

Pence, and so it is naturally very much rarer than either of the two

stamps of the same denomination previously issued. In addition to this,

its rarity unused is even out of all proportion to the smallness of the

printing, and we may be certain that since it was unchronicled in the

philatelic publications of the day it was not put into stock by the

dealers, and that the unused specimens we occasionally find have been

preserved by accident rather than by design.

It is always perforated B, and the colour, which would alone distinguish

it from the Four Pence of Issue 4, shews no shades, except those due to

oxidation, to which it has a certain tendency.

Issue 13.

_May 1880._

1d., in red on half 6d., dark blue-green of Issue 7.

This is the first of a very interesting and important series of four

provisional stamps that were made in St. Vincent, in 1880 and 1881, to

supply a temporary want of certain values. From information received

from Mr. Frank W. Griffith, late Acting Colonial Postmaster, and already

published in the West Indian Catalogue of the London Society, we know the

date of issue of the provisional One Penny was May, 1880, and that the

number of stamps issued amounted to 1,800. Reference to Messrs. Perkins,

Bacon and Co.’s list of consignments shows that the last printing of the

black One Penny had been sent out in August, 1878, and it is evident

that another supply of the value had already been ordered, but not

received when this provisional was made, as the new One Penny, printed in

grey-green, was only despatched from London on May 13th, 1880.

The stamp used for surcharging was the dark blue-green Six Pence of

Issue 7, perforated A, a remainder being in hand, probably from the last

printing of March, 1875.

In those days surcharged stamps, especially in British Colonies, were not

so common as unfortunately they have subsequently become, and were much

appreciated by philatelists, as may be seen by the tone of the writer

who chronicled the provisional One Penny in the _Philatelic Record_ of

July, 1880. “A very curious provisional stamp, forming a fit pendant to

the makeshift 1d. employed in Barbadoes in 1878, has been used recently,

but may by this time have become obsolete. The postal authorities of St.

Vincent have treated their 6d. value in the same way as the Barbadians

did their 5s. stamp—perforating it down the centre, and surcharging each

side with 1d. in red, the numeral being 8 mm. in length.” The writer

then goes on to say that the central line of perforation is clean cut,

and gauges 12, which is quite correct, and records a fact worth bearing

in mind when examining doubtful specimens, as the forgers have found

the perforation much more difficult to imitate than the surcharge.

Unfortunately our illustration of this stamp, No. 2, is not as clear as

we could have wished, owing to the red and green colours not lending

themselves readily to photography—so we give the measurements of the

surcharge, which are as follows: Height of figure, 8¾ mm.; width of

figure, 1½ mm.; length of foot of figure, 3½ mm.; height of “d,” 3 mm.;

extreme width of “d,” 2 mm.; space between “d” and figure, 1½ mm.; space

between figures on right and left halves of the same stamp, 8½ mm. The

figure “1” has a straight serif. These details will help to protect

collectors against at least the more ordinary forgeries, but the gauge

of the perforation and its regular clean-cut circular holes are really

the crucial tests, as some of the surcharges are heavily printed, and

are difficult to measure with accuracy. A description of the forgeries

known to us would be of little use. They all fail in the perforation,

most of them in the dimensions of the surcharge, and one rather dangerous

one we recently discovered has the figures on the two halves of the

stamps wrongly spaced. The one most likely to be met with is the least

dangerous, as it has a large cross stroke to the top of the figure,

instead of a serif, besides being wrong in many other particulars.

This forgery is evidently copied from the illustration in a well-known

catalogue, and not from the stamp itself.

This provisional One Penny has always been a rare stamp, especially

unused, or in pairs; none of the issue seems to have found its way into

dealers’ stocks, but to have been all used up for legitimate postal

purposes, so that a great part of it must have been destroyed, and only a

small proportion of the original 1,800 saved for philatelic purposes.

Issue 14.

_June 1880_.

1d., pale grey-green.

6d., bright yellow-green.

5s., deep rose-red.

On May 13th, 1880, Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co. sent out 1000 sheets

(60,000 stamps) of the One Penny, printed in pale grey-green, 300 sheets

(18,000 stamps) of the Six Pence, printed in bright yellow-green, and

100 sheets (2,000 stamps) of a new value—Five Shillings, printed in deep

rose-red. In this consignment was included the third and last printing

of the One Shilling bright vermilion-red. All the three first mentioned

values were perforated B only, this we know because no other variety of

perforation exists in any of these stamps, the issue of which was in all

three cases confined to this one printing. We think this is a very good

reason for believing that the printing of the One Shilling that was made

at the same time was like them perforated B only, and that at this date

the use of the A machine had been discontinued for ever, as far as the

stamps of St. Vincent are concerned.

The printings of both the One Penny and the Six Pence were small ones.

The former value must have been used up quickly, as a new supply was

ordered in the next year; we may, therefore, expect this stamp to become

much scarcer than any of the same value that preceded it, and of which

such a large quantity were printed.

The Six Pence was the last of that value to be printed by Messrs.

Perkins, Bacon & Co., and it remained current for more than three years,

until October, 1883, when it was succeeded by a stamp printed by Messrs.

De La Rue & Co. About a fifth part of the printing was used in 1881 for

making provisional stamps of the One Penny and Halfpenny values.

It is rather a scarce stamp, even in a used state, and is decidedly rare

unused, it being one of the St. Vincent stamps the dealers appear to have

neglected.

The Five Shillings value is a striking stamp, both in its size and

design, which is very artistic, and it is altogether a fine example of

the line-engraved work of its makers, Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co. The

central portion of the design portrays the Arms of the Government of

St. Vincent, and represents “Justice pouring out a libation to Peace,”

which illustrates the motto of the Colony, PAX ET JUSTITIA—“Peace and

Justice”—given on the scroll above the Arms. The plate contained twenty

stamps, arranged in four horizontal rows of five, and the same star

paper was used for printing the issue as for the other stamps of smaller

dimensions; the consequence of this being that each stamp is watermarked

with at least more than _one_ star. There seems to have been very little

demand for the stamp for postal purposes in the Island, and genuinely

postmarked specimens are now of great rarity. Used Five Shillings stamps

have always been eagerly sought for by philatelists, who for many years

declined to have anything to do with unused specimens, as they looked

upon the stamps as fiscals only. This belief seems to have arisen from

the way they were chronicled in the _Philatelic Record_ of August,

1880, which said—“The 5s. fiscal stamp has lately been used for postal

purposes.” The _Timbre-Poste_, in announcing the stamp, quoted from the

_Philatelic Record_, and so the error came to be perpetuated, until the

true character of the stamp was explained in the London Society’s _West

Indian Catalogue_, published in 1891. In that work will be found an

official notification, dated 15th September, 1882, in which it is called

“the existing five shilling postage stamp,” and in which it is directed

to be “over-stamped _Fifty Pounds—Revenue_,” and “used as a Revenue stamp

of that value.” Its use as a Revenue stamp was not confined to this

high denomination, as it exists with “Revenue” only on it, and fiscals

with this surcharge are fairly common. We are of opinion that the great

majority of the 2,000 stamps printed were so treated, and that only a

very small number were ever used for postage, or escaped the fiscal

surcharge. This readily accounts for the great rarity the stamp has

acquired of recent years, and this rarity cannot, we think, but increase

still further in the future.

The official notification quoted above contains a clause which “directs

that the present six penny postage stamps may be cut diagonally in

half—each half to be over-stamped _3d. Revenue_, and be used as a

revenue stamp of that value.” It was further used, with the surcharge

“Revenue,” as a fiscal Sixpence. This fiscal use of the Six Pence, bright

yellow-green, of Issue 14, is an additional reason for its now being so

rare in an unused state.

Issue 15.

_September 1881._

½d. in red on half 6d., bright yellow green, of Issue 14.

The necessity for a Halfpenny value arose from the Colony of St. Vincent

having joined the Postal Union on September 1st, 1881, and, pending the

arrival of the stamps ordered from England, this provisional was made

in the Island by dividing the Six Pence of the last issue by a vertical

line of perforation through the centre, and surcharging each half stamp

“½d.” in red, the additional perforation being the same as that of the

provisional One Penny of Issue 13.

It was thus chronicled in the _Philatelic Record_ of October, 1881: “St.

Vincent, proud apparently of her provisional One Penny, which has eluded

the grasp of so many collectors, has provided herself with a Halfpenny

makeshift, which is as like it as possible. The current Sixpenny stamp

has been perforated down the centre, and each half surcharged ½d. in red.

We have only, as yet, seen a single specimen, but there may be almost as

many varieties as there are stamps to the sheet.” This surmise of the

writer, fortunately for collectors, turned out to be incorrect, as there

are practically no varieties on the sheet, except one in which the serif

of the figure “1” of the fraction is straight, instead of being curved

as in the other figures on the sheet. Beyond this there are no varieties

of the surcharge, save in very slight differences in the position of the

fraction line, due to the surcharge being type set. Our illustration No.

3 shows the variety with the “1” with straight serif on the right half

of the Six Pence. It will also be observed that this surcharge is on a

slightly higher level than its neighbour on the left half of the same

stamp. It may also be noted that the surcharges were not always printed

fairly in register with the sheet, so that each one fell exactly in

the centre of a half stamp, as we have seen a used specimen of a right

half stamp, which shows portions of a second surcharge down the line of

perforation on the right side of the stamp.

A variety of this stamp, with the fraction line of the surcharge omitted,

is reported to us from the United States, but not having been able to

verify for ourselves whether the surcharge is genuine or not, we have

omitted it from our Reference List.

There were twelve sheets (1,440 stamps) of these provisionals printed,

but not many were issued for use, and we believe they were withdrawn from

issue _before_ the arrival of the new Halfpenny value in December. It

is an excessively rare stamp used, and at the date of its issue and for

some considerable time afterwards it was unattainable unused. We believe

this was owing to an official order to the effect that neither stamp

collectors nor dealers were to be supplied with it. Whether this order

was eventually rescinded, or fell into abeyance in the course of time,

we do not know; but one thing is certain—that philatelic persistence

triumphed in the end, and that the unused remainder of the issue found

its way at last into the hands of philatelists, so that now it is not at

all a rare stamp in the unused state. For this reason, and because the

unused Six Pence itself is so difficult to find, the forgers have not

been so busy with it as with its predecessor, the provisional One Penny;

but forgeries of it do exist, and for the satisfaction of our readers, we

give the dimensions of the surcharge. The extreme length from the top of

the letter “d” to the bottom of the numeral “2” is 16½ mm.; the height

of the letter “d” is 4 mm.; the space between the “d” and the figure “1”

is 2 mm.; the height of the figure 1 is 4 mm.; the space between the

figures “1” and “2” is 2½ mm.; the height of the figure “2” is 4 mm.; and

finally, the width of the letter “d,” without measuring the foot, is 2¼

mm. These measurements all vary a little according as the surcharge is

lightly or heavily impressed.

Issue 16.

_November 1881._

4d. in black on 1s., bright vermilion-red, of Issue 11.

Four Pence being one of the Postal Union rates, the stamps of that value

remaining in hand from the issue of July, 1877, were soon used up, and in

November, 1881, the new lot of the Four Pence value not having yet come

out from England, 21 sheets (630 stamps) of the vermilion-red shilling

perforated B were surcharged in the Island with a large “4d.” in black,

and issued as provisionals. The original values were obliterated by black

bars, 2 mm. wide, printed across the sheet. The _Philatelic Record_ of

December, 1881, says: “St. Vincent.—Since this Colony joined the Postal

Union there has, of course, been a demand for Four Penny stamps. Those

used hitherto have been blue, like the issue of 1866, and not yellow,

like those of 1869. They were not remainders of the 1866 issue, but

stamps reprinted in a brighter shade of blue, and perforated in the rough

way which has lately distinguished the stamps of St. Vincent. By the

mail delivered here on the 13th inst. we have received letters franked

by a provisional Four Penny adhesive, formed by surcharging the current

scarlet Shilling 4d., and obliterating the original value by means of a

bar.”

We now see how deep was the mystery enshrouding the Four Pence on star

paper of Issue 12, when the editor of the leading English philatelic

periodical had been ignorant of its existence up to this time, and even

then failed to perceive any difference, except in the perforation,

between it and the Four Pence of 1866.

The provisional Four Pence has always been a very rare stamp; and it is

probably much scarcer than it is generally credited to be, as it has been

a favourite with the forgers of all nations, who have in some instances

been able to produce articles that pass current as genuine even in

circles believing themselves to be well-informed. We refrain, for several

reasons, from giving the measurements of the surcharge. First, because,

owing to the “4d.” being generally deeply indented in the paper, it is

not at all easy to measure it with accuracy; and also because, as regards

dimensions, there is a very dangerous forgery frequently met with, which

is not to be detected by any amount of measurement, however carefully

done, and which can only be distinguished by careful comparison.

Particular attention must be paid to the shape of the different angles of

the figure “4,” and especially to the contour of the top of that figure,

and to the way in which the slanting stroke joins the horizontal and the

vertical ones. The forgery alluded to fails in these particulars, but

it is like the genuine in this—that it is heavily printed, although not

quite so deeply indented as the genuine is _sometimes_ found.

Our illustration, No. 15, represents a well-known forgery of British

manufacture, which has been kindly lent to us for the purpose by a

gentleman to whom it was presented by the artist himself as a specimen

of his skill. This is a much easier forgery to detect than the one we

have just been speaking about, as it is generally accompanied by a forged

postmark, and is altogether too smoothly printed. Its measurements are

also incorrect, the foot of the figure “4” being fully ½ mm. too long.

There are a good many specimens of this latter forgery in circulation.

Another point to which we direct attention is, that in the genuine stamps

the black bar across the sheet begins on the left exactly flush with

the left of the figure “4” of the left hand stamp of the row, and ends

exactly under the right edge of the tail of the letter “d” of the right

hand stamp. It follows from this, that when the surcharges have been

printed in register with the sheet, the three stamps of the left hand

vertical column and the corresponding three on the right have the words

of value only partly obliterated, the bar under the “4d.” only reaching

part of the way across the label containing the original value.

Issue 17.

_December 1881._

“One Penny” in black on 6d., bright yellow-green, of Issue 14.

This provisional, which was also surcharged in the Island, was probably

issued on the 1st of the month. It was chronicled in the _Philatelic

Record_ of January, 1882, and the editor of that periodical notes a

specimen postmarked “2nd December 1881.”

The issue consisted of 27 sheets (1,620 stamps) of the Six Pence, bright

yellow-green, of Issue 14, surcharged “One Penny” in block capitals. The

length of the surcharge is 18 mm., and the height of the letters 2 mm.

The original values are obliterated by black bars on the sheet, placed

exactly the same as those described in our note to Issue 16, but only 1

mm. in width instead of 2 mm.

It is not nearly such a scarce stamp as the provisional Four Pence, or

the One Penny of Issue 13; but it is rarer than the Halfpenny of Issue

15, except when this last is in the used state.

A number of the provisional One Penny of this issue came over unused to

English dealers after the stamp had been withdrawn from use, just as in

the case of the provisional Halfpenny. Used specimens were at first very

scarce, but to remedy this deficiency a certain number of these unused

stamps were reshipped to an agent in St. Vincent, and came back through

the post in instalments during the course of 1883 and 1884, whenever

their owner had a demand for used specimens. This explains the late dates

seen on some of these stamps. At the present time there is nothing to

choose in point of rarity between used and unused specimens.

There are a good many foreign-made forgeries of this surcharged One

Penny, but all we have seen have been very poor attempts, and none of

them have ever been made on the right stamp, the one usually selected for

forging being the pale yellow-green Six Pence of Issue 11.

We think this is the proper place to note a curious stamp that has just

reached our publishers from the United States. It is the left half of a

bright yellow-green Six Pence of Issue 14, which stamp has been divided

in half by a vertical line of perforation gauging 12. This half stamp

is surcharged “D/1” in red, and is postmarked, apparently over the

surcharge. The extreme height of the surcharge is 8½ mm.; the height of

the figure “1” is 5 mm., and its width ¾ mm.; the height of the letter

“D” is 2¾ mm., and its width 2¼ mm. The figure “1” has a long serif,

slanting downwards, and a foot like that of a Roman figure “I.”

We do not like to hazard an opinion as to what this stamp may be, but

we think it right to place its existence on record, as the perforation

which has divided the stamp has been, in our opinion, done by the same

official machine that performed the same operation, not only on the

postal provisionals of 1880 and 1881, but also on the fiscals that were

made in 1882 by dividing diagonally this same Six Pence of Issue 14,

and surcharging each half “3d. Revenue.” It was expressly forbidden in

St. Vincent to make use of postage stamps for fiscal purposes, unless

they had been overprinted “Revenue”; this stamp, if genuine, cannot

therefore have been intended for anything but postage. It may have

been experimentally prepared in December 1881, when a provisional One

Penny was required, and rejected in favour of the one actually issued;

but farther than this we cannot go. We are sorry that this interesting

stranger has reached us too late for illustration.

Issue 18.

_December 1881._

½d., orange-yellow, shades from pale to deep.

1d., drab, slight shades.

4d., bright ultramarine.

The consignment of these three stamps, which was sent out on November

16th, 1881, consisted of 1000 sheets (60,000 stamps) of the Halfpenny,

1000 sheets (60,000 stamps) of the One Penny, and 500 sheets (15,000

stamps) of the Four Pence. All three values were issued in December, and

the three provisionals which had temporarily supplied their places were

at once withdrawn from use, if indeed this had not already taken place in

the case of the provisional Halfpenny.

The plate for the Halfpenny value, like those of the One Penny and Six

Pence, consisted of 60 stamps arranged in 6 horizontal rows of 10. Like

the other current values, it was printed on the star-watermarked paper.

The lateral distance between the stamps is 19 mm. from centre to centre,

and the vertical 21½ mm. These dimensions being smaller by 1⅓ mm. one

way, and 2½ mm. the other, than those of the spaces between the stars in

the paper, it follows that these last are distributed among the stamps in

less than the proportion of one star to each, so it is very seldom that

we find the watermark properly centred on any single specimen.

The colour of this Halfpenny varies a good deal in depth of shade,

and, like that of most St. Vincent stamps, it has a strong tendency to

oxidation. This colour was called “primrose” by the printers. Although

only one printing was ever made of it, this was a large one, and it is a

very common stamp either unused or used.

We have called the colour of the One Penny “drab,” but it is not a very

easy one to define, although our term is more likely to be understood by

our readers than that of the printers, which is “chemical black.” For

some reason or other it is a very much scarcer stamp unused than the

Halfpenny, in spite of there having been printed an equal number of both.

We suppose that this must be through the dealers having omitted to put it

in stock in any great quantity, and from a number of the sheets having

been overprinted “Revenue” for fiscal purposes.

Possibly for the same reasons the Four Pence is also a rare stamp unused,

and even used specimens are getting scarce. Only 15,000 of these were

printed, and they must have been quickly used up, as a new issue of the

value was required within a year.

The three stamps of this issue are only known perforated B; they were the

last to be printed for the Colony by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co.

In a letter in _Stanley Gibbons Monthly Journal_ for December, 1891, the

One Penny drab, with star watermark, is said to exist perforated 14, but

the reputed owner has since informed us that this is a mistake.