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" cla.s.s.

Messrs. Corwin and King give further details as follows:[65]--

As one of them has pa.s.sed 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 coa.r.s.er, 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 cla.s.s, 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 quant.i.ties 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 p.r.o.nouncing them impostors."

[67] Metropolitan Philatelist, XVII: 83.

[68] North American Colonies of Great Britain, page 15.

[69] Metropolitan Philatelist, I: 226.

The date usually a.s.signed 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 cla.s.s. 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. .h.i.therto 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 quant.i.ties 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 quant.i.ty, 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.

CHAPTER V

THE CANCELLATIONS OF THE EARLY ISSUES

A rather interesting study, particularly for the collector of entires, is that of postmarks and cancellations, and sometimes much a.s.sistance in the solution of knotty questions is rendered by these often despised and neglected adjuncts to the proper use of postage stamps.