only supply of the 7½d. stamp was received probably in the second quarter of 1857, and these were all unperforated. The first supply of the ½d. stamp was doubtless delivered about midsummer of 1857, and these were evidently all unperforated. The other supplies received in the fiscal year of 1857 were 300,000 of the 3d. in September 1856, and the same number again in March 1857, together with the 50,078 of the 6d.[67] Evidently these were still in the unperforated class, as they were delivered before either the 7½d. or ½d. supplies. We must therefore look to the supplies delivered after the 30th September, 1857, as a basis for reckoning up the perforated series. The values and quantities given in the stamp accounts (already quoted) are as follows:—
| ½d. | 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 (destroyed) | 60,660 | 21,700 | 17,578 | 31,200 |
| 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 7½d. and 10 pence, perforated, as these stamps, thus treated, have never been seen in America, nor can anything be ascertained from the makers of the Stamps or the Canadian Post Office Department concerning them." The last statement is hardly convincing, for neither party referred to can give any more information concerning the other three values that we know were issued. We can heartily
subscribe to the next remark, however:—"We have no hesitation in pronouncing them impostors."
The date usually assigned to the appearance of the perforated stamps is January 1858. The London Society gave simply "1857," which is apparently set down merely because they have just quoted the announcement from the Postmaster General's Report for that year. Evans and Moens, in their catalogs, both name the date as November 1858. Unfortunately no more authoritative statement has been found, except that in Messrs. Corwin and King's article[70] they say "Mr. Hooper positively states that it took place in January, 1858." Mr. John R. Hooper was at that time [1890] connected with the Canadian Post Office Department at Ottawa and took pains to look up much information for the above-mentioned gentlemen. His reasons for the "positive statement" are not given, and inasmuch as he is quoted elsewhere as saying that "the records of the Post Office Department are silent as to where this perforation was performed and by whom,"[71] and also seems a little uncertain in some other details, we feel that further confirmation is needed.
In our table above we have given the supplies received after the 30th September, 1857, and deducted the remainders so as to have the actual number issued. The 10d. has already proved a stumbling block, for it was not perforated at all! Next we find the 6d. to the number of 150,000, when the total issue, including the laid paper, was but 400,000; yet the catalog value of the imperforates is some $6 for each variety, and of the perforated stamp at least $30! Can anyone doubt that all these 150,000 6d. stamps were not perforated? In the case of the 3d. we have one and a third millions to compare with a total issue of three and a half millions—about a third in the supposed perforated class. Yet the catalog value of the latter is $2.50 against 36 cents for the wove paper imperforate alone. With the ½d. stamp there are two millions against a total of three and a third millions, or about two to one in favor of the supposed perforated stamps, yet the latter are double the catalog price of the former! The only conclusion to be drawn from these regularly appearing inconsistencies in each value is that all the supplies after 30th September, 1857 were not perforated, as the 10d. stamp very glaringly intimates!
If this be so, is it not possible that the order to perforate new supplies was given to the manufacturers much later than has hitherto been thought to
be the case? It hardly seems likely that this improvement would be ordered for a few supplies and then dropped, only to reappear a year and a half later as a permanent feature of the new set. Once adopted it was more than likely to be retained.
Let us see, then, just for curiosity's sake, what the supplies of the last six months of issue yield us for data. For the ½d. 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 ½d. 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:—