Public Domain Stamp collecting news articles               HOME: http://www.oocities.org/pdstampinfo     E-Mail

    


The text and stamp images on this web site are in the public domain.  The
text of these articles was published in the United States of America in 1922
and earlier.  This information is provided for informational purposes only,
no warranty of usefulness, accuracy, or fitness is implied or given for this
information.  Use at your own risk.

Mekeel's Weekly Stamp News Jan 7, 1911 Volume XXV, Number 1, Whole Issue Number 1045
  1. Schermack perforations on the USA 4 cent 1902 brown Grant definitive stamp, issued April 1908
  2. USA 1 cent 1851 blue Benjamin Franklin defintive stamp - printing plate differences
  3. USA 8 cent 1908 Washington definitive stamp on part-rag bluish paper
  4. Belgium 1910-1911 semipostal stamps / charity stamps
  5. 1910 Report from the Third Assistant Postmaster General of the United States
    1. Coil stamp production improvements - how much does a coil stamp add to production cost above the cost for a sheet stamp?
    2. USA 1 cent 1911 red Lincoln postal card isued Jan 21, 1911
    3. USA definitive stamps on part-rag bluish paper
    4. Why USA stamps change from double line 'USPS' watermark to single line 'USPS' watermark
  6. Perfins / Spifs
  7. USA local posts - Hussey's Local Post
  8. Bavaria
  9. St. Vincent
  10. New Issues
    1. USA Precancels
    2. Barbados
    3. Belgium
    4. Congo
    5. Paupa
    6. Romania
    7. Turkey
    8. Uruguay
  11. Cats removed from London post office building
  12. USA - Secret marks on 1873 issues
  13. Introduction to perforations and roulettes 
  14. Hawaii - 1853 5 cent and 13 cent reissues?
Page 4: (NOTES: Schermack perforations on the USA 4 cent 1902 brown Grant definitive stamp, issued April 1908)

Visible Supply - From Fred. R. Schmalzriedt of Detroit, Michigan, the following statistics, among other information, have been received of the four-cent, 1902, imperforate, "with private oblong perforations," as the catalogue says, referring to the Schermack perforations. "It is not generally known that of the 9950 of the 1902 four-cent, with Schermack perforations, that were sent out by two Detroit concerns in 1908, two have been recovered; (the remaining fifty were obtained from the Schermack Company by Mr. Karl Koslowski.) As late as December 15th, Mr. J. Murray Bartels in the Philatelic Gazette says: 'The stamps thus perforated were used in their regular course of business, probably on catalogues requiring four cents, and as nothing was then known of their rarity, it is reasonable to suppose that probably none was saved.' So far as known none of the stamps that were sent out by these concerns were found until three weeks ago. Through my purchase from Mr. Koslowski of the strip of five referred to by Mr. Bartels, I heard of a young man who took two covers containing four-cent imperforates from a waste-basket in the office in which he was employed. He took them home with him and on the same day removed one, which is perfectly centered, from the cover. The other which is poorly centered and shows part of the next stamp on the right, he left on the cover. He did not notice anything unusual about the stamps until about a year after his discovery but even then did not know that they had any particular value; and it was only through my purchase of the strip referred to previously that he became aware of the value of his find. Both of these stamps are now in my collection. The cover is a pale blue linen envelope, 9 3/8 by 4 1/8 inches in size, bearing no return card. The envelopes were sealed when sent out and apparently contained a circular 3 3/8 by 8 3/4 inches in size, which must have been of heavy paper, as the creases show very plainly in the envelope.  The date of the cancellation is June 2, 1908, 10:30 a.m., and the place is the main postoffice in Detroit. Although I have tried hard, I have been unable to obtain the mailing list, but I have not entirely given up hope and may yet be able to locate a few of these stamps. Adding the two which I now have, to the twenty-three that were known before, makes a total of twenty-five copies now known to collectors." Mr. Schmalzreidt's remarks are very readable and his figures that are submitted convey their own story.

page 4 (NOTES: USA 1 cent 1851 blue Benjamin Franklin defintive stamp - printing plate differences)

A Word More - The remarks on the one-cent, 1851, that appeared in the issue dated November, 19th, 1910, have attracted some attention, and it has been asked if any further information as to which plate or plates showed both types has been elicited. The fact has been uncovered that John N. Luff said, writing in 1895: "Although I have ascertained that the plates of the issues of 1851-57 were numbered from 1 to 12, inclusive, for the one cent, I have not been able to learn which numbers belong to the two varieties of the stamp and which were used for the imperforate and the perforated stamps. For this reason I have only given such numbers as I am able to locate positively." Plate 1 is the only one assigned to the one-cent blue full ornaments. A reader informed us that the three types of the stamp are known in an unsevered strip; this was known when the paragraphs were printed and at the time, it was said: "In this connection type III is not considered; for the sake of simplicity, it is eliminated, having been caused, vide Luff, by not 'rocking the transfer sufficiently far,' thus making it a plate variety of type II."

page 4 (NOTES: USA, WASHINGTON-FRANKLIN, USA 8 cent 1908 Washington definitive stamp on part-rag bluish paper)

As Told - Our investigation of the discovery of the eight-cent stamp on bluish paper has not resulted in any really sensational disclosures. The story as it is related is to this effect. It is alleged that a person described as a stranger asked for the eight-cent on experimental paper at the wholesale stamp window of the Chicago postoffice and upon being told that the stamp was not known on bluish paper said that some of the eight-cent stamps were included in a stock that had been sent to Chicago. We have been assured that the eight-cent was discovered among the stamps as predicted, but no information as to the number is available, as yet.

page 4 (NOTES: BELGIUM, SEMIPOSTAL STAMP, CHARITY STAMP, Belgium 1910-1911 semipostal stamps / charity stamps)

In A Good Cause - The new charity stamps of Belgium are being given much advertising in the newspaper press abroad. These special stamps were issued for internal correspondence, "at double the ordinary price, the surplus money to be paid to the National League in aid of the comsumptive." The stamps are meeting with a ready purchase by the public, much to the satisfaction of Her Majesty who "takes great pleasure in the relief of human suffering." Stamp collectors, too, are being relieved of "double the ordinary price."

page 5 (NOTES: USA, COIL STAMPS, SINGLE LINE WATERMARK, DOUBLE LINE WATERMARK, WASHINGTON-FRANKLIN, DOUBLE LINE WATERMARK, SINGLE LINE WATERMARK, 
USA 1 cent 1911 red Lincoln postal card isued Jan 21, 1911, 
USA definitive stamps on part-rag bluish paper,
USA stamps change from double line 'USPS' watermark to single line 'USPS' watermark)
 

FROM AN OFFICIAL SOURCE

The report of the Third Assistant Postmaster General always contains matter of interest to philatelists, and the report for 1910 is no exception.

In the copy before us we find a detailed statement of the output of postage stamps, stamp books, post cards, etc., for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1910. Of the 13c, the total output was 4,408,000. Of the $3 value 1,258 were issued and of the $5 value 3,551.

Stamps in coils figure in the report to a considerable degree and we find that a new machine has recently been installed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing which "greatly reduces the cost of putting them up in that form."

The report says in this connection: - "This machine is of simple and effective construction and performs the work of about ten operators. Under the old method of coiling the cost was from six to twelve cents per coil. During the past year the demand for coiled stamps grew to such an extent as to make this expense something of a burden and it became necessary to charge it to the user. With the new machine, however, the coiling is done at a cost of a fraction of a cent and the extra charge can probably be discontinued."

Mr. Britt goes on to say that the use of stamps in this form will prove so convenient that ultimately they will be supplied to post offices for use at the stamp windows.

A new postcard will be issued this winter, to be known as No. 5. It is intended primarily for index and library purposes and will be smaller than the McKinley postcard now in use, being 3 x 5 inches as compared with 3 1/4 x 5 1/2 for the former. The card will be white and printed in red, with profile head of Lincoln looking to the left, after a portrait by L. G. Muller. The use of this portrait was granted by Mr. Muller of Chicago, by whom it is copyrighted.

The date of issue of the McKinley card is given as February 12, 1910 while the card with the horizontal lines omitted from the background was first placed on sale April 13, 1910. The Washington reply card was first placed on sale September 14.

From the report of Mr. Britt we copy the following paragraphs as being of general interest: - 

Coiled Stamps - The Bureau of Engraving and Printing has recently completed a machine for coiling postage stamps which greatly reduces the cost of putting them up in that form. It is of simple and effective construction and performs the work of about 10 operatives. Under the old method of coiling the cost is from 6 cents to 12 cents per coil. During the past year the demand for coiled stamps grew to such an extent as to make this expense something of a burden, and it became necessary to charge it to the user. With the new machine, however, the coiling is done, at a cost of a fraction of a cent and the extra charge can probably be discontinued.

Experimental Part-rag Paper. - The annual report of this bureau for 1909 contained an account of an experiment with a special paper composed of about 30 per cent rag stock, in which it was hoped - shrinkage would be minimized and waste in perforating thereby diminished. The special paper was of a slightly bluish tinge, which was considered by some to be preferable to the white of the regular paper. With a view to considering the advisability of adopting the bluish tint for all the stamps, each denomination then in press was printed upon the special paper. These denominations were 3 cents to 15 cents, inclusive, in additiono to the 1-cent and 2-cent stamps reported last year. The quantities printed were 4,000 each of the 3-cent, 5-cent, 8-cent, 10-cent, 13-cent, and 15-cent denominations. 4,400 of the 4-cent, and 5,200 of the 6-cent.

The experiment failed to indicate that any improvement in the appearance of the stamps would be gained by substituting the part-rag paper.

Change of Watermark. - in April the Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing stated that a reduction of the size of letters composing the watermark in our stamps (U S P S, representing "United States postage stamps") would increase the strength of the paper and give it a more uniform thickness. He submitted a new design for watermark, in which the letters, though reduced in size, were so spaced that a portion of the watermark would appear in every stamp. The change was duly authorized, and postage-stamp paper now being manufactured bears this new watermark.

General Improvement of Postage Stamps. - The Bureau of Engraving and Printing is constantly seeking to perfect its output, and is entitled to credit for its progressive policy in this respect. Particular attention has been given to improving the paper of which postage stamps are made and the gum with which they are coated.

page 6 (NOTES: PERFIN, SPIFS, USA LOCALS, HUSSEY'S LOCAL POST)

NEWS GLEANINGS,

-Preston W. Champion, Manchester, N. H., recently paid the office of the WEEKLY a visit and exhibited an extensive collection of U. S. and foreign stamps with initial perforations. In glancing through the collection one is surprised to note the large number of countries using these perforations, no less than twenty-three being noted. Many of the designs are very curious and all in all it is a very interesting and inexpensive side-line.

-Chas. Steigerwalt sends us New Year's greetings and at the same time favors us with an 1863 war token issued by Hussey, of local stamp fame, to advertise his post. Obverse : "Time is Money", horseman, "1863 Exigency". Reverse : "Hussey's Special Message Post, 50 William St., N. Y.".

page 6 (NOTES: BAVARIA, ST. VINCENT)

QUERIES AND COMMENT.
Edited by C. E. SEVERN.

Our readers are cordially invited to ask the editor for any information desired concerning stamp collecting. Should a personal reply be desired kindly enclose postage. This department is for the beginner as well as the advanced collector. Address, C. E. Severn, 721 Oxford Bdg., Chicago, Ill.

"Boy:" - The new set of Bavarian stamps to bear the portrait of Prince Regent Luitpold will not be issued until well along in 1911 according to newspaper reports. Our young friend is full of enterprise; he says: "My father is going to Germany, where he was born, soon, and as he used to live in Bavaria, he will go there. I think that he can send me lots of the new stamps." Good.

W.Y.L. : - In the catalogue for advanced collectors, published by the Scott Stamp & Coin Company, we find the following note, under St. Vincent: "Revenue stamps were never allowed to be used for postage in this colony. Nevertheless, numerous revenue stamps are found with postal cancellation, but this, however, is either a forged cancellation or a genuine cancellation obtained by favor from some obliging official."

page 6 (USA PRECANCELS, BARBADOS, BELGIUM, CONGO, PAUPA, ROMANIA, TURKEY, URUGUAY)

NEW ISSUES
Edited by A. KIDDER.

Any information regarding new issues will be gratefully received and acknowledged. Address HENRY A. KIDDER, 17 Addison St., Arlington, Mass. Letters calling for a reply should contain a self-addressed, stamped envelope. We cannot give applicants the addresses of our correspondents.

UNITED STATES. - Robert J. Wagner shows us a permit, which was originally No. 11 of Newton, Iowa, but has been changed to No. 2 of Fort Wayne, Ind., the value alone remaining unchanged. The obliteration is in black.

Frank B. Eldredge sends us the following new precancels:

No. 223, Spencer, Mass., normal; type I.
No. 328, Spencer, Mass., normal; type I.
No. 330, Spencer, Mass., normal; type I.
No. 323, Aurora,  Ill.,  normal; type I.
No. 323, Aurora,  Ill,   normal; type I, blue ink.
No. 323, Ashland, Ohio,  reading up; type V.
No. 323, Ashland, Ohio,  reading down; type V.
No. 324, Ashland, Ohio,  normal; type V.
No. 323, Ashland, Ohio,  inverted; type V.
No. 327, Ashland, Ohio,  normal; type V.

Cleveland Bundlie reports the following new precancels:
No. 329, St. Louis, Mo., normal; type I.
No. 323, Attica, Ind., normal; type III.
No. 323, Dayton, Ohio, normal; type III.
No. 323, Wheeling, W. Va., normal; type I.

BARBADOS. - Ewen's Weekly reports that the 8d value is out of issue.

BELGIUM. - Another change appears from a few cards received from Mr. Schachne. All are the divided face form and all show on the reverse the steamers of the Ostend and Dover line. This company has heretofore used only white cards but part of these come on buff. No instructions at left. No change in stamps or the upper headlines. The letter card still has the same stamp as above, although the newer stamp has been out some months on the 25c. The headlines, also instructions at left, are now in one line instead of two and in different type.

Post Cards.

5c green on white.
10c red on white.
5c green on buff.
10c red on buff.

Letter Card.

10c carmine on blue.

It appears that the recently issued charity stamps were something of a failure, and therefore that the time for their sale has been extended until Jan. 31, 1911. They will not be valid for postage, however, beyond the date originally fixed, June 30, 1911.
 

CONGO. - The new cards are received from Mr. Schachne and show the same designs as the last cards of 10c and 15c for the new 5c and 10c respectively, with the necessary changes and the new name "Belgisch-Congo" which appears as one of the headlines and on the lower part of the stamp.

Post Cards.

5c red on buff. 10c orange on buff.

PAPUA. - Hermann Focke writes as follows, concerning the new issues of Papua: "In No. 1040 you report on authority of Philip Wolff the id, 2 1/2d, 4d and 6d of Papua with large 'Papua,' perf. 12 1/2, to which I may add the 1/2d value, received today from Port Moresby, under date of Oct. 25, last. What surprises me is that Mr. Wolff did not call your attention to the distinct new shades of all those stamps, and principally of the 2'/2d value, which comes in a violet or almost purple, as against the ultramarine or milky blue color of the first two issues. This new shade will require the catalogues taking notice of the variety, even if they overlook, in the interest of the much haunted Papua collectors in special and all collectors in general the uncounted varieties of watermarks and perforations. It is a decidedly new stamp in every respect and should therefore deserve a place in the catalogues. The watermark of my specimen is inverted Crown A, and I have the 1/2d and id both with upright and inverted watermark, while the other values have the watermark upright, all perf. 12 1/2 small holes. The is still comes with 'Papua' in small letters on paper with horizontal watermark perf. 12 1/2."

ROUMANIA. - The Illustriertes Briefmarken Journal reports that the 40b of the current set is coming in emerald green instead of blue green.

TURKEY. - L'Echo de la Timbrologie chronicles a new value, made necessary by the new newspaper rate.

Adhesive.

2pa olive.

URUGUAY. - The long heralded new series of stamps for this country has begun to appear, two of the lower values having been shown us by Hermann Focke. As previously announced several times, they have been engraved and printed by "Waterlow & Sons, Limited, London," the imprint in full appearing below each stamp. The design is quite elaborate, too much so in fact to be attractive. The portrait is that of Artigas, the same appearing on both the 1c and 5c values, which are all we have yet seen. The stamp is 21 x 25 1/2 mm., a large upright frame. The portrait is placed slightly below the centre line of the stamp, with "Republica Oriental- Del Uruguay" in two curved lines above, and the value in a straight line below, with figures of value in each of the lower corners. The inscriptions are in colorless letters, imposed directly upon the background, which is in very fine and dark. The portrait is three-quarters surrounded by a row of large pearls, and the corners of the frame are filled with large conventional ornaments. The stamps are well printed on wove, unwatermarked paper, and perforated 14. The design is the same for both values, except the change in value and color.

Adhesives.

1c dark green.
5c dark blue.

page 6 (NOTES: Cats removed from London post office building)

CATS FREE

The secretary of Our Dumb Friend's League has received a communication from the Postmaster-General stating that care has been taken to provide for any cats not required after the removal from the old to the new General Post Office building, and that homes have been found for these animals. - London Times.

page 7 (NOTES: USA secret marks on 1873 issues)

SECRET MARKS ON U. S. STAMPS.
By C. E. SEVERN.

H.E.N. - Although our correspondent, age 14, sent us a stamped return envelope, we wrote him that as his questions were so interesting, we wished to answer them in the paper. "What is meant by the secret marks on U. S. stamps?" The secret marks on the U. S., 1873 issue, were small, hidden differences made in the designs of the stamps, one to fifteen-cents, inclusive. Soon after the Continental Bank Note Company secured the contract by competitive bid with the National Bank Note Company, whose contract expired in 1873, for the manufacture of the United States stamps, the Continental printers added the secret marks so that their product could be identified, if it became advisable to do so. No printings of the 24, 30 and 90-cent stamps were made. it may be added that the designs of the 1870 were so satisfactory to the public that no change was deemed necessary and so the dies and plates were transferred to the new printers. (2) "How can the 1870, 1873, 1879 and 1882 issues be distinguished?" The 1870 issues does not show the secret marks while the 1873 issue, with the exception of the 24, 30 and 90-cent, has them; consequently, almost all the difficulty or identification between the two issues rests with the three high values named. The differences are in the shades of the three stamps in question; and when the stamps are unused, the rule is that the National gum is yellower than that of the Continental stamps. In 1879, the Continental Bank Note Company was merged into the American Bank Note Company and the new product was marked by the soft, porous paper, characteristic of the issue, that took the impression better than the hard, thin paper of the 1873 issue. The one, three, six and ten-cents, 1882, were re-engraved, and the alterations, briefly, were as follows: 

One-cent, - The upper half of the background is almost solid, an effect due to the deepening of the vertical lines of shading. "Lines of shading have been added to the upper arabesques." 

Three-cents: A short horizontal dash is found below "ts" of the word 'Cents." The shading of the outer rim of the oval medallion has been curtailed. 

Six-cents: There are but three vertical lines between the shield and the side of the stamp, on each side, while in the original, there are four lines. 

Ten-cents: "The very faint shading on the shield in the previous stamp of this denomination has been considerably deepened, and the secret mark (i. e., the crescent in the ball of the scroll following 'e' of 'Postage') has been omitted."

Page 7 (NOTES: PERFORATIONS, ROULETTES)

WITH THE BOY PHILATELIST.

Edited by BERTRAM W. H. POOLE, Route 2, Box 40, Pasadena, Cal.

We propose to insert upon this page matter that will be of interest to the boy collector. Some two thousand boys are now on our mailing list and it is our desire to come closely in contact with them In such a manner as will be most helpful. Any information desired will be cheerfully rendered through these columns. Do not submit stamps for examination.

A CHAT WITH THE BEGINNER.

A Chat About Perforations. - This week I propose having a short chat about perforations, their importance from a collector’s point of view, and how to measure them. The earliest stamps of all were issued imperforate — that is, no provision was made for their easy separation one from the other, so they had to be cut apart by means of a knife or pair of scissors.

This was, naturally, a slow and somewhat clumsy way of doing things, and, as postage stamps became more and more in demand, inventive brains tried to devise some method by means of which stamps could be easily and expeditiously separated. Mr. Henry Archer, an Irishman, was the first to solve the problem that led to the general perforation of stamps—at any rate he was the first to put the idea into practical use, for he invented and perfected a machine for perforating sheets of stamps which was ultimately purchased by the British Government in 1854. The lead given by Great Britain was slowly followed by other countries and at the present time stamps are only issued imperforate in civilized countries through error or so that the sheets may be adapted for use in stamp vending machines. It is interesting to note that perforation was first applied to United States stamps in 1857.

The Various Kinds of Perforation 

There are two chief kinds of perforation — those in which small pieces are cut right out of the paper between the stamps and those in which a series of cuts or slits are made but which do not actually remove any of the paper. The first of these methods is the one most usually adopted and represents perforation’ ‘proper, while the other class includes all kinds of roulettes.

The ordinary and most commonly met with sort of perforation is made by rows of hollow punches which cut out small circular pieces of paper from the spaces between the vertical and horizontal rows of stamps. The current U. S. A. stamps will furnish a ready example of this sort of perforation. Various machines are employed, some of which perforate a whole sheet .or pane of stamps at one stroke, others known as single - line or “guillotine” machines perforate between two rows at each stroke, while others, again, known as comb-machines, perforate the top and sides of one row of stamps at a time.

Specialists distinguish between the work of these three sorts of machines but that is hardly a matter we need discuss now.

Roulettes. - A fairly common form of stamp separation found in connection with the older issues is the process known as rouletting. By this method a series of small slits is made in the paper with sufficient space between to hold the stamps together until it is desired to separate them. The most usually met with variety consists of a number of cuts in a perfectly straight line. Other varieties have the cuts arranged in small curves, zigzag, etc., but as these are all comparatively uncommon I need hardly tabulate them now but should sufficient readers be interested I shall be glad to give a list and short description of all the varieties known to philatelists at a later date. Lastly there is pin-perforation (a form of roulette) in which tiny pricks or holes are made in the paper without removing any of it. A rough idea of this form of perforation can be easily obtained by running a piece of paper under an ordinary sewing-machine needle.

How to Measure Perforations. - In the case of ordinary perforations the spacing of the punches which cut the holes varies on different machines and owing to this fact we get various "gauges." A standard of measurement has been adopted by philatelists for distinguishing between these numerous varieties and a stamp is said to be perforated 10, 11 1/2, 15, or whatever it may be according to the number of holes that can be counted in the space of 20 millimetres. With the use of a good perforation gauge, which most stamp dealers can supply for about 10 cents, the measurement of perforations is greatly simplified, for these useful little articles render it unnecessary to tediously count the holes on every stamp. The use of a gauge is a simple matter and the accomplishment is one easily acquired by the veriest tyro. On the gauge are a number of divisions, each of the exact width of 20 millimetres, in which are a number of dots or short lines. To ascertain the gauge of a particular stamp it is only necessary to place it over one of these spaces and when the number of holes on the sides of the stamp coincides with the spaces in the 20 mm division the task is complete. The number indicated in that particular division indicates the gauge. It is not necessary to fit the stamps on all the divisions in order to find the gauge. A good catalogue, which every beginner should possess, will list the varieties of perforation that exist and if a stamp is catalogued as, say, perf. 12 only, it is hardly necessary to measure the perforation. If, however, a stamp is listed as perf. 12 1/2 or perf. 14, it is only necessary to fit it on these two divisions to ascertain its gauge.

The Importance of Perforation. — Differences in perforation are often the sole means of identifying between separate issues of stamps or of distinguishing originals from reprints and forgeries, so that their importance in the scheme of collecting is at once apparent. These differences, too, often have a marked influence on the value of a stamp so that for this reason also the collector should learn how to distinguish various gauges.

The beginner will, however, be well advised not to attempt, at first, to collect varieties of perforation as such. It is a matter that can be left until his collection has reached a fairly advanced stage. At first he will find the accumulation of ordinary, straightforward varieties quite as much as he can manage though, naturally, if he has been able to obtain any rare varieties of perforation it is as well he should be able to identify them.

page 1 and continued in Mekeel's Weekly Stamp News Jan 14, 1911 (NOTES: This is quite a long article or Henry Crocker responding to Major Evans' critisims of his Hawaii stamps research)

HAWAII - THE SO-CALLED REISSUES OR REPRINTS, 5c AND 13c, 1853 TYPE.
By HENRY J. CROCKER, F. R. P. S.

(We published quite recently an article dealing with these stamps, written by Mr. Crocker, which was very severely criticized by Major E. B. Evans in Gibbons Stamp Weekly. We cannot take the space to reprint this criticism but in justice to Mr. Crocker feel in duty bound to publish his rejoinder. Interested parties have no doubt read the articles by Major Evans. The formalities of correspondence are eliminated from the matter herewith published.)

OPEN LETTER TO Maj. EVANS, DATED DEC. 5.

I have your favor stating you are now, after rejecting my article on Hawaiian Stamps, going to publish it with such notes made by you that I will not possibly care to make a reply to same, but in any event, you have closed your columns to me as you do not think my arguments are fair.

Under the circumstances, and as you have commenced the publication, I shall write you open letters and reply to your remarkable notes; first, with the hope that my answers and authorities may clear your mind as to some of the points, and secondly to enable such students as may read these letters to study the points I make to your criticisms, which some think, according to letters I have received, are "more of a personal and insulting tone" than the case warrants.

My reply to the first eleven notes published in the Gibbons Weekly of November 19th, 1910, is as follows: - 

NOTE 1: Sly remarks do not involve the question of past history. It is a question of your intimation that up to April 16th, 1868, "Postmaster Brickwood had not ordered any of these stamps," and I say his letters do not show that he intended ordering any. He would have had no incentive such as Kalakaua had in 1864 for ordering the stamps.

NOTE 2: The idea is the same as Note 1. You brought forward something new when you suggested the stamps had not been ordered up to April 16th, 1868, and I was meeting it by showing that idea would suggest two printings-one by Kalakaua and one by Brickwood. Kalakaua ordered the plates returned from the National Bank-Note Company in 1863 with his first requisition. It is natural he would have ordered the Whitney plate back in 1864, especially as they were getting out of date. There was no particular reason for the first request; there was reason for the second.

My reason for "cooly assuming" the plates and stamps were sent back prior to 1868 are the following authorities: Thrum, Giffard's Work on Hawaii, Philatelic Facts and Fallacies, February, 1896, Irwin's letters and statements, Kalckhoff, M. Lataudrie, Bacon and others, and letters on file in the archives at Honolulu showing Brickwood was impatient at the delay of his order. The fact that the postoffices were supplied with temporary stamps (5c Numerals) would seem his reason for holding back a practically obsolete type, which had arrived too late to be of use, and which would thusly interfere with the introduction of his modern stamp. (For comment on balance of note, see Note 6.)

NOTE 3: "H. L." Moens and Hanciau agree, except in one remarkable instance, but according to your notes they are one person.

NOTE 4: Add the Berliner PhilatelistenKlub and Philip Kosack, who are certainly not unjust judges."

Back of my "Fertile Imagination" we have the authority of Kalakaua and Irwin's official letters and statements, that an order had been placed in the United States for Sc stamps: "Giffard's and Kenyon's statements (evidently from official source) that stamps were received August 31, 1865. The dearth of 2c Kamekameha V type at this period, proved they were not the new 5c engraved, for the two stamps were delivered together in

NOTE 5: My foundation consists of statements and documents from J. N. Luff, Postmaster K. Clark, Fairbanks & Company, National Bank-Note Company, Kalakaua's official letters and Irwin's data handed to J.B. Moens, and the description furnished by C Howes in "The Perforated Issues of Hawaii." (MEKEEL'S WEEKLY, 1902.)

Kalakaua placed his orders through Clark and Fairbanks & Company. No order, or mention of any Sc stamp ever took place, either with the above or in Kalakaua's letters later on direct to the National Bank-Note Company. On the other hand, Brickwood ordered his 5c stamps April 26, 1865, and the order was placed in the engravers' hands June 22, 1865. You say, this is no proof that the plate was not in existence many months before. Why?

NOTE 6: Mr. Giffard told Warren H. Colson and myself, among other things, that the basis of his work entitled "Descriptive Catalogue of the Postage Stamps of Hawaii" and published in 1893 (seven years before the Hanciau claim) was the letters, documents and statements he got from his father-in-law, Postmaster A. P. Brickwood, and that book clearly shows there were no reprints from the original plates. Brickwood received the stamps in question, together with the plates not later than 1867. He defaced the plates and laid away the stamps for several years, but evidently having access to them. You make a statement in Note 2, repeat it in Note 4, also in this note, and again in Note 9. This is in regard to Brickwood's letter of April 16th, 1868. The full facts are as follows

March 6th, 1865, Kalakaua officially stated to Hilo P. 0. the postoffice was depleted of 5c stamps of this type, and he was awaiting a fresh supply from the United States. In the meanwhile "collect the Hawaiian Postage of 5c in money."

Irwin says the plates were destroyed in 1865, but two years and four months elapsed before these stamps were heard of definitely. Postmaster Brickwood writes to Postmaster General of Italy July 27th, 1867 and supplies his requisition for these stamps. Nearly a year later he wrote Postmaster General Peru, April 16th, 1868, "I enclose you herewith specimens of each denomination of Hawaiian Stamps now in use and out of use. The two 5c stamps with head and the two with figure 5 in the center are out of use, and are the last of that issue remaining in this office." (I think this last refers only to the numerals.)

September 9th, 1869, the postmaster writes to Mr. Nunez, Paris, "You have herewith twenty of each old 5c & 13c head 'Specimen.' All now left in the Postoffice of this kind are so marked. Future orders can, therefore, only be filled of that kind, although the full price is charged."

These letters show that Brickwood was always able to supply these Sc stamps during his administration, although there was none on hand when he took office. The total supply, without imprint, was exhausted about the time Evans claims they were printed, i. e., after April 16th, 1868.

I am satisfied from a recent talk I had with W. H. Colson and Mr. Giffard, that the Postmaster was dealing out these stamps from 1865-66, especially the 13c stamp with the 1st type of "Specimen". (See answer to Note 8.) The 5c catalogued $3.50 and the 13c $30.00 would show the 13c was more completely suppressed than the 5c as far as overprint was concerned.

(See Philatelic Facts and Fallacies, Feb. 1896, page 73.) I find almost enough material regarding these over-prints to write a special article.

NOTE 7: The history stands as it was written, and we have both read it and quoted from it. The stamps were sold as regular issues at face value by the postoffice at all times. Any stamps from these plates if ordered by Brickwood would not be a case of necessity such as occurred in 1864-65, and the official records of Brickwood seem to be intact and his acts accounted for.

NOTE 8: The date is not so vague with Mr. Giffard's explanation which you quote. The first stamps issued were without the over-print. There were two types of overprint on the 13c, and it seems the first type was placed on much before the latter (one statement yet to be proved is that it occurred in 1865). The first type was printed like the numeral plate in two vertical rows of 5 each (two printings to each sheet of twenty). The second printing was a solid block of twenty imprints. This would tend to show the 13c were "suppressed" early as stated by Rondot. Giffard saw the plates when they were discovered by Wunderburg, and he was asked "why did the old man deface them." Giffard, on his information direct from Brickwood, catalogued (1893) both the 5c and 13c as original issues, and never heard the term Reprint applied until he read my work defending this from Hanciau's imputation.

NOTE 9: The foregoing statements would seem to disprove this contention of yours.

NOTE 10: M. Rondot could only get his information from the circular Kalakaua issued by error in 1864 stating the U. S. Postage was 10c per 1/2 oz.; he corrected this several months later by advertising the true rate of 3c 1/2 oz. Mahe notes a difference in shade, but all four issues came on different paper in easily distinguished shades. There was eleven years interval between the two original orders for the 13c. They were kept in sealed tin boxes, so that their mint condition might account for Hanciau's error in calling them reprints. You seem to admit this could be possible.

NOTE 11: If ever there was a thoroughly discredited article it is "The Reprints of the Stamps of Hawaii," by "H. L." Hanciau knew nothing evidently of the various issues of Hawaii in 1872, and certainly nothing of the events leading up to the necessity of an order in 1864 by Kalakaua for stamps from the U. S. Mahe states nothing which suggest reprints, in reporting the new issue.

M. Rondot refers distinctly to originals- he could not, at that date, refer to anything else. J. B. Moens proves to be philatelically Hanciau himself, according to your notes and articles.

Dr. Kalckhoff's article is flatly against Hanciau's theory, and he so states in a letter just received (Nov. 28th, 1910). M. Piet-Lataudrie proves absolutely the stamps he mentions were not reprints, as they were issued before 1867.

E. D. Bacon states there are no reprints from the 1853 plates. And to crown the whole, the letters produced by Hanciau were the means of eventually discovering the real history of these stamps.

There is not one single sentence in the whole article which supports Hanciau's contention, and every author he quotes formed their opinions many years before the "H. L." article was written, and he utterly fails to upset their decision.

Your last article entitled "Hawaiian Reprints," referring to these stamps with no fresh evidence to support it in face of the evidence discovered within the last ten years, is not ethical to say the least.

OPEN LETTER TO MAJOR EVANS, DEC. 9.

In my open letter to you dated December 5th, I answered the first eleven notes you made to my article on Hawaii - the so-called reissues or reprints of the 5c and 13c - 1853 type, published in your 19th of November number. This will answer the notes No. 12 to No. 19, which appear in your November 26th issue.

Please let me add here that my article was written to answer the questions, new points, and statements made in your article entitled "Hawaiian Reprints" with which erroneous closing title you asked me to quit the fruitless discussion.

Now, I find that you apparently accept the answers I made, but you do not answer the queries I put to you and pass them in silence taking up many points that are almost immaterial instead. I find, however, that collectors are not disposed to credit you with the fairness in this, which characterized a similar discussion that occurred up to 1895, regarding the Sc Interisland Type of Numeral. You will, no doubt, remember, that this stamp was subject to much discussion for nearly thirty years, and was then pronounced a fraud by the 'Catalogue for Advanced Collectors." Many of us at that time combatted this conclusion, and all the testimony we could procure is set forth by J. N. Luff, in the American Journal of Philately, Nov. 1st, 1895-Pages 524-527. This article proved most convincing as was shown by the following note at the end of the article.

"When a man is wrong, the best thing for him to do is to stand right up and admit it, and we, therefore, as gracefully as we possibly can, must admit that we have been absolutely wrong in the theory advanced in our 'Catalogue for Advanced Collectors,' as to the genuineness of the above stamp. It will he admitted that the arguments which were brought forth at the time were strong enough to convince, in the absence of such material as Mr. Luff has been able to accumulate. The question, however, is now placed beyond all doubt, and we shall again place the stamp in our catalogue, from which it has been omitted for several years." SCOTT STAMP & COIN Co., LIMITED.

I have spent many years collecting material since that time, and, notwithstanding your many insinuations that I do not understand the question, I feel that I have studied Hawaiians most thoroughly, and I am writing for history not personalities. I think I have succeeded in solving some most intricate points, and I find the subject almost inexhaustable. In quoting authorities, many of which you confess ignorance of, although they have Been on record for many many years, I only do so, to bring out points which have either direct or indirect bearing upon the case, and in answering your following notes, I may refer to several, which, if you had had in mind, would no doubt have saved you some errors. The one referred to above, and the American Journal of Philately, December 1st, '95, being among them.

NOTE 12: In answering this, I wish to call the attention of students that you pass by many important points; questions asked by you and fully answered to your satisfaction evidently, and take up a question of my having introduced the word "old" into a letter written by Wm. G. Irwin. I did not do this, as the quotation of this letter is given exactly as it was written in the paragraph just ahead of the one you quote. I used the word "old" for the reason that Mr. Irwin states be had nothing to do with the new Sc stamps (Brickwood's). Mr. Irwin's letter was quoted in full in S. G. M. J., Dec. 31st, 1900, and there was no necessity for quoting it fully on this point.

You have agreed occasionally that the 5c and 13c came at the same time with the plates, and now as Kalakaua ordered a Sc stamp, and it was not the new stamp, the 13c must 
have come, and we find a possible reason for an order. They were H. I. and U. S. Postage, and Kalakaua thought (at this period) that the U. S. rate had been raised to 10c when, in fact, it had been reduced to 3c. He discovered his error several months later. There are many things Mr. Irwin did not mention in his letter to Moens. He knew of this error of Kalakaua's Bulletins, if he knew as much as you credit him for, and he must have heard inquiries about the 13c plate, he may even have known the 13c was useless as the error had been corrected, and he does remember the stamps lying in tin boxes in the office when they first arrived. He says the tin boxes were about the size of opium or sardine tins, which would be the size of the Sc and 13c sheets. Mr. Irwin was not Postmaster, as you state (S. G. M. J., 1900). He is still alive and in active business, as President of the Mercantile Trust of San Francisco. He was the youngest clerk in the postoffice under Kalakaua and Brickwood, 1863-1865. His letter is only proof positive, if anything, that he did not know of all the Postmaster General's actions. You might just as well state Kalakaua did not mention his 5c Numeral stamps to Hilo P. 0., March 6th, '65, because be did not know about them, although Irwin reported and sent them to Moens the month before.

NOTE 13: Brickwood, as you admit in S.G.M.J. 1900, was supplying the stamps in question in 1887-1888-1889, and in the latter year, all he had in stock had been overprinted. (See answer to Note 6 for full evidence.)

NOTE 14: For evidence, see Hawaiian Numerals, and Whitney's connection with the postoffice for many years after he sold out his interest. He continued to furnish stamps evidently up to Brickwood's time, 1865. (See Brickwood's letter to National Bank-Note Company 1866 regarding Whitney's order.) He became Postmaster again in 1882. (See "A. J. of P." 1895, - pages 597-599, regarding the 13c.) The scarcity of this stamp also tends, I think, to show the later printing on this paper, as evidently not many copies of it were sold before overprinting." - Gardiner.

Your theory that they were reprints would show a most foolish act by Brickwood according to this.

NOTE 15: This was in answer to your statement that Irwin used the axe on "Two little copper plates," and I properly say "Nor did Irwin ever state that the axe was used on such plates," but proceeded to show by your own evidence, that Brickwood received not "Two little copper plates" but the dies, plates and rolls. I do not withdraw this statement of Irwin's, nor does he, and you know it, and your attempted perversion of this is most unworthy of the high position you occupy as a Philatelic writer.

When you wrote me last October. you said: "After reading what I have to say upon the contents of your article, I think it probable that you will have no wish to discuss the matter with me further, but I think it right to state, that I must decline to publish any further articles from you upon the subject, because I consider your methods of argument to be most unfair." 

I answered November 15th, as follows: "You now notify me that you will refuse to publish any articles I may write in answer to the comments you may make in Stanley Gibbons' Weekly, and I acknowledge your right, although I question the ethics of this.

"You invited me to a discussion of these stamps, and my contention is, and always has been, that the order for them was placed by Kalakaua in 1864 to fill a shortage for regular postal use, and that data so far accumulated, would prove the stamps and plates were received by Brickwood, his successor, and that students of these stamps agree on this.

"You state that you consider my method of argument most unfair. I am sincerely sorry, but will await your comments on my article, and then decide how unfair you have been to me in closing your columns to any reply."

Now, Mr. Evans, by this you must have deliberately placed this false construction before your readers with the knowledge that many of them would never read the truth. That you had planned to do this, is shown by the above correspondence. The true facts regarding Irwin's testimony with his letters, are set forth in Hawaiian Numerals and in Gibbons' Weekly, October 16th, 1909, and January 22nd, 1910. I am sure my standing as a student of Hawaiian stamps counts for something, and this most perverted note of yours will be taken at its value by students of this country. I think the word "unfair" is inadequate. The testimony that Brickwood destroyed the plates on their arrival is strong, that he destroyed them before you say he ordered from them is unimpeachable; that he ever did order any is most improbable, and his statement to Wm. Giffard that he did not, is accepted by every student I have mentioned in my various articles.

NOTE 16: While you have always argued to the contrary, and proceed to do so in your next note, I am satisfied you are right now. Brickwood gave sufficient data for the stamp when he ordered it, April 22nd, 1865.

NOTE 17: The evidence agreed upon is that the 5c and 13c and the plates came together. Kalakaua ordered the Sc, therefore he ordered the 13c stamps, as they are the same printing. The evidence that be may have needed them, has been shown in answer to Note 10. You now admit that "after Brick-wood is comfortably settled in his office" then he orders the Sc from New York, but you still say Kalakaua had probably been negotiating for them. We have all his letters bearing on his negotiations, and no mention is made of such negotiations. On the other hand, Clark, who attended to his orders, says in a letter dated Portland, Oregon, August 19th, 1910:

"I only placed one order with Fairbanks & Co., in New York, when I was there after I left the Post-office .... Only one order was made by me in New York, and was ordered by Kalakaua after he took charge of the Postal affairs. The National Bank-Note Company filled the order and collected the money, and I don't think Fairbanks & Co. had anything more to do with the Island Post-office. Fairbanks & Co. never had anything to do with the Island Postal affairs except that one order of Kalakaua's which was sent to me in New York."

Kalakaua's next letter is sent to the National Bank Note Company, the last he wrote them, and there is no mention of a 5c stamp. Brickwood was not hard up for 5c stamps, as he was in close daily touch with the local Government printing office where he was getting supplies. We agree that the 13c came with the 5c. Sometimes you state yourself (S.G.M.J., March 30, and S.G.W., May 21, 1910), that Brickwood was distributing these stamps in 1867 and 1868, while we know the post-office was depleted in 1864-S. Where did he get them, according to your theory?

NOTE 18: This is hardly so. Kalakaua ordered the new plate of 2c perforated and engraved, returned with his first order, and he could hardly have intended destroying it. He later on cancelled this order and wrote to the National Bank-Note Company to retain it. (See MEKEEL'S WEEKLY Jan. 25, 1902, page 36.)

You could not know what Kalakaua intended to do with the old plates, neither could Wondenberg who wrote in 1887-1889. You misquote Wondenberg, as he does not "distinctly" say they were sent for under Brick wood's administration. I did not, as you say, think the point unworthy of notice, for if you had read my article a little beyond, you would note I call particular attention to it. The word "Brickwood" was interjected by Giffard, who has since corrected it. (See footnote to article.)

NOTE 19: This is hardly worthy of you and will only prove amusing to philatelists as long as you make it so.

If Giffard is right, he would show there were two orders placed after Kalakaua's so-called "Re-issues, ' as these came on the medium thick bluish-white wove paper. There were four issues, as the stamps themselves prove.

I do not take Giffard's notes to prove this to suit my purpose. I refer you to American Journal of Philately, December 1st, 1895, MEKEEL'S WEEKLY, Jan. 25, 1902, page 34; also to the reference list printed in full, page 601, to the catalogues on Hawaiians; to every specialist of these stamps; to my article in the "Manuscript" on the 13c, illustrated and printed in the English, Swedish, Canadian and American Journals, with proven dates, showing that the thick white paper was the Whitney order, the thin white was the Jackson order, the thin blue was the Clark order, and the medium thick white wove was, therefore, the last order.

NOTE 20: I have made the statement, and repeat and endorse the Scott Stamp & Coin Co. statement.

At the time the stamps were ordered there was a necessity. A temporary stamp was issued while awaiting this "fresh supply." If Kalakaua had remained in office, he would have issued them. His successor made other arrangements by ordering a modern (engraved and perforated) stamp which philatelists agree superseded the old type.

In closing this letter, I think this portion of the argument may he summed up as follows:

The Postmaster states in 1869 all these stamps on hand are over-printed "specimens." In 1868 he was, according to Evans' construction of his letters, sending out the last on hand without the overprint. In 1867 his letters show he was distributing the stamps to foreign officials and, no doubt, to others. In 1865, the Post-office was entirely out of the stamps, but awaiting a fresh supply from the United States. The small quantity of the 13c without over-print, and the comparatively few of the Sc, as against the large quantity of the same order which are found over-printed, would almost prove, if other evidence was wanting, that Brickwood would not go to so much trouble and expense to order an invoice for a profitable investment and then kill possible results by defacing them and making them valueless to collectors. As late as February 2nd, 1877, Brickwood would supply a full set of all the stamps of Hawaii (including the 5c and 13c surcharged "specimen") cancelled as follows, to order: "General Post-office Honolulu," circular, and in the centre the date, month and year.

W. J. Gardiner asks: "Where did Brickwood get his supplies on and before April 16th, 1868?" and "Why did he, if he ordered them after that date, almost immediately overprint them and make his venture a losing one ?"

The stock remaining in the Post-office in 1896 was destroyed by order of the new Government.

OPEN LETTER TO MAJOR EVANS, DEC. 19.

Every writer on these interesting issues have complained of the difficulties they met in trying to fathom the early history of Hawaiian Postal affairs. Consensus of opinion is that no records were kept; in any event the early records, if they ever existed, have been destroyed.

The Postoffice was inaugurated by a man of no previous experience, and this is so of his successors, up to Whitney's second term.

It has been a pleasure for me to gather every shred of evidence regarding these stamps and segregate them into a logical chain of events; and my efforts have been earnest and sincere in reporting facts as they were given to or gathered by me.

It is very evident that Whitney ordered the 1853 plates, and that succeeding Postmasters must have given him verbal orders, both for this type, and for the numerals, hence the absence of even any memoranda in the Postoffice.

You have called for the written order and absolute proof in every instance, and you thus criticise every student who has pronounced that there were no reprints from the 1833 original plates. You are practically alone in the contention that these stamps are "Reprints', and you rely on exactly the same evidence which was before such writers as Thrum, Giffard, Kenyon, Gardner. Kalckoff, Bacon. Lataudrie, and many others.

"Hawaiian Reprints," as your last article was entitled, certainly was cause for me to reply, and if your notes are any criterion to go by. you are unable to overcome the data I have shown, for they do not hear so much upon the stamps, as they do on personal allusions, which as a rule, are not found in discussions of this sort. You are correct when writing me that you thought after you got through with your remarks that I would not care to reply to them, but I think the record should show the answers, nevertheless, so in this third open letter I reply to the following notes:

NOTE 21: You are now positive that Brickwood had not ordered, nor as far as his letters show, considering the ordering of any stamps from these plates as late as April 16th, 1868, and if he did order any, that the stamps came with the plates. Brickwood then destroyed the plates and several years later placed the word "Specimen" on them, for the evidence since 1872 seems incontrovertible on this last point.

There is not a letter in evidence which shows that Brickwood could not supply these stamps throughout his entire administration. Now, where do you suppose he got them? Kalakaua was absolutely out of this type when Brickwood succeeded him in 1865.

NOTE 22: The evidence on this is that Brickwood complained of a package which had been ordered by Whitney (who, excepting the supplying of stamps, had been out of the postoffice affairs for eleven years). Brick. wood's reference to Whitney showed that Kalakaua had followed all his predecessors in office, and ordered his stamps through Whitney. Now, as we have all the letters and transactions with the National Bank-Note Company, we know that Brickwood did not receive any package of stamps from them until April or May, 1866.

Therefore, the strong inference is that Brickwood was complaining about the cost of the Whitney (Kalakaua) order which contained the stamps in the tin boxes, and also the dies, plates and rolls which Brickwood destroyed. Kalakaua is the only Postmaster of record who ordered the plates returned with his order for stamps.

NOTE 23: In this you wrong me, for I have never tried to make witnesses agree the way you suggest, and why do you call them my witnesses? They are the authorities we have to go by, and I have taken their testimony as they gave it. By constant research, and careful consideration of all points, I have found a solution of all the early orders for Hawaiian stamps, not omitting the Manuscript 5c on 13c. It is true there is much conflicting evidence on these stamps, but every bit goes to prove the stamps were ordered before February, 1865, and not as you say, after April 16th, 1868. Suggestions for the earlier dates are found as far back as 1865.

NOTE 24: Kenyon gives the date of Kalakaua's order as Nov. 30th, 1864 - (24). There you ask the reader to pausse while you express regrets, etc., at my statement as being absolutely contrary to the facts, but let us read on-, and Mr. Evans states that this is manifestly impossible, and that he would not refer to it again, if it were not that it appears to have stuck in the mind of Mr. Crocker. My answer is, that Kalakaua placed an order for these stamps in the United States prior to February, 1865-that all data shows that this order was dated about Nov. 30th, 1864, etc. I think this shows my idea, but let us see what I say in my book on Hawaiian Numerals, page 93.

The stamps in question were therefore printed after the order placed by Alva Clark, 1861, and during either the Kalakaua or Brickwood regime. Let us see: Both Mr. Giffard and Mr. Kenyon mention the receipt of stamps by the Honolulu Postoffice about August 31, 1865, and their information seems to he taken from some official sources. If there was a delivery at that time it could only be the 5c and 13c ordered by Kalakaua, which would be due to arrive about that time. Let us admit this to be a fact and two important matters are solved. The first is that as early as December 3, 1864. the postoffice had become aware that the 13c were not useful, and the words, "They were suppressed," used by M. Rondot, would be literally true, for they were not required to pay any such rate of postage, but, furthermore, the portrait they bore was of King Kamehameha III, like the 5c, and King Kamehameha V was favoring stamps with his own portrait on them. The unreasonable delay in the arrival of the stamp with his portrait was not foreseen, but after the order was once given to suppress the old stamp the decision was evidently final.

Now, let us take Kenyon's catalogue and find where he makes any individual remarks on this stamp, as you would have your readers infer. I will quote everything in his book, that could in any way refer to these stamps. I shorten details of the list as my reference is principally to dates.

In the preface Kenyon says:- "No stamp has been listed herein without ample proof of its existence as a bona fide Government issue."

We find the list as follows:- 

Oct. 1st, 1851, the Missionary Issues. 

*Nov. ?, 1852, "

*May ?, 1853, the 5 and 13 1853 type with minor types on thick creamy-white wove paper.

*July 1st, 1855, the 5 and 13 1853 type on very thin creamy-white wove paper.

*Aug. 11th, 1864, the 5c 1853 type on very thin blue wove paper.

*Nov. 30th, 1864 (stamps in question) 5 and 13 1853 type, medium creamy-white wove paper.

Sept. 6th, 1889 - Reprints - 5c and 13c.

*?, 1855 - 2c Litho. Kam. IV.

*July ?, 1859 - 1 and 2c Numerals. 

and so on up to 1865, nearly every date with a star.

Now, let us see what this star is supposed to mean by looking back to the preface:

"All dates given herein, if not taken from the official records, are the earliest dates found on cancelled copies, all such being preceded by a star."

Now, in your article of May 21st, you say, "On the strength of a supposed specimen (found by Kenyon) of the 5c of this printing on a letter dated Nov. 30th, 1864."

You correct this in your note by saying: "We were mistaken in saying a '5c of this printing.' Mr. Kenyon does not give the value of the stamp he found." Our readers can judge your peculiar rendering of this subject, and, as the facts are before them, they can decide whether your terms, "absolutely contrary to the facts," "utterly reckless statements," and that you consider "this in itself sufficient to justify your refusal to publish anything further I may write upon this subject." are warranted.

I think you were wrong in saying they were not in existence February, 1865. On what authority do you base this? Do you not mean they had not arrived?, and would it not be reasonable that as Kamehameha V had appointed Brickwood to succeed Kalakaua (who was appointed by Kamehameha IV), and Brickwood had honored the King by ordering a new stamp with the King's portrait; that the old type stamps would be suppressed, as it was most reasonable to suppose the new type would shortly arrive?

What had Whitney to do with the order you mention when we know that Brickwood ordered it himself? Did you think that Brickwood might have gone to Whitney in the early part of 1866 to order the 5c (and 13c) which he was distributing in 1867-1868? It might have been a reasonable theory for you to advance, for this would have brought the plates and stamps in about the dates Giffard claims; although, unfortunately, for this theory, he still maintains that Brickwood never ordered them at any time, and practically says that they came to Brickwood when he first took office.

NOTE 26: You must admit, now that you admit Brickwood ordered 2c numerals in 1865-6, that he did it because he was out of the regular new 2c engraved and perforated. Admitting this you admit this note is unanswerable, according to your theory, hence the probable brevity of it. You seem to forget your declaration that the plate of the new 5c engraved was in evidence several months before we now know the order for it was placed in the engraver's hands.

NOTE 27: You say the answer is simple, but have you not always contended that Kalakaua, not Brickwood, ordered the new 5c stamps, and that they were recieved in August, 1865. (See article 1901, - page 200). On what you admit now, how could he have received any other type (as you now suggest) than the 1853 type? You referred to this stamp in 1901 as the 1869 impressions. Did you find that you had to recede from that position also? Don't you think this admission conflicts with your opinion expressed June 26th, 1909? Do you ask as a Philatelist? Why should Brickwood have been such a born fool to "suppress" the stamps that he was greatly in want of, and why did he state in April 1868 that he had no more of these stamps in his possession, if that statement was untrue? My answer is-Kalakaua was using a temporary 5c numeral while awaiting a "fresh supply" of the 1853 type from the United States.

Brickwood when he went into office, ordered a new 5c stamp, a second order of the 2c from the United States, and the Kalakaua order evidently not having arrived, ordered as we know, a 2c numeral, a 1c numeral and a 5c numeral (error-Interisland). Your contention that he was greatly in want of stamps fails, for a great stock of this latter stamp was on hand when his requisition from the United States, arrived in 1866. (See prices of Interisland; used $25.00, unused $10.00.)

In other words the postoffices were stocked with locally printed stamps when the 1853 type arrived. Now, as he had placed his requisition in April '65, he should have received it by the end of the year at least, and even admitting he might have issued the Kalakaua stamps which were on hand at that time. Your contention that he would do it because he was greatly in want is clearly disproved. He laid them away in bulk, and I am sure collectors will admit that he would hesitate to fill up the postoffice with the old stamps when he had every reason to suppose his new stamps would soon arrive, and this is the reason which Philatelists in 1872 called "inscrutable" because all the present knowledge we have was not before them. It has always been my belief that as the new 5c stamp would bear the portrait of Kam. V, and the Kalakaua order had the portrait of Kam. III, and the postoffice was using the 5c numeral, that both the King and Brickwood would naturally put the old stamps away for good and sufficient reasons.

In any event he was supplying the 5c without overprint "specimen" up to that time, and we have not heard of his ever issuing any more in that condition, but the next letter we have from him states "that all he has left on hand of the old stamps are overprinted 'specimen' but are sold at the face price as usual." This is September 1869.

Now let us look at Brickwood from your suggestion as a "born fool," and see which of us is trying to label him that.

If Kalakaua, who we know ordered a 5c (and 13c) stamp, went out of office before they arrived, Brickwood had several good reasons which I have recited, for laying them away, later on sending them out to collectors, and finally, probably on account of slow sales, over-printing them "Specimen." Thus I think Brickwood would not prove himself a "born fool."

Now, if Brickwood found after April 1868, that he could make a good speculation by ordering from the old plates, and they did not arrive until about 1869 (see your article 1901), and by September of that year he had killed the sale by overprinting them "Specimen," do you not think he was a "born fool?" I say the sale was practically killed for the Government had on hand on June 30th, 1896, 14,200 of the 5c and 17,000 of the 13c. Stamp collecting had hardly advanced in those years, even in the centers in Europe, to a point where the Hawaiian Government could afford to order a large stock for their wants. A reasonable view of Brickwood's actions would show that he did not order them for speculation purposes, but that he acted in all respects as if they were stock coming to him after he succeeded Kalakaua.

NOTE 28: I think it has been fully shown in the previous note that Brickwood was not in want of stamps in the sense that you state here. I will go into this matter more fully with you later.

In regard to the date, August 31st, 1865, you evidently have changed from the ideas expressed by you June 26th, 1909. For the rest of the note let us take, instead of your supposition, the facts at hand.

The National Bank-Note Company had received the first order from Kalakaua, and had been told to draw for its money, the stamps were shipped, their receipt acknowledged, and the best relations existed between the two parties as shown by the letters. Your supposition that the Bank-Note Company was holding up the Hawaiian Government for its money is untenable, especially as you admit all along that the distance was great and correspondence took a long time. Business of that date was always arranged on a quick financial exchange. You will have to find a better reason for the delay in the delivery of Brickwood's order of which order you have contended against heretofore.

At the end of this note, you say: "We acknowledge that this suggestion is a supposition, but so is the whole of Mr. Crocker's case from beginning to end." I hardly think students will agree with you.

I have been in correspondence with Mr. A.K. Clark up to August 10th, 1910. He was Postmaster up to 1863. I am almost daily meeting Mr. Wm. G. Irwin, who was in the Postoffice 1864-1865. I have met Mr. Giffard (Brickwood's son-in-law, and the author of a book on Hawaiian Stamps) frequently since 1895. Mr. W. H. Colson and I have met and interviewed Mr. W. H. Giffard as late as September of this year, and I have frequently corresponded with him since 1896, and in gathering stamps, I have gathered much material. I have gotten material facts from Mr. Westervelt of the Honolulu Historical Society, and Mr. F. L. Stoltz, a former resident of Hawaii and one of the best known collectors. I have the able assistance of Mr. Wm. J. Gardner, and I have some points yet regarding your articles, and the method you have used to cloud the issue which I may use later on. As it is, I must apologize to my readers for the repetition of facts which your notes force me to make.

Now in your article of May 21st, 1910, you follow Kenyon's example (which you condemn) by stating: "In 1868 the case was very different. The order of 1868* was for stamps, not for use, but for distribution to foreign postoffices, and to foolish people who collected or dealt in stamps." The star indicated that you imagined this order.)

On April 13th, 1868, the following official order was posted in the Honolulu office, and sent to interested parties:

"The Postmaster General desires that no order for Hawaiian Stamps be attended to unless the official stamp of this office as above be attached to the same"

A few days later he sends out some more of the old 5c 1853 type, and his next letter states there are no more on hand excepting with the word "Specimen." In 1901 you said this order was the emission of 1869, but there is no way that you can make this stand in face of the Postmaster's letter of Sept. 9th, 1869. If Brickwood placed any order for these stamps (and he says he did not), it would have been of written official record according to his order above, for you now state he had not ordered them up to April 16, '68. If he ordered them for the purpose you say he did, he could have had a few run off, instead of at least Sixty Thousand. (See amount on hand June 30th, 1896.) He could not get them until December, 1868, for they reached Europe in February, 1869 - then later with the word "Specimen," and in September not a stamp was on hand without the word "Specimen." Now, where do you get one single suggestion that Brickwood placed this order and that he defaced the plates in the latter part of 1869 - four years after Irwin says he saw them defaced? What one single point is there in or out of the records which would cause Brickwood to perform this, to quote you - "Born fool act?"

Even admitting he did it for collectors, and there were not so many in those days, he never gave them a chance to buy them, for if they were first announced in February, 1869, only the first few orders which came in the following months could have been filled. It is true Brickwood sold the stamps surcharged "Specimen" out of the postoffice cancelled. My set having the cancellation "Genl. Postoffice, Honolulu, Feby. 2nd, 1877," and that Thrum sold them to me in Honolulu during my visit there in 1878 as the first issues of Hawaii, but over-printed "Specimen." I managed to pick up a few from collectors without this surcharge, but they were the same paper as the ones marked "Specimens." I spent some time with Governor Dorninus (Queen Liliuokalani's husband) at his Waialua residence (Kamehameha IV palace) and though I had started collecting in 1873, I may say through these connections, I first became specially interested in Hawaiians, which was crowned in 1906 by winning the Championship Gold Cup in England.

OPEN LETTER Dec. 23, 1910.

I have just received S.G.W. of December 10th, which contains the last portion of my article, the last of your criticising notes and your valedictory address on this subject to your readers. As for this last there was no occasion as far as I am concerned. They know the stand you have taken, and that you have lately made the same restrictions as far as the Monthly Journal is concerned. Simply because the written order is not produced, would you question the authenticity of the Hawaiian Missionary stamps and other early stamps on the same grounds? There is no written order, but they are accepted.

What does all this accomplish? You have the right to do as you please, and as Editor of a large philatelic publication, there is no doubt your influence is great; I am much disappointed at your failure to substantiate your theories in your articles and notes, or to answer many questions I have asked you, but perhaps you will yet surprise us on that score. Your concluding statement in as far as it refers to me is worth quoting here in full, but I shall live in hopes that some philatelic publication will take it up and comment on it. It falls a little shy of assuming to be my obituary, and its tone is too solemn to confirm one reckless philatelist who thinks you are "Spanking me with a shingle." I answer your notes as follows:

NOTE 29: You have closed your argument leaving, as far as your contention goes, the fate of these plates in the air so to speak. All evidence obtainable to date shows they were sent to the Islands before April 16th, 1868 - most of this evidence says about 1867 - Giffard says rather before that, and Irwin says he saw them destroyed in the Honolulu Postoffice in 1865.

Collectors were certainly entitled to know your authorities for the stand you take against everyone else. Where do you produce a single point that they were destroyed after April 16th, 1868? What evidence have you, and under what circumstances were they returned after that late date?

The following three notes are your comments against items in the articles you used as the basis of your article entitled "Hawaiian Reprints." I will answer them, however, as the answers will tend to clear the subject.

NOTE 30: I say this is not correct, for Wundenberg distinctly states he is sending the three dies, Giffard puts in ("These stamps are the original dies made by the Boston engravers") and you adopt it. The die found by Wundenberg was not the original die, nor was Giffard right in saying so, as I will explain in answering your next note. I gave the reason for my statement in the same sentence which you criticised and which reads in full.-This last sentence inserted by Giffard is not correct as the original 2c Lithographed die was lost about 1863.

NOTE 31: Your note reads: "Again we ask 'Why?' This is not a statement of Giffard's but of Wundenberg. Is every one mistaken whose evidence is contrary to Mr. Crocker's theories?"

Giffard had issued a hook (the heat that had been written to that date) in 1893-4. He had written to the Monthly Journal later on, giving them Wundenberg's letters. The statements in brackets were his conclusions as arrived at then, and this was one of his remarks. As you have raised the point I will explain further. There were four different dies for the various issues of this type of stamp from 1861 to 1889. The first was the 2c lithograph. I have taken the four issues and had photographic enlargements made which show conclusively that none of the other issues were ever taken from the first die. They were entirely different engravings.

I have presented the enlargements, together with the article and explanations, to the Pacific Philatelic Society, and no doubt the3 will publish the same with full plates.

The die Wundenberg found is mentioned it Hanciau's article December, 1900.

NOTE 32: You are now criticising the article which you used as a basis for your article entitled "Hawaiian Reprints."  I quoted the article in full, for as a whole, it disproved your theory. I will proceed to answer, but first let me call your attention to the fact that you now abandon "the two little copper plates" which you have relied on up to date.

Wundenberg first sent the dies as he calls them - later on he calls them engraved plates, and later on he sends additionally circular dies which he has discovered. The National Bank-Note Company replies that it can use the dies, but that the rolls of the 5c and 13c are defaced and were worthless for use. You ask in italics "Did the printing plates ever go to Honolulu at all." We know they did from this statement from the Bank-Note Company for they told Wundenberg that the dies he sent could be restored. (As a matter of fact they did not restore them but made new plates for the "Reprints.") A prominent Boston authority is investigating certain data which may lead to news regarding this note.

Now, as to Giffard's list of four printings, I have seen the stamps he mentions which confirmed me in my statement. I purchased nearly his entire collection in 1896.

Every collector is well aware of the sequence of the four original printings, and the quality of paper they came on, and it is from other authorities than Giffard's the facts are taken, all of which has heretofore been explained. You say my attempts at interpreting Mr. Giffard's evidence are singularly unsuccessful and unconvincing. I will bow to the decision of the majority if they decide with you on this.

NOTE 33: You say, "What is the meaning of all the foregoing nonsense?" I do not think anything is nonsense if it is to clear the impression you have given on these matters. You had written what you stated was your final article, and you made what I call two insinuations which I thought should show correctly. They consisted of data which showed Clark issued the 2c in 1861-62, and that the date you referred to - 1855 - was wrong. The other was that Brickwood ordered the 5c engraved with the portrait of his Patron Kamehameha V, and that the data was placed in the engraver's hands June 22nd, 1865, to make the plates-this being months after Kalakaua had placed his order in the United States for a fresh supply of stamps.

NOTE 34: There was no clear understanding regarding the Provisional issues the 5c on 13c of Jackson, the 5c Hawaiian Postage of Kalakaua, or the 5c Interisland of Brickwood, until my book was published. The numeral issues were little understood, and their proper segregations has had a great deal to do with the history of Kalakaua and Brickwood as far as their ordering other stamps were concerned, and since Hawaiian Numerals were issued we have additional information regarding the plating of the Cliches of Kalakaua's 5c stamp, and of No. 10 Cliche of Plate V, which can now be compared with the No. 10 of Plate X more properly than my plate shows. As far as your conclusions as to what Kalakaua and Brickwood would have done regarding these Provisional Issues if they had other stamps to issue, I think I have furnished data to show what they did do and what has been generally accepted as their real acts.

NOTE 35: When I read your letter to me stating that when you got through with your notes, I probably would not care to reply, I certainly expected the production of testimony or data of some kind that would upset all data I had furnished. You have not produced in any way any data or reasonable theory to support your contention, therefore, I can safely state the plates were destroyed prior to 1868, thus backing up all the authorities which I have quoted.

NOTE 36: How remarkably we disagree! Here are the facts. Wundenberg says, "Concerning the three old dies, perhaps I have not been explicit enough, but the fact is, that during a previous administration, the dies in question," etc. Your rendering of this language is-' 'Wundenberg says distinctly that the three old dies were sent for in Brickwood's time." Many of your readers are not going to read these corrections of your renditions.

NOTE 37: Mr. Hanciau wrote an article in S.G.M.J. Dec., 1900, in which he produces proof that it was not the original die which was deposited in the archives, and that was the reason I state he knew that the 2c die you insistently claim was sent out with the 5c and 13c plates, was not the original die. You do not maintain in closing your notes the claim that these "three doubtful" dies were sent out together, and that, therefore, "these three stamps must stand or fall together."

You say you have never called the "Kalakaua order" reprints.

We thus have the issues from the original plates properly accounted for - 

1853 - Whitney 5c and 13c on thick white paper. 

1856-7 - Jackson, 5c on thin white paper.

1861 - Clark, 5c on thin bluish wove paper.

1864 - Kalakaua 5c and 13c on medium thick mesh wove paper.

With the exception of the Clark order, there is not a scrap of paper in evidence which contains an order for any of these issues. If one is doubtful on that account they must alltogether with the Missionary stamps--be cast out of the catalogue. The only sure one of the lot is the Kalakaua issue for which we lack the order, but we have his official letter stating he had ordered stamps from she United States, and his clerk Irwin also writes to J. B. Moens regarding this order.

You say you do not believe there ever was a "Kalakaua order." Perhaps like all the others seem to have been, it was a verbal order, but that Kalakaua did order stamps from the United States is incontrovertible, and they were not the engraved stamps according to all the surrounding circumstances.

You say - "Has Mr. Crocker really failed to grasp the first rudiments of the controversy that commenced in 1901?" Do you mean the controversy that began in 1869-70, and which prior to 1901 was practically settled in favor of the stamp being a regular issue?

This is a question for me to answer, although when you ask it, you know you are not going to publish it. Before answering it, however, I have read over whatever you have written on the subject that has appeared in print with this result: I find but one really definite statement which you seem to have forgotten. Referring to Mr. Gardner's statement quoting Mr. Giffard as saying the 1853 type remained in use up to 1868 you say:

"This is a very important point, because if the stamps were in use until after the date (1867) when the plates were sent to Honolulu, it is impossible that any reprints can exist, as the impressions in question cannot have been printed in Honolulu. Our own belief is that both values had been withdrawn from circulation a few years, at least, before that time, and that if any impressions were printed after (say) 1865, they were certainly reprints."

For the rest you have "surmised," "theorized," "supposed," "Now if such is a fact," or "In such a case," and asked "Why," in. numerable times: While producing no evidence you have combatted everything that has been produced by others showing there were no reprints from the original plates. When Thrum says 1867, you say it might well have been 1868 or later. When Irwin mentions a "Fresh Supply" you infer he must have meant the new stamp. If a lithograph die is mentioned you proceed to surmise the plate was destroyed, but the die remained, etc.

I have taken these propositions one by one and given all the evidence we have to rely on. and think the reasons are well founded, and that they await controverting by other good supporting evidence, or they will stand as proved.

I find the subject boiled down to points which present evidence will not admit changing, and that is as to the ordering of these stamps by Brickwood at any time. I do not know what your future arguments will be unless new evidence is produced, but as you have finished the subject, this seems improbable, nor do I think you have gained any ground by the method you have pursued in writing your notes.

If have failed to grasp the first rudiments of the controversy, give me your opinion in the matter, and I will publish it for I find I can stand for most any remarks from now on. What I wrote you ten years ago applies to the article "Hawaiian Reprints' in your May number with the exception the date should read on or before Nov. 30, 1864, and possibly soon after Sept. 19th, 1864. I wrote:

"Sir:- The valuable article in your Journal on the Reprints of Hawaii, by 'H.L.', gives, in my estimation, a very wrong impression of the 5c blue, and 13c rose-vermilion, of the type of 1853, which he states were reprinted in 1867. Mr. Bacon and Mr. Gardner, are to my idea, right that there are no reprints from the original plates, and I disagree with 'H.L.' that even remainders were sent out with the original plates.

"The two above mentioned stamps were, in fact, the invoice ordered by the Hawaiian Government on November 30th, 1864, and came on medium white creamy wove paper. They were the 'fresh supply' expected by Wm. G. Irwin in his letter to J. B. Moens of February 24th, 1865. They arrived at the islands before the 5c provisional or its error. the 'Interisland' 5c, mentioned by Mr. Irwin, was exhausted by the people who purchased them, and but a few months before the 5c greenish blue with the head of Kamehameha V were received. This latter stamp was not even ordered at the time of Mr. Irwin's letter of February 24th, 1865, hence could not have been 'expected to arrive.' They are the 'considerable quantity' "existing in 1868 of which Mr. Gardner speaks. Therefore they are not reprints or remainders, and they were sold in the Hawaiian post office both in original state, and later with the word 'Specimen' overprinted, at face value.

That the stamps have proved confusing to early writers quoted by 'H. L.' is natural, as new plates were afterwards made in 1887-9. 'These are mentioned by Dr. Kalckhoff as official reprints of 1889, and 'H. L.' has mixed these up with the originals listed as reprints by M. Moens' Catalogue of 1871, and the reprints mentioned by M. Piet-Lataudrie in 1894."

Your statement now that you have never called the "Kalakaua Order" reprints is acceptable. Your beliefs regarding this order has not been maintained by any evidence, documentary or otherwise.

end of issue