by Leonard H. Hartmann
All rights reserved, copyright © 2001, L. H. Hartmann
Article #9 for CHRONICLE No. 194
The De La Rue 5¢ Typographed Plate, for the Confederate States of America by Leonard H. Hartmann
All rights reserved, copyright 2002, Leonard H. Hartmann
The previous article on the CSA 10¢ Altered Plate in CHRONICLE 192 led to this study of the 5¢ typographed stamps, and many fond memories of discussions many years ago with my old friend Henry M. Spelman III. The Lithographs were always my main interest but Henry had a special fascination with the Typographs. We would discuss and argue; is it a London or is it a Richmond printing! In Drinkwater's 1931 monograph he states: "It is impossible always to distinguish between stamps printed in London and stamps printed in Richmond....", page 7. In the intervening 71 years I think this distinction has become even more clouded. This article is a plea for others to take up this most fascinating study.
It is hoped that the examination of the 5¢ Lost Plate, the 2¢ Altered plate, the fragments of the 10¢ Altered plate, De La Rue records, and Bermuda Prize court records along with the surviving stamps and covers will clarify the situation. Major questions could still be answered by a detailed study of panes and large multiples of the London and Richmond printings:
A detailed study of the stamps, shade, paper, plate wear and cleaning will most certainly add much knowledge to the clasification of the London and Richmond stamps!
In summarizing the De La Rue records, Easton and Drinkwater, there is no disagreement on facts however Drinkwater is more detailed. He had personal access to the original records before they were scattered and or destroyed during the Blitz in 1940. The remaining De La Rue records now reside at Consignia, Heritage Services in London and should certainly be re-examined. These two published sources are: John Easton's "The De La Rue History of British & Foreign Postage Stamps 1855 to 1901" and John Drinkwater, June 25, 1931 talk at the Eighteenth Philatelic Congress of Great Britain meeting. The Drinkwater talk "The Stamps of the Confederate States of America, 1861-1865" appeared in their Congress Book of that year and was privately printed for the author. For the Pennsylvania Prize court I have used both Drinkwater and Dietz. Except in quotations the plate shipped on the "Bermuda" will be referred to as the Lost Plate though it is no longer lost. August Dietz's masterwork "The Postal Service of The Confederate States of America" is referred to as 1929 Dietz followed by the page number.
The Records
It is unfortunate that we have no records on the original De La Rue contract with the CSA as it may have led to a better understanding of the plates. This void extends to the engraved master dies by J.F. Jubert de la Ferté, the transfer matrixes of 400 subjects, the first billed plate for the 1¢ and 5¢ stamps. We also lack the same information for the 2¢ and 10¢ Altered Plates. The original engraved 1¢ & 5¢ dies were transferred to other dies, the value blocks changed, 1¢ to 2¢ and 5¢ to 10¢, the lead matrix of 100 subjects and the original printing plates had to be made. The initial order is no doubt the one responsible for the January 30, 1862 shipment of the 5¢ stamps. The engraved die by Jubert may well have been paid for separately, engraving was not a De La Rue specialty and Joubert contracted with various firms. The value change in the die and the matrix were De La Rue specialty and major cost factor. Dietz states that Major Ficklin left Richmond on October 1, 1861 and arrived in England toward the end of the month, this is quite realistic based on normal transit time and also the early De La Rue activity.
Our first record on the De La Rue contract is the January 30th, 1862 Day Book entry (folio 108). This entry is evidently an accounting record, something like an order entry, and not an actual shipping record though the first known shipment was made on that day:
From the Drinkwater monograph, the March 1862 (day is not give) Day Book entries (folio 112) gives some shipping records for the January 30th entry:
The January 30th, 1862 entry is clarified by the March, 1862 Day Book entry which refers to the actual shipping records. The January 30th De La Rue shipment of stamps and the arrival in Richmond is confirmed by John H. Reagan's "Report of the Postmaster General to the President, February 28th, 1862" page 10, which states "2,150,000 5¢ stamps have just been received from Europe". We assume the February 11th, 1862 shipment arrived in good order but we have no additional information.
The Feb 20th, 1862 shipment, "C", is the one shipped on the "Bermuda" and never arrived in the CSA and is so noted in the De La Rue records, our famous Lost Shipment. It agrees in the number of cases and in the "POD 32/55" notation which was in the De La Rue's records and also the Prize Court records. The "Bermuda" left London on March 1st, arrived in Bermuda March 19th or 20th and sailed from St. George on April 23rd to be captured on April 27th., 1929 Dietz, page 165. This March 1st sailing date from Liverpool confirms the February 20th entry. The blank paper on the Bermuda shipment was Bank Note paper per both the De La Rue records, the Eastern Pennsylvania Prize Court Records, and the surviving samples.
The Manifest of the blockade runner "Bermuda" covering the landing and clearing of the Island of Bermuda survives, M. H. Ludington's 1996 monograph "Postal History of Blockade Running Through Bermuda 1861-1865", pages 6-8. The Manifest gives the basic data; a rough inventory on three pages, dated March 22, 1862 thus an arrival on the 20th is not out of order. Some additional cargo was added and the document states the ship sailed on April 22, 1862 for Nassau. Only three lines of the inventory relate to the De La Rue shipment and unfortunately are not definitive. The heading is POD for Post Office Department and the lines read: 26 (cases) Paper, 1 (case) Ink and 1 (case) Machinery. The Ludington booklet states "At the top of the center column on the second page of the manifest are listed the printing equipment and plates and stock of stamps of the Confederate 1 cent and 5 cents Plate 2, which were never issued.", page 7. I can not find words in the Manifest that give such details on the plates or stamps and assumed Ludington just filled in the conventional story of this shipment. Such manifests were for the port of entry customs and done by the captain with little knowledge or interest in such minor details of the cargo.
The records relating to the capture of the "Bermuda" are of historic and legal significance but not of sufficient detail for philatelic study. Dietz gives a recount of the initial Prize Court Trial in Philadelphia as transcribed in the 1920's, by Horace W. Davis. This is assumed correct though to our knowledge it is not otherwise published or confirmed; 1929 Dietz, page 162-69. One could try to check out these records in Philadelphia, anyone interested in the job? The subsequent actions of the Supreme Court of the United States was published: Wallace's Reports of Cases Argued and Adjourned in the Supreme Court of the United States, December Term, 1865, Vol III, 514-559, pages 200-207. Unfortunately the Supreme court action mostly related to the ownership of the "Bermuda", the legality of the capture and the disposal of the ship and cargo. The published transcriptions do not have any details on the cargo or the CSA PO involvement.
I suspect that De La Rue printed stamps from only one printing plate however two are possible and would not change the basic story. The January 30th and the February 11th shipments of stamps would be the first and better impressions as plate wear is real. For the February 20th shipment, the Lost Shipment, we have two things to consider; an actual 5¢ printing plate shipped to the CSA and one copy of the stamp from this shipment on a document. This document is written on the CSA watermarked bank note paper from the shipment. The printing plate is in excellent condition today and probably did not see any use in London. The single stamp is a quite good impression on London paper but not an impression of exceptional quality. To make such a subtle judgement on a single stamp is speculative but in my opinion it does show some plate wear which would be expected. We do not know when this stamp was printed, perhaps the first or perhaps the last from the shipment.
We now have a minimum of three 5¢ printing plates: one used in London and now lost, it was De La Rue's custom to melt down plates that were no longer needed. Second the Lost Plate captured on the "Bermuda" by the Union and now residing in the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, it was not used to print stamps for the CSA. The third plate reached the CSA and was used to print stamps in Richmond and is now also lost. The Day Book entry of a 5¢ plate shipped on March 24th is proof that an additional 5¢ plate or plates were planned before the previous plate shipped to the CSA was captured on April 27th, 1862.
Though the 5¢ plate shipped on the "Bermuda" was with the last shipment of 5¢ stamps I do not think it was the same plate that was used in England to print the stamps for this shipment. The Lost Plate today shows virtually no plate wear, and in addition the De La Rue invoiced is only £100. The charges for the original plates and dies does not appear in any records known to the author. We do have a most interesting quotation by Dietz, a February 20, 1863 which is given as the renewal of a contract originated on June 30, 1862 as to the plates being in the CSA and the printing of stamps, 1929 Dietz page 179: The January 30th, 1862 entry is clarified by the March, 1862 Day Book entry which refers to the actual shipping records. The January 30th De La Rue shipment of stamps and the arrival in Richmond is confirmed by John H. Reagan's "Report of the Postmaster General to the President, February 28th, 1862" page 10, which states "2,150,000 5¢ stamps have just been received from Europe". We assume the February 11th, 1862 shipment arrived in good order but we have no additional information.
The Feb 20th, 1862 shipment, "C", is the one shipped on the "Bermuda" and never arrived in the CSA and is so noted in the De La Rue records, our famous Lost Shipment. It agrees in the number of cases and in the "POD 32/55" notation which was in the De La Rue's records and also the Prize Court records. The "Bermuda" left London on March 1st, arrived in Bermuda March 19th or 20th and sailed from St. George on April 23rd to be captured on April 27th., 1929 Dietz, page 165. This March 1st sailing date from Liverpool confirms the February 20th entry. The blank paper on the Bermuda shipment was Bank Note paper per both the De La Rue records, the Eastern Pennsylvania Prize Court Records, and the surviving samples. The Manifest of the blockade runner "Bermuda" covering the landing and clearing of the Island of Bermuda survives, M. H. Ludington's 1996 monograph "Postal History of Blockade Running Through Bermuda 1861-1865", pages 6-8. The Manifest gives the basic data; a rough inventory on three pages, dated March 22, 1862 thus an arrival on the 20th is not out of order. Some additional cargo was added and the document states the ship sailed on April 22, 1862 for Nassau. Only three lines of the inventory relate to the De La Rue shipment and unfortunately are not definitive. The heading is POD for Post Office Department and the lines read: 26 (cases) Paper, 1 (case) Ink and 1 (case) Machinery. The Ludington booklet states "At the top of the center column on the second page of the manifest are listed the printing equipment and plates and stock of stamps of the Confederate 1 cent and 5 cents Plate 2, which were never issued.", page 7. I can not find words in the Manifest that give such details on the plates or stamps and assumed Ludington just filled in the conventional story of this shipment. Such manifests were for the port of entry customs and done by the captain with little knowledge or interest in such minor details of the cargo.
The records relating to the capture of the "Bermuda" are of historic and legal significance but not of sufficient detail for philatelic study. Dietz gives a recount of the initial Prize Court Trial in Philadelphia as transcribed in the 1920's, by Horace W. Davis. This is assumed correct though to our knowledge it is not otherwise published or confirmed; 1929 Dietz, page 162-69. One could try to check out these records in Philadelphia, anyone interested in the job? The subsequent actions of the Supreme Court of the United States was published: Wallace's Reports of Cases Argued and Adjourned in the Supreme Court of the United States, December Term, 1865, Vol III, 514-559, pages 200-207. Unfortunately the Supreme court action mostly related to the ownership of the "Bermuda", the legality of the capture and the disposal of the ship and cargo. The published transcriptions do not have any details on the cargo or the CSA PO involvement.
I suspect that De La Rue printed stamps from only one printing plate however two are possible and would not change the basic story. The January 30th and the February 11th shipments of stamps would be the first and better impressions as plate wear is real. For the February 20th shipment, the Lost Shipment, we have two things to consider; an actual 5¢ printing plate shipped to the CSA and one copy of the stamp from this shipment on a document. This document is written on the CSA watermarked bank note paper from the shipment. The printing plate is in excellent condition today and probably did not see any use in London. The single stamp is a quite good impression on London paper but not an impression of exceptional quality. To make such a subtle judgement on a single stamp is speculative but in my opinion it does show some plate wear which would be expected. We do not know when this stamp was printed, perhaps the first or perhaps the last from the shipment.
We now have a minimum of three 5¢ printing plates: one used in London and now lost, it was De La Rue's custom to melt down plates that were no longer needed. Second the Lost Plate captured on the "Bermuda" by the Union and now residing in the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, it was not used to print stamps for the CSA. The third plate reached the CSA and was used to print stamps in Richmond and is now also lost. The Day Book entry of a 5¢ plate shipped on March 24th is proof that an additional 5¢ plate or plates were planned before the previous plate shipped to the CSA was captured on April 27th, 1862.
Though the 5¢ plate shipped on the "Bermuda" was with the last shipment of 5¢ stamps I do not think it was the same plate that was used in England to print the stamps for this shipment. The Lost Plate today shows virtually no plate wear, and in addition the De La Rue invoiced is only £100. The charges for the original plates and dies does not appear in any records known to the author. We do have a most interesting quotation by Dietz, a February 20, 1863 which is given as the renewal of a contract originated on June 30, 1862 as to the plates being in the CSA and the printing of stamps, 1929 Dietz page 179:
... until the full sum of Two hundred and one pounds, ten shillings (£201.10s) be paid to the said party of the first part, that being the amount of invoiced cost of said plates sent to the Department by Thos. De La Rue & Company of 100 Bunhill Row, London, The parties of the second part agreeing to pay the entire sum of difference in the rate of Exchange necessary in making full payment....said Electroype plates shall be delivered to the order of the Postmaster-General and be the property of the party of the first part."
This £201.10s charge is the De La Rue charge for two duplicate plates at £100 each plus 15s each for packing and not what would be charged for original work. Dietz does not give the source for this quotation, I have checked Dietz's "New Southern Philatelist" for this passage and it is the same. The two plates could be the 1 and 5¢ or two 5¢. It does confirm that for the plates sent to the CSA the charge is per there records. The June 30, 1862 original contract date also gives the earliest possible date for a Richmond printing.
All 5¢ plates would be made from the same matrix, ie the 400 impressions in lead. The 5¢ plate shipped on the "Bermuda" consist of one single printing plate of 400 images and we can assume that the original plate for the London prints and the third and only plate that actually arrived in the CSA, were all made in the same manner. The two Altered Plates, the 2¢ and 10¢ are both made in the same manner but different from the 5¢ plate as they were made by reproducing from a matrix of 100 impressions. There is no record of any printing in England or otherwise for the altered plates. The printing plates were made in a different manner, each Altered Plate consist of four units of 100 subjects that were then individually screwed onto the cast iron backing. It would be easier and less costly to make four Electrotye reproductions of the smaller master unit of 100 than to make the 400 unit master if only one printing plate is anticipated. If a number of plates were anticipated the single master of 400 would be preferable. In many ventures initially there is much optimism and expectations of big business.
John Easton's De La Rue book has several interesting transcriptions on costs from the 1862 files. There charge for the same basic work for different orders is the same. To take an existing engraved die, transfer, change the value and then make a matrix having 240 subjects, an Electro cast and mounting on a new cast iron plate was £175. To use an existing matrix and to make the Electro cast and to mount on a cast iron plate that was previously paid for was £80.10 sh, a new cast iron base was an additional £4.10sh for a total of £85. This work and thus cost for a plate of 400 versus 240 would be more. This is in agreement with each of the four CSA plates being duplicate plates, each charged at £100. There is the indication of the cost of the master engraved die or the original plates, I have found no record of such a charge.
The De La Rue charges establish that the plates sent to the CSA were copies (ie. different plates) and thus were not the plate or plates used in London to print stamps. By copies I am not suggesting anything inferior as they were all made from the same matrix but to establish they were different and that the CSA received new plates and not the 5¢ used for considerable printing in London. The first Richmond printings on De La Rue paper and with De La Rue ink could be nearly identical to the London printings. The 5¢ stamps shipped on the "Bermuda" from the one surviving identifiable example shows some minor plate wear.
The Stamps, London Printings
For the arrival of the 5¢ London in Richmond printings the earliest possible use is March 1st, 1862, the earliest recorded usage being April 16, 1862. The earliest possible arrival in Richmond of a London plate would be early May, 1862 with the earliest presently known usage of a Richmond printing being August 15, 1862. These dates have stood for over 50 years since Stanley B. Ashbrook reported them; 1946, Green Book, "Stamp Specialist" and also the monograph,"Some Notes on the ... Postal Legislation of the Confederate States of America 1862-1865 Postal Rates, Earliest Known Dates of Use of The Stamps of the General Issues".
Scott No. 6, the first stamps printed in London by De La Rue are quite distinct, there identity is based on used copies with proven early dates. There are also unused and mint stamps of identical appearance and thus assume to also be London stamps. These examples have exceptional clarity of print and a distinct color. These stamps must have been printed for the Jan 30th. and perhaps also the Feb 11th, 1862 shipments. The ink is a uniform light gray blue with much white showing between the printed lines, the solid area and fine lines are quite uniform, white spots and misplaced ink are unusual, but when present they are extremely small, in essence an excellent print job. The portrait on the London printings seems to stand out from the background reminding one of a Cameo. In typographic printing the top surface of the printing plate holds the ink and the recessed area does not print. As the plate wear the raised lines show uneven printing, small white or light spots and darker spots. The recessed area which should not print slowly become filled and overall gives a darker appearance. Plate cleaning is done routinely and will improve the impression but as wear continues the number of impressions between cleaning decreases, and the original quality can not be obtained. A typical London printed stamp, used on June 3, 1862, is shown, Figure 3. We have mint stamps ranging from singles to full panes having this print quality.
During the 19th Century unused London stamps seemed to be quite scarce per C. B. Corwin's presentation before the Brooklyn Philatelic Club, January 16, 1889; "The American Philatelist", February 11, 1889, vol III, No 5, pages 122-133. Cowin apparently was confusing the London and Richmond printings. To be specific Cowin was stating the famous White Necktie variety from position 30, lower left pane was a London and Richmond printing and thus did not realize that Richmond did print some relatively fine stamps. From the 1920's the London stamps appear to become much more common, there are stories of finds made of the London print circa 1960 but there is no detailed information. The 1960's find was supposedly in London and contained circa 30+ sheets. Sheets kept together would tend to age more favorably than single sheets placed in a scrap book or the like with respect to paper and gum color. It is unfortunate that we do not have details on the several finds of panes. It is often to the finders benefit to keep such knowledge to himself.
We have later De La Rue stamp, used definitely during the London stamp period and of the London color but not quite the quality of the first stamps. they more resemble the Lost Shipment shipment. An example showing either some plate wear or a plate in need of cleaning is shown used June 14, 1862, Figure 3, two months before the earliest known usage of a Richmond print. I would not normally take this stamp as a London printing however historical research seems to definitely establish the date of use. Note the filling or mottled appearance of the horizontal lines around the portrait.
In the 1920's the London stamps became more available, no doubt a large find but we have no details. C.J. Phillips' notes from the 1920's on the characteristics of different panes and there state as to the progression of plate defects are most useful but incomplete, details of this study are provided later in this article. For the London printing Phillips identified 8 panes with up to five states described for some. The states are in order of plate wear thus State A is before State B as A does not show some plate defects that plate B shows, etc. A major distinciton must be made between plate wear and dirty plates in need of cleaning. Figures 4 and 5 are both taken from full panes of London stamps, Phillips pane 2, the Upper Left pane, based on the enire pane Figure 4 is from State B and Figure 5 is from State C, both stamps are from the same position, No. 10. Though State B shows less plate defects than State C these specific stamps show the opposite as to the quality of printing. If only the single from Figure 4 was available I would have no reservations in saying it was a Richmond Print on London Paper however considering the entire sheet this is not the case.
We now have the Lost Plate shipment, Scott No. 6, definitely a London printed stamp and a plate, both left De La Rue on the Feb 20th 1862 shipment along with the last 39% of the London printed 5¢ stamps. The actual 5¢ printing plate is now in Philadelphia at the Franklin Institute, it shows no wear and thus was a new plate when shipped. We have one proven example of the stamp from this captured shipment, Figures 5 and 6. This stamps is identical in shade and paper as the established De La Rue prints as would be expected. Perhaps, a slight amount of palate wear is apparent, such a description from only one stamp is highly subjective and prone to error. In essence the Bermuda shipment was typical late London printings. This single stamp could be the first from the printing or the last but more likely some where in-between.
Compare Figure 2, a typical London stamp and Figure 5, the Lost Plate record copy; the Lost Shipment shows a slight and only slightly more unevenness in the horizontal lines surrounding the portrait, Jefferson Davis coat is more solid, the colored lines of the face are less district. Again I must emphasize these differences are slight, quite subjective and are based on only one documented stamps. There are other imperfectly printed stamps used during De La Rue period.
Unused and Gum
The traditional belief with respect to gum is that the London printings have white gum and those of the Richmond printing have a yellow or brownish gum. I disagree on this as being a major characteristic. First if we consider the CSA lithographs, they often have a white or light yellow gum. Second some definitely Richmond printings have a white or light yellow gum though I am not in a position to offer the percentages. As these stamps have been around since 1862 and were probably often in contact with acid paper, etc. the exact shade of gum should no longer be a major consideration. I would not exclude a stamp having a light yellowish gum or no gum from being a London print.
Richmond Printings
Scott No. 7, the Earliest Known Usage of a Richmond Printing is given as August 15, 1862 which agrees with the contract date for Archer and Daly to print from the London plates being June 30, 1862. At least two covers are known from that date. The Ashbrook listing cover is not at hand for examination but the stamps appear quite similar to another Richmond cover with the same date, Figure 8. Both covers have a Richmond, Virginia postmark, type 3f per the Peter W.W. Powell book "Confederate States of America Markings and Postal History of Richmond, Virginia". This postal marking is only known used from August through December, 1862 thus there is no question as to the year date.
The De La Rue Day Book entry for the plate that actually arrived in the CSA is March 24th thus the earliest possible arrival in the CSA would be early May, 1862. The Archer and Daly initial contract to print from De La rue plates is June 30, 1862. There would most certainly be a delay in the printing. Dietz has noted the verbal recollections by Frank Baptist that they had difficulty in printing from the plate and credits himself for the knowledge of how to print from it, the period was given as the Summer of 1863, evidently an error for 1862 as used stamps from the Summer of 1862 are common.
Our April 15th usages are interesting to examine in detail, Figure 8. The stamps are of a shade similar to the London printings but distinctively though slightly darker, the lines are all fine and show no wear. They are on De La Rue Paper, however the print quality is markedly inferior, but it is evident there is no plate wear or filling between the lines. The printed lines are thin but they are quite spotty, mottled, etc. showing poor press work and thus do not show the fine Cameo appearance of the London prints.
Ink and Color
The Richmond printings on heavy paper do not show the peculiar light blue with a light gray tinge which I consider to be a major indication of London printing. Perhaps the Richmond mixing of the ink was not exactly the same as the London procedure or additives were not the same. The De La Rue ink used for the London printing and supplied to Richmond was always described as fugitive. The fear of the re-use of stamps was of much importance to the British, they did many experiments starting in the 1840 with respect to stamp design and ink to make the re-use of stamps quite difficult. The examples of the London and Richmond printings today do not show the expected fragility however they are now 160 years old. I have soak a few of these stamp in cold demineralized water and have not noticed an apparent difference. A friend has stated that if you wash a London or Richmond stamp with soap some of the ink will wash off but I have no details, there are numerous formulations of soap and detergents, some quite harsh. Perhaps originally in 1862 the ink would show a special affinity to water or the cancelling ink but if so this property is not as pronounced today as one would expected. Ink does change with time, especially the first few years which would be the requirement for postage stamps. The poor image quality of these early usages confirm that the Confederates had printing problems.
For potential plate quality see Fig 1, a 10¢ print from the Sitter plate, the Altered Plate, which would have been identical to the 5¢ issued stamp as to plate manufacture and condition however it must be remembered that the Sitter printing is a proof impression, it was carefully printed in black on an enameled paper. The Sitter impressions show the maximum quality that could have been obtained from the printing plate and in essence a plate proof. Typical 5¢ De La Rue printed stamps are shown, Figure 2 and 3.
Showing the earliest known usage seems to mandate showing a "normal" usage which is complex as so many variations exist. The Figure 9 is definitely a Richmond print, of unknown period, however it is definitely better printed than the Figure 8, the earliest known usage, note the uniformity of the inking on the fine horizontal lines.
Later Richmond Printings, Scott No. 7, on local paper are no problem to distinguish, the ink is often darker or in some cases lighter however in all case the paper is quite inferior, thicker and more porous, and the print quality markedly inferior, unused multiples are a bit scarce.
Two proven constant varieties for the Richmond printings are illustrated. Figure 10 shows Position No. 10 from the Upper Left Pane, note the extension of the upper right corner into the margin. Figure 11 shows the colored dash over the I of FIVE, upper right pane, position No. 81. There are most certainly more constant varieties for the Richmond printing but all such must be confirmed by identical examples, preferable in a different shade to prove they are constant and not just transit ink spots or voids. There are numerous transit ink spots on the Richmond printings.
The Brass Rule and outer margin wear are another clue as to who printed what. A flat trip of metal was added to the top of a plate to minimize the outer wear and thus shows on some stamps as two faint horizontal lines in the margin, ie the Brass Rule. I have only seen this on the top of the plate but it could easily have been done for any margin and even between the panes. Such strips of soft metal are common in printing, often used to space type apart. August Dietz advised it was done in Richmond which is quite likely as the plate shipped on the "Bermuda" does not have them; see 1929 Dietz, page 180 for an excellent illustration of the Brass Rue. A Richmond on London Paper block from the upper left pane, positions 6-10, 16-20 shows the Brass Rules, the outer frame line for the top of the late and that between the upper left and right pane shows outer plate wear, see positions 10, Figure 10. Another gutter block from the lower two panes also shows real plate wear on the outer lines. These two gutter blocks could have been cut from the same sheet. A study of the stamps showing the Brass Rules as to paper, printing and shade would certainly be of value.
We also have the 5¢ stamps printed in 1954 for Philip Ward from the Lost Plate in blue, similar but not exactly the issued stamp and also in black. The paper is thin like that of De La Rue however it does not have the same hard surface. They are well done but by no means proof quality impressions; this is from the quality of the ink, paper and printing, Figures 12 and 13. A casual collector could easily confuse the Ward printings in blue with stamps printed in Confederate Richmond, especially as the paper ages a bit and perhaps some gum added to the back. Yes, the shade and paper are distinct enough to permit indisputable distinction by a serious student having reference stamps to compare with those from the Confederate Period but not by the average collector with only an example or two for comparison. This is a special problem as the unused authentic stamps are not of sufficient value to routinely warrant authentication.
Time Line of the important dates relating to the De La Rue stamps:
My personal feeling is that all relatively well printed stamps on London Paper in the light shade of blue-gray with a bit of yellow in the gum are London Prints and not Richmond Prints as they are often currently assumed because of the gum shade. As an example of the current inconsistencies, Scott's gives a higher price to the unused 5¢ printed in Richmond on De La Rue paper than for either the 5¢ printed in London or those printed in Richmond on local paper. An exceptionally printed unused pane of the London is scarce and a Richmond on local paper is rare. In both cases this seems to be the reverse of the scarcity today.
Please See the Phillips Study
This material though modified and expanded is presented after this article so it can be kept intact as it refers to all parts of this article from the De L Rue through the Richmond printings.
A special warning and thanks. I am finding the reproduction of the CSA Typograhed stamps to be much more complex than the Lithographs as the ink spread from printed to non-printed area seems greater thus I fear the fine details on ink tone may give a distorted image when reproduced in this article. A special thanks for help with this article goes to: Jack E. Molesworth, Jerry S. Palazolo, Carl Hedin and William S. Parks. I would also like to mention Calvet M. Hahn's article in the March, 1978 issue of the "S.P.A. Journal", over the years many things have been discovered but it still has excellent insight to the complex problems that we still do not fully understand.
Phillips study of the Richmond printings is also most interesting, 1929 Dietz page 181. He gives characteristics for Panes 2 and 4 on London Paper and Panes 1 and 3 for Local paper. Pane 3 has the famous White Necktie variety in Position No. 30. For local paper he also described another pane that he couldn't place but with a noticeable characteristic, Position No. 81, a dash above the I of FIVE, see Figure 11. I have seen this characteristic on two panes of quite different color, one with no margins but the other appears to be Pane 4, one is a deep blue and definitely on Local Paper, the other is on a paper quite close to London Paper and could be so, perhaps it is London Paper. A detailed study of panes and large multiples of the Richmond printings would definitely establish the number of plates. The suggestion is there were two 5¢ plates in Richmond that were used to produce stamps. Phillips' remark of "many flaws" and a list of positions is too subjective to be of.
It is a bit strange that Phillips gives so much data on the De La Rue stamps whose plating characteristics are quite minute and so little on the Richmond printings which have many more and more noticeable varieties. One could assume that he had access to a large find of London stamps but relatively few of the Richmond Printings.
Leonard H. Hartmann PO Box 36006 Louisville, Ky 40233 Leonard@pbbooks.net