Philately From Australia December 1949 | Notes on Plates, Papers and Constant Plate Varities NEW ZEALAND: THE SECOND SIDE-FACES (1882-1897)

This article first appeared in Philately From Australian December 1949 Issue

THE “DIE STATES” OF THE 1d. AND 2d. VALUES, WITH SOME NOTES
ON PLATES, PAPERS, AND CONSTANT PLATE VARIETIES.

The Reason For the Die Alterations

When the same working die is used to stamp large numbers of moulds (i.e.
where many plates are employed) it is obvious that while it would take a great
number of stampings to cause any appreciable wear of the hardened steel die, the
die does lose some of its sharpness long before the first-mentioned stage is reached.
In the case of the 1d. and 2d. dies under review the result would have been to
fatten (and therefore broaden) the lines of shading standing up in relief, which
are the coloured lines on the stamp. This would further result in a narrowing of
the intervening recessed portions of the die, which are the white lines on the stamp.
As this blunting was allowed to proceed, the white lines (whether in shading or
chignon) became more and more obscured by the coloured. The dies were there
fore “opened up” by working a graving-tool along the recesses, with the result that
the “whites” become more prominent than before, and this further resulted in
the head standing out more from the surround than it had done previously. Had
the die been allowed to lose sharpness indefinitely the lack of sharpness (commu-
nicated, of course, first to the moulds and later to the electros) would have resulted
in grave inking inequalities, particularly over-inking. Similar cases of “opening-up”
are found in the id. and 1d. stamps of Victoria (1901-1905) where, as in the case
of the New Zealand stamps, there were two successive openings up, giving us Dic
1, Die 2 and Die 3 in each case. This liability of the die to gradual wear was well
recognised by De La Rue, who invariably took proofs from the die (i) “before
striking” (i.e., the moulds for electrotypes) and (ii) “after striking”.

Method Used for Producing Moulds: « Correction

Since the previous instalment appeared Mr. Collins writes me that he has now veri:
fied the Fact, to his complete satisfaction, that the lead moulds were produced in
the ordinary way, viz., by forcing the cubes of lead on to the die (held in a “collar™)
in a suitable press. This method, which was that used by De La Rue, is known
in Europe as “percussion froid.” The mistake in the first place apparently arose
through our New Zealand friends interviewing a very old employee of the Print-
ing Devartment who, it subsequently appeared, was in the stereotyping section,
and didn’t realise he was being questioned about electrotyping. Readers will

recall that I expressed doubts about any “moulding” process being employed (as
opposed to “stamping”) and those doubts being now confirmed, there is no need
here to go into the reasons that prompted them.

When you set out to accumulate material for the study of common stamps
which were used over a long period (in these cases some 18 years!) it is inevitable
that a literally enormous quantity has to be obtained before all periods of usage can
be covered adequately.

In the present instance, starting the hunt outside the land of origin, many years
after the “advertisements” began to gain in popularity, and doubtless also after
most of the wholesale quantities available had found their way into packets “pour
les enfants” (and aren’t we all?) the difficulties have been too great to permit of
a detailed, accurate cover of all plates. In the quantities examined certain periods
(and hence plates) were well represented and other periods (and plates) less so.

The “holes” will speak for themselves as we go along, but I trust New Zealand
students will do something about “filling ‘em up.” One source, at present much
despised, that should yield excellent results, are accumulations of fiscally cancelled
copies which, at any rate in the 1d. value, should be quite common in New Zea-
land. In their case practically every stamp bears a legible date and dates, par-
ticularly in quantities, can tell us much of the story. In any event, compared
with, say, the stamps of Victoria of the period, it should take smaller quantities
of post-marked copies to get results, since the great majority of singles of the New
Zealand stamps bear dated post-marks, whereas the Victorian stamps (used as
singles) were almost inevitably “killed” with a number. Some of the bigger New
Zealand Post Offices of course had “duplex” cancellations of which the “killer”
portion only is found where the single stamp was used, but in most cases in this
period a simple “dated town” cancellation seems to have been employed.

Before detailing the various constant plate varieties, a few comments on the
“placing” of these in the “1891 plates” may be of interest.

Writing in Melbourne “and not having access to the proof sheets, etc., so well protected (in our philatelic
interest) by Mr. Watts in Wellington, an immediate problem presented itself.
What could IT do about locating the position in the sheets of the large number of
worthwhile constant varieties found and not described in the Handbook? I have
not been able to locate in the sheet all the newly described varieties, but 1 have
been able to go a long way by reason of finding most of them on stamps with adver-
tisements at their back. Readers will recollect that the complete layout of the
240 advertisement setting is illustrated at pps. 130, 131 of the Handbook and also
elsewhere (e.g., Pim’s Catalogue, etc.), and this diagram (remembering that a left
pane on the advertisements becomes a right pane for the front of the stamp and vice
versa), together with the other information given therein, has enabled me to place
many of the varieties with absolute certainty in their correct place in the sheet.

NEW ZEALAND: THE SECOND SIDE-FACES (1882-1897)

Where one only has a single or singles of a plate variety with a type of advertisement

which occurs several times on the sheet, unless (i) a “line” watermark,
(ii) “deep edging,” or (iii) a “secondary” flaw in the advertisement assist us, it is
not of course possible to place the variety. Thanks, however, to the valued assist
ance of Mr. F. V. Thompson, of Melbourne, and his fine collection of the adver-
tisements (largely reconstructed) it has been possible, with the expenditure of
much midnight oil, to get extensive results which no doubt our New Zealand friends
can carry to completion.

Large blocks of these issues should be common, but apparently they are not.
However, a great quantity of them are probably dispersed between a number of
collections. It will therefore take much collaboration, particularly in the issues
before 1891, to produce results, but it should be possible, and the results suffi-
ciently interesting to make the labour worth while.

“Sub-Type” Varieties.

These are of considerable interest. The term has been applied by the writer to
describe a constant coloured surface-printing plate variety which occurs more than
once in the sheet. Certain varieties of this nature have already been found in the
first issue of Tonga, and have been duly noted. Similar varieties were also noted
by the writer in various values of the “Makea” type of Cook Islands (see Australian
Stamp Journal for September, 1946, and January, 1947). Such varieties (and they
can also be found in various of the surface-printed issues of Victoria from 1871 on
and in numerous other countries) can all be ascribed to the adherence of foreign
matter to the die persisting over the stamping of a number of moulds, and this is
almost certainly the correct explanation in these cases.

The present research has unearthed several of these “sub-type” varieties in the
Ids. and 2ds. of the second “Side-Face” issues (1882-1900). It should even be pos-
sible now, using these and other constant plate varieties as an aid, for the students
of the advertisements to solve some of their outstanding problems, although these
are mainly of a minor nature. Further, numbers of the same “sub-type” are almost
invariably found “se-tenant” in the sheet, for the simple reason that the moulds
were probably arranged in blocks of 60 (6 x 10)—or larger—as they were pro-
duced, so that one would expect—and in fact is not disappointed—to find them
occurring—where they are found—in “nests,” the eggs in general not being spread
amongst several baskets but confined to the one.

I now describe the main plate varieties, two or more having been found of all
those described:

1d. VALUE: THE CONSTANT PLATE VARIETIES

Plate 1 (1882—circa October, 1883): Die 1 only.
(i) Patch of colour in shading to left of top of forehead. In bottom row of one pane.
(ii) Not unlike (i) but patch is further to the left and a litle lower. Also in bottom row of

one pane.
(iii) Small white flaw in shading between neck and base of last “E” of “REVENUE.”
(iv) Marked break in inner oval line under first “E” of “REVENUE.”

Plate 2 (circa October, 1883-December, 1885): Die 1 and Die 1A.

Note: The varieties described below under (i) to (xvii) are all Die 1A, while those
described under (xviii) to (xxi) are all Die 1.

(i) This variety is found in two states:—(a) break in top frame near right end; (b) as
(a), but also shows long shallow dent in outer right frame opposite letters “VE”, Is
No. 6 in one of the four panes.
(ii) Shading badly flawed from base of chin (at right) down along the neck line, also
some faint vertical hair-lines to right of ear.
(iii) Three vertical hair-lines (more like “cuts”) in front of nose, to right of eye and
under right of chin respectively.
(iv) A white pear-shaped flaw in shading to right of base of neck. Is down right side of
one pane.
wv) Eat white on base of ornament over “GE”.
(vi) Outer base frame—line dented under and to left of “P”. Is down left side of one pane.
(vii) Two white flaws between “N” and “U” of “REVENUE”, Like (i) above is No. 6 in
one of the four panes.
(viii) Is found in two states, viz. (a) a white patch, etc., to right of first “A” of “ZEA-
LAND”, (b) as (a), but additional white flaws to right of eye. Is along top of one ne.

(ix) Foside of outer right frame is dented (and has extra colour) opposite “R”. Is down
right side of one pane.
(x) Several small white flaws in shading between “LA” and head.
(xi) White flaw in shading to immediate left of nose, opposite eye.

(xii) A number of short vertical hairlines in hair to right of eye.

(xiii) A white patch in the base of Crown, near its right end.

(xiv) A larger white patch in the base of the Crown, towards its left end.

(xv) White flaws in shading to left of tap of Crown.

(xvi) Two small white flaws in shading under middle of neck. In top row of one pane.

(xvii) Coloured spot in shading to left of second “E” of “REVENUE”. Is down left of one

ne.

(xviii) x white flaw on right base of chin and a marked white flaw on back of neck at its
top. A second state shows a more or less vertical hairline cut to the right of the
second flaw. Is down the right of a pane.

(xix) Marked dent in outer right frame opposite (and below) last “E” of “REVENUE”. Is
down right of one pane.

(xx) A short vertical hairline in shading at left. Starts opposite eyebrow and runs down
into middle of nose.

(xxi) There is a distortion of the ornaments in the lower right triangle and, in later print-
ings, area to right of “Y” is badly flawed. Probably an instance of a repair to the elec-
trotype surface, since the coloured line under and to the right of the “Y”” and the
coloured area underneath this is thicker (and more distorted) than normal. Is No. 60
in one pane.

Plate 3 (December, 1885-August, 1886): Die 1A only.

(i) Colour obscures middle right loop of north-east triangle.
(ii) A stroke of colour on top of head under “A” of “POSTAGE”. Is in base of one pane.
(iii) Lower frame broken under first “N” of “PENNY,” with extra colour above break.

Plate 4 (August, 1886-September, 1887, approx.); Die 2 only.

Plate 5 (September, 1887-October, 1889, approx.); Die 2 and 2A.

Here, though I have picked out a number of small flaws, the total numbers examined were
only some 300, which prevented me from finding two or more copies of any one of them. As
far as I am concerned, therefore, these are virgin fields for the student.

Plate 6 (the “1889 plate”): Here again material was fairly scarce, but I have—

(i) two copies, on the third (so called “Insurance”) paper of what is undoubtedly the flaw
described on p. 119 of the Handbook, as being No. 23 upper right pane. These both show the
base frame badly flawed and broken under the “NN”.

(ii) I have not found copies of the other flaws noted in the Handbook, but I have several
singles and a pair, all prong what is undoubtedly a “Sub-Type,” viz., a spot of colour across
the white oval line at base under (and between) the “P” and “E””. One of the singles is No. 6
in one pane, but the pair definitely does not belong to a top row.

(iii) Inner base frame-line broken near left end, and inner left frame-line broken (not so
markedly) near base. Is in top row of a pane.

Plate 7 (1891-1901); Die 3 only.

This plate, as we have seen, had a long history. The earliest date I have with what is
undoubtedly a Plate 7 flaw is 23/2/91, but printings probably appeared around late January
or very early February of that year. There are a number of constant varieties, but neither in
number or interest can they be compared with the corresponding plate for the 2d. value.

Top Left Hand Pane:

No. 24: Shows a prominent rectangular white Haw over “ND” and a dent (cut) in the
lower part of the right frame. Seen from 1892 (perf. 10) onwards—doubtless
occurs 12 x 114. Found in corresponding position in second and third settings of

the advertisements.
No. 43: A dent in outer left frame opposite the “E” of “ZEALAND”.

Top Right Pane:

No. 4: White flaw over “ND” extending upwards to top frame. Seen from 1895 (perf. 10)
on. Is definitely a “subsequent” flaw since it does noi occur either in the second or
third settings of the advertisements. It must therefore have arisen circa 1894-5.
No. 16: A white flaw on right base of “E” of “NEW”.
Note: The variety chronicled in the Handbook under Row 9, No. 6—dot of colour, under
“T” of “POSTAGE”~is, I think, an “inking” variety and nonconstant, since I have not
found it in the issued stamps.

Bottom. Left Pane:

No. 37: Left inner frame broken twice to the left of the second “A” and letters “EA” of “NEW
ZEALAND” respectively. Found perf. 10 on. Occurs in the third setting of the
advertisements and probably in the ather two.

Nos. 45, 46, 50, 51: A pair and later a large mint block recently acquired show that four
Haws (including the well-known “screwdriver” Haw) which I had picked out as
separate flaws are in reality all part of the one damage to the plate. They are as
follows: —

Na. 45: Shows a broken frame under the “PE”, a white line through the middle of the second
“N” of “PENNY,” and a (scratch) hair-line running in a N.E. direction, through the
top of the lower right triangle.

No. 46: Shows a continuation of this scratch in a N.E. direction. The outer left frame is
broken opposite the “N” of “NEW”, there is a white line from the base of the “E” of
“NEW” almost to the mouth and another white line across the face from a point just
N.E. of the mouth to the base of the middle of the hair,

No. 50: This is the well-known “screwdriver” Haw Cor, as it used to be called years ago,
the “Prince of Wales feather”). It is in the same plane as the Haws on Nos. 45,
46 and 51.

No. 51: This shows a white line running through the middle of the ornaments in the top
left corner. It is in the same “plane” as the “screwdriver flaw,” then continues
through 45 and 46 in a diagonal direction as noted. A workman must have care-

lessly dragged a tool of some sort across the plate, in much the same way as a small
boy draws a stick along a galvanised iron fence (where it only touches some of the
fence). I have seen all these flaws from late 1891 (12 x 114) on, so that they
may well have been there from the start.

In the block referred to, Row 10, No. 1 (i.e, No. 55) shows no sign of “the wedge-shaped
cut under “PE” referred to in Volume 1. No. 45 has such a cut, but it is not marked.
This flaw (i.e, 55) wants checking.

No. 49: Breaks and flaws in oval line over “ZEAL”, and extra white in base of ornament (at
base of triangle) over “L”. Inner base line broken near S.W. corner, etc.

Bottom Right Hand Pane:

No. 38: A vertical hair-line running through face. This is noted in Handbook, but I have
not met a copy. I have a copy of another “vertical hairline” variety running down the
right of the neck from the right of the chignon. It is from the fit printings and it
may well be that it (and No. 38) only arose late in the piece.

Plate 7: Constant flaws not so far placed.

(i) A worn (white) patch in the left portion of the oval shading, opposite and under
the “ZE” of “ZEALAND”. This is No. 12 in one of the four panes. Found perf. 12 x
114 on.

(ii) Dent in outer left frame at S.W. corner. This is somewhere down the left side of a
pane. Found perf. 10 on.

(iii) Outer left frame broken opposite “E” of “ZEALAND”, Haws over “W” of “NEW”. Is,
like (ii), from the left of a pane. So far only found perf. 10. 1 have one copy of a
stamp (also perf, 10 and from the left of a pane) in which the letters “NEW” are
thinner than normal and there is distortion in the lower left triangle, etc. This variety
appears to be a “repair” and may well be a second state of the frst described variety.

(iv) White flaw on top left of “E”” of “NEW”. Like (ii) and (iii) is down left of a pane.
Found perf. 10 on.

2d.: THE CONSTANT PLATE VARIETIES

Plates 1 and 2: As previously indicated, we may only be dealing with the one plate here. At
any rate these flaws are (by reason of dates and shades) from a aiferen plate or
plates to those described under “Plate 3.” Some indication as to whether there were
two plates could be obtained by comparing the numbers of 2ds. printed in 1882-3
with the numbers of 1ds., where we know there were two plates. 1 only describe
those varieties of which I have found two or more copies:

(i) A white spot on the back of the neck at the base of the hair.

(ii) Extra white outlines at base of certain letters of the inscription, “Z,” “GE,” first “E”,
and “UE” of “REVENUE” and over “WO”, “PENCE”, etc. For those interested in
the technical side this appears to be a “ghost” variety (see the Queensland varieties
noted in the first issue of Philately from Australia).

(iii) Small white spot in shading just to right of base of “W”.

(iv) Coloured spot on circle edge to right of base of “2”. This might be a “sub-type.”

(v) White diagonal flaw between last “E” of “REVENUE” and stop following. Is down
right of a pane.

(vi) White flaw in shading to left of top of “N” of “REVENUE”,

(vii) and (viii) Two very marked haic line (scratch) Haws which I am sure are to be
found se-tenant in a vertical pair. In the top stamp the hairline goes between the
“0” and “S” right across the head and neck and through the left of the “N” (it ee
start in the stamp above). In the lower stamp it starts in the top frame, runs throug
the “E” of “POSTAGE”, across the circle edge, through the base of the last “E” of

126
NEW ZEALAND: THE SECOND SIDE-FACES (1882-1897)

“REVENUE” and then, more or less vertically, down to the base. The lower stamp is
in the bottoms of a pane. Both varieties are marked and worth looking for.
(ix) Small white flaw in shading just above lower left tip of neck. In bottom row of a pane.

Plate 3: The earliest date 1 have on any of these varieties is 13/7/85, but I expect dates will
be found about February, 1885.

(i) A diagonal flaw running across middle of head to base of ear. Is down left of a pane.
(ii) Break in circle line to left of “V”” of “REVENUE”.

(iii) Coloured flaw immediately in front of mouth.

(iv) Outer top frame and most of inner top frame entirely missing.

(v) Large break in base frame, at middle. Is in bottom row of a pane.
(vi) Flaw on thick diagonal band under right of “E” of “PENCE”.

(vii) Circular flaw in shading to left of second “E” of “REVENUE”.

(viii) Flaw on base of neck, at right.

(ix) Flaw in shading in front of middle of neck.

(x) A horizontal streak of colour jutting out (to left) from middle of nose.
(xi) White and coloured flaws on circle edge to right of “N” of “NEW.”

Die 2 Plates: Here, as 1 have mentioned, material has not been sufficient either to identify
varieties or to be definite about the number of plates. Again, a comparison of num-
bers of 2ds. and Ids. printed between early ’87 and September ’89 should be of
assistance because there is no doubt that there were two Id. Die 2 Plates.

Die 3: The “1889 Plate”: Certain varieties are described on p. 120 of the Handbook. Material
examined has not been sufficiently extensive to locate these.

THE 1891 PLATE.

Tap Left Hand Pane:

No. 10: Shows the line under the right of the “0” of “POSTAGE” well broken by a triangular
shaped white flaw. Seen in all printings 1892 (perf. 10) to the finish, and was
peokaily there from the start. Not to be confused with the “POSTAGE” flaw—
see later.

No. 19: Shows a white diagonal flaw in the shading to the right of the “EA.” Found in all
printings 12 x 114 to end. I don’t quite know how this position is described in the
Handbook as “flaw at base of Queen’s eye” unless this latter is the result of sub-
sequent damage.

Nos. 50, 51, 56, 57: These stamps form a block of four. They are characterised by the
fact that they all show a flawed area in the middle of the cheek to the right of the
hase of nose as well as numerous other flawed patches in the shading around the head.
To distinguish them from one another, the following tests may be of assistance: —

50: Has a rather blunt tip at S.W. corner.

51: Has two little vertical white scratches in shading to right of “NE” of “NEW”. Has a
slight “nick” in the base of the outer top frame over the top left triangle, to the left
of its middle.

56: “Deep edging” along base.

57: “Deep edging” along base. A tiny (nearly vertical), hairline on edge of left shading
opposite base of “E” of “NEW”. 56 and 57 will often show “line” watermarks at base.

In the Handbook the suggestion is made (probably emanating from some of the writer’s
comments after examining the proof sheets at Wellington about 12 years ago) that this block
of four was a “substitution” for previously faulty electrotypes. This guess was based on the
common “cheek” flaw which could possibly have occurred on a single “electro” used to pro-
duce moulds for four electratypes. Another suggestion is that a new block of four electros
was “plated” with nickel prior to insertion in the plate and that owing to faulty electro-deposition

weaknesses occurred as described. So far the evidence is somewhat scanty, but the theory
advanced of substitution still seems a possibility. My earliest date for any of these four
varieties is 1/12/92 (perf. 10) and I have not seen any variety perf. 12 x 11}, although the
varieties are to be found in all three settings of the advertisements. From that time at least (late
1892) they persist to the end. On the other hand I have discovered some flaw varieties in
the 1891 and early 1892 shades which would appear to be of a constant nature but which 1
have not found in any of the later printings. These are a series of “scratch” flaws which
appear to extend across adjoining stamps. Of them more perhaps at a later date when T
locate more material. At any rate the problem is one full of interest though small in degree.

Top Right Pane:

Sub-type “X”: Found in all printings. This shows a coloured spot in the middle of the shading
over the head under (and slightly to the left of) the left end of the “S”. I found this first
on many singles, in horizontal pairs and strips and vertical pairs. The numbers found in the
quantities examined (ie, before going through the advertisements) indicated that there were
about 15 of this sub-type in the sheet. I now find there were at least 17, distributed as under:

Of the above, two positions (15 and 30) show other constant flaws, as follows:

15: White flaw through “U” of “REVENUE” (noted in Handbook).

30: Small diagonal white flaw in shading immediately to the right of the base of the “N” of
“NEW”.

I think the other Haws noted in the Handbook, on Nos. 34 and 37 respectively, are either
due to “ink clogs” or to subsequent damage, since I have not met them in the issued stamps.

Sub-type “Y”: Found in all printings. This shows extra colour on the lower left ed,
of the neck. I should think it occurs 8-10 times in the pane, but have so far only been able
to locate it definitely on Nos. 46, 47, 48 and 49. It will be found, I think, at least three times
in the bottom row of the pane (55 to 60).

Lower Left Pane:

Nos. 7 and 13: These together form the one piece of damage, a nearly vertical fine white
hair-line. In 7 the hairline, which is broken in character, starts from under the second “A” in
“ZEALAND” and goes downwards almost vertically. This stamp also shows a fine cut in the
baseline near S.W. corner. In 13 the hairline is more marked. It runs from under the “AN”
to between the “T” and “W”, past the tip of the nose. So far met in all printings from 1893 on.

The flaw noted in the Handbook as occurring on No. 8 (coloured flaw under “0” of
“POSTAGE”) can, I think, be only an inking flaw. I have not met it.

No. 23: (noted in Handbook) shows a white flaw breaking circle line, ete., under right
end of “L” of “ZEALAND”.

No. 40: Has a semi-vertical hairline at base of neck. Starts above left of second “E” of
“PENCE” and finishes at back of lower band in hair. Found all printings 1893 onwards.

No. 53: A fine semi-vertical hairline starting in shading opposite top of “Z” of “ZEALAND”
and running into circle line over left of “T” of “TWO”. Probably occurs in all printings.


No. 57: Shows a diagonal white flaw starting in the shading to the left of the nose and
going, to the right, into the base of the eye (in lightly inked copies). Found from late 1892 on.

Lower Right Plane:
I have not found the flaw (most of top frame-line missing) noted in the Handbook. This
damage may be “subsequent.”

Constant Plate Flaws not so far placed in sheets.

(i) The “PQ” Haw. This is No. 1 in one of the four panes and shows a prominent
white flaw at the base of the “O”, making quite a fair “PQSTAGE”. I have not met it
in advertisements, and as my earliest copy is a perf. 10, dated early in 1896, I think
this damage is subsequent. It occurs in all the later printings.

(ii) Marked break in outer frame at base (with additional colour over break) under “C”
of “PENCE”. So far found 1896 (10 x 11) on.

(iii) A short white line between bases of second “A” and “N” of “ZEALAND”. Found
1896 (perf. 10) on.

(iv) A streaky hairline, etc, running from bridge of nose up through shading to under
second “A” of “ZEALAND”. Is down left side of a pane and is practically obscured in
most later printings. Found 1893 on (and probably earlier).

(v) White spot in shading immediately under lett end of chin. Is down the right side
of a pane. Found 1897 (perf. 11 on).

(vi) A white flaw in shading just to the left of neck, near top. Seen in a “Poneke Potted
Meats” advertisement. Probably No. 9 or 50 in lower left pane.

(vii) Top frame rather squashed down and defective, particularly at right end. Also shows
a coloured dot in shading under left of “A” of “POSTAGE”. Found 1897 on, is No. 6
in one pane and may be an early stage of the “most of top frame missing” (see
earlier reference under lower right pane).
(viii) A white flaw in the middle of cheek to left of ear, nearer ear than nose. Is in the top
row of one pane. Found 1892 (perf. 12×11) on.
(ix) White flaw on cheek to south-west of ear. Is in the bottom row of one pane. Seen
1895 on.
It will be noted that I have not been able to trace the last nine flaws in the advertisements.
That is not to say that they don’t occur, but I am inclined to think that some at least
of them arose after 1894.

I have also met two or three copies of each of some colour Haws not described above but
in each case they are all from the same printing and are unquestionably only semi-constant
to that printing, and due no doubt to the presence of ink-clogs (being sometimes referred to
as “crust” flaws).

This concludes my study of these values. Should our New Zealand friends
follow it up (as I hope they do) it may even be possible, at a later date, to issue
a Supplement to Vol. IL. of the Handbook, which will deal only with the “Second
Side-Faces.” Many surface-printed issues still remain buried in obscurity. This is
one that deserves a better fate.