"As a collector of the stamps of St. Vincent I have read with interest the articles by Mr. Adams which appeared in Bulletins N os. 3., 4 & 5. I would, however, like to call attention to what appear to be possibly typographical errors and in doing so I refer to the pages on which they appear:
Page 37: Reference is made in the fourth paragraph to the second delivery of stamps to the island in August 1861. According to Perkins Bacon records the second delivery was made in July 1862.
Page 18: Here information is given with regard to the provisional Overprints of 1880/81. In respect of the "One Penny" on Sixpence the number of stamps given as surcharged is 630. As the 6d plate was of 60 stamps, 630 would be 10½ sheets, and it is difficult to accept that a half sheet was ever printed. In the handbook referred to above the number surcharged is given as 1620; which is correct? In respect of the 4d. on the One Shilling Mr. Adams gives the number surcharged as 720 whilst in the handbook it is given as 630: this again poses the question. On this page also reference is made to the number of impressions of the ld. on Half Sixpence, where the number is given as 1800 which is consistent with, the handbook but in the case of the ½d, on Half Sixpence the number is given as 1400 impressions which is not consistent with twelve sheets. In the handbook the number is given as 1440 which would appear to be correct.
Page 60: Here reference is made to the watermark Star paper which had been, in use since 1877. According to the Perkins Bacon records this paper was first used in 1871. In the same paragraph reference is made to the ½d, ld and 4d.stamps on Star watermark paper which reached the island in 1881 as being the earliest De La Rue printings. This seems in direct contradiction to the Perkins Bacon records which show that these three particular stamps were printed by Perkins Bacon and not by De La Rue. It further appears on the authority of Napier and Bacon that all De La Rue stamps were on paper watermarked "Crown C. A."
I am at present writing up my collection of this colony and wonder if Mr. Adams could give any information in regard to SG 17b, c and d and 23. These stamps are all pqrforated clean cut about 15 and the inference from the aforementioned handbook is that they were perforested by machine A, but in the light of the earlier work from this machine, unless it had been materially altered or overhauled since it was first used in 1861, it is a little difficult to accept those stamps as having been perforated by that particular machine. Is there a possibility that the four stamps in question were perforated by the machine ultimately designated by Napier and Bacon as "AI" which was used for S. G. 1 and 2? If any light could be thrown on this, it might resolve a point which has for so long been in doubt."
I must say that I am glad that one of our members has pointed, out the silly and obvious mistakes made in my articles in the early issues of the Bulletin. I will answer them in the order in which they are dealt with:
Page 37: The date 1861 should be, of course, 1862. The dispatch of the issue was in August as stated but it is generally understood that the actual issue of this second dispatch was not made before September of that year.
Page 48: The figures given for the "One Penny" on Sixpence were taken from a publication, later than the Napier & Bacon book. Anyway the number given by either is questionable as the surcharge was done locally. I believe, when the records were somewhat haphazard. I do agree, however, that realising the number that come up for sale that the higher figure is the more likely one. With regard to the 4d. on One Shilling a similar explanation may apply. In the case of the ½d on Half Sixpence the number 1440 is correct.
Page 60: The date for the Star watermarked paper used was 1871. The stamps which reached the island in 1881 were undoubtedly Perkins Bacon work. I feel sure my mis-statement was due to carelessness perhaps owing to Stanley Gibbons catalogue inserting De La Rue's name just below that issue. I know too that the former firm employed Ridgeway to design the Halfpenny stamp. All the De La Rue printings, I agree, are on "Crown C. A." watermarked paper.
Now concerning the perforation of S.G. 17b, c & d & 23 I have no actual information. The machine first used was in a poor state and the operation none too skillful hence the difficulty in distinguishing the first and second delivery unless on a dated piece which fetches a high price today. If, as is likely, the same machine was used on occasions later on when the usual ones were fully employed it unquestionably had been renovated in the menatime hence, the varied description from 14 to 16 to about 15 . In conclusion I must say that I appreciate the opportunity, of correcting the various errors and thank the member who made them known.