"Since my notes were published I have enjoyed some interesting correspondence with our Vice President - Dr. R. H. Urwick - on the question of the 4d. on 6d. provisional (S.G.26). I have stated that from past records it had been suggested that the five types were repeated 'vertically'. Dr. Urwick expresses disagreement with this view and I must say from examination of a photograph of a block of ten in his possession, that I entirely agree with him. In my notes I made it quite clear that the view expressed was based on such records that were available to me: I have never felt happy about this recorded information, but in the absence of further material I did not feel disposed to criticise the conclusions of former writers. The photograph of Dr. Urwick's block of ten as outlined in the diagram below proves almost conclusively that the five types were repeated in horizontal rows and Dr. Urwick analyses his findings as follows :
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 4d | 4d | 4d | 4d | 4d |
| 4d | 4d | 4d | 4d | 4d |
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
(a) the row of surcharges (1-5) is straight whereas the row (6-10) slopes up a little, i.e. the distance between the '4d' in No. 1. and the '4d' in No. 6 is 26½mm and the distance between the '4d' in No. 5 and No. 10 is 25mm a gradual slope.
(b) The distance between the 4th and 5th in each row is 20mmm except between 3rd and 4th when it is 21 mm.
(c) The slight difference - chiefly in the serifs of the '4' are the same in each vertical pair.
Dr. Urwick further points out that he has seen a block of 16 which confirms his points b & c but it is correctly aligned as regards (a). The 'slope' shown in his block of ten appears to prove his contention that the setting could not be vertical. Dr. Urwick asked me whether I had ever seen a complete sheet of the unsurcharged 6d. green and whether it occurs in sheets of 20. He has never seen one and neither have 1. I have always assumed that the make-up of the sheet of this value was the same as in the other values, and whilst I appreciate that one should never take anything for granted I cannot understand why the printers should suddenly change the size of the sheet. Should any member possess larger multiple pieces of the 4d. on 6d. surcharge I shall be glad to have a loan of them or, alternatively, photographs.
I now refer to the first paragraph (Bulletin No. 13. p. 27) regarding the 'ONE PENNY' on 2½d. (S.G. 33). I quoted this paragraph to Mr. W. F. Deakin, (Managing Director, Stanley Gibbons Ltd), and was pleased to receive a letter from him agreeing that the description in the catalogue was wrong. He wrote: 'I have been very carefully into this matter and compared what we say in the catalogue with the actual stamp and find that for many years we have been incorrect. I have a letter from Mr. R. B. Yardley pointing out what you say in your article, that the type used for surcharging the 1d. on 2½d., our No. 33, is identical with that used for the 1d. on 6., our No. 25. Somehow or other this has never received attention and the same mistake appears in the catalogue as far back as 1902.' "