Alphabet 4 of Plates 50 and 51 - Hand Engraved or Punched?

A short time back, there was a discussion on Mulready (Ref.1) during which I proposed that rather than being totally engraved by hand as first suggested by E.D.Bacon (Ref.2), alphabet IV was based on the use of an old set of worn out punches, and only finished off by hand. There was some disagreement, so I felt obliged to have a closer look at plates 50 and 51.

The Engraving Book

The Engraving Book of Perkins Bacon referred to by Bacon (Ref.3) states for 11 June 1856 “Engraving letters to postage plates No.50 and 51.” This wording, and the fact that the Engraving Book does not normally draw attention specifically to the engraving of the check letters naturally lends itself to the belief that these letters were indeed fully engraved by hand. Nowhere does it say when the body of the stamps were engraved, so we must assume that they are describing the complete operation. Also, the specific words used should be treated with care as ‘finishing’ and ‘engraving’ are used somewhat interchangeably within the Engraving Book. For example the ‘engraving’ of marginal stars onto several plates on the 13 December 1851 would have been an operation that needed a roller, and would certainly not be completed by hand. Going further back to 1840-43, there are several postage plates described as being ‘engraved’ rather than being ‘finished’. However, the distinctive check letters on plate 50 and 51 are undeniable. An explanation is needed.

Historical context

Plates 50 and 51 were prepared approximately mid-way through the alphabet III range in June 1856. It is evident that letter punches for alphabet III were starting to wear out at that time and needed replacement. It is probable that a complete set of punches was ordered with the subsequent change in appearance of certain letters being great enough for them to have become standard plating aids for this group. The letters E, H, K, L, M and P all feature significant changes in appearance which have been noted in numerous philatelic writings. Changes are not restricted to these letters. As an example I have noticed that many Bs show a significantly larger lower loop when compared to the upper loop from plate 52 onwards. Bs from earlier plates, tend to have loops that are only slightly different from each other.

Plates 45 to 51 were registered on 25 June 1856. Wright and Creek state (Ref.4) that 50 and 51 was put to press straight away in June 1856, that is before plates 45 to 49, however the earliest known postal use (from plate 50) is 20 July 1861 (Ref.5). Reference should be made to a letter dated 12 June 1856 from Perkins Bacon to Ormond Hill “We have now 7 postage Stamp plates ready for registering and as 2 are of a new size adapted to printing by machine and the machine is now ready for what we hope will be a conclusive trial...”(Ref.6). The timing of the letter and the long delay before 50 and 51 went to press points to these two plates being destined for use on Neale’s steam press.

The timing of the introduction of the new punch set is interesting. Mike Williams has suggested (Ref.7) that Perkins Bacon had held off buying a new set until they knew that the Government contract was to continue, confirmation of which only came in a letter dated 4 June 1856. (Ref.8) This would tie in, as the first plate to use one of the new punches was plate 46 which has a P with a small loop. This plate was finished 13 June 1856. The best way of obtaining punches that were as near identical to those in use would have been to lend the originals to the contractor making those replacements, so that he had something to work from. Not being an off the shelf order, the new set would have needed to be made to order so would have taken a few days to manufacture.

Plates 50 and 51 had been made specifically for the steam press and “the machine [was] now ready”. These two plates had been substantially finished with the aim of adding them onto the 45-49 batch of plates but they still needed check letters inserted, and ‘as soon as’ so as not to delay the Steam Press trials. I believe that a rummage around the factory came up with a set of punches that had seen better days, but were not that different from those presently in use. They would need a bit of work to add in details missing, but they would be good enough for them to get these two plates finished off. The speed of which plates 45-49 were finished between 12 to 17 June would indicate that they were already complete apart from the check letters.

Perkins Bacon could be relied upon to do what was expedient. Yet again we see the company coming up with a pragmatic solution to a problem they were facing. Remember also that they had just avoided a challenge from De La Rue and who knew how long the contract would be held for, so what did it matter that there were a few differences? Would the differences even be noticed?

But why an old punch set and not completely hand engraved?

The answer to that question is in two parts; time and consistency. Hand engraving a thin line, perhaps to replace a missing serif is a relatively quick and easy operation. It takes a straight edge and a burin, two or three careful passes and it is done. But to lay out a letter K for example takes time and skill. It needs to be positioned correctly, is a complex shape and there is also a lot of metal to remove. It also has to match the other Ks on the plate. If you compare the shape of different Ks found on these plates you will find that the two large blocks of colour are constant in both size and position relative with each other. What varies, sometimes greatly, is the positioning of the legs and serifs of each letter. A letter punch that has seen better days could be expected to lack some or all of the finer details of that letter, but still have the stronger elements of the letter intact. This is true of the Ks which show consistent body parts but arms and serifs that are very individual. The rather nice unused block of four from plate illustrated in Fig.1 shows this well. Both Ks have a similar body width to each other and the lower leg is at a similar relative angle. It is the re-cut parts that are clearly very different. The arms and serifs of the K on IK shows the hurried and imperfect result, but not so the main body of the letter.

Use of an old letter punch set was not something new to Perkins Bacon, with manual finishing of letter punch impressions being the rule rather than the exception. In many instances where the punch was in good condition the only attention needed would have been to remove the displaced metal from around the impression from the plate. But the use of broken punches, sometimes for years, was normal practice. As an example see Fig.2. The first image on the left is a scan taken from the late Frank Walton’s LP article (Ref.9) describing the letter punches rediscovered by Frank in the archive at the Royal in 2013. I immediately recognised the punch labelled 7 in his article as what I personally call the bottomless B of alphabet II. Going from that image to the right are details from 157 TB laid down in September 1852, 203 BK and finishing with die2, 6 LB laid down in January 1855. This little group being the product of the same punch is a great illustration of Perkins Bacon’s willingness to make do and mend, sometimes over a long period of time.

Ks are difficult, but now think about an S. Fig.3 shows all of the letters S found on these two plates. Each letter is undeniably different from the next, yet there are similarities. In each case the central body of the letter is remarkably similar. It is just the tails that show major differences. An incredible amount of skill would be required to complete this operation completely freehand and this is why there were engravers that specialised just in lettering.

Fig.4 shows an array of Js from these two plates and it has to said that the differences are clear for all to see. However, all of the bodies are of a similar body size and width, allowing for natural variations caused by the punch itself. A punch would have a set width at its tip, but would flair out as it merged with the punch shank. This means that the harder a punch was struck, the wider the resultant impression would be.

Fig.5 shows an array of letter Os from these plates. There are a couple of letters that look to be wider than the rest, but by and large these letters are remarkably consistent. Certainly well beyond what would be possible from a “just get it done quick” freehand job.

As a further example, take a look at Fig.6 which shows a strip of five impressions from plate 50. In this instance it is very clear that the body, top and bottom serifs of the E were still intact when punched and did not need any re-cutting. The middle serif was re-cut as its position changes with each letter. All of these letters have exactly the same outline and must have been made with a punch and only finished by hand.

Finally, Fig.7 shows a rather splendid block of plate 50 showing further examples of the letter K, as well as some of the Js and Os in the flesh.

Conclusion

There is no doubt in my mind that Perkins Bacon used a very worn set of punches on plates 50 and 51. The fact that there are numerous examples of hand engraving does not contradict this, as there are too many features that are constant between the letter forms seen on actual examples from these two plates. Any alteration to a long established story is likely to provoke debate which I welcome, as it can only be healthy. Sincere thanks to those who have helped me to prepare this article.

References

(1). http://stamp-forums.com/

(2). Bacon, Edward Denny, The Line engraved Postage Stamps of Great Britain printed by Perkins Bacon & Co Vol 1, London: Chas . Nissen & Co. Ltd. 1920. p.154.

(3). Bacon, Edward Denny, The Line engraved Postage Stamps of Great Britain printed by Perkins Bacon & Co Vol 2, London: Chas . Nissen & Co. Ltd. 1920. Appendix G, p.275.

(4). Wright H.E. & Creeke A.B., A History of the Adhesive Stamps of the British Isles, PSL 1899. Appendix p245.

(5). Oliver, Allan, Life Span of the Printing Plates for all the British Postage Stamps of Queen Victoria, Tallan Enterprises. 2006-21. p.73.

(6). Bacon, Edward Denny, The Line engraved Postage Stamps of Great Britain printed by Perkins Bacon & Co Vol 2, London: Chas . Nissen & Co. Ltd. 1920. Appendix C(208). p.118

(7). Williams, Mike. Old Stamps, New Ideas: the GB Perforated Stars, GB&CW PS Switzerland. (2015) P.116

(8). Bacon, Edward Denny, The Line engraved Postage Stamps of Great Britain printed by Perkins Bacon & Co Vol 2, London: Chas . Nissen & Co. Ltd. 1920. Appendix C, p.117.

(9). Walton, Frank FRPSL, Perkins Bacon Letter Punches London Philatelist May 2013 Vol 122, 148-152

This article was published in the GB Journal Vol 60, No.6. November/December 2022.