Die 1 Reserve

Purpose

The purpose of this article is simply to examine and discuss possibly the only Die I Reserve proof in existence. Firstly because it has not been covered in any great detail before, probably due to its rarity, and secondly, because it is unique in other respects.(Ref.1). Digging further has unearthed some fascinating features that make it much more interesting than any common or garden “Old No 1” proof.

Background

A few years ago I had the pleasure of being allowed behind the scenes at the British Library. My guide was Paul Skinner who introduced me to what must be one of the unsung gems of the GB philatelic world, an unassuming book with “D / Proofs:- / Recess Dies and Punches / Embossing ,,Do.,, ,,Do.,,” written on its front. (Ref.2). This book appears to be an attempt to collate all known die proofs, one from each die used for postage stamps and other forms of revenue stamps, including such things as Life Policy, playing cards and the like. In many respects it is very similar to the book held in the IR records at Kew, IR79/79, except you could say it is more of a picture book than a written account! (Ref.3).

At this point it may be helpful to some to describe what I mean by ‘Die’ and ‘Die Proof’. When dealing with line engraved stamps, a Die is a normally a flat piece of steel into which the design of the postage stamp has been engraved. (Ref.4). A Die Proof is a print from the metal die, typically so that the engraver could check what his work looks like up to that point. Die proofs also provide a useful record for identification purposes when preserved in reference books such as the one described above. Even though, as in this case, the metal die itself may have been destroyed many years ago, the die proof from which it was taken preserves the evidence of what it looked like.

Fig.1 Reserve Die I proof. Copyright BL

One die proof that caught my attention was that made from the Die I reserve die. (Fig.1). This proof is from the flat die made for the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue as a direct result of their letter dated 11 September 1851 which requested possession of “a die or matrix in case of injury to the present matrix.” (Ref.5, p 94). Delivery of this should have been made in June of 1852 along with its associated transfer roller and reserve plates 1-3 (Ref.5, p97). But there is an unexpected mystery here.

Examination of the proof

My first impression was that the engraving is delicate, with details showing up as fine lines. This might possibly be due under-inking when making the print (note SW corner), though the shallow background latticework suggests otherwise. An alternative explanation is that the roller was only lightly rolled into the die and so did not pick up as much detail as it could have done. It is a truism that a roller cannot pick up more relief from a die than that die has engraving. I believe in this case the proof looks similar to the last plates laid down from Die I.

Prominent on the proof are the two ‘R’s (i.e. Reserve), one handwritten immediately below the stamp and another printed top right. I am unsure of the reason for the handwritten letter, perhaps the proof was once mounted with a card frame that concealed the printed R, though this is no more than conjecture. The printed R is another oddity of this die proof.

Fig.2. 2d Die 2 metal die. Copyright Postal Museum

Fig.3. Detail from Die I Reserve Proof. Copyright British Library

Looking at a photograph of the metal die for the 2d Die 2, we can see two different methods of labelling the die. (Fig.2). The words “NEW DIE” and “1” have clearly been stamped into the metal using individual letter punches. The number 34 below the stamp has been acid etched as exemplified by a ragged outline to the numbers (see inset). The reason for this difference is simple. The letter punches were used on the die before it was hardened, something that would not have been practical after hardening. Acid etching however would have worked equally well on hardened or unhardened steel and we know that the 34 was added after hardening of this die. Notice that both punched and etched figures are designed to be read from the die itself. A print from the die would show a mirror image of these. Going back to our Reserve Die I, the R at top right (Fig.3) has not been punched nor acid etched, it has been directly and neatly engraved onto the die itself. Also the R is designed to be read from a print and not the die.

Careful study of the die proof shows two flaws on the cheek of the Queen similar to those found on later stages of the final die proofs taken from the original Die I in 1871 or later. (Fig.4). These small marks were apparently caused by corrosion (rust) sometime after the die had finished producing rollers commercially at the end of 1854. This is an important point.

Fig.4 A comparison of the cheek area from the Reserve Die I proof (left) and a Die I proof taken post 1871 - “Old No.1” (right).

The development of these rust spots can be dated by reference to two die proofs taken in 1858 which can be found in the Phillips Collection (Ref.6). These proofs were taken from the original metal Die I. The first is a proof in red taken on 29 January 1858 which shows slight marks on the cheek similar to those found on the Reserve Die I (Fig.5).

Fig.5 Die proof taken 29 January 1858 with cheek detail blown up.

The second proof was taken on 9 February 1858 (Fig.6) which shows some development of the areas of corrosion in the intervening period. The print definition of the red proof is not good as it looks to be a dry print, and the corrosion marks are faint, but from a comparative examination I would place the timing of the Reserve Die I proof either between these other two, or contemporary with the red proof.

Fig.6. Die proof taken 9 February 1858 with cheek detail blown up.

When was Reserve Die I made?

The answer to this question should be a straightforward “1852”. However the facts directly contradict this answer as the cheek spots present on the die proof date the impression to 1858.

As I see it, there are two possible options as to why this was so. The first is that the first reserve die suffered some mishap (damage, loss, theft?), and the replacement was made to cover up the fact. Given that dual control was in place, as was a high level of security surrounding the Perkins Bacon printing operation and engraving rooms, I consider this possibility to be extremely remote.

The second and to my mind much more probable option is that the die was simply never completed in 1852 as requested. Thomas Keogh of the Inland Revenue wrote to Perkins Bacon (Ref 5, p94) on 11 September 1851 requesting that a number of reserve plates and the reserve die be deposited at Somerset House as a contingency measure. There are letters written in February 1852 (Ref 5, p94-5) from JB Bacon describing his “very severe and dangerous illness” due to diarrhoea and mentioning also that Mr Petch was also afflicted by a “severe illness”. There is a good possibility that these gentlemen were afflicted by cholera, which was not uncommon in London at this time. A major epidemic had hit London in 1849 and the 1854 Broad Street outbreak was on its way.

All of this came at a time when the Board of Inland Revenue were making large demands upon Perkins Bacon, not only due to an increase in demand for stamps, but also for the agreed number of reserve plates to be placed in storage at Somerset House. In subsequent correspondence, Bacon does not mention a reserve die, but only the reserve plates. It could have slipped his mind, or else he knew that they wanted it, but hoped that it might be overlooked. On 25 June 1852, (Ref 5, p97) Ormond Hill wrote to JB Bacon letting him know that the iron box was ready for the reserve plates and also that “The die and roller had better be bought at the same time, if convenient”. There is no confirmation that they were actually delivered. Upon checking the engraving book the records show that 1d reserve plates 1 and 2 were finished on the 13 May 1852, and reserve plate 3 on the 22 May 1852. There is no mention of a reserve die. Unfortunately, this omission in the engraving book proves little as omissions from this record are commonplace.

Roll the clock forward to 1858 and there was work afoot to remove the stars from the top corners of the design for the new Penny Plate range of stamps. Perhaps it dawned on someone at the printers that the old reserve die had never actually been completed. The fire at the Fleet Street premises in1857 would have shut down any argument as to whether the reserve die was needed or not, since the facts show that the possibility of catastrophic loss was very real. Perkins Bacon needed to make up the deficit, preferably without anybody noticing. Perhaps they could slip in another flat die in the bustle of preparing the new stamp design. We have a motive, a plan of action and we have some cover.

Missing piece

There is another piece in this puzzle which I have been unable to verify. In 1939 ED Bacon described and illustrated an essay (Ref.1 p.33) for the new penny plate design with letters in all four corners made at the same time as the above essays using a Die I roller. (Fig.6). I could be wrong, but I believe that this essay is presently held in Her Majesty’s collection. Unfortunately on making enquiries recently of the Deputy Keeper of the Royal Philatelic Collection, the collection is presently moving location, so we are unable to check.

Fig.7. Essay for new ‘penny plate’ design 1858.

From the poor photograph that we have of this essay, it is clear that it has been prepared from Die I. There would be no reason for this, as there would have been plenty of Die 2 dies available since the end of 1854. Using Die I just doesn't make sense unless there was an ulterior motive. Also clear is the fact that the impression is weak and shallow, similar to the Reserve Die I. I would wager that a close inspection will show very slight corrosion marks on the cheek.

Closing the circle.

Near the start of this article I mentioned IR79/79. Looking at that book on page 4 (Fig.8) we can find our Reserve Die I recorded just underneath the original Die I. Moving across to the right hand side of the page we can see that there was no record of the die ever being placed at Somerset House as was requested in 1852. The record shows that it was still at the Perkins Bacon premises at Fleet Street on 24 June 1862. (Ref.7) Note the long serifs of the Rs at the left hand side of the record. I wonder if this is the same hand that added the manuscript R on the die proof itself?

Fig.8. Edited extract of page 4 of IR79/79

Conclusions

I believe that the Reserve Die I was not completed by Perkins Bacon in 1852 as requested. I believe that the omission was corrected in 1858. In order to provide a reason for the old Die I to be used, the excuse of an essay for the new design was used. This smoke screen would allow for an impression to be taken from the die not only for the essay but also for a new Die I Reserve die. The two colour trials initialled by Ormond Hill also lend some authority to the smoke screen. Once complete, the die was safely tucked away in the safe at Perkins Bacon, perhaps with the quiet instruction, “There will be no need to mention this again, Gentlemen.”

Postscript and acknowledgements

Once this article had been completed, I did ponder the wisdom of including details of the cholera epidemic that was rife in the 1850’s in the light of the present Coronavirus pandemic. But it does provide a reminder that previous pandemics have been beaten, and I am confident that in time we will come through the present one also. My thoughts and prayers go to all affected.

I would like to thank and acknowledge the kind assistance of Paul Skinner and the staff at the British Library as well as the staff at the Postal Museum. I would also like to thank those fellow collectors who have encouraged, steered and corrected this writer over the years.

References and Notes

1. The die proof held in the British Library is probably unique. I have not seen a proof anywhere else and it is not listed either by Gibbons Volume 1 nor in Bacon, Edward Denny, Essays, Proofs, Trials and Reprints of the Line-Engraved Postage Stamps of Great Britain Printed by Perkins Bacon & Co., Ltd., RPSL, London 1939.

2. You can search at the British Library using their official name “The British Library, Philatelic Collections: The Board of Inland Revenue Stamping Department Archive, List 4 , Volume 12”. Don’t try and search “D / Proofs...” etc, or you will be there a while.

3. It would be an interesting exercise to compare the contents of both books as the numbering appear to be slightly inconsistent. A job for the future perhaps. If anyone convinces Paul Skinner to provide a set of scans of the whole book, I would be very grateful for a copy.

4. A description of the procedures required to transfer the image from the die onto printing plates can be found in Great Britain Specialised Stamp Catalogue, Volume 1, Queen Victoria, 16th Edition. Stanley Gibbons, 2011. p.29 onwards.

5. Bacon, Edward Denny, The Line engraved Postage Stamps of Great Britain printed by Perkins Bacon & Co Vol 2, RPSL, London 1920.

6. The British Postal Museum and Archive. The Phillips Collection. VolXXI, p6, http://cdn.collectionsbase.org.uk/gb813/Vol_XXI_pg_006.jpg

7. This date does not imply that the die was only placed at Fleet Street on that date. It probably refers to the date at which the book was initially created.

AP

April 2020

Printed in GBJ 58/5 Sep/Oct 2020