Exploring the 1867 Issue of The Netherlands

[psquareh]

How it started

I have a few things to tell about the 1876 issue of The Netherlands and thought, let me share this with you here on Stampboards.

My interest for this issue started about 20 years ago when I bought on ebay an album of 40 pages literally full of the 10 cent carmine stamps. I do not know exactly any more but if I remember correctly I paid 500 Dutch guilders for the album. This is about EUR 225, USD 260, AUD 365. To get an impression, this is one of the pages from the album:

I got curious about the little drawings (like in the lower left corner) and numbering on each page (like the '1' in the lower right corner). I suspected it had something to do with a plate reconstruction and that the number indicated a position in the plate. I was aware of the possibility to plate the first and second issue but not this issue. Anyway, I thought it would be interesting enough to sort the stamps on types, perfs, plate flaws, cancels, especially the dot cancels, and I was the highest bidder.

When I received the album after some days I opened it and immediately spotted a photo copy and a cutout at the first page which were not shown in the ebay auction. This is the photo copy:

Information about a plate reconstruction of the 10 cent, type I

This is the cutout:

Information about the primary variants of the 10 cent, type I

When I read the word 'PLAATRECONSTRUCTIES' which means 'plate reconstructions', I was now almost sure that someone had been working on identifying the stamps for a plate reconstruction. The look and feel of the text, images and paper size of the photo copy gave me the idea that it came from the magazine 'Nederlandsch Maandblad for Philatelie' [Dutch Monthly Magazine for Philately]. The text also mentions 'Wordt vervolgd' which means 'to be continued', so it was for sure that more information is available.

But, maybe recognizable, you have little time to sort things out, other things to do, other collecting interests, busy with family, busy with work, you loose interest and the album ended up on the bookshelf. But now I have some more free time, so I took off the dust from the album and got interested again to find out more about plate reconstructions and the issue in general.

One of my hobbies is designing album pages for specialized stamp collections. I am also designing the album pages for a specialized collection of this issue and wlll display these here. If someone would be interested in these album pages, I can share them with you.

Wordt vervolgd (you now know what that means)

[psquareh]

What is the 1867 issue of The Netherlands?

First things first, what is the 1867 issue of The Netherlands anyway? Well, that is this series of six values issued in 1867-1868 as the third issue after the issues of 1852 and 1864, depicting King WIlliam III:

The 1867 issue of The Netherlands

For information about this issue, I have used the following stamp catalogs:

Used catalogs for exploring the 1867 issue of The Netherlands

The Dutch NVPH catalog gives a brief list of literature, so one of the first steps was to get this list complete and I think I now have a quite complete list:

Available literature for exploring the 1867 issue of The Netherlands

The literature which I have on paper or electronically (PDF) is in blue and bold, missing literature that I consider to be must-have is in red (especially for the plating of my 10 cent carmine stamps). The others I consider nice-to-have, they are only 'one-pagers' and I cannot imagine that information in these articles is outdated or not repeated in other sources.

From now on I will use only NVPH when I mean the Dutch NVPH catalog from the Nederlandsche Vereeniging van Postzegelhandelaren [Dutch Association of Stamp Dealers] and NMP when I mean 'Nederlandsch Maandblad voor Philatelie' [Dutch Monthly Magazine for Philately].

And about my ambition to plate my 10 cent carmine stamps, if I may quote Mr. Van Hussen (who we will meet later as one of the authors of an article in NMP): "If the plating of the first and second issue are given the difficulty factor 2 and 1 respectively, the plating of the 1867 issue may be given the difficulty factor 5!". So, I suppose I am going to face big challenges in the plating ambition of my 10 cent carmine stamps.

And what I said in the beginning of the thread: I have a few things to tell about this issue, when I look at all the information I have so far, I think I have a little bit more than a few things to tell.

(Wordt vervolgd)

[psquareh]

What do stamp catalogs say about this issue?

This is the listing of the issue in Scott 2005 and gives the most concise information:

Listing in Scott of the 1867 issue of The Netherlands

This is the listing of the issue in Michel 2018 and gives some more information:

Listing in Michel of the 1867 issue of The Netherlands

This is the listing of the issue in NVPH 2010 and gives, as can be expected, the most comprehensive information:

Listing in NVPH of the 1867 issue of The Netherlands

Scott only mentions two types of the numerals, Michel and NVPH give the differences in the two types of the numerals. I will come back later to these types in more detail.

Scott only mentions imperforate varieties; Michel and NVPH list the imperforate varieties with a valuation. Additional varieties in NVPH are a pair of 5 cent, imperforate between, a SPECIMEN overprint on the 20 cent and many color proofs of the final design.

The given perforations are slightly different. (1) NVPH and Scott give 12¾ : 11¾ as one the perforations, Michel gives 12½ : 12 for this. In NVPH from 1934, this perforation of 12½ : 12 is also given, so possibly because of historical reasons, this was never updated in Michel. (2) NVPH and Michel give 10½ : 10¼ as one of the perforations, Scott gives 10½ : 10 for this.

All catalogs mention the possibility of oxydation of the 50 cent stamp which must be valuated less.

NVPH is very specific on the color shade of the 5 and 10 cent for the different types/perforations. It is also mentioned that for all values lighter and darker shades exist, so I have my doubts that this is really helpful in determining the type/peforation. Michel only uses the basic colors blue and carmine. Scott lists a shade blue (number 7d) of ultramarine (number 7b). Following NVPH, the ultramarine shade (number 7b) is of type I (NVPH number 7 IC), the blue shade (number 7d) is of type II (NVPH number 7 IIC).

Scott and Michel also provide information about years of issue for the various types/perforations. NVPH does this not at all, very unusual since NVPH gives this for many issues in the classics. I have always wondered how Scott and Michel got this information. I found an article which might shed some light on this and will come back to this later.

NVPH explicitely mentions "kl.g." at the C-, D- and E-perforation, "kl.g." stands for "kleine gaten" which means "small holes". I suppose not everyone is known with small holes and large holes. A perforation has small holes when the hole is (much) smaller than the paper bridge between the holes. The following illustrates this, on the left side is an example of 7 IIB (10½ : 10¼), on the right side is an example of 7 IIE (13¼ × 14) with small holes. Especially on the left and right side the small holes are clearly noticable:

Small holes on the right hand stamp, especially noticable on the left and right side

(Wordt vervolgd)

[psquareh]

The first album pages

So, the first album pages can be designed, but, no album without a title page:

Title page for the album

And the album page for the basic set:

Album page 1 for the basic set of the 1867 issue

The text reads:

"Design and copper engraving by Heinrich Nüsser, Düsseldorf. Border design by Joseph Vürtheim, Rotterdam. Without watermark. Different perforations. The stamps are printed in plate printing by Joh. Enschedé & Zonen, Haarlem, in sheets of 200 stamps, 10 horizontally and 20 vertically. Two types are distinguished, which can be recognized by the numerals of value. The date of issue of the new values of 20, 25 and 50 cents from this issue was 1 October 1867. These higher values came in handy when franking letters weighing more than 15 grams and by registered letter. This prevented the use of multiple stamps of lower values. The 5, 10 and 15 cent values were only sold after stocks of the previous issue had run out. For the 5 and 10 cents this must have been at the end of December 1867, for the 15 cents at the end of June 1868. End of validity October 31, 1879."

I don't speak English natively so I use Google Translate and sometimes DeepL for translation from Dutch to English, so it could be that the English is not always perfect.

And for each value there is an ablum page for multiples; a pair, a strip of 3, 4 and 5 and a block of 4. I will only show the album page for the 5 cent, the others are similar:

Album page 1a for multiples of the 5 cent

Maybe for the 5 and 10 cent one could complete this page, but multiples for the higher values are (very) rare and (very) expensive.

(Wordt vervolgd)

[Frank_King]

My collection is not as extensive as yours, as I only look for types and perforation varieties. Still, I look forward to your further posts.

I thought you might be interested in the following scan taken from "Gids voor Philatelistische Literatuur van Nederland en Kolonien" door M.J. van Heerdt-Kolff. It lists literature on this issue up to the date of publication (1930). Probably there is not much new information from what is in the list you gave earlier, but you never know.

Jan

[psquareh]

My collection is not as extensive as yours, as I only look for types and perforation varieties. Still, I look forward to your further posts.

I thought you might be interested in the following scan taken from "Gids voor Philatelistische Literatuur van Nederland en Kolonien" door M.J. van Heerdt-Kolff. It lists literature on this issue up to the date of publication (1930). Probably there is not much new information from what is in the list you gave earlier, but you never know.

Jan

Thanks Jan, that looks great. Do you also happen to have the list of used abbreviations? 'N.M.PH.' is for sure 'Nederlandsch Maandblad voor Philately', the others I do not recognize.

For the missing literature on my list, I am going to visit in September the library of KNBF, Koninklijke Nederlandse Bond van Filatelistenverenigingen [Royal Dutch Federation of Philatelist Associations]. I might find there some articles/books that are on the list you gave.

[psquareh]

The origin of the 1867 issue

In the January and February 1986 editions of NPM, a very interesting article from Mrs. T.B. Steiner-Spork was published about the origin of the 1867 issue:

A Detailed Research on the Origin of the 1867 Issue by Mrs. T.B. Steiner-Spork

A timeline is described of what happened and who was involved in the search for a new issue. Many of the images of the proofs and designs in the article come from the 'Nationaal Archief' [National Archive] and can be viewed on the website Het Geheugen [The Memory], a service from the 'Koninklijke Bilbliotheek' [Royal Library]. In the article, only the cutouts are displayed in black and white. For an impression, I will show here a selection of proofs/designs in color from that website (search for '1867 willem iii' for the complete list).

A color proof by François Georges Oscar Berger-Levrault, Strasbourg, 7 February 1866:

Color proof by François Georges Oscar Berger-Levrault for the 1867 issue

Permalink to this image

A design by Joseph Vürtheim, Rotterdam, 5 March 1866:

Design by Joseph Vürtheim for the 1867 issue

Permalink to this image

A print from the stone engraving by Joseph Vürtheim, Rotterdam, March 1866 (note the composition of drawing #5 and #8 of the above design):

Print from the stone engraving by Joseph Vürtheim for the 1867 issue

Permalink to this image

A print from the engraving by Charles Derriey, Paris, June 1866:

Print from the engraving by Charles Derriey for the 1867 issue

Permalink to this image

A design by Joseph Vürtheim, Rotterdam, June 1866:

Design by Joseph Vürtheim for the 1867 issue

Permalink to this image

A design by Joseph Vürtheim, Rotterdam, June 1866:

Design by Joseph Vürtheim for the 1867 issue

Permalink to this image

A proof of the first engraving, 3 August 1866:

Proof of the first engraving for the 1867 issue

Permalink to this image

A proof of the second engraving, 13 August 1866:

Proof of the second engraving for the 1867 issue

Permalink to this image

A color proof by an unknown engraver from Strasbourg, November 1868:

Color proof by an unknown engraver from Strasbourg for the 1867 issue

Permalink to this image

The above design (of the medaillon) was certainly a source of inspiration for the design of the 1870 issue of Netherlands Indies:

5 cent of the 1870 issue of Netherlands Indies

A proof by Frits Orloff and Adelbert Zanker, 1870:

Proof by Frits Orloff and Adelbert Zanker for the 1867 issue

Permalink to this image

A very interesting auction to mention here was the Corinphila 237-238 Auction on 15 September 2018 that included many, many proofs of the 1867 issue (but out of my budget anyway). Later I will come back to the album pages for color proofs of the final design as listed in NVPH.

(Wordt vervolgd)

[Frank_King]

For the Dutch resources:

N.PH. = De Nederlandsche Philatelist
N.T.P. = Nederlandsh Tijdschrift voor Postzegelkunde
P.B. = Het Postzegelblad
P.H. = De Philatelist
PH.M. = Het Phlatelistisch Maandblad

If you need any of the other language sources, let me know.

Jan

[psquareh]

More Literature

Thanks to Jan I could add a lot of additional literature to the list:

Additional literature for exploring the 1867 issue of The Netherlands

I was not even aware of most of the magazines in this list, but I suppose these were far before I was born. If you are interested, on this page on wikipedia you can find much more information about the history of Dutch philatelic magazines (use the 'translate page' feature from Google Chrome to translate it to your favorite language).

Still hope to find some of these articles when I am going to visit the library of KNBF, Koninklijke Nederlandse Bond van Filatelistenverenigingen [Royal Dutch Federation of Philatelist Associations] in September.

Especially the articles about forgories, they seem interesting to me. I only found one very nice article online about forgeries by J.L. van Dieten, translated by and published in American Society for Netherlands Philately, Volume 9/2, December 1982:

The NVPH Expertizing Committee and the Issue of 1867

Really interesting to read how they tried to use a trial perforation 10½ of the 1864 issue to match this perforation of the 1867 issue for expertizing purposes.

By the way, amazing how many articles discuss the types I and II of the numerals in this issue. Next time I am going to try to shed some light on these types.

(Wordt vervolgd)

[psquareh]

If you need any of the other language sources, let me know.

Yes please Jan, just to be complete and I might find some articles online. Tx!

[60022Mallard]

Looking at your illustration of the 5c Indies stamp it would appear that it may have been perforated by a comb perforator in a vertical direction as the holes of the two horizontal sets of perforations seem to replicate their unevenness while the two vertical sets do not seem to replicate, plus the four corner perforations seem regular, rather than the variable ones often produced by line perforators.

Looking at perforating patterns in the area of stamps that interests me most, where all perforations are by a comb machine, can sometimes help identify different printings.

Whether looking at such for this is may help with allocating stamps to printings for this issue I do not know, but thought I would mention the idea.

[PhilipAdams]

Just discovered this topic and the journey it describes.

Please keep the great posts coming.

Philip

[Frank_King]

Here are more of the codes:

(German sources)
B.B.Z. = Berliner Briefmarken Zeitung
D.PH. = Der Philatelist
D.B.Z. = Deutsche Briefmarken Zeitung (Bauschke)
I.B.J. = Illustrieries Briefmarken Journal
PH.E. = Philatelistisches Echo
W.I.B.Z. = Wiener Illustrierte Briefmarken Zeitung

(English Sources)
S.C.F. = Stamp Collectors' Fortnightly
PH.J.I. = Philatelic Journal of India
PH.R. = Philatelic Record
A.PH. = American Philatelist
A.J.PH. = American Journal of Philately
L.PH. = London Philatelist
G.S.W. = Gibbons Stamp Weekly

(Belgian Sources)
T.P. = Le Timbre Post

Jan

[psquareh]

Looking at your illustration of the 5c Indies stamp it would appear that it may have been perforated by a comb perforator in a vertical direction as the holes of the two horizontal sets of perforations seem to replicate their unevenness while the two vertical sets do not seem to replicate, plus the four corner perforations seem regular, rather than the variable ones often produced by line perforators.

According to the auction description it is NVPH #8F, comb perforation 12½:12 (gr.g. = large holes):

Looking at perforating patterns in the area of stamps that interests me most, where all perforations are by a comb machine, can sometimes help identify different printings.

Whether looking at such for this is may help with allocating stamps to printings for this issue I do not know, but thought I would mention the idea.

Funny that you mention printing identification. I already have much experience in perforation detection from an image and developed an Android app for this, see also this topic: Android app that functions as a stamp perforation gauge.

This was one of my first test results when I was developing the app:

Perforation detection by an Android app

I was a little lazy 2-3 years ago and did not follow instructions from Google to take action upon some kind of compliance agreement or whatever it was, so unfortunately the app was taken out of Google Play. Need some more time to revive that again, but my development skills on the Android platform have become a little bit rusty now.

A much bigger challenge will be the detection of the type, how on earth am I going to learn the app the difference between numerals like in the image below, left is type I, right is type II:

Whether the difference between comb and line perforation is going to help in printing identification I do not know yet.

[psquareh]

Here are more of the codes:

(German sources)
B.B.Z. = Berliner Briefmarken Zeitung
D.PH. = Der Philatelist
D.B.Z. = Deutsche Briefmarken Zeitung (Bauschke)
I.B.J. = Illustrieries Briefmarken Journal
PH.E. = Philatelistisches Echo
W.I.B.Z. = Wiener Illustrierte Briefmarken Zeitung

(English Sources)
S.C.F. = Stamp Collectors' Fortnightly
PH.J.I. = Philatelic Journal of India
PH.R. = Philatelic Record
A.PH. = American Philatelist
A.J.PH. = American Journal of Philately
L.PH. = London Philatelist
G.S.W. = Gibbons Stamp Weekly

(Belgian Sources)
T.P. = Le Timbre Post

Jan

Great, thanks again Jan. Let me see if I can some info online, you never know.

[psquareh]

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it

As I mentioned before, one of my hobbies is to design stamp album pages for specialized collections. (Just finished the pages for specialized Australia following the Stanley Gibbons catalog.) I was 100% certain that I also designed the album pages for this issue and the 10 cent carmines. But, I really, really, really, could not find the design any more. Very unusual for me to loose something, so I thought, my memory is playing tricks on me and I never did the design.

Over the years I bought quite a few starters collections of various countries, but again, interest disappears and stuff ends up in albums on the bookshelf. I have so much stuff now that it really needs to be sorted out, cleaned up, and sold again, maybe on ebay, delcampe or perhaps catawiki. I just want to limit myself in collecting areas and focus on specialized French Réunion, basic Iceland, basic Netherlands and this 1867 issue and the 10 cent carmines.

So, having a look at all the albums to see what I have and what needs to go and ta-da, what did I found, right, the pages for the 10 cent carmines! I mean the printed pages. I totally, totally, totally, forgot about them. Two pages for numeral cancels for an impression:

The pages look pretty good, but I changed the style a little over the years, improved the quality of the printed images dramatically, so the new designed pages are going to look even better in my opinion. And I noticed that the frame size is too big, it looks a bit silly now, they are 25×29 mm., but should be 24×28 mm.

(Wordt vervolgd)

[60022Mallard]

Your comments on perforating appreciated.

Virtually all perforators over time have misaligned pins which might be useful for sheet reconstructions as it could identify particular columns and / or rows by repetition of the "defects" of an established row or column

I have a corner marginal of an expensively catalogued stamp that I was very pleased when a whole sheet scan became available to confirm my example had the same perforating "defects".

I find that marginal copies are probably the most important as they help confirm (for comb perforating at least), the direction of the perforation - top to bottom, bottom to top, left to right etc. by noting which un-perforated margin is opposite one perforated through. For long lived versions perforators can be changed over time. For my main interest, towards the end of production, a fairly general change from vertical to sideways took place without changing the perforation gauge.

[psquareh]

Your comments on perforating appreciated.

Virtually all perforators over time have misaligned pins which might be useful for sheet reconstructions as it could identify particular columns and / or rows by repetition of the "defects" of an established row or column

I have a corner marginal of an expensively catalogued stamp that I was very pleased when a whole sheet scan became available to confirm my example had the same perforating "defects".

I find that marginal copies are probably the most important as they help confirm (for comb perforating at least), the direction of the perforation - top to bottom, bottom to top, left to right etc. by noting which un-perforated margin is opposite one perforated through. For long lived versions perforators can be changed over time. For my main interest, towards the end of production, a fairly general change from vertical to sideways took place without changing the perforation gauge.

Aha, I understand what you mean now. All the information I have unitl now about plating this issue is based on plate flaws, but I have yet too little information about this and need to wait for some articles from NMP.

Just out of curiosity, which stamp is it that you are mentioning? And was is issued in different perforations? Anyway, tx for the info

[psquareh]

Remarkable

I am still using the NVPH catalog from 2010. This morning I was in the local library and noticed the latest NVPH 2020. Had a quick look and was surprised about the listed prices of this issue, on the left 2010, on the right 2020:

The difference for mint-never-hinged (left column) is quite huge for the 25 and 50 cent. I could still remember there was even a news item a few years ago about an all-time-high price paid for a Dutch stamp, €100.000. I looked up the online NPV auction results and this is the auction for the 25 cent:

So, hammer price €82,000 + 24% premium = €101,680.

And this is the auction for the 50 cent:

So, hammer price €50,000 + 24% premium = €62,000.

NVPH mentions in the introduction that prices in italics are "an estimation, since the value of these stamps is not or insufficiently known to the committee".

Now just suppose these two stamps are sold at NVPH estimates, then the person who sells the 25 cent has a nice profit of about €25,000, while the person who sells the 50 cent has an unfortunate loss of about €30,000. Oh well, it levels out a little when it is the same person who sells, haha.

(Wordt vervolgd)

[Kainnikanada]

Please keep the great posts coming.
Philip

I, too, enjoy this well-researched thread. ...as I do reading/viewing Philip's 1d roo thread.

Far superior to the basic cat listing (scan, date of issue etc.) seen in many threads A pleasure to read; augments the knowledge base of a collecting area I'll likely never pursue but don't mind browsing. We need more of these types of threads.

[psquareh]

How about these types? (1)

Good question! Have you ever tried to identify the type of a stamp from this issue? I find it not so trivial to do this.

I have found a few illustrations that try to help in identifying the type...

This oldest illustration I could find comes from 'Handboek over Alle Postzegels van Nederland en Kolonien' [Handbook All Postage Stamps of The Netherlands and Colonies] from 1912:

"Indication of the types of the 1867 issue"

Good attempt but not super helpful in my opinion.

The next illustration comes from 'Leiddraad voor den Speciaalverzamelaar van Nederland' [Guide for the Specialized Collector of The Netherlands] from 1922 (top is type I, bottom is type II):

Illustration of the 1867 types from 'Leiddraad voor den Speciaalverzamelaar van Nederland' 1922

As we will read later, the illustrations of the 25 and 50 cent have been swapped, so, after correction, the illustration should look like:

Corrected illustration of the 1867 types from 'Leiddraad voor den Speciaalverzamelaar van Nederland'

The correction was published in an NMP article from 1926 by Mr. Gatsonides, so possibly for about four years collectors could have misidentified the types of the 25 and 50 cent. From a valuation point of view, there is not much difference at that time, same price for mint, 1 Dutch guilder difference for used (Plaat a = Type I, Plaat b = Type II):

The next illustration comes from an article in the book 'Postzegelkunde en Postwezen' [Postage Stamp Expertise and Postal Services] from 1932 (top is type I, bottom is type II). I will come back to this article later, but here at least the broken lines above the numerals are illustrated and the dot after 10 and 20:

Illustration of the 1867 types from 'Postzegelkunde en Postwezen' 1932

The next illustration comes from the NVPH 1934 edition (top is type I, bottom is type II). Maybe it is me or maybe it was a copyright issue at that time, but they had better used the previous illustration, much more clear and helpful:

Illustration of the 1867 types from NVPH 1934

The next illustration comes from a booklet published by 'Nederlandsch Postmuseum' [Dutch Postal Museum] in 1947. I will also come back to this booklet later, but this illustration gives some helpful points of attention for type identification by using the arrows. In my opinion it is a missed opportunity to not illustrate the broken lines:

Illustration of the 1867 types from 'Nederlandsch Postmuseum' 1947

The next illustration comes from the NVPH 2010 edition (top is type I, bottom is type II). Not illustrated but mentioned in the description, the dot behind 10 and 20. The 2 of 25 for type II looks really silly, in my opinion, NVPH as a specialized catalog should do better than this:

Illustration of the 1867 types from NVPH 2010

And finally the illustration from Michel (very basic):

Illustration of the 1867 types from Michel

And colnect.com, but obviously taken from the Nederlandsch Postmuseum booklet:

Illustration of the 1867 types from colnect.com

Well, choose your favorite illustration for identifying the type ...

(Wordt vervolgd)

[psquareh]

How about these types? (Quiz Question)

This beautiful copy (read: total disaster) of a 50 cent is currently for sale on ebay at a true bargain price of only US $45.90 :

I am pretty sure that everyone wants this gem and is going to bid now after showing this, but the question is, which type is it?

(Wordt vervolgd)

[psquareh]

How about these types? (2)

In the book 'Postzegelkunde en Postwezen' [Postage Stamp Expertise and Postal Services] from 1932 an interesting article was published about the types of the 1867 issue by an unknown author:

The Types of the 1867 Issue of The Netherlands

Last time I am going to excuse myself: I do not speak English natively and use Google Translate and/or DeepL for translation of Dutch to English and try to make some obvious corrections as much as possible myself. If it is still unclear then just ask me for more clarification. By the way, in my opinion the translation of DeepL is many times much better than Google Translate.

The text reads:

Although it might have been more desirable to speak of the "plates" of the 1867 issue, this is not done in the title in order not to arouse high expectations; the intention of this article is only to give a brief overview of what has already been published on this subject in earlier issues of NMP.

The fact that there are differences in all numerals of value was discovered simultaneously by Messrs. Becking in Utrecht and Mijer in the Dutch East Indies at the end of 1895. In the beginning it was not yet clear what the distribution of the different types over the sheets was; until 1910 there were regular reports in the press about pairs of both types, usually of the 50 cents, but sometimes of other values as well.

The exhibition held by the Enschedé company during the philatelists' day in Haarlem in 1921 first spread the mists forever. It is true that the obviously quick visit led to wrong conclusions being drawn from the material present there (of which the "Leiddraad voor den Speciaalverzamelaar van Nederland" [Guide for the Specialized Collector of The Netherlands], published at that time, with its erroneous indication of the types of the 25 and 50 cents, was the victim), but finally Mr. Gatsonides rectified the matter in NMP of February 1926, so that the adjacent images of both types must be considered to be the correct ones.

The differences are clear enough, so it is not necessary to list them all again. All digits 5 of type I resemble each other because of the rather clumsy flag and the far to the left protruding curl. The digits 2 of type I seem to lean backwards a bit; with the digits 1 the stick goes more gradually in the footsteps of type I than with type II, while with the latter type the shadow at the fetch is a bit longer. For the digits 0 no distinction can be found that applies to all values. The 0 by the 10 cent type II shows a dent due to the irregular shadow drawing on the right above it. For the 20 cents there is much less white in the 0 for type I than for type II; for the 50 cents the opposite is true.

We know that the original engraving had no value indication; the assumption is obvious that two engravers each engraved a set of value figures after a given example, each according to their own taste. Apart from the difference in the numerals, in many cases the two types can also be distinguished by other characteristics; this can be important if the areas that matter are covered by a postal mark cancellation.

The illustration shows that in some cases the line above the numeral or numerals is broken. This occurs with all stamps of the 5 cents type II, 10 cents type II, 15 cents type I and II and 20 cents type I. This break probably occurred during the engraving of the numeral(s).

The 10 cents type I and 20 cents type I both have a dot between the value and the C of CENT, also visible on the illustration.

All stamps in type II of the 5 cents (very unclear here), 10 cents, 15 cents, 20 cents and 25 cents have a colored dot at the top left of the N of CENT; in type I this does not occur.

For example, apart from the numerals, there are features for each type, except unfortunately for the 50 cents, where they are most needed. The peculiar way of printing this stamp, first with an adhesive ink, over which gold-bronze powder was sprinkled, makes that the details are often unclear, and sometimes one can only see with great difficulty which type one has in front of him. This is probably the reason why pairs of this value have been reported to be related to both types; we now know that this is impossible, because all stamps of one sheet have the same numerical engraving. By whom the plates were made has also become a solved issue after the mentioned exhibition. By J. M. van Kempen & Son in Voorschoten plates of all six denominations in type I have been made; the firm Enschedé in Haarlem has had plates made (the printing house was not yet equipped for printing plates in 1867) of the 10, 15, 20, 25 and 50 cents in type I and of all denominations in type II.

In total, 72 plates were supplied by Van Kempen, numbered I to LXXII. It is not known how many plates the firm Enschedé has had made.

It is not the place here to describe the different methods of production of the plates, see e.g. the NMP of 1926, page 30 and 72. There is not yet unanimity on this; according to Mr. Gatsonides the first plates would be composed of 200 loose clichés, according to Mr. Warren this is not correct. In addition, there are plates made up of four blocks of 50 or two blocks of 100 clichés; plate errors on the 10 cent types I and II indicate that blocks of 25 were used for these values.

Here also the dot is mentioned between the 0 and C for the 10 and 20 cent, type I, as we have seen in some illustrations, but also a colored dot is mentioned at the top left of the N of CENT. The album with the 10 cent carmines is partly sorted on type, and when I examine the stamps of type I, it is sometimes very difficult to see this dot between 0 and C, neither the dot in the top left of the N on the stamps of type II. Sometimes I don't see a dot at all.

I suppose I'm getting older and my eyes get worse and worse, but even with a magnifying glass it is very difficult to see. That magnifying glass is still from my childhood, so 40+ years old, and not very strong, so I'd better buy a very strong loupe.

It was my plan anyway, but I'd better develop an app for examining hundreds and hundreds of the 10 cent carmines. I am a software developer by profession, so it shouldn't be too difficult for me to write an app that interfaces with my scanner.

As a test, I manually scanned at 2400 DPI a type I (at the top) and type II (at the bottom):

Top is type I, bottom is type II

With the magnifying glass I can see the break in the line above 0 in type II, but bearly the dots. These become better visible in the scan. Very faint, but I am pretty sure I can make the app smart enough to detect these. They are only 20 x 20 pixels, but they have enough carmine color to separate it from the white (yellowish) paper.

(Wordt vervolgd)

[psquareh]

How about these types? (3)

In 1947 the 'Nederlandsch Postmuseum' [Dutch Postal Museum] published a booklet in which the origin is described of the types I and II.

It gets now a little more technical where the printing technique 'galvanoplasty' (a.k.a. electrotyping) is explained. Pretty sure that the translation will not be optimal, so therefore I'd better give a link to Wikipadia where it is explained in detail: Electrotyping (also galvanoplasty) is a chemical method for forming metal parts that exactly reproduce a model.

The text reads:

HOW DID THE TYPES I AND II ORIGINATE IN THE STAMPS OF THE 1867 ISSUE OF THE NETHERLANDS

Take a good look at the stamps from 1867 and you will see that the image consists of lines and dots and that the printing ink lies on top of the paper, each line like a thin choir. A craftsman can see this by touch and you can see it with a loupe. This is because the copper plates from which it was printed showed the same lines and dots but as engraved grooves. When printing, these grooves were first filled with printing ink, then the paper was placed on them and everything went under a heavy press. The paper sucked the grooves empty and the ink was absorbed so completely that the deepest grooves really left a chord of ink on the paper.

We call this method of printing intaglio printing or plate printing; after all, they were heavy copper plates, each measuring 200 stamp images, of which the sheets of 200 stamps were printed. In order to get to know the differences between the stamps of type I and type II, one should know the method, on which those 200 stamp pictures were deepened in each printing plate. The production for this issue started with engraving one 5 cent stamp in a small copper plate. The engraver H. Nusser did this very subtly by hand. It had been decided to apply a new method for printing stamps in order to multiply this one engraving in such a way that eventually a printing plate of 200 stamps was created.

The procedure is as follows. One hangs the engraving in a copper solution, in which also a piece of copper hangs and conducts an electric current through it, so that the copper becomes a positive pole and the engraving a negative pole. As a result, finely divided copper moves to the negative pole and settles there.

It is interesting to see how this "growing" creates a picture that is the mirror image of the engraving against which it has grown. The rough edges and backside of the new picture (called matrice) clearly betray the way it was created. But there is a more important distinction between original engraving and matrice. The first has sunken lines, the second has lines that lie on top of the picture. The two images close together, as it were, so accurate is this method of "growing", which is called galvanoplasty. It's also interesting to see that, after growing, one is able to remove the two pictures from each other undamaged.

Once one had a 5 cent matrice, the numeral of value was first cut away. That was easy, the "5" was in the raised lines on the picture. Now they let five times a plate grow against the matrice and got five plates (punches) with deepened lines, equal to the engraving. The value numbers 10, 15, 20, 25 and 50 were engraved on these plates and then the original 5 cents engraving was included, a set of six as starting points for printing plates of all values.

To arrive at the printing plates the galvanoplastic method was also followed: first six matrices, from each die fifty punches, then each set of fifty to a block united, growing several times repeated and finally plates of 200 stamp images obtained. In total they produced 24 plates, namely of the 5 and 10 cent plates each six and of the 15, 20 and 50 cent plates each three. This first set of 24 did not meet the requirements, was rejected, but still put into use because at that moment one had no other choice and had to start printing. The stamps that come from these printing plates are called type I.

New plates were produced to replace the rejected ones. The original engraving of Nusser did not have to be used any more, but they took the first grown matrice. We remember that the value numeral of the matrice was ground away. Now six new plates (punches) were grown against this matrice and engraved the value figures 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 50 again.

And with this, the printing company had made the difference! Because these new, hand engraved numerals of value were probably slightly different from the first ones. When they finished the second set of 24 printing plates, discarded the first one and continued printing, they delivered stamps which differed slightly from the earlier ones because of their value numerals: type II was born.

It took almost thirty years for collectors to discover both types. Even after that it took a long time before they were clear about the origin of the two types. The collection of the Post Museum presents this history in detail with so many details, that the printing history is now fully established. A print of Nusser's engraving and 24 test sheets in black of the first set of printing plates give this image a special character.

Included in the booklet from the Dutch Postal Museum are six post cards on which the type differences are very nicely presented:

The text on the post cards reads:

The printing plates have numerals of value in type I or II only.

The specialized collection of the Dutch Postal Museum in The Hague contains a study of the printing plates of the emission Netherlands, 1867, type I. In addition, the documentary collection contains the 24 proof sheets of type I.

So, it looks like I also need to visit that museum, although it does not exist any more. It is a little bit unclear to me where that specialized collection exactly is located now, but I will figure that out later.

And after some photo-shopping I added the broken lines for some values/types and have the final illustration which I'm going to use on the album pages:

(Wordt vervolgd)

[jwk]

So, it looks like I also need to visit that museum, although it does not exist any more. It is a little bit unclear to me where that specialized collection exactly is located now, but I will figure that out later.

Looks like the collection is now in"het Nationaal Archief" ("the National Archives", right next door to the The Hague Central Station) - in an immensely ugly and depressing 70's building, but don't quote me on that - )
But I think it can only be viewed upon appointment, as the National Archives considers it a "research collection" (I think. All a bit/very unclear)

COMM-Museum voor Communicatie draagt de collectie Postwaarden over aan het Nationaal Archief. De collectie is een bron van kennis over (inter)nationale postwaarden en cultuurhistorie, zoals over de geschiedenis van vormgeving. COMM en het Nationaal Archief zijn trots op deze samenwerking, beiden hebben het belang van de collectie en van gebruikers voorop gesteld bij het maken van afspraken. De organisaties maken gebruik van elkaars kracht: COMM blijft de topstukken tentoonstellen en het Nationaal Archief zorgt dat de hele collectie voor de eeuwigheid bewaard blijft.

Top 10 collectie in de wereld is voornamelijk een onderzoekscollectie

"[One of the] top ten collection[s] in the world is predominantly a research collection"

https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/over-het-na/nieuws/comm-muse ... -nationaal

[psquareh]

Looks like the collection is now in"het Nationaal Archief" ("the National Archives", right next door to the The Hague Central Station) - in an immensely ugly and depressing 70's building, but don't quote me on that - )
But I think it can only be viewed upon appointment, as the National Archives considers it a "research collection" (I think. All a bit/very unclear)

Tx for that info. I thought as much, but did not yet browse that website completely.

Over the years many museums and institutions were involved in collections like that: Nederlandsch Postmuseum, PTT Museum, Museum voor Communicatie, COMM, Beeld en Geluid Den Haag and now apparently Nationaal Archief. But on the website from National Archive there is a link www.postzegelontwerpen.nl that is still from the Museum voor Communicatie; in the colophon there is a (although dead) link to www.muscom.nl. In the timeline on that website you can find many images of designs and proofs that can also be found on Het Geheugen which again is a service from the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (Royal Library). The National Archive mentions that it also includes material from the printer Joh. Enschedé & Zn., but the archives from Enschedé are now maintained by Noord-Hollands Archief.

Anyway, it indeed looks like it that the National Archive is the place to be to see that particular specialized collection

[psquareh]

More album pages

Time for some creativity and designed some more album pages.

Six album pages for the postal cards that I mentioned before. I have them anyway, so why not present them nicely in an album. This is for the 5 cent, a similar page exist for the others:

An album page for the two types, ignoring perfs:

An album page for the five perfs, ignoring types:

Two album pages for the five perfs per type:

[psquareh]

Five album pages for the two types per perf:

[psquareh]

And six album pages for the types and perfs per denomination:

(Wordt vervolgd)

[psquareh]

Dating the types and perfs

In the book 'Postzegelkunde en Postwezen' [Postage Stamp Expertise and Postal Services] from 1932 an interesting article was published about dating the types and perforations of the 1867 issue by A. van der Wiel:

Dating The Types and Perforations of the 1867 Issue of The Netherlands

The text reads:

DATING THE TYPES AND PERFORATIONS OF THE 1867 ISSUE OF THE NETHERLANDS

by

A. VAN DER WIEL

Regarding the dating of the types and perforations of this issue, the existing works and writings do not give us much light. We only know that the denominations of 20, 25 and 50 cents were made available on October 1, 1867 and that the other denominations would follow if the stock of stamps of the issue 1864 were exhausted; furthermore, that the comb perforations are older than the line perforations and that type I of all denominations is older than type II. From the statements of Mr. Gatsonides in NMP, 1926, page 30 and further, I deduce that:

1. in May 1867 were approved 6 plates of the 5 cents, 6 plates of the 10 cents and 3 plates of each of the other values, all exclusively type I;
2. after that an equal set of plates in type II was made and approved, 1 plate of the 5 cents in August 1867, 3 plates of the 5 cents in September 1867 and the 20 remaining plates on February 28, 1868;
3. that the 6 plates of the 5 cents type I were soon, at least in February 1868, unusable;
4. after February 1868 only plates of the 5 cents have been produced.

From this it follows again that 5 cents type II will be older than the other values in type II, which is indeed the case.

About ten years ago I sorted out my rather large stock of stamps on letter of this issue on perforations and types and since then I have registered all letters I received, so now I think I have enough information to date the types and perforations quite accurately. Below is a list of the dates found:

The 15 cents 10½ : 10 I have not included in this list because all the stamps I saw so far, regardless of which experts mark they had, had forged perforations and so I have come to the same conclusion as previously mentioned by Mr. Gatsonides ("Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor Postzegelkunde", 1918, page 52).

The above shows:

1. that the 12½ : 12 A comb perforation was in use until the end of 1868 or the beginning of 1869;
2. that the 13½ comb perforation was in use from the end of 1868 to summer 1871 (15 cents, type I, 13½, and 25 cents type II, 13½, must be from 1868);
3. that during the period mentioned under 2, the comb perforation 10½ : 10 was used only once;
4. that at the beginning of 1871 the line perforations 13½ and 14 came into use, whereby we note that this last line perforation was already used by the printings in 1868, but the introduction of the comb perforation 13¼ small holes in 1869 made superfluous;
5. that improved 5 cent type I plates came into use in the late 1870s or early 1871, but remained in use for a very short time;
6. that the small printings of the 25 and 50 cents of 1872 were given the 14 : 14 line perforation, and so we know that 10,400 25-cent stamps and 450 50-cent 14 : 14 stamps existed.

All the dates given here could undoubtedly be improved, especially for the 15 cents, where we still find an annoying gap between July 1869 and May 1871. In order to achieve a more perfect overview, I will greatly appreciate communications concerning improvements and additions to the dates given here, but we can now give the following chronological overview of this issue:

Comb perforation 1867-1870:

4th quarter 1867: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 50 cents type I, perforated 12½ : 12.
End 1867: 5 cents type II, perforated 12½ : 12.
1868: 10, 20, 25 and 50 cents type II, perforated 12½ : 12.
1868-1869: 15 cents type I, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 cents type II, perforated 13½.
1869-1870: 5, 10 and 20 cents type II, perforated 10½ : 10.
End 1870: 5 cents type I, perforated 13½.

Line peforation 1871-1872:

Beginning 1871: 5 cents type I, perforated 13¼ : 14 and 14 : 14.
1871: 5, 10, 15 and 20 cents type II, perforated 13¼ : 14 and 14 : 14.
1872: 25 and 50 cents type II, perforated 14 : 14.

I doubt mathematicians would agree with the conclusions given the size of the sampling, but this is the best information I have so far.

And I must admit that I am a little bit confused about all the info and dates given in the article, so I tried to visualize the conclusions in a timeline:

And re-ordering the given table in the article using the NVPH order and including the NVPH number and used-price gives this overview:

Funny to see that there is indeed many times a correlation between the scarcity of a type/perf variety and the used-price. And I suppose not suprising that the really expensive varieties were not in the author's samples. I wonder how many 8IBs, listed at €2000, I am going to find in my album

That there is a clear separation between the use of comb perfoation (1867-1870) and line perforation (1871-1872) looks very reasonable, at least to me. So, the given year indication given by Scott is not very accurate and by Michel also not in most cases. And I suppose because it is very difficult to give precise dates, it is not done at all by NVPH.

(Wordt vervolgd)

[psquareh]

And something else about the perfs

In NVPH of 1934 the following perfs A-E are listed:

It is explicitly mentioned that line perforation 13½:14 (E) is a composition ("samenstelling") of comb perforation 13½ (C) and line perforation 14 (D). (I found another source that mentions this but cannot find that one any more.)

Nowadays line perforation (E) is listed as 13¼×14 and (C) still as 13½.

So, my question would be, can you magically make a perforation 13½ to be 13¼? I have too little knowledge about perforators to answers to myself. Or could the listed perforation 13¼×14 be wrong? Could also be the case! I'm pretty sure I am going to find out later whether it is 13½×14 or 13¼×14 and I will let it know

(Wordt vervolgd)

[psquareh]

The imperfs

Michel just lists the "ungezähnt" [imperforate] varieties with a valuation. Scott only mentions, without valuaton, that the imperfs are proofs. But are they proofs?

In the additional literature list given by Jan, there is an article 'Ongetande Postzegels 1867-1872' [Imperforated Stamps 1867-1872] in 'Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor Postzegelkunde' from 1896. Would be interesting to read this, but unfortunately I don't have it, so I have to do it with the remarks from NVPH:

To Jean-Baptiste Moens in Brussels was provided at his request, 1 series of complete sheets of 200 imperforated stamps in type II. Some of these stamps were later canceled upon request.

Suppose he would have paid the nominal value, then this would be in total 250 Dutch guilders, quite a lot of money at that time. Nowadays that would be about €2,600. NVPH 2010 valuates these 1,200 imperfs as singles at €570,000; just imagine if the full sheets would still exist!

The hammer price of the above imperf set was €1,100 at a Corinphila auction in 2018:

So, are they proofs? I don't think so, they are regular postage stamps just not perforated. But are they regular postage stamps, issued for postal purposes, sold at a post office, etc? Not really if my assumption is correct that Moens bought these for speculation purposes. Perhaps they should be called some kind of cinderellas? Anyway, the album page for the imperfs:

NVPH lists (used only) a horizontal pair, imperf between of the 5 cent blue:

And the album page for this imperf:

(Wordt vervolgd)

[psquareh]

The SPECIMEN overprint

All stamps from all issues up to 1896 have been overprinted SPECIMEN, except for this issue. Only the 20 cent has been overprinted SPECIMEN:

No idea why the others were not.

The album page for this overprint:

From now on I will publish and keep updating a PDF document with the album pages; click on one the following download links for the album pages in a specific format: (1) A4, (2) US Letter, (3) DAVO or (4) Lindner.

(Wordt vervolgd)

[psquareh]

Color proofs

NVPH lists the color proofs of the final design. I found images of most of them ...

The imperforate color proofs from 1867 in type I:

The album page for this:

The perforated 12½:12 color proofs from 1867 in type I:

The album page for this:

The imperforate color proofs of the 5 cent from 1868 in type II:

The album page for this:

The PDF document with the album pages is updated, 34 pages so far; click on one the following download links for the album pages in a specific format: (1) A4, (2) US Letter, (3) DAVO or (4) Lindner.

(Wordt vervolgd)

[psquareh]

Plate errors

The oldest source I could find about 'plaatfouten' [plate errors] is 'Leiddraad voor den Speciaalverzamelaar van Nederland' [Guide for the Specialized Collector of The Netherlands] from 1922:

Plate errors from 'Leiddraad voor den Speciaalverzamelaar van Nederland' 1922

Two interesting websites (Dutch only) about plate errors that also include this issue are:

• De Plaatfout
• PLAATFOUTEN.NET

The Mast catalog (named after the author) is a recent plate errors catalog, but the for the time being I am focussing on the 'Leiddraad', perhaps later I will have a look at the Mast catalog.

(Wordt vervolgd)

[psquareh]

Plate errors 5 cent

The illustration in the 'Leiddraad' is not really clear, so I modernized the illustration like this:

The 'Leiddraad' mentions '(Plaat b.)' and this is type II.

1. Thin line from eye to ear
2. LIght spot in the chain at the top
3. Thin line above 5 not broken
4. White spots in the bottom border line
5. White spot in the bottom border line before 5
6a. Two blue dots in E from CENT
6b. Dot in T (higher than 10a.)
7. Dot between 5 and C
8. Dot between C and E
9. Blue spot in second N
10a. Dot in T (lower than 6b.)
10b. Dot in thin line below second D
11. Dot before 5
12. Dot under 5
13a. Dot in first E
13b. Spot in top of L

Plate error 3 is an interesting one. As we have seen before, one of the distinctive characteristics for type II is the broken line above the 5. Another source also points this out, but this break has been retouched at a certain moment, so one cannot automatically assume that it is type I when the line is not broken.

I have too little knowledge/experience with plate errors, so for the album pages I follow the list from De Plaatfout where 6a and 6b can be a combination and 6b a single, where 10a and 10b can be a combination and both 10a and 10b a single and where 13a and 13b can be a combination and 13b a single.

The album pages for the plate errors of the 5 cent:

Plate errors 10 cent

A similar modernized illustration for the 10 cent:

The 'Leiddraad' mentions '(Plaat b.)' and this is type II.

1. Red spot before 1
2. Dot right of second D
3. Dot in the lower part of second N
4. Spot between the two lines under NEDERLAND
5a. Dot between A and N
5b. Dot in N of CENT

Plate error 5b is an interesting one. Both websites misidentified this plate error. In the original illustration it is not really clear and kind of misleading, but the dot in the top of the N is one of the distinctive characteristics for type II as we have seen before. The dot where 5b refers to is lower than the dot in the top. I will notify both websites about this.

The album page for the plate errors of the 10 cent:

Plate errors 15 cent

A similar modernized illustration for the 15 cent:

1a. Yellow dot in white circle around chain
1b. Dot between outer border and lower left square
2a. White spot in chain above 5
2b. Dot in spoke of upper left wheel
3. Thin line above 15 not broken

Same remark as for the 5 cent about the thin line not broken above 15.

The album page for the plate errors of the 15 cent:

Plate errors 20 cent

And a similar modernized illustration for the 20 cent:

1a. Dot in N of CENT
1b. Dot in T of CENT
2. Small line from lower left of E from CENT to border
3a. Thicked border
3b. Hair line after T
4. Thin line above 15 not broken

Same remark as for the 5 cent about the thin line not broken above 20.

The album page for the plate errors of the 20 cent:

The PDF document with the album pages is updated, 41 pages so far; click on one the following download links for the album pages in a specific format: (1) A4, (2) US Letter, (3) DAVO or (4) Lindner.

(Wordt vervolgd)

[psquareh]

App development - first step

I was not planning to examine the album full of 10 cent carmines with the naked eye. I am going to develop an app for this. I don't think it is rocket science, but still quite challenging, so, I'm going to start simple. The first step I'm going to implement is the detection of the perforation from an image. In my album there are no mint copies and because of the postal mark (most of them are dot cancels) and bad perfs, detection can get a little bit more complicated, so I first start off with a set of 5 mint reference copies with a known perforation:

When you want to do anything with the perforation of a stamp on an image you have to have a well known size reference as precise as possible in the image. It would also be sufficient to know the resolution of the image (and screen), but I don't want to limit myself to this. So, I had a look if the size of the engraving is reasonably constant with only small deviations and from a small sampling in my album it looks pretty constant.

Now the challenge for the app is reduced to find the red and green lines:

The red lines mark the whole stamp, the green lines mark the engraving. Once the app has found this, it is very easy to detect the perforation.

Additional to this, the ratio between the horizontal and vertical perforation can also be useful to find the perf A to E. For the 5 perfs this is:

A: 12¾ ÷ 11¾ = 1.085
B: 10½ ÷ 10¼ = 1.024
C: 13½ ÷ 13½ = 1.000
D: 14 ÷ 14 = 1.000
E: 13¼ ÷ 14 = 0.946

And about the app, it will actually be a module in the app that I developed for designing album pages. This app already has tons of graphical functions to manipulate images, so I can re-use these easily. Also other features in this app will be helpful for examining all stamps in the album. By the way, the app is a C# application on the Windows platform, but can easily be migrated to the Linux platform but for me this is not a priority at the moment.

(Wordt vervolgd)