The 1871-72 and 1872-76 Issues of the Large Hermes Head Stamps

by Louis Basel

Introduction

My friend, John Coundouros, in his recent book¹, discusses reasons for changing the names of two of the large Hermes head issues, which are generally known as the Inferior Paper and Meshed Paper Issues. Coundouros suggests that the term “Inferior Paper” is a misnomer because the paper of these issues is not significantly different from that of the previous issues and he proposes the name of  “1871-72 Issue” to replace the name “Inferior Paper”. I agree with this proposal.

¹Coundouros, J. G., The Control Numbers and the Classification of the Stamps of the Large Hermes Heads, published by Vlastos Philatelic Center, Athens, 2000, pp. 109/127.

Regarding the second of these, the Meshed Paper Issues, Coundouros states that, since the 10 lepta and some of the 40 lepta of the 1871-72 period have meshed paper, they belong in this group whose starting date he sets at 1871 because the meshed paper 10 lepta were first printed in 1871. He then substitutes the name “1871-76 Issues” because the group includes values on non-meshed paper printed in the same time period. Coundouros states:

“These issues are usually termed “issues of 1872-75 on meshed paper”. However the term is incorrect since values printed on non- meshed paper such as 1, 2, and 80 lepta, are also included in this period. ”²

²Coundouros, Ibid., p.127.

I agree with Coundouros regarding the changing of the name “Meshed Paper” to one using the dates of the period of their printing. However, I do not believe that the 1871-72 ten lepta should be included in the later period and the name should be “1872-76” with the later starting date. The reasons for my opinions regarding this and other matters regarding these issues are discussed below.

Identification of the Ten Lepta of 1871-72 and 1872-76

Coundouros gives as the reason for merging the 1871-72 ten lepta into the later group as follows:

“The separation of these 10 lepta [1871] from the subsequent ones, also on meshed paper, is difficult since they feature many similarities, except when they have characteristic “0”s. They are then distinguished on the basis of settings.”³

³Coundouros, Ibid., p.128.

This difficulty in separating the 1871 ten lepta from those of 1872-76 contradicts all the classification systems, including those of Constantinides, Groom and Coundouros himself, who base their identification on the color of the face of the stamps and the characteristics of the paper. One should not claim that these issues are too similar to distinguish and then try to separate them on the basis of color and paper characteristics. If we accept it as fact, that it is difficult to separate these issues, then how can we have any confidence in a classification system such as that presented by Coundouros⁴ in which he lists 11 issues and sub-issues of the ten lepta of 1871-76, with the characteristics of their face and paper as a means of identification. The important point here is that it is the control number settings that determine the classification of these ten lepta not the color of the stamp or the characteristics of the paper.

⁴Coundouros, Ibid., pp.134-5.

Although it is agreed that the ten lepta stamps of these two printings are difficult to separate based on their color and paper, and sub-dividing them into several sub-categories is not helpful, there are certain characteristics which, although not always evident, can be used to distinguish between these two groups, in many cases. Most of the 1871-72 ten lepta have a fine appearance of the wavy lines and cheek shading lines whereas most of the 1872-76 ten lepta have the wavy lines and small dots blurred. This is not always true because I have found some of the earlier group with a coarser printing and some of the latter with a fine printing. Tseriotis in the 2003 Hellas catalogue⁵ writes “In fact the 1871-1872 printings are a continuation of the cleaned plate printings”, and he used the term “Later Cleaned Plates” to identify them. Nevertheless, Tseriotis, like Coundouros, omits the 10 lepta in these printings and includes them in the 1871-76 issues.

⁵Tseriotis, Michael, Hellas 2003 Catalogue, Volume I, (Large Hermes Head Section), published by A. Karamitsos, Thessaloniki, 2003, p.19.

However, even if the impression on the face of the stamps of these issues is in some cases similar to the 1872-76 issues, the control number settings are often sufficient to properly classify them. This is no different than the two 10 lepta Cleaned Plate Issues which can be distinguished only by their control number settings and which Coundouros has portrayed in his book for all 150 positions of the sheet. And there are other issues in the Large Hermes Head printings where the only way to distinguish between adjacent printings is by their control numbers. Sometimes, when the control numbers appear normal, their use for separation of these ten lepta is problematical, but even in these cases, by comparing control numbers of ten lepta stamps with those of the 20 and 40 lepta from the same position, minor characteristics can be used to correctly classify them.

Classification by Control Number Settings vs. Characteristics of the Face of the Stamp and Its Paper

It may be interesting to digress here to comment on the methods of classifying the Large Hermes Head Stamps. I believe that sufficient proof has been presented by several researchers^6,7,8,9 that the settings of the controls are a reliable guide for the identification of the various printings. However, using this method to determine the setting to which a stamp belongs requires the identification of a stamp’s position on the sheet and many collectors (probably the majority) are either not interested in or not able to plate the large Hermes head stamps. For this reason, most of the classification systems are based on the color and other characteristics of the face of the stamp, the control numbers and the paper. This second method sometimes leads to an erroneous classification because it has been observed that, sometimes, stamps belonging to a particular issue, determined by the control number setting, have different characteristics of color of the face, heaviness of the control numbers or color and quality of the paper. This anomaly is especially apparent in the ten lepta of 1871-72 and 1872-76 as discussed above. It is perfectly acceptable to use the obvious stamp characteristics to classify the large head stamps, but one should recognize that sometimes a stamp will be incorrectly identified.

⁵Tseriotis, Michael, Hellas 2003 Catalogue, Volume I, (Large Hermes Head Section), published by A. Karamitsos, Thessaloniki, 2003, p.19.

⁶Groom, Theodore, The Controls of the 20 Lepta and Their Bearing on the Classification of Greek Stamps of the First Type, Philotelia, Nos. 3-4; March, 1924 et seq.

⁷Coundouros, J. G. and C. A. Stassinopoulos, The Importance of the Control Numbers in the Classification of Greece's First Type According to Groom, Philotelia, No. 517, March-April, 1986.

⁸Coundouros, Ibid.

⁹Basel, Louis, The 1867 Controls of the 20 Lepta Large Heads, Philotelia, No. 544, p. 219-30, 1990.

The Naming of the “1871-72” and “1872-76” Issues

Now let us consider the naming of these issues and the logic behind the inclusion of the various values in these groups. As stated above Coundouros substitutes date ranges as the names of these issues because the first group are not on inferior paper and the second group includes values not on meshed paper.

The name of the second group is changed to “ISSUES OF 1871-76” so that it can logically include the 1, 2, and 80 lepta of this period which are not on meshed paper but the 1871-72 ten lepta are also included because they are on meshed paper. Now this is where I believe the logic is faulty. How can you include the ten lepta stamps of 1871-72 in the broader group of 1871-76 because they have meshed paper and also eliminate the term “meshed paper” from the naming of the group because some of the values do not have meshed paper. In other words, having meshed paper is either a criterion for belonging to the 1871-76 issues or it is not.

Ever since these changes were first proposed, I have been bothered by this rather drastic change from the generally accepted classification of the large Hermes head stamps. Although the naming of the printings, “Inferior Paper” and “Meshed Paper”, are inaccurate, the existence of certain printings in a particular time interval seems to be correct. In my opinion, the most important criterion for placement of a stamp issue in a particular classification is the time period in which it was printed. There are ten lepta stamps which were printed in 1871-72 and others which were printed in 1872-76. They can be separated based on their control number settings as stated by Coundouros, which I agree with. In my opinion, all the previously named “Inferior Paper Issues” should now be included in a renamed “1871-72 Issues” and the previously named “Meshed Paper Issues” should be included in the renamed “1872-76 Issues”. Note that the starting date of the latter group in this proposal is 1872 not 1871. There is an overlap in the time periods of these two issues, but this should not cause any difficulty and will be discussed in detail below.

Earliest Dates of Circulation

In order to get a better understanding of the sequence of the printings in these issues, the earliest known dates of circulation for the 10, 20 and 40 lepta stamps of the issues from 1871 to 1876 are listed in Table 1 below. Also listed are the positions of the Type 15 and keyhole zeros which Coundouros used to identify the different settings. These characteristic zeros are shown in Figure 1. In the earliest issues, he used the Type 15 zero with its three breaks. In the later issues, he used the well-known “keyhole” zero, also shown in Figure 1. These data were plotted on the graph of Figure 2 showing the earliest dates of circulation of the 10, 20 and 40 lepta issues. The data points are shown as symbols of different shape and color which denote the control number setting to which they belong.

Type 15 Zero, Const. 48a, Pos. 59   Keyhole Zero, Const. 52d, Pos.117

  Figure 1. Type 15 and Keyhole Zeros.

Table 1
Earliest Known Dates of Circulation According to
Constantinides and Coundouros

  Figure 2. Earliest Dates of Circulation of 1876-76 Issues According to Constantinides.

There are a number of things that look wrong on the chart of Figure 2. Some are simply errors in the reporting of the dates. Others are concerned with the sequence of the printings because the same control number settings must be contiguous, i.e. the same symbols must be next to each other without different symbols intervening in the time period. For example, the Type 15 zero appears in position 113 of 20 lepta 47c, then 40 lepta 54a, then 10 lepta 52a,b,c and finally in a second 20 lepta, issue 47d,e. This means that the zeros were left on the control number plate and only the first digits were changed when switching to a different value of the large Hermes head stamps. However, looking at the chart of Figure 2, we see 40 lepta 54c-f and 10 lepta 52d (with Type 15 zero in position 137 and the keyhole zero in position 5, respectively) between two of the issues whose type 15 zero is in position 113. This means that this zero was first located in position 113, then it was moved to position 137, and then it was moved back to the same position 113. The probability of a zero being moved to a new position and then back to the same original position is very low. This simply means that the sequence of printings is wrong.

Another apparent source of error is the time interval between the dates of certain printings. Stamps were needed continuously over long periods of time to satisfy the needs of the public for their written correspondence. It is not reasonable to accept a two year period without any printing of 20 lepta stamps or an almost three year gap in the printing of the ten lepta. Coundouros, in his book, recognizes this and correctly assigns new dates for the various printings of these issues, which are shown in Figure 3 and discussed below.

Coundouros Arrangement of the 10, 20 and 40 Lepta of 1871-72 and 1871-76

As mentioned above, Coundouros shows in his book the sequence of the printings of the large Hermes heads bearing control numbers. In this study, I was only concerned with the 10, 20 and 40 lepta of the 1871-72 and 1872-76 periods; I show in Figure 3 a chart with the Coundouros arrangement of these issues. Since Coundouros only gave the year of each issue in Table XI, it was necessary to assume the month of each year to properly place each issue in its approximate position in time. Symbols are used to identify the control number setting of each issue according to the position of the Type 15 or keyhole zero. Note that each group of same symbols is located in the same time period without any different symbols intervening. It should be noted that Coundouros, in assigning dates to each issue in his Tables X and XI, often ignored the reported earliest dates of circulation cited in the text because they were obviously in error. For example, 20 lepta 53f is shown to have a date of August 1, 1873, but in Table XI, the date is given as 1876. I agree that these reported dates should not be accepted when they are inconsistent with other known facts about the sequence of these printings. I discuss below some of the issues which I believe deserve comment.

  Figure 3. Coundouros Arrangement of 1871-72 Issues of the 10, 20 and 40 Lepta.

Date of the Solferino

Michael Tseriotis¹⁰ has reported the error in the earliest known date for the Solferino, 48c which he says should be July 13, 1871 and not July 12, 1872. Making this correction, moves the symbol of Const. 48c (type 15 zero in position 59) next to the 10 and 20 lepta issues with the same zero in position 59. I would make another correction: since the three 40 lepta issues of 1871 have both of the control number figures the same, it is likely that they were printed immediately after each other, probably in a time period of a week or two, not spread out over several months. I have therefore combined these three issues into one data point set at the earliest date of May, 1871. Coundouros shows these three issues as one group in 1871.

¹⁰Tseriotis, Michael, Solferino, The Period of Circulation and the 14^th Copy, Philotelia, No. 613, March-April, 2002, p. 77.

Date of the Last 20 Lepta on Meshed Paper

Regarding the date of the last two 20 lepta issues on meshed paper, 53f and 53g, they should be close together because they have both control number figures the same, the only difference being the color of their paper. The printers must have run out of the usual grayish colored paper and subsequently used the blue paper during the same printing. Also, these issues are known to be the last of the so-called Meshed Paper Issues of the 20 lepta. I have moved 53f from August 1, 1873 to January, 1876. Coundouros also shows both issues in 1876.

Intervals Between Printings

Regarding the time interval between the different printings of each value, it is interesting to note the average intervals for each value during the time that the large Hermes head stamps were printed. I found that during the period of 1862 to 1879 the average intervals in months for several values were as follows:

Table 2
Average Interval Between Printings

These intervals are only approximate because the actual number of printings is not certain. Sometimes, separate printings were assumed when there was only a slight change in the color of the ink used during the same printing. These stamps of different shade were assigned different classification numbers although they belonged to the same printing. Nevertheless, these average time intervals are accurate enough to use in the approximate spacing of the various issues in the time period of 1872 to 1876.

The First 40 Lepta on Meshed Paper

Forty lepta 54a, the first of the so-called Meshed Paper Issues of this value is shown with a date of 1871 in Coundouros’ Table XI, but the reference cited¹¹ clearly shows a cover with the Athens receipt date of February 11, 1872. The symbol for this issue should be moved to 1872.

¹¹Vlastos, O., Earliest Known Date of Circulation of 40 Lepta Stamp on Meshed Paper, Philotelia, No. 520, Sept.-Oct., 1986, p. 290.

Number of 20 Lepta 1872-76 Issues

Looking at the 20 lepta issues of 1872-76, we note that Constantinides lists a total of 7 issues. Five of these have dates which are within an eleven month period and then there is an interval of two years without any 20 lepta printings. Since 20 lepta was the postal rate for internal letters and was the most widely used of the different values, this long period without any 20 lepta printings seems improbable. Therefore, the identification of these five printings which were assigned to the earliest dates must have been in error. It is easy to confuse the identification of the 20 lepta Meshed Paper Issues because inks of different shades were used during the same printing and, in my opinion, color alone is not sufficient to separate the different sub-issues of these printings.

Regarding these 20 lepta 1872-76 (Meshed Paper) printings, Coundouros¹² writes about positions which have the same “0” but different “2”. He states:

“The order of 20 lepta of the 4th setting might not be the actual one. In any case, probably only three 20 lepta were printed with the same setting of  “0”s since on position 91, with the “keyhole”, three different “2”s were traced.”

¹² Coundouros, J. G., Ibid., Note 9, p. 133.

If one examines these three “2”s, it will be seen that two of them are the same but in a different degree of damage. Figure 4 shows scanned images of these two control numbers from Coundouros’ book with their positions and issue numbers. It is obvious that the figure on the right has the jagged piece on the left side of the base broken off, and the two figures “2” are from the same piece of printers type! If we delete one of these issues with the keyhole zero in position 91, we end up with only six issues in the 1872-76 printing (the number with keyhole at positions are: one at Pos. 114, two at Pos. 91, one at Pos. 118 and two at Pos. 31).

Position 91, 53c?     Position 91, 53e?

Figure 4. Photographs of Position 91 Control Numbers
with Keyhole Zeros from Coundouros’s book, p. 131.

We can also determine the number of sub-issues in a particular printing by counting the number of issues in which a specific characteristic “2” appears. Coundouros shows 20 characteristic “2”s.¹³ Three of these (Types 5, 9 and 11) show a total of 6 settings plus the paper color change of 53f and 53g making a total of 7 sub-issues. This seems to contradict the result of only six sub-issues based on the keyhole zero. Regarding his Type 18 “2”, I have it in Position 74, which he did not show. This would make 7 sub-issues for this Type 18 “2”, but he shows a question mark after the Position 110, which means he is uncertain about this position. It could really be the already included position 60 (also from the right margin of the sheet), which would again reduce the number of sub-issues to 6. It should be confirmed that all six positions of the three characteristic “2”s shown in Table X have been examined and found to be correct. They should not be based only on reports of others. In any event, if there are indeed 7 sub-issues of the 1872-76 Issue based on characteristic “2”s, then there must be seven settings of the “20”s, with some of the zeros the same. If we accept that there are only two keyhole zeros in position 91 with different “2”s, then there must exist either another keyhole position or one of the already found keyhole positions must have two different characteristic “2”s in addition to those of position 91. In revising the above chart of Figure 2, I have used only 6 sub-issues of this series based on the number of keyhole positions. If proof of another keyhole position is found and if the number of positions based on characteristic “2”s is confirmed, then the number can be increased to 7. (Note that in my study¹⁴ of the numeral “2”s, I show seven positions for the Type 18 characteristic “2” [my Type 20] , but the one that I show as position 147 is incorrect because it is really Groom type M and not in the 1872-76 series.)

¹³ Coundouros, J. G., Ibid., Table X, p. 243.
¹⁴ Basel, Louis, The 20 Lepta Controls of the Large Hermes Heads: Varieties of the Numeral “2”, Philoteliki Lesbos, No. 150, Nov./Dec. 1993, p. 206; No. 151, Jan./Feb., 1994, p. 10; No. 152, Mar./Apr., 1994, p. 56.

Dates of the 20 Lepta of 1872-76

Issue 53a of this series is reported in Constantinides to have a date of August 1, 1873 but Coundouros gives a reference for an earlier date of May 5, 1873. This discovery of an earlier date is not unusual because, as researchers examine more material, it is probable that they will find earlier dates, especially since it has been over 70 years since the publication of The Etude of Constantinides. I have used the earlier date. The next four issues were placed in the 1873-1875 time period as follows: 53b,c - December, 1873; 53d - August, 1874; 53e - April, 1875. This spaces them approximately evenly between the earliest, 53a, and the last, 53f,g in January/February, 1876.

Number of 10 Lepta Issues of 1872-76

Now let us look at the intervals of the 10 lepta of 1872-76 in Figure 2 which shows the earliest dates of circulation according to Constantinides. Issues 52a,b,c all have dates in March, 1872 and they have been shown with one symbol representing the Type 15 zero of position 113. Ten lepta issue 52d has a Keyhole zero of position 5, according to Groom, and an earliest known date of April, 1872. In my opinion, it is very unlikely that there would be four 10 lepta printings so close in time. In fact I doubt that there would be even two so close together.

I have examined almost 600 stamps belonging to the 1871-72 and 1872-76 issues whose plate positions had been determined based on their ink spots, their characteristic control numbers and on the displacements of the value numerals in the lower inscription block. I found that the colors of stamps belonging to the two settings of the 1871-72 issues Groom Ha and Hb and those of the several issues of 1872-76 (Groom I) are almost completely random. The issues of these groups as identified in Constantinides often do not coincide with the identification using the control number settings because there are orange and yellow-orange stamps in all three issues and red-orange in the Hb and I issues. (In my classification Ha is Constantinides 46a, Hb is 46b and Issue I includes 52a to 52e.) Coundouros identifies both Groom Ha and Hb with Constantinides 52a which differs from my view, but this is of little consequence because the Constantinides identification is primarily by color which, as stated above, is not consistent within each setting of the controls. Because of this difficulty in identifying the various printings of the 1871-72 and 1872-76 periods, we must be careful in accepting an observer’s identification of a stamp with an earliest date of circulation unless he has confirmed the control number setting by a characteristic “0” or by its first digit. This leads to the matter of the above-mentioned ten lepta, Const. 52d, with the keyhole zero in position 5.

As mentioned above, the earliest dates of circulation for 10 lepta 52a,b,c and 52d of March and April, 1872, respectively, are unreasonably close in time. Why would the printers compose a new control number plate for the 10 lepta after having just completed a printing of the same value. The source for this keyhole zero of position 5 is Theodore Groom¹⁵, who is generally recognized to be accurate in his plating of the large Hermes head stamps. However, as far as is known, his is the only report of a 10 lepta stamp with a keyhole zero in position 5, or of such a stamp of any value; Coundouros cites no other example of a keyhole zero in position 5. It is extremely unlikely that no other example of this unusual characteristic zero would have been found in the 80 years since its first report by Groom. Unless there are other known examples of the keyhole in position 5, the accuracy of Groom’s report of this keyhole position should be in doubt.

¹⁵Groom, Ibid., Philotelia, No. 27, Sept., 1926, p. 53.

There is another question about this Position 5 keyhole and that has to do with its earliest date of circulation which is reported to be April, 1872. As stated above, it is unlikely that the printers would have composed a new control number plate for the ten lepta after having just completed a printing of the same value. Also, the fact that these issues are so difficult to separate leads us to question if the earliest date of this issue is correct. Groom states that Hc, his designation for the issue of this position 5 keyhole, “belongs to the interval between LM and the series N-S”¹⁶. Groom’s 20 lepta LM combines two issues, Lb and M, which have the same “0”s but different “2”s. Issue M immediately precedes the 1872-76 twenty lepta. Accepting Groom’s dating of this issue would place the position 5 keyhole after Issue M which is reported to have a date of July, 1872 and before 20 lepta 53a which Coundouros reports having a date of May 5, 1873.

¹⁶Groom, Ibid.

A final question about this ten lepta with keyhole in Position 5 is why there is only one other characteristic zero shown by Coundouros for this issue 52d. That zero is the Type 23 in Position 6, the same position as ten lepta 52a,b,c, which leads one to further doubt whether this setting really exists. Also, the characteristic Type 15 “zero” has not been found for this setting.

If it is accepted that the reported earliest dates of circulation may be in error for the 1872-76 issues because of the difficulty in their identification, then it would be reasonable to reassign the dates of the different issues based on other considerations. If it is further accepted that the printers would not have produced printings with different control number settings either very close in time or very far apart, then there is further justification for the reassignment of the dates of these printings.

The average interval for the ten lepta printings was about 11 months. Coundouros has noted four settings of the 10 lepta 1872-76 stamps as follows:

Table 3
Control Number Settings of the Ten Lepta of 1872-76

¹⁷ The numbers in parentheses indicate that these positions were not found but they are probably the correct ones based on the positions of Type 15 zeros in other values of the same series.
¹⁸The date of this setting was not found; it was interpolated between the other issues of this setting.

In my collection, I have a 10 lepta stamp from Position 117 of the 1872-76 issue with the keyhole zero of the controls on paper which I call yellowish-greenish (to distinguish it from the paper of the Cleaned Plate which I call bluish-greenish). Coundouros describes the 10 lepta stamp from Position 117 with the keyhole zero as Constantinides Issues 52e and 52f. Issue 52e is described as having violet paper (some call it lilac or lavender) and Coundouros has assigned the number 52f to 10 lepta stamps from the 1871-76 issue as having deep blue paper. He does not include the 10 lepta Position 117 keyhole stamp on greenish paper. I show in Figure 5 three stamps, one from Position 5 on yellowish-greenish paper, one from Position 117 (with keyhole zero) also on yellowish-greenish paper and one from Position 41 on violet (or lilac) paper. It is clear that the Position 117 stamp has paper which is closer in color to that of the Position 5 stamp and not to the lilac paper of the Position 41 stamp.

Position 5  Position 117  Position 41

Figure 5. Keyhole Zero of Position 117 on yellowish-greenish paper.

What this means is that during the printing of the yellowish-greenish paper with the keyhole in Position 117, the printers must have run out of paper and used instead the lilac paper. The control number setting was the same and the printings on these two papers must have occurred consecutively. (This is similar to the two 20 lepta issues 53f and 53g on grayish and blue paper.) Coundouros assigns the number 52eA to a sub-issue of 52e on grayish-blue paper. Possibly, his 52eA is the same as my Position 117 keyhole stamp on yellowish-greenish paper because it is difficult to assign colors to these lightly tinted papers.

I do not doubt the existence of a 10 lepta on deep blue paper but this could have been a printing on only one sheet of paper and I would not assign a separate issue number to it unless many such copies are found.

Another possible arrangement of the 10 lepta of these issues is shown in the following table. In my opinion, there are 2 settings of the 10 lepta 1871-72 period and 3 settings plus one paper color change of the 1872-76 period. (I do not include the 10 lepta on blue paper as a separate issue because I believe it was produced in a very small quantity.) Note that the keyhole positions have been assigned to Constantinides issue numbers which are different from those of Coundouros.

Table 4
Ten Lepta Issues of 1871-72 and 1872-76

Revised Arrangement of the 10, 20 and 40 Lepta of 1871-72 and 1872-76

Figure 6 is a chart showing the revised dates based on the above considerations as follows:

1. Corrections were made to those dates that were obviously in error.
2. When both figures of the control number are the same in two issues, then it is assumed that they are from the same printing.
3. The 10 lepta with Type 15 zero in position 113 has been assumed to be Constantinides 46b, from the 1871-72 printing. However, because of the similarity of these issues to the 1872-76 issues, this stamp could be assigned to Constantinides 52a.
4. The reported earliest dates of circulation could be in error due to incorrect recognition of blurred or incomplete circular date stamps or because of incorrect identification of the stamp associated with the cancellation. Also, many of the dates associated with consecutive issues were either too close in time or too far apart. For these reasons, dates were assigned which spaced these issues more or less evenly throughout the period 1871 to 1876. These assumed dates were more consistent with the average spacing of the issues throughout almost the entire range of large Hermes head period.
5. Consecutive issues which had the same control numbers for both figures but with different colored paper were assumed to be from the same printing.

If one examines the chart of Figure 6, the areas with the different colored backgrounds will be seen to denote the issues within the two periods, 1871-72 and 1872-76, respectively. Since the first period ends with the printing of Const. 47d,e (Groom M) in July, 1872 and the second period begins with Const. 54a, printed in February, 1872, there is obviously an overlap of these two periods. This simply means that while they were still printing the 10 and 20 lepta of the first series, they started printing the 40 lepta with the color of the face and the paper of the next series (Const. 54a). This could have been caused by the depletion of the 40 lepta greenish paper of the 1871 issues and the simultaneous decision to discontinue with the unattractive bistre color of the face of the same issue. The choice of the equally unattractive olive color of Const. 54a can be attributed to the unavailability of the violet (or mauve) ink dictated by the official decree and used for the majority of the 40 lepta stamps.

  Figure 6. Revised Dates of 1871-72 and 1872-76 Issues.

Conclusions

1. Stamps should be classified according to the period in which they were printed.
2. The periods 1871-72 and 1872-76 are well established for the printing of issues formerly known as the Inferior Paper and Meshed Paper Issues, respectively.
3. Because the names Inferior Paper and Meshed Paper are inaccurate, they should be replaced by the terms 1871-72 Issues and 1872-76 Issues, respectively.
4. Many of the earliest dates of circulation reported in philatelic literature are in error either because of misreading of poorly printed circular date stamps or incorrect identification of the stamp bearing the dated cancellation. This has lead to improbable dating of various stamp issues especially in the periods 1871-72 and 1872-76.
5. The 1871-72 ten lepta Constantinides 46a is identified as Groom Type Ha and Constantinides 46b as Groom Type Hb. The latter could also have been identified as Constantinides 52a of the 1872-76 Issues because of the similarity of these two issues. It is recognized that Constantinides 46b/52a has a specific control number setting which has zeros corresponding to those of 20 lepta Constantinides 47c and 47d,e (Groom Types Lb and M) and 40 lepta Constantinides 54a. Although these 10 lepta are difficult to distinguish from those of 1872-76, they can be classified according to their control number settings by the identification of characteristic zeros. Even in cases where the zeros appear normal, they can be identified by comparing them with the corresponding issues of the 20 and 40 lepta and by observing minor characteristics of the zeros.
6. Ten lepta 46a and 46b should be included in the 1871-72 Issues and not in the expanded 1871-76 Issues.
7. The number of 20 lepta issues in the 1872-76 period is reported by Coundouros to be seven including issues with the same zeros but different “2”s and the change in paper color. However two of these issues with different “2”s actually had the same “2”s with different degrees of damage making the real number of issues six. This is in conflict with the reported seven issues based on characteristic “2”s. The stamps with these characteristic “2”s should be examined carefully to make sure the numeral types have been correctly identified. In my opinion, the number of 20 lepta issues in this period is six.
8. The number of ten lepta issues in the 1872-76 period is probably four including three different control number settings and one paper color change.
9. Control number settings of the 10 and 20 lepta of the 1872-76 Issues should be published showing the over 90 characteristic zeros that have been identified elsewhere.

The purpose of this study was to determine if it is logical to include the ten lepta stamps of 1871-72 into a broader category of 1871-76. It was concluded that such a classification is incorrect and that the traditional separation of these ten lepta in the two groups, 1871-72 and 1872-76, should be retained.

go to top       home