Retouching of the Progressive Die of the Large Hermes Head Stamps
by Louis Basel
It is well-known that the original engraving of the large Hermes head die was retouched to give the Hermes image a more pleasing aspect. This fact is evidenced by the existence of two proofs, the Progressive Proofs and the Final Proofs; the first shows the heavier impression with thicker, unbroken and un-tapered lines, while the second clearly shows the changes made to accomplish the finer appearance.
The figure of Hermes on the issued stamps is identical to that of the Final Proofs in every detail. So when we discuss the changes made to the original die as shown by the examination of the Progressive and Final Proofs, we are also referring to these changes as they affected the appearance of the issued stamps.
Much of this retouching has been reported in the literature, but a thorough analysis has not been published, to the best of my knowledge. An attempt has been made in this study to list in detail all of the retouching that was made to the die between the printing of the Progressive and Final Proofs.
1. The Existing Die Proofs
Several die proofs of the large Hermes head stamp exist to this day. My good friend, Louis Fanchini, has shown pictures and described some of these in his excellent article defining the terms proof and essay as applied to the large Hermes head stamps. There are two types of Progressive Proofs, one printed by relief printing (typography) and the other printed by recess printing (taille douce) as shown in Figures 1 and 2 below:
A third die proof, the Final Proof, is shown in Figure 3. This proof was printed by relief printing from a matrix or punch which had rectangular holes cut in the lower cartouche; these holes were intended to receive small slugs bearing the value numerals. The die from which this proof was printed was supposed to be used to manufacture plates for the large Hermes head stamps using the galvanoplasty process of Hulot. However, that method was never adopted for the first seven values of the large Hermes heads and the coining press method was used instead.
A fourth die proof, one of the medallion die showing the head of Hermes surrounded by a circle of pearls is reported in the Etude as ES. II1. It is stated there:
“Unique essay made by recess printing before completion of the master die. (See par. 53).”
Paragraph 532 of the Etude states:
“According to Kohl, Barre at first engraved the head of Hermes; a related essay was found previously in Schroder’s collection of essays.”
Kohl states:
“A proof in the Schroeder Essay Collection and Reinheimer’s description of it proves that Barre first cut the middle medallion with the Hermes head.”3
Louis Fanchini recently reviewed a copy of Reinheimer’s description of the Schroeder Essay Collection and reproduced copies of Figs. 176 and 177 showing proofs of the medallion die. These are presented below as Figures 4 and 5 respectively. Reinheimer’s descriptions of these Figures are as follows:
“Fig. 176. Artist’s proof of a head in black on China paper.
Fig. 177. The same with head and frame for a 5 lepta.”
It seems that a die of the medallion with the head of Hermes surrounded by a circle of pearls was used to produce proofs for the 5 lepta postcards. These proofs appear similar to the issued stamps except that the one of Fig. 176 appears coarser which may be due to the method of impression. In any case, they are obviously from the corrected die and have none of the characteristics of the progressive proofs. The interesting point is that these are the only known proofs of the medallion with the Hermes head surrounded by a circle of pearls and without the frame and its details. It is not known if these proofs exist today because they have not been reported in any of the recent literature.
It should be noted that the medallion die and its matrix showing only the head of Hermes surrounded by a circle of pearls exist today in the possession of Louis Fanchini; the medallion die was engraved in relief and its matrix was produced in recess by striking in the coining press. Although it is stated in the Etude that this fourth die proof was printed by recess printing, this report is erroneous because it is well-known that almost all of the proofs and essays of the large Hermes head stamps were printed by relief printing.
1Constantinides, Tryphon (Translated by Louis Basel), A Study of the Stamps of Greece, published by the translator, Stamford, Connecticut, 1978, p. 38.
2Ibid., p. 12.
3Zervas, H. G., translator, Translations from Kohl’s Handbook – Greece, Collectors Club Philatelist, April, 1943, p. 6.
4Reinheimer, A., Concise Description of the Collection of Essays of Martin Schroeder, Leipzig, Frankfurt A.M., 1903.
2. Previous Reports of the Retouching of the Original Die
A brief survey of the literature relative to this subject revealed that the retouching had been discussed only briefly in most of the earlier references.
a. The Kohl Handbook
Proofs of the large Hermes head stamps are barely mentioned in Kohl and we quote two statements from that source. These include a very brief description of these proofs as reported by Nicolaides:
“A later proof, illustrated by Nicolaides, shows the complete stamp design, but the outer frame shows no engraving whatsoever, top and bottom panels in solid color without lettering, the vertical panels without the Greek border design and the four corners without the small cross-like ornaments.
Two other single proofs of the finished die, also illustrated by Nicolaides, show the complete design of the stamp with the exception that the value numerals to the right and left of LEPT are missing. In their stead small square recesses are found in the original die for the insertion of similarly formed metal parts containing the value numerals.”5
These comments are all that is said about these proofs and there is no further description of the details of the Hermes head. However, Kohl does mention “retouching” of the original die to obtain a more pleasing effect:
“… both Barres endeavored to achieve a plastic Head effect resembling line-engraving, and at the same time to avoid wear and over-inking of the elevated shading lines, in that the shading lines of the face and neck were not only rendered in tapering lines, but they subsequently added to the original die additional short, narrow hatchings in the shading lines practically vertical to their direction.
In the steel cutting of the Hermes head, whose cheek, throat, etc., Barre evidently desired to render in an especially soft and pleasing manner, he went at least as far again in this “retouching” as in the Napoleon heads, in that all shading lines taper sharply toward their ends, and in addition, the taperings are made to run out in a series of short lines or dots, in fact such lines as the eye brows, which reproduce definite anatomical facial details, or the upper rim of the brim of the helmet, were provided with such hatchings …”6
5Ibid., p. 6.
6 Ibid., p.17.
b. The Etude
Two of the die proofs are discussed in the Etude.
“Nicolaides presented a copy of a rare essay (plate I-2) from which we see that Barre then engraved the scrolls, without however the double Greek border of the French model nor the flowers in the four corners of the stamp.”7
Plate I-2 of the Etude is a picture of the Progressive Proof. Later in the Etude, it is stated:
“Proceeding with his work, Barre completed the original die, according to design No. 3 of Plate I; he left on both sides of the inscription “ΛΕΠΤ” two small spaces in which he planned to place the numbers later, indicating the value of the stamp.”8
Design No. 3 of Plate I of the Etude is the Final Proof shown as Figure 3 above. Thus, the Etude takes note of the two main die proofs of the large Hermes head stamps. But let us now examine what is said about retouching or corrections made to the original die.
The Etude mentions the care taken by Barre to present a pleasing aspect of the Hermes head, without however mentioning that the details of the design were retouched on the original die to achieve this effect.
“It is seen, in studying the large Hermes head stamps, that Barre did his best to give to the whole stamp a harmonious and artistic aspect; he shaded the cheek and the neck of Hermes by drawing light lines, tapered at the ends and cut transversely which gave the appearance of continuous lines of small dots. He also engraved similar cuts on the eyebrow of Hermes, which can be seen even on the Athens issue stamps and he engraved in the same manner the left side of the lower eyelid near the junction of the two eyelids.”9
7Constantinides, ibid., p. 12.
8 Ibid., p. 12.
9Ibid., p.13.
c. Nicolaides
In his very interesting study10 of the essays of the large Hermes heads, Nicolaides mentions both die proofs, those we now call the Progressive Proof and the Final Proof (see Figures 1 and 3 above), and he presents photographs of both.
Although he states that the essays undergo a certain amount of retouching, he does not describe what changes or corrections were made to the original die to achieve the final design as shown by the impression of the Final Proof. He writes:
“… essays which were accepted, but with corrections, on which one gradually sees being accentuated the final improvements, modifications, enlargements, which will bring the figure to its final perfection.”
And later:
“an essay is, by definition, a stamp project presented by an artist and approved by a government, but to which the artist or the printer, of their own volition or on the request of the government, made nonessential modifications of color, size, inscriptions, of paper, etc, before final acceptance.”
So, we see that Nicolaides was aware of certain corrections to the original die but he did not describe in detail the individual features of the medallion which were modified.
10 Nicolaides, N. S., Histoire de la Création du Timbre Grec et Description Complete de Toutes les Emissions, Paris, 1923.
d. Asimakopulos
The recent work of Asimakopulos on the development of the first Greek stamp discusses in much detail both the Progressive and Final Proofs with descriptions and photos of the relative dies and clichés which exist today.
He describes Barre’s hand-drawn mock-up or model which was discovered by Nicolaides11 and points out the differences between it and the issued stamps:
“A closer examination of the head reveals a remarkable resemblance to the finished stamp despite being a sketch: the inner line of the brim of the helmet is continuous instead of interrupted and is exact to the smallest detail: … In contrast, it differs from the final stamp as follows (fig. 3): the ornament above the ear appears as a round white dot, instead of a triangle. The eyebrow is continuous and long, and the eye itself has an iris and pupil, whereas in the final stamp there is a solid colored iris. The lower lid is made of a double line instead of a single, and the vertical line at the front end of the lower eyelid similarly is made of two lines instead of one. The lines in front of the eye are long and numerous. The nostril has an oblique line at the apex of its convexity, as the lower lip also has a diagonal line in its substance. The cheek lines begin much higher in front of the hair curls, and below the ear they continue into the neck, blending with the curls in the top and the lines in the nape below. Otherwise, the number of all the lines in the face is the same as in the finished stamp.”12
Later, he indicates that the unfinished die (i.e. the Progressive Die) has the same differences from the finished stamp as the prototype (i.e. the mock-up or model described above):
“The unfinished die shows all the spandrels to be symmetrically and uniformly filled with continuous uninterrupted wavy lines with dots scattered in between, the lower eyelid to be of a double line, the eye has iris and pupil, the nostril and upper lip have the lines and all the other details of the prototype described. (PLATE I. fig. 4).13
Thus, we see that Asimakopulos had recognized many of the corrections made to the original die to arrive at the final matrix used to strike the clichés which made up the seven printing plates.
11 Nicolaides, Ibid. p. 5.
12Asimakopulos, Nicholas, The First Greek Stamp, published by the author, U. S. A., 2005, p. 17.
13 Asimakopulos, Ibid. p. 23.
e. Fanchini
In his informative article which presented clear and precise definitions of the terms proof and essay as applied to the large Hermes head stamps, Fanchini mentions some of the corrections made to the Progressive die to achieve the final matrix used to strike the clichés of which the printing plates were composed, as follows:
“As described on several certificates of the expert Peter Holcombe, dated 1996 and before, progressive proofs differ from final proofs in several ways:
When we compare Fanchini’s list of corrections with those of Asimakopulos, we recognize that Fanchini had listed only the major changes to the Progressive Die. But, as we shall see below, even Asimakopulos’ description fails to note some of the changes made.
14Fanchini, Louis, Definitions of the Terms “PROOF” and “ESSAY” and their application to the “Large Hermes Head” Stamps, Philotelia, No. 644, May-June, 2007, p. 133, Greek/English.
2. Results of the Present Study
It is seen, from the above analysis, that the Progressive Proofs were known as early as 1923 to Nicolaides, and probably earlier to other researchers. However, the rather stark differences between the Progressive and Final Proofs are barely mentioned in the early texts specializing in the large Hermes head stamps, including Nicolaides, Kohl, Etude, and Bellas, although most mention changes made to achieve a “soft and pleasing” or “harmonious and artistic” effect without referring to the Progressive Die or its proofs.
Even a cursory examination of these two proofs will show the stark differences between the two images. The one on the left is coarse with bold lines of even width; the image on the right has tapered and dotted lines which give a much softer and pleasing appearance. However, there was much more retouching to the die which produced the image of the Progressive Proof than is at first obvious. Figure 8 is the same photograph as Figure 6 of the Progressive Hermes head with the addition of red markings which indicate the many changes made between the printing of the Progressive and Final Proofs. Figures 9 and 10 are enlarged views of the eye and nose showing corrections made in these areas. Each of these changes or corrections made by retouching of the progressive die or matrix is numbered and a description of each change is presented.
1. The eye has a pupil and an iris in the Progressive Proof and only the iris in the Final Proof where it appears as a solid triangle. (See Figure 9).
2. The number of shading lines in front of the eye has been reduced from seven to five and the fourth and fifth lines from the top have been shortened.
3. The lower eyelid is a single line instead of double and is dashed.
4. The eye line is single instead of double and it is more tapered.
5. The eyebrow is dashed.
6. The eye line between the eyebrow and the upper eyelid is thinner and shorter.
7. The nose line extension is deleted. (See Figure 10).
8. The curved nose line is thinner and shorter.
9. The lip line is thinner and smaller.
10. The lower lip line is deleted.
11 and 12. The cheek shading lines are shortened, tapered and hatched at the ends.
13. The shading lines of the nape are shortened and tapered.
14. The top shading line of the side of the neck is deleted. The Final Proof has only five shading lines in this area, whereas the Progressive Proof has six. This deletion has not been mentioned previously, to the best of my knowledge.
15 and 16. The shading lines of the side of the neck are shortened, tapered and dashed.
17, 19 and 20. The shading lines of the neck are shortened, tapered and dashed.
18. The lowest shading line of the neck is deleted; it is very short and appears almost as a dot in the Progressive Proof. Thus, the Progressive Proof has 12 shading lines of the neck, whereas the Final Proof and the issued stamps have 11.
21. The right half of the helmet brim line is dashed instead of continuous.
22. The small hair curl above the ear which appears as a small white triangle or dot is much enlarged on the Final Proof.
23. The white portion of the large hair curl behind the ear is enlarged and the inner colored line is made thinner.
24. The white hair line at the back of the head is made thicker.
We can see from this long list of corrections to the original die that the retouching of the original die was very extensive and that Barre achieved his goal of giving the Hermes head a more pleasing and softer appearance.
4. The Retouching Process
The Progressive Die which exists today is in recess with the head facing right. Let us consider how this retouching would be performed. Using the cheek shading lines as an example, it should be obvious that the retouching required to make these lines tapered and dashed at the ends could not be performed on the recess die where these lines would be in the form of grooves. To do so would require that metal be added to the sides of the grooves to achieve the desired tapering.
So, in the case of all the shading lines, the retouching had to be done on a matrix of the progressive die in relief or on a precursor which would also be in relief. In either case, the shading lines would be raised and could be made tapered by removing metal from the sides of these raised lines.
If one examines all the other corrections made to the Progressive Die, it will be clear that all except one must be performed on a relief die or matrix because metal can be removed from the raised portions of the die to achieve the interruptions in the lines, the enlargement of the white areas, or the deletion of undesired lines.
The single exception is the iris and pupil of the eye of the Progressive Die. If one examines the enlarged view of the eye of the Progressive Proof in Figure 9, it will be observed that there is a small white area of the iris/pupil which appears filled as a solid triangle in the Final Proof and issued stamps. This white area would be a recess or groove in the relief die and would require that metal be added to fill the void. However, in the recess counterpart of the relief die, this white area would be raised or in relief and could be easily removed with a burin.
So, the proposed process used to correct the iris/pupil of the eye might be as follows:
The relief die used in step one above would have had all of the corrections already made except that of the iris/pupil so that the matrix of step three, after the eye correction, would be completely retouched. Of course, this matrix would still require addition of the inscriptions, the Greek designs and the fleurets all of which could be performed on the recess matrix because these areas would be in relief there.
5. Conclusions
This analysis is an attempt to present a description of all the corrections made to the Progressive Die or its counterparts. One important result of this study is the observation that all of the retouching could be done on a relief die or matrix except that of the pupil and iris of the eye. A possible sequence of steps to achieve the complete retouching is presented.
Acknowledgement
I wish to acknowledge the valuable assistance of my good friend Louis Fanchini who gave me many photographs of Progressive and Final Proofs from his extensive collection and who also gave me helpful advice and information concerning the engraving of the dies and fabrication of the matrixes used to manufacture the printing plates of the large Hermes head stamps. His review of this article and his essential comments are greatly appreciated.