The 1869 Inverts

© Calvet M. Hahn 1984 revised 2003

The 1869 inverted center stamps were not only the first bicolored stamps issued by the United States, they were also the first errors that the Post Office Department would have classed as errors.

The four bicolored stamps that were part of the 1869 issue-15¢, 24¢, 30¢ and 90¢-were far from the world's first bicolored stamps. The Basle 'dove' dates back to 1845. The 1869's were also not the world's first bicolored error. I believe that honor goes to the Indian four Anna with inverted head issued in 1854. However, the 1869 inverts were the first bicolored errors to be recognized philatelically, as the Indian error was not recognized until 1874.

Because they represented the first American 'error', the Post Office Department could be expected to be particularly sensitive about them. Because the 1869 inverts were the first such error to be recognized, they could be expected to be avidly sought by collectors. What is remarkable is the relative lack of comment about them in the contemporary philatelic journals.

Background of the 1869 Issue

In order to understand the significance of the 1869 inverts, it is useful to have some general background about the entire 1869 issue. Most of this information is not new, but it has not been presented in one place with direct application to the bicolored higher values and the inverts.

The genesis of the 1869 issue is fraught with politics. The issue was conceived during the late days of the Andrew Johnson administration. His impeachment trial was over in May 1868 and he was a hated 'hanger-on' insofar as the Radical Republicans were concerned. Grant, the next President, had also repudiated Johnson.

Philatelically, the old National Bank Note Company contract had been extended by one year, based upon the Charles Steel grilling process which gives us the 1868 grilled issue, and bids for a new contract were called for. Johnson's Postmaster General Randall advertised for bids for a new four-year contract on June 22, 1868-barely a month after the impeachment trial had concluded. Four companies replied.

The high bidder was the National Bank Note company and the low bidder was the firm of Butler & Carpenter. In a move designed to insure that the award went to the national Bank Note Company (NBNC), a committee was appointed to evaluate the bids. It recommended that the NBNC get the contract because of the superior workmanship of the essayed product submitted. Essays made on July 22, 1868 were part of this bidding process. These essays were seen and commented upon editorially by the New York Evening Post of October 6, 1868.

With the committee recommendation to back him, Postmaster General Randall used his discretionary power to award the new contract to the NBNC using the grilling process as his rationale. However, to make the situation look better, his award specified that grilling or 'embossing' as it was termed was to be provided free of charge. Thus we got a grilled 1869 issue.

The new contract was announced October 6, 1868 and was finally signed December 12th to be effective February 1, 1869. Butler & Carpenter were incensed and tried to get the award annulled but lost their case both with Randall and again in September 1869 when they approached Grant's Postmaster General to get the 1870 issued by nullifying the old contract. There was also an orchestrated campaign to denigrate the new issue so as to justify either a new contract for Butler & Carpenter or to create a new 'banknote' issue upon which they could bid. The new Grant administration was not averse to replacing stamps authorized by the badly out-of-favor Johnson administration.

It would seem that the new issue was to be a commemorative one rather than a 'definitive' issue, as we know it. John K. Tiffany in his History of the Postage Stamps of the United States , published in 1887 noted,
"It was announced that the series was intended in some sort, to portray the history of the Post Office in the United States, beginning with Franklin, the Continental postmaster, and the post rider of the early days, followed by the locomotive of a later day, and the Ocean Steamer carrying the mails which had become so important a branch of the postal service, the most important scenes of the early history of the country, its triumphant arms, and Washington its first and Lincoln its last President."

J. Walter Scott made the first apparent philatelic notice of the issue in the January 20, 1869 issue of his American Journal of Philately wherein he described the new issue favorably and gave details of each stamp based upon the essays. It was not until the May 20, 1869 issue that he corrected the description to conform to the issued stamps.
The target date for the issue of February 1, 1869 was not met. The actual release circular, dated March 1, 1869 was mailed together with another circular, dated March 12, concerned with "At an early day, IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS, THE department will issue to Postmasters Postage Stamps of new designs. See description annexed…"
The notice went on to state in capital letters that the current stamps (1867-1868 grills) were to be exhausted before supplying the new issue and that stamp exchanges were not to be made or stamps returned to the Post Office Department.

In bold face, the notice added, "Special attention is called to the fact that sheets of all denominations below 15 cents contain 150 stamps. The 15 cents, and all higher denominations, contain 100 Stamps on each sheet. This must be borne in mind to prevent mistakes in counting, as in the present issue each denomination has but 100 Stamps to the Sheet. Special requests for the new style of Stamps will be disregarded until the stock of the present issue in possession of the Department is exhausted…"

From the above, it is clear that there was no general release date contemplated. The 1984 Scott Specialized Catalog gave the earliest known dates of use on surviving stamps as March 27, 1869 for the 1¢, 2¢, 3¢, with none reported on the 6¢. The 10¢ is noted as April 1, the 12¢ on April 5 and the Type I 15¢ as April 2nd. (An off-cover example from New Orleans dated March 31st is now recorded and Jon Rose indicated knowledge of a March example from Chicago.). The Type II 15¢ is noted as May 23, while the 24¢ is April 7, the 30¢ is May 15 and the 90¢ as May 10. We know, however, that all values except the Type II 15¢ were released to the postmasters in March 1869.

Reflecting a good deal of new earliest documented date research, particularly by Alan Berkun, the 2003 Scott Specialized has corrected these dates to April 1, 1869 for the 1¢, and March 20, 1869 for the 2¢. The 3¢ date remains at March 27th while the 6¢ is now reported as April 26, 1869, with the 10¢ remaining at April 1st and the 12¢ moving forward to April 1st. The 15¢ Type I is now recorded as March 31 for off-cover and April 2 for an on-cover use, with the Type II 15¢ is moved forward to April 5th, but the 24¢ remains at April 7th and the 30¢ date of May 15th is now questioned with an accepted documented date of May 22nd, while the 90¢ date remains as May 10th. Still earlier dates for many of the values may yet turn up.

The quarterly data given in the Reports of the Postmaster General combined with the "Statistics of Manufacture" data, published by John Luff in his Postage Stamps of the United States enabled William Herzog to publish in Chronicle #89 (February 1976) a new analysis of the 1869 issue by quarter. This work is now the accepted authority. It shows that substantial quantities of all values of the issue were shipped to postmasters prior to March 31, 1869.
While over 10-million 3¢ and 2.9-million 1¢ and 2.4-million 2¢ stamps were sent to postmasters in the first quarter of 1869, the figures are much lower for the bicolored values. Slightly over 777 sheets of the 15¢ (77,740 stamps), 309 sheets (30,950 stamps) of the 24¢, 167+ sheets of the 30¢ (16,710 stamps) and 50 sheets (5,020) of the 90¢ were "issued".

This is confirmed by the April issue of the United States Mail and Post office Assistant , normally published on the first of each month. There we find, "Postage stamps of all denominations, of new designs have been issued by the Department. As they will soon become familiar to our readers we need not describe them further than to say they are a decided improvement on the old pattern."

It would appear even smaller towns got the high values at a fairly early date for the June issue of this publication contained a letter dated May 1, 1869 from a 'M. Quadrat, Tarheel Depot', which comments on the 'long looked for' stamps . This may be a thinly disguised pseudonym for postmaster M. Spragins of Tarborough, N.C. In any case, the letter shows the high values had been seen and not liked being "poorly engraved" and "badly printed".
Tiffany stated that the issue date was March 19, 1869, but notes somewhat earlier in his 1869 chapter that,
"…in March 1869, the greater part if not all the values were printed and ready for issue, but were distributed to the public only as the stock of the old issue was exhausted. About the end of April they began to appear, and even in September only the 1, 2,3, and 6 cents were to be obtained in the larger postoffices…"

It is quite true that many postoffices did not have the higher values until quite late, some offices never getting them. However, this did not mean that some high values were not in the public hands at an early date. The British publication Stamp Collector's Magazine in its May 1, 1869 issue stated, "UNITED STATES. We have now before us two individuals of the new series for this country-the 2¢, and the 12¢…we have since seen the new 3¢, 6¢ and 90¢…"
The June 1st issue described the remaining values, while the August 1st issue illustrated the 15¢ Type I. The same August issue reverted back to the 90¢ seen in April during the time the editor was preparing the May issue,
"We, ourselves, recollect that a friend of ours received a copy of the 90¢ on a letter, in March last, almost immediately after the news of the actual emission arrived here…"

As the notice was mailed about March 12th, the latest the letter could have arrived would be March 31st. The last Cunarder bringing mail to England before the 31st was the Russia, leaving New York on the 17th and arriving March 26th . The Allen line's Peruvian left Portland on the 21st and arrived at Liverpool on March 31st . Thus, if the editor is to believed, the 90¢ was issued between the 12th and 21st of March 1869 and if it were released so would all the other values.

Confirming this data and supporting Mr. Tiffany's March 19th issue date is an internal Post Office memorandum cited on page 22-23 of Fred Schueren's The United States 1869 Issue, An Essay-Proof History which reads, "When the Contract was executed it was supposed that the new stamps would be issued about Feb'y 1st, but the issue did not take place until March 19th, 1869, on which date by terms of the Contract the salary of the stamp clerk and the rest of the room for use of the agent ceased. Notice to this effect was given to the agent by the 3rd Assis't P.M. General. The Company commenced furnishing the blank receipts during the early part of February. There being a considerable number of the old stamps on hand it was decided to continue their issue until all were exhausted. The Company in their bill just rendered claim 2¢ per thousand stamps, for all stamps delivered since February 1st, including both the old and new styles. Is this claim correct or should they be paid only for the stamps delivered since march 19, 1869, at which time the contract really commenced?"

Combining this new information, which Tiffany apparently knew, with the arrival of stamps in England during March 1869 means that at least one office, probably New York, sold the new issue on that March 19th date and certainly on the 20th. It does call for our re-dating the issue so that an official First Day of March 19, 1869 can be listed even if no stamps postmarked on that date are known.

Combining the information from the Stamp Collectors Magazine and the sailing dates, we can be sure that earlier dates for the 6¢ probably still exist today. Additionally, all those items cited in the magazine's May 1, 1869 issue would have had to be issued no later than April 22nd if carried by a Cunarder, which is the date the Australasian sailed arriving May 1st, or April 18th if carried by the Allan Line's Moravian which arrived April 18th. Again we can be fairly sure New York issued all values in the later half of March 1869.

The only contemporary evidence we have about the printing of the 1869 issue comes from a report in Scott's American Journal of Philately of October 20, 1869 where an interview by 'Cosmopolitan' with Mr. Nicholls, printing room superintendent at the NBNC is given. Cosmopolitan is believed to be a pseudonym for J. Walter Scott.
This Cosmopolitan report gives us a number of facts about the production that apply to the bicolored stamps, although it clearly notes they were not in production at the time.

We learn that the paper for the issue came from a Massachusetts firm which supplied 16 tons a year and that the current (October) production was 1½-million stamps daily. As the bicolored issues had to go through the presses twice, their rate of production would be much lower.

In printing the issue, the paper was wetted first to improve its ability to take impressions and the printing plate was wiped first by cloth and then by hand. The gum used for the issue was 'Dextrine', the same as used by calico printers. It was whitewashed on to the sheets by large rushes at the rate of 35-40 sheets per person per minute.
After gumming, the printed sheets were dried and then 'embossed' or grilled. They were then perforated and pressed in a strong hydraulic press. This pressing process after the grilling may account for a number of the so-called 'pressed out grills' that bother some 1869 experts. Finally, the lower value sheets of 300 were cut into post office panes of 150 before being turned over for shipment to the postoffices. This created straight edges, which the high values do not have.

Five ledger sheets from the Stamp Agent reports have been turned up by Jeremy Wilson and based upon that find and the data published in the Reports of the Postmaster General on stamps issued as well as the stamps turned over to the Stamp Agent published by Luff as 'Statistics of Manufacture' in his 1902 book already cited, Herzog published quarterly records in Chronicle #89 that are accepted as definitive today.

For the four bicolor values we do know from the ledger sheets and the quarterly reports that there were two printings of each of the bicolored 1869 stamps and there was no need for a printing in 1870 as suggested by some writers. The first printing was small and took place in February/March 1869. The second printings for the 15- and 24-cent values were underway in June 1869. The 90-cent value second printing began during the week of June 19th while the 30-cent value printing took place sometime later. All of the bicolor value printings were completed by July 1869 if not during the first week of that month.

The statistics on the issuance of the high values from the above sources is as follows:

While Herzog gives the quarterly figures and the total issued, the remainders are derived by subtracting the 1870 stamps 'issued' from the quantity o hand according to the December 31, 1869 Stamp Agent ledger sheet and differ from Herzog's figures. The total printed is derived by adding the total issued plus remainders as of July 1, 1870.
As can be seen from the table over 2-million high value 1869s were still in stock as of July 1, 1870 and presumably were destroyed at some later date. We have no real record of their fate. As stated earlier, it would also appear that all high values were printed prior to the 'Cosmopolitan' interview and probably by July 1, 1869 or very shortly thereafter.

The interview stated, "…the National Bank Note Company are working upon 2 and 3 cent stamps only, as the post office authorities propose to call in the rest of the new issue owing to the manifold objections made by the community at large…" We do know from the balance on hand according to the ledger sheets that all the lower values had printings in `1870 in order to supply the quantities 'issued' that year, except for the 12¢, which had its last printing the week of December 18, 1869. In transcribing this Cosmopolitan interview in the 1976 1869 Register, Michael Laurence stated there was not a shred of evidence other than J. Walter Scott's American Journal of Philately to support the concept of a recall. This is not quite accurate.

Scott first commented about a recall in the September 20, 1869 issue of the journal, which illustrated the new stamps, stating, "Very shortly the higher values will become very scarce…" going on to quote the New York Herald's appeal for new stamps to replace the 1869s, issue. The Cosmopolitan interview comment followed in October. John Tiffany, however, gave independent support to the idea on page 147 of his book. There he quotes a contemporary newspaper as stating, "The present miserable experiments in blue, with a meaningless legend, are to be recalled and something new in red is to be substituted…"

Tiffany doesn't give us the date or name of the paper, but the comment 'something new in red' appears to refer to the November 4, 1869 NBNC essay of the proposed new 3¢ 1870 stamp in carmine. Consequently it would be appear the proposals were considered for a recall for several months in the fall of 1869 although nothing came of them .
We do record that the notice of April 9, 1870 for the new stamp issue specified that postmasters were to exhaust all their present 1869 stamps on hand before supplying the new issue and that, "…in no case, will you be allowed to make exchanges for individuals or to return stamps to the Department to be exchanged…"

The philatelic significance of the abortive recall and the decision not to allow stamps in the postoffices to be returned is two-fold. First, although there were ample quantities of the higher values of the 1869 issue on hand at the NBNC, they were apparently never 'issued'. Second, we can be sure that the excess printing quantities were already in existence by the time of the discussions about recall.

It is important in analyzing the 1869 inverts to understand the quantities of the two printings of each of the high values.

90¢ Printings

Knowing the quantities issued during the first quarter and the fact that 34,570 90¢ stamps were finished and on hand on June 12 and June 19th we can split the 90¢ printing into a first printing of about 52,000 (17,239 issued in the first half of 1869 and 34,570 on hand when the second printing began during the week ending June 19th) and a second printing of about 786,000. If we assume the first printing was used up before the second printing was issued-a big assumption-then all 90¢ that were issued in 1869 except for a handful came from the first printing. There would be almost three times as many first printings issued, as there would be second printings.

30¢ Printings

For the 30¢ stamp, if we add the total 'issued' during the first half of 1869 to the finished balance on hand as of June 19th we find the first printing was about 110,000 at maximum. It may have been less if some 30¢ stamps were issued between June 19th and the end of the quarter. This printing would have run out in the beginning of the 4th quarter of 1869.

The second printing of the 30¢ was probably between 500,000 and 510,0900 and, based upon the discussions of recall, probably took place late in the 2nd quarter or during the early weeks of the 3rd quarter of 1869 rather than during the 4th quarter. It was not begun until after June 19th.
Using the same heroic assumption that the first printing was practically exhausted before the second printing was sent to the postmasters, it would be expected that all 30¢ stamps used to about mid-November 1869 were from the first printing, and the quantities 'issued' of the two printings would be almost equal.

24¢ Printings

Regarding the 24¢ stamp we know the second printing was underway during the week ending June 12th. Assuming the first printing was 'finished' before the second printing was begun we find the maximum quantity of the first printing was the balance on hand as of June 19th (44,750) plus what was 'issued' during the first half (62,500) or 107,300. Again the total is in the neighborhood of 100,000-110,000. If we assume the first printing was 'issued', then all stamps 'issued' during the first three quarters of 1869 and part of those from the 4th quarter would be from the first printing. This would mean the issued quantities divide almost equally between the two printings.

12¢ Printings

Skipping for a moment the 15¢ value, we find 417,550 12¢ stamps were on hand as of December 31, 1869-the exact quantity 'issued' during 1870, so that no 1870 printings need to be assumed. This also means the 1869 printings totaled 3,012,700 (the amount on hand at year-end plus the four 1869 quarter totals). How can the printings be divided?

Let us make two assumptions: 1) That only about 31,000 12¢ stamps were issued during the last twelve days of June 1869, and 2) That because the rate to England was being reduced to 6¢, the 4th quarter printing that was in operation during the week of December 18, was a 'minimum' printing of 250,000, or thereabouts. We would then get the following:

If the above analysis is approximately true then there were two printings of the 12¢ stamp prior to June 19, 1869, with a balance of finished stamps in the safe as of June 5th of 527,800 according to the ledger sheet of June 12th.
As 876,025 12¢ stamps were 'issued' during the first half of 1869 and 1,250,000 printed during the period with 527,800 in stock in the finished stamp safe as of June 5th, it seems reasonable to assign the printings at 250,000 for the first printing and 1,000,000 for the second. Under such a breakdown, about 40% of the first printing would have been sent to postoffices during March, with the balance carried into the second quarter. There would be a grand total of four printings of the 12¢--250,000, 1,000,000, 1,500,000 and 250,000.

15¢ Printings

Turning back to the 15¢ bicolor value, it seems there were only two printings, a small first one and a large second one taking place during June 1869. At year's end, there was a balance of 700,620 stamps, which covered the 1870 shipments of 662,760 and a remainder of 37,860. The question remains how did the two printings divide?
The total 15¢ 1869 stamps 'issued' during the first two quarters of 1869 were 194,860 so that the first printing cannot exceed that figure. It actually has to be smaller, for the second printing was underway during the week of may 15-22nd as a Type II is known cancelled on Sunday, May 23rd, and there were at least 24,840 Type II's in finished stock on June 5th according to the Stamp Agent's ledger sheet for June 12th. Consequently the maximum numbers of the first printing has to be below 170,000, and above 75,000 for the first quarter quantity 'issued' was 77,740.

As the first printing was Type I and the second printing Type II, there have been several estimates made for the first printing. Jon Rose and Elliott Coulter did an estimate based upon the survival rates applicable to Type I covers, and based upon other 1869 data developed by Dr. Richard Searing. It yielded a first printing estimated ranging from a low of 165,000 to a high of 300,000. Using the latest data on surviving covers reported in the 1869 Census , the figures would be higher and fall outside the possible limits set by the total 15¢ stamps issued during the first half of 1869.
Michael Laurence in Whole #7 of the 1869 Times (May 1977) came up with a more seductive estimate of 140,000, for it falls within the possible perimeters. He estimated 54,000 Type II stamps were shipped during the last six weeks of the quarter (9,000 per week, which was the quarterly average) based upon the use of a Type II stamps on May 23rd. Subtracting the 54,000 from 194,860 'issued' during the first half left a first printing estimate of 140,000.

Using similar reasoning, I concluded that the quantity of the first printing was about 100,000-115,000 and have published a detailed analysis elsewhere of how this was derived. Basically, I reasoned that to have a Type II stamp cancelled on Sunday, May 23rd, the stamps had to be issued during the week of May 16. There are four weeks between then and the week of June 13th when no 15¢ stamps were issued. In the last of these four, 20,000 were issued and I assumed equivalent stamp quantities were issued during each of the weeks, and none thereafter.

The figure I derived is compatible with the estimates for the first 'printings' of the other bicolored stamps, notably the 24¢ and 30¢. It also fits with the concept that the initial shipments of the second printing were an allocated shipment rather than based on orders and similar in size to the first quarter shipment which also seems to have been allocated. I developed a line of reasoning for suggesting there was a valid reason for pushing Type II stamps out rapidly as soon as they became available. The estimate of 20,000 a week also seems more in line with the one weekly shipment known than an average assumption of 9,000 a week quarterly average.

The 1869 Inverts

It is generally agreed by all the 19th century authorities that the 15¢ invert was the first discovered. The first philatelic account published was apparently that by J. Walter Scott in the December 20, 1870 American Journal of Philately. There he states, "…after a few hundred sheets of the 15 and 24 cent stamps of the 1869 issue had been delivered, it was discovered that a few of the stamps on each sheet had the picture inverted in the frames…"

As deliveries to the postmasters prior to March 31, 1869 consisted of 777+ sheets (77,710 stamps) of the 15¢ and 309½ sheets (309,500 stamps) of the 24¢, this places the discovery before March 31, 1869, if Scott is to be believed. Even if he meant only deliveries to the New York City postoffice, this would be true, for New York received a very substantial quantity of the first shipments.

A second version of the story is given us by Mr. Luff and endorsed by George P. Sloane and L. and N. Williams. This is that David H. Anthony who obtained a sheet of the 15¢ stamps containing inverts made the first discovery. He sold one copy to a collector named Ramus and returned the balance of the sheet to the postoffice for redemption. In this report, Anthony was noted as an agent for the government for the sale of Internal Revenue stamps and who also dealt in current postage stamps, selling to the public at his office at 21 Nassau St. in Manhattan.

Note that both stories put the discovery very early-so early in fact, that the 15¢ error should have been part of the first printing, which was Type I rather than the error on Type II, which we know today.

There is some internal evidence to the story to back up the early date. A check of the New York City Doggett's Directory shows that in 1870/71 Anthony worked as a stamp dealer at 44 Wall Street and lived in New Jersey. In the 1869 edition he was a stamp dealer at 62 Liberty Street, living at 257 West 54th St., while in the 1868/9 edition he was a stamp dealer at 21 Nassau St. living at 254 West 54th. In other words, by the time the 1869 directory was complied in May of that year he had already moved to 62 Liberty, where he was next door to J. Walter Scott's office at 61 Liberty.

There was no evidence of Anthony being a government agent, but there was a Jacob Anthony, stationer and printer who was obviously a relative from the fact that his address shifted from 21 Nassau to 62 Liberty at the same time. Jacob was a partner with R. C. Root and A. S. Allison in a printing, lithography and engraving business.

Other evidence of the early date is found in the reference to the collector, a Mr. Ramus. There are two men by this name listed in the 1868/9 Doggett City Directory, published in mid-1868, who might be the collector involved. One was George A. Ramus, a clerk living at 141 Waverley Street in what is now Greenwich Village. His listing is not found in subsequent directories.

The second Mr. Ramus is an Isaac Ramus at 385 Canal Street, who is given the profession of 'Furng. goods' in the 1868/9 Doggett, and who is listed in 'hosiery' in the 1869/70 Doggett, published about July 1, 1869, but compiled during April or May of that year. He is not listed in the subsequent directories.
The fact that the addresses of Anthony change by May 1869, at which time the new directory is compiled is strong supporting evidence of the early date of the discovery and sale of the 15¢ invert. It consequently supports a thesis that the first error discovered was a currently unknown Type I 15¢ invert and not the Type II invert we know today. It is also interesting to note that anyone going back to look up the addresses would have normally picked the 1869/70 edition rather than the one found in the 1868/9 Doggett. This suggests the story came from a valid contemporary source.

If the initial discovery was of a Type I invert rather than the one we know today, then a number of puzzling remarks by early students make more sense. Such a discovery would also give a solid reason for issuing the Type II in May 1869, when no other bicolored value got a revised plate. Because of the importance of the problem, I should like to review from the beginning the data we have on the 1869 plate numbers. Such a review is also useful in determining the first and later printings in some cases.

Plate Numbers of the 1869 Issue

The received wisdom on the 15¢ is that the four frame plates: #19, 23, 31 and 32 were used together with only two vignette plates #19 and #23. While students have ascribed these to various Types, I wish to hold up on such attribution until the data is assembled to suggest the accuracy of such assignments. Elliott Perry made the point, and I believe correctly, that the National Bank Note Company issued and numbered plates, "in the order in which there were most needed."

The plates may not have been completely finished or sent to press before plates bearing higher numbers were ready, but they were apparently made and numbered in order of need. We also know that the NBNC started each new issue, as they saw it, with a new set of numbers-the 1861-1869 issue numbers, the 1869 series numbers and the 1870 series numbers.

In the 1869 series, plate numbers 1 and 2 were assigned to the 1¢, 3 through 6 to the 12¢, 7 through 12 to the 3¢, 13 and 14 to the 6¢, 15 and 16 to the 10¢, and 17 and 18 to the 12¢. The bicolor values were originally assigned # 19, 20, 21 and 22 for both frame and vignette plates. New bicolor value plates #23 and #24 were then assigned before assigning numbers for new plates for the 3¢ (plates #25, 26) and the 2¢ (plates #27 and 28), and then again reverting to the 3¢ (plates #29,, 30). Finally, two more bicolor plates (#31 and 32) were assigned, and a new 1¢ reissue plate #33 added.

In his 1902 book, John Luff also records a 24¢ sheet with vignette plate #20, but with no frame plate number and a 30¢ sheet with neither frame nor vignette number. It has generally been assumed that these items, part of the proof sheets apparently loaned him by Henry Mandel (of the American Bank Note Company and a major proof collector as well) to help with writing his book were either proofs pulled before the numbers were added or trimmed proofs.
In checking out the plate number data for the 1869 issue, it should be noted that the Perry statement would normally mean plate #19 is assigned to the 15¢, plate #20 to the 24¢, plate #21 to the 30¢ and plate #22 to the 90¢ for the first printings of each.

Now let us look at the "inverted center" proofs obtained by Dr. James Petrie from a production run made after 1879 and sold by him to the Earl of Crawford around 1900. Photos of the plate positions are found in lot #164 of the Siegel 1981 Rarities sale. As expected, the 30¢ and 90¢ used plate numbers 21 and 22 for both vignette and frame. As these would be the ones logically assigned to the initial printing of the 1869 issue in February of 1869, it would appear no others were ever used. The 30¢ plate proof without plate number was apparently pulled before numbers were entered on the plates. An example of this proof was sold as lot 1448 in the Sotheby Wunderlich sale.

The 24¢ Petrie 'invert' proof uses frame plate #20 (the one originally to be expected) and vignette plate #24 (the second of the 'new' numbers assigned). This number should have been issued after the first printings of February/March 1869 but before new numbers were needed for the lower values in 1869. The 15¢ Petrie 'invert' proof is even odder. It uses vignette plate #23 (the first of the 'new' numbers) and frame plate #32-the new Type III plate found on the 1875 reprint. There is no evidence that a vignette plate #32 was ever produced.

24¢ 1869 Plate Numbers

Before returning to the 15¢, let us examine the 24¢ proofs of issued stamps. The Wunderlich sale (Sotheby Parke Bernet 2/5-8/1980) provides most of the data. There, lot #1355 is a right side block of ten in green and violet with vignette plate #20, while lot #1252 is the upper right imprint strip of four in the same color with frame plate #20. These substantiate the Perry idea that plate numbers were originally assigned in order, for plate #20 is the logical one to be expected for the 24¢ value and here we have both frame and vignette plates #20. Both should represent proofs from the first printing.

Next is Wunderlich lot #1356, a proof block of ten from the lower right in the scarcer green and red violet shade, with vignette plate #24. This is a new plate number, logically assigned after the first printing. It should be found in the second printing, the 1875 reprints and any other printings until the Petrie 'invert proofs' were made, and it is so found. There is no evidence from any sale that I can locate that a frame plate #24 was ever created. The shade difference may be a clue to the differences between the first and second printing. There may also be a difference in the shape of the vignette at the right.

We can date the new vignette to the second printing, for it can be found as an Brazer unlisted essay on India applied to the 15¢ Type II frame as lot #456 of the Hessel III sale (H. R. Harmer sale 11/3-6/1976). Lot 457 in that sale is the Brazer Type I essay for the 15¢, with a 15¢ vignette separate, while lot #458 is the essay for the 24¢ printing with the vignette separate.

Why was a second vignette plate needed for the 24¢ value in 1869? The total quantity of the 24¢ printed was only a third of that printed for the 6¢, 10¢ and 12¢ stamps where we know two plates were assigned. Consequently the quantity printed should not be a reason. Further, while the total printed is double the 30¢ printing, it is only 50% more than that of the 90¢, neither of which required new plates. Too, the frame plate #20 was used continuously from the first printing in February until the 1879 Petrie 'invert' proofs.

A logical conclusion seems to be that either vignette plate #20 wore out remarkably rapidly, much faster than the frame plate, or there was something wrong with it. Both J. Walter Scott and Tiffany hint at something being wrong. They refer to 24¢ inverts that are cliché errors like the 15¢. By 'cliché' they meant a subject transferred onto the plate as a position, consequently they would have referred to one or more stamps having all or part of the vignette inverted as a cliché error even though cliché type production methods were not used for American stamps.

Scott made such a reference in his December 1870 discovery statement while Tiffany in his 1887 book writes,
"There is the same error of this stamp, 'reversed picture' stated to be from the same cause, a defect in the plate as for the 15¢, and the same remarks apply." The remarks were that no copy of this 24¢ cliché error ever circulated.
If both men had gotten hold of a contemporary story of a cliché error caught by the NBNC at the time of the first printing, it would explain their confusing remarks for they both knew of errors that had gotten out.
No error could have occurred in the frame plate #20, which was used from the first February 1869 printing until the Petrie 'proofs' in 1879. There is also no evidence that a 24¢ cliché error got out. Could one have occurred? It would have had to be a vignette error.

As we have proofs from both the top and bottom of plate #20 on the right side, it could not have occurred in that pane. However, we have little date from the left side pane. John Chapin in his Census of United States Classic Plate Blocks reports no multiple of the 24¢ 1869 so there is no help there. The one issued stamp record we have from the left side is the single stamp from position #95 (left side) illustrated by Markovits and Chapman in their article "1869 Plate Layout and Plate Numbers" from Volume 13 of the 1869 Times. This stamp has a violet vignette plate #20. They also illustrate a left pane position #4 stamp with part of the frame imprint in green. They presume this is frame plate #20, but the vignette could just as easily be from plate #24 as plate #20.

Should an error have occurred in the first several columns of the vignette plate, it need not have affected the release of the right pane and the remaining portions of the left pane. It would however explain the need for a new vignette plate and the Scott and Tiffany remarks about a reversed vignette cliché.

As only twenty percent of the 24¢ 1869 stamps ever printed were issued and as there were ample supplies from the beginning, there is no problem in assuming part panes were held back because of an error. This concept would also accord with J. Walter Scott's story that he could only buy panes, even at New York, when he sould full sheets of 100 of the 15¢ and 24¢ 1869s and his complaint that the panes offered were always of the same side!

There were clearly two vignette plates used to print the issued 24¢ 1869. The plate number sequences tell us this, for plates 25 and 26 were 3¢ plates issued during the second quarter of 1869 to cover the production need for those stamps! As the second vignette 24¢ plate (plate 24) is an earlier assigned number it was also used during that quarter. Most of the 24¢ 1869s we know, both issued, inverts and 1875 reprints are made from this vignette plate.
How then can one tell a stamp printed from both frame and vignette plate #20 and one printed from frame plate #20 and vignette plate 24? Unfortunately this is not a question that vexed any of the 1869 student writers over the years. However, it is an answerable one.

1) The shift almost certainly occurred when both the 15¢ and 24¢ cliché errors were discovered in late March or early April 1869 and new plates were called for. The earliest date possible is March 25th, when one of the discovery stories reports the 15¢ Type I cliché error example was discovered and the latest is mid-April when the new 15¢ Type II's are known.

2) During the date the first stamps reached the public (March 19 or 20 in New York City) and the production shift we have several surviving 24¢ 1869 stamped covers as well as an unknown number of first printing 24¢ Type I adhesives. There is one sure and two probable Type I 24¢ covers recorded in the 1869 Issue Cover Census published in 1986. These are: a) a 10 and 24¢ combination cover posted April 7, 1869 at New York and addressed to Shanghai that is illustrated in Chronicle #87 on page 174, b) a single 24¢ courthouse cover from New York to Mobile, AL, from the Ashbrook records posted April 23, 1869 that is the earliest example of the Type II 24¢, and c) a cover described but not illustrated in Chronicle #87 on page 176 that was posted at New York to Hong Kong April 24, 1869 with a 10 and 24¢ 1869 combination.

Front and back of the April 7, 1869 Type I .24¢ cover to Shanghai from the Ashbrook files courtesy the Philatelic Foundation.

3) The vignette was first used for the 1868 proposed 10¢ small numeral single color essays, Scott 116E-2, as seen in the Siegel Brazer sale lots 747-757 and in color in the Schiff December 1, 1989 Frederick Lopez sale lots 4177-4178 and in the Bennett May 2, 2003 Walske 'Lafayette' sale lots 1031-1032; by July 22, 1868, it was then brought over to the incomplete small die 24¢ value (Scott 120E1, lot 798 in the Brazer sale or lot 4187 in the Lopez sale). The small 24¢ die was then completed (Scott 120E2b Brazer sale lots 803-5, seen in color in the 'Lafayette' sale lots 1047-1048) and on various papers (Scott 120E2c, d, e, f, g, h, Brazer sale lots 806-811 seen in color as Lopez sale lot 4190) and with bands of color (Scott 120E2a Brazer sale lots 799-802 seen in color as 'Lafayette' sale lots 1045-1046).
The small die frames were adapted to the issued 24¢ Type I issued stamp by splitting it into three parts. The top was maintained and to it was added a new bottom value tablet to make up the issued frame plate #20. This small die vignette was maintained and used to make the first issued 24¢ 1869 vignette plate #20.

Two examples of the 24¢ small numeral die showing the Type I vignette carried over to the issued first printing of the 24¢ 1869.

As a comparison of the vignette in the small dies indicates, this plate #20 vignette differs from the later plate 24 vignette in being narrower-white spaces can be seen on either end inside the beaded border when it is well struck, whereas the plate #24 vignette (Brazer sale lot 812) when well-struck completely fills the area for the vignette (Brazer sale 813-814) and overlaps into the beaded border. The full width plate #24 vignette is clearly seen in some inverts such as the centered invert Trepel figure 3 (page 188 of Chronicle #151) or his south-west Invert figure 11 (page 189 of Chronicle #159).

The Type II design is clearly seen as overlapping into the pearls in the Ishikawa block and his single as well as the Green/Storrow invert and the one offered by Stolow 6/6/83 lot 197 and then by American Philatelic Brokers that July.Earliest known example of the Type II 24¢ vignette sold as lot 868 in the Laurence & Stryker sale of November 26, 1948 from the Philatelic Foundation reference files, where it received a 'genuine use' certificate in February 1949. Illustration courtesy of P.F.

The 15¢ 1869 Plate Numbers

Moving on to the plate numbers for the 15¢1869 stamp, it was noted that the logical plate number for the first printing was #19 and that that plate number was not used for the Petrie 'inverted proofs' but rather than vignette plate #23, a new one, and frame plate #32, the Type III frame variety created for the 1875 reissue were the plates used.
J. C. M. Cryer commented upon frame plate #32 in his 1977 Register article, "The Landing of Columbus-The Three Types", stating that this reissue frame plate was close to Type I, but, "The new design (Type III) did not add more lines that theoretically could better hide the misalignments. It contained even fewer lines than the unsatisfactory TypeI. Theoretically, this would add to the printing difficulty rather than ease it."

What about vignette plate #23? Markovits and Chapman in their previously cited article reported a plate #23 piece Type II with blue vignette color, position #95 on the left side. About it they comment, "Blue and red-brown bands at bottom, indicates frame plate may have been larger than vignette plate."
In other words, there was a slight mismatch, which should be characteristic of the second printing.
We know there was no error cliché in this vignette plate #23. The Ackerman block of 33 from the bottom right shows vignette plate #23. (This block sold in a reduced form of a block of 20 in the 1972 Siegel Rarities sale and is illustrated in the Chapin book.) Another block of 20 from the same position sold in the 1977 Siegel Rarities sale as lot #105. It is ex-Sinkler and partially separated.

A reprint proof block of ten, Wunderlich sale lot #1505, shows the vignette plated on the lower left side, while a block of twenty from the upper left, without imprint appears as lot #1506 in the same sale.
Unlike the 24¢ plate #24, where there is no evidence a frame plate was made, there is evidence of a frame plate #23 for the 15¢. It is recorded in a block of six from the right side of Type II and sold as lot #1321 in the Wunderlich sale, as an issued stamp.

One can also find a proof block of four from the right side of frame plate #31, ex-Ackerman, in the Wunderlich sale as lot #1328. We have no information as to whether a vignette plate #31 was ever made, but presumably it was not. This ex-Ackerman proof piece leads to a very interesting conclusion. Both the articles by Markovits/Chapman and that by Cryer indicated that plate #23 was not found as a frame plate on Type II, the second printing, but that frame plate #31 was so used. This new ex-Ackerman piece means that either: a) frame plate #23 was replaced during the production in 1869 of Type Is by frame plate #31. b) Both frame plate #23 and #31 were in simultaneous production of Type Is in 1869, or c) Frame plate #31 as never used for Type II production, but was created in 1875 for the reissue. We have no information as to whether a vignette plate #31 was ever made, but as no complimentary vignette/frame plates are know after plates #23, presumably it was not.

I would argue that because frame plate #31 is numbered after the last of the 3¢ plates, which went into production in 1870, it would not have been used for production of the Type Is of the second printing which was under way in June 1869. The last 3¢ plate was the somewhat scarce plate #30.
If this analysis is correct, then frame plate #31 went to the proof press in either 1870 or 1875, before reissue plate #32, probably in 1875. I should call it the first test proof plate of the 1875 reissues, which was rejected for some reason in favor of frame plate #32.

We do know that the die used to make frame plate #31 survived, for it was later used to produce the 1904 Roosevelt die proofs, which included both Die II and Die III frames. This only leave plate #19, both frame and vignette, to have been used in the production of the 15¢ Type I and no other type of the 15¢ stamps. It was the logical plate to begin with and only the references to it have confused the issue. We have neither proof sheets nor imprint used examples to my knowledge, but the fact that all authorities have assigned it to the Type II printing is based solely upon the Luff records and those authorities interpretation that he reversed the types in his plate number listings as in the illustrations.

They have relied upon the plate number list in Luff, page 88 in the Gossip reprint edition, which goes Type I, Type II, Type I, and then Type III. How easy it would be to have a typographic error in the third listing so that it reads Type I again rather than Type II showing new plates. If such an error occurred, the plate numbers would be in logical sequence and plate #19 would be the only one used for both frame and vignette of Type I.
If this is so, one might ask why did Luff discuss the two types in reverse of how we recognize them today stating that what we call Type II was the first issued? It may well be that he believed the invert error came out immediately, relying upon the Scott and Anthony story. Consequently, as he knew the error had the diamond and frameline he assigned it to Type I, confusing everyone since.

The Luff plate number analysis, which was apparently done separately from his discussion of types, does not correspond with the discussion or the illustration in this Gossip reprint. However, with the one assumption that the second plate I was a typographic error, it corresponds exactly with the printing company logic of how plates wee assigned and what we find in fact.

Discovery of the 1869 Inverts

To summarize, the information regarding the early discoveries of the inverts suggests that invert cliché errors occurred in both the vignette plate #19 of the 15¢ and the vignette plate #20 of the 24¢ and were discovered early. Only one example, the Ramus copy of the 15¢ Type I ever got out, but the NBNC pulled the stock and cancelled several plates and prepared new plates #23 and #24 to replace them.

This error probably accounts for part of the delay in distribution of the first printing and its late use although all varieties had originally been used during March 1869. When the second printing was made, a further error occurred in which several sheets were put in upside down for the second pass through the printing process, creating the invert errors we know today. These were not caught by the NBNC and got into public hands.

Because the entire 1869 issue was politically charged, having been conceived by the Johnson administration but with the errors probably occurring during the Grant period, data was suppressed particularly as the contract was under attack. It is also possible that the change in personnel at the post office, resulted from the application of the 'spoils' system may have affected the ability of the postal employees to detect the error.

If the first errors did not get out, what then is the first printing error discovery? The earliest record we have on the 15¢ is that of the father of Alfred Lichtenstein, who was a junior clerk in the banking house of Balzer & Tharx. He was sent to the postoffice in the Old Dutch Church in Manhattan where he purchased 25 of the 15¢ stamps. He discovered the centers were inverted and wondered if they would be acceptable to his superiors.

The Irish window clerk on duty persuaded him to take them as "no one would notice the difference' and they were used by Balzer & Tharx on correspondence except for one copy. The elder Lichtenstein purchased one of the best-centered examples for his own collection using his lunch allowance of 19¢ for the purchase.
This mint copy was kept by Lichtenstein père for many years until a family friend persuaded him to sell. Young Alfred, born in 1876, was there to 'supervise' but when he objected to the sale he was sent back to bed. The example was sold to the friend and soon placed in a Staten Island Philatelic Society auction where it brought $285; it soon found its way to Europe.

The price was an excellent one, for the used 15¢ inverts were bringing $30-70 then, while the superb deCoppet 30¢ invert only brought $220 in 1893. In Europe the copy was sold to Worthington. (Phillips may have sold it to him during Worthington's first trip in 1894.) Worthington paid $1,200 and when it sold in the Morgenthau August 25, 1917 Worthington dispersal it realized $4,100 as lot #476. It had previously passed back into Alfred Lichtenstein's hands when he bought the Worthington collection privately and he elected to put this item into the auction.

At the time of the Worthington sale, Alfred Lichtenstein, his father and the family friend again met and over lunch agreed that the friend would make a donation of $700+ to charity to cover the interest on the original transaction to that date. Compounded at 5%, this dates the original sale back to about 1890-1891, or if the interest was as much as $750, back to 1888-1889, at which time Alfred Lichtenstein was a youth of 12 or 13.

This copy is next found in the Hind collection, where it sold as lot #390 in the Charles Phillips Hind sale of November 20-24, 1933 for $7,000 to Elliott Perry 'for stock'. Perry promptly resold it to Alfred R. Bingham from whose collection it passed into the hands of Josiah Lilly. The copy next sold as lot #216 in the Lilly Siegel sale of February 2, 1967 to the Weills. More recently it was sold at the Siegel 1982 Rarities as lot #241 ($135,000/180,000) to an agent for Weill with the telephone being the underbidder. For the first time, the description was no longer 'full o.g.' but 'nearly full o.g..'
The 15¢ invert was first cataloged or reported in print by Moens of Belgium inn his February 1870 issue. The first of the 15¢ inverts to reach the auction market was one sold in the J. Walter Scott collection dispersal through Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge in London on March 18, 1872. It was centered to the left and bottom with the perfs in at bottom. Sold as lot #6, with the description 'very fine specimen, very scarce' it went for 36 shillings, or about $9, to W. Dudley Atlee. This example was obviously one of the half dozen Scott found in stock when he first learned of the inverts.

We have much less information about the discovery of the other 1869 invert values. The 24¢ invert was apparently discovered somewhat later than the 15¢ and initially was considered much scarcer. The earliest record I have been able to locate is Scott's remarks in December 1870 when he was still looking for an example of the 24¢, but had already found half a dozen used examples of the 15¢ in his own stock. Neither the 15¢ nor the 24¢ was listed in the 1870 Scott catalog but both appear to have made the 1871 edition.

The aforementioned W. Dudley Atlee in part six of a series on errors reported, "A few copies of the lately defunct 24 cent have passed the post which show the center portion 'topsy-turvy'. We have also seen a 3¢ envelope of the new type without colour." This reference to the 24¢ inverts and the albino 3¢ Reay envelope appeared in the July 1871 Stamp Collectors Magazine.

Although the most logical place for the 24¢ invert to appear was in England where a double weight letter would have taken that value early in the life of the 1869 issue, we don't find it in the early English auctions. The Scott sale of 1872 did not have an example of the 24¢ and the first that Charles Phillips recorded in English auctions was in February 1892, which is some time after the 'upside down man' in Liverpool found the block of six which was sold to a sacheleer and then to Thomas Ridpath, who placed it with William Thorne early enough for him to have exhibited it in 1889.

From the very limited data available, it would appear that most of the 24¢ inverts turned up during the 1880s in England greatly increasing the supply. Lester Brookman's estimates on quantities are far below the numbers known to exist today. The 30¢ invert is first cataloged, as far as I have been able to ascertain, in the 1876 Scott. This would be the discovery copy which went into the Sanford collection and which was bought at the Sanford sale by E. B. Sterling of Trenton, N.J. It was resold in the Sterling sale of December 20, 1887 (Leavitt & Co.) as lot #164 for the same $30 price to William Thorne. At that time it was still listed as the only recorded example. There is a reasonable chance that this copy followed the path of Thorne's block of six (reduced to a block of four as that was what he collected) of the 24¢ invert into the Crocker collection and then separately into the Moody holding.
We do know that a second example, used, was auctioned in England in April 1888, one year later, from Charles Phillips' records. He noted it brought $35 as well.

While the first unused 30¢ invert example known in England when into the Tapling collection, Charles Phillips did not know it. Thus when he purchased 'in a very small old collection' a 'fine, unused copy' of the 30¢ a week or two ago as he put it in the April 30, 1891 Gibbons Monthly Journal, he noted that he had handled several used but hand never seen an unused one before.

This example was almost certainly placed in the Avery collection, which had one of the first unused items and the item was obtained from Phillips. This copy went to Peckitt in 1909 when he purchased the entire Avery collection. Among the key buyers of the Peckitt purchase were Ferrari and Duveen. As Ferrari did not have an unused copy (as evidenced by the auction of his holdings in the 1920s), and Duveen did, this example is probably the Duveen copy, which was sold by Phillips in 1930-1931.

There have been persistent stories of a 90¢ invert. They stem from an auction offering of May 30, 1891 of a 'western dealer-collector, Kenyon Brewster Cox , who listed an example along with a $20 State Department invert. Phillips tells us that he bid nearly £100 for these two and did not win. He was told one sold to a collection in British Columbia and the other to Australia. Luff feels they never existed. Cox stated they came from a Mexican collection and were examined at the sale by Skinner, Davis, Picher, Lyman, Kane and others. He added one sold to a party within a 24-hour ride of Long Beach.

Nevertheless, Luff does tell us that a gentleman he knew whose sources were entirely reliable, did see a 90¢ invert example although none was ever circulated. He notes his source once saw,
"…among a lot of misprints and similar oddities, sheets of the four bi-colored values of this series all with inverted centers. Of two values there were two sheets each, and of the other two values four sheets each. But he does not remember of which there were two and of which four. Though he was not interested in stamps, he was attracted by the oddity of these varieties and tried hard to obtain copies of them, but without success, and the whole lot was burned."

This description sounds very much like the discovery before release of inverts by the NBNC and that his source had an 'in' there where he would see the errors put aside for eventual destruction. It tends to support the concept of pullbacks on the first printing of the 15¢ and 24¢ although the description is one of misprinting, not cliché errors.
No 90¢ invert is known to exist today and there was never a need to revamp the plate because of the possibility. Yet the story must have been existence in 1879 when Petrie got the inverted proofs out of the NBNC, for he would not otherwise have arranged for a 90¢ inverted proof.

The 15¢ Type I Printing in 1969
© Calvet M. Hahn 1985.

Some of our leading students of the 1869 issue-Herzog, Laurence, Rose and Coulter-have tried their hands at estimating the approximate quantity of 15¢ Type I stamps issued. Each has made an estimate that takes into account some of the available data, but not all. Some seven years ago (1978), I expressed the opinion that the data were not fully reconciled. Now, I will present an analysis, which I hope accounts for all known data.
The key data are available in Herzog's Chronicle #89 article where he has abstracted date from the five Stamp Agent ledger sheets, the Reports of the Postmaster General and the 'Statistics of Manufacture' from Luff's Postage Stamps of the United States. In his article Herzog showed two ways to get the data. In the case of the 15¢ there was no difference in result caused by any mathematical errors made by Luff.

The data need to be supplemented by material relating to the finding of the 1869 inverts reported in Luff, and J. Walter Scott's comments on the same in the December 20, 1870 issue of his American Journal of Philately as well as by the Census of the 15¢ stamp published in the Rose/Coulter article on the Type I, in the 1978 Register, and subsequent census reports by Richard Searing.

15¢ 1869 QUANTITIES PRODUCED AND ISSUED

As Herzog and others point out, the 15¢ stamp was issued during six quarters of 1869-70. For two quarters, the 15¢1869 stamp was the only 15¢ stamp being issued, so we can accept the quarterly 'Stamps Issued' figures found in the Reports of the Postmaster General. For the remaining quarters we must derive the data by subtracting out the 1867-1868 or 1870 stamps. Table A reconstructs these data.

TABLE A: 15¢ 1869

PMG = Postmaster General Reports.
Luff = Luff's Statistics of Manufacturer.

1.This figure is the difference between Luff's SOM for Jan-Apr. 1870 of 15¢ 1869 stamps (662,760) and the number issued during the first quarter as reported by the PMG (576,700)

Readers familiar with Herzog's analysis of the PMG reports and Luff's statistics will recognize the formula used to compute the missing figures. By subtracting the 1869 stamps 'issued' in the first quarter of 1870 (576,700) from the Luff data on the total number of 15¢ 1869 stamps delivered (or 'manufactured') in 1870 to the Stamp Agent (662,760), we compute the second quarter total of 15¢ 1869 stamps issued at 86,060. There is a gross difference of 100 stamps (one sheet) between the 1869 totals of 'issued' by quarter and Luff's total of 1869 stamps; presumably there is a minor mathematical error in one of the sources.

Interestingly enough, the December 31, 1869 Stamp Agent ledger sheet gives a total on hand as of that date of 700,620. When we subtract from this amount the 15¢ 1869 stamps issued during 1870 (662,760), we find an unissued remainder of 37,870, not the 600,000 suggested by Herzog. This shows there was no need, and presumably no printing, of 15¢ 1869 stamps during 1870. The totals above give 1,438,840 15¢ stamps issued. Again, this is 100 less than Luff reports as being manufactured on page 88 of his book.

15¢ TYPE 1 QUANTITIES PRODUCED AND ISSUED

Assuming that the Type II stamp plate replaced the Type I plate, and that no more Type Is were printed after the Type II plate went into production, then the week of the earliest Type II clues us as to maximum production of the Type 1 stamps. The earliest dated Type II is May 23rd, so that by then production had to be of Type IIs.
Working backward from the year-end stock on hand of 700,620, and adding in the quantities issued during the 3rd and 4th quarters (total 581,220), we find the quantity on hand on July 1, 1869 would have been 1,281,840, providing there was no printing after that date. I am reasonably certain that the printing was complete or practically complete by July 1, 1869. The two Stamp Agent ledger sheets show that the major second printing was in process during the weeks of June 12 and June 19. It is not difficult to conclude that more stamps were produced during the remaining weeks of June. By subtracting, we would only need production of 307,000 to bring the totals in lie with the balance on hand on June 19th. In light of the quantities produced per wee this is a reasonable amount.

Thus, we now have data for two printings and only two printings. Even if the second printing dragged into the first week of July, the basic analysis would not change. We do know from the October 120, 1869, 'Cosmopolitan' interview with Mr. Nicholls, head of the Printing Department of the National Bank Note company, that production of the bicolored stamps had ceased by then. This interview, found in the J. Walter Scott American Journal of Philately, gives us good reason to assume all bicolor stamp production had ceased. The quantities found on the Stamp Agent ledger sheets in June show there was more than adequate supply before then and production was already tapering down.

How do we divide the two printings, one of which was small and must have comprised Type I only? As Type 1 is known used on April 2, 1869 on a cover from New Orleans to Bordeaux, France, (an off-cover example is dated March 31st) it is clear it must have come from the first printing made during February/March of 1869 that was shipped out to postmasters in March. We can reasonably assign all stamps sent out in the first quarter to the Type 1 printing (77,740). That gives us a minimum figure. We can also assign all stamps sent out during and after the week of May 16th to the second printing for the first example on cover of Type II is used on May 23rd, the Sunday ending the week.

It might be argued that one could pile new stock on old and ship from the new stock. However, we do know that as of June 5th, the total finished stock on hand was only 24,840, and that there were 560,000 unfinished Type IIs which were not usable for deliveries. At the rate of production shown in the Stamp Agent ledger sheets for the weeks ending June 12th and June 19th, a backtrack of the buildup would more than account for all quantities possibly on hand when the first Type IIs were shipped.

The implications of this production backtracking are that: a) No Type I was likely shipped out after the Type IIs were produced because the vaults were empty. b) The Type IIs known used on May 23rd were probably from the first week's production of that stamp-the second printing.

No matter how the figures are sliced, it is clear that the use of the Searing cover survival formula to estimate Type Is gives up much too high figures. The latest published Searing estimate of Type Is is 135 covers2 which would yield a total of over 620,000 Type I stamps, an obvious impossibility with only 194,000 'issued' of both Types in the first half of 1869 and with almost no finished stock as of June 19th.

Even based upon the new Census results of about eighty 24¢ and seventy 30¢ covers we get .00034 and .00029 as survival rates. Applying these to the 135 Type I covers now known, we get 397,000 or 466,000-both too high. Even using the .0006 factor, suggested by Rose/Coulter we get too many stamps.
It should be clear from the above that the survival factors on the 1869 high values are peculiar and should be used for predicting only when carefully analyzed and circumscribed.

Mr. Laurence has used the same approach that I am proposing with the exception that he has estimated the average delivery per week of the second quarter (9,000 stamps) for the weeks after May 23rd. I think he miscounted one week, for the stamps had to be out during the week ending May 22nd to be used on the 23rd, so that his figure should be 63,0009 and the number of Type Is by his analysis would be 132,000. Table B shows my assumptions on the production during the second quarter of 1869. As you can see I estimate a higher shipment of Type II from their first known production (week ending May 22nd) on. I have assumed that there was some urgency in getting the Type IIs out, and that the quantity shipped was similar to the initial March 1869 distribution.

Table B: Reconstruction of Activity in 2^nd Quarter 1869 on 15¢ Stamp

Cumulative to 6/30                                        Total Stock On Hand 1,281,840

E= Estimate.  All other figures can be verified from official records.

A combination of factors suggests higher Type II shipments in the period immediately after they were produced: (a) The backtrack production suggests the vault was bare. (b) No stamps were shipped the week ending 6/19 but 20,000 were shipped the preceding week and presumably for some weeks before. (c) I find a motive to get Type IIs out in the analysis of the 1869 inverts, which will be discussed shortly.

We have a different approach to estimating Type I production in looking at the first printings of the other values. If we estimate that the stock on hand as of June 5th represented the balance of the first printing we come up with about 50,000 a s a printing for the 90¢ and 100,000 to 110,000 for the 30¢. A similar figure of 100,000-110,000 can be derived for the 24¢.

For the popular 12¢ stamp, assuming a print run of about one million beginning in late April with distribution at about 100,000 weekly until the week of June 7-12, we find an initial printing of 150,000 would suffice. There is no reason to assume the 15¢ stamp should have a print run larger than the 24¢ (double rate to England) so that a Type I printing of 100,000-110,000 again looks logical.

Now I should like to approach the subject from invert analysis. First, it has always been assumed that the 30¢ invert was the rarest of the three and that only one sheet ever got out3. It is surprising that Scott Trepel and I have located photographs of over 40 copies and leads on more. Even assuming two sheets we still get over a 20% survival ratio!
One reason for unusual survival ratios on the 1869 bicolors is the fact that the stamps were distinctive. It was the first bicolored U.S. stamps and there were only a few foreign issues in two colors much earlier. Once the errors were announced they would be saved as the first bicolor error. (The Indian four-anna invert of 1854 was not discovered until 1874.) On Type I, people would save them more than Type II because most people would only save one as a curio and not recognize there was a difference.

I believe that we have ignored the evidence and rejected the findings of the leading contemporary students of the 1869 issue in regard to the dates of the errors and how they were made. Luff tells us the errors were first found when David H. Anthony, an agent for Internal Revenue stamps as well as a stamp dealer, bought a sheet when they first came out, sold one stamp to a collector, Ramus, and returned the rest to the government because of defects. The early stories tell us that this happened shortly after the stamps came out and that Mr. Anthony's office was at 21 Nassau in Manhattan. This would suggest the government learned of the error almost immediately.

Figure 1 Relevant page from the December 20, 1869 American Journal of Philately.

Scott on page 141 of the December 20, 1870 American Journal of Philately, Figure 1, tells us that,
"…after a few hundred sheets of the 15 and 24-cent stamps of the 1869 issue had been delivered, it was discovered that a few of the stamps on each sheet had the picture inverted in the frames…" Deliveries of the 15¢ stamp to the post offices before March 31, 1869, were 777+ sheets while 309½ sheets of the 24¢ were delivered in that period. Even if Scott had meant only deliveries to New York City, it would mean the discovery had to have taken place when the Type I stamps were available, and not the Type II! New York received a very substantial part of the Type I shipment as surviving covers show.

The early discovery date is confirmed by the addresses associated with the story. The Doggett City Directory is compiled in May and published about July 1 of each year. In the 1868/9 directory, published in 1868, David H. Anthony is a stamp dealer at 21 Nassau, living at 257 W. 54th St. In the 1869/70 directory, his office was at 62 Liberty while he lived at the same address. This office was next door to Scott's office at 61 Liberty. The following year, Anthony moved to 44 Wall and lived in New Jersey.

The above directory information means that only prior to May 1869 did Anthony work at the address associated with the discovery of the inverts. It is also interesting to note that George A. Ramus a clerk living at 141 Waverley is found in the 1868 Doggett's and no later. The data here are a little fuzzier for there was also an Isaac Ramus at 385 Canal, who also appears in the 1869/70 edition as being in hosiery at the same address. Neither are listed subsequently.
If the initial discover was of a Type I invert of which only the Ramus example got out, it would explain many puzzling remarks by our early experts.

Certainly Scott believed that only one stamp or one row of stamps on the sheet was inverted (inverted clichés). This myth, if it is a myth, continued for years. As late as 1887 John K. Tiffany in his History of the Postage Stamps of the United States of America stated in regard to the 15¢ invert, "…The error, is not as is sometimes supposed an error of printing, but in the plate. Two plates, one for each color, had to be used. Originally, there were 150 stamps as in the smaller values, (See circular of March 1st, 1869 above cited) but upon the plate for printing the picture, it is said one picture was reversed, and the error once discovered, the plate was cut down to print on 100 stamps as stated in the circular. It is probable that no copies with the error were ever circulated."

He made a similar remark about the 24¢ error, including the one about no copies ever circulating.
It can be seen that Tiffany and Scott both accepted the cliché error thesis. And, Tiffany stated that the error never circulated. He was no fool. He was well aware that Scott had reported examples of both errors in earlier years and that they were listed in the catalogs. All the errors, including the 30¢, were in the 1876 edition of Scott, a decade before Tiffany wrote. Why then did he state the 15¢ and 24¢ inverts never circulated?

I should like to suggest these students knew something we have apparently forgotten. Just as there is excellent reason to revise the release date of the 1869 issue to Mr. Tiffany's March 19, 1869 release date, we should reconsider whether or not a Type I error existed of which only the Ramus copy might have gotten out.
The traditional explanation for the Type II 15¢ is aesthetic. I believe Frank Goodwin first set it forth in 1919 and most recently by Mr. Cryer in the 1977 Register. It was that off-registry printing of the bicolor could leave a sizeable while gap at the top of the vignette that was unappealing.

I don't accept this explanation. The history of the banknote printers and their policies shows that cost was paramount and that poor product was acceptable providing it could sneak past government inspection. The controversy over the 1869 gum in the contemporary papers didn't create a change until the new issue of 1870, and perhaps not even then although it was 'supposedly' changed. Why should the National Bank Note officials go to the expense of two new plates if it wasn't necessary? The existence of an error would create a reason.

Elliott Perry has made the point, I believe correctly, that the National Bank Note Company issued and numbered plates, "in the order in which they were most needed." The plates might not have been completely finished or sent to press before a plate bearing a higher number, but they were made and numbered in order of need. We also know the company started each new issue with a new number series (18611-8; 1869; 1870 etc.)

The logical number sequence for the bicolored plates was 19 (15¢), 20 (24¢), 21 (30¢) and 22 (90¢), ending the numbers needed for the first printing. A study of the issued stamp and proof plate data show the 30¢ and 90¢ used only plates 21 and 22 respectively from the first printing through to the 1879 production of the 'inverted center proofs.' Both stamps were issued in quantities sufficient to suggest there was no production need for additional plates.
Plate #20 was the logical one for the 24¢ and from proofs in the Wunderlich sale we know it was used for both vignette and frames. While frame plate #20 continued in use right on through the 'inverted center proofs', a new vignette plate #24 was made. This is a number logically assigned after the first printing of all the values. I can find no evidence a frame plate #24 was ever made.

We can date vignette plate #24 to the second printing for it can be found in an unlisted India essay applied to the 15¢ Type II frame (lot 456 of Hessel III sale). As production was not a requirement for a new plate #24, what was the reason for its existence and use? Scott and Tiffany both stated there was a cliché error in the 24¢ plate, but that copies did not get out (Tiffany). If such an error existed, there was a good reason to make a new vignette plate #24. It might be noted we have proofs of both the top and bottom of plate #20 on the right side, but only a single issued example (position #95) from the left so that a row of wrong clichés could have occurred in the first several rows.
Because there were always ample supplies of the 24¢ value, there is no objection to assuming part panes were held back because of an error. This would accord with Scott's story that he could buy only panes, not sheets of the 15¢ and 24¢ even in New York City which should have had full sheets, and that the panes offered were always of the same side!

Philatelic writers of the last half-century have been confused by an apparent typographic error in both editions of Luff in the section where plate numbers are recorded. The listing showing 15 plate numbers reads Type I, Type II, Type I, and Type III. The third item sould have read Type II, in which case the series makes logical sense.
The logical plate number for the first printing was #19 for both frame and vignette. We have no examples showing it either on issued stamps or proofs.

On plate #23, the one used for the Type II, we have enough material to show that no error occurred in the vignette and this plate continued to be used through the 1875 reprint. Unlike the 24¢ new plate there is a frame plate #23, which can be seen as an issued stamp in the Wunderlich sale. As in the case of the 24¢ I would contend that a cliché error did occur and that it caused the scrapping of plate #19 for both vignette and frame. Further, the existence of this error was the reason for the push to get out the Type II stamps in May 1869. There was an urgent need to replace stock that might be wrong and which could be embarrassing politically if it was released.

Following through for a moment on the plate numbers, the 1875 reprint did not use frame plate #23; instead, a new frame plate #31 of the Type II frame was developed and proofed but never substituted. Rather, a second new frame plate #32 was issued and we got the Type III stamps. The reason for assuming that plate #31 is a reprint plate is that plate #30 was the last used for the 3¢ regular issue, and there was no need to create plate #31 in 1870, the date it would have had to be created in order to use it for 1869 Type II printings. Why it was rejected in 1875 I don't know, but that is when it was prepared. It is known only in proof form.

In sum, it is my conclusion that the reason for the 15¢ Type II stamp was the discovery of inverts in Type I by Anthony and that only one example ever got out. This discovery forced the creation of a new plate #23 in both vignette and frame and it was necessary to rush out stock of the new stamp to avoid possible political embarrassment. The one question is who has the Ramus copy today, if it still exists, and could it be classed as the rarest U.S. stamp-the unique Type I invert? The total printing of Type I was 100,000-110,000 using at least three approaches to the problem of quantities. The most interesting of these, of course, is the invert approach.

A New Look at Quantities of the 1869s
© Calvet M. Hahn 1989

In a concurrent article in the Collectors Club Philatelist about the National banknotes I reexamined the basic body of knowledge of information about those issues. It is useful here to pull together some of the conclusions I reached regarding the quantities of the 1869 issue.

First, I accepted the analysis done by William Herzog published in Chronicle #89 (February 1976) and in the 1978 American Philatelic Congress book insofar as they deal with the split between the earlier issues and the 1869s. However, I depart from Herzog in his assumption that all stamps issued during the first quarter of 1870 were 1869s, although this is based upon the way in which John Luff separates the grilled statistics on pages 104 and 117 in his 1902 The Postage Stamps of the United States.

The reason for the disagreement is multifold and spelled out in detail in the Collectors Club article. Briefly, it rests upon: 1) the fact that we have several banknote stamps known on cover during the first quarter, 2) we have evidence that one of the 3¢ banknote plates cracked during January 1870 production and was replaced at that time, 3) the Herzog/Luff assumption requires press runs of the 1869 issue in the Spring of 1870. This assumption does not jibe with our current knowledge of the printing, 4) The Herzog/Luff assumptions are illogical in terms of the 1869 remainders as of December 31, 1869 known from Jeremy Wilson's 1869 ledger sheet 'find' in the National Archives, which has been reproduced by the PRA.

One critical starting point was the final inventory of the 1869 issue found on December 31, 1869 as reported in the production worksheet for that week from the Wilson 'find'. My assumption is that only the 1869s on hand as of December 31, 1869 were available for release in 1870 and that this quantity was sufficient for all low values until the 1870 banknote issue was on press. There was no need for to go back on press at all. I conclude, as did Mr. Herzog, that the 1869s were not issued after the second quarter of 1870. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the earliest known banknote covers of the 15¢ and 30¢ are found in the third quarter.
What results is a new and lower quantity issued of the 1869 stamps. In quarterly terms the stamps issued are:

  1869 Stamps Issued

Totaling these figures gives us the follow quantities of 1869s issued and an unissued quantity for the three highest values, which was apparently destroyed without a record currently known to students. The logic of the records we have, forces me to conclude that this unissued quantity was destroyed sometime prior to the summer of 1873, although no record of this destruction is currently known to students. Because of its potential significance, I have taken the liberty of doing some cover projections based upon the 25-year study by Michael Laurence of the 10¢ stamp. He reported 1,038 covers. Using 1,050, as a rounded figure, we get a survival of .0003869%, which I have applied to each value for cover estimation purposes.

1869 Total Stamps Issued

*In Chronicle #125, I broke down the 15¢ into l00,000-110,000 Type I and 1,376,700 Type II stamps maximum.  This would yield about 43 Type I covers and about 530 Type II.  Also a typographic error in that article gave the wrong quantities of the 6 and 10¢ values issued.

As can be seen by comparing the cover quantities reported in the 1869 Census book, the use of Laurence's data as a basis for estimating cover totals yields a figure sufficiently large to fit all the values. There is a problem in the breakdown of the 15¢ Types, but the overall figure fits. By this approach, we should have substantially more 90¢ and 30¢ covers than are recorded, particularly in proportion to the 15¢ and 24¢ values.

It is fairly well recognized that the peak use months of the 1869s typically fell into the first quarter of 1870 as a result of stock build-ups and utilization of older stamps. The two most complete cover samples are those of the 10¢ and 15¢ values and these are shown for the five largest cities in the United States in 1870.

Use of 10¢ and 15¢ 1869 at Five Major Cities

Year              New York           Philadelphia         Boston               New Orleans          Baltimore