ALFONSO XIII - BABY HEAD stamps of the PHILIPPINES

Rogues

Rogue Issues

The descriptions provided here detail stamps that have been listed in past catalogues. In the case of the 5c violet black, it still appears in catalogues and stamps are often offered for sale under this description, although rarely correctly.

1890 1c blue green (Yvert 1897)

The Yvert 1897 catalogue recorded a #112 1c yellow green stamp issued in 1890. It seems likely that this has been confused with the Puerto-Rico 1c blue green issue of 1891.

 

1891 1c Puerto-Rico

1893 2c rose (Yvert 1897)

The Yvert 1897 catalogue recorded a #135 2c rose stamp issued in 1893.

It is not clear what this description represented although it is possible that it was the 1892 2c claret issue as the 1892 1c violet was included in the 1893 issues listed by Yvert in 1897.

1894 2 4/8c bronze green (Galvez 1942 and others)

Harradine (1987) suggests that it is probable that additional supplies of the 1892 2 4/8 c olive grey stamp were received from Spain and put on sale during the period 1894 to 1896.

Scott’s 1895 catalogue recorded two issues, the first in '1892-1893' coloured “olive” and the second in 1894 coloured “grey”.

Similarly, Galvez (1942) catalogues a bronze green issue on opaque paper issued in 1894, which commanded a price somewhat higher than the 1892 issue.

The London Philatelist (March 1894) also records being sent specimens of the new colours for 1894 which include 2 4/8 c “grey”.

Yvert (1897) recorded the the 2 4/8 olive grey to be issued in 1894 (with no 2 4/8c issue listed for 1892).

The 1892 2 4/8c stamp is commonly described and found in two shades: 'olive grey' and 'grey olive' although these are not generally assigned as different issues. Although there also exsits two plate settings for this issue with repairs or replacement of some the cliches, suggesting two periods of printing, examples of both colour shades can be attributed to the two plate settings. Therefore although a second printing may have been issued for the 2 4/8c stamps it is not currently possible to ascertain the dates and it is probably unlikely that the stamps can be identifed based on colour alone.

Colour shades of the 1892 2 4/8c olive grey/grey olive

1897 4c violet (Harradine 1987)

Harradine (1987)  notes that sometime in 1897 a 4c violet issue arrived in Manila but was never issued.

1892 5c violet black (Stanley Gibbons, Edifil and others)

A number of catalogues record a 5c “violet-black” or 5c “black-violet” issue and where listed it is associated with a high catalogue price.

Peterson (PPJ 2008-3) considered that the descriptions related to a “deep slate-green” shade variety of the 1890 5c slate green described by Bartels et al (1904). Peterson also estimated that approximately 20% of the issue were of the dark slate-green shade variety. While it is true that a “dark slate green” shade variety exists and it is not particularly rare, and that many stamps offered for sale described as “violet-black” are indeed the 1890 5c dark slate-green shade variety (or even the normal shade) it does not explain the high catalogue prices quoted nor the commonly attributed date of 1892-1893 for this so-called issue.

Instead it appears that the high catalogue priced violet-black/black-violet issue listed in catalogues reresent the 1892 5c lilac proof.

The Scott 1895 catalogue records a #88 5c brown-violet stamp (issued 1892-1893). This entry cannot be the 1896 5c violet-brown issue as this stamp did not exist at the time of the 1895 catalogue. Similarly, Hanciau reported a 1892-1893 issued violet brown and a 1896 issued violet-brown. The editors of Stanley Gibbons Monthly noted that they had chronicled, on the authority of Le Collectionneur de Timbre-Post a 5c brown violet in July 1893 and on the same authority a 5c lilac-brown in March 1896.

Vives (1897) also records a 5c violet stamp issued 1892 (and similarly Galvez, 1898). As noted above the Scott catalogue recorded a 5c brown-violet issue (#85 in the 1895  and #86 in the 1900 catalogues). From about 1915 Scott records this issue as #155a 5c violet, becoming in more recent year (~post-1960s) #154 5c lilac. Between 1990 and 2000 #154 was removed from the catalogue since it was considered to be a perforated proof and not used for postage; however, instead #152A a 5c violet black appears to have crept in with an issue date indicated of 1890.  By 2009 this had also been removed form the Scott catalogue.

Galvez (1942) who records a #187 5c black violet, and the Stanley Gibbons catalogue which record a #180 5c violet-black include a note that the (1892) 5c violet-black should not be confused with the (1896) 5c brown-violet, which suggests a similarity in colour of these two issues.

The Edifl catalogue describes the colour as “black-violet” (compare the 5c slate-green issue which is described by Edifl as “black-green”). However, the 2002 specialised Edifl catalogue includes a colour illustration of each stamp and it is clear that the stamp is very much violet (possibly a dark lilac) in colour.

Therefore, it is suggested that the high catalogue priced “violet-black” or “black-violet” issue listed in catalogues is the 5c lilac proof. This explanation would account for the dates and prices attributed in catalogues.

It is not surprising that this issue causes confusion amongst collectors the rarity of the proof and the absence of study material for the average collector has probably allowed interpretations and speculations to be made. For example, Harradine (1987) records the (#S204) 5c lilac proofs and the (#S205) 5c violet-black as two separate issues. Perplexingly, Harradine indicates only 500 examples of the proof were printed and that 24,000 of the 5c violet-black were issued, although it is unclear where this second figure has been obtained. Harradine also records the date of issue to be 1894, although this is a typographical error and the date of 1892 is intended.

Confusion has probably been added to by the fact that Edifl record the 1890 5c slate-green stamp as black-green in colour and to be issued in 1891-1893.

To add further confusion both Harradine and Hanciau (1905) incorrectly record the 1890 5c slate-green issues to be for foreign use (i.e. on sheets inscribed UNION GENERAL POSTAL) whereas other authors record the usage as for internal use (i.e. on sheets inscribed CORREOS). Similarly, Galvez (1942) suggested that the sheets were inscribed ‘COMUNICACIONES’. Harradine also appears to have the number of stamps issued for 1890 5c slate-green confused with the number issued for the 1890 5c dark blue issue.

From left to right, 1890 5c slate green (dark shade) frequently advertised for sale as 5c violet black; 1896 5c violet brown, both Galvez and Stanley Gibbons caution collectors not to confuse the 5c violet black with this issue; 1892 lilac (or violet black, or black violet) perforated proof

1892 40c blue-grey, 80c orange and 6m rose (Hanciau 1905)

Hanciau (1905) noted the occurrence of a 40c blue grey and 80c orange, among the issues of 1892-1893. Of these the editor of the Stanley Gibbons Monthly Journal says: "These were chronicled in the early part of 1892 together with a 6m. de peso rose but we have heard nothing of them since."

The London Philatelist (August 1892) recorded a 40c slate, 80c orange and 6m rose. Similarly, Meekel (1895) records the same stamps issued 1891-1893 as did the Scott 1895 catalogue (numbers #94, #95 and #413).

The 40c and 80c issues did not appear in Scott (1897); however, the 6m rose remained listed in the 1897 and 1900 catalogues. The Yvert (1897) cataouge recorded the 40c and 80c issues (#132 and #133).

It seems likely that these reported issues were confussed with the Puerto Rico issues of 1892 which included the denominations 6m, 40c and 80c of the colours described here.

1892 6m rose of Puerto Rico