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 yellow green (Yvert 1897)

The Yvert 1897 catalogue recorded a #112 1c yellow green stamp issued in 1890. It is not clear what this description represented although it is possible this has been confused with the 1c yellow green issue of 1889 which depicted the bust of Alfonso XII or possibly the Puerto-Rico 1c blue green issue of 1891.


1889 1c yellow green (Alfonso XII) Phillipines and 1891 1c blue green 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 1894 2c claret or the 1894 1c rose issue. The dates of many of the reported issues in the Yvert catalogue are confused.

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

Belin (1899) does not record an issue of 2 4/8c in 1892, but has the 2 4/8c olive-grey issued in 1894

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. Dated examples are scarce although the olive-grey shade is known dated 1893. 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.

Immitation of a 4c violet

1891 5c olive brown (Scott, Hanciau and Belin); 5c blue green (Mencarini, Bartels et al, Palmer)

Scott’s catalogues between 1892 and 1898 lists a 5c olive brown issued in 1891. It is possible that this is the 1891 5c blue-green listed by Mencarini in 1897 (and also Bartels et al (1904) and Palmer (1912)). Hanciau (1905) describes a 5c olive issued in 1891, which again could represent the 1891 5c blue-green. However, the existence of the 1891 5c blue-green has not been confirmed and the above descriptions (including the 5c blue-green) could equally be referencing the 1890 5c slate green.

However, Belin (1899) also lists a 5c olive brown issued 1891-1893 and also  records a 5c blue-green to be issued for the same period. It is possible that both these listings represent the 1890 5c slate green and 1892 green issues, respectively or they could have simply been repeating other listings. It is noted that Belin does not provide a price for the 5c olive brown and therefore may not have seen examples

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 earliest record appears to have been provided by the Gazette Timbrologique (May 1892) where a 40c slate, 80c orange and 6m rose are reocrded. This is then reported by the American Journal of Philately (June 1892). Similarly other Journals such as the Philatelic Record (June 1892) and The London Philatelist (August 1892) follow suit, although the Philatelic Record appears to suggest that the issue was 'announced'.

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


1897 25c surcharge in black on 25c brown (Scott 1900)

Scott’s catalogue 1890 lists a 25c brown with a 25c surcharge in black ink issued in 1897. This appears to have arisen due to the misinterpretation of an earlier chronicling by Le Timbre-Poste (August 1897) of the stamp: 25c red-brown (1890-1891) for 20c.

 The American Journal of Philately (October 1897, published by Scott) incorrectly reported this stamp as: 25c on 25c blue (1891). Although Le Timbre-Poste amended this entry in October 1897 to: 20c on 25c, light brown (1890), surch. black the American Journal Philately (November 1897) did not reflect this change in reporting the updated list of 1897 surcharges.

However in the 1900 Scott catalogue it appears to have been replaced by 25c on 25c brown with black surcharge: That is, the base stamp appears to have been corrected but the value of the surcharge has not.

This was removed from the Scott catalogue by 1903. No examples of a 25c surcharge are known either as a genuine issue, reprint or forgery. Indeed there is perhaps some doubt over the existence of the genuine 20c on 25c brown with black surcharge as to date only forgeries are known.

1897 15c surcharge in black on 15c red brown (Scott 1900, Cebalos 1902, Hanciau 1906, and Galvez 1910, 1933 and 1942)

A number of early catalogues reported the existence of this stamp for example: Ceballos (1902), Circulo Filatelica Matritense (1902), Hanciau (1906) and Galvez (1910, 1933 and 1942), Scott (1900).

The listings appear to have been derived from the information provided in Le Timbre-Poste (November 1897) based on information provided by Mr M Galvez. Although the Scott catalogue removes this from its catalogue by 1903, Galvez continued to list it.

Genuine examples are not known to exist and the references are possibly to the description of a forgery.

1897 20c surcharge in black on 20c grey brown (Scott 1900 and 1903, Hanciau 1906, and Galvez 1910, 1933 and 1942)

Scott’s catalogues of 1900 and 1903 list a 20c grey brown with a 20c surcharge in black ink issued in 1897 as does Hanciau (1906) and Galvez (1910, 1933 and 1942).

The listing appears to have arisen due to an earlier chronicling by Le Timbre-Poste (August 1897) of the stamp: 20c red-brown (1890-1891) for 20c, later corrected to: 20c on 20c, bistre; surcharged in black.

Other Journals and magazines of that time have repeated this listing including the American Journal of Philately. Consequently, the stamp is listed in the early Scott Catalogues and also by Hanciau (who was the primary author of Le Timbre-Poste) and the Galvez Catalogues. Genuine examples are not known to exist although a reprint in violet ink is known together with a number of examples which deployed forged handstamps in black ink.

1897 5c surcharge in black on 5c dark blue, 5c surcharge in red on 5c dark blue  (Ceballos 1902)

Ceballos' Illustrated Catalogue of 1902 lists a 5c red surcharge and a 5c black surcharge on the 1890 5c dark blue.

No other catalogues record of these stamps. However, it is likely that this listing refers the reprints on the 1882 5c grey blue

1897 5c surcharge in black on 15c red brown (Ceballos 1902)

Ceballos' Illustrated Catalogue of 1902 lists a 5c black surcharge on the 1892 15c red brown issue.

It is unknown upon what information this listing is based, no other catalogues record of this stamp. If the stamp exists it seems likely that it is a forgery, possibly type A2. No forgeries of this combination are currently known.