Lot# 1322 - Auction 309-320

1867, 6 d. lilac, plate 6, lettered KI, watermark spray, used, variety "Imperforate", cancelled by Liverpool "466" duplex, dated 28 May 1868(?), four good to large margins especially top and sides, a great rarity, there being only three known used examples of imperforate stamps recorded from plate 6 (SG104) according to the Karl Louis Card Index; of which one, lettered JI, is thought to be a "ghost perforation (see below)". The variety is listed in the SG Specialised Volume 1, 16th edition, but unpriced for mint or used. Cert. Karl Louis (2017).rnRemarks: The other two imperforate stamps known used from this plate are letters JI (mentioned above) and KI. JI was lot 917 in the Christies auction, 14 June 1995, described as; "...variety imperf. and apparently showing tiny spaced roulette teeth on all four sides...". This would suggest that JI has 'ghost perforations'. The other recorded example, also lettered KI, was discovered in the 1990's by Don Madden.  The explanation for this variety and the occurrence of "ghost" perforations upon JI could be as follows:rnrnJohn Hendy described the operation of the stamp perforation machines in 1861: "....sheets were printed in 'packs of five'....occasional....in batches of three...when punches were blunt...." (see "Stamp Perforations" page 79). It seems possible that a few sheets perforated in one batch with faulty perforation in the centre rows were delivered to the Liverpool Post Office. If so, stamp JI is the result of a blunt perforation comb resulting in a faulty "ghost perforation" and the sheet below remained completely imperforate. Ray Simpson commented on the 1867 6 d. plate 6, KI imperforate variety: "....it cannot be a coincidence that so many 'imperforate' stamps from the "I" row were all used at Liverpool......this implies that the stamps in question are not just stamps with perforations cut off.....it is very unusual that stamps from the central rows to be imperforate....The description of the Spink "JI" (stamp) sounds very much like a 'ghost perforation'. That then suggests that this stamp "KI" was from a sheet nearer the bottom of the batch on which the punches left no impression. It is entirely possible that all the sheets from the faulty batch were sent to Liverpool without the faults being noticed until the counter clerk needed to separate the stamps from the sheet......I would describe this stamp (KI) as being 'functionally imperforate'. rnrnReference: "Stamp Perforation: The Somerset House Years 1848 to 1880", by R. Simpson & P. Sargent, 2006, page 78.