Humphrys is recorded as the engraver of the New Zealand Chalons, but what does that really mean and how valid is the claim?
It is a truism that “success has many parents but failure is an orphan”. Yet the cynical idea expressed by this aphorism overshadows another truth: success does have many parents. Almost any non-trivial endeavor requires a team of skilled people, each contributing in their own way. There may often be a person who takes a larger share of the credit - perhaps the leader or manager, or a last person in the chain and who actually delivered the final complete solution, or the person with the most visible contribution, or the person who was least replaceable and who completed the most difficult portion of the project – but a deeper, fairer approach is to recognise every team member according to each of their contributions.
In this light, let us consider the definition of who is the engraver of a stamp. In particular, we consider the hypothetical case where one (or more) “creative” engravers create the component parts of the design (such as the Chalon vignette, and the backgrounds), and then one (or more) “technical” engravers combine copies of these components and complete the final details, such as adding the value of the stamp and its issuing nation/colony, in order to form the master die for the stamp. The modifiers creative and technical seem apt but are terms invented here, not widespread in the industry.
If there was one creative engraver and one technical engraver, and they were the same person, then our answer is simple.
If they were two different people, both merit acclaim: the craftsman who completes the final, approved design makes a major contribution; yet also the artist who completes the most compelling portion of the design (the Chalon vignette). To this author’s mind, in the case of the Chalon stamps, the artistic engraver’s contribution is the higher, but both the artistic and technical contributions should be celebrated.
The need for the previous discussion becomes acute for the Perkins, Bacon & Co stamp designs using the larger Chalon head, but the topic is necessarily addressed here to introduce the various terms.
[
Oceania1887, p77] writes “New Zealand, Issue I … Engraved on steel by Humphreys …” Arguably this nugget is buttressed by their
tentative assignment of “1852 (?)” to the first New Zealand Chalons: the authors at the Royal Philatelic Society London were prepared to admit their uncertainties (and we know that the first stamps most likely left British shores in 1854 [
PBR53, p157-158] and were not issued until 1855) which suggests that they had a higher level of certainty for their unqualified characterization of Humphrys as the engraver. [
Oceania1887] was compiled 33 years after the plates were made so it seems to be the closest reference that we have to the events.
[
Mottram1895, p158] writes that “The skill of the engraver, the late William Humphrys (1794-1865), has here been bestowed upon the faithful reproduction in line of a veritable portrait of Her Majesty the Queen …” Thus Mottram reports that Humphrys was the artistic engraver of the Chalon vignette for the New Zealand Chalons, and might be using [
Oceania1887, p77] has his reference. He does not specifically credit Humphrys as the technical engraver; but neither does he credit anyone else.
Note: different references use the spelling Humprhrys or Humphreys, and apparently he used each spelling at different times and places in his life.
[
Jolliffe13, p9] assigns a most expansive role to Humphrys when he states that “These stamps [the Chalons] were designed and engraved by Mr. William Humphreys … from steel plates.”
In 1916 Melville wrote that Chalon’s portrait “was the source of the New Zealand stamp portrait of 1855, which was engraved by Humphrys for Messrs Perkins, Bacon & Co.” [
Melville16, p64] and also “He [Humphrys] engraved the reproduction of the portrait by Chalon (q.v.) for the first stamps of New Zealand …” [
Melville16, p68].
It is interesting that [
PBR53, p45], in regards to the Britannia vignette for Barbados – i.e. an altogether different die - writes “he [Salter] had already executed some preliminary engraving of the die which he took to Humphrys. To the latter, as an ‘historical’ engraver, would be entrusted the engraving of the Queen’s head, which was presumably beyond Salter’s powers.”
Meanwhile [
Melville16, p86] endorses the distinction between an artistic and a technical engraver: “If [an engraved] portrait be the subject to be copied on the die the work will be given into the charge of a special portrait-engraver. The designing of frames, ornaments, etc., on the die is often done by an engraver skilled in one particular branch of design, …” and this division was perhaps applied by R.J.G. Collins in [
Collins22, p80] “Humphreys added the portrait, and probably in addition, the inscription, although it was, and still is, not unusual for the portrait to be entrusted to a specially qualified engraver, and the remainder of the hand work effected by an assistant.” We see that [
Collins22] labels Humphrys as the artistic engraver and probably also the technical engraver.
R.J.G. Collins also concurred with the established history “Popularly known as ‘full-faces,’ the design was adapted from a painting by A. E. Chalon, R.A., in 1838, of Queen Victoria in her state robes … the engraver, William Humphreys, prepared the ‘mother die’ which was used in subsidiary dies, on which the denominations were inserted, and, from which, steel plates were prepared … ” [
Collins22, p8].
[
TPSoNZ38v1, p32] (in a section by the R.J.G. Collins again), generally relies upon [
Mottram1895] and [
Melville16], and reiterates that Humphrys was the creative engraver but now implies there was little other creativity or craftsmanship: “… for the guidance of the engraver, William Humphrys, who was entrusted with the cutting of the portrait. … as the first stage in the production of the plates. Humphrys engraved the central portrait only … the ornamental background to the portrait was then worked upon the die by mechanical means, the Perkins Rose-engine being used for the purpose.”
[
Lowe55, p345] seems to credit Humphrys as the technical engraver via “Humphrys … was also responsible for the engraving of the master-die for the New Zealand stamps produced by Perkins, Beacon and Co.” Further, his chart of the Chalon family tree on p349 does specifically credit Humphrys as the artistic engraver too via “The above chart shows how the portraits used in the various postage stamps followed on or other of the copies made of the original portrait by Chalon … [Chart:] Engraving by William Humphrys (Nova Scotia & New Zealand)”
[
TPSoNZ64v4, p2-3] evinces no doubts that Humphrys was the creative engraver, but equally cites no evidence for
most statements: “Included in the Perkins, Bacon material acquired by the Royal Philatelic Society, London, was a transfer roller from an original die engraved by Humphrys … A proof part of an engraving of a bank note is now illustrated [
the Province of Nova Scotia banknote]. This would indicate that Humphrys was commissioned by Perkins, Bacon & Co. to engrave a die showing a full-face portrait of Queen Victoria …There can be no doubt that Chalon’s painting was the inspiration for Humphrys’ engraving. … because of the close resemblance in the details, there seems to be no doubt that the vignettes for the bank-note dies were obtained from Humphrys’ original die.”
[
TPSoNZ64v4, p3] does adduce one affirmative data-point that Humphrys was the creative engraver: “The Royal Philatelic Society, London, has a proof of a die which is said to have been used for [bank] notes … The Society has supplied a photograph of this die proof so it can be illustrated here. The proof has a manuscript endorsement ‘Humphrys’” as shown below.
 |
Proof of a die reportedly endorsed with "Humphrys" albeit the supplied illustration does not include the endorsement [TPSoNZ64v4, p2].
Copyright believed expired. |
In [Stone69n915], Stone reports “In 1846 William Humphrys made a three-quarter-length engraving of the Queen in her coronation robes after a portrait by A. E. Chalon, R.A., possibly for the … banknotes on which it was later used.” Stone goes on to comment on transfers, the Nova Scotia 1d die and thence a “Master Die [for New Zealand]. Engraved early 1854.” These comments are buttressed by [Stone68n911] “Nova Scotia One Penny … The head was transferred from a William Humphrys engraving of the Chalon portrait made for a … [bank-]note in 1846, and was extensively retouched. (For further details of this engraving see New Zealand hereafter)” That is, Humphrys is the artistic engraver (back in 1846) of the head used in the New Zealand Chalons, but Stone is silent on the identity of the technical engraver for these stamps, presumably because the Perkins, Bacon & Co. records are silent on this point also.
[
Dickson2000, p11, p15] summarizes the questions about Humphrys’ involvement, and the level of proof available to modern scholars: “It is customary to credit Humphrys with the engraving of the first stamps of New Zealand … It has been taken for granted by all previous writers on the subject that the earliest Perkins Bacon productions for the Chalon painting, whether for stamps or banknotes, were engraved by Humphrys. Whether any of the early writers saw proof of Humphrys involvement is now impossible to confirm. I have not found any incontrovertible proof of it, but the attribution is sufficiently well established to be retained until a proof to the contrary can be exhibited.”
[
Dickson2000, p11, p16] does point out that “Marriott [
Marriott85, p13], in describing a series of proofs in the New Zealand section of the Royal Collection, stated without reserve that they were engraved ‘after the painting by A.E. Chalon. The second of these was the work of C.H. Jeans [sic] and it was made for Perkins Bacon for use on the banknotes of the Union Bank of Australia, which had branches in New Zealand …’ Marriott on other occasions referred to other Chalon-head dies as the work of Jeens … Jeens is often stated to be the engraver of some stamps in this series, but the earliest Chalon-based designs produced by Perkins Bacon were made before Jeens appeared on the scene.” In this way, Dickson makes a compelling argument that Jeens could not have been the original creative engraver, and certainly the Union Bank of Australia vignette was in use by 1854 yet Jeens’ original engravings are associated with the eighteen sixties.
[
PBR53, p203-204] mentions Jeens where arguments are noted that Jeens merely touched up the reproduction [transfer] of the Queen’s head on the Queensland die in 1860; and ditto the Bahamas and Natal dies.
It is worth repeating that the core innovation of Perkins Bacon & Co., the innovation that really enabled the mass printing of essentially identical banknotes and stamps, was the ability to replicate designs made on steel dies. In this way, a single plate could print scores of copies in one pass, and keep on printing hundreds of thousands of them for years with tolerable wear. [
BPHS]
We note in passing the saying that, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Indeed, Perkins, Bacons & Co. didn’t limit their use of this technology to the final step (i.e. replicating the stamp of a die across the plate). For instance, for the New Zealand Chalons, there was a single master die from which subsidiary dies where made for each value in the issue. [
Stone69n915, p65].
Thus the core technology is used for the penultimate and ultimate steps, so why would it not be used for the first step too: replicating a vignette for the use of the stamps and banknotes of many countries’ commissions?
Buttressing this argument is a financial one. Perkins, Bacon & Co. was a commercial enterprise. A new vignette meant risk (what if the new design did not appeal?), time, and money for a highly skilled engraver [
PBR53, p.viii]. If there was an alternative, particularly if it employed their core expertise and regular practice, then this author assumes that it would be their natural choice.
The final argument takes a different tack. Imagine for a second that a new stamp design involved an entirely new engraving of the vignette. However, the new engraving followed the original extremely closely in almost every respect: the same size, the same engraving lines (in terms of start and stop positions, intermediate curvature, and spacing between lines), the same dashes within the lines, and so forth. Even infelicitous choices from the original design are replicated in the new engraving (such as an eye looking somewhat too far upwards). The engraver of such a new work is certainly a careful and talented copyist, but contributes little artistically. Indeed, such a copyist is almost indistinguishable from one who takes a transfer of the earlier design and touches it up to mimic the original more closely, where-ever the likeness was faulty. On the other hand, the artistic contribution of the original engraver remains strong in the new engraving.
Thus, in over 110 years, the historical literature has not surfaced any credible name other than Humphrys as the creative engraver of the Victoria vignette used in the New Zealand Chalons, and indeed he is often identified as the technical engraver also.
But the story doesn't end here. The Library Company of Philadelphia holds a
very remarkable scrapbook, that was neither catalogued nor digitized until 2010-2012. T
itled Engravings by William Humphrys, it holds many engravings and proofs of his work from 1817 until at least 1844, plus a handwritten 1865 letter, pasted onto the opening page, which was authored by Humphrys shortly before his death in 1865 (apparently penned by another due to his ill-health) [Humphrys184x].
This is as close to a contemporaneous source as we are likely to find. The scrapbook holds many remarkable examples of Humphrys' work, but only
item 134 is specifically relevant to our journey. It shows the left hand edge of the 1848 Province of Nova Scotia bank-note, but this time without the 20s value superimposed on the upper and lower ornamental ovals. Thus this scrapbook holds what seems to be the
earliest extant example of a Humphrys engraving of the Chalon design and also positively confirms Humphrys as the creative engraver of the first Chalon vignette from Perkins, Bacon & Co.
