Thursday, April 25, 2019

So How Much Credit Do We Give Humphrys?

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. Titled 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.  
<< Back         Up ^^         Next >>

Saturday, April 20, 2019

The Curious Mystery of the Corbould Miniature

This mystery has been hiding in plain sight for over half a century.
As described in the modern, illustrated history of the New Zealand Chalons, E.H Corbould first made a small sketch of Victoria for sizing purposes on 10 May 1854 then submitted a miniature water-colour drawing in 15 May 1854 in order to assist Humphrys in the head engraving for an early Van Diemen’s Land stamp issue. The miniature water-colour was acquired for King George V by Edward D. Bacon, curator of the Royal Philatelic Collection, who reported the purchase in a paper and included a shades-of-gray reproduction of the drawing in a rectangular border with chamfered corners [Bacon33, Plate I between pages 76 and 77, item A]. The text describes it as “A miniature water-colour drawing on white card-board of the head of Queen Victoria in a small oval 19mm. in height painted by Mr. Corbould in May 1854 for the first stamps of Tasmania produced by Messrs. Perkins, Bacon & Co. (Plate IA).” [Bacon33, p76]
Nearly twenty years later, John Wilson published his catalogue of the Red Books of the (British) Royal Philatelic Collection. There a colour reproduction of the Corbould miniature is prominently placed on Plate II in Section I [Wilson52]. The image is separately captioned on an interleave with “May 1854 LEFT – The head of the Queen originally prepared for the stamps of Tasmania (Van Diemen’s Land) issued in 1855, and subsequently used for Bahamas, Grenada, Natal and Queensland. As the Garter was placed upon the wrong shoulder it was omitted by the engraver.” The image itself is surrounded by the same chamfered rectangular border, and the rectangle in turn is sandwiched between the text “Original Sketch for / Colonial Queen’s Head” in a script font. Later, in the section for British Australasia [Wilson52, Section V, p57], the catalogue records “May 1854: Water-colour drawing of the head of Queen Victoria by Edward Henry Corbould for the stamps of Tasmania (see colour plate)”.
That is, the miniature water colour was acquired, preserved, and later reported in the catalogue.
But not so fast, because there is a curious mystery: the two images really do not look very alike!
Bacon image (left) and Wilson image (right) of Corbould's May 1854 miniature water-color of the head of Queen Victoria.
Left image: copyright believed expired. Right image: © Wilson. The use of this image is believed to be allowed because the purpose is research, the source work is published, the copy was obtained fairly, there is no competitive motive, and a minimal fraction of the work is reproduced.
From the figure above, both images were subject to the printing limitations of the day and somewhat indistinct: at high zoom the Bacon image (left) comprises shades of gray with a semi-random “grain”, whereas the Wilson image is colour with a diamond parquet-style “grain”.
Even so, the Queen’s head in the Bacon image seems to be more narrow and angled down and to the right more (i.e. somewhat more towards her right shoulder). As a consequence, the Bacon image seems to show more of the Queen’s left ear than in the Wilson image. The eyes seem much larger with less arch in the Queens’s left eyebrow in the Bacon image. The earring in the Queen’s left ear seems distinctly wider and shorter in the Bacon image than in the Wilson image. The Queen’s eyes are comparatively enlarged in the Bacon image, and comparatively small in the Wilson image.
This author has not seen the two images side-by-side, nor any mention of this discrepancy, in the subsequent literature. Certainly someone viewing one image gets a very different understanding of Corbould’s artwork than someone viewing the other image.
By inspection, [PBR53, Plate VIII, between p112 and p113] reproduces a tightly cropped copy of the Bacon image, where it is labelled “May 1854. Water colour drawing of the head of Queen Victoria by Edward Henry Corbould. (Size of the original 8/10” x 6/10”) (From the Royal Collection)Unusual for [PBR53], this copy seems to be a “warts and all” replication of the Bacon image. Though published in 1953, the effort spanned much longer: Percy de Worms received the Perkins, Bacon & Co. records in 1936, and completed the processing of them by the outbreak of the Second World War (1939), when the work had to be suspended [p.xv-xvi]; and regretfully de Worms died in 1941. John Easton and Arnold Strange, as editors, completed the book. Pages ix-x of the Foreword report “When de Worms first undertook the work he realized that it would be difficult for anybody except the most earnest student to appreciate it without illustrations, and he was in constant touch with Sir Edward Bacon, and later with the writer [Sir John Wilson, who succeeded Bacon in 1938], to ensure that if possible material from the Royal Collection should be available for the plates. His Majesty King George V graciously and gladly assented to the proposal that any proof of artists’ drawings should be photographed for the work, and His Majesty King George VI [King from 1936] also knew of, and approved, the suggestion. De Worms would indeed have been happy had he known how splendidly the Plates have been prepared. … Mr Strange has been responsible for the arrangement and production of the plates.” Thus the exact date when the photograph of the Corbould in [PBR53] was made is uncertain but it seems to be while de Worms was alive (rather than from the subsequent efforts of Mr Strange) and then was most likely pre-war.
Also by inspection, [Dickson2000, p13] reproduces just the Wilson image and chamfered rectangular border, but without the sandwiching script. Dickson captions it “Figure 16: Corbould’s ‘drawing’ (Royal Philatelic Colllection)”. Figure 16 is not explicitly referenced in the text, although its context is established via quotes from [Bacon33].
What is going on?
For a time this author toyed with the notion that the Royal Collection had acquired – simultaneously or at different times – both the 10 May sketch and the 15 May drawing. Given that Bacon refers to the Corbould drawing and Wilson’s plate refers to an “Original Sketch”, this author speculated that the Bacon image was of the 15 May drawing and the Wilson image was of the 10 May sketch. However, there are too many flaws with this hypothesis. Why weren’t both artworks listed as separate items in [Wilson52, Section V, p57]? Why would Corbould apply a chamfered rectangular border – the same as for the miniature water-colour – to what was just a quick sizing sketch?
Instead, the more likely explanation to the mystery is that almost all of this can be ascribed to the underlying grain of the prints, and the mapping from colour to shades of gray. The print of the Bacon image seems to have introduced a lot of fuzz that smears out each feature. This is seen most acutely in the diadem, the Queen’s left ear and the Queen’s left earring. The inside trim of the garter sash in the Wilson image is missing in the Bacon image, likely because its colour was mapped to a light tone. The side of the Queen’s right check is visible in the Wilson image but merges into the background in the Bacon image, causing the Queen’s face to appear narrower and more angled.
Alternating between the Bacon image and the Wilson image (animated gif)
Shades-of-gray image: copyright believed expired. Colour image: © Wilson. The use of this image is believed to be allowed because the purpose is research, the work is published, the copy was obtained fairly, there is no competitive motive, and a minimal fraction of the work is reproduced.
From this we infer that the Wilson image is likely more true-to-life than the Bacon image.
Even so, the eyes and left eyebrow are very different and the top of the Queen’s left earring, immediately below the ear, seems to be thinned. Can these final differences be ascribed to the underlying grain of the prints and the gray mapping too? Or does a complete explanation for the mystery need a second component? For instance might the water-colour have been restored between when the photographs for the Bacon and Wilson images were taken, and the restoration introduced changes in the Queen’s left earring, eyebrow and perhaps the eyes too? Given the presumed expertise of anyone working on this artwork, this explanation seems unlikely (but few things are ever impossible).
And so we are left with an enduring mystery: when one views the artwork in person, what does one see? The Bacon eyes and eyebrows, the Wilson eyes and eyebrows, or something in between? Perhaps one day a high resolution image might be made available to the wider philatelic community, but until then we can only speculate.
<< Back         Up ^^         Next >>

Saturday, April 13, 2019

The History of the History: from Chalon Portrait to New Zealand Stamps

As we have seen, the history of the journey from Victoria’s portrait to New Zealand’s first stamp issue is indeed fascinating. Equally as remarkable is the history of that history: a rich meta-journey that traces how the literature has twisted and turned on so many historical details over the years. Even now, it is difficult to argue that this meta-journey is over, since bold new claims and discoveries are regularly appended to the record. A further aspect of the story is its breath - across numismatics, philately, and geography - since the histories of all Chalon designs are intertwined and mutually illustrative. Still, we shall keep New Zealand as the main focus of this review.

The Curious Mystery of the Corbould Miniature
So What Did Corbould Contribute to the New Zealand Chalons?
Where are the Chalon Paintings? 
The Cousins Cornucopia
So How Much Credit Do We Give Humphrys?
What about the Perkins, Bacon & Co.bank-notes that also bear a Victoria vignette?

<< Back         Up ^^         Next >>

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

The Modern, Illustrated History of the New Zealand Chalons

The centerpiece of New Zealand’s first stamp issues is a frontal view of Queen Victoria’s face from an oil portrait by Alfred Chalon. Accordingly, the issues are variously named the Full Face Queens (FFQs) or New Zealand Chalons.
It was a journey of many steps from portrait to stamp. Moreover, the passing of time and the fragmentary written history has manufactured a second journey - that of rediscovering the events of the first journey – and one which an interested reader can travel themselves. It is a gripping expedition full of twists and turns where each step might illuminate or mislead. The first journey lasted from 1837 to 1855. The second journey started in 1887, continues unabated to this day, and - if past is prologue - may yet continue into the future. Readers more interested in the second journey should jump ahead to The History of the History: from the Chalon Portrait to the New Zealand Chalons to avoid spoilers; otherwise read on.
In the following, we replay the first journey and, although inspired by [Lowe55], we hew closely to the broadened and refined description in [Smith91] and especially the incomparable [Dickson2000], with additional modern updates. Like Lowe and Dickson's work, an overview in flowchart form is presented at the end. 
The first character on the journey is of course the young Queen Victoria, who succeeded her uncle on 20 June 1837, a scant few weeks after her eighteenth birthday.
Victoria selected the second character, artist Alfred Chalon, to paint her a gift for her mother: a portrait of herself, wearing her State robes, the Garter sash and the George IV State Diadem [Auspost, p2], and standing on a terrace [Whitman04, p105], at the occasion of her first official act, namely the prorogation (closing) of the Parliamentary session on 17 July 1837. Chalon made an initial, contemporaneous sketch and full portrait of the Queen during five 30 minutes sittings [Millar95, p183] and a few more days of work, then, in Lowe's telling, he produced two additional copies, for three full portraits in all. The first full portrait was a watercolour. It was gifted to the Queen’s mother as planned a couple of days later on 17 August. Following Lowe, there were the other two copies which were gifted to the King of Prussian and the King of Portugal [TPSoNZ64v4, p2].


[Millar95, p142 and p183] reports that Chalon's first portrait of Victoria was later gifted to Leopold I, King of the Belgians, and is now held in the Belgian Royal Collection. A high resolution image for personal, private use is available for a nominal fee.
© KIK-IRPA, Brussels
Bust detail from Chalon's first portrait of Victoria (above)
The portrait was popularized as follows. Initially, the portrait given to Victoria's mother was made available to the third character of the journey, Samuel Cousins, a leading mezzotint engraver of his day. Cousins was further granted an interview with the Queen in order to add touches to his proof of the engraving and thereby produce a better likeness [Whitman04, p105]. He made several mixed-method engravings of the entire Chalon portrait over 1838 and 1839, first 75 x 50 cm, and then 60 x 40 cm, at different levels of progress (states). Over a thousand copies were printed within a few months and distributed widely around the world [Smith91, p5].
Hand coloured print of the larger engraving by Samuel Cousins (1 February 1838).
© The Trustees of the British Museum. Shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence
Bust detail from hand coloured print of the larger engraving by Samuel Cousins (1 February 1838). The hand colouring is a mixed blessing in that it makes the artwork richer yet in places obscures the line engraving.
© The Trustees of the British Museum. Shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence
Print of the smaller engraving by Samuel Cousins (1 May 1839)
© The Trustees of the British Museum. Shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence
Bust detail from print of the smaller engraving by Samuel Cousins (1 May 1839). The brown flecks are found throughput the print including the unprinted border so some kind deterioration of the paper is presumed.
© The Trustees of the British Museum. Shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence

The (British) Government Art Collection makes a moderate-resolution image of a Cousins print immediately available, and some copies of later publishings. High resolution images for personal, private use are available for a nominal fee.
The British Museum holds prints of the four earliest Cousins engravings. This author caused the two prints presented above to be photographed and presumes that the British Museum would make the underlying high resolution images available to others. Interested readers may also request photographs of the other two prints for a nominal fee. 
Charles Wagstaff also made a 40 x 30 cm three-quarter-length engraving, in 1839 [Smith91, p5].
The (British) Royal Collection Trust makes a high-resolution image of the Wagstaff print the immediately available. A very high resolution image for personal, private use is available for a nominal fee.
Meanwhile, various members of the Royal Academy made copies of the Chalon portraits between 1839 and 1851. These early copies were circulated, in the main, to British embassies and consulates. In 1851, the Prince Consort commissioned Charles Frederick Buckley to paint a further copy as insurance if the original was lost during its display at the 1851 Great Exhibition. [Millar95, p141-142]
The (British) Government Art Collection makes  a moderate-resolution image Chalon portrait immediately available, which might be an original Chalon portrait but which this author suspects is more likely another artist’s copy. A high resolution image for personal, private use is available for a nominal fee.

The RCT lists a water-colour copy by W. Warman, but presently does not publish an image of it[Millar95, p908].

Christies published both a shades-of-gray image [Christies86, p32] and a high resolution colour image of Chalon portraits by the studio of Alfred Edward Chalon .

Another portrait, whose provenance is unknown to this author, was used as the basis for a New Zealand 1988 minisheet and the frontispiece of [Odenweller2009].

Robson Lowe reports that he photographed the Buckley Chalon copy in a published article, and a medium resolution copy of the image is available online.
The earlier engravings inspired various banknotes and stamps, designed in North America and most notably from an enterprise first named Rawdon, Wright & Hatch (RW&H) then extended in 1847 to Rawdon, Wright, Hatch & Edson (RWH&E) and finally, after a seven-way amalgamation in 1858, traded as the American Bank Note Co. (ABNC). In 1840 RW&H produced a celebratory Chalon engraving associated with a New York Fete, In Honour of the Marriage of Her Majesty Queen to His Royal Highness Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg Gotha [Lowe55, p343]. 
medium resolution copy of the celebratory Chalon engraving is available online in a published article.
RW&H / RWH&E / ABNC went on to use Chalon-inspired vignettes for over a dozen other banks in what is now Canada: a three-quarter length engraving and several busts, oftentimes in mirror image. One example of the most popular bust, in mirror image, is their 1849 $5 (and 25/-) bank-note for the Farmers’ Joint Stock Banking Co. of Toronto.
1849 banknote from the Farmer's Joint Stock Bank
Victoria vignette from the banknote above.
Note that the engraving lines over the nose follow the shape of an archway or inverted-U. 
The list of (first) bank-notes from RW&H / RWH&E / ABNC, often with low and medium resolution images immediately available, include:
·         the $10 and $5 bank-notes of Quebec Bank, 1849 and 1852 (¾ portrait)
·         the $5 (25/-) bank-note of the Farmers Joint Stock Bank, Green Bay and Toronto, 1849 (mirrored bust); see above
·         the $5 (£1 5/-) bank-note of the Bank of Upper Canada, York, 1849 (mirrored bust)
·         the $1 and $2 bank-notes of the City Bank, Toronto, 1850 and 1852 (¾ portrait)
o   plus a $2 proof for the City Bank, Quebec
o   and the $1 bank-note of the City Bank, Quebec, 1857 (small mirrored bust)
·         the $1 bank-note of the Westmorland Bank of New Brunswick, 1854 (mirrored bust)
·         the $2 (10/-) bank-note of the Niagara District Bank, 1855 (mirrored bust)
·         the £5 bank-note of the Bank of Prince Edward Island, 1856 (mirrored bust)
·         the $1 and $2 bank-notes of the Eastern Townships Bank, 1859 (mirrored bust)
·         the $1, $2, $4, $5 and $10 bank-notes of the Bank of Montreal, 1859 (mirrored bust)
·         the $1 bank-note of the Bank of Western Canada, 1859 (mirrored bust)
·         the $5 bank-note of St Stephens Bank, 1860 (bust)
·         the $1 bank-note for the Banque Jacques Cartier, 1862 (mirrored bust)
Other engraving companies provided Chalon engravings for their bank-note customers too:
·         Toppan, Carpenter, Casillear & Co.
o   the $2 (10/-) bank-note of the Molsons Bank, 1853 (small mirrored bust)
·         Danford, Wright & Co.
o   the $2 bank-note of the Provincial Bank of Canada, 1856 (mirrored bust)
o   the $1 bank-note of the International Bank of Canada, 1858 (mirrored ½ portrait)
§  also the $1 bank-note of the International Bank of Canada, 1858 (mirrored bust)
·         Continental Bank Note Co.
o   the $10 bank-note of the Royal Canadian Bank, 1865 (bust)
·         British-American Bank Note Co.
o   the $20 bank-note of the Bank of Prince Edward Island, 1872 (mirrored bust)
o   the $10 bank-note of the British Canadian Bank, 1884 (mirrored bust)
RWH&E / ABNC used the correct, non-mirrored, perspective in two Chalon stamps: for the Province of Canada (1851), engraved by Alfred Jones, and for New Brunswick (1860). A third Chalon stamp was prepared by the British-American Bank Note Co. for Prince Edward Island (1870). [Lowe55, p343-344] [Pick2005, p135-240]
North American Chalon stamps.
Note that the engraving lines over the nose follow the shape of an unbroken ocean wave or lower-case-w in the Province of Canada design, a pyramid or inverted-V in the New Brunswick design, and an archway or inverted-U in the Prince Edward design. 
Perkins, Bacon & Co. decided to make an engraving of Victoria, which was completed in 1846 [Stone69n915, p65]. With a high degree of certainty, the engraver is now known to be the fourth and principal character, William Humphreys
It is very clear that the stimulus for the three-quarter engraving of the full-faced Victoria is Chalon’s portrait, but which original, oil copy or engraved copy? By tradition [Mottram1895, p158] [Melville16, p64] [Lowe55, p349] and now by circumstantial evidence and certain artistic details in common, it was a Cousins engraving, and specifically his later,  smaller version printed May 1, 1839.
In what seems to be a new find, below is a very high resolution scan of a proof of the first known version of Humphrys engraving to bear the Victoria vignette, and complemented by ornamental ovals above and below upon a bed of greenery [Humphrys184x, item 134]
Proof of the what is most likely Humphrys’ earliest engraving of Victoria. 
Bust detail from proof of the what is most likely Humphrys’ earliest engraving of Victoria. 

This author caused the proof presented above to be photographed by The Library Company of Philadelphia and presumes that they would make available the underlying very high resolution image to others. [Humphrys184x, item 134]
An ever-present theme is that, despite the familial connection between the designs derived from this engraving, none are exactly the same. Stone writes "From evidence adduced later it seems that the original engraving was not deep enough to transfer satisfactorily and had on each occasion to be heavily touched up, giving rise to the slight variations which have frequently been commented upon." [Stone69n915, p65].
This engraving was embellished with a 20s value and used in the 1848 20/- banknote for the Province of Nova Scotia [Dickson2000, p7] [Pick2005, p139] [Pick2005, p139].

A proof of the left end of an engraving for a Province of Canada bank-note, from [TPSoNZ64v4, p2]
Copyright believed expired.
The Bank of Canada Museum makes available a moderate-resolution image of a defaced 1848 note. An image of an unsullied 1854 note is also provided. High resolution images for personal, private use are available for a very nominal fee. With such an image, although obscured by fold lines, it can be seen that the engraving lines over the nose follow the same shape as in the 1940 Stamp Centenary Exhibition impression.
Humphrys’ engraving would be put to good use in subsequent projects. The full three-quarter-length engraving was used on banknotes for the Bank of Victoria (Australia), with one specimen dated 26 April 1853 [Odenweller2009, p12].
A three-quarter-length engraved die remained in the Perkins, Bacon & Co material and was used to lay down four complete impressions for the Stamp Centenary Exhibition of 1940 [
Dickson2000, p8].
One of the four impressions of the blue design for the 1940 Stamp Centenary Exhibition
Bust detail from the single impression above.
Note that the engraving lines over the nose follow a cubic shape.
Returning to the nineteenth century, by the Perkins process, an impression could be taken from the original die on to a transfer roller and parts cut away to leave a reduced image [TPSoNZ38v1, p32-33]. In this way, cropped copies of Humphrys’ engraving could be made, then augmented with new backgrounds and text [TPSoNZ64v4, p3]. 
This technique was used in the 1852 banknote of British North America, which bears a half-length portrait in an oval frame. [Pick2005, p142]
The Bank of Canada Museum makes available a moderate-resolution image of an 1852 note. High resolution images for personal, private use are available for a very nominal fee.
This technique was also used on the Humphrys die to produce an engraving of a half-length portrait enclosed first by an ornamental wavy border and oftentimes enclosed in turn by a plain ring. Several of these have come to auction, and it is unclear where they fit into the chronology, since they might have been immediate preludes to the Union Bank of Australia’s second series of banknotes or earlier speculative designs for another client. 
Proof of a die reportedly endorsed with "Humphrys" on the reverse [TPSoNZ64v4, p2]. 
Copyright believed expired.
Perhaps an even more interesting example was published in [Anon87]. It is described as a die proof and specifically the printer’s record example, which was endorsed with the die number of the transfer every time it was used: "oval 1102, 1295, 1391, R1649, 2358, 2647, and also '16B' and 'See Vol 7 p181'". This is illustrated below right, with a die proof of an earlier state of the engraving illustrated below left.
Die proof, State 1
Scan kindly provided by Grant Clifford from his collection.
Printers record die proof, State 2
Scan kindly provided by Grant Clifford from his collection.

The half-length portrait was used successfully for the Union Bank of Australia’s second series of banknotes, printed 185- and available from 1854. These were followed by substantially similar notes printed with 186-  then 187-; and from c. 1878 they were marked with four-digit years. Each of these banknotes have, at top left, the half-length engraving of Victoria enclosed by the ornamental wavy border (but no ring), but the details evolved over time. Initially the border straddles "We Promise" and the W and P impinge on the border. For the notes with four-digit years, the "We Promise" is lower and more central, and the W merely approaches the border. At the same time, the earlier, rounded edges of the border are excised, leaving a jagged perimeter. [VortRonald82, p223-230] [Renniks2004, p155] 
Spink of London makes available available a moderate-resolution image of a 185x banknote proof on card for the Union Bank of Australia. 
Union Bank of Australia banknote, second series, printed with 187- 
Left: Victoria vignette from 185-, 186- or 187- Union Bank of Australia banknote.
Right: Victoria vignette from 1878-1903 Union Bank of Australia banknote.
Note that the engraving lines over the nose follow a cubic shape.
Bust detail from the right vignette above.
Note that the engraving lines over the nose follow a cubic shape.
That bank’s notes were first introduced to New Zealand at the Christchurch branch on 1 March 1859 [TPSoNZ64v4, p3]. The history of the Union Bank of Australia is closely connected with the history of New Zealand since the bank would open a branch in a colony at the same time that it was established by the New Zealand Company. The bank invested heavily in New Zealand; for instance, in 1857 even before the Otago gold-rush there were six Colonial Establishments in New Zealand, as against 11 in Australia. [CycloNZ1897]
The head and shoulders of Humphrys’ engraving was used for Nova Scotia’s and New Zealand’s first stamps. It is an interesting question whether the transfer was directly from an earlier three-quarter length engraving or from a later half-length engraving. The historical evidence appears limited yet [Stone69n915, p65] writes that the three-quarter length engraving was the source.  
The Nova Scotia’s stamp design is of the Crown and Emblems type, except that both the crown and the emblems are cleared. From outside in, the stamp comprises a square frame for text then a Nova Scotia Mayflower outline. For the 1d design, each of the four hollow petals enclose a simplified ornament. The ornaments are truncated by the superposition of a lozenge-shaped border containing an engine-tuned background and the Victoria vignette. The lines of engraving do not show well in this stamp, so the centre of a die proof taken from [PBR53, p9] is provided also.
Nova Scotia 1d
Bust detail from a Nova Scotia 1d die proof showing the Victoria vignette [PBR53].
Note that the engraving lines over the nose follow a cubic shape.
Copyright believed expired 
After an enquiry by Edward Barnard, the New Zealand government’s Agent-General in London, Perkins, Bacon & Co. provided a tender for 1d, 2d and 1/- stamp plates, initial printings and other material on 8 November 1853, and agreed to execute the order within 3 months.
The uncleared 1d die of March 3 1854
Copyright believed expired
States of 1d, 2d and 1/- dies were prepared in early March, April and May 1854 respectively. The Perkins, Bacon & Co. material includes a proof of the 1d die where the background inside NEW ZEALAND and around POSTAGE are yet to be cleared (the uncleared 1d die, above). However, due to pressure of other tasks, as was typical for Perkins, Bacon & Co., the deadline was missed and the plates were not dispatched to New Zealand until 23 September 1854.
 [TPSoNZ64v4, p3-4] describes that the New Zealand Chalon dies were created as follows:
·         The central Chalon vignette is derived from the portrait in the Humphrys’ original bank-note die [Stone69n915, p65]. Victoria’s facial expression differs slightly in each value which indicates that there was some touching up of the impression of the portrait on each subsidiary die.
·         The innermost background portion of the design, immediately around Victoria’s chin and neck, was used by Perkins, Bacon & Co in the ornamentation of bank-notes.
·         The engine-turned background in the middle, annular region of the background was used in the first stamps of Chile, New Zealand and South Australia. 
Early issues from South Australia and Chile showing the same engine turned mid-background as the New Zealand Chalons. The outermost background of Chile is also shared with New Zealand.
·         In 1822 Perkins and Heath, the forerunners of Perkins, Bacon & Co,  provided a suggested bank-note design that included a corner ornament which forms the outer background for both the first stamps of Chile and New Zealand. Different transfer rollers were used for each country’s designs.
·         The inscriptions NEW ZEALAND and POSTAGE, the value tablet for the 1d, the flanking ornamental squares, and the ornamentation in the top corners were engraved by hand on the die.
·         There was a transfer roller with the value tablet blank. This was used for the production of subsidiary dies on which the required value inscriptions would be hand engraved.
Plate proofs for New Zealand’s 1855 Full Face Queen issue.
Note that the engraving lines over the nose follow a cubic shape.
Bust from the 2d proof above.
Note that the engraving lines over the nose follow a cubic shape.
For the rest of the story of the New Zealand Chalons (the prints in England and New Zealand, the printers, the values, the colours, the papers, the bisects, the covers, the experimental perforations, the blocks, the sheets, and so much more), the reader is strongly encouraged to gain access to a copy of [Odenweller2009], which is a magnificent, thorough and exquisitely illustrated treatment. Meanwhile another, more accessible and quite lovely starting point is at virtualnewzealandstamps.
The fifth character is Edward Henry Corbould, a noted watercolourist, who first made a small sketch of Victoria for sizing purposes on 10 May 1854 then submitted a miniature water-colour drawing in 15 May 1854 [Bacon33, p76-77]. The reference for Corboulds artwork is unclear: one postulate is that it was the Cousins’ engraving [Lowe55, p349], but [Smith91, p8] proposes that instead it was a copy of Jones’ Province of Canada stamp. The third hypothesis is that it was drawn from a memory of the Chalon portrait, because the Garter sash is placed on the wrong shoulder of the Queen [Dickson2000, p13]. 
Corboult’s portrait was commissioned to guide the engraving of a second, larger Chalon head by Humphrys for Van Diemen’s Land (later Tasmania). Corbould’s miniature portrait was acquired and now resides in the (British) Royal Philatelic Collection [Bacon33, p76]. The miniature has been subsequently published several times, albeit subject to the printing limitations of the day, as described here.
Although the New Zealand Chalons are the more handsome stamps, some regard the left eye detail of Humphrys second engraving as more pleasing.
Humphrys certainly crafted a second engraving of Victoria, but likely based more on the Cousins engraving than the Corbould miniature [Smith91, p8]. This engraving is larger, and is confined to the face and neck of the young Queen. The head engraving, within a frame, would be used not only for the early stamps of Van Diemen’s Land as planned (and Tasmania after the name change), but also Queensland, Natal, Bahamas and Grenada.
Trio of Australian Chalon stamps, all using Humphrys' second Chalon die.
Jeens is the sixth character. A younger colleague of Humphrys at Perkins, Bacon & Co., many scholars eye Jeens as the engraver of the frames for the latter four issues and also important touch-up work of Humphrys’ head engraving. [Yardley30, p91-93] [Smith91, p11] [Dickson2000, p15-17

Trio of remaining Chalon stamps, all using Humphrys’ second Chalon die.
Bust from the Van Diemen’s Land stamp above.
Note that the engraving lines over the nose follow a gentle-U shape.
The seventh character is Herbert Bourne of Bradbury, Wilkinson & Co. , a master portrait engraver in line, who engraved various stamps including the high-value 1882 Queensland issue, via the pantographic method. [Lowe55, p346[Dickson2000, p23] 
Later Queensland Chalon stamp using Bourne’s engraving.
Note that the Queen’s right cheek (the left side of the image) is cross-hatched.
The eighth character is William Salter, the chief engraver at Perkins, Bacon & Co., who joined them in 1847 and retired in 1875. He was concerned in one way or another in all the dies produced during that period. However, his exact role in selecting and grouping of backgrounds and ornaments, and to what extent he influenced the engraver artists, can never be ascertained [PBR53, p-xxiii], albeit certainly he deferred to Humphrys’ artistic engraving skills [PBR53, p45].
Chalon family tree (the 3 original Chalons follows Lowe).

<< Back         Up ^^         Next >>