A Musing on FFQ Chalon Catalogue Numbering
The catalogues best used for learning about the Chalons are Campbell Patterson and Stanley Gibbons. They both have their strengths and their challenges which I outline below, and I'm sure you will have your thoughts too.
Below I offer my own numbering system which I believe makes understanding the Chalons easier for learners and more straight forward for everybody as it can be a complicated subject. I acknowledge that "if it isn't broken don't fix it" is a belief of many but to me there is an opportunity to do better - interested in your thoughts.
The Campbell Patterson Catalogue is a required resource for any serious collector of NZ stamps, but especially Chalon FFQ. The level of expertise in this catalogue is mind boggling. It is such a rich resource I can't recommend it enough. I have had various copies over the years and currently have the pages spread over three of their ring binders with a fourth in reserve as it grows. I find it more convenient than the two binders it comes in as it gives more space for the pages.
​
I love the sectional system and while you take a while to get your head around it, it works great. As shown below on the contents page the sections are numerous which allows for a rich level of detail. This brings me to my next point, that the catalogue is way more than a listing of stamps and their approximate value. It's an education! The CP catalogue is so rich in expert opinion and comment it's a mini version of the Royal Philatelic Society of New Zealand volumes - which I also strongly recommend (more on those later).
​
The pages below give a very small example of the richness of the CP catalogue. Even on the catalogue value pages there are numerous comments about the stamps - it's a goldmine like no other catalogue. But note the catalogue numbers. There is a unique numbering system which suits experts but can be very confusing for the student - at least initially. And the Chalons are not list chronologically by their date of issue but by their value. This can be confusing for some - but none-the-less it gets a very good work out in my office on a regular basis, especially in reference to the dark art of identifying shades! 😅
Stanley Gibbons is probably the most commonly used catalogue for Chalons in the world. It lists the stamps chronologically (in most cases) and has a more simple layout than CP, which makes it easier to use when moving between the Chalons. It has good detail on the stamps themselves but nothing like the insight that CP delivers. None-the-less it is another must have reference for not only the Chalons but NZ stamps in general. It has an excellent section of NZ dependencies which other catalogues do not tend to have. ACS has included some dependency stamps but not to the same detail as SG.
​
SG also has a digital version which I find very useful when travelling (I don't always take my SG catalogue with me! 😂) and I fully recommend that any serious collector has at least the print copy on hand, and the digital copy when they don't.
​
However the SG numbering system is, well, weird.
​
It lists the Chalons from #1 to # 142 but there are 183 listed plus others? As examples there are stamps from 32a - 32h and 67a - 67w. SG8 is a 1d dull orange early Richardson print, 8a is a 2d ultramarine? SG3 is a 1/- Yellow Green London Print while 3b is a 1d Orange Richardson experimental print - maybe. There are many other vagaries, which we all tend to accept and move on and that's all good as it's a first world problem as they say. Again the SG numbering system is popular and once you get your head around it, you can navigate with confidence.
​
But what about something different?
​
​
An Alternative Catalogue Number System
​
One of the tings which confused me when I started collecting Chalons seriously was the numbering gave me the impression that there are so many different stamps - and there isn't. Sure, it depends on what constitutes the definition of an individual stamp, but there are by my reckoning only 42 stamps.
​
What SG has done is give many Chalon separation and shade varieties their own number, and in many cases not their own number, but a sub-number (e.g., SG37a, or SG67s). It's inconsistent and of course did not have the benefit of hindsight that we now have. But we do have that hindsight now so shouldn't we do something about it?
I believe a far more simple numbering system would help those new to collecting Chalons understand the Chalons a lot more easily. In these days of fewer collectors starting the hobby, any barriers we can remove to help new collectors take up the hobby should be acted upon?
​
Anyway, here's my theory as a starter for 10. What follows is not THE answer, but more of a first step in a different direction. What are your thoughts?
A Theory
​
42 stamps were printed. You could certainly argue there were more and less, but at this stage I'm going 42. There were:
-
3 x London prints. (1d, 2d, 1/-)
-
1 x Richardson trial (1d)
-
3 x Richardson prints on blue paper (1d. 2d, 1/-)
-
4 x Richardson prints on white paper (1d, 2d, 6d, 1/-)
-
5 x Davies prints on large star wmk paper (1d, 2d, 3d, 6d, 1/-)
-
5 x Davies prints on pelure paper
-
1 x Davies on thick soft paper
-
4 x Davies print on 'NZ' wmk (1d, 2d, 6d, 1/-)
-
6 x Davies on large star wmk perf 12 1/2 (1d, 2d, 3d, 4d, 6d, 1/-)
-
4 x Davies new colours large star wmk mixed perfs (except 2d blue) (1d, 2d, 2d blue, 6d)
-
3 x Davies no wmk (1d, 2d, 4d)
-
2 x Davies 'NZ' wmk (1d, 2d)
-
1 x Davies Lozenges wmk (2d)
​
Now I accept that you could argue that "that stamp could be taken out and added under that stamp" and "that stamp should have its own number because..." but this is where I landed. The chronological order of production played a role as did the paper. Could you separate the thin and thick papers of Richardson? Maybe, but the use was so random (different papers mixed and printed on same day) that it seems sensible to leave it as is, but it's definitely an option.
​
One of the key reasons for so many stamp numbers in the Chalons is their method of separation. The sheets were printed and dispersed to various post offices who then took their own actions to separate them. Scissor cuts, partial scissor cuts then ripping, serrates, roulettes, perf 13 in Otago, 'Y' roulettes, 'H' roulettes, oblique roulettes, ripping using a straight edge, etc. But all these separations didn't make the stamps themselves different and so should they qualify as a stamp with it's own number? When they left the printers they were one and the same, what happened after shouldn't qualify as a separate stamp number but as a sub grouping.
​
The second key reason for so many numbers is the shades, and yet there are shades with their own numbers, shades with sub numbers, and shades not recorded at all. Shades again in the 1850s - 1870s were created by slight variations of mix, levels of application, completely different mixtures/recipes altogether, and the way the different papers received the ink. How wet was the paper (or how dry) also contributed. Are they different stamps because of those factors?
​
On the other hand I believe there is value in being able to identify them, and I believe there is value in being able to add new finds to a numbering system which makes sense. The below table list a possible starer for 10 - there will need to be modifications for sure, and I haven't included half the shades that CP has - but that can be done easily. It's a first draft concept. What do you think?
