Of our readers will kindly look back at the forgeries of Dominica and St. Christopher described lately, they will see that there is a remarkable likeness between them and the counterfeits now to be described. The fact is, that the government engravers have made the same head of Her Majesty do duty as the centre of all these stamps; and, of course, the forgers have taken advantage of it, to save themselves some trouble. But if they have saved themselves trouble, they have saved us trouble also; for, when we have once recognized a forgery for any one of these countries, we shall have no difficulty in condemning the forgeries for all the rest.
Typographed; watermark, crown and cc; perf. 14. Part of the eyebrow is hidden by the hair. The rim of the ear is shaded, and the lobe is fat and hangs down. The shading on the neck does not go quite across, leaving a white patch all down the front of the neck and throat. The thistles on the tiara are nearly as high as the pearls.
Lithographed; no watermark; perforated 13. The hair is brushed clear of the eyebrow. The rim of the ear is thin and unshaded, and the lobe is thin also, and does not hang down. The shading on the neck goes right across. The thistle towards the front of the tiara is very small, and much lower than the pearls on each side of it; the one over the ear is rather higher than the pearls.
In both genuine and forged, the framework differs for each value. The simplest test for these forgeries is the absence of watermark. I have not thought it necessary to enter into any very elaborate description of the various other discrepancies which may be traced between the genuine and forged; for the forgeries are very poor, and not likely to mislead. The 1 /. is, perhaps, the best of the lot.
From “The Spud Papers” by Atless, Pemberton & Earée, 1871-1881.