::: MISSIONARY STAMPS  Hawaiian Postage Panel Compared :::

Back to Printer’s Type Comparison.

Differences in the lettering of Hawaiian Postage, found in the top panel of Scott
Numbers 1, 2 and 3, show none of the Grinnells match the type used in the genuine
stamps. Two panels must be examined for each value  one for each of the two
types. Thus, there are six panels to study among the genuine and six panels to
study among the Grinnells.
Type I
2c, Type I
Advertiser, Lot 12



Grinnell #4

Trepel Census 2IUNC16



Grinnell #22

13c Type I
Advertiser Lot #21



Grinnell #53


Type II
2c, Type II
Advertiser, Lot 11



Grinnell #3

5c, Type II
Advertiser, Lot 15



Grinnell #25

13c, Type II
Advertiser, Lot #20



Grinnell #52


Details of Letters
Genuine stamps are in blue; Grinnells are in black
"H"
Remarkable among the "H's" is the diagonal crossbar of the Type II Grinnell.
Without examining the actual items, it is difficult to assess whether other
differences result from the imaging process, paper shrinkage variations or
differences in printer's type.
2¢ I

2¢ I

2¢ II

2¢ II





5¢ I

5¢ I

5¢ II

5¢ II





13¢ I

13¢ I

13¢ II

13¢ II






First "a"
There are four a's in "Hawaiian Islands." In the genuine stamps, the four "a's"
are all squarish in shape compared to the rectangular Grinnells; the genuine
stamps have thicker lined fonts, particularly noticeable in the shape of the bottom
front which, in the genuine, is quite fat and angles back to the vertical back line
to touching it or nearly touching it. Differences specific to the first "a"
include a nearly rectangular interior space of Type I Grinnells and an angled
figure 8 interior space of Type II Grinnells, neither similar to the genuine
"a's."
2¢ I

2¢ I

2¢ II

2¢ II





5¢ I

5¢ I

5¢ II

5¢ II





13¢ I

13¢ I

13¢ II

13¢ II






"w"
All of the Grinnell "w's" have different interior spaces than the genuine.
2¢ I

2¢ I

2¢ II

2¢ II





5¢ I

5¢ I

5¢ II

5¢ II





13¢ I

13¢ I

13¢ II

13¢ II






Second "a"
Noted above is the difference between the squarish shape in all genuine "a's" and
the rectangular shape of all the Grinnell "a's." Specific differences found in the
second "a's" are the remarkably cruder appearance of the Grinnells and
significantly different shapes of the interior spaces.
2¢ I

2¢ I

2¢ II

2¢ II





5¢ I

5¢ I

5¢ II

5¢ II





13¢ I

13¢ I

13¢ II

13¢ II






Double "ii"
Examination of the actual items is needed to verify the point, but the Grinnells
all seem thinner and the dots and serifs have different shapes than the genuine.
2¢ I

2¢ I

2¢ II

2¢ II





5¢ I

5¢ I

5¢ II

5¢ II





13¢ I

13¢ I

13¢ II

13¢ II






Third "a"
Noted above is the difference between the squarish shape in all genuine "a's" and
the rectangular shape of all the Grinnell "a's." In the third "a" the Type I
Grinnells copy the open top, but none have the distinctive curled tail of the
genuine. In Type II, the Grinnells the bottom fronts uniformly fail to curl back
to touch the vertical backs.
2¢ I

2¢ I

2¢ II

2¢ II





5¢ I

5¢ I

5¢ II

5¢ II





13¢ I

13¢ I

13¢ II

13¢ II






"n"
It is easy to see many differences in the "n's." The legs of the Grinnells are
thinner and the interior space is wider than the genuine. The short right leg of
the genuine Type II was copied in both types of the Grinnell and in Type I, the
Grinnell "n's" are tilted away from the third "a."
2¢ I

2¢ I

2¢ II

2¢ II





5¢ I

5¢ I

5¢ II

5¢ II





13¢ I

13¢ I

13¢ II

13¢ II






"P"
In Type I, the Grinnell "P" slants to the right and the interior space has a
Moorish doorway look, unlike the smoothly rounded corners of the interior space in
the genuine. Type II Grinnells have a widely broken top where the genuine touches
or nearly touches.
2¢ I

2¢ I

2¢ II

2¢ II





5¢ I

5¢ I

5¢ II

5¢ II





13¢ I

13¢ I

13¢ II

13¢ II






"o"
Interior spaces of the genuine are uniformly narrower than the Grinnells, almost
cateyes in genuine stamps of both Types. The Grinnells attempt to copy the out of
round elliptical shape of the genuine but look crude by comparison.
2¢ I

2¢ I

2¢ II

2¢ II





5¢ I

5¢ I

5¢ II

5¢ II





13¢ I

13¢ I

13¢ II

13¢ II






"s"
All of the genuine "s's" have thicker center lines than the Grinnells, throwing off
the shapes of the interior spaces.
2¢ I

2¢ I

2¢ II

2¢ II





5¢ I

5¢ I

5¢ II

5¢ II





13¢ I

13¢ I

13¢ II

13¢ II






"t"
Type I of both the genuine and Grinnell show a broken bottom serif and overall look
very similar. Type II of the genuine has a neatly curled serif but the Grinnell
has a short, stubby, serif.
2¢ I

2¢ I

2¢ II

2¢ II





5¢ I

5¢ I

5¢ II

5¢ II





13¢ I

13¢ I

13¢ II

13¢ II






Fourth "a"
Noted above is the difference between the squarish shape in all genuine "a's" and
the rectangular shape of all the Grinnell "a's." In the fourth "a," the Type I
genuine has a fat vertical back the Grinnell copies, but with a thinner bottom
front. The Type II Grinnells look crude by comparison to the genuine.
2¢ I

2¢ I

2¢ II

2¢ II





5¢ I

5¢ I

5¢ II

5¢ II





13¢ I

13¢ I

13¢ II

13¢ II






"g"
The g's were difficult to copy. None of the Grinnell g's are right. Most obvious
is the difference in the shape of the bottom loop.
2¢ I

2¢ I

2¢ II

2¢ II





5¢ I

5¢ I

5¢ II

5¢ II





13¢ I

13¢ I

13¢ II

13¢ II






"e"
All of the Grinnells have the wrong shape interior spaces and the Type II
Grinnells look quite crude compared to the genuine.
2¢ I

2¢ I

2¢ II

2¢ II





5¢ I

5¢ I

5¢ II

5¢ II





13¢ I

13¢ I

13¢ II

13¢ II






Back to Printer’s Type Comparison.



Copyright © 1999  2004 POST OFFICE IN PARADISE. All rights reserved.
