POST OFFICE IN PARADISE - Missionary Stamps: Large Numeral Comparisons

This page last updated: 2 June 2003

::: MISSIONARY STAMPS - Large Numeral Comparisons :::

Much attention focused at the trial of Klemann v. Grinnell on differences between the large numeral "2's" in the Grinnells compared to the genuine. Witnesses testified how the tail of the genuine angles sharply up where the Grinnell tail is tapered. Using blow-up comparisons, we can see the shapes of the large numerals in all three values are different in the Grinnells than in the genuine:

The Large Numeral 2:

2 Type I Advertiser Lot 12	Grinnell #51	2 Type II Advertiser Lot 11	Grinnell #9

Note the tapered tail on the Grinnell compared to the sharp angle of the genuine; the tail points outward to behind the back of the 2 on the genuine, but hits the back of the 2 on the Grinnell.

Type I, Advertiser Lot 12	Type I, Grinnell #4	Type II, Advertiser Lot 11	Type II, Grinnell #3

The inner space of the upper loop is smaller in the Grinnell.

From all appearances, the base of the genuine is thicker than the Grinnell, but careful measurement of the Grinnell is needed to confirm this difference.

The Large Numeral 5:

5 Type I Trepel Census 2-I-UNC-16	Type I Grinnell #22	5 Type II Advertiser Lot 15	Type II Grinnell #25

In the genuine, the point of the upper part nearly touches the lower ball.

The top flags of the 5's are quite different.

It seems the fat portion of the lower 5 is fatter in the genuine.

A narrower inner space in the lower 5 is quite apparent in the genuine.

The Large Numeral 13:

13 Type I Advertiser Lot 21	Grinnell 53	13 Type II Advertiser Lot 20	Grinnell 52

Neither the serif nor the base of the large 1 is the same.

Inner spaces of the Grinnell "3's" are shaped differently.

The inner stem of the Grinnell "3" points upward.

The foregoing notes mention only highlights of the differences. No argument can be made that the same type pieces made the Grinnells and the genuine large Numerals. Proponents of the Grinnells will argue these differences could simply be the result of wear. Given the major changes of shape, the argument cannot convince. Alternatively, the Grinnells are said to have been a different printing. A separate study puts to rest any notion of a multiple printing theory. The point here is simply to show the large numerals used in the genuine stamps were not used in the Grinnells.

Back to Printer’s Type Comparison.