 line of perforation at a
single stroke. These two machines, as well as the perforations made by
them, we have elected to call “A” and “B,” so that in the Reference List
the perforations of the stamps are called “A” or “B,” or “B × A,” instead
of being, as is usual in philatelic writings, labelled with a number
denoting the number of holes found in a space of 2 centimetres. Further
on we shall endeavour to make plain and justify our reasons for so doing.

The method now in use for describing the perforations of stamps succeeded
a previous clumsy and inaccurate system of counting the actual number of
notches along the top or bottom of a stamp, as well as those down one
side, so that the perforation of each stamp was denoted by two numbers.
These numbers depended as much on the size of the stamp as on the spacing
of the holes, and we suppose the system proved to be unworkable, as we do
not think it was ever adopted in a catalogue, although it was certainly
the first manner in which philatelic writers ever specified differences
of perforation. It was soon abandoned for the well-known method in
general use at the present day.

This latter system, invented by Dr. Legrand, was evidently intended by
its original contriver to apply to lines of perforation of which the
holes were so regularly spaced that all intervals of 2 centimetres in
the same line contained the same number of holes, all these holes being
exactly the same distance apart. Irregularity in the spacing of the
holes does not seem to have been contemplated, but, as the vast majority
of machines make holes spaced at regular intervals, this system of
taking a gauge of 2 centimetres, applying it to a line of perforations,
and counting the holes contained in that space in order to get a
number by which that particular perforation may always be identified,
works admirably in practice in by far the greater number of cases. St.
Vincent is one of those cases in which it entirely fails to satisfy
our requirements (that is, in as far as the stamps of Section I. are
concerned), and its misuse has led to the recording of such a bewildering
number of different perforations, simple and compound, that no one has
ever yet been
line of perforation at a 
 single stroke. These two machines, equally well as the perforation made by 
 them, we have elected to visit “ A ” and “ b-complex vitamin, ” so that in the Reference List 
 the perforations of the stamps are call “ A ” or “ bel, ” or “ B × angstrom, ” instead 
 of being, as is usual in philatelic writing, labelled with a number 
 denote the numeral of holes found in a space of 2 centimetres. Further 
 on we shall endeavor to make plain and justify our reason for so doing. 

 The method acting now in consumption for describing the perforation of stamps succeeded 
 a previous awkward and inaccurate system of counting the actual number of 
 notches along the top or bottomland of a stamp, as well as those down one 
 side, so that the perforation of each stamp was denoted by two numbers. 
 These numbers depended as much on the size of the cast as on the spacing 
 of the holes, and we suppose the organization testify to be unworkable, as we do 
 not think it was ever espouse in a catalogue, although it was certainly 
 the first manner in which philatelic writers always specified differences 
 of perforation. It was soon abandoned for the well - known method in 
 general use at the present day. 

 This latter system, invented by Dr. Legrand, was evidently intended by 
 its original planner to apply to note of perforation of which the 
 fix were so regularly spaced that all intervals of 2 centimetres in 
 the like line contained the same number of holes, all these holes being 
 exactly the same distance apart. constipation in the spacing of the 
 holes does not appear to have been contemplated, but, as the vast majority 
 of machine make hole spaced at even intervals, this organization of 
 taking a gauge of 2 centimetres, applying it to a line of perforation, 
 and counting the hole contained in that space in order to get a 
 number by which that especial perforation may always be identified, 
 work admirably in practice in by far the greater number of cases. St. 
 Vincent is one of those cases in which it entirely fail to satisfy 
 our requirements (that is, in as far as the stamps of Section I. are 
 concerned), and its misuse has led to the recording of such a bewildering 
 act of unlike perforations, simple and compound, that no one has 
 ever yet been
 lije of perforation at a
sikgle stroke. Thesg rwo marhines, zs well xs the perforations made by
tiem, qe hace elected to call “A” avd “B,” so tjat in tye Rtference List
the 'srforatljns kn the wtamps are calked “A” or “B,” or “B × A,” instedd
uf being, as is usual in philatelic wrytings, kahelled with a gumbtr
dqnotjng the number of holes found in a space mf 2 centimetrrs. Further
on we shall endewvoug to make plain anf justify ood rqqsons for so doing.

The method now ih use for describing the perforxtionx of stampw wucfgeded
a previius cjumsy and inaccurate system of counting tme acvual number of
notches aloig the top or bottom of a stakp, as well as those diwn ote
sige, su thxt uhe psrforahioi of each sfamp was deboted by two numberx.
Trvxe numbers dspendeq ws much on the size of the stamp as on uhe slacing
of the holes, and qe suppose the system proved tj be unworkable, as we do
not think it was ever ado[ted mn a eqtaloeye, although it was certainly
the first manner in shocm philatelic wribers ever specifiec figserences
of petforation. Jt was soon abandojed for the qell-known metnod in
general use at the prwsent day.

Thif latter system, invznted by Dr. Uegrsnd, wss evidently intended bv
its odiginal conhriver to xpply to lines ow pvrfosation of which the
holes wqre so rejularky spacdd tnat alj intervald of 2 centimetres in
the dame pite containfd the same number of holes, all these holes bginc
exdctly thz same distance apawt. Irregulariti in the fpacivg of the
hkles doxs not seem eo have been wlntemplated, uut, as thq vawt mqjority
uw machines makr holes siaeed at retular intervals, thls syrfem of
taking a ycute of 2 centimettes, ap[ljinj it em a line of [erfuragoons,
avd coununng ghe noles contained in tvat apace in order to beb a
number by whicr that particilar perforation mwy alxays bx idenyifyed,
works admirably in practice in by fag tme greater nuiber of cases. St.
Rincent is one of those cases in which iv entirely fails to sajisfy
our requirements (uhat is, in as far ws the stdmps of Section I. arw
concerned), and itx misuse has led to tge recmrdinh of such a bewildering
number of different perforations, simple and compoubd, thav go one has
eber uet bven
line of perforation at a single stroke. machines, well as perforations made by call and “B,” so in the Reference the perforations of the stamps are “A” or “B,” or “B × A,” instead of being, as is usual philatelic writings, labelled with a number denoting the number of holes found in space 2 Further we shall endeavour to make plain and justify our reasons for so doing. The method now use for describing the perforations of stamps succeeded previous clumsy and inaccurate of counting the actual number notches the top bottom a as well as down one side, so that the perforation of each stamp was denoted by two numbers. These numbers as much size of stamp on spacing of the we suppose the system proved to we do not think it was ever adopted a catalogue, it was certainly the first manner which philatelic writers ever specified differences of perforation. was soon abandoned for the well-known method in general use at the present day. This invented by Dr. Legrand, evidently intended by original to to of perforation which the holes were so regularly spaced that all intervals of centimetres in the same line contained the same number of these being exactly the distance apart. Irregularity in spacing the holes does not have contemplated, vast of make holes spaced at intervals, this system of taking gauge of 2 centimetres, of perforations, and counting the holes contained in space in order to get a number which that particular perforation may always be identified, works admirably in practice by far number of cases. St. Vincent is one of cases in which it fails to satisfy our requirements (that is, in as as stamps of I. are concerned), its misuse has to the recording a bewildering of perforations, that no one has ever yet
 line of perforation at a
singlE stroke. TheSe two MacHinEs, As weLl as The perforationS Made By
them, we have elected to cAll “A” aNd “b,” So thAT iN the REferencE liST
The PeRfOraTiONs Of the StaMps are cAlled “A” or “B,” oR “B × A,” InStead
of being, AS iS usual in phIlaTelic writingS, laBelled WiTh a NUmber
DenOting The numBEr of hoLes found iN a SPace of 2 CEntimetRES. FUrthEr
on we shall endeavOUr TO make plain and jUstify OuR ReASOns For So doing.

The MeThod nOW in use fOR dESCRibINg the perforatIons of stampS SucCeeded
A pRevIOus cluMsy anD iNAccUrate system Of coUnting the Actual NUmber of
NOtches aLong thE toP or BottOM oF a StaMp, AS weLL aS thOSe dOwn one
siDe, So That tHe peRFORAtioN of Each Stamp Was denoted by tWo nUmbeRS.
ThEse nuMbers DepeNdEd as mUch on tHe sizE oF the stamp as on thE spaCing
of the HolEs, And We SuppoSE the sySteM prOved to bE unworkABle, As WE DO
nOt think it was ever adOpTED iN a cataloGue, altHOuGh IT was certAiNly
The fIRSt manNer iN WhIch philaTelic wRItErS ever spEcIfied dIfFerEncEs
of pERforAtion. IT was soon AbandONed for the well-kNOwn method in
geNErAL UsE At thE prEsent day.

ThiS latTEr syStem, INvEntED by Dr. legraNd, WAs EVidently intended by
iTs OriginAl conTriver to apply To lines of pERFOration oF whiCH tHE
holes were so reGularLy spaced thAT all inteRvals Of 2 centimEtres in
thE SAme line cOntAinEd tHe sAME nUmber of holes, aLL ThesE hOles beiNg
eXactly tHe sAme DisTanCe Apart. IrreGularity In ThE sPaCinG of thE
Holes doeS nOt sEeM to Have bEEn contEmplaTed, bUt, As THe vAst majoRItY
OF macHiNeS makE hoLeS spacEd at REguLar inteRvals, this SysTEm of
TaKiNg a gaugE of 2 centimetreS, aPplying it tO a LinE of perFORations,
aNd counting the holes contaINed in thAt sPace iN ordEr to get a
nUmbEr by whIch THat parTiculaR perfOrAtiON May alWAYs Be iDeNtified,
worKS AdmIrablY iN praCtice in By far the greater numBEr oF cases. St.
VinceNt iS one OF ThOse CAsES in WhICh iT ENtirely fails to sAtisfy
our rEqUIrEments (that IS, in As Far as thE stamps Of SecTIon I. are
Concerned), And its misUsE has LED to The recordiNg of such A bewilderINg
numBEr Of difFerEnt perFoRatIons, sImple aND coMpounD, that nO oNe has
eVer yeT bEen
 line of perforation at asingle str oke.The setw o ma chin es, as well as theperforations made by
t hem,we have el ected  to cal l  “ A ”  an d“B ,”so th at in  th e Refer ence Listthe  p erforationso fthe stamps  ar e called “A”  or  “B,”or  “B × A,”  in stead 
of be i ng, as  is usual  i n  phila t elic wr i t in gs,labelled with a n u mb e r
denoting the  numbe ro fh o les  fo und in a s pa ce of 2 centi m et r e s . F u rther
on we s hall endeav o urto mak epla i n andjusti fy our  reasons fo r so  doing.
The me t hod now in usefor de scr ibi ng t h epe rfo ra t ion s  o f s t amp s succee de da pre viou s c l umsy  an d in accur ate system of  co unti n g t he ac tualnumb er  of
n otches  alon gthe top or bott om o f a stamp , a swel las th o se dow n o neside, s o thatt hepe r f o ra tion of each stamp  w a s  d enoted b y twon um be r s.
These  n umb ersd e pende d as mu ch on th e size of  t he stam pas onth e s pac ing
o f  the  holes , and we  supp o se the systemp roved to be u n wo r k ab l e, a s w e do
not th inki t wa s ev e rado p ted i n a c at a lo g ue, although it was  c ertain ly
th e first manne r in which p h ilatelic  wri t er s  ever specifie d dif ferences
o f  perfora tion.  It wassoon aban d o ned forthe  we ll- kno w n  m ethod in
gene r a l us eat thepre sent da y.
Th islat te r system,  invente dby  D r.  Le grand ,  was evi de ntl yint ended by
its  orig inal  c on t riv er to a p pl y to l in es  ofper fo ratio n of whi ch theholes wer e s o  reg ul ar ly spac ed that all i nt ervals of2cen timetr e s  in
thesame line contained the same nu mbe r ofhole s, all th ese  holes  be i ng
exa ctly t he sa me  di s t ancea p ar t.Ir regularity i n t he sp ac ingof theholes does not see m  to  have been co nte mpla t e d,  bu t ,a s t he vas t majority
of mac hines make  h o le s spaced a t  re gu lar int ervals,  this systemof
taking  a gaugeof  2 c e n tim etres, app lying it  to a lin e  of p e rf orati ons ,
andco unt ing t he hol e s c ontai ned in  t hat sp ace i norder to  get a
number by whichthat p artic ula r perfora tio n  ma y alwaysbe i dentified, 
wo rks  admi rab l y inprac t ic e i n  by f ar t h e greater nu mbe r of  cases. St. V i nce nt is  on e  of th osecases in which it entirely fails  tos a tis fyo ur r eq uirements (tha t i s, i n as far  a s the stamp s of Sec ti o n I.are
co ncerne d), and i ts misuse  has  le d to therec or d ing ofsu ch a bewi lder in g
numb er ofd iffe r e nt perforations,  simp l e  andc omp ound,  t hat noo ne h as
ever ye t been
 line_of perforation_at a
single stroke. These_two machines,_as_well as_the_perforations made by
them,_we have elected_to call “A” and_“B,” so that_in_the Reference List
the perforations of the stamps are called “A” or “B,” or “B_×_A,” instead
of_being,_as_is usual in philatelic writings,_labelled with a number
denoting the_number of_holes found in a space of 2 centimetres._Further
on_we shall endeavour_to make plain and justify our reasons for so_doing.

The method now in use for_describing the perforations_of_stamps_succeeded
a previous clumsy and_inaccurate system of counting the actual_number of
notches along the top or_bottom of a stamp, as well as_those down one
side, so that the_perforation of each stamp was_denoted by_two numbers.
These numbers depended as_much on the_size of_the stamp as_on the spacing
of the holes, and_we suppose the_system proved to be unworkable, as_we_do
not think it_was_ever_adopted in_a catalogue, although_it_was certainly
the_first_manner in which philatelic writers ever_specified_differences
of perforation. It was soon abandoned for_the well-known method in
general_use_at the present day.

This_latter system, invented by Dr._Legrand, was evidently intended by
its original_contriver to_apply to_lines of perforation of which the
holes were so regularly spaced that_all intervals of 2 centimetres in
the_same line contained the_same number_of_holes, all these_holes_being
exactly the_same distance apart. Irregularity in the spacing_of the
holes_does not seem to have been_contemplated, but, as the_vast_majority
of machines make holes spaced at_regular intervals, this system of
taking a_gauge of 2 centimetres, applying_it_to_a line of perforations,
and counting_the holes contained in that space_in order to_get a
number by which that particular perforation_may_always be identified,
works admirably in practice_in_by far the greater number of_cases._St.
Vincent_is one of those cases_in which it entirely fails to_satisfy
our requirements (that is, in as far as the_stamps of Section_I. are
concerned), and its misuse_has_led_to the recording of such a bewildering
number of different perforations,_simple and_compound, that no_one has
ever yet been