As already stated, the envelope stamps were very similar in size and style to the United States envelope dies of 1860. The inscription CANADA POSTAGE is in the frame above the head and the value below, reversing the United States arrangement, and there are no stars separating the legends. The embossed head of Queen Victoria was evidently copied from the profile used on the 1 cent stamp of 1859. The 5 cent stamp is printed in vermilion and the 10 cent in dark brown. There was but one size of envelope, 5-1/2 × 3-1/4 inches (140 × 83 mm.), and but one quality of paper for the first order--a white laid paper with a slightly yellowish tone, watermarked with the letters Ca over POD (Canada Post Office Department) which appears about twice in each envelope. The paper was cut so that the laid lines run diagonally, and the knife used was that numbered 2 in the Tiffany, Bogert and Rechert catalog of United States envelopes, with rounded flap and yellowish gum, extending nearly the length of the flap. In the table given it will be noticed that 25,000 more 5 cent envelopes were received from the manufacturers in 1865. These latter were on a white paper of similar quality with a slightly bluish tone, and a slightly different knife had been used in cutting the blanks, which corresponds to that numbered 11 in the catalog quoted. The difference consists mainly in a more pointed flap than the first knife. The _London Philatelist_ for December, 1896, contained the following startling announcement under the head of CANADA:[206]-- Mr. L. Gibb, of Montreal, kindly submitted to his fellow members of the London Philatelic Society, at a recent meeting, a curious variety among the stamps of the Colony he resides in. The specimen in question was the 10 c. envelope of 1860 impressed in vermilion, instead of its normal colour--brown, and being presumably printed in error in the color of the 5c. The stamp was unfortunately cut round, but was on the diagonally laid paper usual to the Issue, duly postmarked, and, in the opinion of the members present, had every appearance of authenticity, although surprise was expressed that so marked a variety should never have been noted before. [206] =London Philatelist=, V: 345. Nothing further has apparently been learned about it since, but in the face of the above statements and opinions it seems necessary to record it.