"The varieties of the Tenpence are those described by Mr. Brouse as (_a_) long and narrow, (_b_) long and broad, and (_c_) short and broad. I may add that in the case of this value I have examined and measured some forty copies, including a strip of three, as also a proof on very thin India paper, which corresponds exactly in measurement with variety (_b_) on the thick paper (22-3/4 × 18-1/2mm.). It is obvious that to be absolutely accurate beyond a half mm. with an ordinary gauge is hardly possible, but in several of the given cases I have averaged the sizes of several that very closely approximated. "As will be seen, I have gone somewhat beyond the lines of Mr. Brouse's paper in including the 1/2d., the 3d., and 6d., the variation in the former being slight, but in the two latter noteworthy. The question how these varieties have arisen is an interesting one, nor can I see that they can be accounted for by shrinkage of the paper, as in the case of the 10d. proof above cited, which is on all fours with the ordinary stamp on thick paper. In the case of the strip of this value I found all three stamps measured the same, and the fact remains that variety (_c_) is short _and_ broad. In any case the existence of these varieties is palpable, the question of their origin a genuine philatelic problem, and I think that the thanks of us all are therefore due to Mr. Brouse for his interesting paper." This may have been the first record of the peculiarity in the case of the Canadian stamps, but it was at least not the first time that variation in the dimensions of certain line engraved stamps, supposed to have been produced from the same original die, had been noted and discussed. We refer to the case of the early Ceylon stamps, which furnished food for contention in the philatelic press for many years. The first mention of a difference in the length of these seems to have been in December, 1864.[39] Ten years later the reference list of Ceylon prepared by the London Philatelic Society[40] noted the fact that the stamps of 1863 on unwatermarked paper were in general about a millimeter shorter in the vertical dimension than the succeeding issue on paper watermarked Crown C C, although the engraved designs were otherwise absolutely identical. Major Edw. B. Evans, in his catalogue,[41] appends a note on the unwatermarked stamps of 1863 as follows:-- These stamps are apparently (indeed, we may say certainly) from the same plates as the other issues, but at the same time the impressions on this paper are about 1-16 inch shorter than those on other papers. This can only have been occasioned by the paper having shrunk to some extent since the stamps were printed.... [39] The Stamp Collectors' Magazine, II: 191. [40] The Philatelist, IX: 10. [41] A Catalogue for Collectors, page 39.