The first thing that confronts us here is a second supply of the 10d. stamp in this supposed "perforated period," over half of which was issued for sale, and yet the 10d. stamp is practically unknown in a perforated condition! We say practically, because the London Society's work[68] remarks:--"The Seven Pence Halfpenny, green, and Ten Pence, blue, perforated, exist in the collection of a well known Parisian collector. The authenticity, however, of the perforations appears to be doubtful." We think it is more than doubtful, as it is practically certain that neither value was ever issued in this condition. Messrs. Corwin and King state:[69]--"We agree with the Society in doubting the authenticity of the 7-1/2d. and 10 pence, perforated, as these stamps, thus treated, have never been seen in America, nor can anything be ascertained from the makers of the Stamps or the Canadian Post Office Department concerning them." The last statement is hardly convincing, for neither party referred to can give any more information concerning the other three values that we know _were_ issued. We can heartily subscribe to the next remark, however:--"We have no hesitation in pronouncing them impostors." [67] Metropolitan Philatelist, XVII: 83. [68] North American Colonies of Great Britain, page 15. [69] Metropolitan Philatelist, I: 226. The date usually assigned to the appearance of the perforated stamps is January 1858. The London Society gave simply "1857," which is apparently set down merely because they have just quoted the announcement from the Postmaster General's Report for that year. Evans and Moens, in their catalogs, both name the date as November 1858. Unfortunately no more authoritative statement has been found, except that in Messrs. Corwin and King's article[70] they say "Mr. Hooper positively states that it took place in January, 1858." Mr. John R. Hooper was at that time [1890] connected with the Canadian Post Office Department at Ottawa and took pains to look up much information for the above-mentioned gentlemen. His reasons for the "positive statement" are not given, and inasmuch as he is quoted elsewhere as saying that "the records of the Post Office Department are silent as to where this perforation was performed and by whom,"[71] and also seems a little uncertain in some other details, we feel that further confirmation is needed. [70] =Metropolitan Philatelist, I=: 275. [71] =ibid. I=: 226.