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 catalogues, both name the date as November, 1858. Unfortunately, no more authoritative statement has been found, except that in Messrs. Corwin and King's article 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," and also seems a little uncertain in some other details, we feel that further confirmation is needed. In our table above we have given the supplies received after the 30th September, 1857, and deducted the remainders so as to have the actual number issued. The 10d has already proved a stumbling block, for it was not perforated at all! Next we find the 6d to the number of 150,000, when the total issue, including the laid paper, was but 400,000; yet the catalogue value of the imperforates is some $6 for each variety, and of the perforated stamp at least $30! Can anyone doubt that all these 150,000 6d stamps were _not_ perforated? In the case of the 3d we have one and a third millions to compare with a total issue of three and a half millions--about a third in the supposed perforated class. Yet the catalogue value of the latter is $2.50 against 36 cents for the wove paper imperforate alone. With the 1/2d stamp there are two millions against a total of three and a third millions, or about two to one in favor of the supposed perforated stamps, yet the latter are double the catalogue price of the former! The only conclusion to be drawn from these regularly appearing inconsistencies in each value is that all the supplies after 30th September, 1857, were _not_ perforated, as the 10d stamp very glaringly intimates! If this be so, is it not possible that the order to perforate the new supplies was given to the manufacturers much later than has hitherto been thought to be the case? It hardly seems likely that this improvement would be ordered for a few supplies and then dropped, only to re-appear a year and a half later as a permanent feature of the new set. Once adopted it was more than likely to be retained.