Mr. Donald A. King, in his article in the _Monthly Journal_, gives no less than eight varieties of paper for the stamps of this issue, though all resolve themselves into slight, and in many cases probably imperceptible, variations in quality and thickness of the usual "wove" paper. Mr. Howes gives a thick and thin wove and "a closely ribbed paper." This latter like the ribbed varieties in the earlier issues, is evidently due to nothing more than some eccentricity of printing and is, consequently, of doubtful philatelic importance. The classification of the series into thick and thin papers seems to have more to be said in its favor if the statement made in Gibbons' catalogue is to be relied on. According to a foot note the stamps printed prior to 1888 (that is, in Montreal), are on a thinner paper than was used for subsequent printings. The _Philatelic Record_ for October, 1893, mentions the 10c as being found on "fine laid paper" but this was evidently the variety more generally classified as "ribbed." The perforation used for the stamps of this series was the usual 12--the work of single-line or guillotine machines. All values are reported to exist perforated 11-1/2 by 12, as mentioned in connection with the issues of 1868, but this statement requires verification before it can be accepted as authoritative. All values are known entirely imperforate, the 3c in this condition being first recorded in the _Philatelic Record_ for December, 1882. Writing in the _London Philatelist_ in 1907 Mr. M. H. Horsley says with regard to these varieties:--"Imperforated copies of various values were sold over the Post-office counter in Montreal about the years 1891-3 at their face value, and have been good for postage whenever people cared to use them." Writing a little later on the same subject Mr. C. L. Pack also vouches for them, viz.:--"I quite agree with Mr. Horsley in regard to the various imperforate copies of the issues of 1882 to 1895. There are a good many specimens of these stamps imperforate, and they were on sale at a Canadian Post Office." Curiously enough Gibbons' catalogue entirely ignores these imperforate stamps though Mr. Howes is able to adduce documentary evidence in support of the statements made by philatelists of such undoubted authority as Messrs. Horsley and Pack. Scott's catalogue records the 1/2c as existing in a horizontal pair imperforate between. The same work records the 2c bi-sected diagonally or vertically and the halves used for 1c stamps, while Mr. Howes adds the 6c, cut vertically and used for 3c. But as the "Canadian Postal Guide" declares that "a mutilated stamp, or a stamp cut in half, is not recognised in payment of postage" such freaks can only have passed through the mails by carelessness or favor and their philatelic interest is negligible.