Switzerland Its Essays and Proofs

Part Five

The Essay Proof Journal, Whole No. 11, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 147-151

Switzerland
Its Essays and Proofs

By George W. Caldwell, E. P. S. 318
(Continued from JOURNAL No. 10, page 94)

Cross and Figure of Value 1882-1907

Concurrent with the Standing Helvetia series which we have just discussed, were the low values,
typographed in a simple yet effective design (Scott’s design A19) in which the Swiss Cross, the figure
of value, and the national designation “Helvetia” stand out prominently. This was the work of an artist
identified in the record simply as Professor Haesert.
A Bernese engraver, named Burger, is credited with having engraved the original master die in steel.
The statement, in the record, that this was done exactly in high relief, invites careful examination; one may
be excused for hesitating to accept this without some reservation. Let’s examine the record. In the original
German of Zumstein (4) we read “Er schnitt das genaue Bild in erhabener Form in Stahl (Patrize).” Maurice
Picard, in the French edition of the Zumstein handbook, (23) translates that statement thus: “Il grava
le dessin exact en relief sur de l’acier (patrice).” The English edition (19) of an earlier Zumstein handbook
records the statement in the following words: “He cut in relief the exact design in steel.”
The expression “high relief ” as used in America, refers to the colored portion of the stamp design,
except in cameo engraving; and it appears that in Europe, the same definition is used. In view of this, what
interpretation shall we give to the qualifying words “exact design,” and why did Zumstein qualify this
die? It should be noted that no such qualification was used by that authority in discussing previous dies
used in the production of Swiss stamps. Two possible answers occur to the author. If we interpret “exact
design” to mean positive instead of negative or mirror reflection, then the die could not have been in high
relief; instead it would have been in intaglio. On the other hand, the intention may have been to convey
the idea that Burger took no liberties with the design; that he engraved the design exactly as the artist had
essayed it.
The author leans toward this latter interpretation but feels that lack of clearness in the record
warrants incorporating the controversial point in this monograph.

Intermediate Dies and Cliches

The intermediate dies and brass printing cliches were made in the Federal Mint. It is probable,
however, that Burger engraved the figures of value on the duplicate master dies. In order to preserve the
original high relief dies, a number of duplicates were made with which to manufacture the matrices and
the printing cliches.
A good grade of well calendered paper was selected for this printing and, as usual, the order was
given to the Sihl Mills of Zurich. This was of the granite variety containing red and blue silk fibres, and was
supplied in cut form of a size to accommodate 400 stamps per sheet. There was a small printing on white

4 Zumstein, E. — Handbuch uber die Briefmarken der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft – Bern,
1924.
19 Handbook of the Postage Stamps of Switzerland from the German of Ernst Zumstein — London
Philatelic Record, 1910.
23 Catalogue Special et Manuel des Timbres-Poste de la Confederation Helvetique — Seule traduction
autorisee par Maurice Picard — Asinieres, 1925.

30

paper but the record is silent on the reason for this. Unwatermarked paper which required the adding of
the control mark (21) was used, until superseded in 1905 by a paper containing a natural watermark.

Staempfli & Co., of Bern, were awarded the contract and they continued to print these stamps
p. 148 until the summer of 1906, at which time the work was taken over by the Federal Mint.

Due to an insufficient quantity of cliches, a somewhat unusual method was used in the printing.
For the values of 3, 12 and 15 Centimes only 100 cliches were used; hence it was necessary to pass the paper
through the press four times. For the stamps in greater demand – 2, 5 and to Centimes — two 100-subject
assemblies were used, which obviously required only two trips to the press. Apparently the increased cost
of printing by this method was deemed to be less than the cost of making additional cliches.

Essays associated with this issue include impressions from a master die (Fig. 18) before the figure of
value had been added; also prints pulled from experimental dies ( ?*) on which the figure of value appears
in modified form (Fig. 19). Proofs in normal and in trial colors, are known; they are found on white,
and granite paper; watermarked, and unwatermarked; with and without control mark; perforated, and
imperforate.

Fig. 18 Fig. 19

Courtesy Zumstein & Co.

Essays

1882. Impressions from master die (Fig. 18) without figure of value; unwatermarked, white paper,
without control mark.
No. 199. Black, imperforate
No. 200. Green, perforated
No. 201. Red, perforated
1882. Impressions from experimental dies (?*) ; modified figure of value (Fig. 19) ; unwatermarked,
thick, white paper without control mark; perforated.
No. 202. 2 Centimes, olive-brown
No. 203. 2 Centimes, black-brown
No. 204. 2 Centimes, pink
No. 205. 20 Centimes, pinkish-red
No. 206. 25 Centimes, vermillion
No. 207. 25 Centimes, vermillion (imperforate)
21 See JOURNAL No. 9, page 10.
* Inserted by the author.

31

Trial Color Proofs

1882. Plate proofs on unwatermarked, white paper with control mark.

No. 208. 2 Centimes, violet; imperforate
No. 209. 2 Centimes, pink; imperforate
No. 210. 2 Centimes, vermillion; perforated
No. 211. 2 Centimes, violet; perforated

1882. Plate proofs on thin, white, unwatermarked paper without control mark; perforated.

No. 212. 2 Centimes, vermilion
No. 213. 2 Centimes, blue
No. 214. 2 Centimes, violet-brown

1882. Plate proofs on unwatermarked, granite paper with control mark.

No. 215. 2 Centimes, pink; imperforate
No. 216. 12 Centimes, pink, imperforate
p. 149 No. 217. 12 Centimes, yellow; imperforate
No. 218. 12 Centimes, pinkish-red; perforated
No. 219. 12 Centimes, yellow; perforated

Proofs

1882. Plate proofs on unwatermarked, white paper with control mark; imperforate.

No. 220. 2 Centimes, olive-brown
No. 221. 5 Centimes, brown-violet
No. 222. 10 Centimes, pink
No. 223. 12 Centimes, light-blue
No. 224. 15 Centimes, yellow

1882. Plate proofs on unwatermarked, thin, white wove, porous paper, without control mark;
imperforate.

No. 225. 2 Centimes, olive-brown (69P5)
No. 226. 5 Centimes, brown-violet (71P5)
No. 227. 10 Centimes, pink (72P5)
No. 228. 12 Centimes, light-blue (73P5)
No. 229. 15 Centimes, yellow (74P5)

1882. Plate proofs on unwatermarked, granite paper with control mark; imperforate.

No. 230. 3 Centimes, gray
No. 231. 5 Centimes, brown-violet
No. 232. 10 Centimes, pink
No. 233. 12 Centimes, light-blue
No. 234. 15 Centimes, yellow

Zumstein lists and illustrates an essay which is of the same general design as the issued stamps, but
with the design features very much altered. There is no evidence that this essay had anything whatsoever
to do with the development of the approved design. Therefore we omit it for the present, and will include
it under a later caption: Miscellaneous Essays, 1880-1910.

32

Essay Contest 1901

Advancement in the art of postage-stamp manufacture, changes in stamp-design ideas, and the
natural monotony resulting from the use of one design for nearly two decades, produced a public reaction
that was both direct and forceful. Around the turn of the century, in the public press and even in certain
government circles, voices were raised against continuing the use of the then current stamps. The people
didn’t like the “out-of-fashion” stamps; and they said so in unmistakable words.
Such outcry could not very well be ignored, and the postal authorities decided to do something
about it. Hence, the Postmaster General, in March 1901, invited participation in an open stamp-design
contest. Anyone, professional or amateur, was permitted to enter one or more essays. Six cash prizes and
fifteen Certificates of Merit were placed at the disposal of the Committee of Award.
Bright as the prospects may have appeared at the time, this contest completely failed to accomplish
its purpose. Not a single essay qualified for the first award and therefore that award was withheld. Cash
prizes were awarded for the six best designs, and in addition, the winning artists were presented with prints
of their essays in blocks of twelve on fine, medium weight artists cardboard.
According to the record (4) the artists failed to give sufficient consideration to the limitations
of typographic printing. Are we to understand that the artists were advised to prepare their essays with
that type of printing in mind ? The record is silent in the matter. In view of the ability of some of the
competing artists, it is surprising that this contest failed to produce one or more designs that would have
been desirable for use in developing a suitable stamp.

p. 150

Fig. 20 Fig. 21 Fig. 22

Fig. 23 Fig. 24 Fig. 25

33

Essays

1901. Originally printed in blocks of 12 on medium weight artists cardboard.
By Charles L’Eplattenier (Fig. 20)

No. 235. 5 Centimes, green (128E-A4) No. 236. 5 Centimes, blue

By Alf. Pfenninger (Fig. 21)

No. 237. 10 Centimes, red (129E-A4) No. 238. 10 Centimes, green

By Charles L’Eplattenier (Fig. 22)

No. 239. 10 Centimes, red (129E-B4) No. 240. 10 Centimes, gray

By Eug. Cavalli (Fig. 23)

No. 241. 12 Centimes, blue (130E-A4) No. 242. 12 Centimes, red

By Fr. Boscovitz (Fig. 24)

No. 243. 15 Centimes, black-brown (131E-A4) No. 244. 15 Centimes, olive

By Henri Robert (Fig. 25)

No. 245. 15 Centimes, violet (131E-B-4)

Counterfeits

Photo-lithographs of complete sheets of these essays were made by a private party, and a quantity
of prints made and sold. These are characterized by a lack of fineness and clearness in the designs. Further
details are not known to the author.

p. 151 Plagiarism ?

The Robert essay presents a very interesting case of possible plagiarism. Casually comparing this
essay with the first definitive issue (Scott’s design A4) of Indo-China, one is struck by the similarity of
concept; even the design details, in some instances, reflect similarity of treatment. Obviously, one of these
designs influenced the other, unless both were derived from a common source.

The Indo-China stamp was issued in 1904; (16) hence one might conclude that it was copied from
the Robert essay. However, information pointing toward a contrary conclusion has been uncovered and
philatelically recorded, (26) on the basis of what it would appear that Robert had committed the act of
plagiarism.

After a definitive stamp issue for Indo-China had been authorized — it had been requested by the
Colony in 1901 — those responsible for its manufacture consulted the Books of Design, and selected a
drawing by Eugen Grasset, eminent stamp artist of Paris, later of Bern. This design had been essayed by
Grasset some years previously for a French issue but had never been used. With but slight modification,
this became the Indo-China stamp design. The inscription “Indo-China” was substituted for “Republique
Francaise”; and an anchor, which did not appear on the original essay, was added, probably to symbolize
the overseas character of the French colony.

While this evidence is somewhat conclusive in “finding” against Robert, there are several questions
which the author believes should be answered, before we reach the final decision. What was the association,
if any, between Grasset and Robert — was it that of teacher and pupil? Did Grasset suggest the idea to
Robert? Does the fact that Grasset was a Parisian and that Robert lived in St. Denis, just outside Paris, have

16 Scott – Standard Postage Stamp Catalogue.
26 Journal Philatelique Suisse, Vol. 55, p. 179.

34

any bearing on the case? Was the similarity of these two designs a mere coincidence, resulting perhaps from
an influence common to both?
The answers to these questions, and to others that might with good reason, be asked, perhaps
would prove illuminating.

(To be continued.)

35