"This well known flaw occuring cap the fourth stamp of the first row of the pane is said to have been first described on the 2½d. ultramarine (S.G.17) of the 1882/84 issue. I imagined it to be a constant flaw in all subsequent issues but find this is not the case and it has interested me to ascertain when it does occur. In my collection I have complete panes of 4d. grey (S. G. 22) and 6d. Orange-brown (S.G.23) which do not show the flaw and a complete pane of 6d. orange-brown which does show it. In the ½d, (S.G.20) similarly situated blocks show the flaw in one case and not in the other. Where the fourth stamp does not show the flaw an irregularity appears in the outer line of the band round the head where the 'slash' flaw could approach nearest to this line. This irregularity I have found to be constant in all cases where the flaw does not occur and is not found on any other stamp except the fourth of the first row. Is this irregularity the precursor of the 'slash' or is it damage due to the removal of the flaw? Mr. L.J. Gilbert-Lodge has described damaged Plate numbers on some panes and I have found them in all blocks and panes where the 'slash' flaw does not occur:- a pane of 4d., one pane of 6d. , one block .of ½d. and one block of 2½d, bright blue. In all blocks and panes which show the flaw the Plate numbers are normal; i.e. one pane of 6d. , one block of ½d. and one block of 2½d. ultramarine. Is it' faire to think that the damaged Plate numbers are later than the normal? If so, it would appear that the irregularity is subsequent t o the removal of the 'slash' flaw and would make the removal later than the issue of the Is. orange-brown (S.G. 32) in 1896 on which it appeared. The earliest dated copy of the 'slash' which I have seen is Nov. 29th 1893 on a 2½d. ultramarine. I should be very interested to hear what other collectors have found out about this well marked flaw."