some persons authorized by them, who most likely experimented with
different perforating machines, finally selecting the one
perforating 12."

Considering these facts, it may be that the stamps were sent to
Canada in an imperforate condition, and that the Post Office
Department had them perforated there, either buying a perforating
machine, or entrusting them to some manufacturers of stationery.
Perforations gauging 13 and 14 may have been experimental, as
specimens of these varieties are rare; perforation 12 being adopted
as giving the best results, the other sizes not being at all
clearly cut, as the 12 generally is. All the stock of 1/2d, 3d and
6d on hand would, in this case, have been perforated, which might
account for the copy of the 6d on laid paper that is known in this
condition. There always remains the query why the 7-1/2d and 10d
were not treated in the same manner, and to this no answer can be
given. Probably the safest theory to advance, and the one that I
think is correct, is that the 12 gauge was the official one used by
the manufacturers, and that the 13 and 14 were the result of
private enterprise by people using large quantities of stamps, and
they may possibly antedate the regularly perforated issue. This
point can only be settled by copies being found on the original
covers.

In commenting on the above it will save undue confusion if we state that
the copy of the perforated 6d on laid paper to which Mr. King refers was
proved to be a forgery as shown by the following extract from the
_American Journal of Philately_ for 1891:--

There is no longer any mystery in regard to the origin of that
_great rarity!_ the perforated 6 pence on laid paper, these stamps
having been perforated for four or five years in the shop of
Messrs. Benjamin, Sarpy & Co., Cullum street, London, who openly
boast of having manufactured and sold those in the collection of
the late Hon. T. K. Tapling and other prominent collectors.

With regard to the varieties perforated 13 and 14--while these are
undoubtedly rare, all the evidence strongly points to the fact that they
are unofficial varieties, a statement, we believe, which has never been
seriously combated by students of the early Canadian stamps.

Thus, most of the "contrary" evidence adduced by Mr. King carries no
weight with it at all