In an earlier post, I misunderstood a change that Douglas Myall made to his Deegam Handbook. I have added a note to that post, and below is what Myall wrote in his latest Deegam Report.
My sincerest apologies to our readers and to Douglas Myall for the error and the confusion that it caused.
Writing in Roy Simpson’s blog, Larry Rosenblum refers to the announcement in Deegam Report 113 and states that I have “stopped distinguishing between types 1 and 2”. This is a misunderstanding and I have received several e-mails asking if I have indeed stopped distinguishing the two types. The answer is that I have not. The subject is dealt with on pages 15 and 16 of chapter 7, where it is stated that the former type 2a was discontinued but that the three basic types 1, 2 and 3 remain. All that has happened as a result of the announcement in DGR113 is that the types are no longer mentioned in the Notes column of the singles catalogue list unless the same stamp exists with more than one type. In such a case the fact is mentioned in a footnote. This could not be done if I had abandoned types 1 and 2.