Commercial Overprint Society of Great Britain
Vol. 1 No. 9; March 1, 2004
Debenham & Freebody
by Bill Waggoner
"Debenham & Freebody" appears in the overprint applied in black to the surface-printed Inland Revenue stamps of the 1868-1880 issues (Barefoot 27 and 32), according to Booth. My copy is in black on four lines: "Received for / DEBENHAM & FREEBODY / £." The pound Stirling symbol is positioned low on the stamp and off-center to the left to allow one to write in the monetary amount on the receipt.
Until well into the 20th century, Debenham & Freebody maintained a number of clothing manufacturing operations and directed a chain of "traditional" department stores in some 65 different cities in the UK from a headquarters originally located on Wigamore Street, London. In 1905, the business had been incorporated and in 1928 was listed on the London Stock Exchange as an independent company. In 1985 it was acquired by the Burton Group, which introduced a number of "house brand" clothing lines and changed the firm's marketing philosophy. In 1998 the merger was dissolved and, as Debenhams PLC., the company once again became an independent business listed on the London Exchange.
The firm's early history is not so well defined. In fact, two very different accounts have been published about the company's beginnings. One, published by a married female genealogist whose maiden name was Debenham and who claimed to be related to the founder, reported that the company had been founded in 1813 by William Debenham (1794-1863) and Thomas Clark. According to her, it operated out of a single building at 44 Wigamore Street, London, and was known as "Debenham & Clark" on one side of the street and "Clark & Debenham" on the other side. In 1851, some years after Mr. Clark's retirement, it became "Debenham, Son, & Freebody", the "Son" being the eldest son, William Jr. Mr. Freebody was his brother-in-law as William Jr. had married Caroline Freebody. Following the senior Debenham's death, the company name was changed to "Debenham & Freebody." She cited genealogical research and a book written in 1909 about the Debenhams as her sources of information and invited correspondence from doubters.
The Debenhams' web site stated, "Though the company dates back to 1778, the Debenham's name first appeared in 1813 as the partnership of Clark and Debenham in London's Wigamore Street." The remainder of the account is essentially that given above.
Several brief mentions of Debenham & Freebody have appeared in The Guardian newspaper, beginning in 1999. It noted (21 October 2000), for example, that, "From its beginnings as a small draper in Wigamore Street in 1778,...it grew to a chain of more than 60...stores." Five days later (26 October 2000) is was reported, "no Debenham ever existed. It was founded by someone named Freebody. Fearing perhaps that his name alone might seem lonely and insecure...he lifted the name from (his home village) in Suffolk and put it ahead of his... When marketing men in the 20th century wanted to liven the image up, they kept the non-existent Debenham and consigned the poor real-life Freebody to the waste bin." The genealogist quoted earlier knew of the newspaper's article and stated flatly that, "it was wrong."
Whatever the firm's ancestry, the commercial overprint of "Debenham and Freebody" is known to have been used in the late 19th century.
6d. and 1s. Commercial Overprints
by Michael Behm
The next time you go into a stamp store to look for those elusive commercial overprints, remember to look in the store's stock of 6d stamps, not just the 1d—2d material. These are the commercial overprints I have that are on higher values.
I suspect that you can get a reasonably good idea of the relative number of overprints that appear in each reign. The Queen Victoria issue and the Kings are quite scarce; the Queen Elizabeth issues are more common, but they are still difficult to find.
You will notice that a relatively large percentage of the overprints on SG 736 were postally used, which is to be expected. However, the cover, below, was mailed when the commercial overprints were not valid for postage. Perhaps the clerk thought it would be easier to apply the two overprints rather than use five perfins.
(Click to see a larger version (100KB)).
Send comments or questions to mjbehm@kw.igs.net