Paper Money of Chihuahua

.. by Simon Prendergast

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home The History The dos caritas Counterfeit $10 dos caritas

Counterfeit $10 dos caritas

On 27 January 1915 de la Garza sent Navarro, at Norris Peters, a counterfeit $10 note (series number 249481) and asked for the firm’s commentsLG papers, 6-D-37, letter from de la Garza, El Paso, to Navarro, Washington, 27 January 1915. De la Garza had also seen counterfeit $5 notes. A week later Navarro replied that the note was lithographed (hecho en piedra) and poorly done. It was obviously false at first sight, but even more differences were visible under a magnifying glass. The experts in Washington thought that the Government Palace and the figures around it were the only part that was exactly the same as on a genuine note, so they were of the opinion that the image of the Palace had been taken from the original stone (which was in Navarro's possession) or that the person who made the plate stole or, rather, possessed a similar one. They based this opinion on the fact that the images such as the car, people and shades kept the same relative distances as on the genuine notes, a difficult feat to copyLG papers, 6-E-7, letter from Navarro, Washington, to de la Garza, El Paso, 3 February 1915.

This is probably the same counterfeit that de la Garza wrote to Vargas about. The differences that de la Garza noted, and marked up, on his example in his letter to Vargas were

GENUINECOUNTERFEIT

“X” open (abierto)
“X” closed (cerrado abajo)
secret printer’s marks
strokes of the ‘E’ are larger
shadows of the ‘E S’ are different
has part of a star
figura touches the figuras above space between figuras
triangles are larger and ray clearer
IE’ separate ‘‘IE’ joined, so black forms an ‘O’
Shadows of ‘A’ different
figura touches side space

(la linea recta casi hasta arriba de la Estrella y hace vurva)
line is curved

sal la curva donde acaba la linea

esta metido debajo de dicha linea
three decorations in the ‘10’ are larger and different

(dos manchas blancas. y la raya negra llegar casi a tocar la otra y hace curva  el recta)
Detail separated from the circle of the ‘10’ Detail touches the circle

(La X esta separada y la sombra hace una linea recta y depues quiebra recta)

(quiebra con curva)
the shading of the letters is unbroken, without gaps the shading had many gaps
Chao’s signature different

(limpia)

(la j tiene una linea que mas bien parece un rasgo de la o)
Portraits and portraits’ shading different
Two Three
Background on reverse does not touch sides but leaves a white space Background touch sides

whilst Vargas' instructions to Saravia, dated 6 February, gave the followingADUR, gaveta 6, nombre 88:

GENUINECOUNTERFEIT

The ‘X’ in the lower left corner is joined just at the top, whilst at the bottom there is a slight break: the ‘X’ on the right has breaks at both top and bottom
Both ‘X’s are joined at top and bottom
In Vargas’ signature there is only a small line between the letters ‘rg’ There is an extra dot between the letters
The ‘IE’ of ‘DIEZ’ in the upper corners are separated The ‘IE’ are joined
The upper curve of Vargas’s signature is regular (regularmente marcada) Curve appears a little crushed (un poco aplastada)
paper is slightly glossy (lustroso) paper is very dull and rough (muy opaco y aspero)

The other contemporary comment was from Navarro.

GENUINECOUNTERFEIT
based on the original plate but the Palace and the figures around it are the only features that are exactly the same

Again there are differences in the Madero portrait. Types1-4 are genuine printings, whilst Types 5-8 are counterfeit

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4: smoother nose
Type 5 Type 6 Type 7 Type 8

and differences in the González portrait. Again Types1-4 are genuine printings, whilst Types 5-8 are counterfeit

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4
Type 5 Type 6 Type 7 Type 8

 

Main Menu