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 comments^{LG 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 copy^{LG 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

GENUINE	COUNTERFEIT
“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 following^{ADUR, gaveta 6, nombre 88}:

GENUINE	COUNTERFEIT
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.

GENUINE	COUNTERFEIT
	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	Tpe 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