Counterfeit Gobierno Provisional de México notes

No attempt to classify the Gobierno Provisional de México issues can ignore the fact there were countless counterfeits that could explain some of the differences. For instance, in late September 1915 newspapers in Mexico City^{The Mexican Herald, Año XXI, No. 7313, 28 September 1915} and Veracruz^{El Pueblo, Veracruz, Año II, Tomo II, Núm. 353, 26 September 1915. Also published in Democracia, Zacatecas, Año I, Núm. 15, 15 December 1915 and Núm. 16, 16 December 1915} published an unsigned statement from the Currency Bureau of the Treasury Department at Veracruz that listed the characteristics of sixteen different examples of counterfeit Gobierno Provisional notes (also published in English). The result was something approaching financial panic, as it was generally assumed that this was a prelude to the government repudiating much of the paper money in issue. The American consul reported that he had been most reliably informed that the so-called counterfeit notes had been issued by the Constitutionalist government in Veracruz and that at least six different issues had been made showing considerable difference in the plates, inks, and paper with the preconceived idea that when the suitable moment came the government itself should repudiate at least five of such issues as counterfeit giving as a reason such apparent differences in the notes as they actually show upon comparison^{SD papers, 812.515/59 telegram Parker, Mexico City to Secretary of State, 29 September 1915. This belief, that the varieties had been produced by the government itself, so that it could later repudiate its issues, was widespread among Americans. Samuel W. Ritter, president of the International Association of Mexico, asked the U.S. representative in Mexico to inform the Secretary of State that the legation knew, through highly reliable informants, that the forgeries came from the government itself; "they think they see in this news (of the falsifications and the Veracruz scandal) the virtual repudiation of most of the entire circulating currency to give rise to the new issue of 250 million" that was being announced, and this would lead to the ruin of all but the speculators, which would reduce the internal debt. Although it had been assured that the notes would be revalidated, the public no longer had confidence because with past validations they had actually resulted in arbitrary cancellations of a good part of the notes presented, that is, they were considered invalid banknotes effectively issued by the government in legal terms even if they did not have the necessary backing (telegram blue cipher, Mexico, 29 September 1915, SD 812.515/59). Charles B. Parker, representing American citizens in Mexico City, told the secretary of state that the impression that it was a preconceived action by the authorities so that, when the new currency came out, it would disown between 75% and 90% of the previously issued by them or several of the Veracruz issues of forced circulation to which they would declare false, which would be supported by the fact that they showed considerable differences with the real one, both in the plates and in the ink and on the paper, errors so visible that it was assured that they had been made on purpose precisely with the intention of easily ignoring them (SD 812.515/60. telegram Charles B. Parker, 29 September 1915). A document sent to the Secretary of State by the American Society of Mexico reported that the notes were so poorly made that they could easily be counterfeited, and assumed that it would be a maneuver for the official cancellation of notes that were supposed to be spurious; to protect the public, the respective department put a seal on those who declared themselves good and the rest were pierced and invalidated. However, this provision lacked seriousness, because when an employee was asked how he could differentiate between the authentic and the spurious, the answer was dubious: "That," he said, "is a professional secret." (NAW, SD papers, 812.515/61 telegram 29 September 1915; SD papers 812.515/68 Communications, 1 and 27 October 1915)}.

Three days later, the Jefe de Hacienda in Puebla, José Mayoral, published his own commentary on the list, this time emphasing the characteristics of genuine notes more than the counterfeits. Mayoral published another notice with the latest information on 23 November.