he Rosette Eagles,

Lost Classic Stamps of Mexico

(In Two Parts - Part One)
By Farley P. Katz1
“perhaps we can clear up a mystery that
should have been cleared years ago.”
Frederick G. Ingham, 19742
or some time, I have been intrigued by the so-called Ro- ing more complex patterns. he Rosette stamp has some-
F sette Eagles. See Figures 1 & 2. Although the stamps
have been known for over 100 years, they have always been
what of a tapestry-like appearance, due to its uniformly thin,
lightly engraved lines and lack of contrast.
a mystery. Some have believed them to be genuine postage
stamps used in Oaxaca; others essays, probably a rejected de- he stamps are denominated in reales, a currency set to be
sign for the 1864 Eagle stamps; yet others, unissued stamps abandoned by Mexico on January 1, 1862, but actually con-
that were replaced by the Eagles; and still others, outright tinued in use on stamps until the three-centavo Eagle of
fakes, pure fantasy stamps made to sell to collectors. Elabo- May 1, 1865.4
rate stories have been told of their origin – one, that their
lack of a crown was the engraver’s absent-minded mistake, he one-real Rosette is found in muted ultramarine, but also
which he discovered after the fact and had to start anew, in a grayer blue with a greenish tinge. I don’t know if these
producing the 1864 Eagle; another, that they were facsimi- are color changelings. hat of the two real is an intense and
les of the 1864 stamp made by the Mexican government in bright orange, although it has also been reported in “red or-
1893 for public exhibition in Chicago. ange” which I have not seen. hese colors are lovely and
close to those of the corresponding values of the Eagles.
I have always thought the stamps are so beautifully designed
and engraved they could not be a fabrication made for the hey exist only imperforate. he printing generally is beau-
fast buck of the philatelic market. hey’re exquisite; simply tiful, the stamps showing all the details of the ine engraving
too good to be false. But what are they, exactly? with no apparent wear, although the top of the stamp often
fails to print fully and the ink on the two real may be blotchy.
he stamps are not very rare and are relatively inexpensive,
but the two real is much scarcer than the one real.5

he Literature

he earliest reference I have found in the philatelic literature

Figures 1, 2, & 3
Overview of the stamps
he Rosette Eagle stamps are closely similar and obviously
related to the 1864-1866 Eagles. See Figure 3.3 hey have a
central oval in which appears the eagle, cactus and snake, but
unlike the Eagle stamps, the eagle has no crown.
he design surrounding the Rosette’s oval also difers. he
wording is the same as in the Eagle stamp, but CORREOS
MEXICO and the value are placed further to the top and
bottom of the oval. he lettering style is very similar in the
two. he Rosette stamp has large machine-turned orna-
ments in each corner, often called “rosettes,” which feature
has given the name “Rosette Eagle” to this stamp. he re-
mainder of the background consists of thinly engraved lines
which form lozenges, similar to the Eagle stamps, but form-
to the Rosette Eagles is in an article published in Octo-
ber 1910 in Mexico Filatelico, a stamp journal published in
French in Mexico City.6 he editor of the journal and author
of the article, Charles Pinon, quoted (in French translation)
the April 8, 1864, decree authorizing the Eagle stamps.7 he
decree provided that new stamps bearing the image of the
Aguila Imperial Mexicana (Imperial Mexican Eagle) shall
be produced and would be mandatory for all mail begin-
ning on May 15, 1864, on which date existing stocks of old
stamps would be destroyed. Pinon then stated:
Le graveur chargé d’éxécuter la matrice de ces timbres
oublia dans sa précipitation de courouner l’Aigle! On ne
s’en aperçut que lorsqu’il y eut quelques feuilles de tirées
du un real. Horreur et désolation! Une Aigle Impériale
sans couronne! Ce n’était pas possible d’admettre une
chose pareille! Aussi furent-elles mises au rancart; le
malheureux graveur obligé de recommencer son travail.

Mexicana July 2012 137

 Ce qui fait que les timbres ne furent pas mis en cours à la
date indiquée, et fut probablement la cause de l’oubli du
dernier paragraphe du décret de la Régence!
Ce timbre ne fut donc pas un essai ainsi qu’on l’a prétendu,
mais bien une erreur, au même titre, par exemple que le
20 c. bleu de France émission de 1848, qui ne fut pas mis
en cours non plus.
(he engraver charged with executing the die for the
stamps in his haste forgot to crown the Eagle! He did
not notice that until a few sheets of the one real had been
printed. Horror and desolation! he Imperial Eagle
without a crown! Such a thing could not be permitted!
So they were discarded and the unfortunate engraver
was forced to restart his work. his is why the stamps
were not issued on the date indicated, and probably why
the decree’s last paragraph [requiring all old stamps to be
destroyed] was ignored!) 8
(his stamp was not an essay as has been claimed, but an
error like the 20 c. blue issue of France of 1848, which
similarly was not issued.9)
Although there was no illustration, it is clear that Pinon was
referring to the Rosette Eagles, of which he must have seen
only the one real. His story that the engraver “forgot” to
add the crown, however, is nonsense. he one real was not
the only value printed. Did the engraver have to engrave a
master die, make transfer dies, transfer multiple images to
two plates and print sheets of both values before he noticed
the absence of the crown? Nor was the deadline missed; the
Eagle stamps were in fact issued early, with some used on
May 8.10 Nor did the engraver begin his work in haste after
the April 8 decree. he engraving of the Eagle stamps must
have already been completed or largely so when the decree
was issued; it is almost inconceivable that 166,000 stamps
of ive diferent values (the total recorded as printed by May
8) could have been produced from scratch in 30 days.11 he
decree thus must have been issued after the dies and perhaps
also the plates had been completed and simply was the of-
icial “go ahead” to issue the stamps.12 And inally, if the
stamps had been printed early in 1864, why are they entirely
unknown in the literature until 1910?
Pinon’s absent-minded engraver is “undocumented folklore”
to use Leo V. Corbett’s term.13 It is very similar to other
philatelic mythology such as the legend that the irst two
stamps of Mauritius bear the inscription “Post Oice” in-
stead of “Post Paid” as a result of another absent-minded en-
graver’s error.14 Pinon’s article, however, does provide valu-
able information, as it dates the stamps’ existence to at least
1910 and shows that some philatelists then believed them to
be unissued stamps. And, as we shall see, it turns out to be
138 Mexicana July 2012
much more signiicant than that.
he next mention I found of the Rosette was in an article by
Charles Mekeel in the Philatelic Journal of America, pub-
lished in January 1912, who stated that he was unaware of
any prior published reference to the stamps. His article was
a “review” of the 1912 Stanley Gibbons catalog listing of
Mexican stamps. After discussing the 1864 Eagles, Mekeel
wrote:
Just at this point, we may observe that we do not remem-
ber of any mention in the philatelic press of a certain
Republican issue for which plates at least were prepared,
which showed the Mexican Eagle in the arms, but with-
out the imperial crown of the Emperor. hese stamps
were alleged to have been used for a short period in
Oaxaca, but the fact has never been substantiated to our
satisfaction.15
he article illustrated a pair of the stamps bearing Oaxaca
overprint and cancellation. See Figure 4.
Figures 4 and 5
In 1917, philatelist Charles J. Phillips referred to these
stamps as “Modern Essays,” and told a diferent story of
their origin:
In 1893 the Mexican Government decided to make an
exhibition of their old stamps at the World’s Fair, in
Chicago. As they had no stamps of the “Eagle” issue
of the values of 1 and 2 reales in stock, an imitation was
made, the 1 real in sky-blue and the 2 reales in orange
and in orange-red.
he 1 rl. is met with unused and also with forged oblit-
eration. he 2 rls., unused, and with the number and
date “20—1864” in small igures.16
In 1935, philatelists Paul de Smeth and Marquis de Fayolle
repeated the Chicago story, adding that the Government
apparently used “un ancient cliché” (“an old die”) to “recon-
struct” new printing plates. hey also discussed the color
and cancellations:
Le 1 real est blue ciel et les 2 reales orange et rouge-
orange; le 2 reales porte parfois la surcharge 20-1864 et
les deux valeurs sont connues avec fausses obliterations,
dont le 2 reales avec le cachet type boite “ORIZAVA
 Diciembre”.17
(he 1 real is sky blue and the 2 reales orange and
red-orange; the 2 reales is sometimes overprinted 20-
1864 and the two values are known with fake cancel-
lations, including the 2 reales with the box cancellation
“ORIZAVA Diciembre.”)
In 1946, Calvert Stier repeated the story that Mexico had
created plates to print the Rosettes for display in Chicago
in 1892, adding that they also wanted the stamps “for their
own archives.” Plates were engraved “in imitation of the
originals” and “numerous sheets were printed from these.”18
In 1964, John K. Bash included the one and two-real Ro-
settes in his article “19th Century Proofs and Essays of
Mexican Stamps,” assigning them reference numbers P81
and P82. He also repeated the Chicago World’s Fair story
and commented on the overprints as follows:
Whether these numbers are forgeries or government
imitations is not determinable by the writer. Probably
they are forgeries.19
No doubt based on the Chicago World’s Fair story,
Guillermo Celis Cano listed both values of the Rosettes in
the irst edition (1965) of his Catalogo Especializado de los
Sellos Postales de Mexico as “re-impresións oicial” (“oi-
cial reprints”).20 He assigned the Rosettes catalog numbers
and described the colors as “azul” (“blue”) and “anaranjado”
(“orange”),21 commenting:
Listamos estas variedades por haberse mandado hacer
oicialmente, pero nunca se usaron como sellos de
correo …
(We list these varieties as having been made oicially,
but never used as postage stamps …)
In the third edition (1971), co-authored with his brother
Jose Alberto Celis Cano, an image of a pair of the Rosettes
was reproduced, one stamp printed much higher than the
other. See Figure 5. Finally, in the fourth edition (1974),
the catalog listed the one real as also found on “papel listado”
(“laid paper”), assigning it a separate catalog number.
In 1970, Manuel Carrera Stampa repeated the Chicago
World’s Fair story in his Historia del Correo en México.22
Curiously, the illustrations included in that work of the
“Emisión de Aguilas Imperiales 1864” (“Issue of Imperial
Eagles”) were in fact images of one-real Rosette Eagles.
In 1972, Frederick G. Ingham dismissed the Chicago
World’s Fair story as a philatelic legend, pointing out that he
Mexicana July 2012
could ind no evidence that Mexico exhibited any stamps at
that fair.23 Ingham expounded on this point in a 1974 arti-
cle, asking why would “Mexico … want to show stamps that
were issued by a former hated ruler, Maximilian…?”24 In
the irst edition of his Catalog of the Proofs, Essays, Sample,
Specimen & Test Stamps of Mexico (1972), Ingham stated
that “these ‘essays’ are known with fake cancels and fake
overprints. heir authenticity is very doubtful.” In the sec-
ond edition of his Catalog (1979), however, Ingham made a
striking observation. He concluded that it was “impossible”
the plates were engraved in 1893, given their “workman-
ship”:
Blocks are known, and the settings of the Impressions
are rather irregular, comparable with the workmanship
on the early plates of the issued Eagles. Because of this
workmanship, which was far below 1893 standards, it is
impossible that these were contemporary [i.e., 1893] es-
says [sic] for the Eagle issue. …25
hese observations about the Rosettes’ plates led Ingham to
replace his prior dismissal of the stamps as “very doubtful”
with the less critical “nothing is known of their origins.”
Ten years later, Walter Widmaier repeated the Chicago
World’s Fair story, adding that “Teile dieser ‘Sonderaulage’
sind vermutlich mit anderen unüberdruckten Restbeständen
in den Handel gelangt” (“Parts of this ‘special edition’
probably entered into the trade with other unoverprinted
remainders.”)26
In 1993, Leo V. Corbett discussed Bash’s and Ingham’s com-
ments. He noted that “Some of these little-valued stamps
have been overprinted with invoice number and year in a
clumsy efort to deceive collectors,” but was unable to reach
any conclusion about the stamps, stating only “hey are
probably fakes or essays.”27
In 2002, Joe Arce published a short note about the Rosettes,
referring to them as “essays” and “cinderellas” and suggesting
they may be fakes.28
In 2006, Randall Grace included the Rosette Eagles as
Type 7 of eight types of “eagle counterfeits.” He noted that
Ingham had “referred to these as ‘Essays’ but without any
evidence.”29
Fakes, essays or unissued stamps?30
What, then, is the story of these stamps? No one has under-
taken any comprehensive analysis of the stamps. To solve
this mystery, we need to consider all the evidence.
139
 Design
he stamps have a very early look to them. hey are very
lightly engraved and look like stamps of the 1850s or 1860s
and not at all like those of the 1890s or later. But the
quaintness of the design is not simply a result of the delicate
engraving.
he eagle on the Rosettes, with the body and elongated neck
forming a continuous curve towards the left, and thin, out-
stretched wings, is in the style of Mexican eagles from the
early 19th Century. It is close to that used on Mexico’s coins
since 1824, and gives the stamp an antique look.31 See Fig-
ure 6.
Figure 6
But there is an additional reason the Rosette stamps have an
early look. he frame surrounding the central oval was cop-
ied, down to minute details, from a stamp made ive years
before Mexico issued its irst stamp. In 1851, the United
States issued an imperforate twelve-cent stamp depicting
Washington. See Figures 7 & 8. he stamp’s frame is virtu-
ally identical to that of the Rosette stamps, including the
placement of wording, presence of corner rosettes, patterns
of intersecting lines forming lozenge shapes and even an
interior rectangular border (which is a little diicult to see in
the Rosettes because it is largely covered by the oval). Un-
questionably, the Rosettes were based on the US stamp.32
Figures 7 and 8
140 Mexicana July 2012
Style
he overall designs of the Eagle stamps and the Rosette
stamps are so similar that experienced philatelists accept-
ed the story that the Rosettes had been made years later
as copies of the Eagles. But the similarity is not just one
of general design; much of the details of the engraving are
virtually identical. he eagles’ heads are nearly identical, al-
though the Rosette eagle of course has no crown. he short
lines indicating feathers, the shading of the underwings con-
sisting of dense parallel lines, the lower part of the eagle and
the number and coniguration of pads on each cactus all are
strikingly similar and have the same “feel.” See Figures 9 &
10. he lettering in both and the shading behind the letters
also is virtually identical, and the thin engraved lines form-
ing lozenge-shaped designs, although not identical, have a
similar “feel.” Based on these close stylistic similarities, I
believe, as did Pinon, that the Rosette stamps were engraved
by the same person who engraved the 1864-1866 stamps. If
this is correct, they cannot be fakes.
Figures 9 and 10
Printing method
he stamps were engraved in intaglio.33 Intaglio or recess
engraving, also called taille douce, is an expensive, time-
consuming process that requires highly specialized skills
and training.34 For this reason, forgers have rarely used in-
taglio when making copies of stamps even when the original
stamps were produced by that method. In the irst edition
of Album Weeds (1882), Earée described a great number
of forgeries of postage stamps made roughly from 1860 to
1880. Although hundreds of the genuine stamps were en-
graved in intaglio, I found only one forgery – one! – that was
intaglio, and only a handful that were engraved by any pro-
cess. All the other forgeries were lithographed. As Earée
observed, “of course I need not tell my readers that it would
not pay the forgers to go to the expense of engraving their
wares on steel or copper …”35 Lithography is much cheaper
and has suiced over the years for the overwhelming major-
ity of forgeries. Of the 16 types of forgeries of the 1856-
1867 issues identiied by Joe D. Stuart, only one was recess
printed, and that one was a forgery of the very valuable eight
real supposedly made in Germany.36 Of the eight types of
“counterfeits” of the eagle stamps (excluding the very rare
and expensive three centavos), Randall Grace identiied
only one other as engraved, and that one is a sorry thing, far
from the precision and beauty of the Rosette Eagles. he
fact that the Rosettes are engraved is strong evidence they
are not forgeries.
Printing plates
he pair illustrated in the 1912 article shows two stamps at
an angle to each other and nearly touching at top. See Fig-
ure 4. Similarly, the pair illustrated by Celis Cano is wildly
misaligned. See Figure 5. Ingham, who had seen blocks of
the stamps, said that the stamps’ “settings … [were] rather
irregular, comparable with the workmanship on the early plates
of the issued Eagles” (emphasis supplied).
Although I have not seen any blocks which Ingham says
exist, almost all the stamps I have are cut very close on the
right and left sides but have ample top and bottom margins.
he same is true for the 1864 Eagles which results from
the fact that the stamps were laid out on the plate in tightly
spaced rows, widely separated from each other:
Eagle Issues were spaced close together from side to
side, sometimes so irregularly that frames touch or even
overlap at times. VF stamps have ample top and bottom
margins, but side margins may just clear.37
See Figure 11.
Figure 11
As Mekeel recognized, the Rosettes were printed from en-
graved plates. Ingham concluded it was “impossible” that
the stamps were a fabrication produced many years later.
Indeed, for the plates to have been engraved in, say, 1893,
the engraver must have had, not only extremely advanced
engraving skills, but also the artistic and historic knowledge
and sophistication to produce an authentic-looking stamp
of the 1860s and to arrange the plate layout so as to appear
typical of the times. All this is so improbable that we may
dismiss it. As L.N. and M. Williams stated about another
stamp:
it is diicult to believe that any purveyor of a purely
phantom issue would have gone to so much trouble and
expense in having the stamps produced so excellently.38
Conversely, since the Rosette plates layout is identical to the
Eagles’ we may conclude they were both engraved close in
Mexicana July 2012
time. If this is true, the Rosettes cannot be fakes. But the fact
the Rosettes were printed from engraved plates also tells us
they are not simply essays. A plate with multiple rows of
stamps is not needed if one just wants to make an essay to
show what a proposed stamp would look like; die proofs
would suice and be much easier and cheaper. Essays and
die proofs exist for most of the issues from 1856 through
1872. All these consist of individual stamps, except for a pair
(1864 Eagles), strips of three diferent values (Maximilian
essays) and strips of ive stamps (1856s, Maximilians and
1872s). No essays exist in the form of blocks of any size.39
he fact that at least two engraved printing plates with
multiple rows of stamps were produced, thus is highly sig-
niicant and tells us that the plates were made for the actual
manufacture of the stamps. It also tells us that the stamps
were well on their way to production as a regular issue of
Mexico, to replace the 1861 Hidalgos, but were abandoned
during that process.
hese conclusions are consistent with the fact that only the
one and two real values exist. Records of the lithographed
and especially the engraved Maximilians show that the irst
stamps printed were the values most needed.40 If Mexico
were replacing the Hidalgos with a new issue, it seems logi-
cal that the plates for the one and two-real values would
have been prepared irst as they were the most needed, and
the survival of only those values (or plates, if the stamps
were printed later) would be consistent with abandonment
of the project mid-stream.
Overprints and cancellations
he one-real stamp is found most often “unused,” with gum.
I also have one with just an invoice number and year, but no
cancellation. In addition, I have ive with cancellations, but
no invoice numbers or dates. Although the printed invoice/
year numbers are perfectly legible, the stamped cancellations
usually are poorly inked and diicult to make out. None are
known on cover.
Here is a summary of the one reales I have:
Unused 13
Unused, invoice no/year 77 1864 1
Cancelled, no invoice no/year
FRANCO EN ZACATECAS (2 lines) 2
QUERETARO/AGOSTO (box) 1
Cancelled, with invoice no/year
QUERETARO/AGOSTO (box) & 19 66 1
Cancelled, with district name
Single box w/unreadable name & illegible district name 1
Double Box w/S.L. POTOSI/[no date?] 1
In addition to these, there is the pair illustrated in Mekeel’s
141
1912 article:
Oaxaca CDS (7 AGOSTO 1864) & 77 1864
See Figure 4. To this, we can add the stamp illustrated by
Grace with an unreadable double circle cancellation with
EN in the center.
Most of the two reales are unused and have the printed
invoice number/year 20—1864, although de Smeth and
Fayolle noted one with a fake Orizava box cancellation.
Jesper provided one without cancellation or overprint, and I
have since acquired one myself.
he fraudulent reprints
But what is the signiicance of these bogus overprints and
cancellations? To answer this question we must consider the
“fraudulent reprints.”
Around the turn of the twentieth century, the philatelic
market was “looded” with fraudulent reprints of the 1856,
1861 and 1867 Hidalgo issues. he history of the fraudu-
lent reprints is exceedingly complex and little understood.
he basic accepted story is as follows: Sometime around
1890, persons in Mexico obtained the original printing
plates for the 1856-1861 and 1867 issues. hose persons
also obtained some original cancellation and overprint de-
vices as well as some of the paper actually used for the 1861
issue. hese materials were either stolen or “purchased” from
the Mexican Post Oice or Postal Museum. he plates
were used to manufacture a vast number of copies of these
stamps, most of which were overprinted with district names
and cancelled. In addition to the genuine cancellation and
overprint devices obtained from the Post Oice, many fake
cancellations and district name stamps were manufactured
and used on the stamps as well. he reprints were also used
to produce splits tied to covers and on pieces. hese prod-
ucts were sold in Mexico, the United States and Europe.
hese nefarious activities continued into the irst decade of
the twentieth century. Philatelists, however, disagree on the
details of the history of these reprints. In 1902, dealer C.H.
Mekeel wrote that he had “reason to believe old printing
plates of both the 4 reales and 8 reales were stolen [from
the Post Oice Museum] and … cut apart so that a piece of
each is in the hands of two diferent parties formerly part-
ners in the ‘enterprise.’”41 In 1911, John Hall Barron told a
somewhat diferent story, that the “original dies or plates of
most of the denominations of 1856 and 1861, if not all, were
handed over to an American dealer…[who also] acquired or
imitated the overprints of certain districts, and some oblit-
eration stamps …[and] turned out the most remarkable set
of reproductions which it is possible to imagine.”42 Although
Barron did not identify the dealer, we do know that, on De-
142 Mexicana July 2012
cember 11, 1893, Eduardo F. Cottilla, a stamp dealer in St.
Louis employed by C.H. Mekeel, wrote to Stanley Gibbons
of London ofering to sell three original printing plates for
the 1856 stamps, two of the one real and one of the two real,
each consisting of 10 rows of 20 stamps.43 he sale did not
go through and Cottilla or others may have used those plates
to manufacture more reprints in St. Louis, which became
the leading source for them.44 Mekeel, however, dismissed
Barron’s claim that the reprints were made in the United
States, stating that the stamps Barron described –
come from a Mexican dealer, who had access to the
National Postal Museum in the City of Mexico, in
which is stored all the old cancellation dies, and dies for
surcharging stamps.45
In 1917, Charles Phillips told a story with similarities to
both Barron’s and Mekeel’s in which an “American dealer
… disposed of large parcels of these things …. in the ‘90’s”
and, later, “[a]bout 1902 two dealers in Mexico City appear
to have obtained portions of the plates of the 1856 issue,
which were supposed to have been stolen from the Postal
Museum there.”46
Many studies have been devoted to the First Design reprints
and their bogus cancellations and district overprints, but the
highly complex story still remains largely veiled in fog.47
Stolen or “purchased” plates
One day the following occurred to me. If the plates for
the Rosette stamps had been engraved in 1864 or before,
those plates could have remained in the possession of the
Mexican Government. he persons who took the plates for
the 1856-1861 issues around 1890 might also have taken
the Rosette plates. hose plates could have found their way,
along with the Hidalgo plates, to the persons who were
manufacturing the fraudulent reprints and could have been
used to manufacture the Rosettes along with the reprints.
his could explain why. Among other things, the Rosettes
are unknown before 1910. 48
Cancellations and overprints
To test this hypothesis, I set of to compare the Rosette
stamps with the reprints to see if there is evidence that both
originate from the same source. I started with the pair pic-
tured in the Philatelic Journal of America which bear the
district name “OAXACA,” an invoice/date “77 1864,” and
a CDS from OAXACA dated 7 AGOST 1864. See Figure
4. How does that compare to the reprints? Both Liera and
de Smeth and Fayolle tell us that First Design stamps us-
ing the district name OAXACA, so spelled, are among the
fraudulent reprints as the overprint was spelled OAJACA
until 1865.
I then contacted Bubba Bland to see if he had any of the re-
prints with the Oaxaca district name. He had one, a four real
of the 1861 issue. he image he sent me, reproduced here as
Figure 12, also has the district name spelled OAXACA. But
a close examination of the spacing and alignment of the let-
ters in the district overprints shows that they were not just
similar; they were identical. In both, the OA are too close
together and the inal CA are separated from the other let-
ters. Also, the X is very large in both and taller than the A
which precedes it. See Figures 12 & 12A.
Figures 12 and 12A
Unlike many of the other overprints on the reprints which
were newly created, the OAXACA district name was add-
ed using a genuine device the forgers had obtained.49 his
identical overprint, with its distinctive spacing and letter
“X,” is found on genuine Eagle stamps. However, this over-
print was irst used in March 1865, on Fourth Period Eagles,
when the Empire seized some towns in the state.50
Figures 13,14, & 15
In addition, both Bubba’s stamp and the Rosette pair in the
1912 article are cancelled with what appears to be the same
CDS cancellation from OAXACA, although the dates difer.
Although the 1912 image is poor, it has the same distinc-
tive letters, O (slightly slanted), X, and the F in FRANCO,
with its heavily inked top bar. De Smeth and Fayolle state
that the Oaxaca “reprints generally have a round cancella-
tion, although the originals nearly always … are cancelled
with a ‘box’ type…”51 he cancellation illustrated in the
Mexicana translation is the same type as on the 1912 Ro-
sette and Bubba’s reprint.52 he same “OAXACA” overprint
and (apparently) same cancellation appear on other reprints
Mexicana July 2012
in images on CDs provided by Jesper Andersen.53
Other cancellations on my Rosettes conirm the connection
between the Rosette Eagles and the 1856-1861 reprints.
Two of my Rosettes have a box cancellation for Queretaro,
with the date “AGOSTO” below in letters that are upright
and not slanting as on the more common Queretaro cancel
on reprints. he letters are small, their height accounting
for about half the height of each box. he lines forming the
boxes are very thin and the cancellations so lightly inked
that they are barely readable. See Figure 13, an enhanced
image, and Figure 14, a separate image of the cancellation.
It resembles the Queretaro box cancellation illustrated in de
Smeth and Fayolle, but is not identical.54 However, three
of the fraudulent reprints in the images Jesper provided me
have identical cancellations to this one.55 See Figure 15.
Randall Grace provided me with an image of a four-real
reprint which also has the same cancellation. Finally, the
Queretaro cancellation on an eight real illustrated in Ro-
berto Liera’s Característricas also appears to be the same.56
Two other of my Rosettes have FRANCO EN ZACATECAS
in two lines, without a box. See Figure 16. he letters are
laughably misaligned and not all from the same font. he
“O” looks more like a circle than a letter. his cancel is not
the one in de Smeth and Fayolle (which is common on the
reprints).57 his identical cancellation, however, appears on
two of the reprints in the images provided by Jesper.58 One
of these is a single stamp; the other consists of two splits
on a piece tied by the cancel. See Figure 17. An article by
Karl H. Schimmer and John Bash tells us that “sophisticated
fakes bearing [splits of ] reprints tied to cover or piece …
were made between 1890 and 1910, concurrently with the
mass production of reprints then being produced from the
original printing plates,”59 another piece of evidence tying
the Rosettes to the reprints.
Figures 16 and 17
he last legible cancellation I have is a double box cancel
for San Luis Potosi, which is generally similar to Schatzkés
1442A, but clearly is fake. See Figure 18. here is no simi-
lar one listed in de Smeth and Fayolle. I have found a very
similar cancellation on a four-real reprint I bought on eBay.
See Fig. 18A. Unfortunately, the strikes are not continuous
with each other and that on the eBay stamp is distorted.
Although I can not deinitively match these, the forms and
height of the letters “S” and “I” may be identical.
143

Figures 18 and 18A
Of the four legible cancellations I have seen on Rosettes,
at least three, and possibly all four, thus are also found on
the reprints. Moreover, this connection to the reprints dates
to nearly the beginning of the Rosettes’ documented exis-
tence.
Sources of the reprints
An independent line of evidence also connects the Rosettes
to the fraudulent reprints, one that may give us some insight
into their speciic origin. he irst two philatelists to have
published a mention of the Rosettes – Pinon in 1910 and
Mekeel in 1912 – are also known or alleged to have been as-
sociated with the wholesale distribution of the reprints.
Charles Pinon
Charles Pinon, as we have seen, published a small journal on
stamps in Mexico City from 1910 -1912. Pinon also was
a stamp dealer. In 1910 he published the earliest notice of
the Rosettes that I have found, stating they were unissued
stamps preceding the 1864 Eagle. Just three months earlier,
Pinon had published a brief notice of the existence of the re-
prints, noting the four and eight reales in particular, “ont été
faites avec les cliches oiciels (on ne sait, par suite de quelles
complaisances)” (“were made with the oicial dies, by some
unexplained favor.”)60
he Marquis de Fayolle’s private letters to Paul de Smeth
during their writing Les Premières Émissions du Mexique
have been translated into English by John Heath, a fascinat-
ing window into the immense and uncharted project they
had undertaken.61 In his letters, Fayolle accused Pinon of
distributing reprints from “an enormous stock.”62
Pinon thus was the irst philatelist to publish a mention of
the Rosette Eagles, in October 1910, and he also distributed
many fraudulent reprints. He may have known of the Ro-
settes because they were manufactured by the same persons
producing the reprints and were distributed together.
144 Mexicana July 2012
Mekeel
Mekeel was the second philatelist to publish a notice of the
Rosettes, in 1912. Like Pinon, he also had published no-
tices of the existence of reprints, and was among the irst to
do so, in 1893. hat article stated that reprints of the four
and eight-real stamps of 1856 “have been sent out in small
quantities by collectors who were in the Mexican Post Of-
ice for some years.” It then stated that “lately these high
values have been reprinted by the wholesale … and are being
ofered all over the world.”63
Charles Haviland Mekeel (1861-1921) was one of the great
American philatelists. At the turn of the 20th century, he
controlled a philatelic empire in St. Louis, including stamp
publications and sales. Mekeel specialized in Mexican
stamps. Mekeel is enshrined in the American Philatelic So-
ciety’s “Hall of Fame”64 and I assumed was beyond reproach.
But Fayolle had a very diferent view of him and accused
him of being “the main distributor” of reprints made be-
tween 1896-1898.65 Twenty years later, Calvin Stier repeat-
ed these charges, stating Mekeel “knowingly or otherwise,
imported thousands of these Mexican reprints and bogus
provisionals.”66 Ten years later still, James H. Beal told forg-
ery expert Lowell Ragatz that “Mekeel deinitely sold the
reprints …”67
Mekeel, however, repeatedly denied any involvement in the
sale of bogus stamps.68 For example, in 1911, Barron pub-
lished his statement that dies and plates of the 1856-1861
stamps had been obtained by an unnamed American dealer.
Although Mekeel was not accused, he lost no time attack-
ing Barron:
It reads like a fable and we doubt if there is anything in
the story.
If any plates or dies had been acquired by an Ameri-
can dealer who had a reprint “factory,” the facts would
be known. How utterly absurd it is to print and circulate
such a story absolutely devoid of truth or reason!69
Mekeel’s strident criticism of Barron itself raises questions.
Doth he protest too much? And how could he have so
much information about the sources of the reprints anyway?
Whatever the answers, we know that Mekeel had seen many
of the reprints, claimed deep familiarity with their history
and employed Cottilla, a person who in 1893 possessed
three original plates of the 1856 issue and who is suspected
of being connected with the reprints. All this suggests that,
at a minimum, the Rosette stamps which he discussed in
his 1912 article came to him with reprints, yet another fact
connecting the Rosettes to the reprints. S
(Endnotes)
1. Many persons have contributed to this article and deserve thanks.
First, I must thank Neil Coker and Roseann Staie at the American Phila-
telic Library, who tirelessly helped me track down obscure publications and
made my second visit to Bellefonte enjoyable and productive. I am also
indebted to Mercer Bristow, Director of Expertizing, who graciously made
available stamps in the APS reference collection for examination. In the
world of Mexican philately, I am especially indebted to Jesper Andersen,
Nick Follansbee, David Pietsch, and hurston “Bubba” Bland for reading
drafts of the article, making very helpful suggestions and raising challeng-
ing ideas in discussions. hanks also to Fritz Aebi, Peter Bamert, Marc
Gonzales, Randall Grace, Manuel Iglesias, Tad Mackie, Jerry Needham,
Gregg Nelson, Fernando Pérez-Maldonado and Michael Roberts. I also
owe thanks to Dr. Terry Conners, University of Kentucky, Lexington, for
help with identiication of ibers. Finally, I especially want to thank my
sons Farley T. Katz, for making images of cancellations, and Zander Katz,
for helping me with the microscopic examination of the paper ibers and
solving the inal mystery of the Rosettes.
2. “Questions, Concerning the ‘Rosette’ Type and the ‘Oicial Reprints’ of
the Eagle Issue,” Mexicana (Apr. 1974), Vol. 23, no. 2, ref. pp. 706,707.
3. An 1865 three centavos is illustrated here because of its ine print qual-
ity. hat stamp was produced from a diferent die than that used to produce
the other Eagle stamps. See G. Regelsperger, “he Tres Centavos of 1865-
66,” Stanley Gibbons Monthly Journal, Vol. XXI, no. 242 (Feb. 28, 1913),
pp. 41, 42.
4. Alicia S. Gutiérrez, “Mexico: the 1868-1872 Postal Rates,” Mexicana,
Vol. 42, no. 1 ( Jan. 1993), pp. 199-200.
5. Bash in 1964 gave their value at $2 for the one real and $4 for the two
real, and Ingham valued the one real in 1979 at $10. In 2002 Joe Arce
said they were not rare and the one real sold for $25-35. I have recently
paid $10 or less for them from knowledgeable dealers. Guillermo Celis
Cano and Charles Phillips priced the two values the same in their respective
catalogs, suggesting they found them equally common. See notes 16, 19-20,
& 28, below.
6. Charles Pinon, “Histoire Postal du Mexico,” Mexico Filatelico: Organe
Special Mensuel des Colletioneurs de l’Amerique Central et des Antilles,
An. 1, no. 6 (Oct. 15, 1910), pp. 2-3.
7. he original Spanish text of the decree is reproduced in Eladio A.
García Prada, “El Siglo XIX (El Siglo de las Luces),” Amexil, Special No.
10 (Nov. – Dec. 1990), pp. 721, 724. An English translation appears in
Samuel Chapman, he Postage Stamps of Mexico 1856-1868 (Lawrence,
Massachusetts: Quarterman Pubs., Inc. 1976), p. xxiii.
8. Stocks of the 1861 Hidalgos were retained by the Post Oice and were
used as provisional issues in 1867 after the defeat of Maximilian. See Nich-
olas Follansbee, A Catalogue of the Stamps of Mexico 1856-1910 (Ash-
land, Oregon: Follansbee 3d ed. 2006), p. 47.
9. Pinon apparently was referring to the 20 c. blue of 1849, which was
printed but not issued because of an increase in postal rates. See Steven C.
Walske, “Classic Errors of France” (Sept. 2001), on line at http://www.
rfrajola.com/lafayette/errors.pdf (visited July 1, 2011).
10. Follansbee, supra, p. 16.
11. Chapman, supra, p. 120.
12. his is even more obvious with respect to the 1856 issue, where the
decree of July 21, 1856, authorized stamps of which 1.8 million had been
printed by July 30, 1856, a mere nine days later. Chapman, supra, p. 2.
See my “Artists of Early Mexican Stamps,” Mexicana, Vol. 61, no. 4 ( Jan.
2012), pp. 7, 17 n. 99.
Mexicana July 2012
13. Leo V. Corbett, Imperial Eagles of Maximilian’s Mexico (Stanton,
California: Mexico Philatelic Library Association 1993), p. 57.
14. Hiroyuki Kanai, Classic Mauritius, the Locally Printed Postage
Stamps 1847-59 (London: Stanley Gibbons Pubs. Ltd. 1981), p. 19.
15. he Editor [C. H. Mekeel], “Notes on the Postage Stamps of Mexico,
A Review of Gibbon’s List,” Philatelic Journal of America, Vol. 22, No. 7
( Jan. 1912), pp. 241, 243 (emphasis in original).
16. Charles J. Phillips, Priced Catalogue of the 1856 to 1872 Issues of
Mexico, with a List of District Names and Numbers together with a De-
scription of the Reprints and Forgeries and Notes on the Plates, Colours,
Retouches, etc. (London: Stanley Gibbons, Ltd. 1917), p. 40.
17. Paul de Smeth & Marquis de Fayolle, Les Premières Émissions du
Mexique (1856 à 1874) (Amiens: Yvert & Cie. 1935), p. 100.
18. Calvert Stier, “Some Notes on the Half Real, ‘Eagle Issue,’” Collector’s
Club Philatelist, Vol. 25, no. 3 ( June 1946), reprinted in Mexicana Vol. 52,
no. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 67, 71.
19. John K. Bash, “19th Century Proofs and Essays of Mexican Stamps,”
Mexicana ( July 1964), ref. pp. 301, 303 and ig. 4.
20. Guillermo Celis Cano, Catalogo Especializado de los Sellos Postales de
Mexico (Mexico City: G. Celis Cano 1965).
21. Celis Cano changed the catalog numbers of the Rosettes in each of the
irst three editions.
22. Manuel Carrera Stampa, Historia del Correo en México (Mexico City:
Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes 1970), p. 215.
23. Frederick G. Ingham, A Catalog of the Proofs, Essays, Sample, Speci-
men & Test Stamps of Mexico (Elmhurst, Illinois: MEPSI 1972), p. 6.
See also his 1979 edition, p. 11.
24. “Questions, Concerning the ‘Rosette’ Type and the ‘Oicial Reprints’ of
the Eagle Issue,” supra, ref. pp. 706-707.
25. Ingham, Catalog, supra, p. 11. Ingham’s statement may be a little con-
fusing as he refers to “essays for the Eagle issue” possibly made in 1893, long
after the Eagle stamps were issued, as if there could be after-the-fact essays.
“Facsimiles” would have been a better word.
26. Walter Widmaier, Einführung in die Mexiko-Philatelie (Schwalmtal,
Germany: PhilCreativ GmbH 1989), pp. 56-57.
27. Leo V. Corbett, supra, p. 52.
28. Joe Arce, “Essays on Proofs: he Un Real Eagle ‘Essays’,” Mexicana,
Vol. 51, no. 3 ( July 2002), p. 146.
29. R. Randall Grace, “he Eagle Counterfeits: A Continuation Study,”
Mexicana, Vol. 55, no. 4 (Oct. 2006), pp. 201, 202.
30. he term “essay” includes a proposed stamp design that is rejected by the
postal authorities. Literally, this could include a stamp for which produc-
tion has begun, but which is not issued for some reason. See L.N. Wil-
liams, Fundamentals of Philately (State College, Pennsylvania: American
Philatelic Society, rev. ed. 1990), pp. 115-118. Here, however, I will refer
to stamps that have reached the stage of production of printing plates as
“unissued stamps” and not “essays,” even if they are ultimately rejected.
31. T.V. Buttrey & Clyde Hubbard, A Guide Book of Mexican Coins (Ra-
cine, Wisconsin: Western Pub. Co. 1971), p. 117.
32. he design also is similar to the frame of the 1851 three-cent proile
Washington.
33. Ingham, Catalog (1979), supra, p. 11; Grace, supra, p. 202.
34. Jean-François Brun (Raymond Gaillaguet, tr.), Out-Foxing the Fak-
ers, Faux et Truqués (State College, Pennsylvania: American Philatelic
Society, 1993), pp. 30-33. On intaglio generally, see L.N. Williams, Fun-
damentals of Philately, supra, ch. 9.
145
35. Rev. R. B. Earée, Album Weeds, or How to Detect Forged
Stamps (London: Stanley, Gibbons, and Co. [1882]), p. 32.
36. Joe D. Stuart, “he Counterfeits of Mexico’s 1856, 1861, and 1867
Issue,” Mexicana, Vol. 50, no. 1 ( Jan. 2001), Type VII.
37. Follansbee, supra, p. 16.
38. L.N. and M. Williams, Cinderella Stamps (London: Heinemann,
1970), p. 102 (emphasis supplied).
39. Ingham, Catalog, supra. Printing proofs of full sheets of the Eagle
stamps were made.
40. See Chapman, supra, p. 240. Records of the 1856, 1861 and 1864 is-
sues show that all values were initially released simultaneously and thus do
not give us any indication of the order in which the diferent denominations
were printed. See id., pp. 2, 39, 120.
41. C.H. Mekeel, “Reprints of the First Type,” Mekeel’s Stamp Collector,
Vol. 15, no. 44 (Nov. 3, 1902), p. 597.
42. “he Early Issues of Mexico, with Some Uncatalogued Varieties,” he
Stamp Lover, Vol. III, no. 11 (Apr. 1911), pp. 208, 209.
43. See Chapman, supra, p. xviii; de Smeth & Fayolle, supra, p. 70 n. 1.
he section of de Smeth & Fayolle on forgeries was translated by Charles
W. Brock and James H. Beal and published as “he Counterfeits of Mexico
(1856 and 1861),” Mexicana, Vol. 3, no. 4 (Oct. 1954) – Vol. 4, no. 3 ( July
1955), ref. pp. 40-54. I will cite the Mexicana translation by its title and
will add page references to the original 1935 edition (e.g., “1935 p.–”). See
also S. Chapman, “Falsiications of Certain High Values of Early Mexican
Stamps,” London Philatelist, Vol. 46, no. 542 (Feb. 1937), p. 32.
44. “he Counterfeits of Mexico (1856 and 1861),” supra, ref. p. 41 (1935
p. 70 n.1).
45. he Editor [C.H. Mekeel], “Early Mexican Issues,” Philatelic Journal
of America, Vol. 22, no, 1 (Aug. 1, 1911), pp. 21, 28.
46. Phillips, supra, p. 6.
47. See J. H. Barron, “he Counterfeits of the 1856 and 1861 Issues of
Mexico,” London Philatelist, Vol. 32, no. 381 (Sept. 1923), p. 214 & no.
382 (Oct. 1923), p. 239; de Smeth & Fayolle, Les Premières Émissions
du Mexique (1856 à 1874) and “he Counterfeits of Mexico (1856 and
1861),” both supra; Chapman “Falsiications of Certain High Values of
Early Mexican Stamps,” supra, p. 33; James H. Beal, “Mexico – Notes on
Counterfeits,” American Philatelic Congress Book, Vol. 21 (1955), p. 99;
Jose L. Cossío (Bryan A. Axtell & Patrick D. Conroy, trs.), “he Falsiica-
tion of Some Old Postage Stamps of Mexico” (originally “La Falsiicación
de Algunos Timbres Postales Antiguos de Mexico”), Mexicana ( Jan. 1960),
Vol. 9, no. 1, ref. p. 172; and Roberto Liera Gutiérrez, Características de
Algunas Falsiicactiones de Timbres de México (Mexico City: Filatelia Vic-
toria, 2007).
48. Although the plates for the two issues of the Empire had apparent-
ly been destroyed as relics of the despised Empire, the Rosette plates may
have appeared to have been a Republican product which could have spared
them the same fate. See Chapman, “Falsiications of Certain High Values
of Early Mexican Stamps,” supra, ref. p. 33; de Smeth & Fayolle, supra, p.
100 (plates of Eagles were destroyed); Fayolle, infra, n. 61, p. 126; Manuel
Carrera Stampa, supra, pp. 213-215 (same).
146 Mexicana July 2012
49. “he Counterfeits of Mexico (1856 and 1861),” supra, ref. p. 58 (1935
p. 86).
50. Corbett, supra, pp. 228-229.
51. “he Counterfeits of Mexico (1856 and 1861),” supra, ref. p. 58 (1935
p. 86).
52. Id., ref. p. 49 (New Fig. 45, not in 1935).
53. Folder Turnburke-Bash collection/51.jpg; REPRINTS/1856/High
Res 4R/4temp6.jpg (top row, fourth stamp from left). Jesper tells me these,
and those referenced below from the folder “REPRINTS,” are from the
Doug Stout collection. Personal communication, July 3, 2011.
54. “he Counterfeits of Mexico (1856 and 1861),” supra, ref. p. 50 (Fig.
24, Revised).
55. Folder REPRINTS/1856/High Res 4R/4temp4.jpg (bottom row, sec-
ond from left) and REPRINTS/1856/High Res 4R/4temp7.jpg (bottom
row, second and third from left).
56. Liera, supra, p. 24 (third from the left).
57. “he Counterfeits of Mexico (1856 and 1861)”, supra, ref. p. 50 (Re-
vised Fig. 24). he image in the original edition is incomplete. See 1935 p.
88.
58. Folder REPRINTS/1856/High Res 4R/4temp15.jpg (bottom row,
left) and REPRINTS/1856/High Res 4R/4temp9.jpg (top row, second
from right).
59. “Bisects or Splits of Mexican Stamps 1856-61, Part II,” Mexicana
(Oct. 1971),Vol. 20, no. 4, ref. pp. 621, 639 (emphasis supplied). See also
Barron, “he Early Issues of Mexico, with Some Uncatalogued Varieties,”
supra, p. 209.
60. Charles Pinon, “Histoire Postal du Mexico,” Mexico Filatelico: Organe
Special Mensuel des Colletioneurs de l’Amerique Central et des Antilles,
An. 1, no. 4 (Mexico City July 15, 1910), p. 2. Translation of inal phrase
from Barron, “he Early Issues of Mexico, with Some Uncatalogued Vari-
eties,” supra, p. 209.
61. Marquis de Fayolle ( John Heath, tr. and ed.), he Fayolle – de Smeth
Correspondence (1933-1939) (Bath, England c. 1998). Unfortunately,
the charm of Fayolle’s correspondence is marred by his fascist and anti-se-
mitic views.
62. Id., p. 127 (Mar. 25, 1934).
63. “Mexico 1856-1861-1862,” Philatelic Journal of America, Vol. 9, no.
102 ( June 1893), p. 156.
64. See http://www.stamps.org/Almanac/alm_hallofame_1970-74.
htm#Mekeel (visited July 31, 2011).
65. Fayolle, supra, p. 38 (May 1934). See also id., pp. 127 (Mar. 25,
1934), 132 (Mar. 28, 1935), 47 (Apr. --, 1935).
66. Calvert Stier, “he First Issue 1856-1861” [part two], he Collectors
Club Philatelist, Vol. XXXIII, no. 4, p. 185 (1954).
67. James H. Beal, Letter dated Nov. 1, 1964, in Ragatz ile on Mexico
forgeries at American Philatelic Society, reference collection.
68. See, e.g., C.H. Mekeel, “Notes on Mexican Stamps,” Mekeel’s Stamp
Collector, Vol. 15, no. 44 (Nov. 3, 1902), p. 596; C.H. Mekeel, “A Boston
Query,” Mekeel’s Stamp Collector, Vol. 15, no. 48 (Dec. 1, 1902), p. 644.
69. “Early Mexican Issues,” supra, p. 28.