he Stolen Eagles
by Farley P. Katz
“Many consignments of stamps … vanished en route from Mexico City to district oices; the
fruit of these robberies are the many Eagles which today are to be found in collections, bearing
as their only overprint their consignment number and date. hese have a certain romantic
lavour about them even though they never passed through the mails.”
T he basic facts concerning the overprints on early
Mexican stamps are well known. From the irst issu-
ance of postage stamps by Mexico in 1856, stamps were sent
from the General Administration of the post oice where
they were printed to the district post oices without over-
prints. Prior to use, the receiving post oice was required to
stamp its name on the postage stamp; without that name,
the stamps were invalid for use. Stamps sent from a district
oice to a sub-oice, however, generally were irst stamped
with the overprint of the dispatching oice.
Beginning July 7, 1864, new procedures were implement-
ed. Stamps sent from headquarters were overprinted with
the consignment or invoice number corresponding to that
particular shipment and the year sent. (“Invoice number”
and “consignment number” are used interchangeably here.)
he irst such printed invoice number was 118-1864. If
the receiving post oice desired to send stamps to one
of its sub-oices, it would stamp its district name on the
stamps and also a one or two digit number corresponding
to the sub-invoice number for that shipment. he irst in-
voice numbers, on the “Second Period” Eagles, were hand-
stamped; thereafter they were typeset and printed on entire
sheets at one time. his procedure continued through the
Maximilian stamps. When regular stamp production and
distribution resumed after the defeat of the Empire, stamps
were overprinted with numbers corresponding to the desti-
nation oice and the year; use of the invoice numbers was
discontinued.2
In a few instances these rules were not followed or were ap-
plied diferently in diferent locations. For example, some-
times sub-consignment numbers were omitted or, in a few
instances, included the year as well as the invoice number.
In addition, sometimes when sub-consignments were re-
turned or transferred elsewhere, additional numbers were
added to the stamps. As a result of these facts, a number of
stamps do not it the basic pattern.3
he new rules regarding printing of invoice numbers were
adopted during the French intervention when the country
was internally at war and shortly after Maximilian became
Emperor. At that time there was increased risk that stamp
shipments might not reach their destination.4 he 1856
regulations treated stamps as if they were the equivalent of
currency, which indeed they were, and imposed detailed and
Mexicana January 2015
John M. Heath, 19631
strict security requirements comparable to those one might
expect imposed on the production and distribution of mon-
ey. Risk was greatest with shipments from a district oice
to a sub-oice because the district oice would irst stamp
its name on the stamps before shipment. If those stamps
were intercepted, they could be used for postage throughout
Mexico. But, as Roberto Liera observed, “as the sub-oices
used very small amounts of stamps, [such] shipments were
not valuable and therefore the risk was correspondingly
smaller.” 5
Circular 13
he oicial requirements regarding use of invoice numbers
and sub-invoice numbers were set forth in detail in Circular
No. 13, issued by the Post Oice’s General Administration
on June 20, 1864. Circular 13 was reproduced in an appen-
dix to Chapman’s book and later reprinted in Mexicana, and
the text was included in an article by Eladio A. García Prada
in a supplement to the Amexil Bulletin.6 It was translated
by Chapman and published in 1912 in his he Eagle and
Maximilian Stamps of Mexico.7 But despite the fact that
Circular 13 is one of the most important documents in the
early history of Mexico’s postal system and essential to un-
derstanding the Eagle and Maximilian issues, Chapman’s
translation apparently has never been reprinted. Fortunate-
ly, Tad Mackie has digitized that book and the text now is
available to MEPSI members.
Before I discovered Chapman’s translation I made my own
translation of Circular 13 with the assistance of my wife,
Carolyn Fuentes, and my friend, Nora Alvarado. I made fur-
ther revisions based on Chapman’s translation. My version is
less literal than Chapman’s and is attached as an appendix.
Circular 13 provided that all stamps shipped from head-
quarters to any district oice should have the invoice num-
ber corresponding to such shipment and the year overprint-
ed on them. Similarly, stamps sent from any district oice to
a sub-oice should have an overprint of a one or two digit
number corresponding to the invoice number of that sub-
consignment.
In the event any shipments from the main oice were sto-
len or intercepted, the General Administration was required
to send notice of such fact by circular to all oices “so that
29
being on notice of what has happened they will not be de-
ceived and will not accept such stamps, which having been
removed from their legal source, are of no value and there-
fore void for their intended purpose.” Likewise, if a ship-
ment to a sub-oice is stolen, notice shall be given to the
General Administration and by circular to all other oices,
including “a precise statement of the two invoice numbers
marked on the stamps; that is, the number put on by this
Administration and also the number added by the principal
oice, both numbers to be also recorded in a like circular
issued for such purposes every time a similar situation aris-
es.” he postmasters were directed in the event of theft of
stamps also to “give notice to the public of what happened
so that, being aware of the invalidity of the stolen stamps,
they will not acquire them and be deceived and become an
accomplice to the crime.”
Circular 13 also addressed the possibility stamps might be
stolen from a post oice itself and provided that the same
procedures should apply. It stated that, “as a precaution-
ary measure, the principal postmasters shall take care not to
overprint [“contramacar”] all the stamps they possess [with
the district name], but only those needed for each day’s use,
and in turn, those which they have to transmit to the branch
oices.”8 he possibility that stamps might be stolen from a
post oice, however, presented a special problem. hat oice
might have already sold customers stamps with the same in-
voice number (or sub-numbers if the theft was from a sub-
oice). hose stamps had been legitimately obtained from
the post oice and would have the district name stamped on
them when they were purchased, but if a circular were dis-
tributed identifying stamps bearing those invoice numbers
as stolen, those stamps could not be used. Worse, anyone in
possession of such stamps might be accused of theft.
event the post oice would stamp the district name on those
stamps “in the center of the stamp” to show that they were
valid for use. Circular number 10, dated May 23, 1864, pro-
vided that no more than 20 pesos of stamps could be sold
to any one individual and that, when selling ive pesos or
more of stamps to one individual, his name and the amount
purchased should be recorded.9 hese provisions limited
the amount of unused, validated stamps in circulation and
would facilitate identiication of legitimate purchasers.
he Stolen Eagles
As it turned out, a number of shipments of Eagle stamps
were stolen in transit, triggering use of the procedures in
Circular 13. In his research of postal archives, Chapman
found a number of printed circulars alerting post oices to
these thefts.10 In some instances, he did not ind a circular,
but instead a note of the theft in postal records.11 As we
shall see, the notes Chapman saw are in the Mexican Postal
Archives recently digitized by Tad Mackie for MEPSI.12
Chapman did not quote the text of any of the circulars, nor
did he mention there were public announcements of the
thefts. In fact, public notices of the thefts, as required by
Circular 13, were regularly published in El Diario del Im-
perio, the oicial organ of Maximilian’s Empire.13 El Diario
included the oicial publications of government decrees,
regulations, reports, court rulings, oicial announcements,
etc., and was published six days a week (usually) from Janu-
ary 1, 1865, to June 19, 1867, the day Maximilian was ex-
ecuted. hese public announcements, never previously noted
in the philatelic literature as far as I can tell, show us how
the Circular 13 procedures were actually implemented to
deal with thefts of stamps, and it is to those we now turn.

To address this problem, the circular provided that in the In the issue of March 1, 1865, under the heading “Anucios
event of a theft from a post oice, anyone legally possess- Oiciales” (“oicial notices”), the irst two notices of stolen
ing stamps having the same numbers could come to the stamps appeared. See Figure 1.14 he irst notice reads as
post oice, establish their legitimate ownership, in which follows:

GENERAL POSTAL ADMINISTRATION.

OF INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC.

he General Administration is aware of a certain quantity of postage stamps having been intercepted while
being transported to their destination. In consequence, and in order to prevent the public from being de-
ceived15 upon acquiring them, let it be known that whenever such stamps are marked with the numbers 20,
204, 244, and also with the number 8, they are void and of no value for the object to which they are intended;
[and] any person who possesses such stamps may be taken before the competent judge for the appropriate
inquest, who shall impose on the guilty person the penalty he deserves for defrauding the public interests.

Mexico, February 24, 1865 — Luis de la Peza

30 Mexicana January 2015

 Figure 1. First Notices of Stolen Stamps.
Luis de la Peza was the Administrador de Correos de
Mexico and Circular 13 had been issued under his signature.
Although the notice was dated February 24, it took a week
for it to be published in El Diario.
Both notices were reprinted in El Diario four more times
over the following eight days. his set the pattern for the
subsequent notices, the texts of which were basically identi-
cal except for the invoice numbers of the stolen shipments.
Some of these notices were also reprinted in other Mexican
newspapers.16 I will now discuss these notices, the stamps
involved and their destinations. I will reference the date
each published notice was signed, which is not necessarily
the date the theft occurred, but presumably shortly there-
after.
1. February 24, 1865, Zacatecas sub-consignment to Villa
Ortega de Rio Grande?
As noted, this is the irst published notice of a stamp theft
after issuance of Circular 13. he stamps involved had the
invoice numbers “20, 204 and 244”, or more completely
Mexicana January 2015
204-1864, 244-1864 and 20-1865. In addition, each had the
sub-invoice number “8” and were stolen in transit. he in-
voice numbers identify these stamps as having initially been
sent to Zacatecas. he latest invoice number, 20-1865, was
recorded as having been shipped to Zacatecas on February
7, 1865, and to have included 10,500 stamps from one real
to eight reales.17 he sub-consignment thus must have been
stolen after February 7, the date the stamps were shipped
to Zacatecas, and before February 24, the date of the theft
notice.
Chapman’s tables of sub-consignments record sub-invoice
number 8, but do not state the destination sub-oice or the
denominations included.18 In his introduction, however, he
recorded stamps with invoice 20-1865 and sub-invoice 8 as
having been sent to Rio Grande on February 14 and were
stolen. On the same page Chapman listed the two other
invoices in the notice, 204-1864 and 244-1864 also as hav-
ing been stolen. However, he did not state whether those
stamps also bore sub-invoice number 8 or where they had
been sent. To make things more confusing, he listed invoice
number 8-1865 separately as also having been stolen.19 In
31
fact, as stated in the notice, the three invoices 204-1864,
244-1864 and 20-1865 all had the sub-invoice number 8.
Primary invoice 8-1865, which went to Puebla,20 was not
involved in this theft. Chapman correctly noted in his tables
that invoice 8-1865 went to Puebla (and was not stolen),
but the information somehow got garbled when he wrote
the introduction. Neither Corbett nor Pietsch listed the pri-
mary invoices for Zacatecas sub 8-1865.21
If Chapman was correct that sub-invoice 8 was sent to Rio
Grande, that would mean that all the stamps identiied in
the notice also were sent there.22 His treatment of these in-
voices, however, is so confused that we may hesitate to ac-
cept his Rio Grande attribution. He may have had in mind
sub-invoice 10, only two numbers later, which did go to Rio
Grande. On the other hand, his statement that the sub-
consignment had been sent “on February 14” suggests that
he had speciic information about that shipment. Unfortu-
nately, the records of Zacatecas sub-district consignments
are not included in the digitized Mexican Postal Archives,
so I cannot check the source of that information. In any
event, Chapman’s statement that sub-consignment 8 was
sent to Rio Grande is consistent with invoice 10 also going
there as the latter could have been a replacement for the lost
stamps.23 One such possible replacement on invoice 204-
1865 from the Banchik collection is shown in Figure 2.
Rio Grande, or more fully, Villa Ortega de
Rio Grande, is a small town in the State of
Zacatecas, about 85 miles northwest of the
city of Zacatecas. hose stamps presum-
ably bore the district name of Zacatecas,
as would be ordinary for a shipment from
there to a sub-oice. Nevertheless, the no-
Figure 2.
tice mentioned only the invoice and sub-
Rio Grande
Replacement. invoice numbers and did not mention
the fact that the stamps were overprinted
“Zacatecas,” which one would think would have made their
identiication easier. In so doing, the post oice conformed
to the literal text of Circular 13 which required publication
only of the primary and sub-invoice numbers.
Chapman did not state the number of stamps sent, but
he said he owned stolen stamps with the invoice numbers
204-1864 and 244-1864, although he did not state their de-
nominations.24 Since it is unclear whether he understood
that the stolen stamps also had sub-invoice number 8, we
cannot be certain that his 204-1864 and 244-1864 stamps
bore the number 8. In any event, he did not state whether
those stamps were postally used, so we don’t know if the
Circular 13 procedures were successful in preventing their
use. Corbett stated that one of the one-real stamps has been
reported, but did not state if it was used.25 Corbett’s second-
hand claim, however, has not been substantiated and was
dropped by Pietsch.26
32 Mexicana January 2015
2. February 26, 1865, Morelia sub-consignment to
Tacámbaro
A mere two days after notice of the irst theft of Eagles
was issued, notice of a second theft was given. his was
published in the same issues of El Diario as the irst notice,
immediately following it. See Figure 1. his second notice
was not signed by Peza but rather “Por enfermedad de Sr.
Administrador, Antonio J. Villada” (“Due to the illness of the
Administrator, [signed by] Antonio J. Villada.”). Peza recov-
ered and all the subsequent notices were issued under his
signature.
he stamps stolen in transit were “marked with the numbers
3 and 220.” Again, even though this was a theft of a sub-
consignment and the stamps would have had the district’s
name on them, the notice did not mention the district name.
Chapman notes that a circular identiied these stamps as
stolen, but does not record that fact in his tables.27 Chapman
stated he owned a half real on invoice 220-1864 and that R.
Frentzel owned a one real on the same invoice.28 Roberto
Garcia Larranaga’s “Additions to Chapman,” stated that he
owned a two reales from this sub consignment.29 Pietsch re-
ported one reales cancelled in Patzcuaro and Mexico City.30
Figure 3 is a half-real stamp from this sub-consignment. On
the lower right, one can see the edge of a blue oval cancel-
lation.
Figure 3 Figure 4
Stolen Tacámbaro Tacámbaro Replacement
Invoice 220-1864 had been sent to Morelia and sub-con-
signment 3 from that shipment went on to Tacámbaro, a
small town in the state of Michoacán, about 47 miles south-
west of Morelia. he sub-consignment consisted of 100 two
reales stamps, 50 each of the half and one reales, and 10 each
of the four and eight reales stamps. An identical selection
was sent to Tacámbaro under sub-invoice 13, no doubt a
replacement for those stolen.31 A four real replacement from
the Banchik collection is shown as Figure 4.
Chapman stated that he also owned an eight reales sub
3 consignment on invoice 141-1864 used in Morelia.32
Corbett reported that one of the eight reales stamps is on
invoice number 220-1864 and two are on 141-1864.33 But
the Circular 13 notice of stolen stamps stated all were in-
voice 220-1864. It thus appears that the makeup of subcon-
signment 3 was not exactly as stated in the announcement.
Circular 13 assumes, but does not speciically prescribe, that
district oices must maintain records of what primary in-
voices were sent in each sub-consignment. Perhaps Morelia
did not keep accurate records of its sub-consignments. Or
perhaps it just simpliied the information for the announce-
ment. In any event, the most important part would have
been the sub-consignment number which was correctly
stated.
Corbett did not record this shipment as having been sto-
len. He did, however, include an extensive note regarding
these stamps.34 He stated that all values are known, the two,
four and eight reales with Tacámbaro cancellations. Two one
reales exist, one cancelled in Morelia, the other in Mexico.
Nine of the half-real stamps were then known, with “the
blue cancel and so most or all are probably remainders
which were in some remote place until they were invalidated
with the blue cancel.” He went on to acknowledge “his is
speculation, some or all could have been used legitimately.”
Finally, two eight reales have additional sub-invoice num-
bers (5 - Taretan and 9 - Ario) and blue cancellations!35
In the introduction to Morelia, Corbett discussed the oval
“blue cancellations.” He noted that “It has been accepted
for many years that these stamps were cancelled as a devalu-
ating procedure.” Morelia did not return any stamps at the
end of the Eagle period and the blue cancels are not known
on cover. he blue cancellations, however, appear on Morelia
Eagle stamps throughout all periods, sometimes with other
cancellations. Corbett’s “most reasonable tentative explana-
tion” was “that the blue cancels were used at a point where
temporary suboices mail was transferred into the Imperial
system and that remainders were similarly ‘killed’ to avoid
use,”36 although I do not follow the irst part.
he blue cancellations of Morelia are one of the great
mysteries of Mexican philately. But the fact that sub-con-
signment 3 to Tacámbaro was stolen – a fact that Corbett
apparently did not recognize – only deepens the mystery.
How and when were the blue cancellations applied to stolen
stamps? Although that might have happened if the stamps
had been illegally used (but the cancels are not found on
cover), how then did two of the stolen stamps get over-
printed with later consignment numbers 5 and 9? Only the
Morelia district oice would have applied those numbers.
Perhaps the stamps had been misplaced instead of actually
stolen and later were recovered and sent to other sub-oices.
But oicial notice had been given that any stamps with a “3”
were invalid.
his obviously is a very complicated problem, and one
which I cannot begin to resolve. he solution to Morelia’s
blue cancellations mystery, however, must explain how sto-
len stamps received those cancellations.
Mexicana January 2015
3. July 13, 1865, Consignment to Yguala
In contrast with the irst two notices which involved thefts
of sub-consignments, the third, dated July 13, 1865, report-
ed the theft of a consignment sent to a district oice, Yguala.
Yguala, is a mid-sized town located in the state of Guerrero,
about half-way between Mexico City and Acapulco, and 63
miles north of Chilpancingo, the capital of the state.
he stamps bore the invoice number 112-
1865. hey were sent from Mexico on July
11 and reported stolen two days later. No-
tice of the theft was irst published in El
Diario on July 19 and republished three
more times over the next ive days. he
notice also was published on July 19 in Figure 5.
the Mexico City newspaper La Sociedad, Yguala
Replacement
Peródico Político y Literario. he consign-
37
ment consisted of 800 two reales and 100
four-reales stamps.38 An identical replacement shipment
was sent on July 25, with invoice 121-1865.39 One of the
replacement stamps from the Banchik collection is shown
in Figure 5.
Chapman noted that the two-reales stamps are known with
cancellations from Mexico City and also one “with crossed
lines in circle.”40 Apparently based on this statement,
Corbett said that “the Dos Reales has been reported used
from MÉXICO on foreign mail identiied by the Cuban
circular grid cancel sometimes used at VERA CRUZ.”41
Pietsch has been unable to conirm the existence of such a
foreign cancellation and suggests that the grid may simply
be a Mexico City cancellation.42 In any event, the Circular
13 procedures did not prevent the illegal use of at least some
stamps from this stolen consignment.
4. August 23, 1865, Morelia sub-consignment to
Pátzcuaro
he next notice published in El Diario was dated August
23, 1865, and referred to stamps bearing “the numbers 17
and 29” stolen in transit. Invoice 17-1865 was sent from
Mexico City to Morelia and 200 one-real stamps from that
shipment were sent on to Pátzcuaro by sub-invoice number
29. Pátzcuaro is a town in the state of Michoacán, about 35
miles southwest of Morelia. Its population circa 1880 was
about 8,000.43 Pátzcuaro received the greatest number of
shipments from Morelia of any sub-oice. Sub-invoice 30,
no doubt a replacement for the stolen stamps, also consisted
of 200 one-real stamps.44 One of the replacement stamps
from the Banchik collection is shown as Figure 6.
his theft notice was irst published on August 26, and re-
published at least eight more times in August, September
and October. his was many more times than the prior no-
33
 tice was published, which as we have seen
was not entirely successful. Perhaps the
postal administration decided to increase its
eforts to prevent use of these stolen stamps.
hey appear to have been more successful
this time as neither Chapman, Corbett nor
Figure 6. Pietsch report any known examples.
Pátzcuaro
Replacement
5. January 13, 1866, Consignment to
Zacatecas
On January 17, notice was published of a consignment of
stamps stolen in transit bearing the invoice number 204-
1865. his was a shipment sent on December 7 to Zacatecas
consisting of 5,000 two reales stamps.45 Zacatecas is a large
town in the state of Zacatecas, with a population circa 1880
of about 46,000.46 At one hundred stamps per sheet, this
represented 50 sheets of stamps and was the largest theft of
any of the Eagle stamps. Unlike the prior notice and despite
the size of this loss, notice of this loss was republished only
three more times, all in January.
Figure 7. Extract of Postal Records
Chapman knew of this theft only through a note in postal
records; he had not seen a printed circular.47 he note ex-
ists in a summary of shipments to Zacatecas from 1865 and
1866 in the digitized Mexican Postal Archives. See Fig-
ure 7. It reads: “Se rebajan los sellos remitidos con facture
número 204 de 7 de Diciembre por habendos robado en
el camino.”48 (“he stamps shipped under invoice number
204 from December 7 are removed [from the balance] as
having been stolen en route.”) Neither Corbett nor Pietsch
are aware of any of these stamps existing.49 John Bash stat-
ed that the stamps were “apparently destroyed.”50 he next
shipment to Zacatecas was sent on January 6 and included
3,000 two reales and other denominations under invoice
5-1866. A two reales replacement from the Kordich collec-
tion is shown as Figure 8.
6. July 23, 1866, Jalapa
sub-consignment to Perote
A notice dated July 23 recorded a consign-
ment of stamps stolen in transit bearing
the numbers “11 and 69.” he notice was
irst published on July 27, and republished
two more times. Invoice number 69-1866
Figure 8. was sent to Jalapa which in turn sent sub-
Zacatecas invoice number 11 to Perote.51 Perote is a
Replacement mid-sized town in the state of Vera Cruz,
34 Mexicana January 2015
about 31 miles west of Jalapa, through the mountains.
he shipment consisted of 100 one and 200 two-real stamps.
Chapman stated that the stamps “were stolen from the mail
sack,” based on a note in the records; he did not see a cir-
cular.52 he Mexican Postal Archives reproduces the note
which states that the theft occurred on July 10, 1866. See
Figure 9.53 he July 1866 report of Jalapa, dated August 1,
1866, thus contains the notation: “En 10 de Julio se remiti-
eron á Perote con factura no. 11 y fueron estraido de la bali-
jà.” (“On July 10, [stamps] were forwarded to Perote under
invoice no. 11 and were taken from the mailbag.”)
Corbett reported that the one real was on invoice 23-1866
but did not know what invoice the two reales was on and
no copy was reported.54 Although Corbett valued the one
real as a modest “E” ($20-30), he inconsistently stated that
a “Dos Reales with double name is the only example seen
of 11-1866 known [sic].”55 Pietsch reported both values on
invoice 23-1866 (and none on 69-1866), but listed the one
real as unrecorded.56 Based on discussions with Pietsch and
Kordich, it appears that Corbett’s reference to 23-1866 was
in error and the stolen stamps were all on invoice 69-1866
as stated in the public notices. Perote received additional
stamps under invoices 12 and 14, presumably being replace-
ments for this order.57 A copy of a two real subconsignment
12 from the Banchik collection is shown in Figure 10.
First Period hefts
Were there any thefts of Eagle stamps before Circular 13’s
requirement of invoice numbers was irst implemented on
July 7, 1864? From May 8 to July 7, 1864, 117 shipments
were sent from headquarters to district oices without any
overprints. Many of those went on to sub-district oices
with only the district name overprinted. Since the stamps
did not bear invoice numbers, there was no way to alert the
post oices and public that a uniquely identiiable group of
stamps had been stolen, although if the theft occurred be-
tween a district and a sub-district oice, the stamps would
at least bear the district name.
he opening sentence of Circular 13 indeed suggests that
such thefts may have occurred and were the impetus for
its issuance: “Experience showing the need for an efec-
tive provision to put an end to the abuses which give rise to
traicking of postage stamps when they are intercepted or
taken from oices with violence, by force majeure…” he
six known thefts after July 6 average one per every 82 pri-
mary invoices. But Chapman did not mention any record in
the postal archives of such thefts occurring before Febru-
ary 1865. Nor am I aware of any circumstantial evidence of
such thefts such as unusual numbers of out-of-district uses
or of unused “remainders” of irst period eagles. Nor did I
ind any mention of any thefts of stamps searching onliine
 Figure 9. Post Oice Listing Explaining heft from Mailbag.
Mexican newspapers from May 8, 1864 to January 1, 1865,
when El Diario del Imperio began publication, although
there was an interesting report in November 1864 that a
mailman assigned to Zitácuaro had been assassinated “by
indians of San Felipe and San Mateo to carry out the orders
of the bandit Tranpeña who is supporting the rebels against
the government of the empire.”58 Nevertheless, it seems
likely that there were some thefts during the First Period
that led to Circular 13 being issued.
hefts from Post Oices
As noted, Circular 13 provided special rules for stamps sto-
len from a post oice, as opposed to stolen in transit, which
permitted customers legally owning
stamps with the same invoice numbers
to have them re-validated for use. Eladio
García pointed out that this provision
“means that an Eagle with double district
names could have this interesting origin
and not [be] only an oversight of the em-
ployee who overprinted it, who unduly
stamped twice the name of the district.”59
All the Circular 13 notices, however, were
Figure 10.
of stamps stolen “while being transported
Replacement
to their destination” and not from a post
Mexicana January 2015
oice itself. A number of Eagles have been reported with
the district name doubled,60 but I am not aware of any stolen
Eagle stamps marked with the district name in the center of
the stamp (as prescribed by Circular 13) in addition to the
edge, as required for re-validation. It thus appears that this
procedure was never used.
War losses
During the entire Eagle period, the Empire was at war with
Republican forces. As a result, stamps were removed from
post oices on some occasions. Dave Pietsch found a record
in the Mexican Postal Archives of a loss of stamps taken by
“liberal forces” from a small post oice. In October of 1864,
a shipment of stamps was sent to San Juan de Guadalupe, a
distant sub-oice of Durango. his shipment included ten
eight-reales stamps. he stamps were on invoice 156-1864,
but early shipments from Durango did not include a sub-
consignment number.61 he stamps remained unsold until
December 1865. A report for that month shows that two
of the ten stamps were sold that month, but the remaining
eight were stolen. See Figure 11. he report stated: “Perdi-
dos á causa de la invacion por fuerzas liberales in este lugar
el 3 del presente.”62 (“Lost as a result of the invasion by lib-
eral forces here on the 3rd of the present month.”)
35
Details of the attack on San Juan de Guadalupe are pro-
vided in contemporary newspapers:
According to the oicial newspaper of Fresnillo, on
December 3rd, the Plaza de San Juan de Guadalupe
was taken by more than 300 guerrillas, including 20
Americans, the defenders sufering serious losses
and some individuals were killed. he enemy evacu-
ated the plaza on the 5th, taking the road to Min-
eral del Reyes. … It has just been learned that the
leader Ordoñez perished in the capture of San Juan
de Guadalupe …63
Curiously, the “liberal forces” took only the eight-reales
stamps; according to the report, they left 67 one reales, 7 two
reales and 15 four-reales stamps. If the stamps had value to
them, why didn’t they take all? Dave speculated that perhaps
the postmaster or an employee actually took the stamps.
Whatever happened, the post oice was back in Imperial
control after the “guerrillas” left and duly iled its December
report to Durango.
In 1866, Republican forces took the upper hand and seized
many localities that had been controlled by the Empire.
Chihuahua went back and forth between the Imperial
forces and the Republicans and in June, the French inally
abandoned the city.64 he Chihuahua oice had a sizeable
inventory of stamps which may have been taken by the post-
master or the retreating French army, although it is possible
they were seized by the Republicans.65 Whatever the case,
Figure 11. Post Oice Report Detailing War Loss.
36 Mexicana January 2015
the stamps were not returned to the postal system and, to-
day, unused Eagles with Chihuahua invoices 169-1865 and
50-1866 are plentiful and even exist in sheets. Copies of
these stamps are shown in Figure 12.
None of these war losses were treated as thefts under Cir-
cular 13 or reported in El Diario. here would have been a
technical problem in reporting the San Juan de Guadalupe
loss as those stamps did not have a sub-invoice number on
them and consequently could not have been declared invalid
without invalidating all eight-reales stamps bearing invoice
156-1864. Perhaps a Circular 13 notice was not published
because the loss involved only eight stamps. Or perhaps
there was less concern that the stamps might be illegally
used because they were taken by enemy soldiers rather than
by bandits. And if the Chihuahuan stamps were taken by
the postmaster or French soldiers, they did not it Circular
13 since they ostensibly were being “saved” and not “stolen.”
Whatever the reasons, Circular 13 notices were not pub-
lished in these circumstances.
Stolen Maximilians
Chapman also included in his book records of stolen
Maximilian shipments.66 Oicial notices of those thefts
likewise were published in El Diario del Imperio to alert the
public, which follow the same pattern as those for stolen
Eagles.
 consignment in a year to Morelia, they would all bear those
same numbers; there was no way to distinguish between
shipments and no way to declare a particular shipment in-
valid if it were stolen in transit. In a few instances, where a
shipment was stolen in transit, the number for that post of-
ice was changed.68 Guadalajara’s number thus was changed
after a “large shipment” of “considerable value” was stolen.69
But such change would not permit one to distinguish le-
Figure 12. Unused Chihuahua Eagles
gitimately purchased stamps with the prior district number
from stolen ones, and presumably would be made only if
Was Circular 13 efective?
the theft were large enough to warrant the trouble. Perhaps
it was decided that the risk of theft had lessened after the
Many years ago, J. H. Barron wrote that, as a result of the in-
country was no longer at war and therefore shipments no
voice system imposed by Circular 13, “it was easy to put out
longer needed to be individually registered.
of circulation any particular lot which, as occasionally hap-
pened, had been acquired in transit by bandoleros or other
Conclusion
unorthodox collectors.”67 But how efective was it? Postally
used examples of a number of the stolen shipments do exist,
John Heath’s statement at the head of this article that many
so Circular 13 wasn’t 100 percent efective. And although
stolen Eagles exist today in collections assumed that unused
those stamps may be rare, so are most of the sub-consign-
Eagles with only invoice number and date come from ship-
ments, so that fact may not be very telling. On the other
ments intercepted by bandits. In fact, the largest number
hand, stamps from the largest stolen shipment of 5,000
of such Eagles are from oices in localities abandoned by
stamps to Zacatecas are entirely unknown, so the invoice
the Empire and/or taken by Republican forces. Most of the
system with the internal and public notices may have ef-
others are simply isolated unsold stamps or remainders. Ex-
fectively served its purpose or perhaps that entire shipment
ceedingly few Eagles survive that were in fact stolen in tran-
was destroyed as Bash believed.
sit and most of those are from sub-consignments stamped
with a district name. hese rare survivors, however, do in-
However successful the printed invoice numbers may have
deed have “a certain romantic lavour about them.”
been in their intended purpose, when Mexico issued its
irst regular stamps in 1868 after the end of the Empire, it
I received invaluable help for this article from David Pietsch,
ceased use of printed invoice numbers. Stamps thereafter
John Kordich, Mark Banchik, Tad Mackie, Carolyn Fuentes
were marked with numbers designating the recipient dis-
trict oice and the year. Stamps sent to Morelia in 1868, for and Nora Alvarado, to whom I owe much thanks.
example, were marked “10 68.” If there was more than one

APPENDIX
General Postal Administration.
Circular No. 13
Mexico, June 20, 1864.

Experience showing the need for an efective provision to put an end to the abuses which give rise to traicking of postage stamps
when they are intercepted or taken from oices with violence, by force majeure, to prevent the evils and other consequences result-
ing from these acts, it is ordered that from now on prior to shipment by the General Administration of stamps to the principal
oice which they request or which are sent to them for their use or their branch oices, such postage stamps shall bear another
conspicuous black stamp that shows on each one the progressive invoice number with which they are sent and the year in which
this takes place, like the district overprint [“contramarca”] they bear in order to be valid when they enter into circulation, and
which under no circumstances should be omitted.

In the same manner, those principal oices shall provide their branch oices the stock [of stamps] they need, with the diference
that the black marking that should be used shall only contain the progressive number, and not particular number [i.e., the year],
which corresponds to the invoice for such shipments to each of the branch oices. For this purpose, each should have a double
set of numbers, from one to zero [i.e., 1, 2 , 3 …0], in separate pieces, so that by means of a screw fastened in the frame intended
to make the impression which shall correspond, as noted, to the shipping invoice. In localities where there is no engraver or there
is diiculty in constructing the required stamp device, the postmasters shall send in advance to the General Administration four
pesos, so that [the stamp device] will be forwarded to them.

Mexicana January 2015 37

Given this understanding and in the event of theft or loss of stamps dispatched directly from this General Administration to any
of the principal oices; upon conirmation of this fact, this Administration shall proceed immediately by the next mail to make
this known to the oices by a circular, which they will forward at once to their branches, so that being on notice of what has hap-
pened [oicials] will not be deceived and will not accept such stamps, which having been removed from their legal source, are of
no value and therefore void for their intended purpose.

he principal postmasters shall act similarly with respect to their branch oices, but notifying this oice irst, when the theft or
loss of stamps takes place while being sent to any of their branch oices to be sold. In which case, the notice sent shall also contain
a precise statement of the two invoice numbers marked on the stamps; that is, the number put on by this Administration and also
the number added by the principal oice, both numbers to be also recorded in a like circular issued for such purposes every time
a similar situation arises.

In the event the stolen stamps appear in circulation, all principal postmasters shall proceed as soon as possible, under their obliga-
tions, as set forth in Article 16 of the Regulations of July 15, 1856,70 communicating these facts, as well as the results of the judicial
inquest carried out for such purpose, to the General Administration.

Given that the post oices are the only legal depositories for the distribution of postage stamps, whenever a theft or diversion of
stamps hereinafter occurs in transit to their destination, each oice shall give notice to the public of what happened so that, being
aware of the invalidity of the stolen stamps, they will not acquire them and be deceived and become an accomplice to the crime.

he same procedures apply when the theft or removal is made directly from any branch oice, for which, as a precautionary
measure, the principal postmasters shall take care not to overprint [“contramacar”] all the stamps they possess [with the district
name], but only those needed for each day’s use, and in turn, those which they have to transmit to the branch oices; but it may
happen that some individual has legally acquired stamps the same as those stolen [i.e., with the same numbers and overprints],
having purchased them from the oice from which they were taken, and to avoid the exchange of stamps that might [otherwise]
be required, that individual shall present them to the postmaster in charge who, after conirming the legal possession of those
stamps with the information he must have under Paragraph 1 of Circular 10 of this year,71 shall proceed to stamp again in the
center of the stamp the overprint which validates them, which can only be added by the oice from which they originate, and after
notifying the General Administration, such stamps will be valid for their purpose and may enter into circulation.

his new procedure will take efect in the principal oices as soon as they are supplied with the stamps; once this occurs they will
make sure to communicate it in due time to this General Administration so that, being informed, it can work together with the
oices that have them, in the cases to which this applies and that are addressed in this circular, of which I attach ___ [number]
copies for you to distribute among the branch oices, making sure to advise me of their receipt.

Luis de la Peza.

(Endnotes)
1 John M. Heath, “Some Sidelights on Mexican History hrough Her Postage Stamps,” he American Philatelist, Vol. 76, no.
12 (Sept. 1963), reprinted in Mexicana (Apr. 1964), ref. pp. 287, 291.
2 See, e.g., David C. Pietsch, Imperial Eagles of Maximilian’s Mexico 1864-66 (Reno: David C. Pietsch 2013), pp. 38-43;
Nicholas Follansbee, A Catalogue of the Stamps of Mexico 1856-1910 (Ashland, Oregon: Nicholas Follansbee 3d ed. 2007),
pp. 16-32; Leo V. Corbett, Imperial Eagles of Maximilian’s Mexico (Stanton, California: Mexico Philatelic Library As-
sociation 1993) (hereinafter “Corbett”), pp. 34-39; Dale Pulver, Introduction to the Stamps of Mexico (Sidney, Ohio: Linn’s
Stamp News 1992), pp. 3-4; John M. Heath, supra, ref. p. 291; John Kordich, “District Number Assignments during the
Later Classic Period,” Mexicana, Vol. 50, no. 2 (Apr. 2001), p. 96.
3 See Samuel Chapman, he Postage Stamps of Mexico, 1856-1868 (1926, reprinted Lawrence Massachusetts: Quarterman
Pubs., Inc. 1976) (hereinafter “Chapman”), pp. xxv-xxvi; Pulver, supra, p. 4; John M. Heath, supra, ref. pp. 291-292;
Franco Vannotti, “Eagles without District, Number, or Date Overprint,” Mexicana, Vol. 32, no. 1 ( Jan. 1983), p. 13; no.
2 (Apr. 1983), p. 63 & no. 3 ( July 1984), p. 105; Leo V. Corbett, “Postal History of the Mexican States of Guerrero and
Morelos 1856 to 1867, Chapter V,” Mexicana, Vol. 37, no. 1 ( Jan 1988) pp. 38, 41; Leo V. Corbett, “Notes and Speculations
on Imperial Eagles of Huejutla,” Mexicana, Vol. 34 , no. 1 ( Jan. 1985), pp. 5, 6-7.
4 Corbett stated that the new invoice procedure was adopted “because some replaced Republican postal employees left with
earlier name overprinting devices which could be used to validate stamps intercepted on the roads.” Corbett, supra, p. 35.
Corbett does not give a source for this statement and it is not found in Chapman, de Smeth and Fayolle or any other source I
have consulted and was dropped by Pietsch.
5 Roberto Liera G., “Postal Forgeries of the 1868 Issue,” Mexicana ( July 1977), ref. p. 808.

38 Mexicana January 2015

6 Chapman, supra, Appendix III; Gene Fricks, “Rate Broadsides from Chapman,” Mexicana, Vol. 42, no. 1 ( Jan. 1993), pp.
201, 207-208; Eladio A. García Prada, “El Siglo XIX (El Siglo de las Luces),” Amexil Boletin (Special Supp. No. 10,
1990), pp. 728-729.
7 S. Chapman, he Eagle and Maximilian Stamps of Mexico (London: Stanley Gibbons, Ltd. 1912), pp. viii-ix.
8 Based on the existence of unused multiples with district overprints, John K. Bash surmised that, at least with the 1856-1861
issues, it was “the normal practice for at least the larger districts to overprint stamps in sheet form upon receipt,” although “a
few districts, mostly smaller ones … at various times did not overprint their stamps in advance of use.” “Mex-Mix: District
Names Tieing Stamps to Cover,” Mexicana, Vol. 26, no. 4 (Oct. 1977), ref. p. 819. A nice example of this is two unused 1856
eight real sheets that are identical, except one is overprinted Victoria and the other has no overprints. See Sotheby’s, he Erich
Koenig Collection of 19th and 20th Century Stamps and Covers of Mexico (New York May 30-31, 1995), nos. 329-330.
9 García Prada, supra, p. 729.
10 Chapman, supra, p. xxvii.
11 Id., p. xxvii and n. 238.
12 See Tad Mackie, “Mexican Postal Archives,” Mexicana, Vol. 62, no. 3 ( July 2013), p. 125. hese records are on line and will
be referred to herein using the assigned folder names.
13 El Diario from January 1 to June 29, 1865, at one time was available on Google books, but I cannot ind it now. All issues
are available at Hemeroteca Nacional Digital de México (“HNDM”), http://www.hndm.unam.mx/, an online service of
UNAM permitting full text search of hundreds of Mexican newspapers
14 he image in Figure 1 is taken from the March 4, 1865 issue, but the text is identical to the irst publication.
15 he Spanish word used is “sorprendido,” literally “surprised,” but I believe something like “fooled” or “deceived” is what is meant.
16 See text below at n. 37
17 Chapman, supra, p. 132.
18 Id., p. 233.
19 Id., p. xxvii. De Smeth and Fayolle repeated this statement. See Les Premières Émissions du Mexique, 1856 à 1874 (Amiens:
Yvert & Cie. 1935), p. 103.
20 Chapman, supra, p. 157.
21 Corbett, supra, p. 397; Pietsch, supra, p. 424.
22 Neither Corbett (p. 397) nor Pietsch identiied the destination oice of sub-consignment 8.
23 Chapman, supra, p. 233 (noting only primary invoice 20-1865); Pietsch, supra, p. 424 (noting primary invoices 204-1864
and 20-1865).
24 Chapman, supra, pp. xxvii, 233.
25 Corbett, supra, p. 402 n. 66.
26 David Pietsch, personal communications ( July 24 & 27, 2014).
27 Chapman, supra, pp. xxvii, 197.
28 Id., p. 284.
29 Id., p. 368.
30 Pietsch, supra, p. 235.
31 Chapman, supra, p. 197.
32 Id., p. 284.
33 Corbett, supra, pp. 219 & 223 n. 29. Pietsch repeats this. Pietsch, supra, p. 239 n. 29.
34 Corbett, supra, p. 223 nn. 28 & 29.
35 One eight reales with invoice 220-1864 and sub-numbers 3 and 9 was included in lot 313 in Follansbee’s Sale No. 23 (Sept.
8, 2012). Pietsch does not list any double sub-numbers for invoice 3, although he does list double sub-numbers for invoice 13.
Pietsch, supra, p. 235.
36 Corbett, supra, pp. 213-214.
37 I located this using the search tools on HNDM, http://www.hndm.unam.mx/ (visited Jan. 1, 2013). I found no other notices of
stolen Eagles, but there were notices of stolen Maximilians. See, e.g., La Sociedad (Oct. 30, 1866), p. 3 (notice dated Oct. 27,
1866).
38 Chapman, supra, p. 135.
39 Id., p. 136.
40 Id., p. 273, n. 108.
41 Corbett, supra, p. 386.
42 David Pietsch, personal communications ( July 24 & 27, 2014).
43 Alfred Ronald Conkling, Appletons’ Guide to Mexico (New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1884), p. 216.
44 Chapman, supra, pp. 198, 277 n. 246.
45 Id., pp. 138, 274 n. 150 (stolen in transit).
46 Conkling, supra, p. 276.
47 Chapman, supra, p. xxvii.

Mexicana January 2015 39

48 See MEPSI, Mexican Postal Archives, folder DP-3-3-1866-1-220-D-N, p. 97.
49 Corbett, supra, p. 390 n. 17; Pietsch, supra, pp. 416 n. 8 & 417 n. 17.
50 John K. Bash, “Some Comments on the Scarcity of Certain Eagles, Part V,” Mexicana, Vol. 35, no. 1 ( Jan. 1986), pp. 33, 38.
51 Chapman, supra, pp. 167, 193.
52 Id., pp. xxvii, 277 n. 238.
53 MEPSI, Mexican Postal Archives, DP2 1866-Jul-Sep-1-96-N, p. 13.
54 Corbett, supra, p. 173. An asterisk means no copy reported. Id., p. 3.
55 Id., p. 174 n. 55.
56 Pietsch, supra, pp. 184 & 186 n. 55.
57 Chapman, supra, p. 193. Sub-consignment number 13 is a mystery. Chapman records one and two-real stamps bearing that
number but does not state their destination. Corbett tells us that all known stamps from that shipment are known unused only.
Could this have something to do with the stolen shipment no. 11?
58 See La Sociedad (Mexico City), Nov. 30, 1864, on line at HNDM.
59 Eladio García, supra, p. 727 (my translation).
60 See, e.g., Corbett, supra, p. 253 n. 16 (Puebla).
61 Pietsch, supra, p. 129.
62 his document has not yet been digitized for the Mexican Postal Archives.
63 La Sociedad (Mexico City Dec. 25, 1865), p. 1, available digitally on HNDM. (My translation.)
64 Jasper Ridley, Maximilian and Juárez (New York: Ticknor & Fields 1992), pp. 224-225, 240, 245.
65 Bash assumed the stamps had been taken by the Republicans. See John K Bash, “Mex-Mix, Some Comments on the Scarcity of
Certain Eagles,” Mexicana ( Jan. 1985), Vol. 34, no. 1, p. 13.
66 Chapman, supra, pp. xxviii-xxix.
67 J.H. Barron, “Mexico: he 1872 Issue,” he Philatelic Journal of Great Britain (May 20, 1915), reprinted in Mexicana ( Jan.
& Apr. 1954), ref. pp. 23, 25.
68 See Kordich, supra, p. 96.
69 See Doug Stout, “he Eleven Major Sub-Oices of 1868 Mexico,” Mexicana, Vol. 54, no. 3 ( July 2005), p. 64. See also Otto
Yag, “Postal Districts of Mexico,” Mexicana, Vol. 27, no.1 ( Jan. 1978), pp. 19, 22 (reprinted from Artes de Mexico, Vol. 14, no.
96 (1967)).
70 Article 16 required postal oicers who discover letters franked with stamps not bearing a district overprint to notify the ap-
propriate judge for a preliminary inquiry and proceeding against those defrauding the public interests.
71 Circular No.10, dated May 23, 1864, stated that an oice may not sell more than 20 pesos in stamps to a single individual, and
that when ive pesos or more are sold, the name of the purchaser and the amount sold must be recorded.

Alvarez Stamps Mexican and World Stamps

BUYING AND SELLING

MEXICO: Classic, Revolution, Modern &
Postal History.

Weekly auctions on (alvarezstampsinc) Phone: (+52 55) 5575 5283

Cel: (+52 155) 2272 1648
email: pmalvarez@philamex.com

Tlacoquemecatl 102-302 Col Del Valle, 03100 Mexico DF

APS, ASDA,MEPSI 2250 NW 114th Ave, Unit 1M, Miami FL 33172-3652, USA

40 Mexicana January 2015