 |
|
95. Mexico Falta de Porte
Unknown 94 Back to UPO Home Unknown 96
| This is one of seven designs of Falta de Porte stamps from Mexico (1892). They were used in different towns, so is there a correlation between the design and the town? |
Here are some more examples of Falta de Porte stamps. [Rick Scott] |
| Falta de Porte means without payment or carriage, or Postage Due. This stamp is not listed in Catalogo De Estampillas Postales De Mexico, published by Secretaria De Hacienda Y Credito Publico, the folks who print the stamps. They are not listed in Vackimes, however they are listed in the back of Celis Cano 1982 issue. They show threee values in this design. There are a total of 8 types illustrated, but from their look, I would guess that they are local issues which is why they aren't in the other catalogs. [Michael D. Roberts] |
| These were entirely unofficial and the Postmasters involved got into serious trouble over these stamps which they had printed themselves. They were totally unneccessary. [David M. Stirling] |
|
Melville repeats the message on these from "Grosses Handbuch der Philatelie". "Some ingenious person had these stamps printed at his expense, and sent them to the different offices, asking the postmaster to use them on unpaid letters instead of printing the sum due on each letter with a handstamp. Most of the Post Offices declined the generous offer, but those of Ceylala, Monterey, Vera Cruz, and Youpouata fell into the snare, to the great satisfaction of our schemer, who in this manner saw his invention duly used by some post offices. heir authenticity was, therefore, proved to the philatelic public, who immediately were inundated with these stamps, showing different types for each post office. No doubt the ingenious inventor will soon have a second issue. But our readers will know what to believe about them. -- J. H. Anheisser; Baron de Schell." The tall violet 20cts was used at Celaya. "The Catalogue for Advanced Collectors" considered that their stataus had been established by a letter from the Administrator of the Post Office of Mexico, dated July 26th, 1892, stating that their issue had been sanctioned by the Mexican Government but the letter is not a very convincing document. Harry Rooke and I were led to believe that certain Postal Officials were involved and a cover up took place. I cannot for the moment lay my hands on my Yvert, 1935, which lists all the postal labels etc. [David M. Stirling] |