Newspapers and journals around the world speculated that Brazil was acting as a proxy for a naval power which would take possession of the two dreadnoughts soon after completion, as they did not believe that a previously insignificant geopolitical power would contract for such powerful armament.Martins, "Colossos do mares," 77.Mead, "Reaction," 238. The evidence for a sale seemed strong, as Brazilian attempts to float a multi-million-dollar loan against the value of their coffee crop in 1908 were unsuccessful.Topliss, "The Brazilian Dreadnoughts," 247. With three dreadnoughts planned (including the upcoming ), a Spanish naval journal stated "it was only natural that rumors [would begin] to circulate supporting the argument that Brazil acted as an intermediary for some great power which would acquire them before they terminate their construction."Quoted in Scheina, Naval History, 354 from Revista General de Marina 64 (1908): 724. Various British papers speculated that either the Germans, Japanese, or Americans were actually buying the ships, while naval experts in Germany thought the Americans, British, or Japanese were going to take them over."British-Brazilian Warships," The Navy, 11–12."The Brazilian "Dreadnoughts"," The Navy, 13–14."The Race for Naval Supremacy," Nelson Evening Mail, 6 April 1909, 2. On the other side of the Atlantic, some American papers theorized that the ships would be sold to the United Kingdom, Germany, or Japan."Germany May Buy English Warships," The New York Times, 9 August 1908, C8."Another British Dreadnought and a Brazilian Battleship on the Water," The New York Tribune, 11 September 1908, 4."Brazil, Japan, and Great Britain," The Sun (New York), 1 July 1908, 6. The Brazilian government was forced to deny these spurious allegations several times."The Reported Purchase of Battleships," The Navy (Washington), 39; "Brazilian Minister and 'No Ulterior Designs'," Lancashire Evening Post, 19 April 1909, 2; "Brazilian Battleship Launched at Barrow," Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer, 20 April 1909, 5. The New York Times remarked:
