Ed_Haynes

What Battushig shows as the 1936-44 designs. What was in use 1927-36?

These are also in the same museum.

From the Mongolian Military Museum, the display of rank collar tabs of the first (1924-27) style. These are what Battushig's illustrations are based on.

Thanks, Owain. Pardon me for jumping in and reinforcing your point that we need to keep the history straight:

-- The Hasmeite Kingdom of the Hijaz

And, then, after they get chased away by the al-Saud rise to dominance:

-- The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (Transjordan)

There's also the short-lived Hashemite Kingdom of Syria but, when the French chase them out (knowing how to deal with "royals"), they shift ("are shifted", what is the right verb form here?) to Iraq along with their hangers-on.

The history of this period is one of family, faction, and empty promises.

Oh . . . lovely -- this is one of the nicest things I have seen recently!

So, to revise:

THE ORDER OF MILITARY VALOR (A21)

1st award - (small star, 3 maker?s marks, no s/n)

2nd award - (Arabic number ?2? at bottom)

3rd award - (Arabic number ?3? at bottom)

4th award - (Arabic number ?4? at bottom)

ORDER OF THE RED BANNER OF MILITARY VALOUR (A21.2/A21.3)

1st award

Type 1 (large star, МОНДВОР, s/n No) - Low = 188; High = 613

Type 2 (large star, МОНЕТНЫЙ ДВОР, s/n No) - Low = 318; High = ??

2nd award - (large star, Mongolian number 2) - Low = ??; High = 69

3rd award - (large star, Mongolian number 3, not seen?) - Low = ??; High = ??

4th award - (large star, Mongolian number 4, not seen?) - Low = ??; High = ??

ORDER OF THE RED BANNER OF MILITARY VALOUR (A22 varieties)

1st award

Type 1.1 (МОНЕТНЫЙ ДВОР mintmark; 3 rivets) - Low= 13; High=212

Type 1.2.1 (МОНЕТНЫЙ ДВОР mintmark; 4 rivets; SN at 6 o'clock near bottom) - Low = 306; High = 2401

Type 1.2.2 (МОНЕТНЫЙ ДВОР mintmark; 4 rivets; SN directly below screwpost) - Low = 1007; High = 2581 (these may not be a true variety, just manufacturing randomness?)

2nd award - Low = 53; High = 56

3rd award - Low = ??; High = ??

4th award - (МОНЕТНЫЙ ДВОР mintmark; SN at 6 o'clock near bottom; 4 rivets) - Low = 74; High = 150

ORDER OF THE RED BANNER OF MILITARY VALOUR (Baildaani gav'yaany ulaan tugiin odon) (A23 varieties)

1st award

Type 1.1 (Screwback; 3 rivets; SN just below screwpost) - Low = 50; High = 2794

Type 1.2 (as above, but with Cyrillic ?B? mintmark) - Low = 1332; High = 1955

Type 2.1 (Pinback 3 rivets; SN at 12 o'clock) - Low = 3160; High = 4449

Type 2.2 (Pinback 2 rivets; SN at 5 o'clock) - Low = 4584; High = 5392

Type 3.1 (pinback, bronze) - Low = 5512; High = 5607

Type 3.2 (pinback, bronze, unnumbered, escapee?)

2nd award - (Screwback; 3 rivets; SN just below screwpost ? perhaps 40 awarded?) - Low = 12; High = 398

3rd award - (Screwback; 3 rivets; SN just below screwpost ? perhaps 10-15 awarded?) - Low = 5; High = 200

4th award - (Screwback; 3 rivets; SN just below screwpost ? perhaps 4-5 awarded?) - Low = 3; High = 86

Thanks! May we guess there were 1000 of the first type 1.1?

Just an update:

Type 1.1 (?Cross? obverse, silver painted) - Low = 10; High = 76

Type 1.2 (?Cross? obverse, silver enameled, green leaves) - Low = 13; High = ??

Type 1.3 (?Cross? obverse, silver enameled) - Low = 249; High = 381

Type 2.1 (red obverse, silver numbered) - Low = 1027; High = 1232

Type 2.2 (red obverse, silver unnumbered, escapee?)

Also reminds me I get mine in hand.

Just an update.

First class:

Type 1.1 (screwback, USSR-made) - Low = 19; High = 9184

Type 1.2 (screwback, Mongolian-made) - Low = 10887; High = 55198

Type 2.1 (pinback, light blue enamel) - Low = 56579; High = 60058

Type 2.2 (pinback, dark blue enamel) - Low = 57225; High = 60054

Second class:

Type 1.1 (screwback, USSR-made) - Low = 200; High = 49326

Type 1.2 (screwback, Mongolian-made) - Low = 52404; High = 169768

Type 2.1 (pinback, light blue enamel) - Low = 170577; High = 197624

Type 2.2 (pinback, dark blue enamel) - Low = 179876; High = 211334

After some more discussion here (and in Ulanbaatar), may I offer a revised typology:

Type 1 (mirror reverse, thin silver gilt) - Low = 180; High = 5009

Type 2 (flat reverse, silvered bronze) - Low = 16; High = 961

I'd almost be tempted to see the flat-back as earlier? In the absence of number/date matches it is hard to say.

Thenka, "Sparks". That item established a new lower limit for theobserved serial numberv ranbge on the type 1.1: low 9; high 969

To summarise:

Type 1.1 (Screwback; flat reverse; 5 rivets) - Low = 9; High = 969

Type 1.2 (Screwback; circular indentation at center on reverse; 2 rivets) - Low = 1038; High = 5873

Type 2.1 (Pinback, 4 rivets, silver) - Low = 6036; High = 8823

Type 2.2 (pinback, bronze) - Low = 7120; High = 9066

Type 2.3 (pinback bronze, not numbered, unawarded escapee?)

And, if we could read it, we might learn something from the legend on the reverse?

Choibalsan and friends, hard at work.

As those more expert than I have said, this is a hard call. Your honesty in unraveling the history of this important group and the sad tale of what the worms have done to this group is worthy of praise. What do you do now? A hard question. My two cents (or less) is: The damage has been done, document it, record it, and do no additional harm. But that is a really, really hard ethical call.

I look forward to hearing from others.

Major contributions have been made here toward an expansion of our almost-absent knowledge on one of the more difficult phaleristic areas. Thanks.

http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_01_2007/post-679-1169327208.jpghttp://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_01_2007/post-679-1169325292.jpgHere pic of a huge document. Unfortunately not a number on the doc which could be used to tie it back to the badge.

Didn't fit on the scanner and I was lazy.

Now updated with interior.

Just got an identical document (as part of a larger group of documents). No reason to show it, but it may be useful to record the date of award as 30 December 1954. Maybe we're seeing a narrow window here?

Ed - any word from Bat on the list of questions posed for him on this forum a while back at your indication?

Thanks

Absolutely! And when I (1) recover fropm mega-jet-lag and (2) some my scribbled notes an answer will be posted. Today. Maybe? Ed

Interesting. Thanks. Just random manufacturers' variants?

On closer and ongoing examination, the fantasy facts presented here are as dangerous as are the prices.

The good news is that, so far as I know, there is only one copy of this book in UB (I gave one to Battushig). May we hope it remains thus.

For an Ottoman general, that was excessively lackluster by the time he went over to the other side in 1917.

He was, after all, an ARAB and not a Turk and there was pretty systematic discrimination against them. This is one reason a fair number switched sides (also to get out of POW camp).

From Owain (and WHAT A PHOTO!):

In the old days, though, a few did receive awards (especially Qing Chinese awards), especially as they shaded over from "clergy" to "nobility"; see http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=5489...3850&st=129 and the following post.

This is perhaps another part of the reason they were viewed so negatively by the revolutionaries?

A very modern young monk in today's Ulanbaatar, iPhone and all.

What became of them. (From the "Museum of Political Oppression" in Ulanbaatar.)

Another.

Arguably outside our scope, Buddhism monks in Mongolia -- owning most of the flocks and most of the herders -- represented one of the classes most displaced (and, by the 1930s, displaced with bullets) by the revolution. Today, they are making a comeback (much as the church is on the rise in Russia).

A couple of faces from that past.

Thanks! I had been staring at it so long that my eyes were starting to swim. Therefore, I missed the obvious!

OКTЯБPБ (though the final letter is bashed a bit)