Bill Garvy Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 Gentlemen, I am soliciting your thoughts and observations on this Order of Glory 3rd Class with an apparent error made while stamping the number. . .
Paul R Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 I have never seen that type of error before... now the question... which number do you have researched? LOLVery nice small number too!
Guest Rick Research Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 :Cat-Scratch: YIKEYS!!! That's the question indeed! The horizontal CHOP/WHACK on the middle number was obviously applied last and on top... but was that making the 2 a 9 or.... ???It's not just some random, coincidental ding-- the stroke matches those used in the first and last numbers. :speechless1:
Bill Garvy Posted February 21, 2009 Author Posted February 21, 2009 Interesting question, Paul. . . I think if you researched both 38256 and 38926, how would you know which citation goes with this Order? Now all I have to do is find the other Order. . .
Eric B Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 YIKEYS!!! That's the question indeed! The horizontal CHOP/WHACK on the middle number was obviously applied last and on top... but was that making the 2 a 9 or.... ???It's not just some random, coincidental ding-- the stroke matches those used in the first and last numbers. Yeah, elsewhere those were exactly my thoughts. The scans make that (to me) very clear.And no Bill, getting both researched did not mean to imply that you'd be able to tell which citation went with the order. At least I couldn't think of a way to tell.
RedMaestro Posted February 21, 2009 Posted February 21, 2009 YIKEYS!!! That's the question indeed! The horizontal CHOP/WHACK on the middle number was obviously applied last and on top... but was that making the 2 a 9 or.... ???It's not just some random, coincidental ding-- the stroke matches those used in the first and last numbers. That type of stroke would imply that it was supposed to be a 9, no? If it was "applied last and on top" then that would mean the 2 was underneath.
Alfred Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 I think it?s as nine. Looks like the engraver made the horizontal bar latest.regardsAndreas
zlom Posted February 24, 2009 Posted February 24, 2009 Everything, greetings! Here it was visible that initially figure 9, then it have corrected on 2.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now