Jump to content
Igor Ostapenko

Order of the Sacred Treasure

Recommended Posts

Give us some time...

I am still waiting for family reunification... :lol:

High end... Yep we need some documented group from 70s or 80s...

But authentic one is very hard to find... We'll see...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, how about some photos of your new family! :lol:

First the document

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Document dated February 26, 1946.

Name of the recipient Matsushita Kanesaku.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AWESOME!! Thanks for showing the new acquisition!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul

These are the pictures from the seller. I am still waiting ...

I'll try to do something by friday...

Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, bringing up the numbers opens up another interesting discussion. Between 1940 and 1943 the numbering system changed, as did the labeling on the award documents. Up to 1940 (and maybe later) the document would read, for example 'Number 150,143' (第十五万百四十三号). Note that the Japanese phrase used man 万and hyaku 百 as well as straight numbering.

From at least 1943 (and possibly earlier) not only the phrasing but the numbering changed. So from an actual 4th Class ST document dated June 9, 1943, the medal is recorded in this way: 瑞第五五八九六号. The 1st kanji here is the initial one in the compound naming the order, Sacred Treasure (zuihou 瑞宝). The number is obviously low, so at some point they started the numbering again, from what number they started I do not know. Also interesting (though perhaps not so important) is that the man 万and hyaku 百 are not used. This could be a case of just simplifying the document since the phrasing around the number has been shortened as well.

Not sure why the numbering would have been rebooted unless the numbers were getting so large that someone decided they, too, were getting too unwieldy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe they decided that the new epoch is coming...

And they decided that beetween spring 1940 and autumn 1941 ...

But you are definitely right Rich, something changed between 1940 and 1943 (or even 1941?)

And maybe another change occured around 2003 and that's why Dieter suprised http://gmic.co.uk/index.php/topic/51191-order-of-rising-sun-vintage-2003/page__st__40 ?

Cheers,

Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, bringing up the numbers opens up another interesting discussion. Between 1940 and 1943 the numbering system changed, as did the labeling on the award documents. Up to 1940 (and maybe later) the document would read, for example 'Number 150,143' (第十五万百四十三号). Note that the Japanese phrase used man 万and hyaku 百 as well as straight numbering.

And then it changed again - I assume when medals began to be reissued? The numbers all seem to appear at the far left of the document and continues to the present, and reads in the fashion "第XXXX号".

The number is obviously low, so at some point they started the numbering again, from what number they started I do not know. Also interesting (though perhaps not so important) is that the man 万and hyaku 百 are not used. This could be a case of just simplifying the document since the phrasing around the number has been shortened as well.

My guess is simplification as you suggest. Interestingly, the Russo-Japan War medal document also uses this simple scheme, and even mixes the old style of kanji for the numbers one, two, three in there! I don't think any others did, did they?

Not sure why the numbering would have been rebooted unless the numbers were getting so large that someone decided they, too, were getting too unwieldy.

Two theories - first, the records were destroyed so they had to? Second, could it have been such that at a certain number, let's say 2,000,000 for argument's sake, that any documents after that number would have the 2,000,000 already implied? But then, why don't we see documents with really, really low numbers - we should, but I haven't if either of these theories were true, but I can't think of anything else right now. I'd think that if either were the case, it'd be stated in historical records somewhere - it couldn't simply be an arbitrary decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...