Mongolia Polar star serial changed?

[rboomsma]

Just sold on ebay for $274.

But look below the serial number, is that not an area that has been rubbed out?

[Dolf]

Even not seing the obverse I guess this is a A 32.1 (Uighur inscription), right?

Indeed, it seems the original S/N was erased and a new one added!

And unless I'm wrong I suppose the mint wouldn't do it that way, so...

Dolf

[rboomsma]

Even not seing the obverse I guess this is a A 32.1 (Uighur inscription), right?

Indeed, it seems the original S/N was erased and a new one added!

And unless I'm wrong I suppose the mint wouldn't do it that way, so...

Dolf

Yes here is the front

[Dolf]

Yes here is the front

Thanks. That confirms what I thought from a couple of details on the reverse pic

What's funny is that it still sold for that price despite the fact someone obviously messed up with the original S/N! Could this have been done at the mint, because of some possible error?!...

Dolf

[rboomsma]

Thanks. That confirms what I thought from a couple of details on the reverse pic

What's funny is that it still sold for that price despite the fact someone obviously messed up with the original S/N! Could this have been done at the mint, because of some possible error?!...

Dolf

I doubt who bought it knows the serial was changed, as it affects the price greatley. It also has a fairly high serial for that variation.

[Dolf]

I doubt who bought it knows the serial was changed, as it affects the price greatley. It also has a fairly high serial for that variation.

Ron,

Just checked the main Polar Star thread, and according to our data specialists fellow members, it seems this number would fit in the range numbers for such type.

According to our data specialists this one would be what they call a Type 2. A T2.1? I mean, with this 1763 S/N, even thought it seems the original one would be different.

Notice that I really don't see why to erase the original S/N and replace it by a new one!

As far as I can check on the data list on the main thread, no T2 would have a S/N with more than four digits!

That's weird, I don't get it!

Myself I only have two T2, which according to our specialists should be a T2.1 with S/N 696 and a T2.2 with S/N 1617. Those were the two only variations I knew they existed when I bought mine, so with the current lack of supply I guess I missed the opportunity to have all four T2 variations

Dolf

Edited July 13, 2006 by Dolf

[rboomsma]

Ron,

Just checked the main Polar Star thread, and according to our data specialists fellow members, it seems this number would fit in the range numbers for such type.

According to our data specialists this one would be what they call a Type 2. A T2.1? I mean, with this 1763 S/N, even thought it seems the original one would be different.

Notice that I really don't see why to erase the original S/N and replace it by a new one!

As far as I can check on the data list on the main thread, no T2 would have a S/N with more than four digits!

That's weird, I don't get it!

Dolf

It may be that someone changed it to match a document that was later lost???

I guess we will never know for sure.

[Dolf]

It may be that someone changed it to match a document that was later lost???

I guess we will never know for sure.

Oh yes, that's a strong possibility!

As it wasn't sold with a Doc I didn't think about that one!

Dolf

[Ed_Haynes]

Thanks for posting this, Ron.

Much food for thought here.

[Dolf]

Thanks for posting this, Ron.

Much food for thought here.

Indeed!

Isn't that weird, Ed?

I mean, could it be an error at the mint (S/N too low, or S/N not matching the range it should, for example) and fixed at the mint? If so would they erase the original S/N that way, and let all those traces?!

Dolf

[Ed_Haynes]

OK, let me try to figure this out:

We have here a clearly and obviously renumbered Polar Star. I can't imagine that it was seriously done to defraud anyone. (But, then, some of the messed-with orders books we've seen would fool nobody either.)

Theory: A replacement award by the central bank. Comrade Bold loses his Polar Star and asks for a replacement. Rather than dig out an unnumbered specimen (or had they all come already numbered, thanks to the Friendly Northern Neighbor? I suspect so), you can just remove a number from a badge already in stock and add the number for Comrade Bold's lost badge. Bold is happy, the central bank strikes a number off the rolls as a renumbered replacement award, and confusion for collectors a few decades later is set in motion.

How is that for a guess?

Just my two (thousand) tugriks worth . . .

[Dolf]

Ed,

Yes, interesting and very reasonable theory indeed!

Thanks "Dr. Holmes",

Dolf

[Ed_Haynes]

Ed,

Yes, interesting and very reasonable theory indeed!

Thanks "Dr. Holmes",

Dolf

It is just that, from my research here in India, I have been struck by the constant and ongoing stream of requests for replacement medals. Replacement medals for the 1857 "Mutiny" (and even for earlier campaigns) were being requested as late as the 1930s. They were a real nuisance to the government and one reason they eventually decided to "lose" the medal rolls. I can't imagine that Indians lost their medals at a higher rate than anyone else . . . ??

And, by the way, it is Mr. Holmes and Dr. Watson.

Cheers

[Dolf]

It is just that, from my research here in India, I have been struck by the constant and ongoing stream of requests for replacement medals. Replacement medals for the 1857 "Mutiny" (and even for earlier campaigns) were being requested as late as the 1930s. They were a real nuisance to the government and one reason they eventually decided to "lose" the medal rolls. I can't imagine that Indians lost their medals at a higher rate than anyone else . . . ??

And, by the way, it is Mr. Holmes and Dr. Watson.

Cheers

Glad your current research was an inspiration to help find a possible solution for this mystery

Well, I know about Mr. Holmes and Dr. Watson, I just mixed your real Dr. title with Sherlock's name

Thanks again,

Dolf

[Vatjan]

Edited for : "talking nonsense", sorry

Jan

Edited July 13, 2006 by vatjan

[Vatjan]

1753 an 1776 are of the variation with the hand engraved mintmark, so we can assume (this is always dangerous, I know) that the original serial number was not quite in this range. Maybe we should try comparing engraving calligraphy just to see if it was done at the mint or not.