Glory.

[ANZAC]

Glory III #170187.

Brendan

[Kirchgoens]

Please take a look at these two: I think they are 217,662 and 264,249, but they are not crystal clear to me.

To paraphrase Normavich from up north, what do you dudeskies think?

[Auke]

I would say 217,662 and 264,349.

[desantnik]

I would say 217,662 and 264,349.

I agree with Auke.

[jefflgarrison]

Both the wife and I believe the second one is 264,249. The stroke on the first part is way too long for a three in my opinion. However, I am not such an expert on OG3's.

Anyone have a OG3 within that range to compare with?

[desantnik]

Friends - just compare this to the first "2" in the sequence. This could have been intended to be a "2", but then corrected. I'm fairly certain the number in question is a "3".

[Lapa]

Brian,

I agree regarding the first one. Now, about the second one, I have an entirely different reading: 264,949
Some explanations now: the lower bar on the 4th digit from the left was engraved later, and seemingly not by the original engraver; the "handwriting" is very primitive and approximate, radically different from all the rest. IMHO, this is an attempt to change the original SN made after this order left the Mint.

Marc

[ANZAC]

Brian,

I agree regarding the first one. Now, about the second one, I have an entirely different reading: 264,949
Some explanations now: the lower bar on the 4th digit from the left was engraved later, and seemingly not by the original engraver; the "handwriting" is very primitive and approximate, radically different from all the rest. IMHO, this is an attempt to change the original SN made after this order left the Mint.

Marc

I tend to agree with Marc on this one. The 9, which has the same sweeping stroke as the other 9, looks to have been added to at some stage, certainly not by the engraver.

Brendan

[Kirchgoens]

Odd. Why would that happen? This was bought one or two steps from the recipient's family in Central Asia. There are no docs (small town/village families often pitch them after grandpa's passing, seeing no value in paper), thus no need to fake a number to make a matched set. It doesn't have the obvious damage sometimes seen in an effort to obscure the number either (I've got two OG3s with that sort of damage). I had figured it was just "sloppy" handwriting at the mint, but who knows? You'll see in earlier posts within this thread similar tough calls on at least one other OG3 s/n.

Where I sometimes find these, there are no dealers to filter out the strange ones. I also see a LOT of broken pieces (especially OPW2 and ORS enamel and BM "ears").

[ANZAC]

Odd. Why would that happen? This was bought one or two steps from the recipient's family in Central Asia. There are no docs (small town/village families often pitch them after grandpa's passing, seeing no value in paper), thus no need to fake a number to make a matched set. It doesn't have the obvious damage sometimes seen in an effort to obscure the number either (I've got two OG3s with that sort of damage). I had figured it was just "sloppy" handwriting at the mint, but who knows? You'll see in earlier posts within this thread similar tough calls on at least one other OG3 s/n.

Where I sometimes find these, there are no dealers to filter out the strange ones. I also see a LOT of broken pieces (especially OPW2 and ORS enamel and BM "ears").

Given that you are not supposed to sell your awards, perhaps an attempt by the recipient or family to hide the true number so they could not be identified?:confused:

Brendan