Red Star.

[Bill Garvy]

If this is the same vendor I think it is from a well known auction site, the Red Stars he or she has for sale are over-priced, in my opinion. The Red Star certainly looks good though.

[Bill Garvy]

An early MZPP variant (#1815600) with missing section of the inner ring on the obverse, from 12 to 2 o'clock (mint error?). . .

[desantnik]

An early MZPP variant with missing section of the inner ring on the obverse, from 12 to 2 o'clock (mint error?). . .

Either a striking error that resulted in the rim not getting filled out, or applied so weakly that it subsequently worked its way free.

[Bill Garvy]

I was informed it is a "die flaw". I recall your having one like these available in the marketplace recently, #2108465. with the inner ring missing in a different location, from 10 to 12 o'clock.

[Bill Garvy]

1772971 or 1772931?

[Tommy]

id say 1772951. my eye sight is shocking though!

scratch that, its a 3!

[RedMaestro2]

1772971 or 1772931?

Maybe a camera would actually be better than a scanner for discerning in this case.

I vote 3. I don't think it looks like the 7's. And the top line is on the wrong side for a 5.

[Bill Garvy]

[SIZE="3"]2400 dpi and brightened a bit. . .

I'm leaning toward a "3" as well, although I am certainly not willing to polish it and remove all that marvelous patination just for the sake of determining the number.[/SIZE]

[Auke]

I'd say "3" too... It are four cuts, whereas the sevens consist of three cuts. But I agree with Alex that a photograph might be very helpful here. Scanners have to deal with inch-long screwposts, often making serial numbers too blurry to draw a conclusion...

[CtahhR]

I'd go 3 too.

Thinking about this brings up the thought that when records were being written and serial numbers being recorded there would only be a single pair of eyes checking it. With slightly deformed numerals, I wonder how many awards have been recorded with the "wrong" serial number.