09-22-2008, 07:44 PM
Not meaning to hijack the thread, but this brings up a larger issue. How were serial numbers allocated, and when in the production process were they added to the award?
For the first, in the time before instant communication and shared electronic data, there were two ways to handle allocation. The first is to limit production to a single place at any one time. There’s no need to distribute any data because it is only used in one place. The second is to allocate ‘blocks’ of numbers – facility A uses 0001 to 4999, facility B uses 5000 to 9999, for example.
The second issue relates to the first. If the s/n are added during the process and there are multiple production sites (which there were, multiple mints), then it has to be the second method. But why the mix of obviously different production medals with very close s/n?
There is another possibility, kind of a mix of the two allocation methods. (And as I just read what Brian thinks in his earlier thread.) Multiple sites produce the awards, but they are then all shipped to a central site for the application of the serial number. This would explain the mix of types of Bravery Medals with close serial numbers. Each stamper is working on a group of awards from multiple manufacturers, and simply stamps each with the next s/n.
Only problem with this is did they actually stamp awards after the enamel/whatever it is, is put in the letters? Seems a recipe to do damage. (With a rotating tool, or hand engraved it seems much less an issue.)
Anyone know the actual minting process of these awards?
For the first, in the time before instant communication and shared electronic data, there were two ways to handle allocation. The first is to limit production to a single place at any one time. There’s no need to distribute any data because it is only used in one place. The second is to allocate ‘blocks’ of numbers – facility A uses 0001 to 4999, facility B uses 5000 to 9999, for example.
The second issue relates to the first. If the s/n are added during the process and there are multiple production sites (which there were, multiple mints), then it has to be the second method. But why the mix of obviously different production medals with very close s/n?
There is another possibility, kind of a mix of the two allocation methods. (And as I just read what Brian thinks in his earlier thread.) Multiple sites produce the awards, but they are then all shipped to a central site for the application of the serial number. This would explain the mix of types of Bravery Medals with close serial numbers. Each stamper is working on a group of awards from multiple manufacturers, and simply stamps each with the next s/n.
Only problem with this is did they actually stamp awards after the enamel/whatever it is, is put in the letters? Seems a recipe to do damage. (With a rotating tool, or hand engraved it seems much less an issue.)
Anyone know the actual minting process of these awards?
Steiner: "Why do you want it so badly? It's just a worthless piece of metal. Look."
