| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 1,693 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
219 Posts |
Someone recently brought me in a bunch of old military currency but there was one I had never seen before. Not sure if it is some form of currency or what it is. It has some form of Asian writing all around it and on one line it says 1780092 with and anchor and some other symbol. The next line is 17.7.10, it appears to be printed on silk (only 1 side has print). Any ideas what this could be?
Moved to ID Required - Sap
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
219 Posts |
Here is a picture.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3345 Posts |
Im sure someone can read this on here. Looks Korean to me, however. Although I'm guessing here. That is way cool though.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3253 Posts |
Not Korean; that's Chinese. My first impression is that it must be Chinese for "This tag not to be removed from cushion under penalty of law!"
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
507 Posts |
Interesting. I wonder what the significance of the anchor and the other mark is, and if they were originally on the note. I'd recommend you or a moderator can post it in the International Paper Money subforum and you might get exposed to a more helpful audience. . . There are certainly CCF members that can read that note, but they may not visit the US Paper Money forum. :) |
|
Moderator
 Australia
16829 Posts |
Moved.  As for what it is, not sure - either Chinese or Japanese.  Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
To me it looks like an information tag that is used on bales etc when shipping from the factory. 17.7.10 looks like its the date 1780092 could be a batch number  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3098 Posts |
Quote:
To me it looks like an information tag that is used on bales etc when shipping from the factory.
17.7.10 looks like its the date 1780092 could be a batch number Trout is right, this is a label for Japanese Type 89 parachutes (model 3 version 3). Serial number (not batch) is 1780092 and date of manufacture is 7/17/1910 (most likely). The bottom line states it's made by Fujikura Aviation Co. This is very neat! Definitely wouldn't expect someone to keep this, much like the label under the chair. |
|
Moderator
Australia
16829 Posts |
Actually, the parachute was still experimental technology in 1910 and had never actually been tested from an aeroplane, so I don't think that's the correct interpretation of the date.
I believe in Japan, a common date-writing system is year-month-day, making this date 10th of July 1917; though even this interpretation seems odd if the item was found with WWII-era paper money. I wouldn't expect a 1917-made chute to still be sent into battle in WWII.
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
709 Posts |
@Sap -"I wouldn't expect a 1917-made chute to still be sent into battle in WWII."
I was issued with 1943 field dressings in 1982!
I expect like most armies, things were kept practically forever.
In Japan, years were often denoted by the era, rather than using the Western system common today. The Showa era began in late 1926, so year 17 would be I think around 1943. Year 10 would be 1936. This brings the label into a reasonable period for parachute use. I believe in the Japanese military, the type number of an item often denoted its first year of introduction or invention. The year would be based on one of the Japanese dating systems rather than the Western one. But 89 is too big for the Meiji or Showa periods. Can anyone clear this up?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3098 Posts |
ah - a quick google search points to the parachute being used in WWII (the first google book). It's labeled a type 89 harness and parachute. Is the harness a part of the entire parachute pack?
oops... Showa 17 as the manufacturing year does seem more likely. For 89, I think it's from the Japanese imperial year (koki), similar to the military dating conventions of the time (Type 99 rifle = Year 2599 = Design year 1939), so this would be designed in 1929. Would that still be too early?
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,693 |
|
Posted 08/25/2012 6:29 pm
