While sorting through digital images on my hard drives, I ran across this image:



I know I did not take the picture. It is dated on my computer created Monday, April 01, 2002, 10:03:50 PM.

It is not one I recalled while working on the variations section of the Collectors Guide (see page 428.)

Anyone remember this one? MLKILTEO? The number is a bit hard to read, but begins with A06XX?

I followed up with a search and found this post by Jeff Marsh CLICK HERE

And examining the photo under higher magnification, I'm certain the number is A0698.

John
This flag error has never been posted on the Forums before. To me it looks like someone at the factory tried to correct the MUL variation by rubbing out the U and M and carving a new M where the U was. This looks like another example of the factory trying to clean up a mis-spelled variation and instead of correcting the variation they just create another one. The factory worker that corrected it didn't know how to spell Mukilteo either.

Is that the right spacing for MUKILTEO as compared to other Mukilteo HL's? Could it be the last vertical part of the U didn't appear for some reason and that really isn't the letter L?

Bob

Daniel - there was an earlier discussion of this error on ebay and there was a post by Jeff Marsh that he had it. But no photo appeared before as far as I can see.

Discussion of item on eBay

Great detective work John. I received your email and am considering the options. I have a few other pieces that I was going to when I got around to it, but am not too eager on this one due to the sentiment value. I will call you soon and let you know before I do anything.

This piece got alot of talk in the forums while this was on EBAY. Most of it wasn't good. The seller wasn't credible, the flag was compromised, the picture was fake, etc... The bidding was minimized due to this talk, but being unable to procure the more well known variation, I had to have this one. I even received a few private emails after the auction by persons from this forum that this wasn't real and I wasted my money. "Ripped off" was the term they used. I still have the email. Anyway, I was very satisfied with the purchase. I also received as a bonus, the number prior to this variation which is normal. The indent as you can see, is very precise and there are no signs of modification. I later showed this to Bill at a show for signing and also to Harry Hines at a SCHLCC meeting. Their attitude and information about this phenominon was one of "Yea, it happens". They knew of other pieces (Other than Mukilteo) with errors like this, but were unable to remember which ones. I remember a few pieces in the forums later on with stamping errors, I believe one was even a collectors club piece. The conversations were a few years ago, so I'm a little hazy about why they said the stamping errors occur. Though not frequent, they do occur. Again, both Bill and Harry said there ARE other pieces out there with these type of errors. I've checked all of mine, which, by the way took some time, but this is the only I have like this. I hope I cleared up a few things. John, thanks for the email. It's good to be back on the forums again. Things haven't been the same on the West coast since the big move, but it's still good to hear from friends. I'll check the forums more often and hopefully begin to post more. Thanks again!

The flag number is #A0498. Mukilteo on both pieces seems to be in the right space. The smudge mark appears normal as in other pieces, but there is a definate indet prior to the name

Wow
I missed that one then and even with John showing it again to me, I still missed it. Jeff you did sneak that one in. That should have been a totally different topic of its own.

You can always learn something on the collectors fourms.
Thanks John and Jeff for bringing this one up again for those that missed it.

So much for my eyesight! Thanks, Jeff. And welcome back!