Good point, that is a big gap and a true statistical abnormally.
Confirming that serial number would solve this issue. These conflicts are as old as the database itself. Almost every month when I process serial numbers I run into conflicts and have to make a judgement call. The fact that we are debating this single serial number is an example of what makes the database strong by actively weeding out erroneous numbers.
The last 4 digits of the serial number are less important than the first 5 but always cause these conflicts. So the judgement call is to either kick it out completely or to guess. In this case, since we can't confirm the AU-11000 but we do have a reasonably good image of the QRX-7001, I'm inclined to guess. I often guess at numbers and listed some examples in the early production outliers. This particular serial number is important because it expands the known production range, there is no question about the first 5 digits so it needs to be in the database.
The likelihood of "counterfeit" serial number tags is pretty low. This is well before computer printers so they would need to be done in a print shop. It's unlikely individual thieves would have the resources to create credible tags. I'm confident that tag is genuine and unmodified.
You caught me. See how easy it is to make a mistake. So this new serial number is the second example of 1976 production.
Don't stop. I need eyes looking over my work.
That said, there is another interesting fact about this particular QRX-7001. The photo you posted clearly shows it's an incredibly rare single voltage North American model. The only others I've seen are 9090DBs towards the end of their production roughly two years after this one was made.
- Pete
). 
