I really dont understand the reasoning here. So let me present these 2 quotes and see if someone can explain it to me ..
If one of my limited-edition numbered prints was returned to me damaged, I would destroy that print and make another identical one, and give it the same number. I dont want to discuss any fee at this time, because that would depend upon the individual circumstances.
So my questions are ..
1) Why would I mark it as a replacement? (if Im reading TheFlyingCameras post correctly).
2) Why would issuing an exact replacement print impact any other buyer? (as railwayman3s friend suggests).
There are "rules" to the whole limited edition print thing, and one of those is to insure that there is one and only one set of prints, totaling the number in the edition plus the artists' proofs, and no more. It's kind of silly, but if you are adhering to the notion of a limited edition, then technically, the loss or destruction of one of your prints is not something you should concern yourself with, certainly not to the point of replacing the print, because with one gone, that makes the others in the edition more valuable, because there's now 1/nth fewer copies in the world. It's a rather contrived thing that makes sense mostly if you are selling through galleries and not directly to the customers. That's why I said to make the replacement, but since it is no longer part of the original edition, it is supposed to be marked as such.