Jeremiah's curse and Haggai's promise (see the Haggai hub) use the identical picture. To Jeconiah: "though Coniah… were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence" (Jer 22:24, ASV). To his grandson Zerubbabel, two generations later: "I will take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant… and will make thee as a signet; for I have chosen thee" (Hag 2:23, ASV). The ring God tore off the grandfather's hand He puts back on the grandson's.
Does that undo Jer 22:30? Read the curse's own wording again: the ban is specific: "no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne." Zerubbabel is never crowned. Scripture calls him "governor of Judah" (Hag 1:1; Ezra 3:2; 5:2) under Persian authority, never king. The signet is restored (status, favor, a place in the unfolding plan) but the throne clause stands untouched. God reverses the humiliation without reversing the sentence.
That is the pattern the virgin birth completes rather than duplicates. Haggai's signet answers the shame of Jer 22:24; the virgin birth answers the throne clause of Jer 22:30. Gabriel's word to Mary reaches for exactly the language the curse forbade Jeconiah's line: "the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever" (Luke 1:32–33, ASV). Zerubbabel is dignified; Jesus is enthroned. Two different resolutions to two different clauses of the same sentence, both honest to what Jeremiah actually wrote.