1949threepence

No worries, pleased to be of service From a practical point of view, in the absence of a date of production on each cabinet (which is a pity), you can probably only narrow down the date to certain periods - by looking at such things as the company name and whether the label has an old style telephone number on it. Or maybe even the type of wood used. He did use Obeche in 1972, according to the advert I reproduced above. That said, it might be worth seeing if you can contact Peter personally, possibly by seeing if the new owners of the business have an e mail address. He may be able to cast some further light on the dates of each model. I did have an e mail address from when I contacted Peter in January 2010, to order my cabinet, but unfortunately I've long since deleted the e mails.

I've no idea if he's still alive, but I'd say it's more probable than not that he is still alive. I can say with certainty that he retired in October 2010, and passed the concern on. There is reference to his work in the 2017 Coin Yearbook, which I downloaded. I was going to do a screenshot for you, but it appears you can copy and paste the text, which surprised me. So I hope I'm not breaking any copyright laws by reproducing this small extract for your information. It's from an article on coin storage.

Obverse 3 is the logical choice and means the buyer got a bargain.

Indeed it is Pete.

I don't reckon it's shill bidding - not enough bids. Moreover, the winning bid is a snipe in the last few seconds of the auction. The relatively high bid for what looks like junk, maybe because it's thought to be a rare die pairing. I'm not 100% sure what the pairing actually is, because the coin is so worn. Pretty sure it's reverse D, but although the obverse doesn't look like 6, there isn't any obvious cut out at the base of the bust, present on all other 1861 obverses with or without an L C WYON, but the lack of which, distinctly hallmarks a 6. So not certain. Hopefully someone else can help. Don't think it can be obverse 6 as the spacing of the letters in Victoria is closer than a 6, and the top of the head isn't as close to the rim as it would be with a 6.

Yes. Sometimes I do wonder if coins are put up for auction as proofs, without provenance, nor the coin showing any obvious evidence of being a proof. Yet the vendor's assertion is accepted without further question by the auction house, and the coin offered for bids on the basis that it's a proof, when it's actually just a very well preserved currency strike with mostly clear fields free of bag marks etc.

I was just thinking exactly the same thing. Way to go, perhaps.

Lot 3026 Nothing obvious so far.

Absolutely. Do you have a link to the specific coin at the sale, Komisaruk, so we can have a look.?

I think we can safely assume that they produced specimens. When I successfully bid for the Freeman 74 at the Copthorne auction, the following was said about it, by way of reference:- Whether they ever did actual proofs is up for debate. But I'm not convinced those two 1881H's are even specimens. Although they might be early strikes. This is the Freeman 74 (quasi proof):-

No, not at all. I agree with you Not sure about the scientifics of pitting. I'd imagine it is a specific response to a given environmental factor - possibly water. Once that factor is removed via placing the coin in a warm, dry setting, there would be no further spread. But not sure. Maybe somebody else can fill us in on this one?

Yes Matt, that definitely looks like pitting. Also there is a carbon spot close to the N of ONE. When I say "really nice", I mean comparatively speaking, given you don't often see them better than fine.

It doesn't have the look of a proof to me, just a very well preserved currency issue, and not the near FDC you'd expect with a non impaired proof, given the dirt marks on closer inspection Another alleged proof of the 1881H ilk, can be seen here. That went for £800, or about $1000. Bit more realistic.

Well I would choose penny two. Of the three options, it's the nicest for the price. Number one you could possibly get better at the same price, and number three is somewhat unrealistically priced, albeit an outstandingly nice specimen.

Take the 1869 penny - touted as very rare, but judging by the numbers offered on e bay at any given time, actually not that rare. Nonetheless, always commanding a high price, even in modest grade. By contrast consider some of the die varieties within certain years. Some exceedingly rare, yet somehow never quite capturing the charisma associated with certain years, like the 1933 penny, and the 1905 shilling/halfcrown. It all boils down to popularity, notoriety and the collective imagination of both the numismatic community and the general public.

I don't have one Pete, and it is something I will eventually turn my attention to. But it isn't a priority at this stage of the game. Thanks for asking. Incidentally, talking about 1897 in general, anybody noticed this really nice Freeman 147 at the imminent LCA?

With the coin being in such excellent condition, you can quite clearly see there is definitely a no H. Plus, of course, it's the right die pairing.

Where can that Gerald Jackson specimen be looked up, VS?

Good thinking, Pete. Peckris mentioned a similar principle up thread, I notice.

Bernie's can be seen here Dave. Finally found it. Not quite UNC, but certainly a superior specimen for this exceedingly rare variety.

Pure class !!!

That's very true, David. On many pics, you struggle to see the tide at all, let alone whether low or high.

Unlikely. Only if it is one of two rare types - the one described in this thread, and another where there is a raised dot between the O and N of ONE. Even then the hole at the top would severely detract even if the coin were in top condition. You could perhaps upload a pic, but don't hold your breath on value.

To think, there are actually individuals who really do fall for this crap. It's amazing.

Nice 1888 there.