1949threepence

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.

He's not been gone that long - last visited Thursday at 4.33pm.

Interesting. Particularly high density of British heritage in Utah & Idaho, Bob.

Cheers Pete.

Bernie's wasn't it, Pete?

Absolutely. That one looks the real deal.