Right as rain Spence, sorry to disappoint !!

Wouldn,t have got any of my money. All that rusting is far too recent - you don't get that over 100 years on a wall. The front image seems far too sharp for the techniques that were around in 1890s.

It's dreary looking whether or not it's original. Some very early signs do have black backs though.

Repro.
Rust is orange. Also, the people who make these just can't stop 'damaging' the corners to make out that screws have caused the damage (and exactly the same pattern of damage on each corner!)

I'm trying to imagine what it would feel like to spend £7000 on this dull sign and then to start suspecting it's a worthless reproduction.

The rusty corners do look weird ... BUT I think we would all agree we would need it in our own hands to give a definite opinion. Anyone here actually view or handle this sign pre-auction

lummox

I think its right. Dates from 1907. By then both the sheet metal and depth of the enamel was a bit thinner. The transfers were also improving. If it were wrong the transfer would be photo-litho not chromo. If wrong it would also almost certainly not have the two middle screw holes. The back looks right to me for a sign of this age... Heard a story that a small hoard of these were dug recently - all with various degrees of damage???
FB

Yes I heard that as well and it was'nt a million miles away from the auction