So I was out looking for something else when I found this skillet propped up against the wall in a junk store. It looks hinky to me, but as it was only a dollar, I decided to take a chance on it and skipped the Big Gulp on the way home to make up for it. So if you look at it the right way, I got paid $.79 to take it. My wife doesn't see things this way...
It's got a smallish gate mark on the bottom and is marked with an "8" although it seems a bit small to be an "8". Bottom diameter is 8.5". Top diameter is 9.66" and the overall length with the handle is 14.75".
Condition is fair. Rust isn't bad, but it appears to have been rattle-canned black over the char. Not surprisingly, it spins on a flat surface. The casting flash is clearly taller than the outer ring.
Here's the pics.
Overall pic.
Gate mark and "8"
Gate mark.
I understand that it is virtually impossible to ID the many small workshops making cooking utensils in the mid-late 19th century, but It would be edifying to know if this is old or if it's a recast.
I am also aware that old ≠ value.
More pics on the next post.
---------- Post added at 02:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 PM ----------
Handle detail
top view
I didn't see evidence of a "ghost" side pour mark on this so I am ever so slightly (51%) optimistic, since it seems silly to recast something, grind off the slight evidence of the recast and then fail to modify your big honking pour mark so the thing will sit flat.
Anyway, I'll let the experts have a look!
Thanks guys!
It's got a smallish gate mark on the bottom and is marked with an "8" although it seems a bit small to be an "8". Bottom diameter is 8.5". Top diameter is 9.66" and the overall length with the handle is 14.75".
Condition is fair. Rust isn't bad, but it appears to have been rattle-canned black over the char. Not surprisingly, it spins on a flat surface. The casting flash is clearly taller than the outer ring.
Here's the pics.
Overall pic.
Gate mark and "8"
Gate mark.
I understand that it is virtually impossible to ID the many small workshops making cooking utensils in the mid-late 19th century, but It would be edifying to know if this is old or if it's a recast.
I am also aware that old ≠ value.
More pics on the next post.
---------- Post added at 02:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 PM ----------
Handle detail
top view
I didn't see evidence of a "ghost" side pour mark on this so I am ever so slightly (51%) optimistic, since it seems silly to recast something, grind off the slight evidence of the recast and then fail to modify your big honking pour mark so the thing will sit flat.
Anyway, I'll let the experts have a look!
Thanks guys!
