ERIE Pot I Restored. Authentic or Not?

B

BWilson

New member
I've kinda been bitten by the cast iron bug. I've restored a few skillets that I've gotten from my dad and others using an electrolysis tank. I've had this rusted pot for a couple years now. I couldn't see any ID marks on the bottom initially, but after I cleaned it up, I saw "ERIE" 11. I had not idea what it was at first. After reading a bit online, I quickly got excited after I found out what I had. After the excitement settled and observing it more, I'm not sure that what i have is authentic. There is no heat ring, lots of blemishes in the casting, it looks like it has been hit with a grinder at some point in time. And overall, it just looks really crappy and doesn't look like any other ERIE pot I've seen online. What do y'all think, authentic or knock-off?

https://imgur.com/a/rH3AR
 
Thanks! That makes me feel a lot better. I have a blacksmith friend that is going to make a replacement bail for it.

Would a newer Griswold 11 lid fit this? Not sure I would ever be able to find an Erie lid.
 
It actually might. But I don't know how much better the chances are of finding one over the other.
 
BWilson said:
Thanks! That makes me feel a lot better. I have a blacksmith friend that is going to make a replacement bail for it.

Would a newer Griswold 11 lid fit this? Not sure I would ever be able to find an Erie lid.
Click to expand...

the 'hunt' is part of the fun. Also, I'm not sure how an 'erie' lid of that era would be marked, your DO is before pattern numbers... so it might have a size (either on top or bottom) or it might just be plain.
 
Doug D. said:
Looks genuine. Missing its original bail. These were not known to be reproduced. CI counterfeiters usually picked easier targets.

Here's a #8 from the same period:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-ERI...081018?hash=item3f7e033cba:g:rckAAOSwcgNZMDEw
Click to expand...

Doug, page 63 of the Blue Book says these were "available with or without bail". I just picked up a # 9 ERIE just like this with p/n 834 in the middle and was lucky enough that it had the matching lid, p/n 840. It does not have a bail. The thing that I question about mine is that it has a part #, like the one at the top of page 63, but the handle on the 840 lid has a "hoop" style handle, like the one at the bottom of the page.
 
Just put took the lid out of the tank and have it in the oven. It actually is p/n 838 not 840, but still rises the same questions.
 
838 is the p/n for a #9 flat top DO lid. I don't expect differences in handle style had an impact on the pattern number for a given lid.
 
Doug D. said:
838 is the p/n for a #9 flat top DO lid. I don't expect differences in handle style had an impact on the pattern number for a given lid.
Click to expand...

Doug, maybe I didn't state clearly enough what I was questioning. On page 63 of the BB, it shows dutch ovens without a p/n (like 1st series skillets) and ones with p/n (like 3rd series). The ones with p/n are shown with a lid that has a round knob for a handle. The ones without p/n have the hoop style handle. I was questioning the fact that mine has a p/n, but has a hoop style handle. My guess would be that they have the side-view pictures, with the lids on, matched up incorrectly with the bottom view pictures. Maybe ??? I know the BB isn't totally accurate or complete.
 
I don't think the photos are juxtaposed due to the fact that, if we are to assume there are only two DOs involved, the bottom and bottom right clearly have no bail on them. Perhaps the knob style lid was an option, albeit one not often seen these days. Or perhaps something tried temporarily and abandoned. In any event, I don't think it should be inferred that all flat-top Erie DOs with p/ns had knob-top lids.

There are indeed some inconsistencies in the RB and BB, but we have to remember that, when they were first published, the authors were working on mysteries with far fewer clues than we have today. For example, at one point a little over two decades ago, bottom-gated Victor and Erie skillets were believed to be the "1st series" of those pans. We know today, of course, those were actually recasts, not produced by Griswold at all.

Unfortunately, there apparently hasn't been any motivation to go back and revisit some of the inconsistencies the books still contain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top