Guest
We have all read about period correct items, who had them, what documentations is there on the item and so on. When still acting as the proprietor of Clark & Sons Mercantile I would receive these questions on just about everything we carried which was expected. A good friend had warned me to be armed with the information and be able to answer in a timely manner. He had experienced such queries with his line of wares as manufacturer and proprietor of Goose Bay Workshops. Since joining this website I have been asked about a few items handled years ago. Lots of ideas on what's correct or questionable in cookware, pots, pans and kettles are always good subjects. That said I will share with you an interview that was published back in 1999, man does time fly!
From the December 1999 issue of
THE COLONIAL SOCIETY magazine, field editor William B. Eaton interviews :
[1] Mr. Barry "Buck" Conner; colonial / fur trade researcher, author and proprietor of Clark & Sons Mercantile, (a historical period foods and campwares specialty store).
[2] Mr. Peter Gobel, well known coppersmith, manufacturer and proprietor of Goose Bay Workshops, (supplier of correct cookwares, and hand made period home items).
Over the last few years the reenactment sport from Medieval to the American Civil War has seen a growth in the number of cooking items available, this interview was to ask about proper thickness, hammered or spun, and where the originals tinned.
[1] Mr. Conner what about the thickness of old original kettles, pots, and boilers and how do they compare to what we are seeing in the market place today, the reproductions.
__First let’s look at thickness, - originals that haven’t been wore down to paper thickness, that’s tin - copper - brass - iron. Over the years I have collected, traded, or sold many kettles, pots, pans, boilers, etc. - eating items found in camps, on the trail, or in settlements.
__For thickness of the copper and brass they vary considerably in the walls, bottoms and their weight. Some tinned and many not tinned, these items where all in excellent condition, as many where museum extras that Charley Hanson had acquired at the Museum of the Fur Trade in NE, or knew about and pointed me in that direction.
__Yes some are thinner than others, Hanson thought they where probably Indian trade items, not the normal weight for settlement trade. He felt that many of the thinner kettles, pots and pans where made in England or India and where low in quality and cheaper for the trader to make his deals with. They wanted them to be used up, broken, leaking, etc. by the next trade season, thus producing a supply and demand market, like someone said the Indians moved around and created the perfect situation for wearing out their thin cookware.
__A completely different story in the settlements, the cookware was to last for long periods of time, as was many of the voyagers kettles carried on the freighter canoes, much heavier than the trade counterpart item.
__If you make a study of these items as several of us have over the years, and several well known friends like Charley Hanson [Museum of the Fur Trade}, Bill Large [barrel maker and collector], Vernon Bigsby [Valley Forge Museum Society], and the list could bore you to death, has always been a discussion item on thickness, (wall - compared to bottoms dia., etc.).
__Look at the cast iron in museums compared to the heavy stuff we see today, not even close, I have some that have a 1/8”-3/16” wall at the very thickest and they survived from the 1700’s.
__From these 17th and 18th c. sites I do not believe I have ever encountered a single surving dug kettle or even scrap kettle brass that was as thick as what we see today, the standard trade kettles. The reason for this is the property of metal today compared to yesterdays are different in several elements, I won’t bore you with this, but the minerals in the ground work differently on all types of metals and their makeups.
By the way, before this interview I checked my originals...believe it or not, 0.022/0.025" on the larger ones, and 0,022/0.027 on the other ones where average. As Buck, I mean Mr. Conner has stated about Mr. Hanson’s thoughts on settlement compared to Indian trade cookware, they are the same as mine.
[2] Mr. Goebel the same question; what about the thickness of old original kettles, pots, and boilers and how do they compare to the reproductions of today.
__Gentlemen, first off thank you for your concern about trade kettles in general, and thanks to Buck and Mike for helping to make things clearer. OK group - Lets talk kettels -- right from the horses -- mouth.
__By the way the kettel (correct English spelling - pre 1620) that I reproduce was taken from a ca. 1740 Potawatomie burial and measured .047 thickness ! My repro was .050 thick. The original was also tin lined. Both the metal weight and the tin lining would point to the kettel having been made for European or Colonial consumption, not a standard trade item. Trade kettels were thinner, .025 to .037 is about the norm on the dozen or more originals I’ve measured. Rarely was one tinned.
[1] Mr. Conner what about the construction - hammered or spun on old original kettles, pots, and boilers and how do they compare to the reproductions of today.
__Spinning has been around for centuries, look at the plates, kettles, pots, pan, you name it from Europe before the Europeans came here, really nice stuff, much of the early items came here with the earliest settlers. Made of pewter, brass, copper, etc. Spinning would have been present throughout the settlements and traded at many places, early on coming from the European market. Hammered would have been probably made here, when spinning hadn’t gotten into a full blown operation yet (early years).
[2] Mr. Goebel again, what about the construction - hammered or spun on old original kettles, pots, and boilers and how do they compare to the reproductions of today.
__Metal spinning -- The Roman’s spun helmet parts and shield bosses - B.C. ! "One Man’s Trash is Another Man’s Treasure" put out by Museum Boymans - Van Beuningen in Rotterdam or Dennis Diderot’s Encyclopedia, kettels from the late 1500’s on are made by being -- "hammered or beaten on an anvil and shaped by hollowing sinking raising and stretching. The vessel was then planished on the lathe ... are often clearly visible." In Tunica Treasure, by Jeoffry Brain, he mentions that the lathe turning often left holes in the center of the kettels.
__Two kettlels I have recently studied are taken from Dutch sites in N.Y., both 17th century.
__No.#1 is spun with lathe marks and center very visible and is .032 thick unlined with the worst wired edge I’ve ever seen.
__No.#2 is hammered up (a kettel bowl really) and is now .021 thick - no doubt it started thicker.
Early kettels would have rolled rivets (which often leak) I make these also.
__Average thickness is about .032, I make these also.
__Approx. 30-40% of original kettels have a hole in the bottom from the lathe. I can do this too !
[1] Mr. Conner what about in the construction are they tinned or un-tinned on old original kettles, pots, and boilers and how do they compare to the reproductions of today, please excuse the same question’s over and over again..
__Tinning is real interesting, most originals that where tinned, where usually done so very lightly - cost was everything. Hanson figured there where only a few original tin items around at best, most have been retinned several times from their first tinning. The reason was back then like now, what do you stir you food, and what do you eat with ??? METAL whether it’s, pewter, silver, tin or iron - it’s metal, harder than the tin surface that you cooking item has for a protective surface, so when you put your eating/stirring items in the cooking vessel your removing a small amount of tin, probably you have passed more than one wants to think about.
__So as far as to the appearance of the tin, is it original or something your local blacksmith did ??? Tinning is something strange and the weather can play some real unusual tricks on the tinnier, I’ve tinned two pots at the same time and each looked different, finally sent them to Goebel to clean up, they looked different in color and smoothness when gotten back from him - am told by several experts that locations do strange things in this field.
[2] Mr. Goebel what about in the construction are they tinned or un-tinned on old original kettles, pots, and boilers and how do they compare to the reproductions of today.
For domestic consumption was almost always tinned - there are a few exceptions, for beer making, chocolate production etc. Brass was about a 50/50 deal.
__Most were tinned at one time, but it is now so thin in most spots to be nonexistent, or unsafe for acid foods. A lot of the naysayers seem to forget that tomatoes and other acid foods simply were not cooked, and tomatoes were believed to be poisonous because of the acid attack on the copper/brass.
[1] Mr. Conner what about the “proof” or “touch” mark issue on old original kettles, pots, and boilers and how do they compare to the reproductions of today.
__Let give you an example about these marks, a few months ago a antique dealer friend showed me an early large French trade kettle he had just traded for, after looking at it I asked to take it outside for better light. Found Mr. Goebel’s touch mark (scribed on the underside of the rim - 1/16" lettering, very faint. I showed my friend what he had missed and questioned his $250 price tag (a feeler tag as he puts it), he had bought it wholesale for half that amount from a good supplier. A good reason that many craftsman have started using the stamped "touch mark", that’s pleases many collector and museums, (would have been a 5 minute job to remove the scribed marks).
__Oh, Jim Hanson, Charley’s son has a good article in one of the Fur Trade Quarterlies a few issues back, good information and available at the Museum of the Fur Trade.
[2] Mr. Goebel what about the “proof” or “touch” mark issue on old original kettles, and boilers and how do they compare to the reproductions of today.
__ALL kettles - English - French - Dutch are basically derived from the 15th and 16th century Dutch styles.
__If anyone has a problem, please call - I’m open to learn and change 1-(540)-456-7111 and we’ll talk.
__I"M TRYING !!!
Peter Goebel N.B. The Touchmark stays.
A comment from the editor; “I know Mr. Goebel’s work, own some of his items, and have looked at many, many different other craftsmen’s wares and have done so for many years. It’s hard to find good quality items, good prices, items made correctly, when you find a kettle or pot to your liking buy it - it maybe a one time deal”.
William B. Eaton
The Colonial Society Magazine
Field Editor
Peter Goebel could answer so fast with his replies he made me stop and rethink my answers on several questions asked. Peter has forgotten more than most will ever learn. :wink: :bow: :hatsoff:
_____________________________
From the December 1999 issue of
THE COLONIAL SOCIETY magazine, field editor William B. Eaton interviews :
[1] Mr. Barry "Buck" Conner; colonial / fur trade researcher, author and proprietor of Clark & Sons Mercantile, (a historical period foods and campwares specialty store).
[2] Mr. Peter Gobel, well known coppersmith, manufacturer and proprietor of Goose Bay Workshops, (supplier of correct cookwares, and hand made period home items).
Over the last few years the reenactment sport from Medieval to the American Civil War has seen a growth in the number of cooking items available, this interview was to ask about proper thickness, hammered or spun, and where the originals tinned.
[1] Mr. Conner what about the thickness of old original kettles, pots, and boilers and how do they compare to what we are seeing in the market place today, the reproductions.
__First let’s look at thickness, - originals that haven’t been wore down to paper thickness, that’s tin - copper - brass - iron. Over the years I have collected, traded, or sold many kettles, pots, pans, boilers, etc. - eating items found in camps, on the trail, or in settlements.
__For thickness of the copper and brass they vary considerably in the walls, bottoms and their weight. Some tinned and many not tinned, these items where all in excellent condition, as many where museum extras that Charley Hanson had acquired at the Museum of the Fur Trade in NE, or knew about and pointed me in that direction.
__Yes some are thinner than others, Hanson thought they where probably Indian trade items, not the normal weight for settlement trade. He felt that many of the thinner kettles, pots and pans where made in England or India and where low in quality and cheaper for the trader to make his deals with. They wanted them to be used up, broken, leaking, etc. by the next trade season, thus producing a supply and demand market, like someone said the Indians moved around and created the perfect situation for wearing out their thin cookware.
__A completely different story in the settlements, the cookware was to last for long periods of time, as was many of the voyagers kettles carried on the freighter canoes, much heavier than the trade counterpart item.
__If you make a study of these items as several of us have over the years, and several well known friends like Charley Hanson [Museum of the Fur Trade}, Bill Large [barrel maker and collector], Vernon Bigsby [Valley Forge Museum Society], and the list could bore you to death, has always been a discussion item on thickness, (wall - compared to bottoms dia., etc.).
__Look at the cast iron in museums compared to the heavy stuff we see today, not even close, I have some that have a 1/8”-3/16” wall at the very thickest and they survived from the 1700’s.
__From these 17th and 18th c. sites I do not believe I have ever encountered a single surving dug kettle or even scrap kettle brass that was as thick as what we see today, the standard trade kettles. The reason for this is the property of metal today compared to yesterdays are different in several elements, I won’t bore you with this, but the minerals in the ground work differently on all types of metals and their makeups.
By the way, before this interview I checked my originals...believe it or not, 0.022/0.025" on the larger ones, and 0,022/0.027 on the other ones where average. As Buck, I mean Mr. Conner has stated about Mr. Hanson’s thoughts on settlement compared to Indian trade cookware, they are the same as mine.
[2] Mr. Goebel the same question; what about the thickness of old original kettles, pots, and boilers and how do they compare to the reproductions of today.
__Gentlemen, first off thank you for your concern about trade kettles in general, and thanks to Buck and Mike for helping to make things clearer. OK group - Lets talk kettels -- right from the horses -- mouth.
__By the way the kettel (correct English spelling - pre 1620) that I reproduce was taken from a ca. 1740 Potawatomie burial and measured .047 thickness ! My repro was .050 thick. The original was also tin lined. Both the metal weight and the tin lining would point to the kettel having been made for European or Colonial consumption, not a standard trade item. Trade kettels were thinner, .025 to .037 is about the norm on the dozen or more originals I’ve measured. Rarely was one tinned.
[1] Mr. Conner what about the construction - hammered or spun on old original kettles, pots, and boilers and how do they compare to the reproductions of today.
__Spinning has been around for centuries, look at the plates, kettles, pots, pan, you name it from Europe before the Europeans came here, really nice stuff, much of the early items came here with the earliest settlers. Made of pewter, brass, copper, etc. Spinning would have been present throughout the settlements and traded at many places, early on coming from the European market. Hammered would have been probably made here, when spinning hadn’t gotten into a full blown operation yet (early years).
[2] Mr. Goebel again, what about the construction - hammered or spun on old original kettles, pots, and boilers and how do they compare to the reproductions of today.
__Metal spinning -- The Roman’s spun helmet parts and shield bosses - B.C. ! "One Man’s Trash is Another Man’s Treasure" put out by Museum Boymans - Van Beuningen in Rotterdam or Dennis Diderot’s Encyclopedia, kettels from the late 1500’s on are made by being -- "hammered or beaten on an anvil and shaped by hollowing sinking raising and stretching. The vessel was then planished on the lathe ... are often clearly visible." In Tunica Treasure, by Jeoffry Brain, he mentions that the lathe turning often left holes in the center of the kettels.
__Two kettlels I have recently studied are taken from Dutch sites in N.Y., both 17th century.
__No.#1 is spun with lathe marks and center very visible and is .032 thick unlined with the worst wired edge I’ve ever seen.
__No.#2 is hammered up (a kettel bowl really) and is now .021 thick - no doubt it started thicker.
Early kettels would have rolled rivets (which often leak) I make these also.
__Average thickness is about .032, I make these also.
__Approx. 30-40% of original kettels have a hole in the bottom from the lathe. I can do this too !
[1] Mr. Conner what about in the construction are they tinned or un-tinned on old original kettles, pots, and boilers and how do they compare to the reproductions of today, please excuse the same question’s over and over again..
__Tinning is real interesting, most originals that where tinned, where usually done so very lightly - cost was everything. Hanson figured there where only a few original tin items around at best, most have been retinned several times from their first tinning. The reason was back then like now, what do you stir you food, and what do you eat with ??? METAL whether it’s, pewter, silver, tin or iron - it’s metal, harder than the tin surface that you cooking item has for a protective surface, so when you put your eating/stirring items in the cooking vessel your removing a small amount of tin, probably you have passed more than one wants to think about.
__So as far as to the appearance of the tin, is it original or something your local blacksmith did ??? Tinning is something strange and the weather can play some real unusual tricks on the tinnier, I’ve tinned two pots at the same time and each looked different, finally sent them to Goebel to clean up, they looked different in color and smoothness when gotten back from him - am told by several experts that locations do strange things in this field.
[2] Mr. Goebel what about in the construction are they tinned or un-tinned on old original kettles, pots, and boilers and how do they compare to the reproductions of today.
For domestic consumption was almost always tinned - there are a few exceptions, for beer making, chocolate production etc. Brass was about a 50/50 deal.
__Most were tinned at one time, but it is now so thin in most spots to be nonexistent, or unsafe for acid foods. A lot of the naysayers seem to forget that tomatoes and other acid foods simply were not cooked, and tomatoes were believed to be poisonous because of the acid attack on the copper/brass.
[1] Mr. Conner what about the “proof” or “touch” mark issue on old original kettles, pots, and boilers and how do they compare to the reproductions of today.
__Let give you an example about these marks, a few months ago a antique dealer friend showed me an early large French trade kettle he had just traded for, after looking at it I asked to take it outside for better light. Found Mr. Goebel’s touch mark (scribed on the underside of the rim - 1/16" lettering, very faint. I showed my friend what he had missed and questioned his $250 price tag (a feeler tag as he puts it), he had bought it wholesale for half that amount from a good supplier. A good reason that many craftsman have started using the stamped "touch mark", that’s pleases many collector and museums, (would have been a 5 minute job to remove the scribed marks).
__Oh, Jim Hanson, Charley’s son has a good article in one of the Fur Trade Quarterlies a few issues back, good information and available at the Museum of the Fur Trade.
[2] Mr. Goebel what about the “proof” or “touch” mark issue on old original kettles, and boilers and how do they compare to the reproductions of today.
__ALL kettles - English - French - Dutch are basically derived from the 15th and 16th century Dutch styles.
__If anyone has a problem, please call - I’m open to learn and change 1-(540)-456-7111 and we’ll talk.
__I"M TRYING !!!
Peter Goebel N.B. The Touchmark stays.
**********************
A comment from the editor; “I know Mr. Goebel’s work, own some of his items, and have looked at many, many different other craftsmen’s wares and have done so for many years. It’s hard to find good quality items, good prices, items made correctly, when you find a kettle or pot to your liking buy it - it maybe a one time deal”.
William B. Eaton
The Colonial Society Magazine
Field Editor
_____________________________
Peter Goebel could answer so fast with his replies he made me stop and rethink my answers on several questions asked. Peter has forgotten more than most will ever learn. :wink: :bow: :hatsoff:
