Trekking Skillet??

[Oudoceus]

Surely doesn't mean there wasn't either. I wouldn't say "there is no historical basis" if they were extant and in use that long ago in England. That is not conjecture, that is a photograph of one of many folding skillets found in England. You know ,England, the place where the guys in the colonies came from. Do I think they existed in the 17th and 18th centuries, yes I do. Do I think they were common, no I don't. Next you're going to tell me that smoothbores never had rear sights, no one in the 18th century had facial hair and no one used char cloth!

 

[Black Hand]

Do I think they existed in the 17th and 18th centuries, yes I do. Do I think they were common, no I don't.

Show me the evidence...
Even uncommon, there should be at least one in existence with provenance to the 17th and/or 18th century upon which to base your assertion.

 

[Oudoceus]

Wow, Blackhand, this is getting a little weird! You want evidence for my assertion that I THINK something. Well, OK, just go to my post on 04-23-13 at 03:48 AM. There's your primary documentation! That good enough for you? Be straight with me here. It's just us guys talking. Are you one of those stitch counters I've heard so much about? Asking for evidence from someone for the fact that he thinks something is a little AR if you ask me. You know, just sayin'. Oh, do you want evidence for these opinions also? JUST RE-READ THIS POST! :thumbsup:

 

[Black Hand]

My point (which apparently you missed) was that just because you THINK something existed does not make it true (it doesn't make it false either). That said, if there is no historical evidence available to support your assertion, then one must assume that they did not exist (Sorry, evidence from 14-15 centuries previous doesn't apply to the 17/18th century). Even a contemporary item available in good old England might not have been available in the American colonies.

Stitch-counter, scholar of history or academic, I choose to base my material culture upon items that are documentable to the person, place and time regardless of how "neat" an item might be. Let me guess, you bought the "bill of goods" along with the folding handle skillet....?

 

[Oudoceus]

Talk about missing the point! I didn't assert that anything did or didn't exist. I asserted that I THINK they were available due to the availability in earlier history in England no matter how rare. I doubt that everything Roman was discarded after they were ran out of the country. I figure that some Englishmen figured that fancy skillet was a pretty neat idea and reproduced them. Perhaps even some Englishman who emigrated to the colonies later on. Some of those people studied history as well. I wish you would show up on my doorstep in East Texas. I bet we could have some fun. Perhaps I could provide some field research on things not found in books. Maybe even show you some more stitches to count. Is everyone else enjoying this thread as much as I am! :rotf:

 

[Black Hand]

So in summary:
You have NO documentable/historical evidence that folding-handle skillets existed in the 1700-1850s time period.

You BELIEVE that they did exist in the 1700-1850s despite having no documentable/historical evidence to support this belief.

Therefore they are OK for the 1700-1850s.

:thumbsup:

 

[mmahlock]

Black Hand, what is your logic for completely discounting the existence of the folding handle skillet prior to the 1850's in light of the first hand reference to one in 1828 by George Simpson while on a trip from York Factory to Fort Langley?

 

[Black Hand]

Black Hand, what is your logic for completely discounting the existence of the folding handle skillet prior to the 1850's in light of the first hand reference to one in 1828 by George Simpson while on a trip from York Factory to Fort Langley?

I'm not completely discounting it, but a single written description of an item is difficult to hang your hat on. It is a very interesting description.

I'd rather have a couple/three written references in addition to a physical object. Barring the physical item, the 3 references could lead one to speculate the most likely design, and still be within the realm of possibility.

 

[necchi]

I'm all for documentation also, and once found it's provenance.

In this case Sir Michael you've got it.
Black Hand simply doesn't want to except it and he'll deny the valid example you have because he doesn't want to believe they existed in the time frame he want's them to exist.

It's a perfect example of the arguments around campfires about historical items, his mind is set and he can't concede he's wrong. In his mind he'll loose face if he is shown to be wrong,
Thus the argument,
"One source isn't enough!"

But the same guy will come up with a single source to validate an item he, want's to use, or a single source to prove what your using is wrong.

It's an endless game, further argument is moot.

 

[Black Hand]

But the same guy will come up with a single source to validate an item he, want's to use, or a single source to prove what your using is wrong.

Thank you for making my point for me. This is a "single source" situation...


My fear is that this situation is due to people having purchased an item (oftentimes expensive) and then searching for evidence to support its existence at all cost (to avoid "losing face" for having purchased the item of questionable provenance). Vendors are under no obligation to provide accurate historical information about their products (though some do), they are in business to make money.

I used a loading block for many years, but dumped it as I couldn't find any evidence for their use in my primary periods of interest (F&I, Pre-Rev). As additional evidence comes to light, more items might eventually be documentably PC/HC, but until then I will stick with documented items. If you choose to use a folding-handle skillet, have at it. I prefer a fixed handle AND there is no question about their existence.

 

[Rod Lassey]

One also has to keep in mind the source--ie., Sir George Simpson was governor of the Hudson's Bay Company, and as such he probably had a bit more access to various niceties than Jean Baptiste the penniless voyageur. If you carry this arguement to its logical extremity, Jean Baptiste the penniless voyageur should have a mansion at Lachine also, because Sir George Simpson had one.

Time, place, station in life, profession, ethnicity, family history, etc. are all points to consider when deciding what a person would have been likely to wear and carry with them.

Rod

 

[Black Hand]

From a completely different approach:
How many men would have carried a skillet while in the woods during the 1700-1850 period?

Probably not all that many...

 

[skunkskinner]

Most of there food was boiled, was it not?

 

[necchi]

I think you aughta stick to studyin the RMFT era,
Cause there's a heck of a lot of stuff that happened in the olde Northwest and with the Voyageurs' that the RMFT never did seem to pick up.
The olde Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota territories and all the flat land an rivers played an entirely different ball game than them mountain fellers.

 

[Black Hand]

Share the documentation with us....

 

[Rod Lassey]

I think you aughta stick to studyin the RMFT era,
Cause there's a heck of a lot of stuff that happened in the olde Northwest and with the Voyageurs' that the RMFT never did seem to pick up.
The olde Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota territories and all the flat land an rivers played an entirely different ball game than them mountain fellers.

I've just gone through 13 rolls of microfilm of the Chouteau papers, much of which prior to 1825 deals with the upper Mississippi/southern Great Lakes trade. I can honestly say I didn't find a single invoice, inventory, or order listing anything remotely resembling a folding handle skillet or frying pan. I did find quite a few other surprises, though....

Rod

 

[necchi]

I'm not responding to a folding pan, but the comment about a skillet being used.
(I'm not going to dice words like skillet or pan)

I don’t have a ton of time to do research for other people.
This responds to the idea that pans were indeed used and is a partial list;

Ryan R Gale has recently compiled a collection of articles on fur trade in a book called;
Outfits and Advances, available from TOW.
This man has gone to the Hudson Bay Company archives in Winnipeg and studied the microfilm records a list of the specific reels and sources are listed in the book.

Items made at York Factory;
Pans,tin- flat for baskets, large milk, oval, round, covered, deep
(HBC reel 1M1611)

Items in personal cassette of employee’s;
* XY Company Clerk George Nelson while traveling in 1802 wrote
“our Kitchen was a tea kettle, a tin kettle to cook in, a frying pan, pewter basins,,,”
* Laurrent Cadotte 1826; 1- oval tin pan
* Allen Murray 1817; 1-tin pan No.3

These people where involved in the fur trade, OK?
Not the capture and harvest of furs for trade.
Different ball game dude, now do you want to study the “Courier de`bois? That’s the guys that ran the woods,,,
So it’s a complete different study than RMFT and much older with much more extensive written record.

All I have to do is find more than one source that they did actually wipe their butt, because if I don't I have to presume that they didn't.

 

[Black Hand]

No one is disputing the fact that frying pans existed and were used (however person, place and time dependent). "Pan" may not necessarily mean "frying pan", rather some sort of basin or wash-pan.

The old response involving butt-wiping is getting a little old...and certainly is not evidence of anything except annoyance.

 

[necchi]

You can lead a horse to water,,

 

[Black Hand]

I'm sorry you prefer resorting to insults rather than actually discussing the matter.

This could have been a very informative thread where all of us learned something...