|
|
Post by spence on Oct 20, 2019 16:43:41 GMT -7
Early in my involvement with the hobby I got a neat little skillet with a folding handle. I've almost never used it. I never take oil on my treks, never fry anything....and the question of appropriate time frame came up.  The earliest documentation I've found for the hinged handle is from 1828. _Peace River: A Canoe Voyage from Hudson's Bay to Pacific by the Late Sir George Simpson, in 1828_ Journal of the Late Chief Factor, Archibald McDonald, (Hon Hudson’s Bay Company), Who Accompanied Him Describing the baggage taken on the trip: "Baskets. Also with compartments, and suitable tin cases, for meats, sugar, and other groceries; those for meats being invariable finely perforated on the top. Here also, that indispensable-the frying pan, which by the way, should be made with a good strong hinge-has its place, to wit on the top of the contents." Does anyone have anything earlier on this item? Spence |
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Oct 20, 2019 17:09:05 GMT -7
Evidence seems to be very scarce for the folding handle skillet.
How do you survive without BACON??? It is a staple when on a scout...
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Oct 20, 2019 17:21:09 GMT -7
How do you survive without BACON??? It is a staple when on a scout... My menu on my little treks is part and parcel of my investigation of the early lifestyle. Eighteenth-century foods of a very simple type which would have been carried by a single old man on an overnight hunt, basically. It's usually built around cornmeal and something to represent what I might have been able to shoot. Some garden stuff and fruit in season, breadstuffs which could have been carried from the cabin...well, you get the idea. From some posts you and other members have made, I suspect my fare seems like bread and water compared to a Roman feast.  As to the bacon, I love it, but it's not on my menu even at home, I'm real shy of saturated fat. Spence |
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Oct 21, 2019 4:29:39 GMT -7
Very good subject, I to have never found any documentation on these. However I actually acquired one and have since drilled the handle rivets and removed it along with forging out a wider flare. Then I'll affix and hot rivet a fixed handle more appropriate for the period. These folding skillets bother me amongst other things considered "period" for our timeframe. My course of action is to use so said skillet for bean roasting.   |
|
|
|
Post by Sicilianhunter on Oct 24, 2019 7:25:45 GMT -7
Hawk,
Is there documentation regarding the short socketed type ?
If so where can I find it as I may need it in the near future...
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Oct 24, 2019 8:25:11 GMT -7
Hawk, Is there documentation regarding the short socketed type ? If so where can I find it as I may need it in the near future... I have never came across anything mentioning the rolled/ socket handles. This particular skillet in the photo above was one of those offered by crazy crow. I bought it with the intention of butchering/ modifying. Indeed it's a very nice cooking implement as is, and me being hard to please I was impressed. Yet as Spence already pointed out they are not for HC for the intended time period. I do anticipate on turning this into a spider skillet by hot riveting three legs on. |
|
|
|
Post by spence on Oct 25, 2019 8:34:37 GMT -7
Madison Grant has this photo of a folding handle skillet in his book The Kentucky Rifle Hunting Pouch, pg. 197. He says it was used throughout the Revolutionary War by a man from Berks County, Pa, It is the skillet George Ainsley, Prairie Elk Forge, used as a pattern for the one I pictured above.  Spence |
|
|
|
Post by spence on Oct 25, 2019 8:58:48 GMT -7
Yet as Spence already pointed out they are not for HC for the intended time period. Hmmm... Not exactly. I may have lead people astray by my comment about HC. What I meant was that the question has been raised, but if it has been answered, pro or con, I haven't seen that. I'd like to, though. Spence |
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Oct 25, 2019 9:05:40 GMT -7
Yet as Spence already pointed out they are not for HC for the intended time period. Hmmm... Not exactly. I may have lead people astray by my comment about HC. What I meant was that the question has been raised, but if it has been answered, pro or con, I haven't seen that. I'd like to, though. Spence Yes, that's what I was trying to convey in my response. I personally have never came across anything relevant to them during the period. The image you posted above is the first I've ever seen of one during the later part of the 18th century. |
|
|
|
Post by Sicilianhunter on Nov 1, 2019 4:23:24 GMT -7
Hmmm... Not exactly. I may have lead people astray by my comment about HC. What I meant was that the question has been raised, but if it has been answered, pro or con, I haven't seen that. I'd like to, though. Spence Yes, that's what I was trying to convey in my response. I personally have never came across anything relevant to them during the period. The image you posted above is the first I've ever seen of one during the later part of the 18th century. Something I struggle with in terms of documentation is even if an item can be verified to be HC, it may have been a rarity in the period. Before you know it, the item becomes prolific in our community because it’s been verified yet realistically most of the Old Boys never saw the item. So as experimental archaeologists what does one do? |
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Nov 1, 2019 4:43:25 GMT -7
Something I struggle with in terms of documentation is even if an item can be verified to be HC, it may have been a rarity in the period. Before you know it, the item becomes prolific in our community because it’s been verified yet realistically most of the Old Boys never saw the item. So as experimental archaeologists what does one do? Default to what was common - you can't go wrong. The rare item might eventually become common upon discovery of more examples and/or documentation, but one should wait until this happens... |
|
|
|
Post by Sicilianhunter on Nov 1, 2019 7:20:28 GMT -7
Something I struggle with in terms of documentation is even if an item can be verified to be HC, it may have been a rarity in the period. Before you know it, the item becomes prolific in our community because it’s been verified yet realistically most of the Old Boys never saw the item. So as experimental archaeologists what does one do? Default to what was common - you can't go wrong. The rare item might eventually become common upon discovery of more examples and/or documentation, but one should wait until this happens... Agreed. In this case, should you decide to carry a frying pan in your trekking kit (aside from a bulky spider pan), what is HA? |
|
|
|
Post by spence on Nov 1, 2019 10:43:16 GMT -7
Black Hand said: "Default to what was common - you can't go wrong. The rare item might eventually become common upon discovery of more examples and/or documentation, but one should wait until this happens..." That can be a bit of a problem to figure the right approach. My take on it is a bit different than the accepted line. I think it depends on what we are trying to accomplish and the situation in which we are doing our thing.. I agree that if a re-enactor is in a situation where educating the public is a goal, then hewing to the common line is probably best. If the individual thinks of himself as on display, demonstrating what life was like in the period, then maybe rare equipment should not be included in the kit. On the other hand, if what he is about is more accurately defined as experimental archeology, then that principle doesn't hold. In that situation he is attempting to learn for himself what life was like. The one being educated is the re-enactor, not the public. A fair bit of what I do falls in that category. When I got my folding handle skillet I set out to learn what advantages or disadvantages there might be to such a piece. I did that, and now I know what carrying and using the skillet would have been like for the old boys, but, knowing there is a question as to its place in the historical record, I would hesitate to use it as a demonstration piece. As I've said before, my mostly solo approach to the hobby has its advantages. I can satisfy my consuming curiosity about any aspect of the old days without worrying about such problems. Spence |
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Nov 1, 2019 15:17:32 GMT -7
Spence,
I agree that knowledge of a thing may be different than common.
That said, to learn how things were done in the period, shouldn't one also use what was common...?
Albert
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Nov 1, 2019 16:42:02 GMT -7
Without a doubt. That's a central thought in all the re-enacting I do. But, nothing says that's the only thing you can do. I spend most of my time in the field carrying only the most basic, primitive, common hunting supplies, but I occasionally take along a loading block. There is also another approach when it comes to that rare item, documented, but only once, for instance. You can just say, "I'm only re-enacting that one guy", and that's as HC/PC as it was in the day. Spence |
|
