Lets play Dougs favorite game......

My favorite game too!

The ribbed reinforced handle doesn't really match the tiny pour spouts. Also the inside of the hanging hole is really rough. I'm going to say you aren't going to find anything under the crud except for a gate mark, and that it's a recast.
 
I picked up something similar in North GA over the weekend, too.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20141016_191641.jpg
    IMG_20141016_191641.jpg
    27.4 KB · Views: 50
  • IMG_20141016_191711.jpg
    IMG_20141016_191711.jpg
    36.4 KB · Views: 60
Well, I'd lean towards:

"Older skillet with unusually small pour spouts"

rather than

"Newer skillet with older style handle"

Certainly an interesting piece!
 
Definitely a recast. Grinding marks at the lip wouldn't be there if it was originally bottom gated.
 
I think Doug hit the nail on the head - if it was bottom gated the lip would not need grinding.

Thanks Guys. I learn something almost every time I visit the site
 
Last edited:
Definitely a recast. Grinding marks at the lip wouldn't be there if it was originally bottom gated.

So... I'm yet another member of this club. I have the exact same skillet with the raised "8" on top of the handle, the small pour spouts, the distinctive handle with rib and reinforcement at the sidewall, and very distinctive inset heat ring. In an attempt to try and research it a bit further, I stumbled across this thread.

I admit I really don't understand your assessment here, Doug D.
If you believe this skillet is a recast... then what is it a recast of?
And aren't most of the recasts that are floating around out there rather poor quality casting, usually crudely bottom gated, with many other noticeable flaws?

Based on the example I have, and the others I've seen, this type of skillet appears to be none of those things.

I actually thought grinding at the lip was just an indication of a skillet that was post bottom gating procedure... and I believe that's all we're seeing here... a skillet made after the age of bottom gating.

It's only speculation, but I'm beginning to wonder if these pieces weren't some sort of experimental design made by the Lodge foundry in its early days... maybe shortly after Blacklock. The raised number is similar to those we attribute to Lodge. The handle design (with reinforced area at sidewall) looks more like something that might have been copied from pre-Griswold ERIE pieces. I don't think it's at all beyond the realm of possibility to think that one foundry might have experimented with copying some of the design from another foundry... before settling on their own distinctive style. My point being that makers of tools, machines, etc. often copy the designs of their peers... it's common practice in manufacturing... maybe small pour spouts was the maker's attempt at a minor difference to set them apart from the other copied characteristics.

I will mention that the geography of these pieces turning up (reported by others here in the forum) in TN, north GA, and my own here in Birmingham, AL are all relatively close to Lodge home base. The other close geographic alternatives being early unknown pieces made by BSR or Martin before they had an identity of their own. No one seems to know what BSR made (or what it may have looked like) in those early days before the "Red Mountain" series was established... so who knows?

Just some thoughts, but I really don't think the small pour spouts here automatically mean it couldn't possibly be old... and likewise nothing here suggests recast to me.
 
"Recast" by definition does not necessarily mean a piece crudely cast by an individual. A recast is any piece made using an actual pan as a pattern. Foundries as well as individuals were guilty of the practice. Even if we had the original pan it was cast from, we still wouldn't necessarily be able to tell who made it with certainty without identifiable markings or characteristics we could match to a known maker. Bottom gating is typical of recasts because it is a simpler casting technology. Since this piece is bottom gated, there would be no need to grind it at the lip since there was no metal broken off from there. The grind marks seen at the lip are cast in in this case, artifacts of the original post-casting finishing done to the pan this pan was recast from.
 
Thanks for the comments, Doug. I would agree with about 90% of what you say. The one big issue here is my skillet is not bottom gated, nor are any of the others I've seen shared online. The first commenter here said they expected the original poster to find a gate mark under the crud... but unfortunately they didn't post any follow up photos. That first pic posted may well have been a recast, and if so it would have been a recast of the real deal that I have... and others like C. St. John posted here. We may never know who really made it, but take a look at that one St. John posted and look at that "Y" molder's mark. It's uncanny how much that looks like the same sort of marking on 1930s one notch Lodge pieces. Possibly all coincidence, or possibly one maker copying another, but I still believe these pieces are far better than being written off as recasts. Hopefully you'll get your hands on one sooner or later so you can see it in person.
 
Last edited:
Follow up photos of the pan in the original post are linked to in post #7 of this thread, and are the only ones my recast comment was in response to. They show the bottom gate and the artifacts of lip grinding not consistent with a bottom gated piece.

C St. John's pan does not appear to have a reinforcement pad.
 
Back
Top