Mysterious #10 Skillet--anyone Recognize This Maker?

The characteristics of the pans some have surmised might be Blacklocks are: outside heat ring, molder's mark at 6 o'clock, raised size number on top of handle, and a "smashed" T-shaped handle reinforcement rib. This pan is missing two of those characteristics. Doubtful it will be identified as any known maker. In all likelihood made by a foundry using a major maker's pan as a pattern, adding the size number on the handle (which would be easier than inscribing it on the bottom).
 
The characteristics of the pans some have surmised might be Blacklocks are: outside heat ring, molder's mark at 6 o'clock, raised size number on top of handle, and a "smashed" T-shaped handle reinforcement rib. This pan is missing two of those characteristics. Doubtful it will be identified as any known maker. In all likelihood made by a foundry using a major maker's pan as a pattern, adding the size number on the handle (which would be easier than inscribing it on the bottom).

Doug, I've always been intrigued with the Blacklock thing. I've heard these characteristics repeated plenty of times in numerous places, but a) I don't know where this information comes from, and therefore the validity of it, and b) I have never seen even a picture of a skillet that possesses all these characteristics.

Does anyone have even a picture? I am beginning to believe that one of the better known "unknowns" are blacklock, and no one knows it. There surely have to be numerous surviving examples of their skillets.
 
Doug, I've always been intrigued with the Blacklock thing. I've heard these characteristics repeated plenty of times in numerous places, but a) I don't know where this information comes from, and therefore the validity of it, and b) I have never seen even a picture of a skillet that possesses all these characteristics.

Does anyone have even a picture? I am beginning to believe that one of the better known "unknowns" are blacklock, and no one knows it. There surely have to be numerous surviving examples of their skillets.
I received this as a gift. It's typical of what I see given the Blacklock nod.
Image Image
 
Doug, I've always been intrigued with the Blacklock thing. I've heard these characteristics repeated plenty of times in numerous places, but a) I don't know where this information comes from, and therefore the validity of it, and b) I have never seen even a picture of a skillet that possesses all these characteristics.

There is a collector who accumulated a number of unmarked skillets whose common characteristics mainly appear to be a raised size number and molder's marks. That would include many early, known Lodge skillets as well as some that appear to be of an earlier, late-19th century design. Operating under the theory (or assumption) that they were from the same maker, he undertook to categorize them, in a manner similar to that which has been done with Erie skillets, into both a series order and also variations within each series.

The fundamental problem I have in accepting the premise is that the early skillets shown appear to be presumed without question by the author to be Blacklock. Then, by I guess some inductive reasoning, a progression of sorts to marked Lodge skillets is made by showing various skillets, many of which (but not all) have the typical early Lodge characteristics we are familiar with (and which are kind of all over the place if you think about it). See RB Lodge section re: skillet handles variations. See also RB Lodge section showing a skillet it notes characteristics that are "typical of Lodge" and "may date back to the Blacklock foundry", but doesn't state "is" Blacklock.

A direct link to the pdf file in a collector organization's archive showing these series and variations he devised and into which he categorized his skillets circulated on the web some time ago. The link has since been altered to instead return a membership application for the organization. The organization has historically appeared to consider that things its members contribute become its intellectual property, so no surprise there.
 
I received this as a gift. It's typical of what I see given the Blacklock nod.
Image Image

Those I have seen touted as Blacklock, yes. I've also heard them claimed to be Phillips and Buttorff (without substantiation). However, that skillet doesn't even remotely resemble the catalog page from Lodge's archives that advertise Blacklock skillets (see below). Small pronouced spouts, and what appears to be a fancy handle curved upwards that doesn't blend in with the lip.

Doug, I'd love to see the pdf and look through his/her findings. I'm personally more apt to believe that what we refer to as "Fancy Handle" CI is actually Blacklock, but I cant prove it. Like Attached.
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1520095211106.jpg
    FB_IMG_1520095211106.jpg
    58.4 KB · Views: 67
  • FB_IMG_1520095221930.jpg
    FB_IMG_1520095221930.jpg
    27.4 KB · Views: 68
  • fancy10top-e1438483768603.jpg
    fancy10top-e1438483768603.jpg
    81.8 KB · Views: 72
Early advertising often used stock printer's block images. I wouldn't rely on them for historical ID purposes.
 
I have a skillet with all the characteristics of a Blacklock but I treasure more an arc lodge which in my opinion is a finer skillet worth far more in todays market. Not saying a Blacklock isn't a treasure just saying what I like better.
 
Since this post has taken on the subject of Blacklock. Does this pan fit the criteria of a possible Blacklock?

https://imgur.com/gallery/MXi1Tdh
Image
It lacks the flattened "funnel" shaped handle reinforcement.* The casting anomalies on the lip and the heat ring, coupled with the circular "brush marks" on the bottom suggest to me this is a pan recast from perhaps an Erie. The circular marks are probably where markings of the copied pan were removed after the mold was made but before the iron poured. Adding a raised size mark would also be possible at that point as well.

*Important to note that knowledgeable collectors and collector organizations continue to maintain that no one knows with any certainty what a Blacklock skillet actually looked like.
 
Thanks Doug, I like the mystery but feel that the odds of Blacklock skillets being solved is about as slim as finding out what happened to the Lost Colony! :icon_thumbsup:
 
No such thing as a Blacklock Skillet. That has not been 100% verified. Now there is a marked Blacklock Spider. On that note people have to start calling pre1930 "Skillets" Spiders. The name is Spider. Legs or No legs...Spider. I've seen enough Catalogues to know. Let's train them right.
 
No such thing as a Blacklock Skillet. That has not been 100% verified. Now there is a marked Blacklock Spider. On that note people have to start calling pre1930 "Skillets" Spiders. The name is Spider. Legs or No legs...Spider. I've seen enough Catalogues to know. Let's train them right.

Link to 1883 Selden and G. catalogue clearly calling their "skillet" a "skillet"—not a spider. I think 1883 happened before 1930?

Train them right.
 
Back
Top