Griswold "Du-Chro" question

[BobN]

I have a very nice Griswold #9 skillet that is finished what I believe is the "Du-Chro" finish; matte on the bottom and sides, polished on top. I appears that the cooking surface might have been plated as well, but then looking at the sides, it is bare iron for about 3/4" of an inch or so up the sides.

It would almost appear that the cooking surface was coated at well, but then again, it stripped down to bare iron in other spots.

What I am trying to decide is if the cooking surface was originally plated, or left bare. And if it was left bare, how can I strip off what looks to be some sort of plating?

I hope this is clear as mud!

Edited to add - I took this picture just as I applied the first coat of Crisco, just prior to putting it back into the over.

 

[Doug D.]

Some were made with the cooking surface plated; on others some method was used to leave the cooking surface bare. Over time, the plated versions would wear from usage. It's hard to say if the bare surface versions were a result of consumer dissatisfaction with the wear. Yours would appear to be a plated/worn example. Although it is very unlikely the shiny spot is not plating, you may want to lead test it. Removal of the residual plating on the cooking surface would probably be a bit tricky.

 

[BobN]

That's why I'm confused. It sure looks like the cooking surface was plated, then worn away. But the lower part of the sides look like they were never plated and were bare from the beginning. It gives the impression that there was some plating done over the bare surface after the fact.

I know that is not the case, just the best way I can describe what it looks like in person.

 

[Doug D.]

The bare iron usually extends further up the sidewalls on the ones that had the cooking surfaces left unplated.