Real or fake, test your skills

[cannonmn]

The pictured items are on display in a US government museum.  There are no signs on the items, so since they are on display in a museum, you'd tend to assume they were authentic.  The two cannons are about the right size for iron naval 18 or 24 pounders, sorry no powder can for comparison, but I'm guessing the barrels are about 7-8 feet long.  I could not get at the bores since both had tompions in place.  The carriages are obviously repro, but how about the barrels? 

Look closely and see what you think.

[seacoastartillery]

     Cannonmn,  Anyone who fires a 3 Barrel pole gun with real gusto and delight as you did on that You-Tube clip, has to be for real, so we do not sense a "Trick Question" here.  And besides, Nothing Ventured - Nothing Gained.  I think it is a fiberglass replica with paint duplicating a natural rust pattern.  Which government museum?

Tracy

[Terry C.]

I say fake.

I don't believe real guns of that weight could/would be placed where those are located. The floor tiles look too delicate.

I could be wrong . . . but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

[RocklockI]

I'm guessing fake only because of identical flaws on the sides of muzzel swells and sides of castabals .

rocklock

[Cat Whisperer]

Black over red (paint) is a common 1800's traditional milk-paint for furnature.  But for cannons?

[Bob Smith]

7 or 8 feet is too short for 18 or 24 pounders for that period- 12 pounder?. No royal cypher, but is there anything else? crowned P? The trunnion mark is right enough, at all rate

Bob Smith

[dan610324]

difficult to say without more and better pictures , would be nice with an closeup on face of muzzle and the touch hole .

I cant understand the black paint , doesnt look like it have been worn out by hands from people touching it .
the copper color beneth the black is to much  copper colored , and should be darker if it was old bronze .
when you say iron cannon Im even more confused , the red looks more like copper for me , but ok .

my guess from this photos will be  FAKE .

but its always difficult with so very little info as those photos gives .

[cannonmn]

Someone says the trunnion mark looks good, but what maker had that monogram, there's nothing like it in my books.

I'm saying fake due to the appearance of the iron, no wear, no weathering, and kind of an unusual surface pattern. 

But the real clue, everyone missed, it is there clear as a bell on both cannons, a little extra part you never see on a real cannon.  Go back and look again.  There's your TIP.

[KABAR2]

Do you mean the iron strap holding the rear of the cannon down that sort of blends in with the molding? 

[intoodeep]

Do you mean the iron strap holding the rear of the cannon down that sort of blends in with the molding? 

 Wow....  Good eyes. I had to really look. Even after you pointed that out. Seems as if that tube may be a bit light (Fiberglass?). That bracket would keep some monkey from pulling the muzzle end down.

Also, I don't like the Faux paint on the tube....   


 

[cannonmn]

You got it, each one has a thin iron band because it is so light kids could pull the muzzle down.  In fact, if it is a hollow casting like a radiator, I suspect the way it balances is muzzle-heavy and it would look stupid with muzzle hanging down, so they put the straps on it.

I'm still waiting for someone to make sense out of the monogram, but its pretty late in the UK so we may have to wait till tomorrow.  I'm bettng someone made it up.

[rays89]

I guess I am going to throw this one in is this authentic for the period (revolutionary war or not? Should be easy since I put it in another post

[intoodeep]

I'm still waiting for someone to make sense out of the monogram, but its pretty late in the UK so we may have to wait till tomorrow.  I'm bettng someone made it up.

 If, I had to guess the markings would mean "Affordable"      

[dan610324]

OOOOOHHH    that one I missed totaly   

[Bob Smith]

The trunnion mark is perfectably genuine, it is the A for Ashburnham furnace, the last of the Wealden ironworks to be casting cannon. It used the A from about 1695 until the 1780s when it ceased operations. This more elaborate form was in the 1740s-1760s when it was run by the Crowley family. It was one of the 6 Wealden furnaces capable of casting the larger calibre guns.

It is the right sort of maker's mark for the right sort of gun.

Bob Smith

[cannonmn]

Thanks very much Bob.  It would help me to know where that info was found, are there more marks in some book?  The most comprehensive one I've found is Kennard's GUNS AND GUNFOUNDERS, Arms and Armour Press, London, 1986, but there's nothing in it about Ashburnham.

It does mention a Crowley & Co. (Stourbridge, Staffs.) "Supplied guns to the East India Company in about 1740-70 and during the period 1760-90 were also contractors to the Board of Ordnance."

Is this the same Crowley you mention?

The way Kennard set up his book, the entries in the book are in alphabetical order, and when he headed the entry with "Crowley and Co." it led me to believe that's the way the name would appear on a cannon.  That's why any other references would be helpful.

[Bob Smith]

Kennard is very weak on the iron founders. For British marks, the two best articles are still RR Brown, “The Woolwich proof registers 1780-1781” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration, 1988, vol 17, 105-111 and the follow-up 1989 “Identifying 18th-century trunnions marks on British iron guns: a discussion“, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration, 1989, vol 18, 321-29. The identifications made there seem to now have been largely accepted. Both articles are available online, although you would have to pay for them if your library does not have the right Internet account. The two articles are well known, so I am surprised you have not come across them.

And yes, it is the same Crowley family; they took over the Ashburnham furnace by 1736. Through most of the Crowley period, the business was headed by Theodosia Crowley, on behalf of first her two sons, then her daughter and her family. There are a large number of guns surviving with the A; one with a similar form to this one was raised from the Industry.

Bob Smith 

[Double D]

John,

You say this is a hollow casting.  How did you determine this.  Did you "lay hands upon it".  I noticed a lot of glas and aluminum guns in National Parks.

I could only tell by putting my hand on the barrel or carriage. 

[cannonmn]

You say this is a hollow casting.  How did you determine this.  Did you "lay hands upon it".  I noticed a lot of glas and aluminum guns in National Parks.

Seemed like iron to me, I did touch them, but next time I'm there (Navy Museum, Washington DC) I'll check again.

I would call but they won't talk to me any more, since I did the article on their "Cortez" gun on the Company of Military Historians forum.  I guess I'm "persona non grata" there!  I'm not losing a lot of sleep over it though.

My next article may be about museums that display reproductions without identifying them as such.

[cannonmn]

The two articles are well known, so I am surprised you have not come across them.

Bob, thanks so much for that, there have been a few articles I've heard of (and of course could not get) in that publication but not, as I recall, those.  I have to go to the Library of Congress this week to look for something else so I'll go by the periodical room and see if they subscribe to that one.   I might have to subscribe to that periodical unless the cost is too high, or it is a membership thing I'm not eligible for.  I'm just what I'd call an "advanced student" of artillery history, so there's still a whole lot I don't know.  I thank you for adding to my knowledge today.

[Double D]

John,

I ask about the laying on of hands as you can tell from feel if a gun is solid metal or something else just by touch.  A light slap of the hand will tell if solid or hollow. Solid guns feel well, solid.

To me these look like real bronze guns that have been painted black and were displayed some where. Now the may be hollow or they may be repro's but they don't look like fiberglas. 

[Bob Smith]

I must admit I am getting confused now. I can see why a museum would want fibreglass copies of iron cannon, if there is a weight issue, but I cannot see why they would go to the expense of making copies in iron of iron guns (and good copies, too). It just seems a senseless waste of money to me.

Are the two guns identical, with identical marks? I am baffled!

Bob Smith

[cannonmn]

why they would go to the expense of making copies in iron of iron guns (and good copies, too).

This museum as far as I know never makes anything like that, the pair would have to have been donated from somewhere or inherited from another activity that was closing, something like that.  The two pieces appear to be identical.  If anyone wants to know more, call them at 202-433-4882, then after it answers hit 5 to get a list of various people, by position, to talk to.  Take your pick.

[seacoastartillery]

     We agree with Bob Smith; there does not seem to be any reason why a replica should find it's way into any museum and per Cannonmn there is not one sign to proclaim the lack of authenticity.  Although we have not spoken of it before, anywhere in these forums, Mike and I think there are legitimate uses for well made replica cannon. 

     Not in cemeteries, not in parks, but rather, in forts.  Most forts in the U.S. have very few, if any, original guns of the type which accurately represent the cannon present when these forts were garrisoned.  We feel that a fort without cannon is like a dog without teeth; why have it?  A few cannon or perhaps a whole row give the casual visitor and even the seasoned fort-exploring veteran some idea of the tremendous power of a fort's armament.  So, we salute those companies in the past and the present who have produced replica guns for the forts around our country and the state or federal agencies who have correctly labeled them as such.  The photos below are some of the cannon replicas Mike and I have enjoyed seeing in three south-eastern states.

Tracy and Mike


These large cast iron replicas of the 10" Rodman Guns emplaced at Ft. Clinch in Fernandina Beach, Florida were very well made.  Mike checks out the sounds of his knuckles on the casting.  The trunnions sounded hollow; the tube sounded almost solid.  Must have been thicker.  The lack of typical markings anywhere was a solid clue which revealed the replicas at Fort Clinch.




Ft. Clinch with some of its replica Rodmans.  Strangely, the design of this fort precluded their use in the event of an infantry or amphibious "Coup de Main" or attack in force, because of the "Carnot Wall" feature of this fort.




This Fort Pulaski 100 Parrott replica tube is found  approximately 15 miles east of Savanah, Georgia on Cockspur Island.  It was noted as a replica by us from the distance at which this photo was taken.  Does anyone know why?  This is NOT a mirror image; it is a true view of the gun as it was on the terraplein in 2006.




This Confederate rifled 32-pounder chambered Navy cannon of 42 hundred-weight is a well made fiberglass replica we found at Fort Macon near Morehead City, North Carolina.  It was well marked by signage next to it.

[cannonmn]

On the 100 pdr. Parrott, the trunnion sight should be on the right trunnion, not the left.

[cannonmn]

the two best articles are still RR Brown...International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration,

Well looks like I'm in luck Bob, I found all the issues of that journal in the online catalog.  Now all I have to do is get on the subway and go to the Library of Congress.  They have post-1990 issues also under the shortened publication title apparently used after that date.  Hope I have time to pull out a stack of them and get a peek at all the past cannon articles.

Thanks again for the information.

[Bob Smith]

I am sure you will find a lot to interest you; you can check the contents of past issues here, which might give you more time reading the articles themselves.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118000248/toc

Enjoy the visit

Bob Smith

[seacoastartillery]

       Yes, John, you are correct, in fact the maker of the 100 Pdr. Parrott replica wanted to be certain he did not put the front trunnion sight mass on the wrong side, so he put one on BOTH sides, a la Armstrong!  We are wondering if any other members have seen any replicas at any other fort? 

Mike and Tracy

[Cat Whisperer]

Petersburg - south of Richmond, has a replica 13" 'Dictator' mortar  (cast iron too).  Just not enough of them to go around I guess.  Come to think of it they have one or two dozen cannon tubes on display out in the elements - hmmmm.

[KABAR2]

Petersburg - south of Richmond, has a replica 13" 'Dictator' mortar  (cast iron too).  Just not enough of them to go around I guess.  Come to think of it they have one or two dozen cannon tubes on display out in the elements - hmmmm.

Yes and sadly at least one of them is a Whitworth if memory serves me, I was down there 4 0r 5 years ago.