Someone wanted mortar drawings?

[cannonmn]

There's a long, long story behind this particular mortar, just posted, so to make sure we're looking at the right one, I'm stealing his link fair and square and re-posting it, apologizing here.  I'm sorry.

Now who knows the story?

I stood there next to that mortar, which is unfortunately signless, and asked 10 passersby if they knew the story, and since none of them did, I summarized it for them and pointed to where they could read the story.

[cannonmn]

When I can count three posts from different folks who can't answer the question about this mortar's long story, I'll post the information.  I think someone else will know, but I wanted to check.

There are only three ways you'd know the history of this mortar, either you have the one and only book that mentions it, or you read about it while visiting the Castillo, or you caught it in close-up photos you took while there.

[Cat Whisperer]

So what kind of flower would one shoot out of the Vase(s)?

M&T - thanks for the reference to Kipling!

Boomj - metaphor?  I was the PM for 3 years when I was in 2174th Garison.  Keep up the humor!

[Cannoneer]

M & T, you'll notice I tried to get Cannonmn to commit to making an estimate on the weight of the mortar; I'm terrible at guessing weights, and I knew if I gave it a shot (even with Mike's height as a reference) that the figure I arrived at would be embarassingly off the mark. Luckily, John came through with a photo of the trunnion face marks: 40 C 41 Libras - 4,041 lbs seems about right when you compare it to the size of John's mortar which weighs in at 2,050 lbs.


Cat, I don't think that the young San Franciscans of the sixties era would have agreed with this alternative definition of "flower power".

See, it wasn't even a metaphor, you're the real deal, now I know that the two 'mature' (doesn't that sound so much nicer than old or aging) Marines are going to behave themselves.



John, I'll be the first member to declare that I don't know the story of this mortar; I've never read anything about it, I've never been to the Castillo de San Marcos, and as far as I can tell, the only out of the ordinary thing in looking at the photo is the broken dolphin.

[cannonmn]

OK I'll give anudder clue since at least one knowledgeable person has said he doesn't know.  The book that has the info on it is "Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America" 1700-1821 by Brinckerhoff and Chamberlain. 

This book isn't that old, 1970's, Stackpole, I can't be the only person on this board who has the book, can I?  It is one of only about three available books that show anything about Spanish cannons, the other two, with only much more general info, are "Artillery through the Ages" and "Round Shot and Rammers."

If anyone has an xtra copy of the Brinckerhoff book a friend of mine wants one, so let me know.

[cannonmn]

There's so little in print about Spanish cannons that I have to question everything I see, almost.  I took the trunnion mark "40 C 41 Ls" (then the abbreviation for "weight") and called it 4041 Spanish pounds because Brinckerhoff did something similar, but to me there's a slight logic problem I want to check out.

Stamping/engraving all that into the trunnion is more work than simply marking "4041 Ls" if that would have been the same.  Must not.  Im thinking the Spanish had a unit like the British hundredweight (abbr. "cwt")

To have such a unit abbreviated by "C" would make sense.

Anyway, someone please enlighten us if you can, I'll be peeking at some books in next few days trynna sort that out.

Remember the Spanish pounds of that era were same as French pounds, or about 1.1 x English pounds.

[cannonmn]

a spider would have the answer on the mortar's history already

[Cannoneer]

a spider would have the answer on the mortar's history already

I took a quick surf on the net, but I couldn't find a website that displayed any significant ammount of the text of SMWiCA, mostly only (good) reviews.

A spider? Is that photo of the inside of the tube a pic of the mortar we're discussing? Do those lines scored into the walls of the tube have anything to do with the story, is this what a spider might see up close and personal, or is that just the result of idiotic vandalism?

[cannonmn]

the spider would just look around where he lives with a few well-chosen keywords

[cannonmn]

I really don't want anyone to waste a lot of time on my silly game, but maybe it helped some of you with your web-searching skills, or perhaps pointed out that such skills can always be improved.  I do all my upfront research on the web now, I want to squeeze every last drop of info out of the web before I ever pick up a phone or a pencil or drive to any library or archive.  The reason is that its so much more efficient than "the old way."


Google this:  spanish mortar castillo


and in the first few hits you'll have it.

[Cannoneer]

I really don't want anyone to waste a lot of time on my silly game, but maybe it helped some of you with your web-searching skills, or perhaps pointed out that such skills can always be improved.  I do all my upfront research on the web now, I want to squeeze every last drop of info out of the web before I ever pick up a phone or a pencil or drive to any library or archive.  The reason is that its so much more efficient than "the old way."


Google this:  spanish mortar castillo


and in the first few hits you'll have it.

........ and believe it or not I had seen your thread on 'The Company of Military Historians' forum when you first posted it there, I had even saved some of the blue tinted photos. Your clue relating a spider to the 'World Wide WEB' was a clever one, but it may have been even better if it was an intended reference to the cobwebs in my brain.

http://gs19.inmotionhosting.com/~milita8/cmh/member/visitor.cgi?noframes;read=6571

[cannonmn]

Here are some more pix of the mortar showing the markings, especially the capture inscription on the muzzle. 

[cannonmn]

Here’s the entire writeup on this mortar quoted from the Brinckerhoff book.  There are some minor omissions in the markings they reported on the piece, and in my opinion the date of casting assigned by the book’s authors is incorrect.  The footnotes you see are mine, so we can discuss my issues with this book’s description:

  Mortar, 10 Inch                                (1783)

Plates 259 & 260

Though produced in the 1780’s [1] in Barcelona, this bronze mortar is a design of the pre-1760’s.  Mortars of this size were used in both fortress defense and for siege.  The mortars used by Galvez during the American Revolution were undoubtedly of this pattern.  Named EL ICARO, this mortar was captured during the Civil War at Fernandina, Florida. 

The trunnions are integrated into the base of the tube, while in the post-1756 pattern they were placed on the sides in the reinforce.  The naturalistic dolphin handle is broken off.  At the base of the vent is a devil’s head, and under the muzzle astragal is cast the coat of arms of Charles III [2]. 

Bore:  10 inches
Length Overall:  30 ¾ inches

Markings:  In relief at the base of the breech, in ribbon design, is cast FRANCISCUS MIR FECIT BARna 1783 [1].  On the breech in relief on a scroll is EL ICARO (The Cunning Worker.)  On the chase, in relief, is the Royal coat of arms.  Engraved on the face of the muzzle is “Captured at Fernandina, Fla., by Rer. Ad. Dupont February 3rd, 1862” [3] and “class 212.”  Engraved on the right trunnion face 11qs 71Ls (1171 pounds.)

                                         Castillo de San Marcos National Monument

Notes:
1.  I think the correct date of casting is 1733 or 1738.  Unfortunately the casting of the date is corroded and perhaps dented, making it difficult to interpret.  A.N. Kennard’s GUNFOUNDING AND GUNFOUNDERS lists a Francisco Mir who cast two other pieces listed in that book, a gun dated 1737, and a mortar dated 1731, the latter reported to have been at the Philadelphia Museum of Art at one time.  I think it is a safe assumption that Francisco Mir as written in the book and Franciscus Mir, as Latinized in the inscription on the mortar in Florida, are the same person.  There is a bit of a logic problem believing this Mir, as master founder at Barcelona cast two pieces in the 1730’s, then another, also as master founder at Barcelona, in the 1780’s, approximately 50 years later.   I’m not aware of any other mortars of this design that postdate about 1765.

2.  Actually these are not the arms of Charles III.  Many other late 18th C. Spanish bronze cannons do have the personal cypher of Charles III, which include the monogram of an intertwined CR with Roman numeral III underneath.  As far as I know, the arms cast in relief near the muzzle are the arms of Spain or the Spanish Emperor without being specific as to which one, except that it means the king who was in power at the time the piece was cast.

3.  The capture date engraved on the mortar is incorrect, so the workers who engraved it were mis-directed.  The pieces were actually captured on March 3rd. 1862, the date of record of the capture of Fernandina, FL.

[RocklockI]

Cannonman I was wondering is that a Masons compass in the 4th from the bottom ?

[cannonmn]

Cannonman I was wondering is that a Masons compass in the 4th from the bottom ?

Good catch there.  No I don't think so even tho it does look like one.  I think I've heard what that symbol is but dangit can't recall, the old age fog is upon me this time.  Now that you've asked about it, maybe Bob Smith can straigten us out on that one.  To me it looks like a monogram made up of a stylized A and P, but whodaheck knows?

Bob, where are ya?

[Cannoneer]

Cannonmn,

 I think you're right about the foundry date cast with the ribbon; the first three digits also appear to me to be 173, but that fourth number might be a 6. According to a couple sources found on the internet you're  also right in saying that Fernandina was actually taken possession of by Federal forces a month later than the date given by the inscription. I don't know if it's recorded when the trophy engraving or stamping of the  muzzle face was done, but it was at least over three months later, because Samuel F. Du Pont wasn't appointed a Rear Admiral until July-16th-1862.

"Engraved on the right trunnion face 11qs 71Ls (1171 pounds.)" The q is confusing here; could this actually be a C, standing for the Roman Numeral for 100, or for the Spanish word cien for one hundred? I've looked hard at the enlarged photo of the trunnion face, and I really can't make out the letter there, but I can see 11_s  71Ls. If it is a q, what would that letter represent?

In what form was the weight of your Spanish mortar recorded on the trunnion face?

[cannonmn]

Another good question.  You can learn a lot from one cannon if you look at it carefully, or in my case take 20 photos from every possible angle, hoping you will get around to analyzing them some day.  I guess today's the day (famous Mel Fisher saying.)

Take a look at the Spanish-heritage countries' weight equivalents here such as Chile and Argentina:

http://home.clara.net/brianp/others.html

That site makes it pretty clear the "q" stands for a word that means 100 libras.

You'll see there's clearly a "q" word that makes sense in this context.  I've seen the "q" and "qs" used Quite a bit on larger Spanish cannons.  Now I'll go off and find that site where I found one or more of the other letters, such as the oft-appearing "a" which on smaller pieces shows up as "@" exactly like on your keyboard.  Anyway as I recall it means 25 libras.

What's still not clear to me is exactly which Spanish word the "C" stands for.  I'm not using many Spanish words here because I'm basically ignorant of that language.

There are a great many different weight marking formats I've seen used on Spanish cannons, depending it seems on where they were made and the timeframe.  As probably everyone reading this knows, the Spanish empire by the 17th C. or so was the largest empire ever held by any nation, and stretched around the globe.  The mixture of whatever culture and science was imported by the Spaniards, with local customs etc. was bound to produce diversity in just about any field.

[cannonmn]

Here's that site I was trying to find, and what I wanted in it was "arrobas" in the very first line, for the Philippines, another Spanish-heritage country.  There are others scattered in the table but be careful because some of them are the same word but with a metric usage.

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6878E/X6878E19.htm

[cannonmn]

Outline of the provenance of this mortar (EL ICARO):

1736?- Cast by Francisco Mir, master founder at Royal Cannon Foundry, Barcelona, Spain

17??- Shipped to Spanish Royal Arsenal of Havana, Cuba (this was the ordnance supply depot which served Florida and probably other parts of the Spanish Empire

approx. 1784-1785- Shipped from Havana to East Florida, Castillo de San Marcos, as part of the armament of the fort.

1790-1821-This bronze mortar is one of only two bronze mortars in East Florida.   It appears in numerous inventories of artillery in the fort which remain in the East Florida Papers in the Library of Congress.  From about 1790 to about 1812 it was identified as "Mortero de 9 Pulgada" and after about 1812 as "Mortero de 11 Pulgada."  The author is unaware of the reason for the change in bore size designation.  The other bronze mortar identified in all of the same inventories was one "Mortero de 6 Pulgada" which became "...de 7 Pulgada" at the same time the large one changed nomenclature.

1821-In a few letters between the Spanish and American commissioners, discussinng the transfer of Spanish forts to the US under the treaty of transfer, exactly four bronze weapons were identified among the 23 pieces of artillery to be transferred to the US.  These included both mortars mentioned above, plus two "Obus de 7 Pulgada" (7-inch howitzers.)

1821-1838-US ordnance returns recorded in ledgers now in the National Archives listed the two mortars and two howitzers obtained from Spain.  The entries in the US documents (various entries within Record Group 156) clearly identified these pieces using nomenclature that varied only occasionally from one return to another.  Some returns identified them as "foreign."  Most identified the larger mortar as "10 inch" and the smaller one as "6 1/2 inch."  After 1838, the fort was heavily armed with large, modern seacoast armament and other US artillery which is shown in returns, but the old Spanish pieces are no longer listed.

1861-Confederate forces in Florida move much of the artillery at Fort Marion (formerly Castillo de San Marcos) to nearby Fernandina.  The author has not yet found details, such as listings of individual pieces, but feels safe in assuming the two Spanish mortars were moved to Fernandina.  Location of the two bronze howitzers is unknown.

March 3, 1862-Union forces under Samuel F. Dupont take Fernandina, at one point shelling a moving train with Confederate forces onboard.  The two mortars are taken as trophies by Navy personnel, and eventually engraved with the details of capture and the erroneous date "February 3, 1862."

1863-1930's-location of the two bronze mortars unknown but one can safely assume they were at some US Navy activity.

1930's-handwritten inventory of trophies in Washington Navy Yard shows two Spanish mortars on display on lawn of one of the admiral's quarters.  The weapons are identified as "trophy no. 43" and "trophy no. 44."

1954 (approx.)  Washington Navy Yard industrial activities expand, displacing many trophy cannon which are temporarily stored at "Bellvue Magazine" on the Anacostia river in Washington DC, pending receipt of funding for a new museum to house them.

1959-Funding for new museum not appropriated; weapons in Bellvue Magazine largely sold for scrap to local DC scrap dealer.  Local antique gun dealer buys "EL ICARO" and offers it in trade to National Park Service.

1960-Details of exchange finalized, dealer receives 6-pounder bronze gun M1841 in exchange for EL ICARO, which is shipped to Castillo de San Marcos for display.

date unknown-Unknown person purchases smaller mortar, bearing identical capture markings, and eventually sells it to Frank Bivins, a Santa Monica CA. luxury home builder and cannon collector (his plastic-bound, limited edition book is entitled "Vari-Type Firearms" and contains a photo of this mortar.)

[Cannoneer]

Cannonman I was wondering is that a Masons compass in the 4th from the bottom ?

Good catch there.  No I don't think so even tho it does look like one.  I think I've heard what that symbol is but dangit can't recall, the old age fog is upon me this time.  Now that you've asked about it, maybe Bob Smith can straigten us out on that one.  To me it looks like a monogram made up of a stylized A and P, but whodaheck knows?

Bob, where are ya?

Gary, I think it's a safe bet that the symbol incised on this mortar is not a Masonic hexagram compass, that is unless it was added at a much later date than that of the tubes founding. The Spanish monarchy, and the Catholic Magisterium which was an integral part of the power structure of Spain's empire would never tolerate a Free Masonry symbol being put on a government weapon, and not only a weapon of war, but a symbol in itself of the Spanish Empire's irrefutable power. To put it very mildly, the Catholic Church was not fond of Free Masonry, it would never tolerate this act, and if a gun founder put this symbol on one of his pieces he would literally be risking his freedom, and perhaps his life.

[cannonmn]

Here's another Spanish mortar of what appears to be the same pattern as the one we've been discussing.  This one is privately owned (no not me!)  Notice how it has an engraved symbol in nearly the same location as the other piece, but this symbol is different.

What does this one mean?

Where's Bob Smith?  If he doesn't know I'll bet one of his nautical archaeologist buddies does!

Sorry I had very limited time with the mortar shown and did not take any notes, just these few photos, but I know it the same caliber as the other one. Note how much bronze has extruded at the muzzle, which must have resulted from firing.

[Cannoneer]

Re: Reply #48

 Cannonmn, this is some fine investigative work; I had read about that blood soaked rail car that was knocked off the tracks by an artillery round (interesting read). You know it absolutely boggles one's mind that there wouldn't be at least one Naval officer in a position of some authority who would have had the insight to come forward, and make the case that these artillery pieces were an important part of history and had to be preserved.

1930's-handwritten inventory of trophies in Washington Navy Yard shows two Spanish mortars on display on lawn of one of the admiral's quarters.  The weapons are identified as "trophy no. 43" and "trophy no. 44."

1954 (approx.)  Washington Navy Yard industrial activities expand, displacing many trophy cannon which are temporarily stored at "Bellvue Magazine" on the Anacostia river in Washington DC, pending receipt of funding for a new museum to house them.

1959-Funding for new museum not appropriated; weapons in Bellvue Magazine largely sold for scrap to local DC scrap dealer.  Local antique gun dealer buys "EL ICARO" and offers it in trade to National Park Service.

1960-Details of exchange finalized, dealer receives 6-pounder bronze gun M1841 in exchange for EL ICARO, which is shipped to Castillo de San Marcos for display.

date unknown-Unknown person purchases smaller mortar, bearing identical capture markings, and eventually sells it to Frank Bivins, a Santa Monica CA. luxury home builder and cannon collector (his plastic-bound, limited edition book is entitled "Vari-Type Firearms" and contains a photo of this mortar.)

[cannonmn]

You know it absolutely boggles one's mind that there wouldn't be at least one Naval officer in a position of some authority who would have had the insight to come forward, and make the case that these artillery pieces were an important part of history and had to be preserved.

That makes a lot of sense now, but back pre-1961 not nearly as many people appreciated artilley from an historical perspective.  I'm told West Point still had loads of metal rolling out into the 1950's.  During WWII, they donated or sold 300 tons of old ordnance to the scrap drives.  Imagine the history that was in those hopper cars?  I think the Civil War Centenniel changed things, when civilians got familiar with artillery and began shooting original pieces in competition.

One of the other pieces that was scrapped out of the Navy Yard was a complete light Dahlgren Boat Howitzer with as i recall an 1863 casting date.  A local accountant spotted it in front of the scrap yard and bought it.  He shot it for many years.  When he died about `1988. I had a shot at getting it but got beaten out by a guy who was his buddy and had the inside track.  He died about three years ago, the family called me and I was ready to go get it, then a lawyer who had an inside track got in there and got it.  Now I've gotta wait till he kicks off, and I'm sure his son will get it.  Sometimes life just ain't fair, but I've had my share of being on the right side of these things so you can't win 'em all.

[Cannoneer]

Where's Bob Smith?  If he doesn't know I'll bet one of his nautical archaeologist buddies does!

I think Bob Smith may not only know (or is aware of a colleague that would know) what these incised symbols signify, but will also be able to clarify some of the different weight symbols the Spaniards put on their guns.

This page should give you a chuckle; it's none other than that trusted cannon seller Mr. Bronzecannons. He here has up for sale what he declares is a Spanish pedero cast in Manila in 1801. I found this while looking for info on the Spanish system of marking gun weights. This gun does have the a that looks like the modern @ keyboard symbol, and he also describes the q as representing the word quintel [sic], which according to him stands for 100 Spanish pounds. His knowledge of Spanish cannon markings may very well rival the probity of some of his transactions.

http://www.bronzecannons.net/1801_spanishcannon.html


I edited for content, he actually did say the q (quintal) represented 100 lbs, not 500 lbs as I had originally stated.

[Double D]

I like the warning.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM IS AN ANTIQUE AND CANNOT NOT BE FIRED DUE TO ITS OLD AGE!!




He could be right this is an old cannon, what do you think, early 21st century?

[dan610324]

to not mention his "museum quality" replica carriage.
its almost an inch of air between the trunnion and the trunnion cap 

it seems that the spanish used partly steel liners in their bronze castings 210 years ago ,
but they probably run out of bronze and used some cement also 

well bewerage older then 6 months is considered to be to old to drink ,
so a few years could possible be considered as antique .
it all depend on what you compare it with 

[cannonmn]

The 1801 cannon shown is real and they sold it to a party in FL in early 2008.  They then tried to sell it to me also but fortunately for me I wasn't interested, or I would have paid for nothing.  Then they "got" me with another cannon as I described before. 

I wonder how many times they've sold the 1801 cannon since they delivered it to the first purchaser?

[dan610324]

is it genuine ??
ok , but it looks like if it was an steel pipe cast in to it when looking at the photo of the bore .
and that seem to be the normal way to produce copies in the philipines .
but its always difficult to make judgements from photos ( I must try to justify myself in some way ) 

[Cannoneer]

I wonder how many times they've sold the 1801 cannon since they delivered it to the first purchaser?

AlGore would be proud of this group, they've added a whole new dimension to the meaning of the word; "recycling".

[cannonmn]

is it genuine ??
ok , but it looks like if it was an steel pipe cast in to it when looking at the photo of the bore .
and that seem to be the normal way to produce copies in the philipines .
but its always difficult to make judgements from photos ( I must try to justify myself in some way )   

Dan, it it totally legit, a shipwreck recovery.  I have more pix of it somewhere but it is well-marked on the breechface.  The stuff you see inside is concretion from long immersion, probably some kind of coral growth.  The dark green is one of the typical patinations you can get from salt water. 

Nothing wrong with the cannon.

Plenty wrong with the krooks who keep using the photos to bilk unsuspecting buyers.  They have found this set of photos particularly useful since the cannon is rather unique, I've never seen another like it in exact pattern or marks, but I know 100% that is is real, and I'm guessing other folks who know something about antiques, old cannons, or old metal know it is real also, so they bite on this one.  I suspect one of these days a group of folks (certainly hundreds by now) who have been bilked by this group of a____s will get together and find a way to "take care of business."