Someone wanted mortar drawings?

[Cannoneer]

OK, to give this a quick review; according to the person who provided the information on Mr. bronzecannon's page: Close-up of starboard side Trunnion showing WEIGHT markings;
Peso V q @ 8 lb
(Peso V Quintel pounds 8 lb)
1 Spanish Quintel = 100 lbs so 5 Quintel [sic] = 500 Spanish Pounds (plus 8 pounds) so total cannon weight is 508 Spanish Pounds

So, to break this down: Starboard side would mean the right trunnion face - I looked it up, and peso is the Spanish word for weight - If that first symol is a V the Roman numeral for 5, and if that second symbol is actually a q for quintal (100 lbs), followed by an @, meaning arroba (approx. 25 lbs, according to the appendix you posted), and finally an 8 followed by lb., then this would all translate to this bronze pedero actually weighing (5 X 100 lbs + 25 lbs + 8 lbs) 533 Spanish pounds. Is this somewhere in the general vicinity of being correct?

[cannonmn]

Good try, what I'll do is just try to figure out what each character is and let you interpret it, that'd save confusion I think.

To make it clearer, I'm looking at the trunnion mark under the word "Peso" like this:

_____      _______  @  _________     _________
   

For one, I  don't think you  will see a mixture of Roman numerals and Arabic, that'd have been too confusing I think, even back then, so I'm going to say I can't see a "V" character.  Nor do I see a "q" character.


What I see looks more like:

Peso

18  @ 8  ??


I don't know why the leftmost "1" is bent, maybe it is some other character, not sure.

But I definitely see two 8's.

What do they give as the size of the tube again, so we can guess what it "should weigh?"

[Cannoneer]

Good try, what I'll do is just try to figure out what each character is and let you interpret it, that'd save confusion I think.

To make it clearer, I'm looking at the trunnion mark under the word "Peso" like this:

_____      _______  @  _________     _________
  

For one, I  don't think you  will see a mixture of Roman numerals and Arabic, that'd have been too confusing I think, even back then, so I'm going to say I can't see a "V" character.  Nor do I see a "q" character.


What I see looks more like:

Peso

18  @ 8  ??


I don't know why the leftmost "1" is bent, maybe it is some other character, not sure.

But I definitely see two 8's.

What do they give as the size of the tube again, so we can guess what it "should weigh?"

Cannonmn,
I was just running with the info that was given on the bronzecannon's page, if I interpret what my own eyes are telling me, then I come up with the same thing you do: 18 @ 8 ??

I don't know why the leftmost "1" is bent, maybe it is some other character, not sure.

Look at the ones in the year inscribed on the breech, they have that same idiosyncratic shape.

[cannonmn]

I was just running with the info that was given on the bronzecannon's page,

What can I say, "consider the source?" 


I had all kinds of sarcastic things in mind but as I get older I try harder to put that unfortunate tendency behind me.

[Double D]

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."   

John,

Normally I would defer to your vast knowledge and experience in these type things.  I must question you on this one.  That stuff left in the bore looks more like the leftover sand from from a sand casted bore than encrustation or concretion.   I could buy that some material might be left in the bore from encrustation because they would chipped of encrustion.   Concretion, on the other hand, I believe has to be chemically removed and would have removed the concretion on the bore also. 

Can you tell us more?

 

[cannonmn]

Can you tell us more?

Yes-again I have absolutely no doubt that the cannon pictured is legit, would bet anyone money 'cause I'd win.

What I did was to look at the marks.  The maker is one that isn't listed in any books, none, and I've only seen two other cannons by that maker, and they are "out of the way" so I'm sure I'm one of two or three people in the world who would know those marks, especially the proper syntax and spelling of the maker's name.  That marking would thus be impossible for a faker to fake since there's no available source of that particular mark, or there wasn't until they posted this cannon on the web.  That's really the main clue I have to the authenticity.  Plus the weight marks, who would make those up?  The bronze has a seawater-etched look to me.

The fake cannons I've seen always have a relatively clean look inside the bore, even thought the look isn't correct for an original.  The bore on this gun is full of carp (or maybe some other species) due to submersion.

Hope that helps.  I've seen I don't know, maybe tens of thousands of cannons, and the fakes usually scream at me.  This one says "I'm real."

Again, the fact that it is real and a relatively unknown maker and design is helping the crooks keep selling this same, already-sold-and-delivered cannon to probably countless other victims.

[dan610324]

well a good rope and a branch would do a good job also in the philipines , some day someone will find him .

[Cannoneer]

well a good rope and a branch would do a good job also in the philipines , some day someone will find him .

                                     TROPICO!
                                                      Our man in the Philippines



Now, mind you I'm not advocating any hanging, but I think if this lowlife had a few lumps layed on him, it might work wonders in improving his character.

[cannonmn]

Now, mind you I'm not advocating any hanging, but I think if this lowlife had a few lumps layed on him, it might work wonders in improving his character.

Nor am I an advocate of that particular primitive practice!

However,

What I will say is that when in Moroland, out of respect for the culture, one should always do as the Moros do.

The following items from my Filipino (Moro) weapons collection are shown for illustrative purposes only, and are of course, completely unrelated to the foregoing.

[Cannoneer]

I recall reading a good article in a gun mag that described how efficiently the Moros wielded their deadly Kris against U.S. troops in the 'Philippine-American War'. The reason this article was in a gun mag was because the gist of the story was about how the .38 Long Colt, and later the first S&W .38 special pistol cartidges proved to be inadequate for stopping charging Moro warriors.

[Cannoneer]

Note how much bronze has extruded at the muzzle, which must have resulted from firing.

There was something about your remark combined with the photo of the muzzle face of this Spanish mortar that caught my interest, so I saved the pic and took a long look using the zoom feature. If you look at the lower rim of the mouth of the tube you'll notice that it is rounded and worn smooth, while the upper inner rim at the top, in almost a 90° arc is rough and the bronze is raised in a thin line away from the rim. I think it may be that this damage was actually caused by the gunners hurriedly loading projectiles into tha tube, not by the projectile balloting off the top of the inner rim as it was fired out of the mortar. Perhaps as the artillerymen loaded the shot or shell they rolled it over the lower lip with enough force that it hit the upper inside rim, peening the metal there to the appearance it now has.

[cannonmn]

Perhaps as the artillerymen loaded the shot or shell they rolled it over the lower lip with enough force that it hit the upper inside rim, peening the metal there to the appearance it now has.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Might be, I dunno.  I'd tend to think the extruded bronze had to have been caused by ballistic forces, just because gunmetal bronze is so daggone hard.  I've tried to mark it with metal stamps before, and I swear it was much harder to mark than mild steel.

[Cannoneer]

So this is how we've come to occupy our time while waiting for our erudite cousin from across the pond to left click his way into this discussion. Bob Smith, we're hoping you can shed some light on a few mysteries concerning markings on these Spanish pieces; where art thou?