Caveat Emptor

[Robert Braun]

Members, et. al.--

The new Jas. Townsend catalog is out, 2004- April 2005. Admittedly, I have been a Townsend customer for many years. However, there are several items of note in his new catalog that should bear the moniker-- caveat emptor or "buyer beware." Among these:

1. His new coffee pot p. 46. Townsend never lists or quotes his sources so we may never know his inspiration. This said, the spout featured on his "new" pot is certainly documented circa 1850 on. But before 1850? Caveat emptor! Looks too much like a "Steamboat Arabia" knock-off.

2. 1830s waistcoat, p. 3 indicates no pockets (no pockets??) and a buckle adjustment in the back, when numerous genere paintings indicate a tie back adjustment. Further, the "shawl" collar is too narrow! Pa-shawl! Not worth the dough!

3. 18th century workshirt, p. 2 indicates a "style used for over 100 years, well into the 19th century." Really? one reading of Thoughts on Men's Shirts will indicate the subtle BUT IMPORTANT differences then in place with shirts made circa 1830-- they were NOT the same as say Rev War shirts! Caveat emptor!

4. Men's 1820 trousers, p. 2 listed as "Early 19th century broadfall trousers..." Really? According to what sources? Numerous genere paintings indicate broadfall trousers dating from the LATE 1830s-- more likely into the 1840s and certaily by the Gold Rush of 1849. But Black Hawk War? Nope!

5. Hunting frock, p. 5. The nutmeg brown sans fringes canvas or drilling hunting frock pictured in the new catalog is truly awful! It is not of a cut or style known in any original paintings, engravings or artifacts known to this author. I truly hope they didn't just "adapt" this from "Sketch Book '76." Having seen the original rifle frock upon which the illustration in SB76 is based, I would say they didn't.

6. Witney capote, p. 6. Hey! Could you at least have taken the dang MODERN maker's label off the garment before the photo was taken?? Sheesh!

7. Men's straw hat p. 7. Amish... Amish.. Amish. I like the Amish... but their style ofmstraw hats are NG for periods prior to say 1920. And just about EVERYONE knows that...

8. Fancy top hat p. 7 "...correct wear for most of the 19th century." I presume you mean the "round hat," and the style was a FLAT brim for a large portion of the first half of the 19th century. And the hats in gray for day wear??

9. 19th Century Reproduction glasses, p. 17. Sorry. the "comfort cables seen here (and in the "Alamo" movie) POST-date the American Civil War. That's AFTER 1865...

10. Pocket watches... sorry. No stem winds through the American Civil War. Key-wind only.

11. Toy musket and pistol, p. 39 "Snap"...eh? I would need to see the documentation on this one. I'm not saying it isn't out there... I just want to see it.

12. Jaw Harp, p. 39. I always thought I coined this phrase, as an accomodation to the original "Jew's Harp"-- and in 1979. Hmmm... good ideas travel fast! (And what arrogance that I dare lay claim to this one, eh? The difference is, I have witnesses! )

13. Folding fry pan, p. 41. Ummm... outside of the ONE original illustrated in Madison Grant's book-- exactly how many artifacts ARE there out there?

14. "Copper bopiler with lid." p. 43. Read "CORN BOILER" Pure flight of fancy. Never existed and everyone knows it. Yet it's offered anyway.

15. Pewter pitcher, p. 45. And the artifact from which this gem is copied?

16. Exhibit #101 "Brittannia flask" is missing from its humble spot where it has confortably resided for more than 10 years! WHY? Could it be that it wasn't a drinking flask at all, but a "powder flask?" And WHERE did beloved Jon Townsend read about such trifles? Dare I say it... on that "Oops" pages of the OLRHS website? Say it with me now.... "Hoo Ahh! and Hurrah!" ;D

There's more...MUCH more, but I must sign off for now.

You get the idea... "caveat emptor!" Know your history!

Tartly yours,

Bob.

(Just send me 10% of the money you saved... and we'll call it square! "Daddy needs a new hunting pouch!" )

[Robert Braun]

Recently, a reenacting associate asked me about the so-called "measuring cup" seen in Townsend's latest catalog. (Maybe you've seen it... the tankard-style cup with the round dents running up the side to denote (I suppose) a specific measure of liquid.)

Well... I'm not into copperwares too much, mostly because I think they're overdone and over represented. So I asked our friend if it made sense that our ancient ancestors would be going around "measuring" this or that in their cooking receipts. The answer was "probably not," and as a general rule I agree.

Besides... there's only one practical measure in reenacting, and it's been around for more than 35 years. Every cup or tankard is graded by how much beer it can hold.. in twelve ounce portions. ;D The more the better, right?

Seriously, while I have my doubts on the provenance of the Townsend "measuring cup," if someone simply has their heart set on such an item, the measuring portions (say 4 oz. at a time) can by had by pouring 4 oz of water into whatever cup you now have, and taking a nail or scratch awl, scratch the INSIDE of your cup even with the level of the water. Add another 4 oz, and make another scratch at the higher water level, and so on until you either run out of cup side or water (whichever comes first.)

You can avoid the scratches all together by filling your cups and other vessels with water before the next event, and determining the capacity of each by pouring the water into a modern measuring cup. Remembering the capacity of your cooking vessels may seem like a chore, but it gets the job done when you have a dozen hungry mouths waiting for the "shake rag!"

BTW... you wouldn't think so by looking at them, but those small Butch Baker cups hold a cool 12 ounces!

[Robert Braun]

Recent purchasers from Dixie Gun Works will note newspaper promo inserts advertising more of the company's products. With the current "Lewis and Clark" craze, DGW has jumped on this bandwagon with a line of products they think will fill the bill for L&C "reenactors" and wanna-bees.

Caveat Emptor!

1. The 1795 Springfield offered at $100 off as an introductory price MAY need the ramrod turned down to a button-end (the photo is not too clear.)

2. WHY does DGW offer the 1803 rifle, the 2d Model Brown Bess, the 1777 French Charleville, and the Charleville pistol under the heading "Guns of Lewis and Clark" whn NONE of these were guns used by the "Corps of Discovery"?

3. A "combination flint striker and patch knife" is listed as an "accoutrement of Lewis and Clark"??

4. Oh Lord... not more "Okapi" clasp knives! (Put these impositions in the same closet with 'corn boilers' and the 'Ft. Meigs ax.')

5. What IS a "roach belly knife"?

6. The knife and fork set is completely incorrect. I would't recommend that tinware either.

7. The "Primitive Camp Grill" set up loks like a king sized verson of one of those wrought iron "tavern puzzles" that were somewhat popular many years back. Yikes... who carries this on those portages on the Columbia River?

All this being said, the Jefferson peace medal they advertise looks VERY nice, and I wish I had some dough for the nice print depicting the May 14 departute from Camp River DuBois.

NS.... Bob.

[mpcavanaugh]

Bob,

Yesterday I received the new Smoke and Fire catalog do you have any 'observations' about this merchant? I've enjoyed the chuckles from your first couple of posts.

Mike

[Robert Braun]

Mike... thanks for your query.

I want to again stress at the outset that I am a Townsend customer, and have been for years. I am likewise a Smoke and Fire customer (to a lesser degree), and have recently purchased parts from Dixie Gun Works. So, I do buy from these folks... I'm just not being critical from the sidelines.

Regarding S&F.... I have not seen their most recent catalog. However, I did purchase form them last year.

If memory serves, I recall liking their clothing line (specifically the men's clothing) less than that offered by Townsend. While I might be pursuaded to purchase a Townsend linen hunting frock (modifications pending), I would not purchase one from S&F... at all.

I don't know anything at all about the women's line of clothing, mostly because a.) if someone out there IS wearing a S&F garment I wouldn't know it, and b.) I don't purchase or wear much in the line of women's clothing (well... at least not so far this month.) HA! ;D

S&F has a nice line of lanterns, and I would purchase some (but not all) of their glasswear (sorry, but a circa 1710 onion bottle is just not correct for the Mineral District in 1830! .)

I don't know about those wood plates, bowls, cups, etc. I have avoided their wrought iron goods, and think some of their musket tool items are just plain goofy. So are those blown-glass writing implements...wierd! And yes, to my intense dismay the carry those moronic Okapi knives, corn boilers, and incorrectly named "Ft. Meigs axes"

They have a pretty good moccassin kit... and it is what you make of it (no pun intended.) I have not personally seen any of their other footwear. I don't care for any of their hats... sorry!

S&F's main problem is that they are trying to appeal to too broad a market. If it was me... I would try to decide if the Scottish/Celtic/Pirate/Rennaissance market in Ohio is strong enough to warrant a product line. If it is... publish a seperate catalog for that line. Otherwise, dump the line and stick to improving my 1750-1840 line of goods.

I hope this was of some help to you.

Regards, Bob.

[mpcavanaugh]

I too should say that I've bought items from all three places and to both DGW and Townsend's credit they are both super quick. I sent out an order to Townsend on Monday and had it on Tuesday so I can't complain about that! When I've ordered from Dixie I've gotten my things within 3 days of placing an order. S&F is a bit slower but they still have some good stuff.

>S&F's main problem is that they are trying to appeal to >too broad a market. ...Otherwise, dump the line and >stick to improving my 1750-1840 line of goods.

I couldn't have said it any better myself.
Mike

[Robert Braun]

Fast service is a real plus in this day and age of companies that stress customer service, then don't provide it. I know when I order from Townsend, it comes VERY quickly... something I greatly appreciate.

In other news, a real disappointment... I normally (even religiously) order my foodstuffs from Jim Jacobs at Blue Heron. His stuff is the best, and his catalog really focuses on period correct items. Well, I ordered a storage tin from his most recent catalog. It was a nice tin, but of 100% stamped aluminum. I couldn't believe it! Likewise, his cloth bags for his jowel bacon turned out to be these commercially-made bags with the red strip at the top you sometimes see containing hardware parts or small nuggets of gum at the county fair. Those prices WERE just too good to be true.

Live and learn, I guess.

Bob.

[CLTCtinman]

Hi Bob,

As for the new Townsend coffee pot, I'd like to know what particular feature of the spout bothers you. As a tinsmith, I don't like it because it's rather artless, contains copper (galvanic corrosion), and over-priced for its size. I'm also not too keen on the riveted spout and frankly, Townsends tinplate has often left much to be desired.

My own $50 coffee pot (two-seam, much better handle, short spout (American-style); from the collection at the Edison certified 1780's) holds 96 ounces to the Townsend's 40, and riveted ears and bail can be added for $5.

As it happens, the short "coffee-type" spout has been seen on American-made tinware since 1750, and the sharply creased style of this spout appears on what I call "faceted" coffeepots (they're folded into round at regular intervals) that began to be made in the very early 19th century, if not in the 1790's.

The short spout is a distinctly American style and I don't believe the English shops ever made it to any degree. The long spout kettle favored by Rev-War folk is the older English style, and may have been imported in small quantities in the 19th C, but the English tin trade never really re-established itself after the 1812 mess. English-made tinware was much more costly than the domestic product. Some American tinsmiths surely emulated the English style, but most developed a number of kettles/coffee pot styles right from the beginning, and as the 19th C progressed, developed many that were serving peices and never meant for the fire or even the much kinder stovetop.

Here are the biggest problems we face in documenting tinware;
1) TEXT. The most commonly used items were used until they crumbled away. What you often see conserved today are peices much less than 175 years old or older peices so unusual they were conserved out of special interest and certainly don't represent "common" tin peices.

2)very few peices are dated or portrayed in early paintings. Tinware, not being exactly a "status" item -- not like, say, a clock, pewter/silver chargers or imported china -- wouldn't be included in family portraits. Even artists like Edmonds didn't include a lot of detail, and a sooty tin pot might as well be cast iron for all we can tell.

3)TEXT. Let's face it, WW1, the Depression and WW2 were murder on my craft. In one account (Margaret Coffin, "Art of the Tinsmith"), a story is told of the largest collection of New England tinware extant being buned up merely for the value of the solder in its joints. How many one-of-a-kind peices do you suppose we lost in that one incident alone?

I've had this problem for years. Do I restrict myself only to making faithful copies of collected originals, or do I use the sense I've gained over 17 years of tinsmithing to follow the "rules" and make a wider variety of authentic peices according to customer need (in itself a very period process)? Time and again I read sources say that tin items were produced "in every form imaginable", and time and again I hear historic experts quibbling about what forms are truly acceptable.

Always remember: this is supposed to be fun.

[Robert Braun]

Outstanding observations here, Don! Thank you... and thanks for your additional information you provided when we met up at the VA event in Milwaukee. While I have some knowledge of material goods and tinware, your knowledge of tinware is excellent and well-grounded.

I am pleased to concede your points and retract my comments regarding the current catalog offering of the Townsend coffee-pot.

I also appreciate your comments on one feature of the Townsend product that I missed: the rivetted spout. You indicated that a riveted spout was something that practicially no smith would do, either historically or as a practical matter. I agree with you that it sounds like a solution to answer the whinings of a few reenactor yutzes who have no idea how to cook with tinware over a fire.

Having conceded that the "American" spout was known much earlier that certainly I would have expected, I note that there are surviving examples of the straight and side-spout "English"-style tube spout that existed into the American Civil War. "Captain Norton's coffeepot," in the collection of the Wisconsin Veteran's Museum is one extant example.

Regards, Bob.