ERIE No 10 POP-OVER PAN

[Thomas_Callaway]

My friend down at the antique shop traded for a box full of stuff. One item was a pop-over pan marked ERIE on one end and No 10 on the other ON TOP OF THE PAN.

There is a photo on page 106 in the Blue Book that shows the identical markings (along with the p/n 948) on the BOTTOM of the pan. As far as we can tell there is no p/n on this pan, but it has a lot of build-up on the ERIE end so it might be there.

Anyone familiar with this one?

TC

[Greg Stahl]

There are at least 15 variations of the #10 p/n 948 pan out there.  In order to ID them you need the book by Jon Haussler, Griswold Muffin Pans.  A couple of these pans are worth a few bucks, but most are fairly common.  THe HTF one, IMO, is Variation #1.

[Will Person]

Everyone that don't have that book.  You have to get it.  It shows all the different variations and what they are worth.  True,  sometimes not as much, or more.  I picked up a 10 cup #9 and a #14 pan for pennys on the dollar,  because no one at the auction knew. ;D ;D ;D   But I did.  While most pans are in the other books.   You need to know the hard ones to come by.

Will P.

[Greg Stahl]

So right Will.  I've found so many unmarked Griswold TM muffin pans because of that book, usuallly for pennies on the dollar!  Well worth the investment, just for that ONE find.

[Thomas_Callaway]

Thanks guys.  I'm going to try to talk him into cleaning it up so we can see it clearly. I'm not a muffin pan collector (yet!) but you're right, having the books is an excellent investment.

Sorry about the 8) in the p/n of the original post. I thought it was a gremlin at first. Guess we'll have put our numbers inside square brackets, eh?

TC

[Greg Stahl]

you need to disable smilies by clicking the box below the Message box, if you enter "code" for smilies.

You may not collect muffin pans but if you can find items like that and if you know other collectors, like on this Forum, you can make a few bucks or trade so that you can get the items you are collecting for.  I don't collect the #10's but Ken on this site does, so I picked up a Variation #1 for him, since I knew he was looking for one.  I help him out and he may find something I need for my collection.

[Thomas_Callaway]

Just ordered the books: Red Book and Muffin Pans.

Smileys disabled. (-;

Thanks - TC

[terry_williams]

I have a variation of the No. 10 popover pan #949 that is aluminum, but just marked ERIE under one handle. No. 10 under the other and 949 on one of the cups.I didn't think much aluminumware was made with just the Erie name on it. Any help on this? And no i don't have that book yet. Thanks, Terry

[Steve_Stephens]

Terry,
Your aluminum popover pan could have been made by Griswold if they did make ERIE popoevers in aluminum.  The other possibility would be that it was made by someone else by copying an ERIE iron popover pan in aluminum.  Almost always Griswold used different pattern numbers for their aluminum items than those made in iron but there can always be exceptions and, I think, in the very early days, the pattern number system had not been finalized.  Perhaps some aluminum was made with the iron pattern numbers.  Griswold did make some aluminum pieces in the early 1890's marked ERIE ALUMINUM or just ERIE like some teakettles.  They are scarce.
My point, though, is that your piece may be a copy casting.  Can't tell without seeing or comparing its size with that of an iron piece.  I would think that the iron and aluminum items would measure very closely but a copy in aluminum would be noticeably smaller than the original.
Steve

[Will Person]

just marked ERIE under one handle. No. 10 under the other and 949 on one of the cups.

 

949 is the late muffin pan.   If it was marked with "Erie" and 948.   I would say it was a copy of the cast iron one.  

But "Erie, 10 and 949"   Never made.

Are you sure that isn't a 948?

Even if it was a 948 and aluminum.  I would have to say a recast.

Will P. [smiley=smoking.gif]

[Steve_Stephens]

Will,
I thought that I had an ERIE 949 popover.  That was a long time ago and I had a pile of popovers.  Several years ago I began to wonder if I really did have a 949 as I haven't been able to verify it.  Must have been mistaken but, since I THOUGHT that I had one it just might exist.  But, I lean towards my brain going haywire on that one.  I know that I did have several different ERIE popovers and some were the 948.  I think you are right about the 949 being the later pan.
Steve

[Harry Riva]

Link to an aluminum 10 ERIE 949 popover pan. There had been some discussion about this pan and I had seen one sell at one of the convention auctions but didn't have a picture so I was waiting for one to show up on E-Bay.
Harry
Oops. Just found out I can't copy a link here anymore. Am I doing something wrong? Go to E-Bay and look at todays listings for Griswold. Item # is 3221004005.

[Greg Stahl]

Ok, I've changed the FORUM back to the way it was, so you can now copy/paste with the mouse.  If folks want to steal from the site, ok; as I would sooner have it easier for the folks using this site than to worry about folks stealing things.

[Steve_Stephens]

 

949 is the late muffin pan.   If it was marked with "Erie" and 948.   I would say it was a copy of the cast iron one.  

But "Erie, 10 and 949"   Never made.

Are you sure that isn't a 948?

Even if it was a 948 and aluminum.  I would have to say a recast.

Will P. [smiley=smoking.gif]

Will,
I think you may have to eat your words on this one.  Here is the ebay link to the aluminum Erie 949 popover:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3221004005

As I said in a post before, I thought that I had one of these in iron years ago.  That aluminum 949 is as I think I remember my iron one.  Haussler's book on Griswold Muffin Pans shows no early 949 popovers but it does show a drawing for a (supposedly) 948 popover that looks just like that 949 aluminum pan.  Perhaps it, too, should be in the 949 listings and there is a mistake in the book.  Why would only one 948 have the bars along the outside of the cups if all others have no bars and the 949 pans have straight edges as does the drawing in Haussler's book of the Variation 3 on p.43
Steve

[Will Person]

Just when you think you have it figured out.   Griswold throws that in the mix.   Yes Steve,   I have to eat my words.   But why use 949?   Doesn't go with the aluminum numbers that Griswold was using.   And then later use 949 for the next cast iron #10 pan?


Greg,   I know using this forum was alittle harder with the copywrite protection.   But I would rather have the site protected than a little harder to use.   My 2 cents.

Will P. [smiley=smoking.gif]

[Steve_Stephens]

  But why use 949?   Doesn't go with the aluminum numbers that Griswold was using.   And then later use 949 for the next cast iron #10 pan.

Will P. [smiley=smoking.gif]

Probably because 949 came after 948 which was another, slightly different design of popover.  Sure don't know why they would make two similiar pans though.   I've seen some early ERIE aluminum using the iron pattern numbers.  Maybe when Griswold started using p/n's and hadn't figured things out too well.  I don't have the answers on this one but, like you said, Griswold throws a different one at you now and then.  Isn't that what is fun about Griswold?
Steve

[Greg Stahl]

6139 is another example.  This is the p/n for the #16 cast iron gem pan, but is also used on the aluminum version.