What’s your oldest skillet?

[Brian Gray]

OK, this question is for everyone. I’ve read over some of the old posts on the forum and it seems to be the consensus that one spouted skillets are generally older than two spouted ones, and the ones with little feet came before ones with heat rings. Flat bottomed skillets? So the question is, what skillet in your collections do you think might be the oldest? I know it’s mostly speculation, but it would be fun to see some pictures.

My oldest skillet is waiting to go in the lye, but I will have pics when it’s clean. (I know it’s my oldest one because I don’t have that many, only two with gate marks). It is a #9 with a decorative handle, three little feet, and one pour spout on the right side, which I guess is less common than the left.

[C. B. Williams]

Hmmm, Brian. Actually, it is generally agreed that skillets were first made sometime in the early 1800's, about the time the first stoves were made. Before that cooking was done in a fireplace, and pots and such were hung from a crane over the fire, or sit on some rocks or such. These things that sat on uneven surfaces all had 3 legs, because 3 legs will always sit without rocking. The 3 legged long handled "skillets" were actually called "spiders", The skillet without legs were made to sit on a lever surface. A lot of the 3 legged skillets and pots got their legs cut off to give them surface contact on a level stove top after the family got a stove. I think this is fairly accurate, It's my story anyway. I have an old 3 legged spider, bottom gated, long handle, unmarked, that I know to be very old. How old, is anybody's guess. On skillets, the single pour spout and bottom gate mark is a good indication that it is quite old. Did you ever wonder why a surveyors transit is mounted on a tripod. Well now you know, it can always be leveled without rocking.

[Brian Gray]

Just to clarify, I meant skillets which were made specifically to sit on a stove. The one I have doesn't have legs to sit in a fire, just three little bumps to level it. I'm pretty sure they weren't cut off because they have a very small diameter. I'll have pics up as soon as I can.
Thanks,
Brian

[Chuck Rogers]

As far as a marked pieces, I think it's a toy "WAGNER" skillet Circa 1898. Or is it my ERIE skillets, circa 1880. I do have gate marked pieces, but have no idea on the age.

[Brian Gray]

OK, here are some pictures of what I consider my oldest skillet,( not cleaned yet) :)

[Brian Gray]

bottom of skillet

[Brian Gray]

skillet handle

[Brian Gray]

Some more thoughts on my skillet:
I believe this piece was made during the 1845-1875 time period, as this was the era of Gothic Revival architecture in America. During this period, people would furnish their homes with pieces which reflected the current style, resulting in Gothic Revival clocks, furniture, and in my case, this skillet. If you look closely at the design on the top of the handle, you can see how it was influenced by a gothic arch. If it was produced much after 1875, it would have been seen as old fashioned and wouldn’t have found a market. How early into this time period it could be I’m not sure. Does anyone know when stoves began to be made in standard sizes, such as 7, 8, and 9?

As far as the practicality of this particular skillet, it leaves much to be desired. First of all, the pour spout, as I have mentioned, is on the right hand side. This makes it very impractical for a typical right handed person to use (lucky for me, I’m left handed). I can say as a fact that this skillet was not designed specifically for left handed people, because during the 18th and 19th century being left handed was severely discouraged. During this time left handed people were even forced to write with their right hands.
 
Also, oddly, the number nine on the bottom is upside down, which has no effect on the skillets usefulness, but still is different from most skillets.
Finally, what would make this skillet horrible to use is the arrangement of the legs. Most, if not all, of the spider skillets I have seen, and the few skillets I’ve seen with little feet like this, have had the opposite arrangement, with one leg directly beneath the handle. This makes more sense, because with my skillet any pressure a person puts on the handle results in the skillet wobbling, as can be seen on the wear on the 9 on my skillet.

When you put all of these things together, it seems to me that whoever designed the pattern for this skillet simply put the handle on the wrong side.  :)       Thoughts or comments would be appreciated.
Brian

[Brian Gray]

I forgot to give dimensions. This skillet above measures 11” across the top, from rim to rim, and the walls are 1.5” tall, making it a rather shallow number nine skillet.

 I’ve been thinking lately about the fancy handled early skillets.  Basically, who used them, and why they never became popular, and would like to share some of my thoughts with you guys:

It seems to me that the lower classes of the mid-nineteenth century would not have been concerned with fancy designs on such a utilitarian object, and would have rejected the cost associated with the added expense of producing such a piece. They would have rather spent their extra money on fancy tableware, clothing, or furnishings for their parlor (hence the fancy parlor stoves). These are the types of things people outside of their immediate family would be able to see, and were the status symbols of their day.  Likewise, the wealthy delegated all of their cooking to servants, and many of them would never even enter the kitchens of their own homes, which were often in a back wing of the house or in the basement. They would not be concerned with fancy skillets because they did not use them, and a plain skillet functions just as well as a fancy one.

This seems to imply that a fancy skillet would most likely have been used by a member of the growing middle class, people who were wealthy enough to have a little extra money to spend but not enough to be able to afford their own servants. As the number of people in this demographic rose towards the end of the nineteenth century, (the people who had spare time to see a baseball game) did fancy skillets become more common? It appears they didn’t, based on the fact that few survive today.  Did people’s tastes change? Style wise, American architecture evolved from gothic revival to the more elaborate Queen Anne (1880’s), then to the simpler Colonial Revival and Craftsman movements, around 1900. This could have had an impact on what people thought of fancy cooking implements. Maybe with the growing knowledge of hygiene people associated fancy handles with being harder to clean, therefore more risk of germs? Or was it the competition from lower priced, more mass produced skillets which led to fancy skillets going extinct? The same question could be asked about why a good, machine ground cast iron skillet isn’t made today.

These are just my thoughts, anyone have comments?

[bassmstr28]

I like your thinking but I think it was a way to sell skillets back then. They probably made them fancy to draw in folks and probably did not cost the company anything extra because i was just the way the mold was made. I would think the pans would have cost the same fancy or not. So if you could buy say a plain pan for 25 cents or a fancy one I believe the housewives rich or poor would have bought the fancy ones. Just my thought.

[Brian Gray]

Thanks Jerry.
What your saying makes sense, if they cost the same (to both manufacture and purchase). But if they did, why did they stop making them? Most all of what I've written is just speculation, I was just trying to start a discussion.  :)

Any thought about my skillet? Any other southpaw skillets out there you have seen?

[Clark Rader]

Brian, I like that left handed skillet, and your knowledge and your way of thinking would be good for the club, and have more meaning if you were a member. ;)
clark

[Brian Gray]

Thanks for the invitation Clark, but I’m pinching pennies right now, I got laid of from work last week, (I’m a librarian) and I can’t justify spending that much money right now on another one of my many hobbies (especially with my wedding coming up in September). I’d like to join, because I know many of you have worked hard gathering knowledge on the subject of cast iron, but for now I’d like to share with you what I know and learn what I can from you on the public side.  I guess being a public librarian I’ve learned to expect a lot for free  ;D

[bassmstr28]

Just my opinion here but I think they may have gotten away from the handles like that because they were too fragile. That is why griswolds and such were also heavier in the casting and the handles. I find alot of these early skillets in N.H. and alot are broken or cracked. Griswolds early "erie" skillets cracked often near the handles (look for this is you ever pick up an erie to buy) Also It may have looked pretty but when companies like griswold looked to take over the iron market you had to have function cost and reliability with your product.


Another thought is these early skillets that are fancy were mostly sold by stove manufacturers as accesories to their stoves. So buy the fancy stoves and get the fancy skillets to go with it .

[Chris Stairs]

Brian,
  For what it is worth, one of our early members , who collects skillets from the 19th century, always claimed that the earliest stove top skillets came from the east coast stove foundries and had single pour lips and fancy handles.
  My oldest skillet has the pour spout on the left side, so would be meant for right handed use.

Chris  

[Rick Gilley]

My oldest marked pieces are a toy "Wagner" 1898 skillet, and a "Erie" #7, Series 1 (I  think), and a #7 "Wagner" Sidney. I have one old gatemarked skillet, that is the lightest of any I have, but it has a small crack.

[Brian Gray]

I have contacted Steve about my skillet in the past. This is the response I recieved:

Hi Brian,
I wish I could tell you something about your skillet but, when they are unmarked it's just about impossible to know who made them.  I'd guess your pan is from c.1865-1870 but, like I say, a guess.  Somewhere I think I may have the same pan as it looks familiar.  There are probably well over 100 different early style skillets and most are unknown as to the maker.  I love the old pans and use them regularly, more than later Griswold, etc. pans.  If I can be of further help just ask.
Steve

[Roger Barfield]

Interesting discussion.  I don't think the skillet above is one of the oldest of the single spout skillets.  My reason is the number.  The oldest cast iron cookware had a numbering system of 1,2,3, etc instead of the 7,8,9, and so on.  It is old, don't get me wrong.  The 1870's-1890's if I were to through out a guess.  I have no concrete proof, but that would be my guess.   I agree that the single spout fancy handle skillets are some of the oldest examples.  They really aren't as fragile as you might think.  Many of them feel very sturdy.  Perhaps the stoves that were being sold had fancy details in the casting and the skillets were cast to mimic that.  It's not easy to cast by hand something with all that detail.  The workers got paid by the piece many times.  The cookware itself was sold by the pound in some of the older catalogs.  Maybe there just was a need to increase production and profits and over time the designs got more plain and had less detail.  Just look at the Erie skillets and follow the progression until you get to the smooth bottom block logo series and you can see what I'm talking about.  Today everything is cast with automated machines and the casting and design comes second.  That's the only way to compete in the market.  

[Tom Penkava]

I tend to agree with a lot of these beliefs, but as for fancy versus plain, I think the "fancy" was just the common style way back when.  As with all things, styles change and foundrys changed designs along with a general change/progression in style change of everything else.  Case in point, look at the change in furniture styles over the years.

[Ron_Wheeler]

I agree with what Tom is saying.  It was during the Victorian Era that these skillets were made so it is not surprising to see the elaborate designs carried over from the architecture to utencils and home furnishings.