Thread: for the SERIOUS cast iron cookware collector

On 2012-09-10, Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
> You won't be able to live without these:

Watch me!


--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

You won't be able to live without these:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/251147254788

If they were left-handed, I'd considered bidding.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:44:12 -0800, Mark Thorson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>You won't be able to live without these:
>
>http://www.ebay.com/itm/251147254788
>
>If they were left-handed, I'd considered bidding.


I have a pair, think mine are Wagner

-------

This weeks video recipe is "Chocolate Lava Cake aka Molten Love"
http://foodforu.ca/recipeofweek.html

URL: http://foodforu.ca - Email: [email protected]
Follow us on Twitter - http://twitter.com/Foods4u
So much more than just a Recipe Website

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:56:06 -0500, Stu <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:44:12 -0800, Mark Thorson <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>You won't be able to live without these:
>>
>>http://www.ebay.com/itm/251147254788
>>
>>If they were left-handed, I'd considered bidding.
>
>
>I have a pair, think mine are Wagner
>
>-------
>

Sorry
This weeks video recipe is "Avial" Vegetarian
http://foodforu.ca/recipeofweek.html

On Sep 10, 10:40*am, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> You won't be able to live without these:
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/251147254788
>
> If they were left-handed, I'd considered bidding.

Why can't I live without a pair of bookends?

http://www.richardfisher.com

Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
> You won't be able to live without these:
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/251147254788
>
> If they were left-handed, I'd considered bidding.

Whoever made them should have rotated one of the skillets so both handles
face in the same direction when actually used on a bookshelf. The way it's
made it looks like one handle will be banging against the back of the
bookcase or wall behind them, and a symmetrical appearance would be more
pleasing. I don't actually see these as being of interest to the serious
cast iron collector.

MartyB

Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>
>> Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> You won't be able to live without these:
>>>
>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/251147254788
>>>
>>> If they were left-handed, I'd considered bidding.
>>
>> Whoever made them should have rotated one of the skillets so both
>> handles face in the same direction when actually used on a
>> bookshelf. The way it's made it looks like one handle will be
>> banging against the back of the bookcase or wall behind them, and a
>> symmetrical appearance would be more pleasing. I don't actually see
>> these as being of interest to the serious cast iron collector.
>
> If they were genuine Griswold, they'd probably fetch
> at least $500, maybe a lot more. As a no-name, who knows?
> Maybe $50-75.

I see them getting 4 bucks at a garage sale, maybe $7 at a thrift store. But
on Ebay, who knows?

Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You won't be able to live without these:
> >
> > http://www.ebay.com/itm/251147254788
> >
> > If they were left-handed, I'd considered bidding.
>
> Whoever made them should have rotated one of the skillets so both handles
> face in the same direction when actually used on a bookshelf. The way it's
> made it looks like one handle will be banging against the back of the
> bookcase or wall behind them, and a symmetrical appearance would be more
> pleasing. I don't actually see these as being of interest to the serious
> cast iron collector.

If they were genuine Griswold, they'd probably fetch
at least $500, maybe a lot more. As a no-name, who knows?
Maybe $50-75.

It only reserve


I apologize for flooding, just interesting services

'Tap her Cell Undetected' (http://mobilespy.servicesfrom.com) - Expose a
liar! View SMS&CALL logs, location online. The lowest price!




--
GaDGJak

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:33:07 -0800, Mark Thorson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>
>> Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > You won't be able to live without these:
>> >
>> > http://www.ebay.com/itm/251147254788
>> >
>> > If they were left-handed, I'd considered bidding.
>>
>> Whoever made them should have rotated one of the skillets so both handles
>> face in the same direction when actually used on a bookshelf. The way it's
>> made it looks like one handle will be banging against the back of the
>> bookcase or wall behind them, and a symmetrical appearance would be more
>> pleasing. I don't actually see these as being of interest to the serious
>> cast iron collector.
>
>If they were genuine Griswold, they'd probably fetch
>at least $500, maybe a lot more. As a no-name, who knows?
>Maybe $50-75.


No name maybe $45. Griswold, if they were a 0 or 1 maybe $125 each
with stands

-------

This weeks video recipe is "Avial" Vegetarian
http://foodforu.ca/recipeofweek.html

URL: http://foodforu.ca - Email: [email protected]
Follow us on Twitter - http://twitter.com/Foods4u
So much more than just a Recipe Website

On 13/09/2012 5:57 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You won't be able to live without these:
>>
>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/251147254788
>>
>> If they were left-handed, I'd considered bidding.
>
> Whoever made them should have rotated one of the skillets so both handles
> face in the same direction when actually used on a bookshelf. The way it's
> made it looks like one handle will be banging against the back of the
> bookcase or wall behind them, and a symmetrical appearance would be more
> pleasing. I don't actually see these as being of interest to the serious
> cast iron collector.
>
> MartyB
>
>
>
To make them in both right and left hand versions, they would have
needed two different castings. These are, apart from the flat metal base
plate, one large casting. It would have been more aesthetically pleasing
had they had made a right and a left hand version. As it is, I won't be
bidding anyway. I prefer bookends of carved wood.

--

Krypsis

Krypsis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 13/09/2012 5:57 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>> Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> You won't be able to live without these:
>>>
>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/251147254788
>>>
>>> If they were left-handed, I'd considered bidding.
>>
>> Whoever made them should have rotated one of the skillets so both
>> handles face in the same direction when actually used on a
>> bookshelf. The way it's made it looks like one handle will be
>> banging against the back of the bookcase or wall behind them, and a
>> symmetrical appearance would be more pleasing. I don't actually see
>> these as being of interest to the serious cast iron collector.
>>
>> MartyB
>>
>>
>>
> To make them in both right and left hand versions, they would have
> needed two different castings.

Correct. This is why it has little value as artful decor, because it was a
good idea but poorly executed when the maker didn't bother to cast a
separate piece for each bookend. I see that it didn't sell and has been
relisted which is no surprise.

You can't tell from the photos if the skillets were cast with the book
plates on them or if they were welded on later. But there are two flat
plates, and the smaller looks as if it could have been cast with the skillet
and the longer piece looks obviously welded on. But just looking at the
orientation of the pieces and how the casting would have to be poured, I
think it's quite unlikely the whole thing is cast.

MartyB

On 19/09/2012 3:44 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> Krypsis <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 13/09/2012 5:57 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>> Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> You won't be able to live without these:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/251147254788
>>>>
>>>> If they were left-handed, I'd considered bidding.
>>>
>>> Whoever made them should have rotated one of the skillets so both
>>> handles face in the same direction when actually used on a
>>> bookshelf. The way it's made it looks like one handle will be
>>> banging against the back of the bookcase or wall behind them, and a
>>> symmetrical appearance would be more pleasing. I don't actually see
>>> these as being of interest to the serious cast iron collector.
>>>
>>> MartyB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> To make them in both right and left hand versions, they would have
>> needed two different castings.
>
> Correct. This is why it has little value as artful decor, because it was a
> good idea but poorly executed when the maker didn't bother to cast a
> separate piece for each bookend. I see that it didn't sell and has been
> relisted which is no surprise.

They aren't aesthetically pleasing to the eye and, in use, would look
wrong.
>
> You can't tell from the photos if the skillets were cast with the book

Looking at the general shapes, I'd have to say that it's an odds on bet
that the castings are one piece, base and skillet. The thin plate on
each is separate entity. On someting like this, the base would be cast
integrally with the skillet. The shape of the base is a giveaway if you
know anything about casting. The front to rear taper of the base is done
to provide easy release of the complete entity from the sand mold. It
would be difficult to weld the base castings to the skillet and there is
no indication these are screwed on.

> plates on them or if they were welded on later. But there are two flat
> plates, and the smaller looks as if it could have been cast with the skillet
> and the longer piece looks obviously welded on. But just looking at the
> orientation of the pieces and how the casting would have to be poured, I
> think it's quite unlikely the whole thing is cast.

The plates are separate pieces of thin metal plate. These are screwed
on, each being held onto its respective skillet by a single countersunk
metalthread screw. It would be extremely difficult to cast the thin
plate as integral with the skillet and base, especially given that cast
iron is extremely brittle.
>
> MartyB
>
>
These would have been made very cheaply in some Asian sweat shop as arty
bookends. They would never have been originally intended for use as
cooking instruments and repurposed, the casting quality of the skillets
is too poor for that.

--

Krypsis

Krypsis wrote:
>
> On 13/09/2012 5:57 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> > Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> You won't be able to live without these:
> >>
> >> http://www.ebay.com/itm/251147254788
> >>
> >> If they were left-handed, I'd considered bidding.
> >
> > Whoever made them should have rotated one of the skillets so both handles
> > face in the same direction when actually used on a bookshelf. The way it's
> > made it looks like one handle will be banging against the back of the
> > bookcase or wall behind them, and a symmetrical appearance would be more
> > pleasing. I don't actually see these as being of interest to the serious
> > cast iron collector.
> >
> > MartyB
> >
> >
> >
> To make them in both right and left hand versions, they would have
> needed two different castings. These are, apart from the flat metal base
> plate, one large casting. It would have been more aesthetically pleasing
> had they had made a right and a left hand version. As it is, I won't be
> bidding anyway. I prefer bookends of carved wood.

I got rid of all my bookends many years ago. I've accumulated so many books
that I don't have room for them any more. All of my books are crammed into
the shelves and my paperback bookshelf has them crammed in even
worse.....remove the front books to find another layer of them behind.

G.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 06:38:27 +1000, Krypsis <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On 19/09/2012 3:44 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> > Krypsis <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 13/09/2012 5:57 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> >>> Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> You won't be able to live without these:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/251147254788
> >>>>

Every day I expect this thread to be dead and yet it still lives on.
Amazing.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Krypsis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19/09/2012 3:44 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>> Krypsis <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 13/09/2012 5:57 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>>> Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> You won't be able to live without these:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/251147254788
>>>>>
>>>>> If they were left-handed, I'd considered bidding.
>>>>
>>>> Whoever made them should have rotated one of the skillets so both
>>>> handles face in the same direction when actually used on a
>>>> bookshelf. The way it's made it looks like one handle will be
>>>> banging against the back of the bookcase or wall behind them, and a
>>>> symmetrical appearance would be more pleasing. I don't actually see
>>>> these as being of interest to the serious cast iron collector.
>>>>
>>>> MartyB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> To make them in both right and left hand versions, they would have
>>> needed two different castings.
>>
>> Correct. This is why it has little value as artful decor, because it
>> was a good idea but poorly executed when the maker didn't bother to
>> cast a separate piece for each bookend. I see that it didn't sell
>> and has been relisted which is no surprise.
>
> They aren't aesthetically pleasing to the eye and, in use, would look
> wrong.
>>
>> You can't tell from the photos if the skillets were cast with the
>> book
>
> Looking at the general shapes, I'd have to say that it's an odds on
> bet that the castings are one piece, base and skillet. The thin plate
> on each is separate entity. On someting like this, the base would be
> cast integrally with the skillet. The shape of the base is a giveaway
> if you know anything about casting. The front to rear taper of the
> base is done to provide easy release of the complete entity from the
> sand mold. It would be difficult to weld the base castings to the
> skillet and there is no indication these are screwed on.
>
>> plates on them or if they were welded on later. But there are two
>> flat plates, and the smaller looks as if it could have been cast
>> with the skillet and the longer piece looks obviously welded on. But
>> just looking at the orientation of the pieces and how the casting
>> would have to be poured, I think it's quite unlikely the whole thing
>> is cast.
>
> The plates are separate pieces of thin metal plate. These are screwed
> on, each being held onto its respective skillet by a single
> countersunk metalthread screw. It would be extremely difficult to
> cast the thin plate as integral with the skillet and base, especially
> given that cast iron is extremely brittle.
>>
>> MartyB
>>
>>
> These would have been made very cheaply in some Asian sweat shop as
> arty bookends. They would never have been originally intended for use
> as cooking instruments and repurposed, the casting quality of the
> skillets is too poor for that.

If they are screwed on there is really no excuse for one of the bookends to
be ass backwards. OTOH if they are screwed on, why can't you just take one
off, drill the hole correctly, and reverse it? You can't if they aren't
screwed on. Where do you see screws?

MartyB

On 19/09/2012 9:27 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> Krypsis <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 19/09/2012 3:44 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>> Krypsis <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 13/09/2012 5:57 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>>>> Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> You won't be able to live without these:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/251147254788
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If they were left-handed, I'd considered bidding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whoever made them should have rotated one of the skillets so both
>>>>> handles face in the same direction when actually used on a
>>>>> bookshelf. The way it's made it looks like one handle will be
>>>>> banging against the back of the bookcase or wall behind them, and a
>>>>> symmetrical appearance would be more pleasing. I don't actually see
>>>>> these as being of interest to the serious cast iron collector.
>>>>>
>>>>> MartyB
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> To make them in both right and left hand versions, they would have
>>>> needed two different castings.
>>>
>>> Correct. This is why it has little value as artful decor, because it
>>> was a good idea but poorly executed when the maker didn't bother to
>>> cast a separate piece for each bookend. I see that it didn't sell
>>> and has been relisted which is no surprise.
>>
>> They aren't aesthetically pleasing to the eye and, in use, would look
>> wrong.
>>>
>>> You can't tell from the photos if the skillets were cast with the
>>> book
>>
>> Looking at the general shapes, I'd have to say that it's an odds on
>> bet that the castings are one piece, base and skillet. The thin plate
>> on each is separate entity. On someting like this, the base would be
>> cast integrally with the skillet. The shape of the base is a giveaway
>> if you know anything about casting. The front to rear taper of the
>> base is done to provide easy release of the complete entity from the
>> sand mold. It would be difficult to weld the base castings to the
>> skillet and there is no indication these are screwed on.
>>
>>> plates on them or if they were welded on later. But there are two
>>> flat plates, and the smaller looks as if it could have been cast
>>> with the skillet and the longer piece looks obviously welded on. But
>>> just looking at the orientation of the pieces and how the casting
>>> would have to be poured, I think it's quite unlikely the whole thing
>>> is cast.
>>
>> The plates are separate pieces of thin metal plate. These are screwed
>> on, each being held onto its respective skillet by a single
>> countersunk metalthread screw. It would be extremely difficult to
>> cast the thin plate as integral with the skillet and base, especially
>> given that cast iron is extremely brittle.
>>>
>>> MartyB
>>>
>>>
>> These would have been made very cheaply in some Asian sweat shop as
>> arty bookends. They would never have been originally intended for use
>> as cooking instruments and repurposed, the casting quality of the
>> skillets is too poor for that.
>
> If they are screwed on there is really no excuse for one of the bookends to
> be ass backwards. OTOH if they are screwed on, why can't you just take one
> off, drill the hole correctly, and reverse it? You can't if they aren't
> screwed on.

You would need to do a mirror image of the existing casting to make it
look right as a matched pair of bookends.

> Where do you see screws?
>
> MartyB
>
>
On the third diagram iirc. They are slotted countersunk head clearly
visible in the picture. Only one per metal plate so it seems a tad
minimalistic if you ask me. I'd have used two per plate to prevent
swivelling.

--

Krypsis

On 19/09/2012 7:31 AM, Gary wrote:
> Krypsis wrote:
>>
>> On 13/09/2012 5:57 AM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:
>>> Mark Thorson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> You won't be able to live without these:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/251147254788
>>>>
>>>> If they were left-handed, I'd considered bidding.
>>>
>>> Whoever made them should have rotated one of the skillets so both handles
>>> face in the same direction when actually used on a bookshelf. The way it's
>>> made it looks like one handle will be banging against the back of the
>>> bookcase or wall behind them, and a symmetrical appearance would be more
>>> pleasing. I don't actually see these as being of interest to the serious
>>> cast iron collector.
>>>
>>> MartyB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> To make them in both right and left hand versions, they would have
>> needed two different castings. These are, apart from the flat metal base
>> plate, one large casting. It would have been more aesthetically pleasing
>> had they had made a right and a left hand version. As it is, I won't be
>> bidding anyway. I prefer bookends of carved wood.
>
> I got rid of all my bookends many years ago. I've accumulated so many books
> that I don't have room for them any more. All of my books are crammed into
> the shelves and my paperback bookshelf has them crammed in even
> worse.....remove the front books to find another layer of them behind.
>
> G.
>
I've done that with my bookshelves - double layer. Now the shelves
themselves have a severe bow in them. I expect a collapse any time soon. ;-)

--

Krypsis

sf wrote:
>
> Every day I expect this thread to be dead and yet it still lives on.
> Amazing.

You'd rather talk about stolen maple syrup?