1812 Re: Oak canteens available at last!
Excellant points, all well said. I too, wish Turner had included photos. At least he includes sources and references original documents. Originals with a solid provonance are the 'gold' standard' in our hobby. Would that we had one such now to settle the current discussion.
There comes a point when one must balance authenticity and practicality. Given the level of technology at the time, variations not only would be expected but are necessary to preclude more modern manufactoring. Your sword is a good example.
I hope I am not guilty of Confirmation Bias here, but differences in the details of canteens seem to support the tentitive conlusion of size, shape and materials. Otherwise they would seem too modern made.
In the spirit of full disclosure; I did tell Sue in this forum of the need for good and correct canteens. I had made canteens in the past (still have 2 in use), but was looking for more correct ones. Several sources have appeared. The details of design will be sorted out. The hobby is better for it.
--- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, Craig Williams <sgtwarner@...> wrote:
> Some thoughts...
> The oak canteen went through several incarnations from 1785 to 1874,
> some of which are covered in Mr. Turner's book.
> While this publication is, for the most part good, there are some
> places where the information is incomplete, (how could it not be,
> considering the scope of the work?).
> Having said that, the spout or mouth of the canteens in illustrations
> "a & b" seem to match the version being offered by Spencers'.
> Also, all of his illustrations, presumably of extant originals, show
> variations within the pattern.
> (My main complaint regarding Turners book is that while drawings/
> paintings can give the viewer a very clear picture of the artifact
> there are no photo's of the same included. In archeological studies/
> digs the photo is frequently backed up by a drawing for clarity.)
> The excerpt from "Circle", although fabulously thorough, doesn't
> specify a standardized stopper.
> An existing artifact with solid provenance is, in my experience
> perfect testimony to what was used, if it's a variation that's OK.
> Different contractors made variants based on the sealed patterns of
> the Army.
> A good example of this is the 1803 Flank company sabre. I have an
> original and I know several other folks and museums that also have
> originals and very few are "identical".
> On the other hand in the case of a single artifact representing the
> sole original reference, it makes sense to assume it as the baseline
> for reproduction in the absence of any other examples. You can't do
> better than the real thing. Of course one should always compare any
> such artifact with every period reference possible.
> Craig Williams