I have done a lot of research over the last 15 years or so. And by research I don’t mean looking at other people’s blogs and YouTubes to get a basic idea. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with that…but unless sources are clearly linked AND you follow them up to check, you wanna go deeper if it’s something you’re really into.
The blanket repetition of information has resulted in a lot of persistent myths, some of which I address here, some of which I address in my book, some of which I plan on addressing here, and probably none of which will be dispelled by me alone.
I’ve said it a lot before that I don’t want people to take my word for it. There’s some stuff that’s gotten repeated enough to where the sources drop off, and the logic gets truncated until it’s just a factoid. It’s a dangerous thing when someone gets a name in a field, and my name is teetering on reputable in the cast iron world. So while I may get frustrated with the hobby or sidetracked with life, I don’t get the luxury of being lazy.
I fully understand that I’m going to be tagged in questions that have been answered 104 times in the thread I’m tagged in, and a lot of those questions are answered 700 times a week. It doesn’t matter. Newcomers don’t know what’s answered or what isn’t and it isn’t always obvious how to search for things when you may not have the vocabulary. Building a name means you’re signing on for responsibility. So as long as I’m active in this hobby, I get to answer questions repeatedly. I’m ok with that.
What I am constantly striving to improve on is my consistency. I don’t get to just ignore the people who think of me first when someone needs help on an ID, and sometimes that means letting people know I’m the wrong person for the job. I also don’t get to be lazy about my research because people actively seek it out.
Well, it turns out that recently, I was. And somebody asking me for clarification led me to the correction.
I recently updated the Cast Iron Field Guide with a number of changes. Some information was updated, some images were updated, some sources were updated. Nothing paradigm shifting, but as a package it was fairly big.
When I was writing the Field Guide, I did my damndest to stay on task. There is a LOT of nonsense out there in the cast iron hobby. It’s kind of disorienting to newcomers, and there are a lot of loud voices repeating what may or may not be correct, but either way is definitely hearsay. While working through the Field Guide, I made note of the intriguing hearsay and if I could substantiate it, and if it made sense in the overall discussion, there’s a chance it made it.
It wasn’t about putting all the information in one place–it was about compiling a resource of verifiable information and showing you how to get to my sources and, more importantly, how to find your own. This is real handy when someone is claiming something with no real way to back it up. And there’s a lot of that.
It kicked into high gear when, towards the end of the first completed draft of the Field Guide when a big name individual within the hobby got really uncomfortable with the idea that I was publishing, and started giving me bad information. I don’t know that I’d have any way of confirming the intention, but given all the circumstances and the events after publishing, it seems pretty clear that the bad information was in the hopes I would repeat it in my book. Well, at least two of the claims seemed nonsense on their face–one of which was about the Barstow Stove Company so I immediately knew it was incorrect. Regardless, every bit in that book is something I’ve been able to at least make an argument as plausible. If I’m wrong, it’s because better information has been found, not because I repeated junk.
Until now, actually. And unfortunately, I can only blame myself. Meaning this is a cautionary tale about ALWAYS CHECKING YOUR WORK. Always. And then check it again.
See, in the aforementioned recent update, I included a supposed 1932 depiction of a handle in a Richmond Stove Company catalog. This depiction pushed the latest known depictions from 1929 to 1932. Not exactly groundbreaking but still cool and worth including.
Well, today I repeated myself in saying it was pushed back into the 1930s. I was asked for the catalog/image. I shared it, and then when to get the date confirmation. This is where the plot thickens.
The catalog was posted on stovebook.com, and seemed to be owned by the owner of the website. It’s noted in the catalog that it can’t be reproduced for sale, but seeing as I’m not doing that, I had included it in my book. That website says 1932, the stuff shown in there is consistent with the time period. But I got it in my head to email the owner and ask about how they dated it. And immediately the email got kicked back. The email address is no longer valid. Ok, it was on me. I’ve done this stuff for a long time, no problem.
Reading through the entire catalog, there’s not a single date. So…how did the owner date it? There was a minor sinking feeling in my heart when I saw that the catalog number was 32. This felt like too much of a coincidence. Did the owner really just assume “Catalogue No. 32” meant 1932? Really?
I had to go a little bit deeper. What else is known about the Richmond Stove Company? Not a ton. There’s a website that focuses on Confederate history that details their origins as the Richmond Stove Works. There’s a Worthpoint post that shows their catalog number 29 and supposes it’s from the 1910s.
29 is close to 32, so what else can I get from this? For one thing, the officers and such are listed right at the start:
All these people started at some point, and stopped at another. Looking into all that can maybe give us a window.
Looking first at E. A. Rennolds, I quickly found out that it’s often spelled Reynolds, and that the latest mentions of him as the president are 1924. May or may not mean much. In the later 1920s, the Richmond Stove Company was apparently absorbed by the Southern Stove Works, but from what little digging I’ve done it seems they more or less carried on as usual, probably for the brand recognition and loyalty. Anyway.
I jumped next to J. B. Wilson, the sales manager. Maybe he was up to something that noted something to do with sales. Turns out this was the golden ticket;
This is about as clear as it gets. In 1921, Richmond Stove company published a new catalogue. End of debate. I’ve cropped just the relevant and it was the bottom of the page so I’ve added the date. But, if you go to books.google.com and search for J.B. Wilson Richmond Stove, you’ll find this.
It didn’t take much, all I had to do was not take somebody’s word for it. I did, and I shouldn’t have. It could have been a bigger deal. I could have repeated unverifiable nonsense that I read early on in my curiosity for iron or that was fed to me by unreliable and potentially malicious sources. This was a three-year nudge one way, that was nudged back.
But as I’m continuing to get recognition within this hobby, I continue to take on more responsibility. Among that responsibility is admitting when I’m wrong and retracting bad information. I’ve tried to keep up with changes in things and publish new information that alters or builds upon what’s in the Field Guide. It’s the very least I can do to own up to actual mistakes. They do happen, to all of us.
And so, please let this be the only time you take my word for it–verify everything. Get sources or logic behind claims if you’re so inclined. Doesn’t matter how well-respected or well-known a name is. Anyone who sinks enough time into something to be considered reputable will always be indebted to those who hold up their work as valid. That’s why I will always build my sources and approaches into what I actually publish, and while I’ll post “common pattern from the 1870s-1920s, since they were common, without a foundry mark we can’t know the maker” 406 times per year until I stop seeing the question.
