Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

laEspadaAncha · 19th December 2010, 05:42 PM

Hi Gary,

Welcome to the forum.

As has been mentioned - both in this thread and in Maurice's linked thread - there are authentic older "fighters," more contemporary currency cannon, and modern reproductions.

In combing through the linked thread, I would also add the following to consider in evaluating your friend's cannon:

First, the gross weight... Authentic "fighters" were meant to fire shot (as opposed to a lessor signal charge of powder alone, or no charge at all in the case of modern reproductions). They would have to be cast with enough metal to endure the forces produced by the ignition of these greater charges and the resulting expulsion of highly pressurized gas. And they would have been made to endure this over and over. It took a lot of resources and effort to cast a cannon in bronze, so they would want them to last as long as possible.

Consequently, authentic fighters tend to be significantly heavier than examples produced as currency or decorative pieces. For example, I have an authentic fighter originally recovered by a renown underwater archeologist who sold it to raise funds for a privately-curated museum operated by his foundation. It measures a little over a meter in length and must weigh +/- 30 kg. By comparison, I would imagine decorative examples and more modern reproductions would be made with a focus on reducing cost (of production) and would therefore require less material and effort in their production. How large are the examples you show? 1 meter? 1.5 meters? How much would you estimate they weigh?

Second, if they were made to be used, you will likely to see some signs of wear around the touch hole (the same applies to signal cannon). If the touch hole appears geometrically perfect and untouched, I would be suspicious.

It is also my understanding (as mentioned in the other thread) that the placement of the trunnions is also a good indicator, as "real" examples will have their trunnions set below the centerline as observed along the axis of the barrel. While by no means statistically significant, this is the case with the two cannon I own.

Hope this helps in your evaluation.

19th December 2010, 05:42 PM	#4
laEspadaAncha Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 608	Hi Gary, Welcome to the forum. As has been mentioned - both in this thread and in Maurice's linked thread - there are authentic older "fighters," more contemporary currency cannon, and modern reproductions. In combing through the linked thread, I would also add the following to consider in evaluating your friend's cannon: First, the gross weight... Authentic "fighters" were meant to fire shot (as opposed to a lessor signal charge of powder alone, or no charge at all in the case of modern reproductions). They would have to be cast with enough metal to endure the forces produced by the ignition of these greater charges and the resulting expulsion of highly pressurized gas. And they would have been made to endure this over and over. It took a lot of resources and effort to cast a cannon in bronze, so they would want them to last as long as possible. Consequently, authentic fighters tend to be significantly heavier than examples produced as currency or decorative pieces. For example, I have an authentic fighter originally recovered by a renown underwater archeologist who sold it to raise funds for a privately-curated museum operated by his foundation. It measures a little over a meter in length and must weigh +/- 30 kg. By comparison, I would imagine decorative examples and more modern reproductions would be made with a focus on reducing cost (of production) and would therefore require less material and effort in their production. How large are the examples you show? 1 meter? 1.5 meters? How much would you estimate they weigh? Second, if they were made to be used, you will likely to see some signs of wear around the touch hole (the same applies to signal cannon). If the touch hole appears geometrically perfect and untouched, I would be suspicious. It is also my understanding (as mentioned in the other thread) that the placement of the trunnions is also a good indicator, as "real" examples will have their trunnions set below the centerline as observed along the axis of the barrel. While by no means statistically significant, this is the case with the two cannon I own. Hope this helps in your evaluation.