Jump to content

Old Cross?


kac

Recommended Posts


Nice find I would be happy with it however it does not appear to be the real deal  due to the discoloration I'm seeing. The iron ring is not very encouraging as well.  I've found silver items well over 100 years old that are  still marked 925 or they say "sterling"

Of course I hope I'm wrong...and I am wrong most of the time...at least that what my wife tells me :smile:

strick

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is silver, maybe not 925 but since it was sand cast there might have been some contamination that got on the surface in some areas. Iron jump ring doesn't seem to be plated. No marks doesn't always mean anything, it could have been made from a small maker. Still a cool find since it was right next to a metal fence, probably why others had missed it.

The park I was at has a path that follows the original path that passed through an old farm field. Sometime in the 1940's they turned it into a baseball diamond. Other BB diamonds in the same park vary in age, couple I had picked up an 1877 sitting liberty 2" in the sand and a few 1906 indian heads. Buffalos I pulled from there are in rough shape and very hard to read.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, kac said:

it could have been made from a small maker.

That's what I was thinking.  Lots of 'weekend' artisans out there.  I recall when in college (long time ago ?) one of my dorm-mates was making silver rings.  They were pretty crude but definitely a high grade of silver (with no marks).

I've also found high grade silver jewelry with iron attach rings.  Doesn't make a lot of sense to us detectorists (because we know how bad iron corrodes in the ground).  I guess whoever made it wasn't figuring it would end up buried.  ?

BTW, a good specific gravity test would go a long way to confirming, but that can be difficult to do because the volume (difference between dry weight and submerged weight) is difficult to determine with high accuracy.  You're effectively trying to distinguish s.g. of 10.3 (sterling or coin silver) from s.g. of 8.9 (silver plated copper).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The park is close by to the landing point of the city I am in, considered the oldest part of the city 1636. I doubt it is that old but there are a few old churches around and it might be from one of them. OR it could be a piece of junk someone lost after picking it up from a flea market hehe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kac said:

The park is close by to the landing point of the city I am in, considered the oldest part of the city 1636. I doubt it is that old but there are a few old churches around and it might be from one of them.

If Gary Drayton found it on Oak Island he'd be claiming "Templar, baby!"  ?

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

It looks to be made by the lost wax method and cast by the centrifugal casting method. IMHO

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 2/12/2019 at 5:26 PM, GB_Amateur said:

If Gary Drayton found it on Oak Island he'd be claiming "Templar, baby!"  ?

 

Naaah..
Gary'd say: 'Oooo, that's old!'
Rick would say: 'I just saw this design on a Templar prison wall in France last week..' :laugh:

Swamp

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did an acid test on the cross and it is not silver. The VDI shows it closer to pewter. I have pewter samples from castings I have done and thinking BeachHunter might correct on this.

I have a centrifugal casting machine and though the casting is relatively thin and shows no thickening from any high speed spins and the fact it isn't grayish lends me to believe it was cast hot and slow with a lead free pewter with bismuth in it rather than the antimony brit 8 pewter.

This would explain why it hasn't really tarnished as the bismuth pewter is 98% tin. The master was probably clay then sand cast and polished up. Still skillfully done but if spin cast it would date it in the 50-70's? not so old. 

Still one my favorite finds.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say you are correct on all points kac. Upon closer inspection, it does look like a pre-centrifugal casting. The composition is a good clue to it's age. Interesting and awesome find.

Quote

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...