Posted 12 years ago
collector4…
(153 items)
Here is a Vintage or Antique Military Shell, Very Heavy for it's size.
8-1/2" length, 2-1/8" width. Has initials and #'s, A .O Co. 1807 on the bottom, but not sure what that means. Not sure if this was US or other, please inform me if you know.
Wow, what a beautiful round! I'll have to poke around and see if I can get it identified. Would love to have one like to set next to my Skovill shrapnel shell.
Dr_Rambow, Happy to see your interest and if you can find out anything about this I would be interested, Thank you.
I asked a few people and I think we have an answer.
This appears to be a 6pound/57mm Hotchkiss shell. The date on the round is NOT 1807, since that is long before any rounds of this type were made or designed. If you look closely, I'm fairly certain is says 1897, which fits the shell perfectly.
It has held up amazingly well, I'd love to find one so nice one day. Hope this helped,
-Todd
Dr_Rambow,
I am going to look at the shell closer and see if it says 1897, I will let you know.
I thank you for the follow-up and hope your info is correct, it's nice to have the correct info. when your showing something.
Dr_Rambow,
I have the following info. for you:
The shell is 8-1/2" long and 2-1/8" diameter and weight is 5+ pounds.
I looked closley at the number and I still have to say it looks to be 1807. I understand what you are saying about the timeline, but it does not look like it was ever a 9. Maybe a mismark when it was made?
Perhaps it is. Could you look closely at the "gap" in the "0" and see if it is a lump of oxidation or if it was struck that way? It looks like it was marked with a broken die, right now it's hard to say whether the broken number was a 0 or a 9. The gap is in the right position for it to be a 9, and logic about the design of the shell follows that probability.
I'm fairly certain about what it is, I just don't know why it would be marked with that year.
Your pic. is clear & shows "07". Markings were not always the date & is a common mistake made on identifying old cannons etc.. That could be the date the Co. was founded. Many people mistake the stampings on old muzzle-loading cannons giving the weight of the tube as the date. It can get confusing. You don't know what system of weight they are using when one see's, example: "1723". Is it the weight or the date? Quite often the weight. People see what they want to see & believe what they want to believe.
The picture is clear in showing a "0" with a significant notch out of it. Connect the dots and what do you get? A 9. I can't be the only one who can visualize this, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and fill in the blank. It should be very clear now:
http://i706.photobucket.com/albums/ww61/Dr-Rambow/Shell.gif
We know the weight and what type of shell it is. There are other Hotchkiss rounds that have the same American Ordinance Company (A.O. Co) mark but they have an un-flawed "9" that does not look like a "0". A.O. Co didn't even make shells until 1894, so the 1807 number has no importance at all to the round. It is a illusion caused, most likely, by a broken die used for stamping the date.
blunderbuss2,
Thank you for your info., a "0" is what I see. It's still in great shape for the age and makes a nice paper weight, just don't drop it on your foot, NOT FORGIVING!!
Sorry Ram, but that's not a broken "die" or stamp.
I'll bet! that's about a 10 pdr.
If it isn't oxidation, it has to be a cracked/broken die that made the flaw, be it in a "0" (unlikely) or a 9.
Here is an example of a broken die:
http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/uploaded/zeewool/2010816_retained2.jpg
If the die was broken at the right spot (which wouldn't be impossible given the small size and fine/sharp point at that area of the numeral) you could easily run into this situation.
I agree with Doc:
Projectile is from the American Ordnance Co. and should be 6 lb.
The 1807 is light stamping and represents a DATE of 1897.
This kind of reminds me of the "M1878" Springfield Trapdoor! No such model exists. But due to deep markings on many examples some early collectors identified the "3" as an "8" and a new rarer model was born.
scott
Thank you all,
Any and all information is appreciated.
BELLINS68, scottvez, AR8Jason, petey, vetraio50 & TRIKER
Thank you all for the love and sorry so late, trying to catch-up.