Featured Small cannon I view with suspicion

IMO the blacked-in marks on this small cannon are not antique. The cannon and marks both have serious issues as far as I’m concerned. I have written down the details but they get into narrow areas that I’m not sure would be of interest to anyone but firearms specialists so I’ll spare you those for now anyway.

https://www.skinnerinc.com/auctions/3034M/lots/1

 

oh dear! it's a fake? Just what the antiques industry needs, more mis-information & fakes

 

They don't give you a whole lot of images to pick apart either........

 

Well I guess I should share. You can see that most of what I used comes from the markings.

——

I first saw this piece or one identical to it at a Civil War show in the Kenya Shrine Temple in Fairfax, VA in the 1980’s. The only marking I recall is “1862.” I don’t recall a wood pedestal. I didn’t like the piece then because it was overpriced for what I thought it was, either an inventor’s model or some machine part altered slightly to resemble a cannon. The seller wanted $2500. for the “Civil War” artifact. I didn’t think the “1862” mark was authentic. Since then, if this is the same piece, the rest of the markings have appeared. One person on the forum I pm’d about this did think the marks looked newer than the piece. I think they were inked or painted to conceal their newness. Fortunately for collectors, whoever had the blackened markings engraved didn’t use authentic marking syntax for either the US Navy or C. Alger, Boston. Nor did they add any Navy proof/inspection marks. Also there’s no percussion lock, a standard feature for all US Navy ordnance of that period. How many pieces of bronze ordnance did Alger make during the Civil War? I’m not sure there were any but I haven’t researched it to be sure. How many muzzle loading bronze “signal cannons” did the US Navy acquire during the entire history of that Service? I think the answer may be zero but again I’m guessing; I’ve been through everything the National Archives has on US Navy ordnance and haven’t seen any such records, except for a pair of small mortars called “sounding mortars” used on some coastal survey expeditions ca. 1850. We’d call them thunder mugs. Does anyone really think the US Navy would be buying small signal cannons in 1862, given the grave war crisis the US was in at that time? But if someone gave me that item, I’d certainly accept it. I really like the wood pedestal which I’d use to mount whatever model cannon looked best on it. I’d analyze the metal “signal gun” and if it turned out to be a modified machine part as I suspect, I’d sell it for scrap.

 

I must be learning something. I also noticed no Navy inspection marks.

 

The question i have is, where is Skinner located in all this? I know they have people on staff to look at many different objects but may be not military items?
It does seem odd that the US Navy was messing around with signal cannons in 1862 when they were at that point on the losing end of a great struggle. But i might be wrong about that.

 

I doubt if any auction house staff people lose any sleep over matters like this. If you read the disclaimers in their catalogs, I’d guess their lawyers have inserted verbiage to the effect that they aren’t responsible for such errors. The worst thing that will happen is the buyer finds out soon after the sale that the item has recent marks “intended to deceive” and the auction house then decides to “do the right thing” and give a refund, or invoke their disclaimers and do nothing, knowing that the probability of being sued successfully is low. But I’m guessing to some extent, not much experience with fake auction items.

 

Skinner has a pretty good rep, i think they would refund the money if object description is false. Condition or other issues, no, probably not.

 

I like Skinner. Our company bought dozens of cannons there in a few different auctions. Some were quite unusual and the prices were right. My favorites may be a pair of French Naval guns, cast iron, which had many Layers of old paint. Told my impaired helper to strip the ugly old paint from a mortar we also got at that time. He of course got confused and went after the two Frenchies with a huge power wire brush. I went back to check on the mortar which was still in storage, but the air in the building was filled with dust. I saw he’d done what I didn’t want done and started composing my scolding, but forgot that as soon as I saw large broad-arrow marks and “English”weight markings on both guns, only exposed by his huge wire brush. So those guns had been captured by the Brits, inspected, weighed, and proof-fired, then ready to punish Nappy I guess. I wrote an article about that, think I put it here or linked it anyway.

 

I see there are a number of other “Civil War” items from the same collection in that auction. The collectors name matches that of a convicted felon who died in CT in 2011; no idea if same person or not. But I wonder about the inscriptions like the one on this flask:

https://www.skinnerinc.com/auctions/3034M/lots/149

The inscription looks a little too swirley, only word I can think of. Why would all the unit info be included since the usual situation would be just a name if anything? I’d bet $1000.00 this inscription is fake and was done in late 20th C.

 

Some unfortunate soul just bought the suspicious little cannon for $9k with a floor bid, and with fees it will be somewhere north of $10k. In these situations, if buyer turns out to be one with way more money than brains, who cares, no one is really hurt. But I’m always worried about the collector of average means who takes out a 2nd mortgage to buy what seems to him like an important piece of history. That makes me sad.

I guess the House is protected by the last sentence in this para., stuck on each items’ page:

The absence of a condition statement does not imply that the lot is in perfect condition or completely free from wear and tear, imperfections or the effects of aging. Condition requests can be obtained via email (lot inquiry button) or by telephone to the appropriate gallery location (Boston/617.350.5400 or Marlborough/508.970.3000). Any condition statement given, as a courtesy to a client, is only an opinion and should not be treated as a statement of fact. Skinner Inc. shall have no responsibility for any error or omission.