Author Topic: Wapak indian handles (Read 7251 times)

Ed Allspaugh · « **on:** July 10, 2005, 10:06:16 PM »

Looks like two styles of handles. We talked about this before, but I don't remember pics being posted. The Blue book only compares real against repro.

Ed Allspaugh · « **Reply #1 on:** July 10, 2005, 10:07:23 PM »

Will Person · « **Reply #2 on:** July 10, 2005, 10:46:20 PM »

Ed, that is interesting. Time to have those posted on the "interesting and unusual page"

Will P. 8-)

Steve_Stephens · « **Reply #3 on:** July 11, 2005, 12:31:08 AM »

Which handle is the earlier one? Anyone have any ideas? I would choose the one on the right if only because of the larger center reinforcing rib and being more highly detailed. Thanks for posting the photos Ed. I don't think most people are aware of the two different handles. I wonder if both handles were made in all sizes 3-12.

Steve

moosejaw · « **Reply #4 on:** July 11, 2005, 03:55:46 AM »

Thanks, Ed,

I had no idea there were two different handles. I need to check my Indian Head to see which one I have.

Steve,

I'm inclined to agree with you about handle style and age. I don't think a company made "fancier" pieces as the company went along in time. It seems they went for simplicity as their hollow ware evolved.

Roger Barfield · « **Reply #5 on:** July 11, 2005, 11:13:03 PM »

Ed, I had noticed that before as well, and I tend to like the one on the right. I too believe that is the older of the two due to the detail it has. Those are great photos.

Steve_Stephens · « **Reply #6 on:** July 12, 2005, 01:21:06 AM »

Quote

Which handle is the earlier one? I would choose the one on the right if only because of the larger center reinforcing rib and being more highly detailed.

Now, why did I say that? I think I meant that the left one is the earlier. The right one seems more highly developed; less iron in the handle (lighter), stronger reinforcing rib, a bit more pleasing handle from the top view, skillet size number more highly individualized. And I had some of you agreeing with me. I am not changing what I said to be different but I think I made a mistake in my first pick. But who really knows?

Steve

moosejaw · « **Reply #7 on:** July 12, 2005, 01:54:41 AM »

Na, I still think the one on the right is earlier......are you getting fickle on me Steve? I wish you would get that browser fixed.....I miss your being on here. Your absence is noticed!

Steve_Stephens · « **Reply #8 on:** July 12, 2005, 02:26:32 AM »

Marty,
I've been around, sick browser and all. Maybe not as much as if I could read the forum more easily (sometimes I have to click on "reply" to read a post there). Also been busy...as always. Off on a few more camping/backpacking trips this week and then, at the end of the month is the fan club's convention in Ft. Worth. Wish it would coincide with Canton, Tx flea market but it overlaps I think. That used to be a very good market but the last time I was there was in 1986. Is there still anything good left at all of our old outdoor markets? Slim pickings from what I've heard and a LOT more collectors of iron cookware than back then. So, which REALLY is the older Wapak Indian skillet handle? Will the real one please stand up. I know I haven't seen many of the plainer handles compared to the fancier ones. That must mean that the latter are later cuz why would Wapak tool up for a different handle and not make them for long (not many around)?
Bedtime out here on the West coast; I don't know what you are doing up. Nite.
Steve

Greg Stahl · « **Reply #9 on:** July 12, 2005, 03:19:41 AM »

bedtime, heck it is only 4:15 pm here in Tokyo, lol.

Didn't we talk about these handles once before but I believe the handle on the left is a different handle than what we talked about before. I believe the handle had hollowed out underside on the handle that was similar in style differences in the early vs. middle (non-grooved) small TM Griswold skillets.

Also, I believe the handle on the left is the earliest as well.

Got to go and eat some Uni and Taco and drink some beer now. My lecture is over and I have a lot of time to kill until Sunday.

Steve_Stephens · « **Reply #10 on:** July 12, 2005, 11:46:56 AM »

Quote

Also, I believe the handle on the left is the earliest as well.

Greg,
I'm starting to have third thoughts about that. A friend says the left is the later one. Could be--the shorter rib under the handle would allow the skillets to stack better without the pile starting to tilt over. I just don't know but think I would still pick the right one as the later one.

Steve

moosejaw · « **Reply #11 on:** July 12, 2005, 08:28:06 PM »

Steve.....your confusing me. So you now believe the one on the right is older? The #8?

Greg Stahl · « **Reply #12 on:** July 12, 2005, 09:05:28 PM »

heck I'm confusing myself too. I just looked at the pix and the style that I believe would be the oldest is the one that is LESS fancy, so that is the one on the 'right'. I don't believe you would want to decrease the reinforcement size of the handle in a later style handle, as it would be weaker by design.

Harry Riva · « **Reply #13 on:** July 12, 2005, 11:05:33 PM »

When this whole thread started were the skillets not a mirror image of what they are now? That is the non-recessed handle skillet was on the left? And I have never seen the non-recessed "flat bottom" handle before. Something new every day.
Harry

junkswap · « **Reply #14 on:** July 14, 2005, 03:04:09 AM »

dont know ?
all i know is the indian heads are high. for what i would call a decent pan at best. but with a nice logo on it ?

is it just me ? i think the indian head is the only thing really nice about them. i never saw one i thought was super well cast.
i am sure some of you guys have super nice ones. but i have not seen a really slick one.
,,,,,brian/w,,,,,

moosejaw · « **Reply #15 on:** July 14, 2005, 03:27:54 AM »

Well, I was trying to have a little fun with Steve, but he never came back. I asked Ed if I could reverse the photos. Mia Culpa. ;D

junkswap · « **Reply #16 on:** July 14, 2005, 03:41:05 AM »

mrs marty
tricky! but a good one,,lol,, being its steve. VERY GOOD,,lol,,
,,,,,brian/w,,,,,

Steve_Stephens · « **Reply #17 on:** July 15, 2005, 12:53:01 AM »

Quote

Well, I was trying to have a little fun with Steve, but he never came back. I asked Ed if I could reverse the photos.

What? You REVERSED the photos on me? Say you didn't! Mess me up like that; why I never even noticed but I think I was getting confused by whatever was going on. Think I'll stick to the early skillets and let the Indians do their thing.
Steve

Greg Stahl · « **Reply #18 on:** July 15, 2005, 01:02:19 AM »

I thought something looked funny as the number 7 is not correct in the pix now.

moosejaw · « **Reply #19 on:** July 16, 2005, 06:53:11 AM »

Oh, how observant your are, Boss! I suppose I should go back and reverse them, lest any visitors get confused like Steve. :D

News:

Author Topic: Wapak indian handles (Read 7251 times)

Steve_Stephens

moosejaw

Steve_Stephens

moosejaw

Steve_Stephens

Steve_Stephens

moosejaw

junkswap

moosejaw

junkswap

Steve_Stephens

moosejaw