ok, I don't know everything, but chrome small TM?

[Greg Stahl]

I never knew these existed.  Roy do you have GRISWOLD small TM chromed pieces?

[Tom Neitzel]

Boy, if you didn't know about this and asked, I wouldn't have known enough to ask about mine.  I have a chrome #3 with the same logo, Erie, PA, pattern 709B.

Tom

[Greg Stahl]

I guess I just never look at Chrome items.  Are the small TM skillets in chrome common?

[Steve_Stephens]

Quite uncommon I'd say.  I had that deplated No.3 pan I discussed a little while ago.  I think the small TM chrome skillets are not plated on the inside.  Is that true?  Anyone know for sure

Steve

[Roy G. Meadows]

Griswold made chrome plated skillets with the Small TM in all three handle variations, i.e.,early handle, late handle, and late grooved handle. I have plated skillets of each handle style, but not of every size, in my collection. Plated skillets with the Small TM with the late handle style are hard to come by. Does anyone have some for sale- I'm interested. It appears to me the Small TM skillets were completely plated. Several of my skillets are plated inside and out.
                                                           Roy Meadows

[Tom Neitzel]

I know nothing about the skillets so this is all interesting to me.  The #3 I have looks to be plated on the inside.  I've not cleaned it up because the seasoning inside is so smooth and nice it looks like a teflon coating.  There are a couple small scratches it the seasoning that you can see chrome through.  The handle looks like the one in Greg's picture above so I assume it is the early handle.  I've mainly kept it around because it looks nice and is great for holding screws and small parts when I work on my computer.  If it's one you want I can sure part with it.

Tom

[Steve_Stephens]

Griswold made chrome plated skillets with the Small TM in all three handle variations, i.e.,early handle, late handle, and late grooved handle.

Roy, I am very surprised at that.  Never too old to learn the whole story.
Thanks,
Steve

[Clark Rader]

I have 2 #8 Iron Mountian sk. thay are chrome plated, one is used a lot more than the outher and it looks like well maybe it was not chrome plated on the inside. IMO it was. Skillet #2 was has chrome on the inside and was used very very little if at all. IMO all skillets that were plated, were inside and out 99% of the time. What do you think? Steve? Roy? and outhers?  :-[

Has anybody got a unused chromed skillet that was not chromed on the inside?
clark

[Tom Neitzel]

It would be interesting to know the process used if indeed they were produced without plating inside.  I think chrome plating is an electroplating process so the pan would be in a solution with electric current used to do the plating.  Just like our electro cleaning process.  It would be near impossible to fiddle around and just immerse the outside and handle in a solution leaving the inside dry unless an insulating coating (grease?) would be put inside.

I would bet the whole piece would have to be plated then the inside ground to remove the plating if that was the desired finish.  Seems like more trouble than it would be worth.

Tom

[Steve_Stephens]

I think you could set it up so the inside isn't plated by masking the inside with a coat of wax or something similiar.   I'm not sure about skillets all being plated on the inside and I don't remember why I was thinking that any small TM pans were left black iron on the inside.  It would only be if I saw a Griswold ad or catalog stating such.  Will have to check that out.  I have long thought that the nickel plated pieces were NOT plated on the inside but Roy thinks they were originally and has either a NOS or excellent original "Silverlike" skillet with plating on the inside.  I would like to see an unused block HR or older skillet that is nickle plated.  

Steve

[Roy G. Meadows]

I'm going to try to address some of the questions/comments in this thread with my understanding of plating. It is possible (i.e., the technology exists) to only plate a portion of a piece of cast iron. Therefore, Griswold could have plated only the outside of their skillets if they went to enough trouble. The following are the ways that I understand a piece can be partially plated:

1.) Only partially submerge the piece in the electrolyte.
2.) Maintain a gas pocket that does not allow the electrolyte to wet the surface during the plating process. (Could possibily turn a skillet upside down in the plating bath and maintain this pocket during plating. I perceive this to be a tricky operation, since some of the gas pocket will likely go into solution during the process. Therefore some of the gas would have to be replenished.)
3.) Coat the surface that is not to be plated with an insulating polymer. We have these materials today, but I'm not aware of any available in  the late 1800's. The electrolyte solution used in plating is a reasonably harsh environment, so most coatings will not stand up.

I have in my collection ERIE skillets that have plating on the inside. However, the plating appears removed on most skillets that have been used significantly since cooking acidic foods (like tomato based recipes) will remove the plating from the surface. The plating still most likely remains in the pores.

In summary, it is my belief that Griswold plated their skillets completely inside and out. This gave them the appearance and cooking surface objective to justify the 100 percent increase in price the customer paid for plated items. This is only my opinion and time may prove me wrong. A surface analysis in a metallurgical lab would answer this question.
                                                            Roy Meadows

[Steve_Stephens]

The plating still most likely remains in the pores.

Does cast iron have pores?  I've heard both ways (yes and no) but have never been able to find out the answer.  Does anyone here know and can show me some proof?

Steve

[Roy G. Meadows]

Steve,
Cast iron has pores without a doubt. Microscopically it looks like a sponge. There are small voids between the grains of cast iron. This gives the seasoning something to grab onto. As I understand, it doesn't "skim over" even when poured against a smooth mold. Pores open up as it cools?? Higher quality iron has smaller grains and therefore smaller pores. For more insight you might try a metallurgy text at the library. It will have pictures of all sorts of metal surfaces showing grain boundaries, grain orientation, impurities, carbon, etc. I no longer have any of my old text books; I wish I did.
                                                          Roy Meadows

[maloney108]

Steve & Roy,

I'm not absolutely sure about this 'porosity' issue, but I think it's more folklore than science (no offense intended, Roy - I'm willing to be convinced otherwise).  I've done a lot of Googling about this and find a lot of people claiming that seasoning works because it fills the pores in cast iron, but they're always anecdotal statements rather than actually showing proof of porosity.  When I look at mettallurgy sites though, there's usually no mention of pores.  I did find one site from the University of Cambridge that claims that the microscopic graphite particles that characterise cast iron control contraction on cooling "thus giving good castings free from porosity".  Here's the link:

http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2001/adi/cast.iron.html

It has some good pictures - note that the roughness in some of the pictures is caused by the acid etchant and isn't the natural surface.

As I said, Roy, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise (feel free to do so!) and one statement from the U of Cambridge is not proof either.  I'm going to keep looking.

[maloney108]

I'm still looking and it's not a cut-and-dried case.  If you want to see for yourselves, Google the phrase "Porosity in cast iron".  I looked throught he first four pages and, as expected,found wiki-like anecdotal statements but also some very interesting engineering and scientific pages too.  Most of them speak of porosity as a defect in rather than a property of cast iron.  Some speak of true porosity, but I think they are special cases with special cast iron recipes.  For now, my take is that cast iron is not normally porous.

[Steve_Stephens]

Thanks Jim for your post.  That is the kind of thinking I am on and I asked a friend last night about it.  He's a chemistry and science teacher and said that any pores in cast iron are filled with silicon and/or carbon meaning that there are no pores.  Hopefully he'll get his body over here and post his knowledge as another point of view.  I'm with you that the pore thing may be just an old wives tale with people restating about pores over and over without really knowing what they are talking about.  I haven't looked at your link yet Jim but will do so this eve.

Steve

[Roy G. Meadows]

Jim,
Thanks for the additional input; I'm really pleased that others like yourself are also trying to understand some of the metallurgical fundamentals of cast iron. I just wish that I had access to some of the knowledgable people that I worked with in industry before I retired.
In discussing pores/porosity I believe we are using this term somewhat loosely. I don't think a metallurgist would typically use pore to refer to the "spaces" or voids between the grains of metal. We are just trying to convey a visual picture. Certainly the cast iron is not a single crystal; a single crystal would not have the voids (or pores) between the grains to which we are referring.
                                                    Roy Meadows

[Roy G. Meadows]

Futher to the three methods listed in Reply #10 of this thread, there is another method for achieving a partial plating of a skillet. After plating, the surface could be machined or ground to remove the plating in areas where it is not desired. In particular this method could apply to a skillet where the plating is not desired, for example, on the inside cooking surface.
 
I recently acquired a Griswold Small TM with late handle chrome plated #3 skillet that does not appear to have plating on the inside. Steve Stephens has suggested these exist. This is a rather new skillet in excellent condition. On close examination with a magnifying glass it appears the inside surface was ground after it was plated- perhaps to remove any plating on the inside cooking surface. It has circular grind marks that go right up to the lip. There is a very sharp line where the plating stops at the edge of the top lip. The top of the lip is plated. After examining this skillet, I agree with Steve that Griswold made some Small TM plated skillets that did not have plating on the inside cooking surface. I believe that I have one; all the other plated Small TM skillets that I have appear to have been completely plated inside and out.
                                                                Roy Meadows