Blakely or Scott?

[CarlS]

John,

I have been reading this post with keen interest.  But I have been traveling and not had time to study it and come to any hard conclusions.  At this point I'm not really ready to change the name as I believe it will take strong evidence to do that.  It may be there and I'll look closely when I have a chance.  But I'm slow to change my habits.  You can ask Jack and Mike: I still call 3-inch Dyers a Burton shell more often than not. 

[scottfromgeorgia]

OK, this is not a flanged Blakely, But it is a rare 3.67 Type II Blakely on one of my shelves. My question is this: does anyone know the gentleman holding the shell?

[CarlS]

Scott,

Yes, he lives locally (Marietta, Ga.) and hung with Jack a good bit. His name is Henry.  I know that shell well and saw it a number of times before he sold it. 

[scottfromgeorgia]

Thanks. I must have bought the shell from Jack Melton at some point, probably at the Richmond show. Henry was probably working the table. 

[pipedreamer65]

Burton/Dyer, Tennessee/Mullane, and now Preston Blakley/Scott.......

[pipedreamer65]

OK, this is not a flanged Blakely, But it is a rare 3.67 Type II Blakely on one of my shelves. My question is this: does anyone know the gentleman holding the shell?

Looks like Henry Higgins to me.  Don't know him personally.

[Pete George]

Scott, the full name for that shell is a Type 2 Confederate Blakely Plate Sabot shell. Several of those sabots have been found with the identifying name "Blakely" stamped or cast into the copper sabot's flat top (which faces the shell's iron base). See remarks at the top of page 95 in the D&G-1993 book and photos of the Type 1 and Type 2 Confederate Blakely Plate sabots on page 96.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Pete,
Who cast the word on the sabot, how was it spelled,  WHY was it required to be cast there and what make cannon used it.  Any references at all???
Regards,
John

[Pete George]

I've grown very weary of being expected to repeatedly re-answer questions which I have already answered in previous discussions in this forum.  So, earlier this year, I've declined to respond to already-answered questions here.  The following post will be the single exception to that rule.

In addition to previous posts in this forum, the answers are also in Jack Bell's book and my book.
1- As I've said previously in this forum: Because the marking is on the plate-sabot's flat top, which is permanently connected entirely flush with the flat base of the shell's iron body, the marking absolutely has to have been put there by the manufacturer -- who is suspected to be the Selma Arsenal complex.
2- As I've said previously in this forum: The spelling is exactly the same as Blakely's name. See photo of a specimen with the name "Blakely" marked into its flat top on page 521 of Jack Bell's book.
3- As I've said previously in this forum: I believe Blakely's name was marked into this sabot-type by its Confedeate manufacturer to give credit to the inventor of its BASIC form (a disc/plate attached to the projectile's base by means of an "angular post").  Jack Bell agrees with me. In his book, regarding the Blakely marking on the sabot Bell says "In a strange note of professional ethics, the name Blakely was stamped into the top of many of these sabots facing the projectile base."
4- As I've said previously in this forum: The perhaps-Selma-made CS Blakely Plate Sabots with the name Blakely marked into their top are 3.67-inch caliber.  As there seems to be no record of Blakely ever having manufactured a 3.67" Rifle, that cannot be the cannon used to fire this projectile, unless the Confederates re-rifled a worn-out 3.5" or 3.6" Blakely Rifle. The sabot shown in Bell's book has 8-groove rifling, which indicates it was fired from either a Rifled 6-pounder Smoothbore or a re-rifled worn-out 3.5" or 3.6" Blakely Rifle. Important note: the lightest of the various forms of 3.67"-caliber Type 2 CS Blakely Plate-Sabot projectiles weighs slightly under 16 pounds -- meaning it was very unlikely to be fired from a Rifled 6-pouner Smoothbore, due to that type of cannon's strength limits. Others have been found with 5-groove rifling, indicating use in a 20-pounder Parrott Rifle.

[CarlS]

Prior dicussions on Blakeley/Blakely/Selma here:

      http://bulletandshell.com/forum/index.php?topic=355.0

And here:

      http://bulletandshell.com/forum/index.php?topic=362.0

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Dear Pete,
      I think most of my foregoing questions were new ones and not a repeat from the previous postings that Carl just posted for all to catch up.
        Thank you for taking the time to answer my boring questions.
1. So these dovetail sabots were not made especially for Blakely cannons.
2.  The word 'Blakely" really had no meaning and were cast at the Selma Arsenal.
3.  The word 'Blakely" could not be read by the gunner as a guide to match shell with any cannon. (can't be seen externally).

      Now for the reasons for my questions:

      When I made my drawing of the Blakely shell design I copied it from Roberts web site and not straight from the patent.
I later found out that his drawing was made from Holley or Gibbons or both.
Your mentioning of the  Blakely design in the above shell caused me to again look at the drawings from Blakely's patent #3087
and I owe you a big apology for not making my drawing direct from the patent.
    Here is what I found
      1. two designs were shown, one did show a dove tail sabot fastening but the dove tail was on the shell body and not the sabot but did pass through the sabot .
      2. The second diesign was a brass or copper cup held on by two threaded bolts which naturally held the sabot from rotating.

       I have read the complete patent and Blakely makes no mention of the dove tail (my wording) or any other discriptions of how either of the sabots were to be attached by any means.

       For members who do not have the patent  below is Blakely's claim:

"Various contrivances have been suggested for causing projectiles to take the rifling in the barrels of ordnance. Now my present Invention consists in fitting
10 a cupped ring of copper or other similar metal round the base of the projectile, as shewn at a in Figure 1 of the accompanying Drawings, in such manner that on its being fired the outer edge of the ring shall be expanded beyond the circumference of the projectile. Or instead of the cupped ring I some-times fix on to the rear end of the projectile a concave disc of copper or other
15 similar metal, as represented at b, Figure 9, the edge of which is expanded on the explosion of the charge beyond the circumference of the projectile."

    I recall I sent you the patent by email but never received your reply. I sincerely hope that we both have learned something from this posting whether the members did or not.
Bet Regards,
Sincerely,
John

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Dear Pete;
 " So, earlier this year, I've declined to respond to already-answered questions here.  The following post will be the single exception to that rule"

    I am sorry I missed your postings on the Copper Studded shells and the Blakely- Scott discussions.   I even envited your comments so you woujldn't feel left out.

All the Best,
John

[Pete George]

The questions weren't boring the first time they were brought up. I've declined to laboriously type out detailed answers a second or third time. Once should be sufficient, because all posts at this website are retained on it permanently, not deleted after a few days or weeks (as at some other websites).

You've said publicly that you have trouble seeing photos (and text) unless they are extra-enlarged. For a similar old-age-related reason, typing a "detailed" answer is quite laborious for me to do. Therefore, I will ignore questions which I've already answered. Also, questions which are essentially a re-wording or re-hash of the previously answered question.

Reply to your newest post's questions/statements directed to me:
> 1. So these dovetail sabots were not made especially for Blakely cannons.

  Some calibers (2.5" and 3.6"-caliber) of the Type 2 CS Blakely Plate-Sabot (which has the "dovetailed" angular post) were made for use in Blakely rifles. Others, such as the 2.9" and 3.67"-caliber sabots, were not.

> 2.  The word 'Blakely" really had no meaning and were cast at the Selma Arsenal.

 No, on two counts. Please go re-read what I wrote. I said SOME of the sabots are "suspected" (by me and others) to have been made at the Selma Arsenal complex. Second point: I've been saying, repeatedly, that the marking on these sabot's flat top DOES have meaning. How on earth do you interpret my posts as saying "The word Blakely really had no meaning." That is an example why I have been decline to answer you.

Sidenote:
  Some of the 3.67"-caliber Type 2 CS Blakely Plate-Sabots are marked with an incorrect spelling of Blakely's name, as "Blakeley" (see photo in a previous discussion, linked by CWArtillery).  Some are spelled correctly,"Blakely" (see photo on page 521 of Jack Bell's book). Some have no marking.

> 3.  The word 'Blakely" could not be read by the gunner as a guide to match shell with any cannon. (can't be seen externally).

  Yes.

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Dear Pete,
   Well I tried to be nice. 
when I said the word "Blakely" had no meaning, I menat to the members of this Forum and all other collectors.
If it was not cast in England and shipped over here, if the gunner coujld not read it to ensure shell to cannon match, If it din't tell the foundry to cast a shell for the Balakely cannon onto "Blakely" sabots then what good was it.
  Oh, and thank you for acknowledging my apology concening me error  in making my initial drawing of the Holley plate and the presence of the sjell base dove tail.

Just, John 

[Pete George]

  In the previous discussion (linked by CWArtillery), you already stated you were in error about that -- so I let it go. You've apparently forgotten doing so, but I haven't forgotten your concession that you wre in error about the dovetailed/angular post in the drawing.  Why are you bringing it up again? Why expect me to say a public thank you for doing again something you already did in the previous discussion?

As I said, my policy now about re-plowing the same ground over and over is to ignore the repetition.