![]() |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
Thanks for the hint.
In measuring its mouth exterior i have an approximate 35 m/m which, in anglo terms, gives a 1 3/8 ". I don't think this measure would be an obstacle. But i am not desperate for a flask top, so to say. If i were to acquire one, it would have to be an old thing; a shining one wouldn't fit. I don't want this flask to be operational (i am not a shooter) but aestethically complete. I am more focused in finding its provenance ... and age; among a zillion flasks i see out there, i see none with such a thick metal; all are made of thin copper with all the embossing revealing from the inside ... i bet. If anyone here has a 'standard' copper powder flask may compare the weight. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 363
|
Most mid 19th century embossed flasks were in fact made of brass that was copper plated. It held up better to hard use.
I have a copy of Riling's flask book somewhere. If I can locate it I'll check for it. As far as patina. You have a pretty good chance locating a damaged or crushed one that you can salvage the top from. That's where I would start. Also, I would recommend if you get an opportunity to pick and choose, go for one that's complete. Why not put it right in working order? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
All points noted. Much obliged.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|