New picture of two uncommon shells

[emike123]

Some 3in eye candy...a Houston Read from Buffalo Bayou and a Blakeley...tight shells

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

mike,
Where is the Blakely?
John

[Pete George]

  The shell in Mike's photo which has a green sabot is a CS Blakely Plate Type 2 Sabot shell.  Its identification as s Blakely design is solidly based on two reasons:
1- Blakely had a British Patent for an artillery projectile whose sabot is held in place by an "angular post."  This projectile's sabot is a Confederate adaptation of that design.  It is held on the shell's iron base by an integrally-cast angular post on the sabot's top (buried within the shell's iron base.
2- Some specimens of the Type 2 sabot are stamped on the sabot's INSIDE surface with the name "Blakely."  See the photos in the 1993 Edition of my book on page 96, and page 521 of Jack Bell's book on Heavy Artillery projectiles.

Regards,
Pete

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Pete,
Most interesting about this "CS Blakely" may I ask your reference for this identification?
John

[alwion]

Looking at these, the first thing that catch's my eye is the groove for the grease rope?. on the lower shell, it appears to be cast almost completely in the iron rather than using the sabot as one side of the groove. Is that specific to this shell, or do other parrots or reads have this feature also?  Nice shells, Thanks for sharing

[Pete George]

John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> Most interesting about this "CS Blakely" may I ask your reference for this identification?

  I already stated the two references.  They are:
1- Blakely's 1863 British Patent (#3087), which specifically says the "disc" sabot is held in place by an "angular post."
2- As you know, some Brooke sabots are stamped with Brooke's name.  Some specimens of the CS Blakely Plate Type 2 sabot (which is held in the projectile's iron body by an angular post) have the name "Blakely" stamped into them by the manufacturer.  I cordially invite persons who disagree with that wartime stamping identification of the sabot to explain why it is an incorrect identification.

Regards,
Pete

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Hello Pete,
   Pardon me but I didn't say it was an incorrect I.D., I just would like to read the patent.  Can you please4 email me a copy.  Thank you.
John

[Pete George]

John D. Bartleson Jr. wrote:
> Pardon me but I didn't say it was an incorrect I.D.

  I know you didn't say it is an incorrect ID.  Other people besides you and me are reading this discussion, and I know that at least one other member of this forum disagrees with my ID of that shell's sabot as being a CS Blakely Plate.  So, my post included a public invitation to any disbelievers for discussion of their interpretation of the name "Blakely" being stamped into the sabot by its civil war era manufacturer.

  Please note, as I said in my prior post, the name "Blakely" is stamped on the INSIDE surface of the sabot.  After the shell's iron body is cast around the sabot, the stamped name is entirely covered by the iron body.  Therefore, the stamping cannot have been added to the sabot after the shell was manufactured.

> I just would like to read the patent.

  I read Blakely's 1863-#3087 British Patent back in 1993 when I was writing the Revised-&-Supplemented edition of the Dickey-&-George book ...but now, 19 years later, I no longer have a copy of that British Patent.  Jack Melton might, because he includes it in his list of British Patents at his civilwarartillery.com website.  You posted that he provided information to you about a month ago, so perhaps he will respond positively to an enquiry from you.

Regards,
Pete

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Pete,
   I always thought that the Blakely Type II sabot had three raised ribs running at an angle for most of the length of the shell.
So this is not a regular C.S. Read with a distorted sabot?
I learn something everday!
Best Regards,
John
P.s. You mention the shell body was cast around the sabot.  Don't you mean the other way around? The sabot was cast upon the shell body. I don't understand how the word 'Blakely' could be stamped onto the sabot.  Even so, why would a rebel manufacture copy the British patent even to the point of putting Blakely on it??
Best Regards,
John

[CarlS]

I can vouch for the stamping.  I've seen a few of the brass sabots with "Blakely" stamped next to the angled post in the center of the top of the shell.  For those who might not know. the sabot is not a ring sabot but is in fact a cup with a protruding post on the top.  This is cast first and then the shell is cast around it.  Since the post is rectangular with flat sides there is no way the sabot can rotate without the shell body rotating or the sabot breaking off.   There is also a very similar sabot that is a flat disk, much like a Tennessee Sabot (often referred to as a Mullane), that has a cloverlead shaped post on it and it functions in much the same way.

I know Mike has a great example of the rectangular posted Blakely.  Maybe he'll have time to post a picture soon.

[emike123]

Trying to keep up with all the photo requests.  Et tu, Brute?

Here's a bottom shot:

[emike123]

...and here's a picture of two sabots from 3.67" Blakely shells, a square posted one and a rectangular posted one.  The rectangular posted one is from a groundburst with some of the iron shown and its segmented interior




no mas!

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Thanks Mike,
Carl, when you mention a cloverleaf sabot attachment are you sure you were not looking at the below shell?
John

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Mike,,
Great images as usual from you.  If you cast a shell body around a brass sabot would the sabot not start to melt?
They still look like an offshoot of the Selma sabot. I wish someone had the Blakely patent.  That being said I will back off as I can't prove it.
Thank you for the posts.
Best Regards,
John

[CarlS]

John:  That's it!  I've got a nice one that I'll get a picture of and post when I get a chance.