On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 06:49:51 -0500, Kenneth
> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:04:38 -0500, "Jessica V."
> wrote:
>
>>The fakes that are around are anything but good.
>
>Hello again,
>
>That is precisely my point...
>
>Those "fakes" are the bad ones, and you know about them.
>
>The most prized pan in your collection may be a "good" fake.
>If it were, you would not know it.
>
>Also, please understand that I am not trying to convey
>anything about you, or your knowledge of pans (or anything
>else <g>). Instead, I am making a comment about what it
>means to "fake" something (successfully).
>
>All the best,


I took another poster's tip and looked at a web site concerned with
Wagner and Griswold collectible pans. Some of those prices are beyond
cookware, and might be well worth faking.

I have CI of both brands, as well as anon. All bought for cooking only
and without any concern for brand names, and priced as cookware ($16
is the highest price I have paid for CI).

So, the weight comparisons I posted earlier may not be valid, if
either is a fake. If either is a fake, it is a good one, not like the
ones in pictures on that web site.

They didn't show a Griswold #5, real or fake. Perhaps too commonplace
to be worth faking?

I don't think anyone would bid on a Stanley #1 for woodworking, or a
'Cesar Chelor in Wrentham' either. Such things are retirement
investments, as are $1500 skillets.


Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a


Ask not with whom the buck stops . . .