Copper tool

[Mintberrycrunch]

Found on a river near known Indian mounds I was hoping copper culture probably wishful thinking any thoughts. Update after sending out a few emails to people dealing in bronze artifacts I may have a lead I'll post the email

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Mintberrycrunch]

Had a thought if I bring this into the we buy gold store have him put it in the little machine find out what Its made of. That might help in getting it identified what do you think? should work right?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[SkaBa]

Had a thought if I bring this into the we buy gold store have him put it in the little machine find out what Its made of. That might help in getting it identified what do you think? should work right?

Worth a try.

 

[mcl]

Still not buying my theory that it's blacksmith art I see. Too bad since the objects in the pictures I posted basically looked exactly like your "ancient aliens wand".

 

[Mintberrycrunch]

Still not buying my theory that it's blacksmith art I see. Too bad since the objects in the pictures I posted basically looked exactly like your "ancient aliens wand".

It might be blacksmith art but alien wand is just more fun. I'll try and find out what it's made of tomorrow the penn museum said it could be historic Europe/colonial US seems like a lot of time and resources just for an art piece IMO but blacksmith art is the most logical

 

[Mintberrycrunch]

Here's what it's made of copper zinc lead tin and iron

 

[releventchair]

Hmm, what casting recipe uses that blend? Or used it or similar. Spoons? Utensils? Bells? Tools or mugs?Not plain iron and brittle . Must have had a use based formula , with the possibility the item was a project by a worker ,a one off ,or proto type.

 

[Mintberrycrunch]

Hmm, what casting recipe uses that blend? Or used it or similar. Spoons? Utensils? Bells? Tools or mugs?Not plain iron and brittle . Must have had a use based formula , with the possibility the item was a project by a worker ,a one off ,or proto type.

I was hoping that finding out the composition would narrow down the time frame. But from what I've been reading copper zinc based alloys date back from sometime B.C and with the lead, tin and iron in the mix doesn't seem like anything modern. Aside from art, prototype or beginner item idk I'm hoping someone with more knowledge in metal working chimes in

 

[Mintberrycrunch]

I sent Janet the break down here's what she said

 

[Mintberrycrunch]

Except it's brass and not a bottle opener

I just want to point out it was made with tin therefore it's a bronze or I'll except copper alloy. Def not brass look into it a lot of times the zinc was added unintentionally look into it tons of info online more than I can sort through

 

[Hitndahed]

Looks like a type of key of some sorts..

===========================================================
Beat me to it,,,
I am also thinking some type of early "key"

 

[Mintberrycrunch]

It's make up sound a lot like orichalcum

 

[Mintberrycrunch]

I'm still waiting to hear back from Janet so two days ago I sent the composition to the penn museum. Heres what they said

 

[mcl]

Short version: your piece is leaded brass of some sort, quite probably leaded red brass, specifically. This is a strong indicator of being post industrial revolution.

Long version:

Copper alloys have cataloged industry standards. Each alloy in the catalog has its own ID number and a list of properties and specifications. One can compare the XRF results you got to the alloy tables to try and find a match. When doing that, it's important to keep in mind that machine used for the analysis doesn't take perfect measurements -- even the manufacturers of the device acknowledge some level of variability. The main reason I point that out is because one shouldn't get too hung up on the exact numbers reported by the machine. I can explain the details regarding about how inaccurate it is, if you want, but for now I'll leave it at that.

Now, when I looked at the tables, it appears your piece is a close match to one alloy from the tin-brass category, and very close to quite a number of alloys that are in the leaded red brass and leaded semi-red brass categories.

Here are the values for your piece:

Copper: 84.5%
Zinc: 10.9% (but had a range as low as 6.30% by the device's standards)
Lead: 2.1%
Tin: 1.7%
Iron: 0.8%

Here are the reported ranges for one of the several close matches from the leaded red brass category (C83450):

Copper: 87 - 89%
Zinc: 5.5 - 7.5%
Lead: 1.5 - 3.0%
Tin: 2.0 - 3.5%
Iron: 0.0 - 0.3%
Nickel: 0.8% - 2.0%

And one more from that category (C83300):

Copper: 92 - 94%
Zinc: 2 - 6%
Lead: 1 - 2%
Tin: 1 - 2%
Iron: 0%

Here are the reported ranges for the one close match from the tin-brass category (C47600):

Copper: 86 - 88%
Zinc: Remainder
Lead: 1.8 - 2.2%
Tin: 1.8 - 2.2%
Iron: 0.0 - 0.05%
Phosphorus: 0.03 - 0.07%
Manganese: 0.05 - 0.15%

All things considered, I feel like those are all pretty close to what you have. The fact that the machine didn't report some of the other elements listed above isn't at all surprising, since the ones missing from your piece are such a small part of the alloy (like 0.03% phosphate or 0.8% nickel). I'm not sure that the machine would be able to pinpoint concentrations that small reliably, but either way.. the machine has three test settings: 10, 20 and 30 seconds. The tests get more accurate as you go up. For the best accuracy, you're supposed to do the 30 second test at least 3 times and take the average of the scores. Not sure whether you went through all that for this test, but then again, even if you did, the machine still can't be 100% accurate (see the brochure for examples of measurement variability).

Now, the bad news is, that's really not going to help at all in identifying the piece, because it's not like shopping catalogs over the years have bragged about the specific copper alloy they used in their ornamental products.

The good news is, the presence of lead in way, way higher than trace amounts strongly suggests that this piece is post industrial revolution. That is because lead is added to brass specifically to improve the machinability of the material. The fact that the alloy is up to 3% lead according the picture you posted tells me that the addition of lead in the alloy was intentional, not coincidental.

So, at least there's that.

-mcl

 

[Mintberrycrunch]

Short version: your piece is leaded brass of some sort, quite probably leaded red brass, specifically. This is a strong indicator of being post industrial revolution.

Long version:

Copper alloys have cataloged industry standards. Each alloy in the catalog has its own ID number and a list of properties and specifications. One can compare the XRF results you got to the alloy tables to try and find a match. When doing that, it's important to keep in mind that machine used for the analysis doesn't take perfect measurements -- even the manufacturers of the device acknowledge some level of variability. The main reason I point that out is because one shouldn't get too hung up on the exact numbers reported by the machine. I can explain the details regarding about how inaccurate it is, if you want, but for now I'll leave it at that.

Now, when I looked at the tables, it appears your piece is a close match to one alloy from the tin-brass category, and very close to quite a number of alloys that are in the leaded red brass and leaded semi-red brass categories.

Here are the values for your piece:

Copper: 84.5%
Zinc: 10.9% (but had a range as low as 6.30% by the device's standards)
Lead: 2.1%
Tin: 1.7%
Iron: 0.8%

Here are the reported ranges for one of the several close matches from the leaded red brass category (C83450):

Copper: 87 - 89%
Zinc: 5.5 - 7.5%
Lead: 1.5 - 3.0%
Tin: 2.0 - 3.5%
Iron: 0.0 - 0.3%
Nickel: 0.8% - 2.0%

And one more from that category (C83300):

Copper: 92 - 94%
Zinc: 2 - 6%
Lead: 1 - 2%
Tin: 1 - 2%
Iron: 0%

Here are the reported ranges for the one close match from the tin-brass category (C47600):

Copper: 86 - 88%
Zinc: Remainder
Lead: 1.8 - 2.2%
Tin: 1.8 - 2.2%
Iron: 0.0 - 0.05%
Phosphorus: 0.03 - 0.07%
Manganese: 0.05 - 0.15%

All things considered, I feel like those are all pretty close to what you have. The fact that the machine didn't report some of the other elements listed above isn't at all surprising, since the ones missing from your piece are such a small part of the alloy (like 0.03% phosphate or 0.8% nickel). I'm not sure that the machine would be able to pinpoint concentrations that small reliably, but either way.. the machine has three test settings: 10, 20 and 30 seconds. The tests get more accurate as you go up. For the best accuracy, you're supposed to do the 30 second test at least 3 times and take the average of the scores. Not sure whether you went through all that for this test, but then again, even if you did, the machine still can't be 100% accurate (see the brochure for examples of measurement variability).

Now, the bad news is, that's really not going to help at all in identifying the piece, because it's not like shopping catalogs over the years have bragged about the specific copper alloy they used in their ornamental products.

The good news is, the presence of lead in way, way higher than trace amounts strongly suggests that this piece is post industrial revolution. That is because lead is added to brass specifically to improve the machinability of the material. The fact that the alloy is up to 3% lead according the picture you posted tells me that the addition of lead in the alloy was intentional, not coincidental.

So, at least there's that.

-mcl

from the one test it was 1.3% -2.5% lead. And you think it was machine made?

 

[mcl]

from the one test it was 1.3% -2.5% lead. And you think it was machine made?

Typo from referring back to the wrong list in my post. But honestly, 2.5% vs 3.0% doesn't change the interpretation. Again, that amount is consistent with the amount that is routinely added to certain leaded brass alloys intentionally. We aren't talking about trace amounts that couldn't be removed from the other constituents during the production of the material. Also, as far as I understand it, lead doesn't really even become a true part of the "alloy" because it isn't soluble in copper; instead, it becomes a part of the material's structure by filling in porous imperfections. Here's some more information:

Lead is commonly added to many cast copper alloys. Because of the low solubility of lead in copper, true alloying does not occur to any measurable degree. During the solidification of castings, some constituents in a given alloy form crystals at higher temperatures relative to others, resulting in tree-like structures called dendrites. The small spaces between the dendrites can interconnect to form micropores. This micro*porosity is a consequence of the solidification process. The role of lead is to seal these intradendritic pores. This results in a pressure-tight casting, which is important for fluid handling applications.

Lead also allows the machining of castings to be performed at higher speeds without the aid of coolants because it acts as a lubricant for cutting tool edges and promotes the formation of small, discontinuous chips that can be cleared easily. This results in improved machined surface finishes. Lead also plays a role in providing lubricity during service, as in cast copper bearings and bushings. Lead does not have an adverse effect on strength unless present in high concentrations, but it does reduce ductility. Although lead-containing copper alloys can be soldered and brazed, they cannot be welded.

Now, as far as whether I think it is "machine made", I'm assuming you mean created by some sort of automatic process in which a machine does the job from start to finish. And the answer to that is, I don't know, but I'd say probably not. To be clear, the only thing I am saying we can be reasonably sure of is that the material used to create the piece was deliberately formulated for it's unique properties.

Anything beyond that point is speculation; we don't know who made it or how, and we don't know if they chose that material for convenience or because they wanted to leverage its properties. All that it implies is that, whoever made the piece PROBABLY made it sometime between last tuesday and the point in history where industrial technology became modernized.

Even if we assume that the material was chosen by whoever made it because they found its properties desirable, that doesn't mean it had to have been made by a machine in a factory. Someone could have easily cast the piece by hand then machined it to remove imperfections like burs, scratches, etc. Machining doesn't mean created by a machine, per se. A human may guide that process. I'm not even saying necessarily that they would have even had to have machined it with a power tool -- it's not like you can't perform machining with manually operated equipment.

But remember, there's no reason the person had to have picked the material for any other reason than the fact that it was available. You can literally go on ebay right now and buy scrap leaded brass and use it for whatever pet projects you might desire. Someone could have easily just used it because it was cheap, and had no idea that the specific alloy had certain qualities.

None of that however changes the intentions of the person who made the MATERIAL, though -- whoever made that almost certainly added lead on purpose. If would be quite the coincidence for there to be lead in the alloy by accident, but an even bigger coincidence that the amount of lead that showed up by accident also happens to be the amount that is an industry standard for creating leaded brass.

I'm not saying that it is 100% impossible that Chief Wamapoke created it thousands of years ago at the foundry in his wigwam. I'm saying, so far, what I'm seeing says otherwise. I'm not trying to beat you up here or give you a hard time. I hope it's a talisman worth millions of dollars. I really do. I'm just skeptical of that because the evidence is pointing in another direction. I'll stop bugging you.

Peace.

-mcl

 

[Mintberrycrunch]

Typo from referring back to the wrong list in my post. But honestly, 2.5% vs 3.0% doesn't change the interpretation. Again, that amount is consistent with the amount that is routinely added to certain leaded brass alloys intentionally. We aren't talking about trace amounts that couldn't be removed from the other constituents during the production of the material. Also, as far as I understand it, lead doesn't really even become a true part of the "alloy" because it isn't soluble in copper; instead, it becomes a part of the material's structure by filling in porous imperfections. Here's some more information:



Now, as far as whether I think it is "machine made", I'm assuming you mean created by some sort of automatic process in which a machine does the job from start to finish. And the answer to that is, I don't know, but I'd say probably not. To be clear, the only thing I am saying we can be reasonably sure of is that the material used to create the piece was deliberately formulated for it's unique properties.

Anything beyond that point is speculation; we don't know who made it or how, and we don't know if they chose that material for convenience or because they wanted to leverage its properties. All that it implies is that, whoever made the piece PROBABLY made it sometime between last tuesday and the point in history where industrial technology became modernized.

Even if we assume that the material was chosen by whoever made it because they found its properties desirable, that doesn't mean it had to have been made by a machine in a factory. Someone could have easily cast the piece by hand then machined it to remove imperfections like burs, scratches, etc. Machining doesn't mean created by a machine, per se. A human may guide that process. I'm not even saying necessarily that they would have even had to have machined it with a power tool -- it's not like you can't perform machining with manually operated equipment.

But remember, there's no reason the person had to have picked the material for any other reason than the fact that it was available. You can literally go on ebay right now and buy scrap leaded brass and use it for whatever pet projects you might desire. Someone could have easily just used it because it was cheap, and had no idea that the specific alloy had certain qualities.

None of that however changes the intentions of the person who made the MATERIAL, though -- whoever made that almost certainly added lead on purpose. If would be quite the coincidence for there to be lead in the alloy by accident, but an even bigger coincidence that the amount of lead that showed up by accident also happens to be the amount that is an industry standard for creating leaded brass.

I'm not saying that it is 100% impossible that Chief Wamapoke created it thousands of years ago at the foundry in his wigwam. I'm saying, so far, what I'm seeing says otherwise. I'm not trying to beat you up here or give you a hard time. I hope it's a talisman worth millions of dollars. I really do. I'm just skeptical of that because the evidence is pointing in another direction. I'll stop bugging you.

Peace.

-mcl

You're not bugging me I appreciate any input. And you're right like releventchair said it must be a use based formula while I'm waiting on Janet to hit me back I'll go back and get it tested the 3 times so we can get an average

 

[DCMatt]

mcl said "PROBABLY made it sometime between last tuesday and the point in history where industrial technology became modernized"

So it is likely just a big, Bob Marley roach clip?

Wow, that's disappointing...

 

[relic lover]

Groovy man

 

[Mintberrycrunch]

So it is likely just a big, Bob Marley roach clip?

Wow, that's disappointing...

Hahaha at least I have a use for it then

 

[releventchair]

"Oh wow man, that's a bummer".

Seriously , still an interesting find. At least in a knarly , groovy kind of way.