I know its lewd...but its probably 150 years old

[johnnyi]

I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

First, if this is too risque, despite its age, I'll understand if it must be removed. Assuming you're still here to help i.d. it, and are not offended by 150 year old pornography, here's what I know.

I've only heard of one other of these being found; the other being both halves, the male and female reclining in a clam shell. Mine was found on a the loctation of a Civil War Union recruiting and training site (on the bottom of the Delaware canal), while the other I've seen was found at a southern Civil War encampment also.

The reverse is a clam shell, and is so realistic that when I swung my coil over the soil I thought it was a fresh water clam and kept looking for the detected object. The inside was encrusted with soil also, and it wasn't until I knocked the dirt out that I realized what it was (sort of!)

It seems to be made of pewter or a similar alloy that could withstand years under water (it is not aluminum, and it has all the surface characturistics of a pewter 1830's token I found in the canal also). It was found among numerous Civil War objects, i.e. 1860's indian heads, seated's, and large cents, pewter spoons with initials carved into them, belt parts, buttons, the usual. Beyond possibly being able to date it, and the fact that it seems to be a form of early pornography, I have no idea of its history or purpose, who made it, or anything else other than it possibly was just a funny pocket piece?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[Montana Jim]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

Hinged clamshell... man on one side and woman on the other probably. The Victorians were really into their dirty artwork.

 

[Monty]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

I can't make out what it is anyway, so don't worry about it. Monty

 

[johnnyi]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

Jim, it's an extremely tough one to identify, if for no other reason than the subject matter is awkward to present to a large audience (by the way, you're the first reply out of 135 views!) Considering the number of Civil War hunters here, someone must have found a similar object though, despite the rarity of such early relics as this. I'd considered photgraphing it and placing one of those "black strips" over the "offending nondiscript blob of pewter", but on reflection thought that to be a little silly considering its historic nature, and apparently others agree. Hopefully it will be identified.

 

[Montana Jim]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

It is what it is... don't cover anything - if someone gets offended that's their problem.

In any effort to identify it you should present it as found.

 

[johnnyi]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

"In any effort to identify it you should present it as found."

ThanKs Montana, but I'm not sure what that means?? It is found; it was found by me. Again, I don't understand?

 

[Montana Jim]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

"In any effort to identify it you should present it as found."

ThanKs Montana, but I'm not sure what that means?? It is found; it was found by me. Again, I don't understand?

Sorry. Meaning "present it as you found it". Or, leave it "as is".

 

[CRUSADER]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

I can't make out what it is anyway, so don't worry about it. Monty

I must be missing something as well, just loks face like to me

 

[romeo-1]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

I can't make out what it is anyway, so don't worry about it. Monty

I must be missing something as well, just loks face like to me

Doesn't even look like a face to me...if that is what passes for Victorian pornagraphy then I am so glad that I am not Victorian!

 

[IronSpike]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

To me it looks more like a head

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

It is what it is... don't cover anything - if someone gets offended that's their problem.

In any effort to identify it you should present it as found.

I agree with Jim......It is what it is, as such it should be posted as it was found.

This site is a treasure hunting site, not a elementary school room durring show and tell.

 

[johnnyi]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

"I agree with Jim......It is what it is, as such it should be posted as it was found.
This site is a treasure hunting site, not a elementary school room durring show and tell."

Well, I agree with you treasurehunter, this is not an elementary schoolroom during "show and tell". Fortunately little if anything of what you said applies here however, as the object was shown exactly as it was originally found (sans dirt), and as well, with the circumstances of the discovery well represented. When an object receives 256 views on an otherwise actively participating forum with nary a guess as to its origin, let alone any solid information as to it's rarity, manufacture, or use, then it is time to call it quits. Personally I think it would be naive to believe any study of potentially erotic objects from the Civil War period would not be met with distaste by some, a point of fact which might be reflected in the vacuum of information on such relics out there on the internet. Thank you again for your comment though, and again, I agree with it in spirit and feel fortunate to have had the opportunity this mature forum presents to attempt to get a solid i.d. .

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

"I agree with Jim......It is what it is, as such it should be posted as it was found.
This site is a treasure hunting site, not a elementary school room durring show and tell."

Well, I agree with you treasurehunter, this is not an elementary schoolroom during "show and tell". Fortunately little if anything of what you said applies here however, as the object was shown exactly as it was originally found (sans dirt), and as well, with the circumstances of the discovery well represented. When an object receives 256 views on an otherwise actively participating forum with nary a guess as to its origin, let alone any solid information as to it's rarity, manufacture, or use, then it is time to call it quits. Personally I think it would be naive to believe any study of potentially erotic objects from the Civil War period would not be met with distaste by some, a point of fact which might be reflected in the vacuum of information on such relics out there on the internet. Thank you again for your comment though, and again, I agree with it in spirit and feel fortunate to have had the opportunity this mature forum presents to attempt to get a solid i.d. .

I know, sorry, I should have been more specific, I was referring to your comment "I'd considered photgraphing it and placing one of those "black strips" over the "offending nondiscript blob of pewter"

 

[thrillathahunt]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

I'm so confused.

 

[johnnyi]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

"I know, sorry, I should have been more specific, I was referring to your comment "I'd considered photgraphing it and placing one of those "black strips" over the "offending nondiscript blob of pewter"

Thanks for explaining treasure hunter. So you know, I placed that post after not getting any response what so ever after about 150 views. That is what caused me to reconsider the "audience" and thankfully I was wrong! Whew! Thankfully! Anyway, after 250 views it still hasn't received any response of substance as to its origin or why it has been found exclusively on Civil war sites, and after that many views it's doubtful it will. Thus the green check accompanied by a sickening feeling that had I written Hugh Hefner for information he probably would have known the answer!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

"I agree with Jim......It is what it is, as such it should be posted as it was found.
This site is a treasure hunting site, not a elementary school room durring show and tell."

Well, I agree with you treasurehunter, this is not an elementary schoolroom during "show and tell". Fortunately little if anything of what you said applies here however, as the object was shown exactly as it was originally found (sans dirt), and as well, with the circumstances of the discovery well represented. When an object receives 256 views on an otherwise actively participating forum with nary a guess as to its origin, let alone any solid information as to it's rarity, manufacture, or use, then it is time to call it quits. Personally I think it would be naive to believe any study of potentially erotic objects from the Civil War period would not be met with distaste by some, a point of fact which might be reflected in the vacuum of information on such relics out there on the internet. Thank you again for your comment though, and again, I agree with it in spirit and feel fortunate to have had the opportunity this mature forum presents to attempt to get a solid i.d. .

I know, sorry, I should have been more specific, I was referring to your comment "I'd considered photgraphing it and placing one of those "black strips" over the "offending nondiscript blob of pewter"

My comment was not meant to be offensive in any way to JohnyI, I supported you posting it as it was found, which you did.

The show and tell comment I made only meant we are not in elementry school, and we should be able to post items as found....

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

"I know, sorry, I should have been more specific, I was referring to your comment "I'd considered photgraphing it and placing one of those "black strips" over the "offending nondiscript blob of pewter"

Thanks for explaining treasure hunter. So you know, I placed that post after not getting any response what so ever after about 150 views. That is what caused me to reconsider the "audience" and thankfully I was wrong! Whew! Thankfully! Anyway, after 250 views it still hasn't received any response of substance as to its origin or why it has been found exclusively on Civil war sites, and after that many views it's doubtful it will. Thus the green check accompanied by a sickening feeling that had I written Hugh Hefner for information he probably would have known the answer!

I just discovered your post when i posted. Sorry...........

 

[Tricia]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

johnnyi,

1 day isn't enough time to seek an answer here and give up.

Heck, I didn't see this post until today.

Agree on the possible Victorian era for a date. Yes, there was quite a bit of erotic art collecting going on at that time. This type of clamshell object with half male half female vignettes would have been laughed over and enjoyed in the library(den) of a fine home while the boys were smoking a cigar and having some brandy.

Could certainly see it passed around the campfire in a civil war camp as well, the soldiers laughing to fight off their fear of what the next day might bring.

Many stories could be tied to your object. Keep searching.

 

[johnnyi]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

Thanks a lot fellers (and Ma'am) I'll keep searching...

 

[Likely Guy]

Re: I know it's lewd...but it's probably 150 years old

From what I can gather, post the object!

(And post a warning: Prudes Don't Look.)