Help identifying beach find.

Hi everyone,

I found this in the wet sand today at the beach.  It's made of wood and brass/bronze.  Looks like it might be part of a ships

rigging??   I'm also wondering how to preserve the wood.  I have it wrapped in a damp towel for now.

Thanks in advance and happy hunting.

I think it is the top seal block for a very old bilge pump.  inside the hole I see 2 grooves that probably held the seal.  but that is just a guess.

I think it is the top seal block for a very old bilge pump.  inside the hole I see 2 grooves that probably held the seal.  but that is just a guess.

Thats a good idea,  I keep looking at this trying to picture it whole..... Its a nice mystery.  Thanks for the new avenue to research.
HH.

Looks like its from a British War Ship, the Broad Arrow is clear this is the mark stamped on it , looks
19th C vessel rigging, sure many could give the exact ID if I look back I am certain Ive seen some, nice find wreck close by......nice

Cool artifact. Cant wait to read more opinions!

I would agree with the other post that it seems to be an English bilge pump piece by virtue of the Broad Arrow.  18th or 19th century.

this looks like a  pole socket Flush mount used on recreational boats some times use for the flag stanchion
or to put up a canape on some thing like a party barge 

Got it figured out.  I posted the details in the what is it section.  Short answer: wooden pulley sheave with a brass coak  Maybe 19th century.
Thanks for the replys and HH.

["SideImagingSoft.com - Humminbird Side Imaging Forums"]

I think its a sheave for a pully.  I have one almost exactly like it that I found with Darren a few years ago.  Looks like the grove has just been eaten away by the worms.

I think its a sheave for a pully.  I have one almost exactly like it that I found with Darren a few years ago.  Looks like the grove has just been eaten away by the worms.

Thanks for posting.  Was yours also Royal Navy?  Could you post a Picture?
HH

["SideImagingSoft.com - Humminbird Side Imaging Forums"]

No, mine was not Royal Navy.  These types of sheaves stayed pretty much the same even into the early 1900's.

Hi there,
That is the inside wheel of a pulley, has stamped the Royal Navy broad arrow.
I`m going to look for the picture of the one I found on the HMS AGAMEMNON sunked in
1809. Is very similar but the number is 79.
Regards
Ruso

Hi there,
That is the inside wheel of a pulley, has stamped the Royal Navy broad arrow.
I`m going to look for the picture of the one I found on the HMS AGAMEMNON sunked in
1809. Is very similar but the number is 79.
Regards
Ruso

Exactly that, a Napoleonic pulley, Definately Royal Navy, the history channel had them on a special about HMS AGAMEMNON , they were exactly the same.

Hi there,
That is the inside wheel of a pulley, has stamped the Royal Navy broad arrow.
I`m going to look for the picture of the one I found on the HMS AGAMEMNON sunked in
1809. Is very similar but the number is 79.
Regards
Ruso

Thanks for posting. I wonder if the 79 refers to the year the pulley sheave was made?   I would love to see a pic if you find it.
Im still researching what all the marks mean on My pulley.  I read DR-94 and LM or WT and the Broad arrow.  HH.

This is interesting:

The seriously decayed state of Block Mills, listed Grade I, in Portsmouth dockyard was horribly apparent when delegates to the Dockyard Historical Society's conference visited the site on 30 April.

Block Mills is the site of a world first: the first steam powered mass production factory for the hundreds of thousands of pulley blocks for ships' rigging and gun carriages needed by the army and navy by the beginning of the nineteenth century. Toward the end of the Napoleonic period 922 pulley blocks were required to equip a standard 74-gun ship; the 27 British ships of the line that confronted the combined French and Spanish fleet at the Battle of Trafalgar would have had about 25,000 blocks in their rigging. 100,000 blocks a year were needed. The Taylor family of Southampton had been one of the largest suppliers of craftsmen-made blocks over three generations, but could not keep up with demand. Marc Isambard Brunel (1769-1849) who had been Chief Engineer of the City of New York had considered how blocks might be manufactured in quantity by machines.

Having failed to persuade Taylors to mechanise, Brunel convinced Sir Samuel Bentham (1757-1831), Inspector General of Naval Works, who had himself studied the application of machinery to woodworking in a small shipyard at Redbridge in Southampton, to set up the navy's own manufactory at Portsmouth dockyard to which the steam engine and machinery from Southampton were transferred. Brunel's machinery called for superior workmanship, and in Henry Maudslay (1771-1831) he found the brilliant engineer to make his precision machine tools in metal to give accuracy and rigidity. One set of machines manufactured the shell of the block from solid pieces of elm; another produced the lignum vitae sheave or pulley wheel. The series of machines they developed performed a sequence of some twenty separate operations to ensure a steady flow of components from raw materials to standardised assembly – a system for mass production which ran well for over a hundred and fifty years.

The first steam engine in dockyards was introduced in 1799 by the first Inspector-General of Naval Works from 1795, Sir Samuel Bentham. It was used to pump water out of dry docks at Portsmouth dockyard – a momentous step – since until then every dockyard had relied on muscle power alone. Horses had been used to transport timber and stores, operate gins for dock pumping, and, from the 1770s, to provide power for certain processes in the roperies. But once steam engines were given rotary motion and could be harnessed to machine tools they became practical and economic propositions. A rectangular stone structure surmounted by a heavy timber frame inside the southern range of Block Mills marks the site of this early pumping machinery. Within the same range, a beam engine house with a horizontal iron frame supporting the beam trunnions also survives. It is probably the second steam engine for which Bentham commissioned Boulton and Watt to help with dock-pumping and to power the new machinery for the mass production of pulley blocks.

Today, pools of water stand in the main linking hall where parts of the overhead drive are still in situ. The enormous beams supporting the timber flooring of the north block has partly rotted away to a pile of wet shreds, and the precious Maudslay machines upstairs have had to be covered with polythene sheet to protect them from leaks in different areas of the roof. The drains are backing up, causing more damage, and the wall of the north wing is bowing out, perhaps because of the spreading of the Belfast roof trusses. On the top floor of the south wing are long standing wet patches, green with mould. It ought to be a matter of public shame that the building at the very top of English Heritage's Buildings at Risk list - at Extreme Risk - is publicly owned. We heard at the conference that there was a proposal for Block Mills to be taken into Guardianship some years ago - which failed because the government would not spend £15,000 bringing it into good repair. If that had happened Block Mills would at least have been kept weather-tight. We will be adding our voices to those pressing the Second Sea Lord to take urgent action on repairs, and also to open up proposals for its future to public debate

divermark thanks for the great info.

"Exactly that, a Napoleonic pulley, Definately Royal Navy, the history channel had them on a special about HMS AGAMEMNON , they were exactly the same."

Does anyone know any possiable wrecks in the vero area of ships built from 1790-1800?
I origionally thought the pulley might be from the Breckonshire but she was built in 1884 and sank in 1894 so the dates dont match.  I did find this picture that shows a sheave like mine printed in the Royal Navy seamanship manual from the 1790's
Mine is in the center right of the print.

http://www.hnsa.org/doc/steel/part5.htm

Thanks and HH.

I was in Brevard County last week MDing on the beaches, we stopped in at the McLarty museum and that EXACT part is on display as a 1715 artifact. I looked at it on the display and thought OMG I have seen that on T-Net. It is there I promise.

I was in Brevard County last week MDing on the beaches, we stopped in at the McLarty museum and that EXACT part is on display as a 1715 artifact. I looked at it on the display and thought OMG I have seen that on T-Net. It is there I promise.

Thanks for the lead.  I will definitely follow up on it and post what I find.  HH.

I am thinking the McLarty museum has a piece on display that is not a real 1715 piece? It might be from another shipwreck located close to the wreck in front of the museum? Maybe a 1790 wreck near the 1715 wreck?

This will be interesting to see pictures of both pieces.

The website for the McLarty museum does not show a closeup of the part that I had seen.

Go to the McLarty museum with your piece and take a pic of yours and theirs together and then post it.

Thanks.

Firstbiggestmost,

I'm not sure exactly where in Vero Beach you found your artifact, but the Spring of Whitby was built around the time period you are suggesting.
The bronze bell with her name and date of 1801 was found in 1965.
In my research, I believe this ship was stolen or seized to be used for illegal activities in the waters of the New World.
Many times, parts of rigging materials were sold, stolen, and reused.
For instance, many sheaves made in South America were found on 1715 ships.  These were purchased from trade fairs and carried by means of the trading routes throughout the many ports to outfit vessels.

Laura

Firstbiggestmost,

I'm not sure exactly where in Vero Beach you found your artifact, but the Spring of Whitby was built around the time period you are suggesting.
The bronze bell with her name and date of 1801 was found in 1965.
In my research, I believe this ship was stolen or seized to be used for illegal activities in the waters of the New World.
Many times, parts of rigging materials were sold, stolen, and reused.
For instance, many sheaves made in South America were found on 1715 ships.  These were purchased from trade fairs and carried by means of the trading routes throughout the many ports to outfit vessels.

Laura

Thanks for the info    I received some info from the Portsmouth Blockmills in England.  Their "Block"  expert  Belives that the DR stands for December  And the 94 would be the year.  He thinks it would be Dec. 1794 based on the the style of the coak And he believes that the other marks stand for  Walter Taylor who was the main manufacturer of sheaves for the Royal Navy at that time.  So the "Whitby" would be in the right time period.  I have read that the design of the sheaves remained  unchanged for hundreds of years so I'm also exploring the possibility that the marks could be Dec. of 1697 and the the makers mark is LM.  I appreciate all the replies.

[machined]

That artifact definitely looks machined, which would date it to the later part of the 18th century.

Tom

Firstbiggestmost,

Have you stopped by the McLarty museum yet? Dont you live near it?

[machined]

That artifact definitely looks machined, which would date it to the later part of the 18th century.

Tom

Tom,
From what I have read the coaks were cast,  not machined, from the time they started using brass on the sheaves.  The wooden part of the sheaves were machined.  First using horses, etc. to power the saws. It wasn't until 1799 that steam power was used to power some of the machines and it wasn't until 1803 that Brunells assembly line was completed,  and a few more years after that until production got into full swing.  So prior to 1799 the processes of making sheaves was basically unchanged for a couple hundred years.  I feel that my pulley sheave is from at least 1794 based on the style of the coak, and the date, but it could be older because the style of coak had been used for so long.  Either way its a good find!   

Firstbiggestmost,

Have you stopped by the McLarty museum yet? Dont you live near it?

LOL give me a chance   It might take a few days to get over there, but I will post what I find out.  Thanks again for the tip.  HH.

It is a spectacular find! I have also been following it on the treasureguide blog. 

<---------------------Grabs POPCORN!!!!

I finally made it to the McLarty Treasure Museum to check on Armchair's lead. Thanks again Armchair.     
From what I saw today it is very possible that the sheave I found was made in 1694.  The display case is screwed shut so they couldn’t let me inspect their sheave closely, and I had to take the pictures through the glass.

Their 1715 fleet sheave is very similar to the one I found.  It has three lobes on the coak. It is marked with the Broad Arrow.  It is marked with the WT in the same font as mine.

The McLarty sheave has some minor differences from mine but that is not too surprising considering that they were basically hand made and that there were a few different manufactures of the brass coaks. The admiralty made some, and the private makers made some. 

Their sheave is marked ALS 63 if I remember right. I thought the markings would show up on the pictures so I didn’t bother to write it down, but the pictures didn’t turn out that great so Ill have to call and verify the markings.  I am 99% sure about the 63.    Another difference that you can see in the side angle photo, is the back of their sheave has a kind of lip extending from the pin hole.  I don’t know if the flanged coaks would have been used as the end of a series in a multi pulley block.  With the smooth coaks in the center?  Anyway not an exact match but very close.

I’m still waiting to hear back from the Royal Navy Museum,  hopefully they can shed some more light on things.
 
HH.
 

<--------------Is known for bringing in the sheaves!!!!!! 

The Park Ranger at the McLarty Museum was nice enough to send me a better photo of their sheave.  Thanks Ed.  

So much for my memory the marks are AL 93.  
Ed mentioned that this sheave was also a beach find and that it might not be from the 1715 fleet.  
Thanks for looking & Happy Hunting.

Interesting lot and the Bonhams Auction in London UK this week.

http://www.bonhams.com/cgi-bin/publ...;iSaleNo=17819&iSaleSectionNo=1

infact its an interesting maritime auction check it out here:

http://www.bonhams.com/cgi-bin/public.sh/pubweb/publicSite.r

Interesting lot and the Bonhams Auction in London UK this week.
http://www.bonhams.com/cgi-bin/publ...;iSaleNo=17819&iSaleSectionNo=1

Thanks for the links. 

Ever since I saw the Mclarty sheave it has been driving me nuts wondering if some of the crud on my sheave was hiding a second arrow mark on the brass coak.  Curiosity won.  It turns out that their is a second arrow on the coak.
Thanks for looking and HH.

I received some new information from some great people in the Royal Navy Historical Trust that has cleared up some questions I had about my sheave. 

First, the sheave is definitely from 1794.  Walter Taylor was in bussines from the 1740's to 1803.  So no chance of 1694 or 1894.

Second, the "DR 94 "  does refer to date of manufacture.  In 1775  Walter Taylor started using a replaceable bushing between the shell and the sheave.  This innovation led him to mark each sheave with the date of manufacture, and to replace any block that should fail in service.   

Third, what ship?  I'm still working on that one  Maybe Spring of Whitby?  Any other Ideas?

So my first shipwreck find is a  December 1794,  Walter Taylor Co. made, Royal Navy pulley sheave,  from HMS ,  Awesome!

HH.