Unknown Anvil - Isaac Hill probably?

[Flynn]

I suspect this is an Isaac Hill, but could certainly be wrong.  It looks very close to another Isaac Hill anvil I have, but there are no markings on it that give much of an indication.  The only thing I've found on it are two punch marks on the back that are spaced right between where the numbers for the CWT would be stamped.  There are no numbers, just the punch marks (circled in red on the last photo).  It's around 160#s with a 5.5" face and has no pritchel hole, putting it before 1830 as I understand things.  Am I missing anything that might give more clues to the maker and age?

Thanks as always!

 

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by Mike Flynn
Resized Photos

[ThomasPowers]

Unfortunately a lot of anvil makers got their start learning the trade in another anvil makers shop and when they set off on their own; their anvils often resemble the ones they learned on.  So "looks like" is not a good basis for attribution without any stamping.

Before Postman published his book; people were not as concerned with the make of an anvil; they generally were concerned if it was a "good anvil" or a "bad anvil" and given the number of structure fires when everyone heated and lighted by fire the name stamped on wasn't a clear indication.

I agree it has a pre 1830 look to it small "sharp" feet,  lack of pritchel hole, blocky body (75% of that face is "sweet spot"!)  If the face is still hard; it's a good one!

[Flynn]

Thanks for the insight!  Rebound is pretty good, probably in the 75% range - better than I expected with the crowning on the face.  I was concerned about the fire possibility until I tested it. 

I always try to learn as much as I can about the history of my tools, that's like the icing on the cake for me.