old bottle from mud flats..can you id please.

[Des from down under]

Hi from n/z..my brother happened to spot this in the mud flats at his home town of Napier, Hawkes Bay, ..this prior to a major earthquake in 1931 was a well visited harbour from sailing ships from england etc from the 1700s till the big earthquake in 31 ...we would love your help in the I D of this if possible ..it is quite crude with flaws all over it, the base is oblong and not perfectly round and dosent seem to have any marks on it at all...would love an experts thoughts on age and value..not that money means anything, it is just maybe of good historical significance...it is about 11.1/4" high and about 3.1/4 inches wide...thanks heaps guys in advance...des from down under.....

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Des from down under]

thanks a lot....des

 

[Mich. Wolverine]

Can you post a picture of the bottom? If it's open pontil it would be earlier. It looks like a three piece mold.

Wolverine.

 

[Des from down under]

great guys stay there !! i will take a pic of its bum and post tommorrow ..thanks heaps..

 

[Des from down under]

thanks guys ,hope this will help in the id...cheers des

 

[Harry Pristis]

My best guess would be a refired pontil. That pushes the dating back to the mid-1800s

Honestly, I don't know what a "refired pontil" is . . . . can you explain how that worked? For example, how was the bottle held while the pontil scar was "refired"?

Production, production, production!! Why would the manufacturer add another step in the production of an ale bottle? Once a utilitarian piece like this was removed from the snap-case or knocked off the pontil rod, it was off to the annealing oven. There was no extra step for such a bottle.

My best guess is that this bottle is not pontil-scarred, and dates to 1870 - 1890.

 

[Harry Pristis]

My best guess would be a refired pontil. That pushes the dating back to the mid-1800s

Honestly, I don't know what a "refired pontil" is . . . . can you explain how that worked? For example, how was the bottle held while the pontil scar was "refired"?

Production, production, production!! Why would the manufacturer add another step in the production of an ale bottle? Once a utilitarian piece like this was removed from the snap-case or knocked off the pontil rod, it was off to the annealing oven. There was no extra step for such a bottle.

My best guess is that this bottle is not pontil-scarred, and dates to 1870 - 1890.

That's OK Harry. We cannot expect everyone to know everything

That type of pontil was given the nickname "refired" because of the coloration found in the region of the pontil, apparently by bottle collectors. The difference of color was more than likely caused by the difference in heat around that area. I guess.

One just simply has to 'google' the words refired pontil to see how commen this term is

<sigh!> You're right, 'SWR', this term is more commonly used than I would have believed. I'll add it to my list of collector-coined nonsensical bottle terms. On that list are "donut pontil" (Reggie's term), "graphite pontil," "wood mold," and now "refired pontil."

I see another nonsensical term in this collector-generated glossary -- "scar pontil."

Scar pontil base (SP), circ: 1750-1845
This base type is distinguished by chunks of glass scarring the bottle's base. This is also known as a sand or re-fired pontil and is common on early black glass bottles. In the evolution of soda bottles, the scar pontil followed the use of the open pontil.

The color around the pontil scar is "glassgall," a sulphate salt of sodium. This contaminant sometimes appears on the base of pontil-scarred bottles having been transferred from the crushed slag used as a separator on the pontil rod. Van den Bossche describes this phenomenon in his book.

 

[Harry Pristis]

<sigh!> You're right, 'SWR', this term is more commonly used than I would have believed. I'll add it to my list of collector-coined nonsensical bottle terms. On that list are "donut pontil" (Reggie's term), "graphite pontil," "wood mold," and now "refired pontil."

I see another nonsensical term in this collector-generated glossary -- "scar pontil."[/size][/font]

Scar pontil base (SP), circ: 1750-1845
This base type is distinguished by chunks of glass scarring the bottle's base. This is also known as a sand or re-fired pontil and is common on early black glass bottles. In the evolution of soda bottles, the scar pontil followed the use of the open pontil.

The color around the pontil scar is "glassgall," a sulphate salt of sodium. This contaminant sometimes appears on the base of pontil-scarred bottles having been transferred from the crushed slag used as a separator on the pontil rod. Van den Bossche describes this phenomenon in his book.

Good deal, Harry!

Good luck on your mission to correct the wrongs and injustice that has been going on from collectors around the world all of these years!

Oy vey

"Wrongs and injustice"?? Why don't you call it what it really is. There is no good reason to expose newbies here to nonsense.

 

[gleaner1]

The mouth treatment is crude, complex, and typical of earlier ale or "beer" bottles and related early black glass pieces. By early, I mean the pontil era. But these mass-produced pieces were made without pontils using an early type of snap case device. I believe it is well documented that similar non-pontiled pieces like these go back to the early 1800's. The key in this case is to study the mouth treatment. Any thoughts??

 

[Harry Pristis]

The mouth treatment is crude, complex, and typical of earlier ale or "beer" bottles and related early black glass pieces. By early, I mean the pontil era. But these mass-produced pieces were made without pontils using an early type of snap case device. I believe it is well documented that similar non-pontiled pieces like these go back to the early 1800's. The key in this case is to study the mouth treatment. Any thoughts??

We could attempt to make some deductions about this bottle.

Though I surmised that this was an ale bottle, the 11.5" height suggests that this is a wine bottle. I accept that this bottle may have held anything at one time, but the form is that of a wine bottle. These are all wine bottles:

​

If we can't agree that this is a wine form, then suggest another starting place.

 

[Des from down under]

W Mich.wolverrine,Harry Pritis,Gleanor.S.W.R..I wish i could add more but am appreciating your expertise in helping us with the i.d, bugga we would like to shout you all a beer...cheers des

 

[Harry Pristis]

Considering that this bottle was found on a NZ mud flat, I feel a bit uneasy speculating about it.

With the understanding that many English-made bottles were imported to AU and (I assume) NZ, we can make some comparisons. (I believe that the Aussies had their own bottleworks in the late 1800s, though the gold-fields black bottles look like they were British or continental. Many seem to be made in the British bottle traditions.)

I don't have a bottle in the exact form of this one (nothing conclusive about that). The closest lip I can find is on a late continental wine bottle (below). The body of the NZ bottle, including the base, looks like an English wine bottle. Compare for yourself.

​

 

[Des from down under]

thanks harry..

 

[gleaner1]

This bottle is an early American ale. It is not pontiled. It was found in a case with a dozen or more of the same pieces. I had a strong suspicion that this was an earlier piece, from the the pontil age, but lacking pontil. I believed the mouth treatment certainly ruled out late 1800's, thinking newer mouths like crown or Lightning or similar bulbous types had long replaced the intricate delicate mouth of the bottle in question. I believe that bottles like these certainly go back to at least the 1860's or earlier, even if not pontiled. But now I'm more uncertain than ever.

 

[Harry Pristis]

This bottle is an early American ale. It is not pontiled. It was found in a case with a dozen or more of the same pieces, with labels. This bottle design was not solely used for wine. I have a strong suspicion that this is early, in the pontil age, but lacking pontil. The mouth treatment almost certainly rules out late 1800's, would you not agree Harry? Best regards, gleaner1.

Interesting ale bottle, 'gleaner1'. I know how rare it is to find a label on a black bottle.

I had one with a lip treatment like that - a detente to retain the wire binding - but no longer. I've been replacing the more recent black bottles with earlier ones for a long time; and, that ale bottle is gone, darn it. It was a pint.

I remarked that this NZ bottle may have held anything at one time, but the form is that of a wine bottle.

My assertion that the NZ example is a wine bottle form is not at all based on lip treatment (I hope I made it clear that I don't have such a lip treatment on my shelf). No, it is the size, the height of the bottle that is not right for an ale bottle. McKearin & Wilson assert that the common English ale bottle sizes were pint and quart, not (approximately) a fifth.

Different American glassworks stopped using a pontil at different times (within a brief period). I have no trouble imagining your ale bottle dates to say 1870, plus or minus a few years. The lip treatment is a novelty which argues for later 1800s, not earlier.

American manufacturers called these "junk bottles" to be used for beer, ale, porter, and cider. Black glass was more expensive to buy than green glass junk bottles.

I don't think that your bottle - without a pontil scar - can be dated to the mid-1800s.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[gleaner1]

Harry, thanks to you we all can better understand these nice pieces. I have some more questions that apply to the lip design. Has the lip design in question been around for a long time, since perhaps 1850 or earlier??. Does it commonly occur up to about 1890 regardless of the newer styles of the era?? What bothers me is that I have never encountered similar examples in my 1870-1890 dumps, which made me believe they were obsolete by then. In fact, I can't remember if I have ever seen another example with similar lip finish like mine around these parts in upstate NY. Do you have any knowlege that these were made in the pontil era without pontils?. I read that somewhere, maybe it was for case gins. Regards, gleaner1.

 

[Harry Pristis]

Harry, thanks to you we all can better understand these nice pieces. I have some more questions that apply to the lip design. Has the lip design in question been around for a long time, since perhaps 1850 or earlier??. Does it commonly occur up to about 1890 regardless of the newer styles of the era?? What bothers me is that I have never encountered similar examples in my 1870-1890 dumps, which made me believe they were obsolete by then. In fact, I can't remember if I have ever seen another example with similar lip finish like mine around these parts in upstate NY. Do you have any knowlege that these were made in the pontil era without pontils?. I read that somewhere, maybe it was for case gins. Regards, gleaner1.

I said, "I don't think that your bottle - without a pontil scar - can be dated to the mid-1800s." Your questions made me realize that there is a way that your labelled ale could be mid-1800s: Many "junk bottles" were imported from England in the early 1800s, and your bottle may be one of those.

That solution might explain the odd (in our American experience) lip treatment. English gaffers stopped using a pontil some twenty years before American gaffers (a rough average). That means that your ale bottle could date to the 1840s.

Did a WWW search for the info on the ale bottle label shed any light on its age?

 

[gleaner1]

Harry, I found references to this brewery in an 1860's directory. Des' simple question of age and value has really opened up a can of worms for me. I guess we can all agree that Des' bottle is not particularly valuable. Now for age...........

My standing is that:
1. Des' bottle is not pontiled.
2. Des' bottle could theoretically be dated to as early as 1840 assuming it came from England, because it is agreed that glassmakers there were known to produce bottles without pontils back around lets say 1840.
3. Bottles with mouth treatments like Des' and my ale do not occur after about 1870 (in the US).

Concerning the pontil (or lack of) on Des' bottle, see the picture attached. I do not see a pontil, sand, iron, or otherwise. Unless the orange peel was some sort of conical iron pontil that engaged the lower part of the cone, leaving the upper half of the cone shiny. I see indications of sand pontil, but these are chips seen all over the piece.

 

[Da Sand Crab]

...After all of that, let me say "nice find" of a black glass "liquor" bottle. We find them here in Honolulu in dump sites ranging from the mid 1800's to the early 1900's. Used and re-used. We also hunt in mud flats near Pearl Harbor where the original homesteads were before the harbor was made.

 

[Harry Pristis]

Harry, I found references to this brewery in an 1860's directory. Des' simple question of age and value has really opened up a can of worms for me. I guess we can all agree that Des' bottle is not particularly valuable. Now for age...........

My standing is that:
1. Des' bottle is not pontiled.
2. Des' bottle could theoretically be dated to as early as 1840 assuming it came from England, because it is agreed that glassmakers there were known to produce bottles without pontils back around lets say 1840.
3. Bottles with mouth treatments like Des' and my ale do not occur after about 1870 (in the US).

Concerning the pontil (or lack of) on Des' bottle, see the picture attached. I do not see a pontil, sand, iron, or otherwise. Unless the orange peel was some sort of conical iron pontil that engaged the lower part of the cone, leaving the upper half of the cone shiny. I see indications of sand pontil, but these are chips seen all over the piece.

Sounds reasonable to me.

I cannot speak to the age of the lip treatment, because I have so little experience with it (the detente for the wire wrap). My prejudice was that it is a late, probably-British innovation.

The possibility of a sand pontil is not totally out of the question in my mind, though the NZ bottle certainly looks not-pontilled. We've all experienced sand pontil scars so efficient that only a few grains of sand remain adhering to the glass. I failed to ask Des to see if his fingernail catches on any grains of sand in that kickup. Still . . . the bottle does not appear to be scarred.

I'm pleased with the opportunity to explore these questions. Thanks!