Sand Pontil tumbler?

[Dug]

I dug this tumbler which I'm tempted to refer to it as a whiskey glass from a New Orleans privy many years ago. I sometimes wonder how an undamaged tumbler ended up in a privy and can only imagine it being dropped accidently while someone had been drinking and relieving themselves.

I have been using it to store my glass buttons that I come across while out relic digging. Now that I have a acquired a bottle tumbling set up I am half tempted to tumble the tumbler (pun intended) since the iridescence is not uniform and very light.

Thought I would share some pics of this unique find and get some opinions. As you can see the bottom of the glass sports a rough depressed area that is very much like what you see with sand or iron pontil marks. Other than sand pontil, is there some other process that may have left such a mark?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[NJKLAGT]

Nice one, I love that iridescence!

Maybe a super early machine process? That other outer line is what has my thinking machine.

 

[DeepseekerADS]

You might want to leave that glass alone until you know a lot more about what collectors like to see. Great find!

 

[Bass]

If it were mine I would not tumble. Machine made

 

[Plumbata]

Looks like an iron pontil mark (with the iron oxide dissolved away in the apparently chemically active environment it was in). The circular ring encompassing the pontil in the base just looks like part of the mold, not an artifact of an early machine process.

I also would caution against tumbling; right now it is quite pretty and shows its age, if it was polished up it would basically just look like another boring modern $0.97 Wal-Mart special but it's your call.

 

[Dug]

Looks like an iron pontil mark (with the iron oxide dissolved away in the apparently chemically active environment it was in). The circular ring encompassing the pontil in the base just looks like part of the mold, not an artifact of an early machine process.

I also would caution against tumbling; right now it is quite pretty and shows its age, if it was polished up it would basically just look like another boring modern $0.97 Wal-Mart special but it's your call.

Good point about tumbling it as it is clear glass anyway. I agree that this may be iron pontil as well after comparing it to my iron pontil sodas. Resemblance is extremely close.

 

[Goldenplug]

That looks machine made to me. The glass is so uniform at the base. The absence of crudity and that sure looks like a suction scar around the base. Just my opinion, for what its worth.

 

[epackage]

I agree with Plum, not machine made and not a candidate for a tumble...

 

[Harry Pristis]

I agree that the bottom does have an irregular rough spot which suggests a pontil scar, I also agree with NJKLAGT and BASS that this is a machine-made tumbler.

Consider, what would be the purpose of empontiling this tumbler? The lip is clearly uniform and untooled. No, I think that the tumbler is "pressed glass," a process in place well before the turn of the century.

I also agree that the iridescence should be left alone . .. . it is the most attractive feature.

 

[Dug]

I agree that the bottom does have an irregular rough spot which suggests a pontil scar, I also agree with NJKLAGT and BASS that this is a machine-made tumbler.

Consider, what would be the purpose of empontiling this tumbler? The lip is clearly uniform and untooled. No, I think that the tumbler is "pressed glass," a process in place well before the turn of the century.

I also agree that the iridescence should be left alone . .. . it is the most attractive feature.

Thanks Harry. I will not tumble it. It is definitely very uniform and lacks any crudity. Just pretty crazy mark on the bottom.

 

[NJKLAGT]

I can't tell at this point. That outer line is strange, it looks like it fades away and out at certain points.

Here are a couple of Owens scars, and sometimes they get those little sticky specks of glass inside or outside of the scar. The thing is, this tumbler has such a consistent sticking look to that area that it looks pontiled. But then the outer ring confuses that idea. Could it be machine/hand made?! I'm perplexed. We might need more pics!

EDIT: Maybe the glass was still molten and kind of sagged and sat back down on the mould? But then this bottom looks concave and not convex. Or maybe something happened during the early-machine process, and this was a time when they still had punty rods lying around and they were like, "still good, still good!" and stuck it with the punty and put it back on the line?

 

[Bass]

I agree that the bottom does have an irregular rough spot which suggests a pontil scar, I also agree with NJKLAGT and BASS that this is a machine-made tumbler.

Consider, what would be the purpose of empontiling this tumbler? The lip is clearly uniform and untooled. No, I think that the tumbler is "pressed glass," a process in place well before the turn of the century.

I also agree that the iridescence should be left alone . .. . it is the most attractive feature.

That's what I was thinking too Harry. If no work was done at the top why would it need to be empontiled? But hey, I could certainly be wrong. I can definitely see both sides to the opinion. This is a great discussion and I welcome any and all ideas.
One thing for sure we all agree on, please don't "tumble this tumbler."

 

[Harry Pristis]

American pressed glass has been around since the 1820s. I'm certain you can Google information. Here are some illustrations from Albert Christian Revi's 1970 book, AMERICAN PRESSED GLASS AND FIGURE BOTTLES.

​

 

[NJKLAGT]

That outer line though! What does it all mean?

 

[Plumbata]

To further elaborate, it appears to me that the circular line around the perimeter is an extrusion of glass (say into a gap between the side(s) and base-plate of the mold) and not an intrusion of a hardened rind of glass as from an Owens scar. Perhaps Dug can weigh-in on this? While we're at it, how old was the other stuff in that privy?

I don't think this is pressed-glass, but a cheaper and more pedestrian quality and quickly produced item. Harry is right that the rim/lip isn't tooled per se, but it seems pretty clear that the rim has a thicker fire-polished bead (not sure if pressed glass routinely got this treatment), which would have necessitated an efficient way to hold the open end in the furnace (pontil). I'm thinking this piece was blown like a bottle into a 2-piece or 3-piece hinged cup mold or something like it, with the excess sheared off and the rim subsequently fire-polished.

I agree that the ring around the perimeter is suspicious, but the apparent iron-pontil mark (minus the iron oxide) carries much more weight in my estimation.

 

[Harry Pristis]

To further elaborate, it appears to me that the circular line around the perimeter is an extrusion of glass (say into a gap between the side(s) and base-plate of the mold) and not an intrusion of a hardened rind of glass as from an Owens scar. Perhaps Dug can weigh-in on this? While we're at it, how old was the other stuff in that privy?

I don't think this is pressed-glass, but a cheaper and more pedestrian quality and quickly produced item. Harry is right that the rim/lip isn't tooled per se, but it seems pretty clear that the rim has a thicker fire-polished bead (not sure if pressed glass routinely got this treatment), which would have necessitated an efficient way to hold the open end in the furnace (pontil). I'm thinking this piece was blown like a bottle into a 2-piece or 3-piece hinged cup mold or something like it, with the excess sheared off and the rim subsequently fire-polished.

I agree that the ring around the perimeter is suspicious, but the apparent iron-pontil mark (minus the iron oxide) carries much more weight in my estimation.

This analysis seems to depend on the irregular spot on the bottom of the tumbler; but, there is no evidence that this is a pontil scar. In fact, the symmetry of the piece bespeaks "pressed glass" rather than "hand blown glass."

 

[Tpmetal]

To further elaborate, it appears to me that the circular line around the perimeter is an extrusion of glass (say into a gap between the side(s) and base-plate of the mold) and not an intrusion of a hardened rind of glass as from an Owens scar. Perhaps Dug can weigh-in on this? While we're at it, how old was the other stuff in that privy?

I don't think this is pressed-glass, but a cheaper and more pedestrian quality and quickly produced item. Harry is right that the rim/lip isn't tooled per se, but it seems pretty clear that the rim has a thicker fire-polished bead (not sure if pressed glass routinely got this treatment), which would have necessitated an efficient way to hold the open end in the furnace (pontil). I'm thinking this piece was blown like a bottle into a 2-piece or 3-piece hinged cup mold or something like it, with the excess sheared off and the rim subsequently fire-polished.

I agree that the ring around the perimeter is suspicious, but the apparent iron-pontil mark (minus the iron oxide) carries much more weight in my estimation.

So your right, pressed glass had no trimming or fire polishing. If thats a pontil mark then this was blown into a mould, pontiled and the lip either trimmed and opened with minimal tooling from the jacks or hot popped and fire polished.

 

[Dug]

To further elaborate, it appears to me that the circular line around the perimeter is an extrusion of glass (say into a gap between the side(s) and base-plate of the mold) and not an intrusion of a hardened rind of glass as from an Owens scar. Perhaps Dug can weigh-in on this? While we're at it, how old was the other stuff in that privy?

I don't think this is pressed-glass, but a cheaper and more pedestrian quality and quickly produced item. Harry is right that the rim/lip isn't tooled per se, but it seems pretty clear that the rim has a thicker fire-polished bead (not sure if pressed glass routinely got this treatment), which would have necessitated an efficient way to hold the open end in the furnace (pontil). I'm thinking this piece was blown like a bottle into a 2-piece or 3-piece hinged cup mold or something like it, with the excess sheared off and the rim subsequently fire-polished.

I agree that the ring around the perimeter is suspicious, but the apparent iron-pontil mark (minus the iron oxide) carries much more weight in my estimation.

I dug it in the late 90s. The privy had a mix of iron pontil sodas and some late 1800s stuff as I recall.

The outer ring is a groove and not noticeable when running a finger over it but detectable when dragging a fingernail which catches down into it.

 

[Harry Pristis]

For comparison:

​

 

[NJKLAGT]

Yeah, definitely not hand-blown and not a tooled lip. I'm on the pressed or machine team. It's only that outer line that confuses me.

I think that although it was not totally necessary to pontil the thing, maybe something happened during the process and they had to grab it while it was hot and couldn't simply use their hands.

I wonder: are there other pressed glass pieces that have either a pontil mark or that strange outer line?