Help dating bottle

[Goldenplug]

Hi fellow diggers and collectors... please help me with a date on this bottle. To me it looks old. Any way to get close on the date based on the lip or other features? It has an applied lip... it's a 3 pc mold with an additional seam at the base of the neck. The bottom shows significant wear... Thanks in advance. I should post something else while I'm here...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Dug]

Sweet collection of inks!

 

[Blak bart]

Check out undertakers thread " couple of bargin bottles" he just got one very similar or the same. Early to mid 1800s not sure just guessing. I like it a lot. Congrats.

 

[Goldenplug]

Check out undertakers thread " couple of bargin bottles" he just got one very similar or the same. Early to mid 1800s not sure just guessing. I like it a lot. Congrats.

Ok thanks, I checked it out. That does look like my ale bottle but there's no date given.

 

[villagenut]

here is a pic from my Hume book...maybe early 1800s. That is a nice one.

 

[Goldenplug]

here is a pic from my Hume book...maybe early 1800s. That is a nice one.

View attachment 1459904

Hmm.. wow. If that's even close to correct I'm happy. Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Harry Pristis]

I think 1820s is a reasonable estimation. Here's some further information:

 

[Goldenplug]

That's incredible considering where I found it. It must have been reused for a long time. Very grateful for your help Mr Pristis and Villagenut.

 

[Bass]

Nice early piece

 

[Berton]

It looks that this bottle is from the first half of 1800s.

 

[Goldenplug]

It looks that this bottle is from the first half of 1800s.

Thanks, I agree. Somewhere in there.

 

[redbeardrelics]

Being a 3 piece mold would make it date after the 1820's, and having a sand scar pontil would make it date most likely prior to 1845. The uniformity of the bottle narrows down my guestimation to a date of
1835-1840, most likely blown during the winters, as the glass furnaces typically shut down during the summer heat.

 

[Harry Pristis]

Being a 3 piece mold would make it date after the 1820's, and having a sand scar pontil would make it date most likely prior to 1845. The uniformity of the bottle narrows down my guestimation to a date of
1835-1840, most likely blown during the winters, as the glass furnaces typically shut down during the summer heat.

Thanks for the opinion, red, but where is the supporting evidence?

Everyone agrees that Henry Rickets of Liverpool patented a 3-piece mold in 1821. Here's what Dumbrell says: "...so successful did this [3-piece mold] prove that within ten years most, if not all, of the glass houses in England had adopted this means of production. A few three-piece (or three-part) mould bottles exist c. 1810-11 but have no base markings to indicate their place of manufacture. It is thought, however, that they are early Ricketts bottles before the advent of the company's policy of mould-marking the base."

So this bottle could be earlier than your guess of 1835-40. As for "uniformity," symmetry is the hallmark of 3-piece mold bottles. That leaves the lip finish, which you didn't address. Here's an 1820s bottle for comparison:

​

 

[Harry Pristis]

This may be a better match for Goldenplug's bottle:

​

 

[Goldenplug]

That looks very very close. Even down to the seam lines. There is a seam around the neck (just like this one in the picture (applied neck?)

 

[Harry Pristis]

That looks very very close. Even down to the seam lines. There is a seam around the neck (just like this one in the picture (applied neck?)

It is an applied lip. On my bottle, this is best seen inside the lip. There is a faint, irregular line where the lip was mated to the neck. Just a few years earlier, the string would have been applied, then the neck would have been mushroomed to match the diameter of the string. As was done with this bottle:

​

 

[redbeardrelics]

Thanks for the opinion, red, but where is the supporting evidence?

Everyone agrees that Henry Rickets of Liverpool patented a 3-piece mold in 1821. Here's what Dumbrell says: "...so successful did this [3-piece mold] prove that within ten years most, if not all, of the glass houses in England had adopted this means of production. A few three-piece (or three-part) mould bottles exist c. 1810-11 but have no base markings to indicate their place of manufacture. It is thought, however, that they are early Ricketts bottles before the advent of the company's policy of mould-marking the base."

So this bottle could be earlier than your guess of 1835-40. As for "uniformity," symmetry is the hallmark of 3-piece mold bottles. That leaves the lip finish, which you didn't address. Here's an 1820s bottle for comparison:

View attachment 1460661 View attachment 1460662

​

Well, no supporting evidence was offered, of course other than it being a 3 piece mold with well documented dates for the patenting of that process in England, and of course the pontil type as referenced being a dating factor. True that molded bottles should be relatively uniform in outline etc., but the lip style and finish are also relatively uniform compared with earlier examples. In addition to these three supporting factors, it also appears from the pictures that this may be a smaller "pint' size bottle, as opposed to the larger "quart" sized bottles, with the pints generally being in vogue later than the quarts. We have to be careful in what we consider gospel regarding the dating, etc. of these bottles. It is very easy for me to ask where is the supporting evidence for Dumbrell saying that before 1831 nearly all glasshouses in England were producing 3 part mold bottles, and of course that comment is based upon an unsupported opinion that this is 100% an English manufactured bottle? I have dug many bottles and shards similar to this bottle in America, in contexts from the late 1830's up into the 1840's. An interesting phenomenon that I have noticed over the years, is that whenever we have questions about the age of an old bottle, and when we do later find real evidence of it's age, it is usually newer than we thought, rather than older. I chalk this up to our human desires to have found items be older rather than newer. The age of this bottle makes no difference to me personally, just offering the original poster an opinion that he was looking for, that's all.

 

[redbeardrelics]

This may be a better match for Goldenplug's bottle:

View attachment 1461040

​

For example, where is the supporting evidence that this is an 1815-1825 bottle, as opposed to being 1830-1845?

 

[Harry Pristis]

Well, no supporting evidence was offered, of course other than it being a 3 piece mold with well documented dates for the patenting of that process in England, and of course the pontil type as referenced being a dating factor. True that molded bottles should be relatively uniform in outline etc., but the lip style and finish are also relatively uniform compared with earlier examples. In addition to these three supporting factors, it also appears from the pictures that this may be a smaller "pint' size bottle, as opposed to the larger "quart" sized bottles, with the pints generally being in vogue later than the quarts. We have to be careful in what weconsider gospel regarding the dating, etc. of these bottles. It is very easy for me to ask where is the supporting evidence for Dumbrell saying that before 1831 nearly all glasshouses in England were producing 3 part mold bottles, and of course that comment is based upon an unsupported opinion that this is 100% an English manufactured bottle? I have dug many bottles and shards similar to this bottle in America, in contexts from the late 1830's up into the 1840's. An interesting phenomenon that I have noticed over the years, is that whenever we have questions about the age of an old bottle, and when we do later find real evidence of it's age, it is usually newer than we thought, rather than older. I chalk this up to our human desires to have found items be older rather than newer. The age of this bottle makes no difference to me personally, just offering the original poster an opinion that he was looking for, that's all.

I don't mean to hurt your feelings, Red, but you hold some ideas about the history of bottle manufacturing that will keep us at odds in a discussion. I've highlighted three such ideas above, and I hope you'll do some further research in those areas.