Who Collects Wine Bottles?

[Harry Pristis]

Hey Harry Pristis,Timekiller here was looking through your post under bottles Nice Stuff you have! Wanted to show you one I had posted in todays finds! Found this last week at a early to mid 1700's home site here in N.C.!

What an excellent find! I would call it an early "squat cylinder" wine bottle (after Roger Dumbrell). The form certainly fits your date for the home site -- say 1740-60. The bottle is likely to be English-made.

Great bottle! Thanks for sharing!

Thanks Harry,You seem to know your bottles I had done some research already and your time line is right on.I was told by a archaeologist 1740-1750 he said english mallet though it's 8.5"by4.5" could you explain the difference?

The difference between a "mallet" and a "squat cylinder" lies in the proportion of body height to neck length. The mallet has a broader, less tall body and a longer neck than does a squat cylinder.

There is a formula, though I couldn't find it with a cursory search. If I recall correctly, the neck length of mallet is at least two-thirds of the body height. It could be a slightly different proportion, but I think you can get the idea by looking carefully at the form of these bottles.

"Transitional mallet" seems to be a term originated for marketing purposes, but it has come into broader use now (just not in well-researched books). The transitional mallet in my image has proportions just shy of the above formula.

​

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[timekiller]

Hey Harry Pristis,Timekiller here was looking through your post under bottles Nice Stuff you have! Wanted to show you one I had posted in todays finds! Found this last week at a early to mid 1700's home site here in N.C.!

What an excellent find! I would call it an early "squat cylinder" wine bottle (after Roger Dumbrell). The form certainly fits your date for the home site -- say 1740-60. The bottle is likely to be English-made.

Great bottle! Thanks for sharing!

Thanks Harry,You seem to know your bottles I had done some research already and your time line is right on.I was told by a archaeologist 1740-1750 he said english mallet though it's 8.5"by4.5" could you explain the difference?

The difference between a "mallet" and a "squat cylinder" lies in the proportion of body height to neck length. The mallet has a broader, less tall body and a longer neck than does a squat cylinder.

There is a formula, though I couldn't find it with a cursory search. If I recall correctly, the neck length of mallet is at least two-thirds of the body height. It could be a slightly different proportion, but I think you can get the idea by looking carefully at the form of these bottles.

"Transitional mallet" seems to be a term originated for marketing purposes, but it has come into broader use now (just not in well-researched books). The transitional mallet in my image has proportions just shy of the above formula.

​

Thanks again Harry,
You've Done it again, that explains why it's been so hard for me to decide what I found.One would call it a squat cylinder somebody else would call it a mallet.In reality it is sorta both.Because mine is just like the one called transition in your pics.Thanks for treasurenet and people like you to help solve problems!

 

[Harry Pristis]

I did get the nature of the proportion wrong. It is actually a base-diameter to body-height ratio which is the key to distinguishing mallets from squat cylinders.

Here's what Roger Dumbrell says in his book: "...mallet wine bottles have broad bases, considerably exceeding their body height [height to the start of the curve of the shoulder]. Conversely, the squat cylindrical bottle invariably has a body height greater than its base diameter."

That is:
It is a mallet when the body height to the shoulder divided by the diameter of the base gives an number of less than one.
It is a squat cylinder when the body height divided by the diameter of the base gives an answer greater than one.

Dumbrell does not use the term "transitional mallet," but we could infer that:
It is a "transitional mallet" when the body height divided by the diameter of the base gives an answer of about one.

I hope you'll do your own measurements, 'timekiller', and let us know what your bottle is.

​

 

[timekiller]

I did get the nature of the proportion wrong. It is actually a base-diameter to body-height ratio which is the key to distinguishing mallets from squat cylinders.

Here's what Roger Dumbrell says in his book: "...mallet wine bottles have broad bases, considerably exceeding their body height [height to the start of the curve of the shoulder]. Conversely, the squat cylindrical bottle invariably has a body height greater than its base diameter."

That is:
It is a mallet when the body height to the shoulder divided by the diameter of the base gives an number of less than one.
It is a squat cylinder when the body height divided by the diameter of the base gives an answer greater than one.

Dumbrell does not use the term "transitional mallet," but we could infer that:
It is a "transitional mallet" when the body height divided by the diameter of the base gives an answer of about one.

I hope you'll do your own measurements, 'timekiller', and let us know what your bottle is.

​

Thanks Harry,
I took your info. and carefully measured it out this time,bottom came out 4.25" and at highest point of shoulder curve came up with 4.34" gave a number of .9............. so I guess by that, it is a mallet!After all these years that bottle still keeps making history,and mystery
Thanks again,Timekiller

 

[Harry Pristis]

I did get the nature of the proportion wrong. It is actually a base-diameter to body-height ratio which is the key to distinguishing mallets from squat cylinders.

Here's what Roger Dumbrell says in his book: "...mallet wine bottles have broad bases, considerably exceeding their body height [height to the start of the curve of the shoulder]. Conversely, the squat cylindrical bottle invariably has a body height greater than its base diameter."

That is:
It is a mallet when the body height to the shoulder divided by the diameter of the base gives an number of less than one.
It is a squat cylinder when the body height divided by the diameter of the base gives an answer greater than one.

Dumbrell does not use the term "transitional mallet," but we could infer that:
It is a "transitional mallet" when the body height divided by the diameter of the base gives an answer of about one.

I hope you'll do your own measurements, 'timekiller', and let us know what your bottle is.

​

Thanks Harry,
I took your info. and carefully measured it out this time,bottom came out 4.25" and at highest point of shoulder curve came up with 4.34" gave a number of .9............. so I guess by that, it is a mallet!After all these years that bottle still keeps making history,and mystery
Thanks again,Timekiller

You're certainly welcome, 'Timekiller'. I had never measured any of these ratios on my bottles, so I learned something -- always an edifying experience.

When you say, "at highest point of shoulder curve" I hope you mean you measured from the base to where the shoulder curve begins which would be the lowest point of shoulder curve.

You have made a simple inversion error in your calculation. The ratio is height to the start of the shoulder divided by the base diameter. That would be 4.34" divided by 4.25" which is 1.02 (greater than one).

Your bottle is a squat cylinder by Roger Dumbrell's standards, though by our inference it could be called a "transitional mallet."

 

[timekiller]

I did get the nature of the proportion wrong. It is actually a base-diameter to body-height ratio which is the key to distinguishing mallets from squat cylinders.

Here's what Roger Dumbrell says in his book: "...mallet wine bottles have broad bases, considerably exceeding their body height [height to the start of the curve of the shoulder]. Conversely, the squat cylindrical bottle invariably has a body height greater than its base diameter."

That is:
It is a mallet when the body height to the shoulder divided by the diameter of the base gives an number of less than one.
It is a squat cylinder when the body height divided by the diameter of the base gives an answer greater than one.

Dumbrell does not use the term "transitional mallet," but we could infer that:
It is a "transitional mallet" when the body height divided by the diameter of the base gives an answer of about one.

I hope you'll do your own measurements, 'timekiller', and let us know what your bottle is.

​

Thanks Harry,
I took your info. and carefully measured it out this time,bottom came out 4.25" and at highest point of shoulder curve came up with 4.34" gave a number of .9............. so I guess by that, it is a mallet!After all these years that bottle still keeps making history,and mystery
Thanks again,Timekiller

You're certainly welcome, 'Timekiller'. I had never measured any of these ratios on my bottles, so I learned something -- always an edifying experience.

When you say, "at highest point of shoulder curve" I hope you mean you measured from the base to where the shoulder curve begins which would be the lowest point of shoulder curve.

You have made a simple inversion error in your calculation. The ratio is height to the start of the shoulder divided by the base diameter. That would be 4.34" divided by 4.25" which is 1.02 (greater than one).

Your bottle is a squat cylinder by Roger Dumbrell's standards, though by our inference it could be called a "transitional mallet."

Hey Harry,sorry about the long response,and my math skills!Ok to me the bottle and all bottles with a neck have what I would call two curves or radius. At the start of the neck from bottom to top is a slow,soft curve then at top of that is were it turns back sharp to the base of neck.Thats were I got 4.34",if I start from bottom to top and measure the beging of any type curve(being the very first start of a curve up the bottle from bottom to top then it is 4".I wish I new how to draw on pics. It would help me alot.
I still appreciate your time and help!
Timekiller

 

[timekiller]

Been tring my skills at drawing on pictures!Not very good yet but like everything else takes time!Maybe this will show what I mean.

 

[Harry Pristis]

I think you've got it, 'Timekiller'. Here's the mallet from the earlier image:

​

 

[allen]

nice research harry.

 

[centfladigger]

nice pictures and post to all. I might have to unpack my bottles and take some pics, as long as this Fl. weather holds up

 

[Tylocidaris]

Here are two bottles in my collection that may fit this topic. First is an amber "lady's leg" bottle that has an applied lip and was "turned in the mold". It is 12.25" tall.







I would greatly appreciate it if anyone has any info regarding the company monogram.

Next is another amber bottle 8" tall. Blown in a mold with an applied lip and no embossing. Thanks for any info on this one, too.

 

[Harry Pristis]

Anyone here who added a remarkable wine bottle to his collection in 2009??

I added a bottle to my mantel - the fourth bottle from the left.

​

 

[gleaner1]

Harry, I always wondered what the deep kick-ups are for. I see these on modern pieces too. Is it to make the bottle hold less wine? Is it for easier stacking? I'm sure this has been addressed before, but I can't find anything about the subject. Thanks very much, gleaner

 

[gleaner1]

I was just being lazy, so I finally did a web search on the subject of kick ups. Harry does not need to be burdened with such maddening questions. Wine bottle kick-ups or punts have many uses, perhaps a dozen. The punt is one of those rare things in life that offers multiple advantages (planned or not), seemingly none of which can be seen as more important than the other. Apparently, nobody can claim for certain its "true" purpose, as it lends itself well to so many others. This is just another subject that makes the entire realm of bottle knowledge seem infinite.

 

[Harry Pristis]

I was just being lazy, so I finally did a web search on the subject of kick ups. Harry does not need to be burdened with such maddening questions. Wine bottle kick-ups or punts have many uses, perhaps a dozen. The punt is one of those rare things in life that offers multiple advantages (planned or not), seemingly none of which can be seen as more important than the other. Apparently, nobody can claim for certain its "true" purpose, as it lends itself well to so many others. This is just another subject that makes the entire realm of bottle knowledge seem infinite.

It's great that you've done some research on kick-ups in wine bottles. Can you list the dozen or so uses for us?

I suspect the origin of the kick-up was simple - to make a horizontal flat surface for the bottle to stand upon. At the same time, the recess concealed the sharp glass edges of the pontil scar.

​

[size=14pt] What are the other uses, 'gleaner1'? I think "debris collection" is one suggestion I have read.

Another possible purpose is to cheat the consumer by making the bottle volume appear larger than it really is.

​

 

[gleaner1]

Harry, I do not have the patience to copy and paste all of the theories. For those interested, proceed to wiki "wine bottles", scroll down a bit, and you will discover the numerous punt theories. After you have done this, you will realize that the whole subject is just a kick in the bottom. (I cannot take credit for that quip). To all a safe and happy New Year!

 

[Erdspiegel]

German barkeepers put a hot towel inside the kick up,if the wine was too cold coming out of the cellar.
Elder guests often asked for that.

 

[Harry Pristis]

This one is actually a liqueur, a brandy-based liqueur, made from double-distilled wine or eau de vie.

"Vieille Cure ['The Old Priest'] is a herbal liqueur (similar to Chartreuse) was made at the Abbey in Cenon near Bordeaux. It was based on various spirits (Fine Champagne and Armagnac) and 52 alpine plants, sugar syrup and honey but production ceased in 1986."

The bottle has smooth base with a modest, domed kick-up. It has a hand-applied string lip and a hand-applied glass seal. It dates to 1860s-1870s.

​

 

[BttleDiggerDrew]

Wow I can't compete with these demi's and such...But here is a little something I found recently...no markings whatsoever...

 

[Harry Pristis]

Wow I can't compete with these demi's and such...But here is a little something I found recently...no markings whatsoever...

It certainly appears to be a wine bottle, Drew. Is that a pontil scar in a ring inside the kickup? Where are you digging?

How about a close-up of that lip, like the one you did of the base.