J.R. Collector
Nomad Bottle Collector
These dated John Ryans are I believe known to not be pontiled, and are all considered smooth bases. Here is one that is dated 1859 and so seems pontiled? Figured I would share.
Technically there are no known dated pontils in the Russ Butler. I believe this one to be #10-118 in his book. I just found it interesting and the fact you have this same example with the deep pushed up smooth base is interesting.I have a bottle with a similar indentation. It sure looks like yours. It appears like my bottle & your bottle have been tumble polished. Possible not done correctly and the unprotected pontil was removed by the process.
There is definitely minor white residue left and surely has a deep or even deeper pontil pushed up as I am comparing to other know iron pontil John Ryans. I do know this was around the same time they where using existing molds and modified them as GAjosh is saying. So it is possible some are actually pontiledWith just your pictures to go by my eye says that's the remains of an iron pontil with the iron gone. But not easy to tell. Even in person.
jim G
Sexy looking specimen you have there. Thank you for posting it.Heres mine if its any help...View attachment 253898View attachment 253899
Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk
I do have some 1852 dated John Ryans that are smooth based and not pontiled. I was just rereading your post about the end of the pontiled Era. Thought I would share.1859 is very near the end of the pontil era. I remember reading that by 1860 the vast majority of bottles were no longer made in this manner, though I can't say for sure if your bottle is or isn't. There's clearly some similarities but it's also more refined and clean looking.