View Full Version : flask pictures

03-09-2004, 02:22 PM
Hi all,

Here are the pcitures relating to the flask questions below. This is a great site.

Many Thanks



03-09-2004, 02:42 PM
Well, comparing the pictures to the latest issue of AB&GC magazine, which has an article about the Washington/Taylor flasks, I would say that the green flask is real and the amber flask is a reproduction.
Although something about the pontil scar on the green one just doesn't look right, but it may be just the picture that was posted.
If the green one is authentic, then one just recently sold for $1,600.00 at the Glass Works auction on Jan. 2004.
The amber one looks like a repro, compared to the dozen or so pictures shown in the Antique Bottle and Glass magazine. March 2004 of the real deal.

03-09-2004, 02:45 PM
Now that I look at the picture some more, there seems to be something amiss about where the neck meets the body of the green flask.
Almost like it was glued on or something.

03-09-2004, 03:04 PM
A post in the previous thread indicates the flask is a reproduction. Harry P. I believe. Is there a consensus the bottle is a reproduction or is the verdict still out. I thought the same about the neck when I purchased it, but the flask does appear old with noticeable imperfections within the glass and uneveness around the lip.


03-09-2004, 03:09 PM
Harry may be right, Steve.
What bothers me about the bottle in question is the pontil scar on the base of the green flask.
It doesn't look like a pontil scar from the 19th century.
The neck doesn't look right, either.
If Harrys' summation is correct, it is still a flask that is collected and it is worth more than the $20.00 you paid for it.
Clevenger glass is collectible.

03-09-2004, 03:13 PM
Check this link out, Steve.


03-09-2004, 03:26 PM
Harry had also mentioned fantasy glass regarding tne amber bottle. What is fantasy glass and who produces it? Thanks for the link.

03-09-2004, 03:47 PM
I'm not familiar with the term "fantasy" glass, but I presume it's just another name for a fake or reproduction.

03-09-2004, 03:53 PM
any idea how much the reprod wash/taylor flask may be worth or better yet suggestions for some pricing guides I could purchase.



03-09-2004, 04:09 PM
You could try a search on eBay for Clevenger and see what they're selling for.
Don't forget to check the completed items.

03-09-2004, 04:21 PM
check completed items?

03-09-2004, 04:27 PM
Yes, after you do a search. look in the left hand column to where it says "search completed items".

It'll show a listing of items that recently sold on ebay that match your description.

Harry Pristis
03-09-2004, 05:17 PM
Here is a definition of "fantasy bottle" from a recent thread in "Collector's Chat."

RE: "Ball and Claw Bitters...&... (in reply to drjhostetters)


A "reproduction" is a new bottle made as a replica of an old bottle. There are many collectible reproductions of the original E.G. Booz bottle, for example.

A fantasy bottle does not replicate an old bottle, but represents a designer's conception of a "cool, old bottle." A fantasy bottle is a new bottle made with an old-style or ornate appearance.

Fantasy bottles are not antique bottles, so there is no established market for them. They are worth whatever they may bring at the flea-market.

We have no FAQ list on this forum; however, you can search this forum for references to the terms you don't understand.

-----------Harry Pristis

Harry Pristis
03-09-2004, 06:15 PM
Woody . . .

The original GI-37 was made at the Dyottville Glass Works. This was one of the only historical flasks to be produced without a pontil scar. McKearin says: "...the only flasks recorded with 'smooth' bases are flasks in designs first produced in 1847/48 Dyottville-type Washington-Taylors...."

Having reported that, the base on this flask-in-question does not match any type that McKearin figures. It looks "not of the period" to me.

----------------Harry Pristis

03-09-2004, 06:29 PM
Yes, I suspected that it was, but sometimes you just can't tell by looking at a picture posted on the internet.
The neck and the pontil scar just didn't look right, to me.[sm=rolleyes.gif]