I'm thinking this is some sort of modern reproduction mason jar.

DavidW said:

Hi Matt B! This is absolutely a 100% original, authentic jar. The jar is listed as jar #305 on page 12 of the reference book "The Fruit Jar Works Volume 1" by Alice Creswick. (Mold numbers on the bottom aren't mentioned for this jar). I will attach a photo of the top half of this page in that book. This book is one of the early companion hardcover SERIOUS RESEARCH volumes with the jar numbers that the "REDBOOK" is based on.
I don't quite understand why, but many of the jar numbers assigned to jars illustrated in the original Fruit Jar Works books (and the accompanying RedBook) were later re-numbered so they can be hard to find in the more recent Redbook editions. WHY WAS THIS DONE??? In the newer Redbooks (I don't have the very latest, I have #11) the jar #305 is a totally different jar!!!! Why?
I've tried to look through my Redbook to find what number your jar is now listed under. Didn't see it, but I haven't been very thorough! SOMEONE, PLEASE look through their new Redbook slowly and carefully and tell us what jar number this variant has been assigned!! THANKS!

Click to expand...

DavidW said:

Well, a lot of the older jars (from many glass companies) are actually in very light shades of aqua. Not to split hairs but your jar would probably be classed as "light aqua", "pale aqua" or "ice aqua". Not really "clear". I assume it has a ground lip. Can you post a picture of the lip ? (It's nice to have the lid, but it is also good to be able to see the lip / top of the jar clearly as this can (sometimes) help with identification.
Another bit of trivia -- nearly all authentic older jars will have at least a trace of "use scratches". If you hold up the jar to a bright light, and study the surface, moving it back and forth at an angle, can you see a few very faint surface scratches or maybe faint traces of haziness? Most newer repro jars are made with glass that has no scratches AT ALL. There's just something about them that is hard to define.

Click to expand...

Matt B said:

The lip is a bit... Rough. I certainly wouldn't want to use it as a drinking glass.

Click to expand...

PlaneDiggerCam said:

That is ground lip alright.

Click to expand...

Matt B said:

So I guess taking into account the imperfections in the glass (wavy sides, imperfections and bubbles in glass) and the ground lip, the jar is authentic. So cool to have something in your hands that is older than your oldest living relative, and something so simple, but that was very relevant at the time it was manufactured.

Today, this stuff spools off of production lines at warp speed, each perfectly made, with nothing to identify it or make it special except for a paper label. The poor collectors a hundred years from today will have no way to differentiate one year or brand from another.

Click to expand...

Matt B said:

So I guess taking into account the imperfections in the glass (wavy sides, imperfections and bubbles in glass) and the ground lip, the jar is authentic. So cool to have something in your hands that is older than your oldest living relative, and something so simple, but that was very relevant at the time it was manufactured.

Today, this stuff spools off of production lines at warp speed, each perfectly made, with nothing to identify it or make it special except for a paper label. The poor collectors a hundred years from today will have no way to differentiate one year or brand from another.

Click to expand...

DavidW said:

Hi Matt B! This is absolutely a 100% original, authentic jar. The jar is listed as jar #305 on page 12 of the reference book "The Fruit Jar Works Volume 1" by Alice Creswick. (Mold numbers on the bottom aren't mentioned for this jar). I will attach a photo of the top half of this page in that book. This book is one of the early companion hardcover SERIOUS RESEARCH volumes with the jar numbers that the "REDBOOK" is based on.
I don't quite understand why, but many of the jar numbers assigned to jars illustrated in the original Fruit Jar Works books (and the accompanying RedBook) were later re-numbered so they can be hard to find in the more recent Redbook editions. WHY WAS THIS DONE??? In the newer Redbooks (I don't have the very latest, I have #11) the jar #305 is a totally different jar!!!! Why?
I've tried to look through my Redbook to find what number your jar is now listed under. Didn't see it, but I haven't been very thorough! SOMEONE, PLEASE look through their new Redbook slowly and carefully and tell us what jar number this variant has been assigned!! THANKS!

Click to expand...