Traditionally ID'd as a Stafford Ink Bottle, but......

Welcome to our Antique Bottle community

Be a part of something great, join today!

historic-antiques

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
89
Reaction score
41
Points
18
Hi Everyone,

I haven't studied all the newest antique bottle books, but I've known this 7-8 inch cobalt blue Stafford bottle to be always ID'd as an ink bottle. However, I discovered this example in the basement of an old 1880s Chicago house with its original paper label that indicates it's really a "mucilage" (glue) bottle. Is this new news or did everybody already know this? Just wanted to pass this info on.

I'm posting 2 images of it for all to see.

Happy digging to all!

Paul
 

Attachments

  • P1020398-Stafford Mucilage.jpg
    P1020398-Stafford Mucilage.jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 289
  • P1020400-Stafford Mucilage.jpg
    P1020400-Stafford Mucilage.jpg
    31.8 KB · Views: 275

historic-antiques

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
89
Reaction score
41
Points
18
Sorry for the side-way images, anybody know how to put them upright? Which buttons do I push? Thanks!
 

RIBottleguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
2,314
Reaction score
167
Points
63
Location
Providence, RI
I've seen a few labeled examples that say ink so I'm going to say this is an uncommon label. Typically mucilage bottles had an applicator that could reach the bottom of the bottle, as glue is sticky stuff and you can't really pour it out.
 

historic-antiques

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
89
Reaction score
41
Points
18
You've brought up a good point RIBottleguy!! Come to think of it, there isn't any residue of mucilage on the pouring spout at all. One would think there should be from pouring it 135 years ago. And the bottle is empty without much if any residue in it. Wonder what happened. Was natural glue more manageable and pourable back than? Did somebody clean the bottle for some reason? Or did somebody apply this label by mistake? Or, was the cobalt bottle used for ink AND for mucilage? Maybe I should try getting some of the residue out to analyze? Can be risky and I don't want to ruin the very fragile label so I won't. Thanks for you useful comment!!
 

sandchip

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
5,295
Reaction score
1,161
Points
113
Location
Georgia
... Or, was the cobalt bottle used for ink AND for mucilage?...

I think you nailed it right there. Much cheaper to have labels printed than to have two different molds made for embossed bottles. Nice bottle and label.
 

saratogadriver

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
250
Points
83
Location
Vermont
I doubt they poured it notwithstanding the pour spout. I'm betting they just switched out the cork for a cork with applicator, which seems to have been the usual closure for most mucilage that I've seen. It may also be true that someone took the empty bottle and washed it out to repurpose it, or because it was a pretty blue.

Can't say I've ever seen one with a mucilage label before. Neat.

Jim G
 

historic-antiques

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
89
Reaction score
41
Points
18
Thanks for your comment sandchip. Seems like we've got new knowledge about this bottle!
 

historic-antiques

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
89
Reaction score
41
Points
18
Thanks for your comment saratogadriver. Yes, they must have had an applicator, thus no residue on the spout! And the pretty blue color would motivate somebody to rinse it clear - thus maybe the rather bad shape of the label when I found it. Usually non-acid paper labels are in better shape. But who knows how the environment of the basement affected the label after 135 years.
 

Members online

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
83,220
Messages
742,912
Members
24,231
Latest member
rrenzi
Top