Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Senior Member Bottle Master Harry Pristis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Northcentral Florida
    Posts
    873

    Ma conclusion est que la construction de la bouteille est raisonnable pour la date de 1789.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Pristis View Post

    Ma conclusion est que la construction de la bouteille est raisonnable pour la date de 1789.
    Many thanks Harry, i really appreciate it. 😉

  3. #13
    Senior Member Bottle Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Pristis View Post
    Attachment 189105Attachment 189106Attachment 189107

    The bottle construction is reasonable for the 1789 date. The three I've illustrated below are squat cylinders, but tall cylinders (such as the bottles in question) were contemporary. The important feature here is the lip finish.
    Attachment 189103 Attachment 189104


    The three bottle's lip finish most closely matches the one for 1790-1800. The question is how much room for error is there in that chart? Was that lip made beyond 1800? Older Bottle making techniques often continued long after technology changed.

    The bottle itself isn't 1787, the RUM would have been distilled in 1789, probably keg aged, then bottled. But the bottle could most certainly be 1800 or earlier.

    pretty cool stuff for us US folk who so rarely see anything that early.

    Jim G

  4. #14
    Senior Member Bottle Master Harry Pristis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Northcentral Florida
    Posts
    873
    Quote Originally Posted by saratogadriver View Post
    The three bottle's lip finish most closely matches the one for 1790-1800. The question is how much room for error is there in that chart? Was that lip made beyond 1800? Older Bottle making techniques often continued long after technology changed.

    The bottle itself isn't 1787, the RUM would have been distilled in 1789, probably keg aged, then bottled. But the bottle could most certainly be 1800 or earlier.

    pretty cool stuff for us US folk who so rarely see anything that early.

    Jim G
    One reason that hand-finished bottle are preferred by collectors is that every bottle is different, even bottles produced on the same day by the same gaffer. The line-drawings are a generalized guide to form by date.

    The bottles I've illustrated are far more likely to have contained WINE rather than rum. Note that the line-drawings are taken from a book about wine bottles. But, no doubt a few of these bottles were recycled to contain rum for local use. Caribbean rum was exported in casks. Most rums continue today to be bottled directly from the still rather than be aged in barrels. The vast number of such bottles found in former Caribbean colonies is a reflection of the of the scarcity of potable water, I suspect. Wine was safe to drink.

    I can't agree with your assessment of the later date of the three bottles in question. In fact, the bottles look to me to be earlier than the 1789 date. The lips of these bottles went from being FLARED to being mushroomed into a BROAD COLLAR over a 50-year period to about 1800. You can see that progression in the image below. The lips on the three bottles of rum look to me like they fit somewhere in the middle of that period.


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	blackglassmallet3.jpg 
Views:	56 
Size:	69.5 KB 
ID:	189129





  5. #15
    Many thanks guys, if it can help, i can do some more detail photos from the 3 bottles, but the majority seems to be good from 1789

  6. #16
    Senior Member Bottle Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,117
    I bow to your extensive knowledge of bottles of that age Harry. Sure isn't my area of knowledge, not much out there for inks that old. I was just saying that the bottle, if new at the time of use, would be newer than 1789. I didn't know that most rum doesn't get a barrel finish. I'm more of a scotch guy myself.

    Awesome bottles and awesome age no matter what.

    Jim G

  7. #17
    Senior Member Bottle Master Harry Pristis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Northcentral Florida
    Posts
    873
    Quote Originally Posted by saratogadriver View Post
    I bow to your extensive knowledge of bottles of that age Harry. Sure isn't my area of knowledge, not much out there for inks that old. I was just saying that the bottle, if new at the time of use, would be newer than 1789. I didn't know that most rum doesn't get a barrel finish. I'm more of a scotch guy myself.

    Awesome bottles and awesome age no matter what.

    Jim G

    I do understand your argument, Jim. You are making two assumptions:

    1) The labels "1789" are original, applied in 1789 or thereabouts.
    2) The contents were decanted (from a cask) into brand-new bottles months or even years after the putative 1789 date.

    I, on the other hand, am looking at the construction of the bottle lip finish to conclude that the bottles appear "reasonable" for a 1789 date.

    1) I do not rely on paper labels which could have been attached much later, after the distill date was lost.
    2) I do not rely on the paper label to say anything about when the bottles were blown. As I suggested, the lip finishes could be a few years earlier than the 1789 date. Re-filling these bottles is not uncommon.

    Thanks for giving me an opportunity to sort this out in my thinking.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Bottle Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,117
    Great bottles no matter exactly when they were made.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Bottle Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Summerfield, Fl
    Posts
    1,299
    I wonder how the rum is????

  10. #20
    Senior Member Bottle Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,117
    Quote Originally Posted by coreya View Post
    i wonder how the rum is????

    aged



Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •