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

Welcome to our Antique Bottle community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Matt B

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2022
Messages
5
Reaction score
5
Points
3
So without asking for more photos I bought a rather odd looking supposedly Ball mason with the logo that would indicate that it would be late 1800's, but now that I see it in person, I'm 90% convinced it's a fake or modern whimsical reproduction. The bottom is all wrong and the front is embossed "BALL MASON'S PATENT 1858",

I know Ball did buy out other companies, but I haven't seen something like this. Can someone tell me if they have seen a fake like this before?
20221017_225709.jpg
20221017_225737.jpg
 

Mailman1960

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
1,278
Points
113
Location
Lyons, IL
So without asking for more photos I bought a rather odd looking supposedly Ball mason with the logo that would indicate that it would be late 1800's, but now that I see it in person, I'm 90% convinced it's a fake or modern whimsical reproduction. The bottom is all wrong and the front is embossed "BALL MASON'S PATENT 1858",

I know Ball did buy out other companies, but I haven't seen something like this. Can someone tell me if they have seen a fake like this before?View attachment 240783View attachment 240784
I take it you checked the seams once you got it, are there any bubbles, the bottom doesn't look right to me but my opinion.
 

Johnny M

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2022
Messages
92
Reaction score
128
Points
33
I think it's good myself. All kinds of permutations using Ball and Masons patent on same jar. I'm not a jar expert but I bet it's an old jar with a scarce embossing. Nice find! Johnny M
 

RoyalRuby

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
445
Reaction score
627
Points
93
Location
Buckeye State
So without asking for more photos I bought a rather odd looking supposedly Ball mason with the logo that would indicate that it would be late 1800's, but now that I see it in person, I'm 90% convinced it's a fake or modern whimsical reproduction. The bottom is all wrong and the front is embossed "BALL MASON'S PATENT 1858",

I know Ball did buy out other companies, but I haven't seen something like this. Can someone tell me if they have seen a fake like this before?View attachment 240783View attachment 240784


I'd look closely at the very top of the jar, if it's ruff cut where the lid would seal, it should be an original. IIRC the mold number 308 was used on re-pop midget milk glass Mason jars. I own one but it's in storage at the moment and I think mine has the "308" on the bottom. I just searched for 20 minutes and couldn't find what I was looking for about the "308", but I'm quite sure it was used on those re-pop milk glass versions, not sure if they did that on the jars like yours or not. You would most likely get better info in the fruit jar section on this forum.
320586898098.jpg
 
Last edited:

Matt B

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2022
Messages
5
Reaction score
5
Points
3
I take it you checked the seams once you got it, are there any bubbles, the bottom doesn't look right to me but my opinion.
There are the normal bubbles and wavy, irregular-looking glass like you would normally see on old mason jars. The bottom seems to be texturized and a little too cleanly joined. The few other jars I have from the 1900-1910 era seem to be a little crude on the bottom compared to this one. The styling and script on the Ball logo is consistent with the 1880s to 1890s What should the seams look like on a jar like this?
 
Last edited:

DavidW

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2014
Messages
252
Reaction score
185
Points
43
Location
Southern Indiana
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!
 

Attachments

  • Ball-jar-305-page-12-Alice-Creswick-Frut-Jar_Works-Volume-1.jpg
    Ball-jar-305-page-12-Alice-Creswick-Frut-Jar_Works-Volume-1.jpg
    384.2 KB · Views: 52

Matt B

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2022
Messages
5
Reaction score
5
Points
3
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!
Wow, this is crazy. I would have thought that with the clear color as opposed to blue, the "MASON'S" lettering as opposed to "MASON", and the sleek, modern looking bottom, there were too many inconsistencies for it to be authentic, but there it is in print. It also seems to be a bit taller and skinnier than another Ball mason I have of the post 1910 era.
20221018_113953.jpg
20221018_114033.jpg
 
Last edited:

DavidW

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2014
Messages
252
Reaction score
185
Points
43
Location
Southern Indiana
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.
 

Newtothiss

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2021
Messages
418
Reaction score
502
Points
93
Location
WA
My oldest mason jar (blue) is a very light aqua.
Nothing beats those DEEP aqua ball jars though.

I am by no means an expert, but the bottom does indeed look "off".

My $0.02...
 

Len

CT LEN
Joined
Nov 14, 2020
Messages
816
Reaction score
679
Points
93
There are many variant fruit jars out there. This one may have more than its fair share... :rolleyes:
 

Members online

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
81,665
Messages
733,248
Members
22,326
Latest member
marianne_partridge
Top