Some more Earlyglass

[fer_de_lance]

I do not . Is a copy hard to come by?

 

[fer_de_lance]

Stop messin 'round and show the good stuff. Just a jab of course but my bottle envy has reached it's limit. What I had in mind was a unmarked shaft & globe in the 4-5k range.I've staved off the urge by purchasing some Bellarmine jugs recently but your posts have piqued my interest.Keep up the posts, I'll endure.

 

[sandchip]

Great bottles. Thanks for sharing 'em.

 

[cowseatmaize]

I got mine for a little over cover. Then sometimes THIS might happen.

 

[RICKJJ59W]

Nice looking bottles. Id like to dig just one of those whole in my life.

 

[earlyglasscollector]

I think most earlyglass collectors just get used to the idea they can only ever buy these items for their collection. Only the very very lucky few ever dig something like this, and I would imagine you would be even luckier to do this in US, and that then would likely constitute an archeological event with associated problems. Very occasionally they are dug in UK, but at least that event would be ignored by the archeos here...
But you can still get a similar buzz from buying these items, at the right price, hunting them down, finding a collector or dealer with the item you want, and then managing to get it for a good price, or managing to buy it in an auction and beating the other guys....almost as good a buzz in my mind!...[]

Yes I do still like glossy examples as well, but I don't like overglossy. I like to see some original residue inside. I would wash off grime off the outside but I wouldn't touch internal residues. I don't personally like the practice I have seen sometimes from some US sourced items where they have obviously popped the item in for a quick tumble just to clean it off, when it looked as if it really wasn't too bad in the first place... yes I'm not against some tumbling with certain items where they have a surface that just looks scruffy, not a nice colourful patina, and tumbling never works on vitrification where a whole surface lifts off. But tumbling something that a bit shiny, a bit matte, and with various scruffy scuffs and scratchs, then fair enough. But that's my personal opinion.

earlyglass collector
Mark Nightingale

 

[earlyglasscollector]

ORIGINAL: fer_de_lance

Hello, that is one heck of a line up.I've been working on evolution of wine bottle time line and that shaft globe would fit nicely on the early end but not in my budget right now. I'm looking for another reference book, I have Dumbrell's but was curious if you had suggestion for another .
Regards,
Tim

excellent evolutionary grouping there fer_de_lance, you've got good shape examples to fit. often I see quite significant jumps or the wrong types inbetween in some collections trying similar.
However, it is never quite that simple as in reality many forms carried on being used in parallel with other forms. For instance, I have had at least two very classic "pancakey" onions that were sealed and dated as late as 1730..! which one would never have guessed or attributed otherwise. Without the seal you would have said 1710 at the latest...
Equally around 1760 as well as the squats, developing out of the mallets, you also had the early cylinders, which then also developed on their own alongside. It is a misconception often rehashed in literature that the squat eventually turned into a slim cylinder, but squats carried on alongside cylinders for a very long time, particularly in certain areas. Here in my county of Cornwall in UK the squat was particularly fashionable and carried on being used until 1830's and more, though admitedlly it often became more what I refer to as a "wide bodied cylinder", rather than a true squat. Also we have the excellent research by.....dammit, can't remember her name now (I have memory lapses these days!!!) but the Canadian woman who did an excellent acdemically important book, that proved from archeo evidence that after a certain period at least, slim cylinders were for wine, and wider bodies were for beer, plus of course the small examples were for porter, etc etc. So all of our old assumptions concerning evolutionary shape need re-assessing.
Of course, besides all the standard shape groupings you then have to move onto the offshoots, the various bladders, and the octagonals and several more quite distinctive and sometimes unique forms...
earlyglass

 

[cowseatmaize]

I like to see some original residue inside.

This one looks like it's still full of mud. Is that what you mean?[]

 

[earlyglasscollector]

...and while I'm here, may as well leave a calling card, but would welcome discussion on anything have already posted...

here's another group with a couple mallets added...

but I always prefer some of the utilities myself such as this little apothecary onion...

I always feel you get a lot more history for your buck, with the utilities...

I particularly like the clumpy square bodied example, don't see those at all here.

earlyglass

 

[cowseatmaize]

Almost like the snuff jars that I'm familiar with over here. Some sort of evolution I guess?