Bottle shows strongly emphasize old or historic bottles, though always have an assortment of other collectibles ranging from glass insulators, to coins and trade tokens, bottle related items (e.g., shot glasses, advertising signs, trade cards).

I attended the Saturday main session (free admission) of the show which was nominally the second day of the show. Bottle shows these days typically have a dealer “set-up” day on Friday where they unpack their goods. The show sponsors (usually a local/regional bottle club) charge an “early lookers” admission of $5 to $10 for non-dealers on that day. Often the set-up day is a frenzy of buying, selling and trading action as each dealer sets out his wares for all to see. Virtually all bottle dealers are also collectors, buying and selling amongst each other, as well as those willing to pay the early fee that first day. The second day-typically Saturday- is the main show day, which is a bit more relaxed, allowing for a more calm approach to ones bottle collecting activities.

A view of the smaller of the two buildings at the 49er Bottle & Antique Show.

Buyers perusing some of the fantastic bottles being offered by American Bottle Auctions.

This year’s show had, by my estimate, 150 to 175 tables set up as usual in two separate buildings (I’ve attended at least seven or eight previous shows here over the past 25 years). Bottle shows strongly emphasize old or historic bottles, though always have an assortment of other collectibles ranging from glass insulators, to coins and trade tokens, bottle related items (e.g., shot glasses, advertising signs, trade cards) to… well, just about anything old. Even for non-bottle collectors, there is usually something of interest to most other collectors. My wife is not a bottle collector but always finds some jewelry of interest.

Some of the rare and colorful Western bottles – produced from the 1850s to 1890s – that are being offered at the ABA’s next auction in January, 2009.

An assortment of equally colorful barrel bitters (back row against light) being offered at fixed prices, ranging into the many thousands of dollars.

Another fixture at Western bottle shows for several decades has been Pete Hendricks “Pacific Coast Bottle Exchange” table that features bottles of all types and origins.

As a (the?) premier Western show, it isn’t surprising that this show has a high percentage of Western American bottles. One of premier dealers in such bottles is American Bottle Auctions (ABA) of nearby Sacramento, Calif., which had several tables set up at Auburn, showing some of the rare and colorful Western bottles-produced from the 1850s to 1890s, and an assortment of equally colorful barrel bitters (back row against the light) being offered at fixed prices, ranging into the many thousands of dollars. Another fixture at Western bottle shows for several decades has been Pete Hendricks’ “Pacific Coast Bottle Exchange” table that features bottles of all types and origins.

Herb Yue displays a collection of differently colored “ladies leg” bitters bottles.

Bottle shows also usually feature collectors’ displays of bottles. Auburn had only two displays this year-the only disappointment for me, as I love to see other collections creatively displayed. Fortunately, both displays were impressive. Image #7 shows Herb Yue’s collection of differently colored “ladies leg” bitters bottles. These uniquely shaped bottles have a distinctively bulging neck that has been creatively dubbed a “ladies leg” style by collectors although early glass makers referred to them as “Boker Bitters” bottles after the most popular brand of the 19^th century. Bitters were a (typically) high alcohol medicinal product very popular during the 19^th century when many thousands of different brands produced throughout the U. S. The other display was of Mike McKillop’s small size-”splits”-Western beer bottles. Splits were a very small beer bottle holding around eight ounces. As usual, I was educated by the displays, as I didn’t even know there were that many beer splits produced in the West.

Mike McKillop’s small size – “splits” – Western beer bottles.

Was the Auburn show the best in the West? Probably, though I don’t attend every show held in the West. I did, however, attend the Las Vegas bottle show this past February, and if the standard for “best” is the number of sales tables, then I believe that Auburn easily takes the nod… for this year. I will most likely be attending the Las Vegas show again this coming February (Feb. 13 & 14, 2009, at the Palace Station Hotel & Casino). If I attend, a report on that show will be featured on WorthPoint in February.

Has this article made you want to check out a bottle show in your region? For a constantly updated listing of bottle shows being held throughout the U. S. check one-or both-of the following websites:

Antique Bottle & Glass Collector Magazine show site:

http://www.glswrk-auction.com/ShowCale.html

The Federation of Historical Bottle Collectors show site:

http://www.fohbc.com/FOHBC_ShowCalendar2.html

One of the earliest types of American made bottles used for liquor are known generically as “chestnut flasks”; they are also sometimes called “New England chestnut flasks” by collectors.  These type of bottles or flasks (hard to say which is more accurate, but I will call them flasks) were made in many sizes from a few inches tall to several gallons in capacity.

The chestnut flask shown in image #2 is a typical early American example that was most likely produced by a New England or possibly New Jersey glasshouse between 1790 and 1820s – the heyday for this style.  It is about 8″ tall, free-blown (that is, blown without the aid of a full body mold), has a blowpipe type pontil scar within a pushed up base, a crudely applied one-part lip (or “finish” in glassmaker parlance), and is medium olive green in color.  Click on the following links to view more pictures of this chestnut flask: side view; base view showing the blowpipe pontil scar.

Chestnut style flasks were almost certainly produced by most of the earliest viable American glasshouses and date as far back as the 1770s up through the 1830s.  The smallest (5″ or less) ones may have been primarily used for medicines, but medium and larger sizes were very commonly used for beverages including wine and various spirits.  Although often referred to as New England chestnut flasks, they were undoubtedly made by many different glasshouses up and down the Eastern Seaboard as it was a popular style during the noted era (McKearin & Wilson 1978).

Chestnut flasks are typically oval to a flattened oval in cross-section with an overall squatty “teardrop” shape when viewed straight on.  These flasks are free-blown typically (and thus have no mold seams in evidence) with glass tipped or blow-pipe pontil scars.  Because they are free-blown, the actual shapes are quite variable with some approaching round in cross-section to very compressed and “flask-like” on the other end of the scale. Typically the body of these flasks are about 1.5 to 2 times as wide as they are deep.  Finishes (aka “lip”) are applied and quite crude, varying much in shape and often defying simple categorization.  Occasionally, these flasks have a simple cracked-off/sheared and refired finish, but usually the finish is some type of one-part example made with applied glass that was crudely tooled to form a collar.

Colors vary with a large majority being some shade of olive green or olive amber; aqua to amber to teal blue have also been noted by this author, but are rare.  These flasks are usually very crudely formed with bubbles and ripples in the glass, flattened spots and bulges, and an overall lack of symmetry reflecting the free-blown manufacturing and early American heritage.  They usually have very light and thin glass for their size, though this is variable.  Similar bottles made in Europe go back at least to the late 17th century (McKearin & Wilson 1978; Van den Bossche 2001).

The grouping of five chestnut flasks pictured in image #1 are also likely products of the early New England glass companies although the tallest example in the group (9″ with a two-part finish instead of a one-part) may be the product of an early Pennsylvania or New Jersey glass company, as may some of the others in the grouping which range to as small as 5″ tall (McKearin & Wilson 1978).  All of these free-blown flasks share the same early manufacturing characteristics as the image #1 example and show some of the subtle range of glass colors that these bottles were made in.

American made chestnut flasks – although fairly abundant (relatively speaking considering the age of them) - are highly sought out by collectors in the U. S. as they are among the earliest utilitarian bottles known to have been made in America.

Values for American made chestnut flasks in good condition (i.e., no chips, cracks, or other post-production damage; some wear on the sides and base is typical) range from a $200-$300 to $1000 or more depending on size (very small and very large are highly desireable), color, crudity (the more the better…to a point), and condition.  Some times provenience matters in that examples known to have come from “famous” collections can demand a small premium.

For more information on the subject of bottle dating and typology – and the terminology used in the above descriptions – please consult my Historic Bottle Website at: www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm The references noted in the write-ups above are found on that sites “References” page at this link: www.sha.org/bottle/References.htm

For further information on early American bottles and flasks consult these references:

McKearin, Helen and Kenneth M. Wilson. 1978. American Bottles & Flasks and Their Ancestry. Crown Publishers, Inc., New York.

Wilson, Kenneth. 1972. New England Glass & Glassmaking. Thomas Y. Crowell Co., New York.

The internal and external surfaces of a glass bottle that has been buried (probably a majority of collectible bottles) will usually react variably to the natural chemical processes of decomposition in both water and the earth. This process of weathering is called “patination” in the archaeological world (Jones & Sullivan 1989). The results of this decomposition is a crust or other glass surface alteration with is also referred to as a “patina,” “sick glass,” or simply “stained” glass.

The term sick glass is descriptive in that the glass is sick, i.e., it is very slowly dissolving (Munsey 1970). This effect is also called – particularly by collectors – as “opalized,” “iridescence,” or “opalescence” (Tooley 1953; Kendrick 1963). There seems to be no one term that is widely accepted, although I generally refer to it as patination or staining on my Historic Bottle Website.

As examples, the two 1860s-era green soda/mineral water bottles from San Francisco, CA. (images #1-3) show the difference between a moderately stained bottle (left bottle in image #1 & image #2) and an unstained similar example (right bottle in image #1; close-up in image #3). The stained bottle (embossed D. S. & Co. / SAN FRANCISCO and dating from 1861-1864 [Markota 1994]) has a dull, semi-opaque, and relatively unattractive surface to the glass – all undesirable attributes to collectors. The unstained example (embossed PACIFIC / SODA / WORKS – CLASSEN & CO / SAN / FRANCISCO and dating from 1868-1870 [Markota 1994]) is glossy, clear (not semi-opaque), and esthetically more pleasing to the collector’s eye. In near perfect (unstained, undamaged) condition, both bottles are $75-$100+ items. However, the stained example is probably only worth $50 or so in its current condition. (Bottle values and patination are discussed more below.)

The various types of patination

Staining or patination is highly variable and unpredictable. Although glass is a highly resistant substance, it is still subject to slow corrosion by water and environmental chemicals. This is a function of the specific composition of the glass as it relates to the chemistry of the soil and water that the glass resides in, as influenced by amount of exposure or contact time (Munsey 1970).

Patination is more common in bottles with a high soda (and low lime) content. Water will gradually dissolve or leach out the soda component of the glass, leaving a coating of sodium carbonate and eventually silica behind. This process continues year after year, resulting in a buildup of very thin layers, like the rings of a tree (though without the dating opportunity that tree rings allow).

Particularly susceptible bottles or those that have been in contact with water or soil for a very long time (e.g., a 2000-year-old Roman bottle) will exhibit pitting, which is the extreme corrosion of the glass surface. (See image #4 -a 1900-year-old Roman bottle with surface pitting.) Eventually glass will corrode completely away in any environment given enough time (Kendrick 1963; Elliott & Gould 1988).

Patination & collector value

Staining or patination is not a reliable indicator of age, but bottles with high soda content – particularly machine-made items – will stain faster than those with less soda. Black glass and some other types which are apparently low in soda and high in lime will weather for a hundred years or more with little change to the glass surface (Kendrick 1963). Staining is often accelerated on bottles in contact with ashes and alkaline soils and almost non-existent, of course, with bottles that have never been buried, though even those bottles, if given thousands of years, would likely patinate.

One notable exception to the “never been buried” concept is that bottles retaining the original contents for a long period will, over time, usually experience a reaction between the internal glass surface and the contents that results in a milky “content staining” on the inside of the bottle.

Patination is usually considered desirable in many classes of antiques, if for no reason other than as an indicator of true age and authenticity. Patination can also enhance the “look” of many antiques like furniture, scrimshaw, and other items. With antique or historic bottles, however, most forms of patination are usually not a desired feature and can significantly impact value, although the effect on value is highly variable…sometimes it is desired. (For more information on patination in other classes of antiques and collectibles, see Douglass Moody’s excellent WorthPoint article on the subject: http://www.worthpoint.com/blog-entry/patina-indicator-age-or-not)

As an example of patination on a bottle being desirable, consider the amber bottle in images #5 (entire bottle) and #6 (close-up). This is an early 20th century, machine-made, export style beer bottle used by (and embossed with) the A. GETTLEMAN / BREWING CO. / MILWAUKEE (WI.), which was in business from 1887-1961 and then became part of the massive Miller Brewing Co. This bottle – which dates from the 1910 to 1919 (National Prohibition) – exhibits the colorful and quite esthetic type of rainbow patination that collectors refer to as opalescence or iridescence. These colors are a result of the way light waves are broken up by the layers of corrosion and reflected to the eye (Munsey 1970).

The patination of this particular bottle is a result of its unique glass composition (unknown) and reaction to the alkaline (basic) soils in Arizona, where this particular bottle was excavated. Being machine-made, this bottle would generally receive minimal interest from collectors (i.e., a value of no more than about $10). However, with the lovely patination – what some collectors call “nature’s Tiffany” – the value could be $20-30+.

Another example of an esthetically pleasing patination is the bottle pictured in images #7 and #8. This bottle is embossed with ROGERS / NURSERY / HAIR LOTION and is possibly English in origin, though this particular bottle was found in one of the earlier (late 1860s) central Nevada gold camps. This bottle exhibits a spectacular profusion of blue, gold, green and purple iridescence depending on the light and holding angle of the bottle. This is probably only a $10-15 item in near “mint” – non-patinated – condition. With this level of desirable rainbow patination, the bottle is likely worth at least twice that amount.

When patination lowers bottle values

On the other end of the spectrum are the large majority of stained bottles whose the value is diminished by esthetically displeasing patination. The bottle pictured in images #9 (entire bottle) and #10 (close-up) has a more common type of patination – a milky white, opaque coating – that justifies the term “sick glass.” This particular bottle is embossed with C. CONRAD & COs. / ORIGINAL / BUDWEISER and hails from St. Louis, MO.

The product was widely shipped throughout the country as the first commercially pasteurized, bottled beer. These early export beer bottles date from between 1876 and 1882 (Toulouse 1971; Lockhart pers. comm. 2004). This type of staining is very common on the outside and inside surfaces of bottles that have been buried. One of these bottles in near “mint” condition is a $75-$125 item; the pictured example would have a value of about half to two-thirds that range.

Images #11 and #12 show a large chemical or ammonia bottle that has moderate to heavy staining on both the internal and external glass surfaces. This bottle would have minimal value regardless of whether it is in mint or stained condition, since it has no embossing and is a very common general bottle shape. As is, this bottle is of almost no value even though it dates from the 1875-1885 era.

It must be noted that bottles with staining or patination can be mechanically polished to restore the glass surfaces to a more or less original look. This is commonly done with historic bottles usually but not always enhances the value, and is something that collectors need to be aware of. That, however, is the subject of a future WorthPoint article…

There are no firm rules as to how much bottle value is diminished (or enhanced) with the presence or absence of patination. All things otherwise being equal (i.e., the bottle is physically undamaged), the value effect is dependent on the density and type of staining, the rarity or commonality of the specific bottle (very rare and desirable items may be little affected), the likelihood of the bottle responding well to mechanical cleaning, the level of pitting (if present), and many other factors.

On average, this author would guess that the average bottle with average undesirable staining is probably diminished in value by at least 15-25%. The value of historic bottles is a very complicated and slippery subject in which staining is only one element in the formula and all of which are the subject of future articles.

For more information on the subject of historic bottles – including the terminology used in the above descriptions – please consult my Historic Bottle Website (HBW) at: www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm The references noted in this article are found on the HBW’s References page at this link: www.sha.org/bottle/References.htm. For viewers unfamiliar with some of the terminology used in this article, please see the HBW’s Bottle Glossary page at www.sha.org/bottle/glossary.htm.

One of the easier to identify and most consistently accurate indicators that a bottle was manufactured during or prior to the American Civil War (i.e., the 1860s or before) is the pontil scar present on the base.

A pontil mark is a variably sized and type of scar left on the base of a bottle by a pontil rod. A typical pontil rod or “punte” was a long (4-6 feet) iron rod which was securely attached to the base of the just blown hot bottle. This attachment process was called “empontilling.” The rod had to be long enough so that the heat transference from the extremely hot (2000°+ F.) bottle did not reach the hands of the pontil rod holder. A pontil rod held the bottle during the steps in the bottle blowing process where the blowpipe is removed (“cracked-off”) from the bottle and that break-off point is “finished”, i.e. the lip or “finish” is completed in some fashion, with or without additional glass. (The process of “finishing” a bottle will be the subject of a future article.)

Once the bottle is “finished,” the pontil rod itself is sharply tapped which breaks it free of the bottle. The base of a bottle which was held with a pontil rod will almost always retain some evidence of the pontil rod attachment. (For more information on the production processes of making bottles, please see my “Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website” (HBW for short) at www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm . In particular see the “Glassmaking & Glassmakers” page at www.sha.org/bottle/glassmaking.htm )

Four types of pontil scars

There were four main types of empontilling methods – all of which leave more or less distinctively different base markings. These are briefly discussed below:

1. Glass-tipped pontil scar (image #1) – This type pontil scar was formed by the use of a solid iron bar as the pontil rod. One slightly widened end of the bar was tipped with molten glass then applied and fused to the base of the bottle. A glass tipped pontil rod made contact with most – or all – of the bottle base within the confines of the diameter of the pontil rod tip. When the rod was broken free of the bottle, a generally round but fragmented scar was left behind on the base.

This is usually manifested primarily by an assortment of glass fragments protruding above the base of the bottle. See image #1 which is a mid-19th century sauce bottle. In addition, the rod would usually take with it some small glass fragments from the base of the bottle leaving a scar which is a round scattering of “bumps and gouges” without a distinctly unmarred scar center – like the blowpipe pontil scar described next.

2. Blowpipe or “open” pontil scar (image #2) – This type of pontil mark – which was also called the “ring pontil” or “open pontil” – was formed when a hollow blowpipe was used as the pontil rod. It is at least as common on American made bottles as the glass tipped pontil mark (Boow 1991). Using a blowpipe for empontilling was likely done to both save on the number of tools used by the glass blower and to save time.

When a blowpipe was used as a pontil, it left behind a distinctive ring shaped scar that is usually sharp edged, hollow in the middle, and round to slightly oval with an overall diameter that is roughly the size of the bottles upper neck. This is circumstantial proof that one blowpipe was usually used for both blowing and empontilling. Image #2 shows a very large and distinct blowpipe pontil on the base of a “Jenny Lind calabash” bottle that dates from about 1850.

3. Sand pontil scar (image #3) – The sand pontil scar was also a common method of empontilling a bottle to hold it for finishing, though less common on American made bottles than the other three primary methods described here. This mark was formed when the hot glass on the flared or ball shaped tip of a solid iron pontil rod was dipped in sand (or small glass chips) prior to application to the bottle base. The sand/glass chips were apparently intended to keep the pontil rod from adhering too closely to the bottle, facilitating easier removal.

A larger connecting surface at the end of the pontil rod was necessary with this method in order to ensure an adequate adherence to the bottle base and was of particular use with the ever increasing numbers of molded bottles during the first half of the 19th century. The sand pontil apparently conformed better than other pontil types to molded base shapes without distorting it (Jones 1971; McDougall 1990).

This type of pontil can be very subtle and hard to identify at times (it is also hard to photograph). It often must be confirmed by running ones finger over the base and feeling for the presence of a finger grabbing “sandpaper effect.” It feels and visually appears to be a generally round, sparse scattering of very fine sand, glass, or quartz grains imbedded onto and into the surface glass of the base. Some have described this as an “orange peel” effect (McDougall 1990). See image #3 which shows the base of an 1830s to 1840s patent medicine (“Health Restorative”) bottle from New York.

The sand pontil will usually (though lightly) cover a much larger diameter area on the base than typically affected by the other three empontilling methods covered here (although iron pontil marks can be wide also; see the next section). The base of a sand pontiled bottle will often show some distortion made by the red hot pontil rod ball tip/head application to the bottle base which often more or less outlines the sand pontil area. The noted image shows a sand pontil with the distortion (indented slightly) made by the pontil ball tip in evidence.

4. Iron or” improved” pontil scar (image #4) – This fascinating type of pontil mark is also referred to as simply an “iron pontil” or “improved pontil.” It is also commonly referred to as a “graphite pontil.” This is erroneous as there is no graphite (carbon) associated with any improved or iron pontil mark. Apparently the term originated from the fact that the substance often looks like a graphite smear. In actuality, the residual red, reddish black, gray, or black deposits are iron, typically oxidized iron – ferric (red) and ferrous (gray, black) oxides (Toulouse 1968; McKearin & Wilson 1978).

The iron pontil scar is the result of using a bare iron pontil rod with an appropriate shaped tip or head which was heated red hot and directly applied and fused to the base of the bottle to be held. There was no glass added (like the glass-tipped pontil rod) or remaining (like using the blowpipe for a pontil) on the iron tip of this type pontil rod.

Like the other pontil rod types, this one was probably removed by sharply tapping the rod near the attachment point. The iron deposits which form the iron pontil mark are very small fragments or residue from the tip of the bare iron pontil rod itself. Image #4 is of a “gothic peppersauce” bottle from the 1850s with a classic dark gray iron pontil mark.

For more detailed information on the fascinating world of pontil marks or scars – including many more images and illustrations – check out the “Pontil Scars” page of my Historic Bottle Website at www.sha.org/bottle/pontil_scars.htm

Dating bottles with pontil scars

Pontil rods and the resultant pontil scars go back to antiquity, having been used for bottle making as early as Roman times (McKearin 1941). All of the different pontil scars noted can be found on American made utilitarian bottles that date to or before the American Civil War (mid-1860s). Pontil scars on all types of “utilitarian bottles” (discussed below) became ever increasingly unusual as the 1860s progressed and largely disappeared by the late 1860s or early 1870s as various “snap” or snap case tools dominated the task of grasping the hot bottle for finishing.

However, the transition time for conversion from the pontil rod to the snap case was lengthy. The first use of the grasping snap tool in the United States may have been in the 1840s, but its use was definitely evident by at least the early 1850s. Thus, utilitarian bottles without a pontil scar can date as early as the late 1840s to early 1850s (though rarely earlier) and pontil scars can be found – though very infrequently – on utilitarian bottles made in the late 1860s and even early 1870s

More specifically, glass tipped, blowpipe, and sand pontil marks may all be found on most all bottles dating well before bottles were even made in any quantity in the New World, i.e. before the late 18th century, and continued to be common on a large majority of bottles up until the American Civil War. Some utilitarian bottles (though a relatively small percentage) were still being produced with these pontil marks as late as the early 1870s. After that time, those types of pontil scars are very unusual and related mostly to the production of low volume “specialty” bottles (e.g., fancy liquor decanters, barber bottles).

The bare iron pontil apparently had a fairly narrow lifespan as the majority of these bottles date between about 1845 and the mid-1860s, though they can be as early as 1830s and possibly as late as the early 1870s. They are particularly common on mid-19th century soda/mineral water bottles but can be found on a wide variety of bottle types (Toulouse 1968; Watson & Skrill 1971; McKearin & Wilson 1978; Cannon 1990; Boow 1991; Van den Bossche 2001).

Pontil scars and bottle values

It is very simple to summarize the impact of pontil scars on historic bottles: pontil scars of all types enhance the value of a bottle almost without exception (and I can’t think of any exceptions). The attraction of pontil scars/marks to collectors is largely connected with the fact that the mark proves a Civil War (or earlier) heritage and is a visual, physical connection of that bottle with the primitive, craft based bottle manufacturing methods of old.

As an example of how a pontil mark affects value, consider a “Hostetter’s Stomach Bitters” bottle – one of the most common bitters bottles made during the last half of the 19th century — which may be worth $10 to $500 depending on color (plain ambers at the lower end; various shades of green – like image #5 – or black glass at the upper end of the scale). However, if that same Hostetter’s bottle has a distinct iron pontil scar the value increases at least 10-fold! (Pontiled Hostetter’s bottles are extremely rare, but do exist.) Although the spread in value usually isn’t that great, most bottles are worth significantly more if the base exhibits a pontil scar than if it does not and is “smooth” to use collector jargon.

To view the references noted in this article view the HBW “References” page at www.sha.org/bottle/References.htm
For viewers unfamiliar with some of the terminology used in the descriptions, please see the HBW “Bottle Glossary” page at www.sha.org/bottle/glossary.htm

The title of this blog is the wonderful and strangely upbeat phrase embossed around the pedestal base of this whimsical little bottle…or is it a salt/pepper shaker. Actually, the “em-bossing” is “de-bossed” or indented into the glass instead of raised relief like typical bottle embossing.

The Billiken, as one can see from the images, is a little fat, naked guy sitting on his behind with this devilish grin and and both eyes shut tightly. Sort of a happy Budda figure, though with no apparent religious overtones. It does make one happy just gazing upon this little elf. See Image #1 above which shows an example that still retains some of the gold highlight paint.

The following is from Wikipedia on the subject:

“The Billiken was a charm doll created by an American art teacher and illustrator, Ms. Florence Pretz of Kansas City, Missouri, who is said to have seen the mysterious figure in a dream. In 1908 she patented the Billiken who was elf-like with pointed ears, a mischievous smile, and a tuft a hair on his pointed head. His arms were short and he was generally sitting with his legs stretched out in front of him. The Billiken was auspiciously named after the newly elected President of the United States, William Howard Taft. (The manufacturer of the dolls, Horsman Dolls, Inc., had earlier enjoyed success with the Teddy Bear: a toy named after the previous president, Theodore Roosevelt.) The Billiken was one of the first copyrighted dolls and the first likenesses of the Billiken, banks and statues, were produced in 1909. After a few brief years of popularity, like many other fad toys, the Billiken faded into obscurity.“

One question I’ve always had is whether these are bottles – they are often referred to as a candy bottle (holding those little, hard candies of yesteryear) – or part of a salt/pepper shaker set (and outside my bottle genre).

The evidence for it being a salt shaker is that the cap of most of them – including the pictured example which is almost certainly original as I’ve seen the same exact cap on many specimens – has the perfunctory holes in it for dispensing a product, i.e., salt and/or pepper. Image #2 above shows the cap with the shaker holes in it. This type cap is seen on a majority of Billiken bottles in my experience. Image #3 shows a colorless (clear) example of the bottle which also has a perforated cap (not showing in image).

However, there are a few bottles around that have caps without holes; are these the candy bottles? Image #4 above shows one with a solid silver cap which may – or may not – be original. This particular example was in the famed and spectacular Judge Blaske collection of bottles & flasks sold off in 1983. The auction catalog noted that the cap may or may not have been original – a reflection of the fact that most of these bottles are seen with the perforated cap.

If any viewers of this blog have any additional information on the subject, I would love to hear about it. The bottom line is probably that these bottles were likely used for both salt/pepper shakers and as candy (or whatever) bottles, though most were used for the former purpose. Anyway you “shake it” these are attractive and engaging bottles…and highly collectible.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billiken

http://www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm

http://www.historicbottles.com/billiken1908patent.pdf (Link to original patent)

One of the most pervasive and longest running myths in the world of bottle dating is that the side mold seam can be read like a thermometer to determine the age of a bottle.(See image #1, which is an illustration pointing out the major “parts” of a bottle, including the side mold seam. Illustration from my Historic Bottle Website – a purely educational website.)

The concept is that the higher the side mold seam on the bottle (i.e., the closer to the lip) the later it was made – at least in the era from the early to mid 19th century until the first few decades of the 20th century. This dating tool was first devised by Grace Kendrick in her 1963 book “The Antique Bottle Collector.” This book was pioneering and reprinted many times into the 1970s and is probably the most common and widely quoted bottle book ever written, containing a wealth of generally good information.

This concept was articulated by Kendrick’s in a chapter entitled the “The Applied Lip” which contains an “Age Gauge: Mold Seams of Bottles” chart (Figure 9). Kendrick’s explains in the text (pages 45-47) that:

It is true that the mold seams can be used like a thermometer to determine the approximate age of a bottle. The closer to the top of the bottle the seams extend, the more recent was the production of the bottle.

The chart accompanying this statement notes that bottles made before 1860 have a side mold seam ending on the shoulder or low on the neck, between 1860 and 1880 the seam ends just below the finish (the glassmaker term for a bottle lip), between 1880 and 1900 the seam ends within the finish just below the finish rim (top lip surface), and those made after 1900 have mold seams ending right at the top surface of the finish, i.e., rim (Kendrick 1963).

Dating bottles is complicated

There are examples of bottles having mold seams that fit these date ranges properly. For instance the newest of bottles – those that were machine-made – do have seams ending right at the top (or on top of) the lip or finish. However, the issue of dating bottles is much more complicated than the simple reading of side mold seams. If it were indeed that simple a large chunk of my Historic Bottle Website would be unnecessary!

For example, the mouth-blown process that produces a “tooled” finish frequently erases traces of the side mold seam an inch or more below the base of the finish whereas the typical – and older – “applied” finish has the seam ending higher – right at the base of the finish (Lockhart et. al. 2005e). See image #2 which shows the side mold seam on a “malt tonic” bottle (entire bottle shown in image #3) dating from 1906 to 1916 based on information from business directories, other references, and additional manufacturing related features present on the bottle (the subject of future articles). As a side note, this bottle also has a crown cap accepting lip which was not even invented until 1892. Using the dating “thermometer,” this bottle would presumably date from the 1860 to 1880 period.

The reason I address this issue is that the concept keeps popping up in the literature of bottle dating and identification, ranging from Sellari’s books (Sellari 1970:5) published shortly after Kendrick’s book to as recent as Fike (1998:4) and Heetderk (2002:15). It is also frequently noted by sellers on websites such as eBay® when describing their offerings. For a broader discussion of this subject see the Bottles and Extras magazine article, which I co-authored, entitled Debunking the Myth of the Side Seam Thermometer (Lockhart et al. 2005e). This article is available on the Historic Bottle Website at this link: http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/Thermometer_BLockhart.pdf

The complicated issue of mold seams and dating is explored in various portions of my Historic Bottle Website (www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm), though in particular on the Bottle Body Characteristics & Mold Seams page (www.sha.org/bottle/moldseams.htm) and the Bottle Bases page (www.sha.org/bottle/bases.htm).

(For more information on the subject of bottle dating and typology – and the terminology used in the above descriptions – please consult my Historic Bottle Website at www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm. The references used in this article can be found listed on my website’s References page at: www.sha.org/bottle/References.htm)