# Could really use help in confirming ID?



## Julie (Mar 12, 2018)

I think it is possibly a Continental pocket flask as opposed to a Colonial one (because of the carving to flatten around the "teeter points" around the pontil, which I read was something to be found on British flasks).  It is daisy within diamond over flutes in design.  I have seen this flask in amethyst but never in this shade of green.  2 things:  the camera isn't very good and doesn't capture the color quite, which is deep forest with a hint of teal.  The photos were also taken at night, and the flask is reflecting surrounding shapes and colors.

Any help would be very appreciated!


----------



## RIBottleguy (Mar 12, 2018)

Wish I had better news but everything about it says repro.  I'm sure there are other members who know a little more than I do about it.


----------



## sandchip (Mar 12, 2018)

I would have to agree with RI.  Beautiful color though!


----------



## Julie (Mar 12, 2018)

*Could really use help in confirming ID*



sandchip said:


> I would have to agree with RI. Beautiful color though!



Thanks.  I had read that The Met had made reproductions, but that they were marked.  I assumed they would be marked in the mold itself, but this one isn't.

If I may pick your brains a bit, why would you decide that, I mean, on what basis?  I just want to understand the reasons.  I tend to think so, simply because of the sheer rarity of actually finding a piece from that period at all....though I've been hopeful.

And even if it is, I just love it regardless.

Thanks for letting me in on why you think so, please ?


----------



## Robby Raccoon (Mar 12, 2018)

The mouth is too perfect. The mould wasn't deeply cut. The pontil is incorrect in style. And the colour isn't usually teal at that time, as far as I know.


----------



## hemihampton (Mar 12, 2018)

The whole bottle is to perfect, would be full of air bubbles (big & small) in the glass also, don't see any. Pontil to smooth, looks like a repro to me. LEON.


----------



## Julie (Mar 12, 2018)

Thank you so much for the specific criticisms!  I appreciate that.  

As for air bubbles, there are lots of tiny ones and a few bigger ones, but my camera doesn't capture them. I will (just for the sake of thoroughness) have my DIL use her great camera to take snapshots and then you'll be able to see 'em.....And as far as the color goes, here is an image of a snippet of an article describing "deep green" as a color used in those days.


----------



## saratogadriver (Mar 13, 2018)

The grinding on the base looks like it's trying to deceive, to make it look like base wear when it's really been done with a sanding or grinding device.   Some of these bottles were thinner glass and some were thicker, but this one definitely looks a little too thick to my eye.   Agreed with others the neck is too perfect, and the pattern doesn't look deep enough.    These are very hard to judge though.   As long as you didn't spends hundreds on it, the important thing is that you like it.   End of the day... that's what should really matter to a collector.

Jim G


----------



## jarhead67 (Mar 14, 2018)

I can confirm that's a modern piece commissioned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I have the exact same piece, and pattern, but in 7UP green. They commissioned different designs. My grandmother had a lot of art glass in her house and I ended up with a couple. You should see a MMA etched into the bottom near the pontil, though it might be very faint or worn off. Sorry, my pictures aren't as good as yours, but hope they help. 

https://www.antique-bottles.net/showthread.php?102191-M-M-A-Flasks


----------



## sandchip (Mar 14, 2018)

Here's a picture of an authentic daisy in diamond flask.  How it was blown into a pattern mold, removed, then expanded, is apparent in the difference between the shoulder/neck area and the body of the bottle.  Yours was blown (I believe) into a full size mold made to imitate the look without the trouble of the original process.  And as Bear mentioned, I don't know of them ever being blown in that color, but usually in shades of amethyst.  The glass just doesn't have the character and texture of the early pieces.  It's funny how the early gaffers strove for perfection while producing wonderfully crude bottles, while the later companies, having the technology to make them perfect, tried to make theirs look crude, yet falling far short of the early containers' charm.


----------



## Julie (Mar 18, 2018)

*Could really use help in confirming ID*



sandchip said:


> Here's a picture of an authentic daisy in diamond flask. How it was blown into a pattern mold, removed, then expanded, is apparent in the difference between the shoulder/neck area and the body of the bottle. Yours was blown (I believe) into a full size mold made to imitate the look without the trouble of the original process. And as Bear mentioned, I don't know of them ever being blown in that color, but usually in shades of amethyst. The glass just doesn't have the character and texture of the early pieces. It's funny how the early gaffers strove for perfection while producing wonderfully crude bottles, while the later companies, having the technology to make them perfect, tried to make theirs look crude, yet falling far short of the early containers' charm.
> 
> View attachment 181895



Thanks for all the help everyone.  The glass does have bubbles, the flat (ground) bottoms are found on continental flasks, and were always considered to be far superior (read: perfect) to the colonial versions, and the thickness of the glass is partly an illusion in my pictures because the photos were taken at night and the glass is not showing transparent but reflective....it also is not marked MMA.  However, you are all probably right (and I still love the piece regardless)...but I am not yet 100% convinced.  I am a thorough-minded person who needs solid, irrefutable evidence before I make up my mind, but again, I believe there is a high probability that you are all correct in your pronouncement that it is a reproduction.  Thank you!   Daylight pictures to come.


----------



## hemihampton (Mar 18, 2018)

I think it would take a Professional to examine it in person to be sure as pics can be deceiving. Otherwise we or I are guessing from from what we can see in pics & I know I'm no flask expert. But still leaning towards reproduction. LEON.


----------



## NC btl-dvr (Mar 28, 2018)

Another way to think about it is something (presumably)that old, that was made to be utilitarian and still looks like it just came out of the glass shop. Believe me, we all want to find that one undiscovered piece of glass but you're getting advice from several hundred years worth of glass collectors here. 
Jay


----------



## blobbottlebob (Mar 28, 2018)

Excellent post Sand! I really like your comments about the authentic blowers aiming for perfection but crudely, while the imitation modern ones aimed for crudity but did it too uniformly perfect. Nice.


----------



## jarhead67 (Apr 3, 2018)

Julie, Leon is right. If ANY doubt remains, take it in to someone with professional knowledge who can look at it in hand. I would do the same if I felt completely unsure about anything as well. I never should have said I "confirm" it and apologize for doing so. 

Jeff


----------



## Julie (Apr 3, 2018)

*Could really use help in confirming ID*



jarhead67 said:


> Julie, Leon is right. If ANY doubt remains, take it in to someone with professional knowledge who can look at it in hand. I would do the same if I felt completely unsure about anything as well. I never should have said I "confirm" it and apologize for doing so.
> 
> Jeff




Jeff, I think I should, just to rule out any possibility.....and no need to apologize, but I do believe you are correct in that if one is unsure, one should take it to a professional who can actually hold it and see it in hand.  Everyone did make excellent points and I realize that I am very much the novice here.  I have always just loved this piece, and when I thought it could be very old, it was actually unsettling...lol...so I would be totally fine with me if it were worth (more than I paid) but only relatively few dollars. (I think I paid about $6 and change).  If it is a repro (again, probably!) - it is still a glorious picture of a bygone era.  I love the little impression in the glass where the thumb would settle, makes it easy to hold! 

Thanks all! I would still like to include a few daylight pictures, but I found that I can just use my iPad...so soon...not that anyone is waiting, lol.  

My heartfelt thanks to all.


----------

