# Late 1800,s to early 1900,s amber whiskey



## east texas terry (Apr 9, 2021)

This beautiful late 1800,s to early 1900,s amber whiskey was in with the
 h hutch bottle


----------



## buriedtreasuretime (Apr 9, 2021)

east texas terry said:


> This beautiful late 1800 amber whiskey was in with hutch bottleView attachment 223079View attachment 223079View attachment 223080View attachment 223081



I’m thinking that is newer, 1900 - teens. Is it a 3 piece BIM? glass should be a little more rustic I’m thinking for 1880’s- 1890’s. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## east texas terry (Apr 9, 2021)

This F.  Weber ink  was also with the hutch bottle


----------



## Dink1957 (Apr 9, 2021)

Would this be considered a slick? What kind of value does a bottle like this have? I have a few that look identical except much dirtier...and what is a hutch?


----------



## buriedtreasuretime (Apr 9, 2021)

east texas terry said:


> This F. Weber ink was also with the hutch bottleView attachment 223088View attachment 223089



That’s a nice ink, I’m unfamilliar with it but great bottom to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## east texas terry (Apr 9, 2021)

buriedtreasuretime said:


> That’s a nice ink, I’m unfamilliar with it but great bottom to it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I look it up it has a embossed Sphinx Egptian on bottom


----------



## TxBottleDigger (Apr 10, 2021)

east texas terry said:


> Would this be considered a slick? What kind of value does a bottle like this have? I have a few that look identical except much dirtier...and what is a hutch?


Yes, this would absolutely be considered a slick. This is the optimity of a slick. Generally any 1900-modern slick is not worth very much unless they are unusual or unique. Most slicks from that time range go for $20 at the most. Slick whisky cylinders are worth $5-$10. A Hutch refers to a bottle which would have had the Hutchinson closure which was primarily and popularly used for a lot of sodas until they started to phase out when the crown top bottle top came out in the early 1890s in which you would use a bottle cap opener top open it. The crown top is still used and is virtually on almost all existent glass beer bottles to this date. How you would open a Hutchinson stopper is by pressing down on the spring thus, releasing the rubber seal from the lower part on the inside of the finish (top) of the bottle. Hutchinson bottles were made from 1879-1912 and generally did not have a neck for the top. In addition; the top of the bottle was a “blob top”. I will insert some photos of Hutchinson’s to familiarize you with them. None of which of the ones photographed are owned by me.


----------



## willong (Apr 10, 2021)

buriedtreasuretime said:


> Is it a 3 piece BIM?



It was not blown in a three-piece mold. If it had been, you would at the very least see the seam running around the cylinder portion of the bottle below the shoulder. And at that, it would have to be positioned 90-degrees out from the photographer's position for one of the vertical seams to not show. Of course, this is assuming it was not "turned in mold" to erase mold seam marks. The bottle does not appear to be turn mold, especially judging by the base photo.


----------



## east texas terry (Apr 10, 2021)

willong said:


> It was not blown in a three-piece mold. If it had been, you would at the very least see the seam running around the cylinder portion of the bottle below the shoulder. And at that, it would have to be positioned 90-degrees out from the photographer's position for one of the vertical seams to not show. Of course, this is assuming it was not "turned in mold" to erase mold seam marks. The bottle does not appear to be turn mold, especially judging by the base photo.


Thank for the info


----------



## buriedtreasuretime (Apr 12, 2021)

willong said:


> It was not blown in a three-piece mold. If it had been, you would at the very least see the seam running around the cylinder portion of the bottle below the shoulder. And at that, it would have to be positioned 90-degrees out from the photographer's position for one of the vertical seams to not show. Of course, this is assuming it was not "turned in mold" to erase mold seam marks. The bottle does not appear to be turn mold, especially judging by the base photo.



This is interesting, the turn in the mold. And the turn would erase the seam marks including the one at the top of the cylinder?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willong (Apr 13, 2021)

buriedtreasuretime said:


> This is interesting, the turn in the mold. And the turn would erase the seam marks including the one at the top of the cylinder?


Turning would normally erase that seam, though I have seen a few where it was not totally obliterated. In those cases, the seam is still visible, though muted, not sharp.

I'm thinking a couple factors could affect the appearance of the  horizontal seam. One might be how tight the mold itself was constructed and how much use it had endured. If sloppy construction or heavy wear of the mold resulted in a higher and wider seam in the glass before the bottle was turned it occurs to me than more seam might remain visible after turning. I am also thinking that how quickly the glass blower turned the bottle, thus its temperature and plasticity, might contribute to the final product's appearance.

If any glassblowers are reading this, I'd be interested in their input.


----------



## buriedtreasuretime (Apr 24, 2021)

willong said:


> Turning would normally erase that seam, though I have seen a few where it was not totally obliterated. In those cases, the seam is still visible, though muted, not sharp.
> 
> I'm thinking a couple factors could affect the appearance of the horizontal seam. One might be how tight the mold itself was constructed and how much use it had endured. If sloppy construction or heavy wear of the mold resulted in a higher and wider seam in the glass before the bottle was turned it occurs to me than more seam might remain visible after turning. I am also thinking that how quickly the glass blower turned the bottle, thus its temperature and plasticity, might contribute to the final product's appearance.
> 
> If any glassblowers are reading this, I'd be interested in their input.



Do you know if molds were steel , pig iron or wood soaked in wate:I’ve read that steam rising off cold molds causes whittling in the black and amber pieces too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## willong (Apr 28, 2021)

buriedtreasuretime said:


> Do you know if molds were steel , pig iron or wood soaked in wate:I’ve read that steam rising off cold molds causes whittling in the black and amber pieces too.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



In bottle collecting books from the 1970's, authors would frequently repeat the theory, or speculate themselves, that turn-molded bottles were originally produced in wooden molds that had charred with usage; the fine carbon particles thus providing a reduction of friction that permitted the turning and polishing. I even repeated that theory a couple times myself in my youth, though I've grown highly skeptical of the theory with time. I actually doubt that wooden molds, other than simple dip molds for esentially free-blown bottles ever saw any significant employment in commercial bottle production.

All photos of bottle production molds from the 19th century and onward that I have seen appear to picture molds made of iron, though not specifically "pig" iron. The high carbon content and resultant brittleness of pig iron would not be optimal for molds. Many of the photos I've seen have been captioned as depicting iron molds, or accompanied by text that so states.

My understanding is that the mold interiors were coated with a special paste that facilitated the turn polishing. I believe the process was employed most frequently in wine and champagne bottle production where, for whatever reason, the smooth glossy finish was considered desirable (for marketing purposes I believe).

There seems to be a modern consensus that cold molds are responsible for "whittle" marks; and I adhere to that notion. Whether the effect results from too-rapid cooling or steam flashing, I don't have enough knowledge to say. I had always heard that it was rapid cooling that produced the appearance; but your comment about steam seems to hold merit.

You've actually provided me a fresh thought to ponder. I've done enough metal work and welding to have noted appearance of dampness on metal disappear as it is heated with a torch. In many cases, the condensation was so thinly and evenly distributed on the surface, or in the microscopic pores of the metal as to not be evident before noting the change in surface appearance as the heat is applied.

I believe that a visit to the following website would provide you much interesting reading:  https://sha.org/bottle/body.htm


----------



## sandchip (Apr 28, 2021)

The amber whiskey would date between 1903 and 1920.


----------



## buriedtreasuretime (Apr 28, 2021)

willong said:


> In bottle collecting books from the 1970's, authors would frequently repeat the theory, or speculate themselves, that turn-molded bottles were originally produced in wooden molds that had charred with usage; the fine carbon particles thus providing a reduction of friction that permitted the turning and polishing. I even repeated that theory a couple times myself in my youth, though I've grown highly skeptical of the theory with time. I actually doubt that wooden molds, other than simple dip molds for esentially free-blown bottles ever saw any significant employment in commercial bottle production.
> 
> All photos of bottle production molds from the 19th century and onward that I have seen appear to picture molds made of iron, though not specifically "pig" iron. The high carbon content and resultant brittleness of pig iron would not be optimal for molds. Many of the photos I've seen have been captioned as depicting iron molds, or accompanied by text that so states.
> 
> ...



Thank you for this information, very helpful.?do you know the late 60’s book by Bob and Pat Ferraro, black glass collectors, wrote an illustrated paperback, copyright 1964. They were Nevada based and I met them at a county fair as a boy. It’s a great illustrated copy and with out rereading it. Believe this is where I picked up the wooden mold story. Iron makes more sense for longevity but I don’t think I have a single black glass piece that is a duplicate, they all seem to be different so I’m wondering in the earlier days 1840, whether the wood mold was only used a few times before it had too much char. I’ve watched glass blowers use wads of wet newspaper to smooth and finish a neck. But eventually it chars too.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




This was my holy grail when I was a kid. I’ve strived to collect all the bottles in this but am woefully short in some areas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

