# Trademark Lightning Repro?????



## deenodean (Sep 10, 2013)

This jar is on ebay. It looks like the original but after asking the seller what # is on the bottom he tells me it is 227. Is not the # 227 only associated with Trademark Lightning reproduction jars? ( RB page 453) 

   http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190897360062


----------



## cowseatmaize (Sep 10, 2013)

227 is listed as repro but it also shows the Putman mark above. I think with the rusted bail it's 1489 and correct. 
 I'm not sure of the lid.


----------



## icollectfruitjars (Sep 10, 2013)

There are "good" jars with the 227 on the base.  Generally the repro jars are a darker amber.  As far as this one goes, looks okay but I can't fully commit to this one being good without more pics.


----------



## deenodean (Sep 10, 2013)

I emailed to seller again and asked him to check for a ground lip. I am not sure if he can open the bale with breaking it. That said I agree this one looks good. I just was not sure if # 227 was a legitimate number.  
 Thanks for the replies.


----------



## MNJars (Sep 10, 2013)

Agreed - I'm highly skeptical of the 227 number, but this one does have more than one sign that it could be legit.  It looks like there might be a peened out mold error just below the space between Trade Mark.  If that's the case, then it's legit for sure.  But, it could be just some dirt on the glass and light reflections.  Good luck if you decide to go for it.  I'd ask to see a picture of the lip before bidding though.


----------



## rallcollector (Sep 11, 2013)

The repro is not going to have this honey color, it would be much darker, more rootbeer amber.  The lid looks ok too.  The repro lids have a very high center post where the 2 nubs contact the wire bail.  I'd say she is legit.  Nice jar.
 Paul


----------



## jarsnstuff (Sep 11, 2013)

It' only the newest version of the repros that have that really high post on the lid.  The older repros have lids that look legit but do not have the patent date embossed on them. -Tammy


----------



## deenodean (Sep 14, 2013)

> ORIGINAL:  deenodean
> 
> I emailed to seller again and asked him to check for a ground lip. I am not sure if he can open the bale with breaking it. That said I agree this one looks good. I just was not sure if # 227 was a legitimate number.
> Thanks for the replies.


 
 The seller did not reply to my query about the grounded lip so I did not bid. It sold for $48.00 + circa $17.00 to ship.


----------



## rallcollector (Sep 14, 2013)

For me, the rust on the wire that was twisted onto the jar lip looked legit.  It appeared to have been there for the last one hundred years.  Back when I was a jar newbie, I bought an unembossed lightning style hg at auction that was citron.  When I got home and gave the jar a bath in some soapy water, as I lifted it out of the water, the citron color stayed behind in the bucket in small sheets.  The lite aqua jar had been dipped in color.  When I calmed down and studied the jar closely, one of the things I noticed was the lip wire, which looked like it had been twisted into place the day prior.  The rust free wire ends had been snipped with wire cutters and the tips came to a clean 'V'.  The wire ends for an old Lightning are blunt, as if they had been cut with a guillotine.  That should have clued me to look more closely.  Legit Putnam 227's are out there, and this isn't to say that somebody cant install a new wire onto an old jar, or chemically age a new piece of metal.  It's just another buying tool for the toolbox.


----------



## deenodean (Sep 14, 2013)

Well thanks everyone for your impressions. I learn something new everyday! That's what's so great about this website. 
 Yes indeed the bale wire does look old. It's good to know rallcollector that the wire ends are old if they are flat. Having the rusty appearance is another clue. And not every TradeMark Lightning with 227 on the bottom is a repro! 
 Perhaps I could have bid on this jar if I did not have one already. I'll use my assets to find a jar I don't have.


----------



## cowseatmaize (Sep 14, 2013)

For further study of the 227 notion it might be worth it but for over $60?, I'm not so sure.


----------

