# Is this Ball Perfect Mason pint jar, "SCA" or "NUKED"?



## DavidW (Sep 24, 2017)

I am posting this for someone else......calling all BALL PERFECT MASON specialists and collectors.........is this a case of SCA (naturally darkened by the sun) or a case of Irradiation? (I say nuked, but not a serious collector of these)....  The owner says the color is much fainter (closer to clear) at the top near the lid, where the glass was hidden by the lid. BALL Embossing style circa 1910-1923. Please let me know your thoughts!   DavidW


----------



## Robby Raccoon (Sep 24, 2017)

Might the glass also be thinner near the lid? The radiation from the sun would be total unless part was hidden under lead; ditto to artificial radiation. The colour on this one looks heavy, though not over-done. Thew base, the thickest, is darkest. The top, the thinnest, should naturally be the lightest.


----------



## botlguy (Sep 25, 2017)

The Red Book lists this jar in SCA and the shade looks legitimate to me, a collector of Fruit Jars, so my vote is for authentic.
Jim S


----------



## Harry Pristis (Sep 25, 2017)

I agree with botlguy . . . looks sun-colored rather than a product of gamma radiation or of a "purpling box."


----------



## botlguy (Sep 25, 2017)

I will make this additional comment based on Harry's comment. I have a huge problem with artificial Gamma type radiation, this is something we do not encounter much in nature. On the other hand, exposing glass with Manganese in the mix to Ultra Violet rays is natural and putting them in a box with concentrated UV rays simply speeds up the process. They are not being exposed to something they would not be exposed to if left out in sunlight. I have no problem with "Purpling boxes" but I do have a problem with "Nuked" glass. The shades of purple are different between the two.
Jim S


----------



## Harry Pristis (Sep 25, 2017)

botlguy said:


> I will make this additional comment based on Harry's comment. I have a huge problem with artificial Gamma type radiation, this is something we do not encounter much in nature. On the other hand, exposing glass with Manganese in the mix to Ultra Violet rays is natural and putting them in a box with concentrated UV rays simply speeds up the process. They are not being exposed to something they would not be exposed to if left out in sunlight. I have no problem with "Purpling boxes" but I do have a problem with "Nuked" glass. The shades of purple are different between the two.
> Jim S



______________________

Can you show us some examples from your purpling box for comparison with this BALL jar?


----------



## DavidW (Sep 25, 2017)

Thanks for all the replies! One of the reasons why I had doubts................. In the Red Book (latest edition, # 11) page 53, the general jar type is listed as #274....  Quite a few different sizes and color variants are listed, unlike some of the earliest versions of the Red Book which often lumped a lot of the size variations under one heading. 

Anyway, the 'Pint" SIZE in"clear" is shown with a suggested value of "20 to 30". However,  there is no Pint listing with SCA, all the other sizes in SCA are listed with a value of $60-80 except a half-gallon is listed in SCA as 125-150.  Looking again closely at the page, I just realized that there is evidently a typo, with the "QT" in SCA listed twice, I think the second "QT" is supposed to actually be  "PT".
This begs the question: if a pint in clear is valued at 20-30, why is the same jar (but left in the sun to color) valued at 60-80?  Perhaps I could answer my own question?? ........... Is this because a larger percentage of the Pint examples were more commonly made from a clear glass batch that had no manganese, hence they won't turn amethyst but remain clear?   IF they are all made of a manganese-bearing glass, this would seem to indicate that a 20-30 dollar jar would gain in value just by  being sun-colored, which goes against my reasoning....... 
Hope this makes sense......if anyone has the Red Book 11, they can see the listings and better understand what I mean. 

THANKS!


----------



## botlguy (Sep 25, 2017)

Harry Pristis said:


> ______________________
> 
> Can you show us some examples from your purpling box for comparison with this BALL jar?


I'm sorry, the "Purpling box" is long gone, I've not used one in a long time. My comments are made from memory which is still pretty good. I know some folks will not agree with my assessment and that is OK.


----------



## beautyfruity (Sep 27, 2017)

Hello there!  David sent me the link to this thread and I'm all registered and ready to discuss.  This is my jar.  I bought it at a reputable antique store because I had never seen a purple Ball mason jar.  It had the original seal until I unscrewed the lid and it crumbled away.  The glass under the lid seems to go from very light purple to clear by the time it reaches the top.  I can attach some pictures I took yesterday.  If anyone has advice on the best way to photograph to determine SCA or nuked I can take new pics and post as well.  Thank you for the insight!


----------



## botlguy (Sep 27, 2017)

From my experience, collecting all manner of glass ware for well over 50 years, I sincerely believe that item / jar is authentically SCA and not "Nuked". If the part that is worrying you is the difference in shade and color in the threaded area don't be. I have personally picked bottles partially buried in the dirt that were SCA only in the exposed areas with that similar shading effect / affect (Never can get that one correct) I have a few examples of Milk Glass jars & bottles in my collection that have that feature. 

This is not to say I am 100% positive and that you can take what I say to the bank but if I owned that jar I would be 100% confident in it's authenticity. Leave the lid off and enjoy it.
Jim S


----------

