# Traditionally ID'd as a Stafford Ink Bottle, but......



## historic-antiques (Mar 14, 2018)

Hi Everyone,

I haven't studied all the newest antique bottle books, but I've known this 7-8 inch cobalt blue Stafford bottle to be always ID'd as an ink bottle.  However, I discovered this example in the basement of an old 1880s Chicago house with its original paper label that indicates it's really a "mucilage" (glue) bottle.  Is this new news or did everybody already know this?  Just wanted to pass this info on.

I'm posting 2 images of it for all to see.

Happy digging to all!

Paul


----------



## historic-antiques (Mar 14, 2018)

Sorry for the side-way images, anybody know how to put them upright?  Which buttons do I push?  Thanks!


----------



## RIBottleguy (Mar 14, 2018)

I've seen a few labeled examples that say ink so I'm going to say this is an uncommon label.  Typically mucilage bottles had an applicator that could reach the bottom of the bottle, as glue is sticky stuff and you can't really pour it out.


----------



## historic-antiques (Mar 15, 2018)

You've brought up a good point RIBottleguy!!  Come to think of it, there isn't any residue of mucilage on the pouring spout at all.  One would think there should be from pouring it 135 years ago.  And the bottle is empty without much if any residue in it.   Wonder what happened.  Was natural glue more manageable and pourable back than?  Did somebody clean the bottle for some reason?  Or did somebody apply this label by mistake?  Or, was the cobalt bottle used for ink AND for mucilage?  Maybe I should try getting some of the residue out to analyze?  Can be risky and I don't want to ruin the very fragile label so I won't.  Thanks for you useful comment!!


----------



## historic-antiques (Mar 15, 2018)

Hi RIBottleguy, I answered your reply in a post, thanks!


----------



## sandchip (Mar 15, 2018)

historic-antiques said:


> ... Or, was the cobalt bottle used for ink AND for mucilage?...



I think you nailed it right there.  Much cheaper to have labels printed than to have two different molds made for embossed bottles.  Nice bottle and label.


----------



## saratogadriver (Mar 15, 2018)

I doubt they poured it notwithstanding the pour spout.   I'm betting they just switched out the cork for a cork with applicator, which seems to have been the usual closure for most mucilage that I've seen.    It may also be true that someone took the empty bottle and washed it out to repurpose it, or because it was a pretty blue. 

Can't say I've ever seen one with a mucilage label before.   Neat. 

Jim G


----------



## historic-antiques (Mar 15, 2018)

Thanks for your comment sandchip.  Seems like we've got new knowledge about this bottle!


----------



## historic-antiques (Mar 15, 2018)

Thanks for your comment saratogadriver.  Yes, they must have had an applicator, thus no residue on the spout!  And the pretty blue color would motivate somebody to rinse it clear - thus maybe the rather bad shape of the label when I found it.  Usually non-acid paper labels are in better shape.  But who knows how the environment of the basement affected the label after 135 years.


----------



## hemihampton (Mar 17, 2018)

Straightened Pic.


----------



## KSESTATE (Mar 27, 2018)

Hello if you look on the bottom of the bottle there may be some clues. What co, made the bottle and mold, date numbers. Also no mention of the seam on the bottle. How high on the neck As you indicated If I saw this, no label instant ink. Nice 25-40$ Now with the label that's a new twist if correct 75-100++ many ink co. sold glue with their name, not uncommon to re-purpose bottles. But with the condition of the label and bottle. If All dialogue I read are accurate many questions. clues are there Need detectives. Good luck in the hunt dont give up thats my 2c worth 
Kevin


----------

