what makes a bottle historically important

 (or not?).

By Jerry Kemp. This article first appeared in a slightly different form in ABC-UK magazine.

For a while now I’ve noticed that if a particular type of bottle is very rare and falls into a highly popular collecting category, examples will sooner or later be described as ‘historically important’, apparently for no better reason than that it is rare, and sought after by collectors. Perhaps the best example of this is the deep cobalt blue Codd's patent variations (Reliance, Acme, bulb, etc), from London and the west midlands, which have been described in these terms on more than one occasion in print, in both ABC and BBR magazines. But (1) is it necessarily the case that such bottles actually are ‘historically important’? And (2) what is it that makes a bottle ‘historically important’ (or not)?

I'd argue that the answer to the first question is a very definite ‘No’. I would even go much further, and argue that increased rarity sometimes indicates decreased historical importance!

I think some people confuse historical curiosities with items of historical importance. So far as I'm concerned the rarer variations of blue Codds mentioned above are historical curiosities of very little real historical importance*. This statement is bound to raise a few hackles, so bear with me while I answer the second of the two questions above, which explains why I think this.

If we restrict ourselves to consideration of the Big Picture, rather than local history, I would argue that ‘historically important’ should only be used to describe bottles which fall into a very few categories**. These categories are all based upon the idea that 'importance' is a measure of how influential or high-profile the items were in their own time, and whether they left a legacy that is apparent in the present day (beyond the world of bottle collectors!). The categories are:

1. Economic importance.

Items which played an important economic role at the time they were made and used, but which have since fallen out of use, and could be described as ‘signs of the(ir) times’. These will almost by definition be common, being at one time the most successful, most popular, and most ‘ordinary’ of every-day items. For example, in Britain during the Edwardian period (roughly 1901 – 1911) they will have been brown glass Bovril jars, white stone marmalade pots, aqua codd ‘originals’, blacking pots, burst lip sauce bottles, etc. These were economically significant at the time, both in themselves (as the huge glass and stoneware container industries of the time testify), and because of the products they contained.

The enormous abundance of these items means that any single example is not ‘historically important’ in itself, but it is significant as a representative of a type. As a digger and collector for over 30 years I have reburied countless examples of these kinds of items, but their lack of appeal to collectors does not indicate a lack of historical importance.

2. Technological importance (evidence of technological development).

Unlike the economically important items, there is probably a tendency for rarity in this category, for the simple reason that even the most far-reaching of technological revolutions start small, and so leave behind little physical evidence of their earliest stages. Take for example the humble original Codd bottle:

This historically important type of bottle (according to ‘economic importance’) was manufactured in the hundreds of millions from the mid 1870s up to the 1930s and beyond, and used across much of the globe, from Argentina to Austria, and from London to Calcutta. However, only two or three examples are known (so far) of the rather odd-looking very early ‘original’ bottles of the early 1870s, and one of those is badly damaged. No examples at all are known of the even earlier Codds illustrated in some of Hiram Codds first adverts (although one is rumoured to have been dug in London many years ago). This is the type of situation where some individual bottles become historically important items in their own right.

The example of Codds is directly relevant to the earlier comment about cobalt examples. If we use purely economic criteria the rare deep cobalt codds as a group are actually less historically important than aqua examples. If we use technological criteria they are no more and no less important than aqua examples. Their blue colour was probably more of a marketing ploy than anything else, and so is no more important than any other type of advertising or marketing tactic. These bottles were uncommon at the time they were made and so will have figured in the lives of a much smaller part of the population than aqua glass examples. Their colour was not a step on the road to better or more advanced things, and led nowhere in particular in terms of economics or technology. If the blue colour has any historical importance it is probably more as a reflection of local attitudes and commerce, in the areas where they were used.

Examples of mineral water patents which failed commercially, but which illustrate the sophistication of the glassmakers art and the ingenuity of the Victorian age, will have historic importance regardless of rarity. However, the lack of economic importance of commercially unsuccessful types means they are less ‘historically important’ than the technically and economically important 'ordinary' Codd, even if they are more sought after by collectors.

For the same reason that the early Codds are particularly important, it has long been recognised by collectors that Ricketts patent bottles with a seal dated 1821 (the year of the patent) or soon afterwards represent a major technological step forward. But what about the earliest entirely machine-made, seam-through-lip bottles of 70 to 80 years later? Although these are well collected in Australia and the US, they are currently almost completely ignored by British collectors (are there any British collectors who collect, or research, these?). In terms of technological importance they are right up there alongside, or even ahead of, the incomparably rarer 1821 dated seals. Collecting these is likely to be a growth area in the UK in the future.

3. Social / political importance.

This includes items illustrating important social or political characteristics of their time. Bottles in this category may be very common or extremely rare, or anything in between. I’ll use just a couple of bottle collecting themes to illustrate this point:

Firstly, quack cure and ‘patent medicine’ bottles. These illustrate important social (and medical / scientific) characteristics of their times including poverty, lack of easy access to doctors, expense and lack of effectiveness of mainstream medicine, illiteracy, and many other ills of the 18th and 19th centuries. This is true right across the spectrum of rarity.

Common on the left, rare on the right, both with their own significance.

The relatively neglected late examples of some of these bottles have huge significance. When Warners Safe Cure became Warners Safe Remedy it was due to the introduction of laws designed to protect the public from some of the worst aspects of the charlatans and quacks. These late bottles mark the beginning of the end of many ‘medicines’ that had been a part of life for centuries.

Signs of the (changing) times: Warners Safe Cure became Warners Safe Remedy as a result of legislation designed to protect the public from the worst quackery excesses of the patent medicine industry.

For political significance the obvious UK candidates are political reform flasks, marking events such as the great Reform Act of 1832 or Catholic Emancipation. While the significance of these and other political flasks is obvious, few collectors realise the importance of ‘popular culture’ flasks. The Jim Crow flask, for example, tells the story of a key part of the history of race relations in Britain and the USA, right up to the civil rights movement of the 1960s which brought about the end of ‘Jim Crow’ racial segregation laws in the American south (laws given that label as a direct result of the 19th century cultural events that the Jim Crow flask commemorates).

Jim Crow (left) and Daniel O'Connell (centre and right) reform flasks. All 1830s.

The further back one goes the rarer all bottles become, because older items have had longer to be broken, and because in many cases fewer examples were originally made. As a result any 1660s sealed shaft and globe with a known provenance will be genuinely ‘historically important’, as a scarce record of a distant time. But that’s another story altogether …

Does it matter to collectors?

Having said all that, it’s important to keep ‘historical importance’ in perspective. It is just one of many attractions of collecting, and for most collectors, including me, only one of many reasons to collect. Other reasons include: a connection with history, insights into ways of life which are now long gone, aesthetics (many antique bottles are just great looking objects), and of course the thrill of the chase, whether with shovel and fork, or scouring junk shops and car boot sales. One day, if I'm lucky, I'll have a cobalt blue codd or two on my own shelves, and if I do it will have nothing to do with their being historically important (or not).

* These comments on 'importance' refer to bottles which have lost their contextual information. Unfortunately most (but by no means all) bottles in collections have lost all or most information about the context in which they were discovered. An interesting or unusually informative context can add historical value to a bottle (or any other item) that has little or no importance once that information is lost.

** As always, constructive comments and criticism are welcome. For example, these categories are ones I've come up with myself without reference to the archaeological or other academic or research literature.

© J. M. Kemp. 2007

BACK to articles main page

HOME