|
||||
Pontils and pontil marks.
By Jerry Kemp. This is based upon a series of posts first placed in the Cure-oholics section of the Codd-oholics internet forum in 2007.
This article is specifically about the pontil marks on British mould blown and embossed bottles such as medicines and perfumes, and between the dates of approximately 1740 and 1860. It largely ignores the rather different history and types of pontil marks on wine, spirit and ale bottles.
What is written below is almost entirely a result of my own observations over the past 10 - 20 years, and most of the bottles pictured are (or were at the time the photographs were taken) from my own collection. This page is intended as a primer and starting point, and is currently far from perfect. I will be updating and extending it from time to time, and would welcome comments and additions / constructive criticism on this subject.
Apart from wine bottles there has been remarkably little published research on British glass bottles. As a result there are a number of significant gaps in information on characteristics such as pontil marks from Britain. What little research has been carried out was mostly done (so far as I have been able to find out) in Canada by Olive Jones, as a part of more general research into British bottles found on colonial period archaeological sites. See for example Jones 1971, 1981, although the 1971 paper concentrates almost exclusively on wine bottles.
Pontil marks (and Hinge moulds).
Pontil marks are the marks left on the base of earlier glass bottles by the pontil rod (sometimes referred to by the more modern, art-glass, term of punty). The pontil rod was a tool attached directly to the base of the bottle as soon as it was removed from the mould, to hold the still-hot bottle while the neck and lip were finished off by hand.
Pontils disappear from most British bottles in the early to mid 1860s, but there are a few exceptions. Some large demi-johns, art glass, and a few unusual one - offs were pontilled much later, well into the 20th century. A lot of art glass is still pontilled now, in the early 21st century. On the other hand, pontils seem to have disappeared from English hamiltons / torpedos in the 1830s.
Sometimes pontil rods were solid iron, sometimes a tube (such as a blowing iron). Sometimes the solid rod pontils were enlarged at the end into any one of numerous shapes (globular, round with a flat end, square, oval, rectangular), and sometimes the iron was tipped with molten glass, or hot glass chips, or sand, or was simply bare metal. This range of variation in pontil rods resulted in a huge variety of types of pontil marks.
Above: A pontil mark on the base of a small medicine bottle, dating to about the 1820s or 30s.
National and regional variation in glassmaking methods means that in Britain the range of types of pontil marks, and their chronology or history, is different from those used in North America, and both British and American ones are different from those of France, the Netherlands, Germany and other mainland European countries.
Some British pontil marks are very subtle. Even experienced collectors can at times make mistakes, thinking a bottle is pontilled when it isn't, or vice versa. There is also a great deal of confusion about what the different types of pontil marks found on British bottles mean, both in terms of dating and of provenance. Sometimes British bottles are mis-identified as European or American, primarily on the basis of the type of pontil mark. At other times the reverse is the case, and collectors may accept non-British bottles (especially some types of American bottle) as being British when the pontil mark, when considered alongside other characteristics, reveals the truth about it's non-British origins. This latter problem will be addressed in passing below, and in more detail in a future article ('British or American?').
The US Bureau of Land Management bottle ID website in the US has an excellent overview of what pontil marks are. But be aware that the details of American pontil marks, both in types of marks and in their dates, are often different from British marks.
The account in Geoffrey Wills' book 'The Bottle Collectors Guide' (1977) of how pontil rods were actually used by teams of bottle makers in a glasshouse has not yet been bettered in the British bottle collecting literature, although what I've written below disagrees with some details of what he says. This is at least partly because Wills was to some extent dependent upon American literature and expertise in writing his account. For example bare iron pontils appear to have been used in British glasshouses from the very early 1800s (and perhaps earlier), while Wills dates them to the mid 1840s or later, probably because this was the case in North American glasshouses.
Some examples of different types of bases and pontil marks on British medicine, perfume and smaller utility bottles are shown below.
Mould marks on the base are an essential character to look for when dating bottles.
Hinge moulds are moulds made in two parts without a separate base section, and hinged across the base of the bottle. This results in the line of the mould going right across the base, usually diagonally on rectangular / square bottles (side to side does turn up sometimes, but is relatively uncommon). Most smaller, moulded, British bottles, and possibly all embossed British bottles, dating to before about 1840 will have a hinge mould.
Some bottles as late as the 1860s and even the 1870s will also be hinge mould, but by the 1870s hinge moulds are rare, and they seem to have disappeared entirely before 1880.
The first example shown here is on an unembossed squat rectangular utility or medicine bottle of about 1830 - 1840:
... and next is a Daffy's Elixir bottle, probably dating to between 1820 and 1840 ...
... and a Dicey & Co cylinder, probably 1860s.
Pontil marks.
There are several broadly different types of pontil marks to be found on antique British glass bottles. Some marks are very obvious, and others can be difficult to spot:
Solid pontil marks. For the ‘Solid’
pontils, imagine a solid rod, circular in section, usually with a coating
of glass on the end. This is stuck to the base of the bottle, and when broken
off leaves a more or less circular mark.
Firstly, a very round and obvious solid pontil on an unembossed English perfumers bottle, about 1800 - 1820.
Next, a more jagged one on an English opodeldoc medicine bottle, probably 1830s - 50s
... and two views of a solid pontil on an English Cephalick Snuff bottle ...
... and on a European (probably French) or possibly American perfume bottle, 1840s - 50s.
Ring or blowpipe pontils.
If the pontil rod is a hollow tube such as a blowing iron, rather than solid, then the mark left is more likely to be circular with a hollow centre. This will result in either:
1. An 'open pontil' mark. Consisting of a raised ring of glass on the base of the bottle, caused when the end of the blowing iron / pontil rod was dipped in glass before being attached to the bottle base (or was broken off the neck of the bottle, leaving some glass attached to the iron). This can leave very sharp broken edges. US collectors, and increasingly British collectors, call these open pontils.
Below is the base of an English Dalbys Carminative embossed 'Eves Dalbys Carminative'. It was dug in southern England in early 2003 and is the only one known, so far as I'm aware.
Next is an enormous mark, more than 2 cm across. The bottle (a Tessier - Prevost perfume / toilet water bottle) may be American made, but might be French.
... and the base of an embossed long-necked English perfume of about 1820 or 30. The smoothed-out or melted look of this mark is because it was reheated at the time of manufacture to smooth off the sharp edges:
and another English Dalby's:
There are some collectors who might say that the bottle above cannot be English, just on the basis of the pontil mark, which closely resembles US 'open pontil' marks, and European marks. However this bottle is 100% English, and these types of marks are not particularly rare on English bottles.
2. A 'ring pontil', consisting of a ring broken out of the base of the bottle, probably occurring when the rod was attached directly to the bottle.
On a large perfume / lavender water type bottle, probably circa 1850s.
On two English flint glass Rowlands Macassar Oil bottles, one earlier than the other, probably about 1810s (left) and 1830s (right).
… but the same kind of mark might result from a glass-tipped 'blowing iron' pontil, if the glass broke off right up against the bottle, taking some of the bottle with it.
Small disc pontil marks. This kind of circular mark could come from either a solid or a blowing iron pontil rod, and is a narrow ring on the base of the bottle created when the pontil was only attached by its outside edge. This is like a mini-version of the disc pontil marks found on some wine bottles, and is generally only found on bottles with a deep enough kick-up or indentation in the base to prevent the pontil rod sticking anywhere except around it’s edge. It is a quite common type of mark on English bottles.
On the base of an 'Arnolds / Balsam of / Coltsfoot / London'. Dating roughly 1840s - 50s:
On a flint glass Dr Gilberts bottle, 1820s - 30s:
... and on a "Manly's / Patent / London" bottle, c. 1810s - 30s:
Sand or glass chip pontil marks. The final main type is ‘Sand’ or ‘Glass chip’ pontil marks, which worked on the same principle as each other.
A problem with making bottles using pontil rods was the force needed to remove the pontil rod from the base once the bottle was finished. This required literally breaking the rod from the bottom of the bottle, sometimes after ‘scoring’ (like marking a window pane with a glass cutter) or by running a pointed wet stick or cold iron rod around the pontil (to use temperature changes to crack the extremely hot glass). Often it was done by just knocking the join between the bottle and the pontil rod. Either way, this occasionally broke the bottles, and generally added to the time needed to make the things. If ways could be found to make the pontil rod stick strongly enough to hold the bottle securely, but at the same time make them easier to remove, it would solve both problems in one go.
One answer was to cover the hot glass on the end of the pontil rod with sand, so reducing the strength of the join to the bottle. Another way was to use glass chips instead of sand, or just to coat the end of the pontil rod directly with hot glass chips. (Yet another way was probably the use of the 'bare iron' rods described at the start of the thread. Although these are often called 'improved pontils' they, and the sand pontils, were widely used in British glasshouses as early as the 18th century).
Genuine sand pontil marks seem to be quite uncommon on utility and medicine type bottles (although they are very common on larger botttles such as wine and beer bottles), but glass chip pontils are relatively common. I only have one bottle that I'm reasonably confident is a sand pontil mark: the dip-moulded wide mouth snuff or mustard bottle dating to about 1780 - 1820, in the photograph below. The pontil is difficult to see clearly but is the stippled looking area in the centre of the base. This stippled by itself would not be enough for identification of a pontil mark, but close inspection of the base shows (i) a mark made where the edge of the pontil slightly dug into the glass when it was still semi-molten, and (ii) a scattering of grains of sand embedded in the glass inside the stippled area.
It is also sometimes very difficult to decide whether some pontils are slightly messy solid pontils, or unusually heavy glass chip pontils (for example the Roches Embrocation and Balm of Gilead below), or a solid or ring pontil that barely stuck to the bottle at all (the Daffy's).
The Roches:
the small Balm of Gilead
The Daffy's:
Are British 'iron' pontil marks common? Bare iron pontil marks are common and widely recognised on some types of non-British bottle, particularly American bottles such as sodas and dumpy porter bottles of the 1850s - 60s period.
Iron pontil marks are generally ignored in British bottle collecting. This may be because they are genuinely very rare or even absent on British bottles, or it may also be because they are not recognised as iron pontil marks, and are instead described as sand pontils. I suspect that the latter is the case.
American iron pontils generally have a reddish-brown or grey residue on the surface of the glass. The pontil marks I suspect are British iron pontils are slightly different in appearance because they lack this residue. They tend as a result to look like over-cleaned American iron pontil marks, where the residue has been removed.
Probable iron pontil marks are found British bottles from as early as the late 18th century, but become common on certain types of UK bottles from about 1800 - 1820 onwards. They are usually roughly oval in shape, sometimes square or rectangular, sometimes very elongated, and can be difficult to spot.
Some examples are given here:
The first photograph below is of the base of the unembossed medicine / utility form the Hinge Mould section at the top of this page. The pontil mark is roughly oval and covers most of the base. The base is slightly pushed in by the pontil. The edge of the pontil mark is where it shows most clearly, as a slight roughening and change in texture of the glass and with a very sharply and evenly defined edge:
The next photo is of the base of the Daffy's bottle form the top of the page. This pontil mark is much smaller than the previous one: the slighly oval depression in the middle of the base. The change in appearance / texture of the glass, and another clearly defined 'edge' with slight roughness and even some tiny chipping, show that this is a pontil mark and not just a dip in the glass.
The next photo shows a very long, narrow, pontil mark with rounded ends. The mark is very bilaterally symmetrical, very deeply indented, and again has very sharply defined edges. This is on a Prices Candle Company bottle (not hinge mould) with a registration diamond. The design for Prices bottles was registered in Dec 1853, and so this pontil dates to January 1854 at the earliest, and possibly as late as the 1860s. Iron pontil marks of various shapes, and open or ring pontil marks, seem to be about equally common on early Price's bottles.
The next photo isn't great, but it shows enough to see the reddish-brown iron stain often found on American iron pontil marks (this is a mid 19th century American perfume bottle). It also shows how the pontil mark has a very evenly and sharply defined edge. Although this is an American example, square and rectangular British pontil marks are also quite common. Virtually identical rectangular or square, sharp edged marks turn up from time to time on various English bottles including Black Drop, mustards, and various unembossed utility bottles. I have also seen a mark of this shape on an English Daffy's Elixir bottle.
These characterstics (shape and surface texture of the glass very similar to an over-cleaned American iron pontil mark, and a very even and sharply defined edge to the pontil mark) suggest that at least some English bottles do have pontil marks created by a bare metal pontil rod.
I took the photo above at a collectors fair, and can't remember who the owner of the bottle was: If you see this and recognise your hands I apologise for the lack of acknowledgement!
Finally, below is a British pontil that does have some iron stain, to show that every rule has it's exceptions (thanks to Mark Nightingale of Early Glass Collector for this picture). It is quite an unusual pontil mark for a British bottle, but I have an early (approximately 1800 - 1820) Dalby's Carminative bottle with an almost identical mark.
There seems to be almost no agreement on a standard set of names or descriptions for English / British pontil mark types on smaller bottles. Until such agreement starts to emerge this set of definitions seems to be as good as any other approach. The main categories to some extent follow the precedents set for US bottles, and in books such as Van den Bossche's 'Antique Glass Bottles', and can be summarised as:
| Solid | Leaves a solid ('filled in') broken-off scar on the base of the bottle. Almost always circular. |
| Open pontil | A circular ring shaped scar left by a blowpipe type pontil, which left a ring of additional glass on the base of the bottle when removed. |
| Ring pontil | A circular ring shaped scar left by a blowpipe type pontil, which removed glass from the base of the bottle when the rod was removed. |
| Disc pontil. | A circular scar left when only the edge of the pontil touched the base of the bottle. Usually found only on bottles with an indented base. |
Glass chip or Sand Pontil |
Sometimes very difficult to tell sand pontil and glass chip pontil marks apart, and they worked on the same principle as each other. |
(bare iron) In brackets because this category is still open to debate |
This group has several sub-categories including oval, round, square, rectangular, elongated, etc. The British versions of this type look very different from most of the American versions. Research is needed to determine if these really are bare iron pontils, and the name of this type may need revision in the future. |
Below are some additional comments I added to the pontil marks thread on the coddoholics forum later on, in response to some questions and comments received from other collectors on the forum :
There's a fairly widespread myth in British bottle collecting circles that embossing didn't really start until the 1820s - 30s. The myth seems to be related to the 1821 date of Ricketts patent. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of embossed bottles that date to the period 1750 - 1820, although in many cases it will be difficult to prove. It's certainly the case that there are patent medicine bottles for Turlingtons Balsam, Solomon's Balm of Gilead, Sibly's Solar Tincture, Dr Norris's Drops, and several others that can be confidently dated to before 1820. I suspect that there are a lot of 18th century embossed British bottles in British, American and Australian collections that their owners are confidently but wrongly dating to the early or mid 19th century. Both historical and archaeological research are needed to be able to say with any certainty which those bottles are.
One big practical problem with dating any bottles earlier than the mid 19th century is that there was so much variation around the country in the ways bottles were made at any one time. Glasshouses were spread all over the UK from Scotland to Bristol to London. It's almost certain that some hung onto old methods or traditions longer than others, and that others were probably 'ahead of their time'.
Even within one glasshouse different workers are likely to have had their own preferred methods, or have changed methods for practical reasons unrelated to technology or fashion, from time to time. For example, there are some bottles that were made in the same mould, probably at almost the same time, but with completely different types of pontil marks. There haven't been any systematic studies done on this in the UK, that I have been able to track down (I'm sure I must be wrong: anyone knows any, please let us all know!).
The best studies on British pontilled bottles have, ironically, been done in Canada by an archaeologist called Olive Jones (see a couple of example references listed below). I have recently been in contact with her, and she is still active and currently working on further publications that may throw more light on the early history of English embossed bottles.
North America in general, and the US in particular, is decades ahead of the UK with the amount and detail of information they've got on historical artefacts in general, and bottles & pontil marks in particular. Frankly, the UK is a bit pathetic on this score. This seems to be due to, firstly, a lack of research by British collectors (who are usually focussed on finding bottles to the exclusion of researching them) and, secondly, to an attitude to 'modern' or post-medieval strata and artifacts in British archaeology , which are often ignored (and so usually destroyed) in the rush to get to the earlier deposits and finds. Thankfully this attitude is rapidly changing in archaeology, for example at York Archaeological Trust, but a huge amount has been lost forever*, and there is an enormous amount of catching up to be done.
© J. M. Kemp. 2007
Jones, O. (1971). Glass bottle push-ups and pontil marks. Historical Archaeology 5: 62 - 73.
Jones, O. (1981). Essence of Peppermint, a history of the medicine and its bottle. Historical Archaeology 15 (2): 1 - 57.
* Just a couple of examples to provide some food for thought:
Firstly, as a general example, consider the footprint of redevelopment in London and most other British city centres in just the past 30 years (it's even worse if we include all redevelopment since 1945), with tall buildings that require foundations up to tens of metres deep. In almost every case, even if archaeological work was carried out before redevelopment happened, the post-medieval strata and features will have been removed wholesale (often by machine), and often with little or even no recording. We will not be thanked in a few hundred years time (or maybe much sooner) when the realisation hits home that there is a 200 - 400 year gap in the record for this vast expanse of crucial sites. It is a gap that coincides with the appearance and development of many key features of modern society.
Secondly, as a more specific example, consider the site of one of the most important 19th century stoneware potteries in the UK. This site was redeveloped in the 1990s. The redevelopment involved removal of most signs of previous activity by deep excavation of a large part of the site. The only recording done of the pottery was anecdotal, by one or two collectors who managed to visit the site briefly. This was a pottery that supplied a large proportion of bottles, jars and pots to businesses throughout the midlands and north of England for at least 100 years (as well as throughout the colonies), and for which no substantial typological or other studies have ever been carried out.
This page last updated 15th April 2008.