Topic: Claret Jug

[Bernard C]

See three GlassGallery images here, each with click image to enlarge feature.

Height to rim 9" 22.9cm.   Weight 668g 1lb 7½oz.   Lightly iridised everywhere, except, of course, the neatly ground out and polished pontil scar, this jug was lightly optic 10-ribbed.   The applied handle and feet were 16-ribbed.   Considerable wear to the ground level and polished feet.

Is it a claret jug?   Any ideas on manufacturer and date?

Thanks for your interest,

Bernard C. 

[flying free]

I came across this - there is a slight size difference but the shape is very similar and this one in the link is described as a Champagne Jug c.1880
http://www.antiques-now.co.uk/ad_detail.php?id=81226&category=antique-glass&this_company_name=Mark%20J%20West-Cobb%20Antiques%20Ltd

I never knew such a thing existed.

m

[Bernard C]

M — Just back from a short camping holiday in Brittany, and this reply of yours has brightened up my day, spent so far unpacking, washing, and cleaning.   Thanks.   Until now the silence on this topic was becoming rather deafening.   

I was looking through Silber & Fleming (1880s) recently and noticed similarly proportioned jugs described as Water Jugs listed with both wine and spirit decanters (i.e. water as a mixer rather than water as a drink, like lemonade).   I don't know where Mark West found his description, but he has been around a long time so I am sure has a good contemporary source.

Whatever, it is almost certainly not a claret jug.

Bernard C. 

[flying free]

Hi Bernard
he has one here with matching glasses described id'd as Stevens and Williams, if that helps to maybe look up info? 
it has a similar body shape but a foot rather than feet.
http://www.antiques-now.co.uk/ad_detail.php?id=47089&category=antique-glass

This is a champagne jug from Stevens and Williams with a separate ice compartment
completely different shape to yours though
http://blackcountryhistory.org/collections/getrecord/DMUSE_BH1206/

m

[Bernard C]

M — we don't know any of the sources used for the descriptions and attributions of these interesting jugs you've turned up, so it's not safe to agree or disagree with them.   As I have seen the S&F information, which anyone can check, I'm going to keep to "Water Jug" until something better turns up.   Hope that's OK.

Bernard C. 

[flying free]

Bernard I know this is a vase and the feet are not exactly the same, but I'm just adding it here, just in case   The feet I suppose could have been done by any maker, but it might turn out they were patented by Webb or something.
http://blackcountryhistory.org/collections/getrecord/DMUSE_BH2805/
btw, does the jug in S&F have the same wide neck to it please?  I don't have the book and it's hard to imagine what things look like without pics
m

[Paul S.]

my only half useful thoughts would have been to suggest that it wouldn't have been claret jug 'on the basis that it has neither a lid/stopper, also that the opening is too large (thus letting the claret breath too much)'  -  does claret breath?? 
I'd agree with the water jug suggestion.

[flying free]

I can understand that Silber and Fleming have called something similar in shape a water jug and I'm really not trying to split hairs     but shouldn't the definition of what purpose a jug was made for, be based really on what the manufacturer intended it for in their pattern book?  I'm just wondering if the size and the width of the neck may be for a particular purpose iyswim?


Bernard you mentioned the jug was 'similarly proportioned', does that mean it had the wide neck, feet and was the same size please?
Gulliver's shows a similar shape  jug with wide neck and high handle and three feet  page 247 - measurements are incorrect in inches I think as it is described as a 'large jug' but then says 5" tall and 21.5cm tall so I think the 21.5cm must be correct - no definition of jug use though and no id. But dated to c.1885.
m

[Paul S.]

yes, that's rational thinking I'd agree.........         trouble here is that we don't have a positive attribution for Bernard's actual piece, and to boot S. & F. seemed always to refrain from doing the same, so unlikely we'll ever know the source and consequently what the (unknown) maker had in mind.              Therefore, perhaps we're inclined to use our pre-conceived ideas of what sort of physical category it does fit in with - my personal thoughts are the neck is too wide/big to be for claret - but that is just my opinion.

I was at Kew this morning and in the course of looking at one of the C19 books of Representations took some pix of  an obscure looking piece -for which the description said........."drinking cup, or mustard pot, or match box, or spill cup, or liqueur glass, or goblet".         The Registration is No. 320330 dated 12th April 1878 - although this lengthy description is omitted from both Thompson and Slack.

[flying free]

  well that' s a description that covers all bases then.
I'm not arguing the point about it being a Claret jug, just that I'm wondering why it would have been specified in the link I gave above, as a 'Champagne Jug' - I'm wondering if somewhere there is a reason why this shape might be designated for champagne iyswim?  (can't think why one would have a champagne jug to be honest...surely having a bottle of Cristal on the table is good enough  )
m