Topic: Numbers scribbed on decanters

[Paul S.]

it can do if you watch the gaffer making it       I didn't quite mean down the exact month or year, but a given decade would be good enough.

obviously I'm buying bottles from the wrong place   -  it could be my memory, and it may be the case that I have seen numbers on that surface and forgotten, but certainly for me it's unusual  -  most commonly they are on the stub or neck of the stopper.            If you think about it, marking on the mating surface, you'd imagine, wouldn't be the first choice of location in view of potential wear that might over the years obscure it, but obviously they did and the one shown here remains legible still, though as for age I'm not sure.

I'd suggest that if either the stopper or the bottle lack a matching No. then they didn't start out life together - alternatively, the original stopper was lost and a replacement made, professionally.        At least for the C20, a correct stopper should fit with a smooth non-wobbly fit, then lock,
but according to the books Georgian/Regency stoppers were less of a good fit  -  Andy McConnell's book does help with some of this information.
I'm sure that if paper work on this subject did exist someone would have told us by now.

Many moons back I had a heated argument (so nothing new there then) in north Wales with a guy, in an antiques shop over just this subject of matching stoppers.           He was buying an 'old' decanter, and I commented that he should make sure both parts had matching Nos.
His reply was that the workers would simply spin one on the treadle lathe to make it fit the bottle and that was good enough - they didn't mark them.            I don't remember the age of the bottle he was buying.

Rarely I have seen Nos. that had an old appearance  -  a 'type face' if you like  -  typography and style of a late Victorian/Edwardian font.

Anyway, now waiting for the hordes of pix from members showing matching Nos. on Georgian and Regency decanters and their stoppers.

[Martyn1]

Interesting and thanks for the info.  The numbers on my decanters vary from very plain to one which is pretty fancy (on a stopper that would appear late victorian which I have added to the un numbered bottle). It may be that some makers marked them and others didn't during the same period.  They would obviously have kept them together upon fitting so marking them may not have been seen necessary by all makers - it may simply have been carried out by some makers as an added precaution to prevent them getting miss-matched if a buyer bought a few of the same type.

[Anne]

Here are Martyn's photos, resized to fit the board.

[Martyn1]

Thank you Anne.  This is one of my boot sale finds a while back.  Typically, it had no stopper.

[Paul S.]

yes, thanks Anne.
As you've already said, the appearance of this one is typical of the cylinder pattern which was originally c. 1825 - 1840 - shame about the missing stopper, and going by McConnell's book it looks to be that most such bottles had a star cut base, but that could be speculation.             Very wide pontil depressions are usually an indication of greater age than small ones.                Is this the bottle with a  No. 5 on the neck ??  not sure, - it looks to be in quite good condition.
Stopper shapes for this pattern of bottle look to have predominantly been mushrooms in some form plus spires. 
It used to be possible to pick up stoppers on their own  -  always useful, but very rarely did they fit well enough to keep, though don't think we see lonely stoppers these days quite as commonly - suppose you might try a cork, with care

[Martyn1]

Thanks Paul.  This is the one with a five on the lip. So you would suggest that this is a good example and genuine of the period?

[Paul S.]

  to be honest, I'm unsure quite what to say, though I'm sure others will suggest without hesitation that it's period, and certainly we can't fault this bottle on appearance, and it has enough wear to convince most of us, but having something in the hand is vastly better than simply looking at the screen,
What is bugging me is this issue about when matching Nos. started  -  I'd been walking around for years happy in the knowledge that this feature was no earlier than second half C19, but then I'm a pessimist when dating glass, and usually start from the premise that something isn't as old it would like me to think it is, until we can prove otherwise.

At the end of the day if we can't come up with some argument that suggests this is a later Victorian copy - which we probably can't -  then I'd go for it and say it's from the original cylinder period, and probably c. 1830.          However, this does seem to be implying that matching Nos. started earlier than I'd thought.
 

[Martyn1]

Many thanks Paul for all of your help.  I'm also wandering if the numbering may have been applied later if it was fitted with a new stopper. It would be interesting to find out more about this subject.  I have others with plain and star cut bases some numbered, others un numbered.

[Paul S.]

have to remember also that sometimes the No. on the body is found on the underside of the base, and ignoring this alternative location could make you think there wasn't a No. to match the stopper.
No idea to what extent replacement stoppers are made  -  I think you'd need to love your bottle big time to go down that road.
Talk of making stoppers reminds me of the 'pinchers'  -  late C18 and early C19 workers from mostly B'ham and Stourbridge apparently, who made stoppers, and drops for lustres, but not the bottles, by means of pinch moulds.

It's not difficult to take photos of Nos.       …………..   using a loupe between the camera and subject (probably best when loupe is nearest the camera) with a magnification of c. x3 - x7 and with raking light it should be possible to produce worthwhile  pix.      Talc or carbon paper colour can be rubbed into the area which helps sometimes.
But doubt that phones are suitable - a real camera is best.

I don't think there is much more info re the matching Nos. to be acquired from books  -  like many things, acquiring knowledge is best done by personal experience - going to museums, antiques fair, etc, and handling the stuff.

[Martyn1]

Interesting.  I love these things and only buy when they're cheap.  I like boot sales and charity shops as they may have been passed down the family.  The most that I've paid is £10.00. A friend of mine has stated that millions of these were made in the 1830s and that they are relatively common.  I found a smaller one this afternoon in a box that I had forgotten about.  This one also has a matching number on the bottle and the stopper.  The stopper is a Regency design of a octagonal cut mushroom.  May try and post a picture of that one if I can.

Mod: Images added for Martyn