Topic: Claret Jug

[Paul S.]

oddly enough, the example of a champers jug that West shows in his 'Antiques Check List' book, looks more like a claret jug to me - in my ignorance  -  since I possess neither  -  but that high pouring lip, restricted neck and curved handle are very clarety in my opinion.
His is machine etched I believe, and he dates it to c. 1870.

Send Mark West an email - he's on the 'thomas webb', and ask (politely) the source for his provenance.

[flying free]

It says on page 153 of Miller's Glass Antiques Checklist
'Many plain, utilitarian water jugs were made, and were usually straight-sided with a two or three pint capacity.  These are quite common and were made at least until the First World War.'  then under a picture of a tall ish elegant engraved footed jug  with a matching goblet it says
'Sometimes a jug and a pair of goblets were made to be given as wedding presents, and sold as lemonade or champagne sets - champagne was decanted at this time.  The engraved jug and glass above are part of such a set.'

Regarding production of jugs interestingly it says
'JUGS - because of the relative difficulty involved in their production,jug handles were applied after the bodies had been finished, producing stresses and weaknesses in the glass.  Jugs tend to be rarer than decanters or carafes.'

And just adding because I always end up questioning when handles were applied top down
'The style of jug handles changed in c.1870: before this time handles were attached at the top and then drawn down.  But after 1870 most were made with the handle attached further down the body of the jug and drawn up, and with some modern, handmade exceptions,  this still appears to hold true.'

[Paul S.]

since offering my, as usual, slightly over-quick replies, I've looked in Andy McConnell's 'Decanter Book' - and the range of claret jugs is quite staggering in variety and form (but then the same applies to water jugs, I'm sure).         Some designs for claret jugs - Dresser for example - have surprisingly wide necks and pouring rims - but in almost all cases there is either an articulated lid/cover or a stopper of some sort, which this piece doesn't appear to have.
None of which helps, but thought I should point out this information - if pushed I'd still go with the water jug suggestion for this piece.

I thought the cut-off date for the different methods of handle application was c. 1860

[KevinH]

Is this getting closer to the item being a water jug, rather than a claret jug? And is a champagne jug now ruled out?

There has been a request to amend the title of the thread, but quite honestly I cannot work out what is being suggested.

[Paul S.]

based on preceeding comments, and his own intuition/experience, perhaps we should leave that decision to Bernard         As a possible suggestion, why not revise the title to read 'Water/Claret jug'.         

Remembering that some designs are suitable for more than one use, then this piece could be a table jug for either water or claret - there appears no obvious reason why it couldn't serve this dual purpose.        The clarity of the glass looks good for its age, although it may of course have been cleaned at some recent time.

I hadn't realized until recent times how decorative and how like wine goblets, many of the Victorian water goblets could look  -  am sure had I seen them I'd have assumed for wine or claret.

Without going into details, it seems that both Thomas Webb and Boulton & Mills, appear to have registered designs for types of 'shell ribbed' handles and feet..........see Gulliver pages 270 and 274.       

[flying free]

It's not my thread so I can't answer that question Kev.
I crossed posts with Paul, but I disagree on his suggestion of Water/Claret as options for the following reasons:

In 'The Crystal Years' a book about Stevens and Williams by R.S. Williams-Thomas there is a champagne jug on page 37 which is I would say, an almost identical shape to the jug I discussed here (see my quote
below), which appears on page 153 of Miller's Antiques Checklist Glass - Mark West Consultant
' then under a picture of a tall ish elegant engraved footed jug  with a matching goblet it says
"Sometimes a jug and a pair of goblets were made to be given as wedding presents, and sold as lemonade or champagne sets - champagne was decanted at this time.  The engraved jug and glass above are part of such a set."
'
So it appears there were jugs produced as Champagne jugs, and Mark West has identified one in the Checklist, which is the same shape as one that appears in the Stevens and Williams book, and is identified in the S&W book as a Champagne jug.
Mark West has also identified as a Champagne jug, a different version of a jug with feet, which looks like Bernard's jug in the original post on this thread,  on his website.  He may well have a reason/source for identifying this shape particularly as a Champagne jug.

Therefore I would suggest that a champagne jug is a possible contender as a title for Bernard's jug until we know otherwise. 
I cannot imagine why a water jug would be footed in any way, but from Bernard's post it appears that Silber and Fleming have described a jug that is similar to Bernard's, as a water jug.  Therefore it seems a water jug is also still a possible contender as a title for Bernard's jug.

I would say it is not a claret jug - there is a claret jug on page 38 and page 42 of the Stevens and Williams book and they are a completely different shape, footed with a tall slim neck and with a stopper. 
That is not to say they are the only claret jug shapes of course.   There is one in CH British Glass 1800-1914 that has a wider neck and in fact looks like a footed teapot with a tall neck on it but it also has a lid cover. 
I think if it were a claret jug it would have a lid or a stopper of some sort.

There is a comment in CH British Glass 1800-1914 on page 172 which appears to contradict the quote I gave above from Miller's - it says
'Geometric patterns were popular on the sets of a water jug and two goblets placed between every two guests at the dinner table (plate 150 (which just shows one goblet unfortunately)).  The jugs and goblets are not, as has been suggested, a marriage set for a bride and groom.' (my underlining)
m

[Paul S.]

hello m.
quote................."I would say it is not a claret jug - there is a claret jug on page 38 and page 42 of the Stevens and Williams book and they are a completely different shape, footed with a tall slim neck and with a stopper."
Obviously you haven't looked at Andy McConnell's book m  -  it's a revelation in terms of what you might or might not consider claret jug shapes to be - and I had commented on this point earlier.

However, I'd agree with you and say this one is not a claret jug, but not for the previously mentioned reason of too wide a neck, but more for the fact that this one doesn't have a lid or stopper - as you also suggest - and a point I'd mentioned earlier.

I take the experts word for it that jugs were made/used for champagne, although since neither the 'Check List' example nor the S. & W. piece bear any resemblance to the shape of Bernard's (although other people without the books will not know this) - my opinion is that to refer to them is misleading - likewise your reference to pages 38 and 42 in Williams-Thomas book.            Whilst undoubtedly those examples are described as claret jugs, they represent only one shape  -  and it seems they came in many forms - with both narrow and wide necks - footed and with separate shell ribbed feet.            You must get a copy of McConnell  -  it really is worth the outlay.          
However, Mark West's example with the cranberry coloured handle and legs is more like Bernard's piece in shape, so yes, you're right in saying that my suggesting was perhaps not quite right.............
so how about revising the title to read.........Water/Champagne (and possible Claret Jug)

I doubt you'll nail this one down - no marks, and a shape that is not untypical of having several uses, and may well have done so in its life.

 

[flying free]

I was just trying to show that Mark West may have had a reason/source for saying his jug, the one that is like Bernard's, is a Champagne jug. 

In trying to demonstrate that point, my reasons were that he has referenced another shaped jug and also called it a Champagne jug - to back up his identification for that one, I've found one the same shape in the Stevens and Williams book where it is named a Champagne jug.

It's entirely probable that jugs were used for many purposes, but I do think that some were made with a specific shape for a specific purpose.  If there are jugs in Andy McConnel's book that look like Bernard's and are claret jugs, then I apologise   Are there some the same shape as Bernard's in the book with the feet as well, but that have stoppers?

m

[Paul S.]

In Andy McConnell's book, there is a chapter devoted to the 'claret jug', with other examples dotted around in various chapters - and it appears all examples have a lid or stopper of some description (the vast majority have lids), but I can't see one similar to Bernard's with shell ribbing.     
Designs range from the rather plain utility arts and crafts designs with silver mounts, of Dresser, through to the traditional ewer shape with narrow neck and on to the French very OTT art nouveau pieces, almost all of which have handles.             Zoomorphic claret jugs seem to have been popular.
So, lacking a lid, we might consider that this one is not for claret, and the title might be altered to remove the word.

Incidentally, there are shapes of jugs in S. & F. - described as 'water jugs' - that are identical to the champagne jug shown in Williams-Thomas, and almost the same shape as shown in Mark West - proving that shape alone was no proof of specific use, although it goes without saying that the S. & F. examples are either plain, or without the detailed engraving.
I think the point about the commonplaceness of 'jugs' on the table for champers, claret, lemonade, water or whatever is answered by the caption on page 36 of the Williams-Thomas book i.e. ... 'it was in poor taste to have the bottle on view'.       Probably any bottle was considered to be 'common'.     
I remember my mother would never have butter, sugar, milk, jam etc. on the table, unless they were in their purpose made containers, and we lived in a council 'ouse.

S. & F. volumes are awash with a very wide variety of claret jug designs  -  all have stoppers/lids and all have handles.

I'm unable to see the word 'champagne' in the index of McConnell's book, neither does the word 'jug' appear.            No need to apologise by the way  -  we all throw ideas around - until we find an answer, or people get fed up with listening to us rambling

[flying free]

Thanks for the further explanation Paul
 'it was in poor taste to have the bottle on view' 
I know, and I'd like to say I agree, however I've struggled to find something to decant the ketchup into  and frankly any champagne in this house is drunk before it has time to be decanted   (that doesn't read correctly I know, perhaps the word is quaffed not drunk  )
m