Why do some wine bottles have a much deeper/concave pontil than others?!
Answers:
A punt, also known as a kick-up, refers to the dimple at the bottom of a wine bottle!. There is no consensus explanation for its purpose!. The more commonly cited explanations include:
* it is a symbol that the larger the punts the better the wine
* it is an historical remnant of old-fashioned glass-blowing techniques; By raising the point where the glass-blowers tube is attached, the small imperfection would not scratch the table!.
* it had the function of making the bottle less likely to topple over -- a bottle designed with a flat bottom only needs a small imperfection to make it unstable -- the dimple historically allowed for a larger margin of error;
* it consolidates sediment deposits in a thick ring at the bottom of the bottle, preventing it from being poured into the glass;
* it allows a bottle of sparkling wine to be turned upside-down and then stacked (depending on its shape);
* it increases the strength of the bottle, allowing it to hold the high pressure of sparkling wine/champagne;
* it can make the bottle look bigger, impressing purchasers
* it holds the bottles in place on pegs of a conveyor belt as they go through the filling process in manufacturing plants; and
* it accommodates the pourer's thumb for stability and ease of pouring!.
* According to legend the punt was used by servants!. They often knew more than their master about what was happening in town, and with a thumb up the punt they could show their master whether a guest was reliable or not!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
* it is a symbol that the larger the punts the better the wine
* it is an historical remnant of old-fashioned glass-blowing techniques; By raising the point where the glass-blowers tube is attached, the small imperfection would not scratch the table!.
* it had the function of making the bottle less likely to topple over -- a bottle designed with a flat bottom only needs a small imperfection to make it unstable -- the dimple historically allowed for a larger margin of error;
* it consolidates sediment deposits in a thick ring at the bottom of the bottle, preventing it from being poured into the glass;
* it allows a bottle of sparkling wine to be turned upside-down and then stacked (depending on its shape);
* it increases the strength of the bottle, allowing it to hold the high pressure of sparkling wine/champagne;
* it can make the bottle look bigger, impressing purchasers
* it holds the bottles in place on pegs of a conveyor belt as they go through the filling process in manufacturing plants; and
* it accommodates the pourer's thumb for stability and ease of pouring!.
* According to legend the punt was used by servants!. They often knew more than their master about what was happening in town, and with a thumb up the punt they could show their master whether a guest was reliable or not!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
the punt increases the strength of the bottle and, makes it thicker and the wine or other brew can age better!.!.!.!.!.the thicker the bottle the better for aging!.!.!.!.is darker inside and thus ages better!.!.!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
think traditionally it gave the bottle more strength, you put better quality wine in better bottles partly for aging but now for marketing I thinkWww@FoodAQ@Com
Here are some explanations for you, far too many and too complicated for me to type out as I am a bit lazy :)
So here is a good link
http://pweb!.netcom!.com/~lachenm/puntFAQ!.!.!.!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
So here is a good link
http://pweb!.netcom!.com/~lachenm/puntFAQ!.!.!.!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
The original reason was to keep the bottom of the bottle from blowing out; the tops were wired shut, like sparkling wines!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
The punt increases the strength of the bottle, allowing it to hold the high pressure of sparkling wine/champagne;Www@FoodAQ@Com
Marketing!. Personal preference!. Superstition!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Some people like to put their thumb in there while holding the bottle up to the light or when pouring!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
I think they are made different just to look pretty!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Wine Better !!Www@FoodAQ@Com
I think it might have to do with the sediment!.just a guess!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
so certain wines can breath better to help with the tastesWww@FoodAQ@Com
Dating Soft Drink Bottles
? Bill Lockhart 2000
Dating soft drink bottles is important to both the archaeologist and the bottle collector!. The later,
of course, is interested in the date as a part of the overall information on each individual bottle in his
or her collection!. The former is interested in the date not only for identification of the individual
artifact, but also as a determinant of the time period during which a historical site (or historical
component of a multitemporal site) was actually used!. Unfortunately, the past has been rife with
clashes between archaeologists and bottle collectors--with valid grievances on both sides!. A little
education and understanding--again on both sides--usually shows that the aims of the two groups are
not so far removed from each other that acceptable compromises cannot be worked out!. Despite the
disagreements, Archaeologists have traditionally sought collectors' literature in dating and
identifying glass artifacts (For examples, see Fontana 1968; Herskovitz 1978; Jones 1971; Staski
1984; Switzer 1974) and, occasionally, archaeologists have sought direct help from collectors (e!.g!.
Mills 1997)!. Olive Jones, one of the foremost contributors to archaeological glass container
knowledge, correctly reported conditions in 1975:
Most of the literature on containers has appeared in the last ten years or so and is the direct result
of the growing popularity of bottle collecting, particularly in the United States!. The literature tends
to concentrate on collectors' interests in bottles, such as the identification and price, and to ignore
or be uninformed on the historical aspect (Jones 1975)!.
With unusual exceptions, the dating of glass containers cannot be restricted to a single year (even
if the year of manufacture is embossed on the bottle), but rather encompasses a number of years or
a date range!. These ranges extend from the actual date of manufacture (beginning date) to the date
of most recent use before discard (end date)!. Each bottle, therefore, has two dates which often must
be determined separately!.
Bottle dating can be relatively simplistic or extremely complex depending on several factors,
including the experience of the researcher, the goals of the project, and the availability of background
information!. The most simplistic design includes the most probable date of container use rather than
the extremes of possible usage!. To illustrate the difference between possible and probable dates, we
shall examine a neck/finish fragment excavated at San Elizario, Texas (Lockhart & Olszewski
1974:42-44)!. The finish consists of two applied rings, the upper one much longer in vertical
measurement than the lower, commonly known as a brandy finish!. The neck, itself, is slightly
swollen, a condition generally indicating a container manufactured as a beer bottle!. The color is a
dark amber with mold marks extending from the break at the neck/shoulder junction to a point about
halfway to the finish!.
A probable beginning date would be 1881, the year the railroads first arrived in El Paso, and,
coincidentally, the time when large quantities of bottled goods (including beer) first become evident
in the archaeological record of the area (Lockhart 1995:170-171)!. The probable end date is about
1895 to 1900, the approximate time that crown finishes replaced all other finishes on beer and soft
drink bottles (see below)!. The possible dates extend beyond the probable in both directions!. The
early date must be altered to include the earliest possible date of the use of the two-piece mold
technique (1750 for small bottles, although ca!. 1845 is much more likely for larger bottles such as
this one) and even the earlier three-piece mold technique (1810) because either manufacturing
method could have produced mold lines that end halfway up the neck!. The swelled neck indicates
a greater likelihood that the manufacture was later, but the possibility of a swollen neck on an earlier
bottle cannot be ruled out!. Similarly, the end date must be extended for an indefinite period,
probably not exceeding 1920, because every individual glass house did not immediately switch to
crown caps when they became available!. Thus the possible date (1810-1920) is ninety-one years
longer than the probable date (1881-1900)!. The greater the quantity of datable artifacts that are
found on a given site, the greater the confidence in the probable date range rather than the possible!.
A single artifact (such as our neck/finish fragment) must be given the widest possible date range,
while the same artifact found in quantity (225 similar finishes were excavated at San Elizario) may
more comfortably be dated within the probable range!.
Bottles may be dated by a variety of methods that will each produce a date range that is not
necessarily the same as the date range indicated by the other methods!. These methods include
examining the morphology (shape) of the container, glass color, manufacturing techniques,
manufacturer's marks, retail labeling, embossed dates, and patent or copyright dates!. Although the
use of a single method will suffice in some cases, a combination of methods will generally produce
the smallest, most accurate range of probable or possible dates!.
Color
Researchers often reject the use of color as a dating technique or completely ignore it!. Berge, for
example, disregards color in his discussion of bottle attributes(Berge 1980:38-40), while Jones and
Sullivan actively oppose its use, saying:
although classification by colour is simple to do, the end result is of little value for
the following reasons: color does not have a direct relation with glass type!. !. !. colour
is not related to the technology of glass object production!. !. !. colour is only weakly
related to the function of the object!. !. !. !. Given these factors there is little justification
for using colour as a means of classification!. !. !. !.There is a very broad chronology of
popularity of various colours over time; however that chronology cannot be applied
to individual glass objects with any significant level of meaning (Jones & Sullivan
1989:12)!.
Jones, however, used color/glass composition in conjunction with other analytical tools on at least
one occasion but still warned that "glass color alone cannot be used to determine glass composition"
(Jones 1983:71)!. Others, such as Fike (1987), Newman (1970), and Staski (1984) accept the color
of glass for at least limited use!. While all these authors have valid points in their critiques of color
usage as a diagnostic tool, the concept of color can be an acceptable dating technique if carefully
applied!.
At least two colors are generally accepted as having validity in dating glass artifacts!. The first
of these, black glass, is really an intense dark green or purple glass that is almost completely opaque,
displaying very little translucency!. Its primary use was in liquor or wine bottles in the seventeenth
through nineteenth centuries!. Although authors have differences of opinion on exactly how to date
black glass, it can be generally stated that it occurs prior to 1880 (Fike 1987:13; Jones & Sullivan
1989:14; Newman 1970:74)!.
Solarized purple or amethyst glass forms the second color classification that is generally accepted
as a valid color in artifact dating!. The amethyst or purple color is derived from the prolonged solar
exposure of colorless glass that was manufactured with manganese as a decolorant!. Iron impurities
within normal glass composition create an amber to light blue to aquamarine or blue-green color
depending on the type and amount of iron in the mixture!. Manganese reacts with the iron to produce
a colorless effect in the final glass product!. Prolonged exposure to the ultraviolet rays of the sun,
however, causes a chemical change in manganese that creates varying shades of purple or amethyst
depending on the concentration of manganese in the glass mixture!. Concentration of manganese also
affects the necessary duration of solar exposure required to produce the color change!. Because of
varied concentration, required duration of exposure to natural sunlight can be as little as two weeks
or over a year before a color change is introduced!.
Although manganese was used in glass (mostly to create purple color, rather than as a decolorant)
as early as the Roman Empire, its use in decoloring glass in the United States is fairly recent, with
1880-1914 as the often-accepted dates of usage set by Kendrick (1963:54-55), although recent
historical/archaeological research revises these to ca!. 1890-1920 (Lockhart 2000)!. These, however,
are probable dates, not possible ones!. According to one source, possible beginning dates begin as
early as 1810, although colorless glass was unusual at that time (Zimmerman 1964:8)!. Possible end
dates also extend farther toward the present, with manganese used as a decolorant by small glass
houses as late as the mid-1930s (Sharp 1933:763)!. Thus, quantities of solarized purple or amethyst
glass may be dated between 1890 and 1920 with a good level of confidence, but the use of probable
dates in assessing a single artifact must be approached with caution!.
A second problem related to manganese decolored glass arises for the archaeologist!. Because
solarization requires exposure to the sun, large quantities of excavated manganese-bearing colorless
glass may not have absorbed the necessary amount of ultraviolet radiation to produce the color
change!. As bottle collectors have been aware for many years, solarization may be achieved in a
much shorter period by using artificial sources of ultraviolet radiation such as sunlamps or
germicidal lights!. Glass that is suspected of having a deposition prior to 1920 can be tested relatively
cheaply by means of such a light enclosed in a wooden box constructed with aluminum foil lining
to reflect and intensify the ultravioletWww@FoodAQ@Com
? Bill Lockhart 2000
Dating soft drink bottles is important to both the archaeologist and the bottle collector!. The later,
of course, is interested in the date as a part of the overall information on each individual bottle in his
or her collection!. The former is interested in the date not only for identification of the individual
artifact, but also as a determinant of the time period during which a historical site (or historical
component of a multitemporal site) was actually used!. Unfortunately, the past has been rife with
clashes between archaeologists and bottle collectors--with valid grievances on both sides!. A little
education and understanding--again on both sides--usually shows that the aims of the two groups are
not so far removed from each other that acceptable compromises cannot be worked out!. Despite the
disagreements, Archaeologists have traditionally sought collectors' literature in dating and
identifying glass artifacts (For examples, see Fontana 1968; Herskovitz 1978; Jones 1971; Staski
1984; Switzer 1974) and, occasionally, archaeologists have sought direct help from collectors (e!.g!.
Mills 1997)!. Olive Jones, one of the foremost contributors to archaeological glass container
knowledge, correctly reported conditions in 1975:
Most of the literature on containers has appeared in the last ten years or so and is the direct result
of the growing popularity of bottle collecting, particularly in the United States!. The literature tends
to concentrate on collectors' interests in bottles, such as the identification and price, and to ignore
or be uninformed on the historical aspect (Jones 1975)!.
With unusual exceptions, the dating of glass containers cannot be restricted to a single year (even
if the year of manufacture is embossed on the bottle), but rather encompasses a number of years or
a date range!. These ranges extend from the actual date of manufacture (beginning date) to the date
of most recent use before discard (end date)!. Each bottle, therefore, has two dates which often must
be determined separately!.
Bottle dating can be relatively simplistic or extremely complex depending on several factors,
including the experience of the researcher, the goals of the project, and the availability of background
information!. The most simplistic design includes the most probable date of container use rather than
the extremes of possible usage!. To illustrate the difference between possible and probable dates, we
shall examine a neck/finish fragment excavated at San Elizario, Texas (Lockhart & Olszewski
1974:42-44)!. The finish consists of two applied rings, the upper one much longer in vertical
measurement than the lower, commonly known as a brandy finish!. The neck, itself, is slightly
swollen, a condition generally indicating a container manufactured as a beer bottle!. The color is a
dark amber with mold marks extending from the break at the neck/shoulder junction to a point about
halfway to the finish!.
A probable beginning date would be 1881, the year the railroads first arrived in El Paso, and,
coincidentally, the time when large quantities of bottled goods (including beer) first become evident
in the archaeological record of the area (Lockhart 1995:170-171)!. The probable end date is about
1895 to 1900, the approximate time that crown finishes replaced all other finishes on beer and soft
drink bottles (see below)!. The possible dates extend beyond the probable in both directions!. The
early date must be altered to include the earliest possible date of the use of the two-piece mold
technique (1750 for small bottles, although ca!. 1845 is much more likely for larger bottles such as
this one) and even the earlier three-piece mold technique (1810) because either manufacturing
method could have produced mold lines that end halfway up the neck!. The swelled neck indicates
a greater likelihood that the manufacture was later, but the possibility of a swollen neck on an earlier
bottle cannot be ruled out!. Similarly, the end date must be extended for an indefinite period,
probably not exceeding 1920, because every individual glass house did not immediately switch to
crown caps when they became available!. Thus the possible date (1810-1920) is ninety-one years
longer than the probable date (1881-1900)!. The greater the quantity of datable artifacts that are
found on a given site, the greater the confidence in the probable date range rather than the possible!.
A single artifact (such as our neck/finish fragment) must be given the widest possible date range,
while the same artifact found in quantity (225 similar finishes were excavated at San Elizario) may
more comfortably be dated within the probable range!.
Bottles may be dated by a variety of methods that will each produce a date range that is not
necessarily the same as the date range indicated by the other methods!. These methods include
examining the morphology (shape) of the container, glass color, manufacturing techniques,
manufacturer's marks, retail labeling, embossed dates, and patent or copyright dates!. Although the
use of a single method will suffice in some cases, a combination of methods will generally produce
the smallest, most accurate range of probable or possible dates!.
Color
Researchers often reject the use of color as a dating technique or completely ignore it!. Berge, for
example, disregards color in his discussion of bottle attributes(Berge 1980:38-40), while Jones and
Sullivan actively oppose its use, saying:
although classification by colour is simple to do, the end result is of little value for
the following reasons: color does not have a direct relation with glass type!. !. !. colour
is not related to the technology of glass object production!. !. !. colour is only weakly
related to the function of the object!. !. !. !. Given these factors there is little justification
for using colour as a means of classification!. !. !. !.There is a very broad chronology of
popularity of various colours over time; however that chronology cannot be applied
to individual glass objects with any significant level of meaning (Jones & Sullivan
1989:12)!.
Jones, however, used color/glass composition in conjunction with other analytical tools on at least
one occasion but still warned that "glass color alone cannot be used to determine glass composition"
(Jones 1983:71)!. Others, such as Fike (1987), Newman (1970), and Staski (1984) accept the color
of glass for at least limited use!. While all these authors have valid points in their critiques of color
usage as a diagnostic tool, the concept of color can be an acceptable dating technique if carefully
applied!.
At least two colors are generally accepted as having validity in dating glass artifacts!. The first
of these, black glass, is really an intense dark green or purple glass that is almost completely opaque,
displaying very little translucency!. Its primary use was in liquor or wine bottles in the seventeenth
through nineteenth centuries!. Although authors have differences of opinion on exactly how to date
black glass, it can be generally stated that it occurs prior to 1880 (Fike 1987:13; Jones & Sullivan
1989:14; Newman 1970:74)!.
Solarized purple or amethyst glass forms the second color classification that is generally accepted
as a valid color in artifact dating!. The amethyst or purple color is derived from the prolonged solar
exposure of colorless glass that was manufactured with manganese as a decolorant!. Iron impurities
within normal glass composition create an amber to light blue to aquamarine or blue-green color
depending on the type and amount of iron in the mixture!. Manganese reacts with the iron to produce
a colorless effect in the final glass product!. Prolonged exposure to the ultraviolet rays of the sun,
however, causes a chemical change in manganese that creates varying shades of purple or amethyst
depending on the concentration of manganese in the glass mixture!. Concentration of manganese also
affects the necessary duration of solar exposure required to produce the color change!. Because of
varied concentration, required duration of exposure to natural sunlight can be as little as two weeks
or over a year before a color change is introduced!.
Although manganese was used in glass (mostly to create purple color, rather than as a decolorant)
as early as the Roman Empire, its use in decoloring glass in the United States is fairly recent, with
1880-1914 as the often-accepted dates of usage set by Kendrick (1963:54-55), although recent
historical/archaeological research revises these to ca!. 1890-1920 (Lockhart 2000)!. These, however,
are probable dates, not possible ones!. According to one source, possible beginning dates begin as
early as 1810, although colorless glass was unusual at that time (Zimmerman 1964:8)!. Possible end
dates also extend farther toward the present, with manganese used as a decolorant by small glass
houses as late as the mid-1930s (Sharp 1933:763)!. Thus, quantities of solarized purple or amethyst
glass may be dated between 1890 and 1920 with a good level of confidence, but the use of probable
dates in assessing a single artifact must be approached with caution!.
A second problem related to manganese decolored glass arises for the archaeologist!. Because
solarization requires exposure to the sun, large quantities of excavated manganese-bearing colorless
glass may not have absorbed the necessary amount of ultraviolet radiation to produce the color
change!. As bottle collectors have been aware for many years, solarization may be achieved in a
much shorter period by using artificial sources of ultraviolet radiation such as sunlamps or
germicidal lights!. Glass that is suspected of having a deposition prior to 1920 can be tested relatively
cheaply by means of such a light enclosed in a wooden box constructed with aluminum foil lining
to reflect and intensify the ultravioletWww@FoodAQ@Com