Two pebbles

[Fiveroosters aka clayandbrush]

Dear all,
this two bottles are part of the former group of bottles that started my collection, belonging from an old collection. They are part of my preferred group, that I am going to post.
I am pretty sure that despite the enlargement (they measure 5 and 5,5 cm, about two inches) many would be surprised by the nature of the material. Yes, both them are made of glass imitating stone. I really like this kind of glass bottles, showing us how the artisan did master the technology.
The first one is imitating a pebble of russet jade. It is so well done that I Chinese dealer that I know is still convinced that it is real jade. But the swirls that it has on the small base are pointing to glass.
The second one is incredible in my opinion. Note how it imitate the inclusions of different cristals and minerals in the stone pebble. It is almost completely black, those inclusions are well seen here because I had to over expose the image to show them.
Sorry for the many pictures, but I believe that at least the second bottle is worth to see in detail. I have to post them in two separate posts.
Kind regards
Giovanni

[Fiveroosters aka clayandbrush]

Here is the black pebble

[Steven]

Great bottles indeed!!

I like the second one better, I believe they are glass as you mentioned,since we can tell it from the chip of the mouth.

Steven

[rpfstoneman]

Giovanni,

Regardless of the material these are great looking bottles.  If indeed glass as you mentioned, these are two perfect examples in the achievement of glass imitating stone and would expect these to be very old.

Charll

[Fiveroosters aka clayandbrush]

Dear Steven and Charll,
I am very happy with your comments. It means that my taste is not off. I am sure that the both them are glass made, and for sure old because of the general wear. I am convinced that they have been in use, judging by the deposid inside the jade-like one. The other one is not possible to look inside it because it is completely dark, the light can't come through the body.
I have seen that pebble-type bottles sold at auction houses usually has a little branch of coral as a stopper. I have somewhere some small real coral branches and could try to adapt one myself.
Giovanni

[George]

Absolutely beautiful !

That second one looks like it may be a mix of some kind of fossilized material.. I just do not see the connection with being glass.. It makes more sense those are mineral or fossil structures, as they are too well defined to be glass.. Intersting for sure !

[Fiveroosters aka clayandbrush]

Dear George, thank you. I know you are much more expert than me about minerals. The body of the bottle is totally opaque, no light can pass through. After long inspection I reach the conclusion that it is glass mainly because of the swirl on the base. If you enlarge the last picture that I post you can see that the inclusions are rotating toward the centre of the base.
Nevertheless I have now a betetr stereo microscopy and will check it further tonight.
I must say that I will prefer if it will be confirmed that it is glass, because in that case it is really a masterpiece of imitation.
Kind regards
Giovanni

[George]

I must say that I will prefer if it will be confirmed that it is glass, because in that case it is really a masterpiece of imitation.

Absolutely !

[Fiveroosters aka clayandbrush]

Dear George and all,
I did inspect the bottle with the microscope, insisting on many details and comparing it witht the jade imitation one. After that my conclusion was that it is made by a stone, for the following (sorry for not mastering so well the English, it is a bit difficult to explain what I mean):
1) The edges of the inclusions is very sharp. I mean that the edge transition from let say a quartz inclusion and the black stone is very neat, and I was supposing that, if both made of glass, there should be a sort of melting between them.
2) The chips are rough, while the chips on the glass jade-like one has the typical fracture of the glass. Only one chip shows that typical fracture, but then I thought that also some stone, like for exemple the obsidian, do show the same type of chipping.
3) The interior, for what I can see at the first part beyond the opening, is not well hollowed as is the other bottle. I mean the wall is not so thin.
The weight is 25 percent more than the other. It is nevertheless true that it is a bit bigger and the wall is thicker.
Considering all this, I decided for stone.
But then I did try to insert my boroscope in it, convinced that it was not possible because the hole was too small but with my surprise it went in.
With even bigger surprise, I saw that the interior is surely not carved! The inside surface of the bottle, despite the dirty, is perfectly bright. It is not a polished surface, it has the typical very light waves of a melted surface, and at the bottom there is a small bump so typical of the glass ware. I don't know how to call that bump exactly, but for sure it is typical of glass.
So finally now I am sure that the bottle is glass made! Being not expert of glass making, I have no idea how they can reach this. Before looking at the inside I did consider the possibility of being it made by a paste of glass containing a mixture of minute chips of real stones. But in that case the inner surface, not having been polished, should have a somehow rough surface.
Anyway, now I like this bottle even more!
Giovanni

But then

[George]

at the bottom there is a small bump so typical of the glass ware. I don't know how to call that bump exactly, but for sure it is typical of glass.

Antique bitters type bottle collectors call it a pontil..

[Wattana]

Dear Giovanni,

I have just read through this thread, and with great interest!  Firstly, because I just love pebble bottles - they are very tactile objects and nice to handle, very much in Chinese "literati" taste. There was a strong attraction by scholars to seek beauty in common and 'natural' objects. River and beach pebbles had long been a favourite item, and when the snuff-taking habit arrived, they delighted in having some of these pebbles hollowed out so as to have a 'second' and less obvious function (the first function being purely as an object of tactile pleasure). The 'dual' function added to their appeal.

Now, if your two bottles are indeed made of glass, they have 3 levels of attraction, the last being the 'secret' appeal that they are imitating natural stone, which would be known only to the owner.....and to be confided perhaps to his closest friends.  

Giovanni, both these bottles are delightful, but the second one is a masterpiece! Even studying your pictures I cannot tell that it is made of glass. It looks exactly like a type of obsidian conglomerate (which chips in a conchoidal way like glass), or fossiliferous limestone, or even meteorite material. But being glass I agree with Charll - I would expect them to be quite old.  The only indication that they may NOT be so old is that the mouth and the foot indentation (the only signs of obvious carving) are very similar on both bottles, as if they were made by the same workshop. Although possible, it seems unlikely that these 2 bottles would have been kept together for 150 years or more.  
 

[George]

One thing.. If that is a pontil, then of course the bottle would have been blown, as compared to having been carved.

[Wattana]

Dear Giovanni,

Yes, George has raised a question that was in the back of my mind. You say the imitation jade bottle has swirls on the base, and the inside of the black bottle is smooth. This indicates that both are of blown glass. As far as I know (Charll may be able to confirm) the early glass imitations would have been carved and hollowed from a solid chunk of glass, in much the same way as a stone bottle, not blown.

Is the inside surface of the 'jade' bottle also smooth?

Regards, 

[Fiveroosters aka clayandbrush]

Dear Tom and George,
I really thank you for your much appreciated comments. I will check the inside of the jade-like bottle too. But I am sure that at least the black one is blown, because the inner surface is very typical of blown glasses. Thank you about the "pontil". I realize that I use a wrong word. It is perhaps wrong to call  it "bump". It is indeed a round small shallow depression. Anyway, typical of glass ware. I am sure that if you could see the inside you will agree that it is made by blown glass. It is a pity that I am not able to take pictures through the borescope.
And thank you about "conchoidal", it is exactly what I meant. Now I know a new word, will try to remember.
The two bottles belong from an old collector, who is a wealthy gentleman and because of that he was buying at auction houses and good antique shops in the seventies and eighties. May be these two bottles was purchased together, may be they in turn belong from another collection. Anyway, it is good to have them together.
Giovanni

[Joey Silver / Si Zhouyi 義周司]

Dear Giovanni,
    I agree with Tom, George, Charll and Steven about the bottles being wonderful masterpieces, but I feel that they are definitely ca. 1750-1820. If the openings had been a bit smaller, I would have said 1730-1790, because on jade pebble bottles of that period (and I have a few and have had as many as 10 or 12), the opening is always a little bit smaller.

   And I see no reason that they couldn't have stayed 'together' 150 or even over 200 years. I have seen sets of 10 bottles that were kept together that long.
 
   In fact, the J & J Collection had a pair of pebble bottles imitating jade, quite similar to yours, except that the combo was a white and russet pebble 'jade' and a 'quartz' with inclusions, and they were in a fitted wood box with actual cutout forms to hold the two bottles, and laid out like yin and yang in the square box. I believe the box was Zhitan or Huanghuali (ie, valuable woods).
 
   And Bloch had a set of 8 or 10 jade bottles in the shape of aubergines (eggplants) in white nephrite jade, with spinach green jade necks and stoppers, though I believe that set was NOT kept together, but re-gathered.

 Anyway, a beautiful pair of snuff bottles, and definitely examples Vince Fausone, our wonderful past president of the ICSBS would covet. ***t, I would too.
Joey

[Fiveroosters aka clayandbrush]

Dear Joey,
thank you so much! 1750 - 1820 sounds great to me, really! Thank you for the many information provided in your post.
With these two bottles I was going to post my best ones, but yesterday I received two porcelain bottles that with my surprise are better than what seen in the pictures when I bought them. Will take pictures and post them before.
Kind regards
Giovanni

[Joey Silver / Si Zhouyi 義周司]

Congratulations, dear Giovanni!
    I can't wait to see them.
Best, Joey

[Steven]

I will second that!!

[Fiveroosters aka clayandbrush]

Dear Joey,
to put it in numbers (pictures can deceive) the opening of both bottles has a diameter of exactly 5 mm.
How do you consider this dimension? Bigger or smaller than what you did wonder?
Giovanni

[Joey Silver / Si Zhouyi 義周司]

Dear Giovanni,
    5 mm. openings would make me date the bottles to ca. 1730-1800!
I thought that they were 8-12 mm. openings, based on my judgement visually. Photos can deceive!
Wonderful.
   Incidentally, while we find bottles carved out of a block of glass and hollowed, from 1660 to 1800, we also find blown bottles in that period. Being blown glass or carved and hollowed glass, doesn't, in and of itself, constitute proof of age.
Joey