SRD Jars - Who made them?

[Gunner Bailey]

Hand impression on side

I can never pick this up without wondering who they were and what became of them.

Hi Reese

Welcome to the forum and many thanks for your photos and descriptions. Great collection of jars. To date I've never seen one of the larger jars.

The mark you have shown, E Wright & Co Ltd, is a new one to me and great to add to the list. The jars with the finger and hand marks reflect the fact that these jars were mainly a 'use once' commodity, though of course thousands were reused many times. Quality control was not great for SRD jars. I can see a few flaws in my collection. It's like seeing a dog's paw mark in a Roman tile. Always brings a smile. I expect the fatality rate for jars in the trenches was also very high.

Gunner Bailey

[auchonvillerssomme]

Has anyone got a dated 'Gas Ointment' jar? I suspect they were WW2 but I'm not sure.

Mick

[Max Poilu]

Has anyone got a dated 'Gas Ointment' jar? I suspect they were WW2 but I'm not sure.

Mick

Reasonably sure that all those seen for sale are WW2 as you say.

[Wardog]

I have seen WWII dated ones and think them to be only of that war. Paul.

[Gunner Bailey]

Has anyone got a dated 'Gas Ointment' jar? I suspect they were WW2 but I'm not sure.

Mick

Mick

There were some on ebay the other day. Not sure if they are still there. Seller was stating WW1 I think.

John

[auchonvillerssomme]

Theres one each in 2 local antique shops, will have a closer look, one is a fiver the other 10 quid.

Mick

[Max Poilu]

They often (usually?) appear undated and the seller can of course say what he likes but as above I don't believe they were an item that ever existed in 14-18.

(waits to be proved wrong).

[auchonvillerssomme]

i don't think you will be proved wrong.

Mick

[Gunner Bailey]

i don't think you will be proved wrong.

Mick

Guys

Can we keep the thread on SRD jars?

GB

[Gunner Bailey]

OK - Here's a summary to date. Numbers include those in my collection.

Pearson Chesterfield (8)

Skey Tamworth (6)

Royal Doulton (5)

Hunts Patent (2)

Kennedy - Barrowfield (2)

WM Buchan (1)

J Bourne (1)

E Potter (1)

Bateson's (1)

E Wright (1)

Phillips & Sons (1)

F Brayne (1)

As expected Pearson are the most numerous but SKEY are not far behind. I'd not seen a Doulton until this year (when I bought 2) but they are more common than I thought.

Any more?

Gunner Bailey

[auchonvillerssomme]

In addition to some of those above I have:

G Phiilips & Son Castleford

Barker Pottery Chestefield

Mick

[Gunner Bailey]

In addition to some of those above I have:

G Phiilips & Son Castleford

Barker Pottery Chestefield

Mick

Thanks Mick

Barker's a new one, and a variation on Phillips of Castleford.

Very useful post!

John

[Torrey McLean]

Hello, G.B. -

Surprisingly enough, last Saturday at an arms fair (we call them "military shows") here in the U.S., I bought another "S.R.D." jug. It's a small 1/2 - gal. jug with an impressed "S.R.D." and two impressed maker's marks. What is somewhat unusual is the fact that both of the impressed maker's marks are "SKEY" over a very distinct "9" over "TAMWOOD" --- in both places the "9" is very clear and distinct and there was no other number or letter with it.

After I had paid for it, I asked about the origin and I was told by the person that brought it to the U.S., a former military man who had been stationed in Brussels, that he had acquired the jug at a flea market near Mons. Since I already had purchased the jug when he provided that information, I have no reason to doubt him.

Do you have any idea what the "9" indicates? Could it be [190]9 or, less likely, [191]9? Or could it be some indication of a batch number or something else? I have other "S.R.D." jugs made by SKEY, but they do not have any numbers in the manufacturer's markings.

Thanks, Torrey

[keithmroberts]

To add to the summary, I have one Doulton, and one Pearson. The Doulton was bought on the Somme, and I discovered the pearson one in a Pompey junk shop.

Keith

[Gunner Bailey]

Hello, G.B. -

Surprisingly enough, last Saturday at an arms fair (we call them "military shows") here in the U.S., I bought another "S.R.D." jug. It's a small 1/2 - gal. jug with an impressed "S.R.D." and two impressed maker's marks. What is somewhat unusual is the fact that both of the impressed maker's marks are "SKEY" over a very distinct "9" over "TAMWOOD" --- in both places the "9" is very clear and distinct and there was no other number or letter with it.

After I had paid for it, I asked about the origin and I was told by the person that brought it to the U.S., a former military man who had been stationed in Brussels, that he had acquired the jug at a flea market near Mons. Since I already had purchased the jug when he provided that information, I have no reason to doubt him.

Do you have any idea what the "9" indicates? Could it be [190]9 or, less likely, [191]9? Or could it be some indication of a batch number or something else? I have other "S.R.D." jugs made by SKEY, but they do not have any numbers in the manufacturer's markings.

Thanks, Torrey

Hi Torrey

Great to get a 1/2 gallon jar. Pretty rare.

It should be Tamworth for the SKEY. I have a few SKEYS with numbers in the marks. A quick check on my SRD's here shows a 3 and a 10. I think I have one with a 6 in France. The other SKEY I have here has no number. I think they may be either year marks for pre WW1 production or perhaps more likely an inspectors mark.

John

[Gunner Bailey]

To add to the summary, I have one Doulton, and one Pearson. The Doulton was bought on the Somme, and I discovered the pearson one in a Pompey junk shop.

Keith

Thanks Keith,

Is the Doulton coloured a dark brown? Most seem to be, but there is the odd lighter one as well.

GB

[Torrey McLean]

Hi Torrey

Great to get a 1/2 gallon jar. Pretty rare.

It should be Tamworth for the SKEY. I have a few SKEYS with numbers in the marks. A quick check on my SRD's here shows a 3 and a 10. I think I have one with a 6 in France. The other SKEY I have here has no number. I think they may be either year marks for pre WW1 production or perhaps more likely an inspectors mark.

John

Hello, John - Yes, "TAMWORTH" - what was I thinking? The possibility of the number indicating the inspector sounds like the most likely answer to my question. Thanks! Regards, Torrey

[keithmroberts]

yes. The Doulton does have the dark brown top, with a much better finish that the James Pearson one.

Keith

[Gunner Bailey]

yes. The Doulton does have the dark brown top, with a much better finish that the James Pearson one.

Keith

Keith

Can you tell me exactly what the Pearson Mark states? Does it say James Pearson?

GB

[keithmroberts]

Here's the stamp on the base, I hope.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y133/bof/pearson.gif

Keith

[Gunner Bailey]

Here's the stamp on the base, I hope.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y133/bof/pearson.gif

Keith

Thanks Keith

That's very interesting. James Pearson (Ltd) is a different firm to Pearsons of Chesterfield.

They were located at the Oldfield and London Potteries, Brampton Nr Chesterfield. they went out of business in 1939.

Their mark in 1907 was Just J.P.Ltd. So I would think your jar is certainly WW1 vintage.

Gunner Bailey

[keithmroberts]

So

Do the other Pearson rum jars have a Pearson & Co stamp rather than the James Pearson one?

Keith

[Gunner Bailey]

So

Do the other Pearson rum jars have a Pearson & Co stamp rather than the James Pearson one?

Keith

Keith

Yours is the first James Pearson I've seen. It actually means that we have to rethink the common belief that 'Pearsons' are common SRDs. Only Pearson & Co are common. I think you may have a rare one there.

Have a look at Mick's post 12# in this thread. That is the stamp most commonly found.

GB

[Cnock]

For Mick,

Paterson's 1914

[Cnock]

For Mick,

idem