Carol: I can not access IMACs.  I just get an error message saying it
was forbidden from this computer.  I CAN access the single .pdf file
you sent as a url.

I have not used IMACs since workling for the BLM in Salmon, Idaho, in
1983 & 1984.  Looks like it might be more useful now than it was back
then.  Any suggestyions on how to get the artifact description files?

Smoke.

On 10/3/06, Carol Serr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Oh...I have no idea.  But, you arent confusing porcelain Prosser buttons
> with glass here, right?
>
> Also from the IMACS pages...on Buttons:
> http://www.anthro.utah.edu/IMACs/475-Buttons.pdf
>
> "Prosser: Patented in 1849, the process is one combining high fired
> clays to produce a glass or vitrified appearance. The most common
> varieties are black, white, or calico having an appearance of opaque
> pressed glass. The backs have a pebbled or orange-peel surface (Sprague
> 1983:167-172)."
>
> This site doesn't show any dates for Glass buttons tho:
>
> "Glass: Many different types of blown, molded, and fused glass have long
> been used for buttons. Glass has been used for all types of button
> construction, and a great range of colors are known. Luscomb
> (1967:80-89) discusses over twenty-five different kinds of glass
> buttons."
>
> But maybe this reference does. ?
> Luscomb, S.C. (Button)
> 1967 The Collector's Encyclopedia of Buttons. Bonanza Books, New York.
>
> Figure is probably not too helpful:
> http://www.anthro.utah.edu/IMACs/475-Buttons.jpg
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> >Behalf Of Dan Allen
> >Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 5:27 PM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Milk glass dating
> >
> >Are the dates for milk glass buttons comparable to milk glass
> >bottles?  I know porcelain " Prosser" buttons were patented in
> >the 1840s.  Where do the glass, especially the four-hole type
> >come into the picture?
> >
> >Dan Allen
> >Cumberland Research Group, Inc.
> >University of Memphis
>


-- 
Smoke Pfeiffer

Absence of Evidence is NOT Evidence of Absence