Volume 17 — Pure Liquid Honey in Glass Jars. CHAS. F. MUTH.

The above subject is one which has provoked considerable comment, and it appears we are not quite done with it yet. I dare say that there is not a dealer of any note in Cincinnati, by this time, who imagines that my jar honey is anything but pure honey, or who suspects any honey when it comes from my store; and I am just as positive in the statement that there is not a dealer in Cincinnati, having extracted honey from New York or Chicago in store, who does not believe it to be glucosed. There is hardly anybody in our community who suspects the purity of the honey when my label is on the jar. Jar-honey, in general, is not mistrusted any more in our city, unless the jar contains besides the liquid, also a piece of comb honey. Such is the case in Cincinnati, to all appearances, and I am willing to be corrected if wrong.

The subjoined letter from a party in New York, and my answer to them, show an interesting difference in the state of the market for extracted honey in our city and New York, the home of Mr. W. M. Hoge, Wm. Hogue or John Long. To avoid misunderstanding, I may state that Hoge, Hogue or Long, while in New York, was bottling honey for the firm of Thurber & Co. In explanation of the letters following, I may state that the editor of the Cincinnati Grocer had been recommending my honey to Messrs. Guernsey & Co., N. Y., who opened correspondence with me, and to me he had recommended them as perhaps the best party to introduce my honey in the New York market. The result was that I sent them 1 gross of 1 lb. jars and 1 gross of ½ lb. tumblers, at cost, on 60 days’ time. The honey commenced granulating in the course of a month or more. This fact, and the general mistrust to extracted honey in New York must be taken into consideration to do the following correspondence justice:

New York, March 17, 1881.

Mr. C. F. Muth—Dear Sir: Enclosed please find bill of lading for the honey sent us. We find it totally impossible to sell the goods, as parties here are afraid of glucose, etc. We waited for parties to decide about them, and they concluded not to take them. We are sorry, but such is the case. We have retained one box of each, bottles and tumblers, to pay us for the freight paid on goods here. Yours very respectfully,

Guernsey & Co.

To which I replied as follows:

Messrs. Guernsey & Co.—Gents: Your favor is at hand. I expect the return of my honey with all the charges deducted you feel disposed to make. I had supposed that there were some men in your city with enough sense to determine the difference between honey and glucose. My honey is strictly pure, and will pay you $100 if you will prove that I am wrong. Yours truly,

Chas. F. Muth.

Cincinnati, Ohio, March 21, 1881.

[We were shown quite recently a letter received by a prominent dealer in strictly pure honey in this city, from a correspondent in Virginia, who had ordered and received from him a keg of honey. They say: “The keg of honey came to hand on the 25th; you may imagine my chagrin on opening the package and finding the contents solid. In its present condition it is of no value to me.” Although a dealer, we suppose this was really the first package of strictly pure extracted honey he had ever seen, or he would have felt pleasure, instead of chagrin, to find it granulated solid. The truth is, the public have been so much deceived with a spurious article in liquid form, that many do not know the genuine when they see it. A bee-keeper or person perfectly familiar with honey in a northern or central latitude, would require something more convincing than the mere assertion of a respectable grocer that his honey was strictly pure, if not candied or granulated in cool weather.—Ed.]

For the American Bee Journal.