COCA COLA / 1915 PROTOTYPE / EARL R DEAN / RAY A GRAHAM

[epackage]

RE: Pepsi Pinch Bottle

Maybe there was an exclusivity contract, Pepsi says we'll pay you X amount to produce bottles for us but you can't make bottles for Coca Cola...

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

RE: Pepsi Pinch Bottle

Jim / epackage ~

That's the best hypothesis I've heard yet as to why D.O. Cunningham Glass never made a Coca Cola hobbleskirt bottle.

Thanks.

Bob

 

[AlexD]

RE: Pepsi Pinch Bottle

Bob, I apologies for sounding so stupid but... Does the D.O.C mean it's rarer than others?


[8|]

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

RE: Pepsi Pinch Bottle

ORIGINAL: AlexD

Bob, I apologies for sounding so stupid but... Does the D.O.C mean it's rarer than others?


[8|]

AlexD ~

I don't believe the D.O.C. mark is considered rare, at least not on pre-1917 Coca Cola bottles. Based on my findings, the D.O. Cunningham Glass Company was a large producer of straight-sided Coca Cola bottles but for some reason never produced a contour/hobbleskirt bottles.

To refresh everyone's memories as to my reasons for researching D.O.C., it started when I discovered that H.V. Cunningham attended the 1916 Coca Cola bottlers convention, which led me to suspect his company might have entered a prototype design in the contest. And even though I have not found anything to indicate they did enter a bottle, I did discover that at about the same time (1916-17), the D.O.C. Company seems to have quit producing Coca Cola bottles altogether and I was just curious as to "why?"

It could be, like Jim/epackage stated, the D.O.C. Company started producing Pepsi-Cola bottles instead and because of contract agreements could not produce both Pepsi-Cola and Coca Cola bottles at the same time. (Maybe / I'm still looking for information related to this possibility / And if anyone is aware of a pre-1917 Pepsi-Cola bottle with the D.O.C. mark, please share it with us).

Another thing related to this that I discovered and thought was interesting can be found on the following link ... (Article by Charles David Head).

http://www.fohbc.org/PDF_Files/KocaNolaHistory_CHead.pdf

Scroll to Page 13 / Heading "Pennsylvania"

Read where It indicates the D.O.C. mark is on Koca Nola (Hutchinson) bottles, circa 1905. Koca Nola was a huge thorn in Coca Cola's side during that era and it could be there was a dispute between Coca Cola and D.O.C. because of it. I believe Koca Nola was produced until about 1913 when they finally went bankrupt. "Maybe" by the time of the convention three years later there was still some tensions between D.O.C. and Coca Cola, at which time D.O.C. said to heck with them and stopped producing Coca Cola bottles. ??? (All of which is pure speculation on my part with no genuine evidence to support any of it ... at least not "yet.")

Bob

 

[celerycola]

RE: Just Speculating

It would not seem to be a good business decision for DOC to shun Coke in favor of a contract with Pepsi at the time. Pepsi had financial difficulties during WWII related to the sugar market, lost many of their franchise bottlers and finally declared bankruptcy in 1923.

Koca Nola was never a thorn in Cokes side. The president of Koca Nola was active in Atlanta civic affairs and worked alongside Asa Candler to boost their city. While Coke took many of their local imitators to court they never sued their biggest local rival Koca Nola. You will have to read Charles' book for the rest of that story.

There is a more likely reason for DOC not to make hobble skirt Coke bottles. They were one of the later firms to switch to machines for making bottles. They were best suited for small orders and probably could see no profit in paying Root a royalty to use the Root design with the small volume they could produce.

 

[epackage]

RE: Just Speculating

ORIGINAL: celerycola
There is a more likely reason for DOC not to make hobble skirt Coke bottles. They were one of the later firms to switch to machines for making bottles. They were best suited for small orders and probably could see no profit in paying Root a royalty to use the Root design with the small volume they could produce.

Great insight Dennis...

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

Hey Jim ~

I hope you don't mind, but I like celery's idea better than either one of ours about Coca Cola vs. D.O.C. I wonder if a guy could find what the average price of producing hobbleskirt's was for various glass makers in the late teens and 1920s? I dread the thought of doing the research that might involve, but you know me, I like a good challenge.

Plus, I changed the title of this thread back to the original so email notifications won't confuse subscribers.

Bob

 

[epackage]

ORIGINAL: SODAPOPBOB

Hey Jim ~

I hope you don't mind, but I like celery's idea better than either one of ours about Coca Cola vs. D.O.C.

I concur

 

[celerycola]

RE: Just Speculating

One topic I would like to see explored is how late were non-machine made bottles made. I have seen a few non-machine hobbleskirt Cokes and know of one bottler that used Hutchinson bottles as late as 1918 although they were likely bottles on hand. I have seen a few Hutches with contents embossed as required in 1914 by the Gould Amendment. A few books claim that no non-machine bottles were produced after 1903 when the Owens machine was invented but common sense (and documented companies starting business ten or more years later) prove it took years for hundreds of glass makers to complete the transition.

Who has the last non-machine soda bottle?

ORIGINAL: epackage

ORIGINAL: celerycola
There is a more likely reason for DOC not to make hobble skirt Coke bottles. They were one of the later firms to switch to machines for making bottles. They were best suited for small orders and probably could see no profit in paying Root a royalty to use the Root design with the small volume they could produce.

Great insight Dennis...

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

Of all of the articles ever written about the Coca-Cola hobbleskirt bottle, my favorite is the one by Bill Lockhart and Bill Porter, which I have provided a link to at the bottom of this reply. The article is definitely worth reading in it's entirety. I have read it numerous times myself and keep going back time and again because it contains so much information that I can't remember it all. Because this thread has born discussions related to various side topics, I invite you to read a portion of the article that relates to patent ownership and royalties. I believe it will help answer at least part of my question as to why D.O. Cunningham and other glass manufacturers shied away from producing hobbleskirts. Basically speaking, there appears to have been a lot of confusion going on at the time, not to mention it also appears that the Root Glass Company had a great deal of control at the time and apparently wanted a pretty big piece of the pie. This may be another one of the reasons why D.O.C. and others decided to call it quits.

The portion of the article I am referring to starts on page 47 in the far right paragraph that begins with ...

"Both Munsey (1972:58) and Dean (2010:33) stated ..."

The Dating Game:
Tracking the Hobble-Skirt Coca-Cola Bottle
Bill Lockhart and Bill Porter
2010

http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/coca-cola.pdf