DATING OWENS-ILLINOIS BOTTLES

[SODAPOPBOB]

You're busted, man! I'm calling them right now! I have your PM address and the FBI can figure out the rest of it from there. Seriously, though. That's a great idea, and one I thought of myself a while back, except that our library didn't have a copy of the book.

So I guess this means you won't be contacting me for additional information from the book. Darn ... because I usually charge a penny per word for that service. Oh well, life goes on. []

Thanks again,

SPBOB

 

[fishnuts]

I just read Lockhart's monograph on Owens Illinois bottles for the first time. It very interesting to read what might be one of the original sources for for the legend lore relating to sodas. Fine work overall, indeed. In the area of the Mystery of the Dot, however, there are very gray areas. As: he doesn't mention that the dot's sometime appear on the 'mold' number, not the date number, or sometime are on the baseline, sometimes centerline positioned, or sometimes the 'dots' are actually 'dashes'. There is room to grow and learn, BEGINNING here and not by STAYING here.

There were some lines in it that I think are very important, not the least of which being: In a personal communication, Robert C. Leavitt added, "At least some of the dot coding on the bases of modern bottles is for Q C [quality control], to identify the cavity on a machine that produced a specific bottle. If too many bottles fail QC, they know where to look." I find this interesting, first because here Lockhart has some information (or proof) that the dot is not a dating device at all, but one for QC. And then he continues, completely ignoring this piece of information to advance his hypothesis that the dot is a dating icon. Secondly, Bob, as you recall from last summer, I had mentioned talking to a gentleman that worked at O/I who had told me the very same piece of information. That is, that the dot is an indicator of mold positioning for potential quality control reasons.

Later Lockhart mentions his 'dig': The site was the old distribution center for Grand Prize Beer, and the Grand Prize Distributing Co. occupied the site from 1939 to 1943. Because Prohibition was not lifted until 1933, this meant that bottles marked with a zero were probably from 1940. However, many of the bottles had a zero followed by a period. So bottles were marked either 0 or 0-dot. He knows (or should have, not probably) that all these bottles were from 1940. Seems to me that the date indicator is clearly the 0 and not the dot. Again, he continues advancing his hypothesis with now two pieces of data to indicate otherwise...that is, that the dot is not a dating device. Later me mentions that other bottles (or bottle shards, he doesn't say) were marked with 1-dot and 2-dot. He fails to mention how large a sampling he observed. Five? Hundreds? The size of the sampling alters the conclusions drawn.

Several times his talk falls (e.g. 'somebody at OI must have decided...' ) into speculation. That's okay...it's often where research actually begins.

Let's take the example you offer. The 1935 Seven Up bottle that you show is marked with a five-dot. From looking at this one sample you could make one of two statements about the bottle from information on the bottom.
1...ALL Seven Up bottles from this bottler are marked with a five-dot.
2...SOME Seven Up bottles from this bottler are marked with a five-dot.
As I understand, upon examining one, and only one sample, you can only make Statement 2. Making Statement 1 would require you to observe dozens, if not hundreds of like bottles from that same Seven Up bottler. See? You cannot hold up a sample of one and state that all must be like your sample. This is a huge problem all of us have in trying to decipher bottle history...none of us has the resources to examine the quantities of bottles to give us a base of information...empirical data, if you will.

In this area, I have been carefully observing and logging data from O/I bottles since my stroke (late Aug). There are some interesting tidbits that I have discovered but I'll not go into that on your thread. I have now viewed over 600 O/I soda bottles, both embossed and acl...still not a very big sample, if you ask me. I'd like very much for you, Bob, and all others to help...if you would. Let's all try to discover the accurate meanings of the codes. Anyone that would like to contribute data from your O/I bottles can e-mail me for the information parameters that I am tracking. That would be: fishnutsebay@yahoo.com . Underlined only for visibility, eh.

Thanks, Bob, for your passion in this. Let's all work towards the truth.

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

fishnuts ~

Thank you for your most helpful contribution. It is very well worded and constructed, and the sort of thing I personally love to read. I think we all agree, including Bill Lockhart, that the dot/no-dot system of dating soda bottles is not a etched-in-stone science, and may never be. But based on what I call a "majority factor" (Meaning ... when a majority of bottles fall into a consistant correlation of dates) it is still the best system known. But what is the bigger question here, is whether or not this so called system is what the Owens-Illinois glass factories and bottlers had in mind when they first introduced their dating codes? Obviously it was intended as some form of dating and tracking.

Plus, there is another aspect to this we need to keep in mind. Which is that some of the research done involves connecting the dots to the various histories of the bottlers themselves. Take for example the amber 7up bottle in question, which, by the way, is a "no-dot" 5 and not a "dotted" 5 as you indicated in your post. But irregardless of that, it has been fully established that the San Diego version of this particular bottle was only made during a two year period ... those being 1935 and 1936. This was determined by a local researcher I met once who did some extensive history research on our local 7up bottler. The chart below will help illustrate this.

All things considered, I say again that I agree with you 100% and that more research in this area is needed, and that it will be individuals like yourself and others who will eventually crack the code. Kepp up the good work. I for one appreciate it.

Thanks again,

SPBOB

{Amber 7up Distribution Locals and Dates / Including Standard ACL 7oz and Stubby (Paper Label) Squat Bottles}

 

[splante]

just when I thought I had if figured out...kinda

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

P.S. ~

Just to clarify ... my understanding of the 7up chart is that it was compiled based on research done on the bottlers themselves and had nothing to do with dot / no-dot codes. And as far as I know, 7up still stands as the earliest acl (Owens-Illinois) bottles ever produced anywhere.

SPBOB

Splante ~

Hang in there ... you are not the only one who is pulling their hair out over this. I am as bald as a queball! Lol []

 

[fishnuts]

Bob,
Just to clear up one tiny thing before I move on. Regarding your 1935 Seven Up bottle...the pair of statements that you can make about this bottle still hold true regardless of the presence of the dot. ALL or SOME.

While Lockhart has a letter offering alternative meaning to the dot mystery and physical evidence showing both no-dot and dotted versions of his 1940 shards, he plows on even through these pair of refutations to his hypothesis. I no longer believe his research went far enough. How could he not have found any bottles before 1940 with dots? In my research I have found plenty of them.

Three more refutations to the dot as a dating icon.
One: In beginning the research I wanted to find a quantity of bottles to establish a base line of information. All I needed was a quantity of a brand spread over many years in order to find the commonalities, and the differences, on the bottle bases. Presto! The bottlers convention set was the perfect answer. I own 20 of the first 21 of them and they meet the criteria. The share common manufacture plant, common G-137 numbers , all have Duraglass, all have two digit date codes and all fall well after the 'early' years. Yet I found one with a dot after the two digit date code and several with dots placed behind the 'mould' number. The need for a dating dot on any of the bottles is moot. Yet there are dots. The dot is not a dating code.
Two: I own five Cleo Cola queen bottles. There is no argument that these bottles were produced during 1937 and as all of mine were and are indicated with a 7 in the date code slot. Of the five, one has a dot. I must assume at this point that the 7 is the dating device and the dot is not a dating code.
Three: The bottle base that you show in the very first post has a dot, Bob. It's obviously not a dating dot as the date code is clearly a two digit code. I have found this anomaly many times, now. If the date is perfectly clear by the dating code, then what is the reason for the inclusion of the dot? It's not there because it is a dating code.

One more thing. The O/I Plant Numbers and Dates chart must still be a work in progress because as it is printed in the Collecting ACL book it is inaccurate and incomplete. If it were accurate, we could never find any O/I bottle that fell outside the parameters listed in the chart. Right? I found one already that doesn't fit the matrix. An A-Treat dated double digit 53 that indicates Plant 4. According to the matrix this bottle doesn't exist, yet it does. Since the bottle exists, the matrix is wrong. Here's one mystery that anyone can help solve. Send me all the data you find on any O/I bottle marked Plant 4. Once we find enough examples we'll be able to rewrite the matrix chart more accurately. And that is what our hobby deserves. Truth.

Again, all these tidbits can be gained by any of us that care to look. Please join me in this examination to find truth in our hobby instead of the dogma of legend lore sustained by Toulouse and Lockhart.

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

fishnuts ~

I'm not sure my brain is fully functioning yet this morning, but I will do my best. And with that said I will start with a quote from the very last sentence in the "Conclusion" part of Bill Lockhart's article where he states ...

"Owens-Illinois, however, was very inconsistent with its coding."

I point this out as an indication, and to repeat what I said earlier, that neither Bill's information, nor mine is the final word on the subject, but that ... "It is one of the most informative sites I know of on the subject."

Please don't think I am playing games here or testing anyone, as that is not my nature or intent, but I have to confess that I intentionally posted that particular green bottle base on my initial post to see if anyone would notice the dot after the 51. on the bottom. It was intended to show that I too have found inconsistencies that need to be called into question. Anyway, you caught it and passed my so called "non-test" with flying colors. Congratulations. (The bottle itself is a "Texan" grapefruit drink).

Another thing to watch for in our continuing research on the subject is the presence or absence of "stippling" on the bases of many acl bottles. Stippling is, of course, the textured (orange-peel-type) of embossing that can be found on many bottles. Sometimes it is on the entire base, and sometimes just around the outer perimeter of the base. (And sometimes not at all). Supposedly it was introduced around 1940 and was intended to create a slight "air space" between the somewhat still molten glass and whatever surface the bottle was set on when it was removed from the mold. I guess it prevented sticking and allowed for faster cooling.

In conclusion, I would like to share the following that for many, many years now I have been a strong believer in. It is known as "Ockham's Razor" (Theory) which is from the 14th century. It basically states that ... "the simplest answer is usually the right answer." Which I believe will eventually be the case if/when the Owens-Illinois codes are finally broken. (By the way ... The "Razor" part means the shaving away of fiction from fact).

Thanks again to all ...

SPBOB







Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion, thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. Occam's razor may be alternatively phrased as pluralitas non EST ponenda sine necessitate ("plurality should not be posited without necessity").[2] Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. [/align]

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

Although totally unrelated to soda bottles, here is a little something that may be of interest to some. I initially came up with it in my typing class when I was a senior in high school back in 1970. And since it pertains to "dots" I thought it might be fun to include here.

SODA " DOT" BOB []


Connect The Dots

If we make a line of 20 standard dots (periods) like the following :

.................... 20 dots = one inch

And assign each dot to represent 100 years of time, we come up with 2000 years per inch.

The 2000 year per inch formula equals approximately the age of the common calendar, which started in A.D. 0001

The earth is said to be four billion years old.
The universe is said to be fourteen billion years old.

Reminder : One dot = 100 years. Which is about the maximum Lifespan of the average person.

Based on my calculations :

If two thousand years = one inch of dots.

Then :

Four billion years (Age of the Earth) = TWENTY SEVEN MILES of dots !

Fourteen billion years (Age of the Universe) = NINETY FOUR MILES of dots !

The Jurassic age of the Trex dinosaur ended approximately 145 million years ago.

Thus : 145 million years = ONE MILE of dots !

[/align]

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

P.S. ~

Ockham's Razor (14th Century) was introduced only about 7 dots ago. Like this .......

 

[jskirk]

It really sounds like it pertains to microdots