GRAHAM GLASS COMPANY / FLAVOR BOTTLES / COCA COLA / SEARCH / RESEARCH

[SODAPOPBOB]

RE: Correction

Jim / epackage

First of all, I want to commend you again for the great work you did on the enlarged and intelligible bottle comparisons. Although I fall short of being a photo editor myself, stuff like that really talks my kind of lingo and is something I can relate to. Even though I was already aware of the various angles and how the shoulder feature protrudes in one view and is more straight-sided in another view, your illustration definitely helps to emphasize this and is more beneficial than a thousand words could ever explain.

As much as I appreciate your efforts, and as much as I would like to use those thousand words and explain my position regarding the features of the broken bottle vs the features of the various patents, I will forego that lengthy and possibly painful discourse by cutting to the chase and saying ...

"I am still of the opinion the broken bottle is from the 1920s."

With this said, I beg of you to please not think of me as being unobservant, closed minded or argumentative, because this is simply not the case. I also beg of you to not think of any of the following as a cop-out (avoidance). The following best explains my current position, which for me boils down to three essential things, all of which are primarily directed toward the broken bottle itself and not necessarily the patent illustrations.

1. Attributes:

By attributes, I am primarily referring to the square-sided / flat panel aspect of the broken bottle and the fact I cannot find another example like it that is not from the 1920s. Of the hundreds of examples I have researched and that were dated, every one was from the 1920s. Some members might assume just because I cannot find one like it with an arrow on the neck, embossed in Coca Cola script, and not marked, that it automatically identifies it as a pre 1920s bottle. I consider that assumption to be inaccurate and inconclusive.

2. Empirical Examination:

By empirical examination, I am primarily referring to the actual broken bottle being examined (hands on) by a expert and not examined by a few random pictures of it. This empirical aspect is something Bill Lockhart (of the Bottle Research Group) has emphasized to me several times in email's we have exchanged. I do not know member digdug and not saying he is not an expert, but he did indicate that his opinion of the bottle was primarily based on patent illustration comparisons, which may or may not be accurate.

3. Opinions:

When we take the first two observations from above into account, all I can see that it leaves us with is "opinions." And despite what some members might think of as an expert opinion based on the pictures, for me they are still just that - opinions - including my own.

In conclusion, I recommend the bottle be fully examined by a bona fide expert in the field and see what he or she comes up with. I especially recommend a thorough examination of the embossed script styling of the words "Coca Cola" because its possible that an accurate dating of the bottle might have more to do with that than anything else.

Thanks again to everyone who has contributed to and has been following this thread.

Respectfully,

Bob

P.S. ~ Although I did not count them nor intend it, maybe I did exceed one thousand words. (Lol) []

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

RE: Correction

P.S. ~

And as for the broken bottle being a style that was entered at the 1916 Coca Cola bottlers' convention, I have seen no substantial evidence yet to support that possibility.

Bob

 

[T D]

RE: Correction

P.S. ~ Although I did not count them nor intend it, maybe I did exceed one thousand words. (Lol)

approximately 660 in post #131

 

[T D]

RE: Correction

I do not know member digdug and not saying he is not an expert,

I do know Doug, and I guarantee you if I had a question about an Atlanta Coca Cola bottle he would be the first I call.

 

[OsiaBoyce]

RE: Correction

ORIGINAL: T D

I do not know member digdug and not saying he is not an expert,

I do know Doug, and I guarantee you if I had a question about an Atlanta Coca Cola bottle he would be the first I call.

Yep, I've met Doug several times, and I gotta agree w/ TD about Doug knowing about Coca Cola bottles.

 

[celerycola]

RE: Correction

I'm happy to have a signed copy of Doug's Coca-Cola Bottle book on my shelf. When I saw him at the Coke Convention a week ago he said he is working on a book about Coke Soda Water Bottles. If you want to know about Coke Bottles and their evolution you need to buy a copy.

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

RE: Correction

SCENARIO / TIMELINE

If you thought my last posting was long, wait until you get load of this one ... and it only took me six hours to put together!

First of all, I would like to remind everyone that my primary intent in starting this thread was with the hope of finding another broken-top Coca Cola bottle like the one that member digdug shared with us in my last thread, which is the same bottle that has been the subject of discussion here. And if I/we failed to find another example, I was hoping that by spotlighting it that it might eventually lead to some documented information or leads that would assist us in being able to accurately identify and date it.

Secondly, my intent in starting this thread was not to insult or challenge anyone's integrity nor their credentials. I am merely searching for facts that hopefully will benefit the soda bottle collecting community as a whole, now and in the future.

If you feel the broken-top Coca Cola bottle has already been properly identified and accurately dated, then please consider the following scenario and think about how you might react if you saw a listing on eBay something like this ...

Extremely Rare Coca Cola Bottle ~ One-of-a-kind ~ From 1916 Coca Cola Convention

Description:

"Bottle is in near-mint condition. Style is similar to the Coca Cola soda water bottles that have the flat sides, but this one is embossed on the shoulder with Coca Cola in cursive script. I have never seen another one like it in my 30+ years of collecting. It's truly a one-of-a-kind bottle! The base is embossed with ATLANTA, GEORGIA which is one of the features that confirms it was displayed at the 1916 Coca Cola bottlers' convention in Atlanta, Georgia. There are no other markings on the bottle. A must have for all serious Coca Cola collectors!"

* Before deciding on how you might react to a listing like this, the bigger question is ...

Based on everything you currently know about the broken-top bottle, and if you owned one in the condition like that described above, would you, in all seriousness, use a similarly worded description if you were trying to sell one eBay? And if you did have one and listed it accordingly, how would you respond to an inquiry that asked the following three questions?

1. How do you know for certain the bottle was made in 1916?
2. How do you know for certain the bottle was displayed at the 1916 Coca Cola convention?
3. How do you know for certain that it's a one of a kind?

Please note: The scenario above is not necessarily intended for anyone to respond to openly, but you can if you wish to. It is mainly intended for us to think about. Which leads me to two more question (no response necessary).

1. If another, possibly mint bottle eventually turns up, do we really know enough about it yet to announce to the world and describe it as my make believe eBay seller did?

2. But more importantly, and if money was no object and you had bottomless pockets, would you actually pay as much as, say $50,000.00 for a similar bottle based on what we currently know about it?

Again, I don't ask that anyone responds to these questions. I only ask that you think about them.

Now for the fun part!

I put together this so called "Timeline" hoping it would give us a little more insight as to how things might have taken place and why way-back-when in 1915 and 1916. Please note: I emphasize the word ... "might" have taken place and why. Also please note: Some of it is documented and some of it is suggestive.

~ * ~

In April of 1915, Harold Hirsch sends a letter to about thirty glass manufacturers, inviting them to design a new Coca Cola bottle to replace the straight-sided bottles. It is not known exactly how many manufacturers respond but reportedly about eleven of them end up submitting a bottle at the January 1916 Coca Cola bottlers convention in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Root Glass Company jumped on the challenge right away and had a bottle designed, made and patented by November of 1915. It is not known exactly when the Graham Glass Company designed and made their entry (the slender bottle 49,924) but we do know it was finally patented after the convention in November of 1916. Graham Glass also designed two other bottles in 1916, with all three bottles being filed together in June of 1916. It is not known why two of the bottles were granted patents in early October any why one (the convention bottle) wasn't granted a patent until late November? But irregardless of the reason, it appears that all three bottles were likely designed at about the same time.

Note: I find it extremely interesting (coincidental) that Graham Glass "filed" for all three of their bottles "exactly one year later to the day" as to when Earl R. Dean poured the molten glass to create his prototype bottle. (See Wednesday, June 30, 1915 on link below).

Cut to the chase ...

Based on everything I've read and continue to research about the chain of events between April of 1915 and November of 1916, I have yet to see any documented evidence indicating that the Root Glass Company and the Graham Glass Company were spying on each other despite the similarity of their respective convention bottles. Nor have I come across any evidence that either company entered more that one bottle at the convention. In fact, in the 2010 Norman L. Dean book "The Man Behind The Bottle," Norman clearly states that his father, Earl, said he designed "only one" Coca Cola prototype bottle for the 1916 convention. The only mention of Graham Glass I can recall from the book is where it indicates that Graham Glass started producing the contour bottle "during the second year of production," which I understand to mean was in 1918. The first Root contour bottle hit the market place around April of 1917.

Furthermore, in the hours/days that I have spent searching the Internet for another Coca Cola bottle like the broken-top example, I have yet to find one with Coca Cola embossed on the shoulder. Of the one's I have seen that are similar with the four sides/ flat panels, all were from the 1920s and embossed with Coca Cola in "block" lettering. Some individuals might suggest that my inability to find another example of the broken-top bottles is evidence of it's extreme rarity, which for the most part I agree with, but I do not agree that it means the bottle was made in 1916 nor that it was a contender at the 1916 convention. For all we know at the present, the rarity of the broken-top bottle could simply mean that it was produced at the request of a single Coca Cola franchise bottler who was breaking the standardization rules, , intended it as a flavor bottle, and was caught and told by the parent company to cease and desist immediately, which "might" be one of the reasons why their are so few of them (two) known. And what I presume to be a fact that the two known bottles are unmarked "might" be indicator that an unscrupulous bottler was trying to get away with something and didn't want his name or any traceable connections on the bottle.

Anyhoo, I fully realize most of this is conjecture, and you can criticize me for that if you want to. But before doing that, please keep in mind that my primary goal here is to find facts if at all possible and not to create controversy or hard feelings. Please know that my motto is and always has been, "One for all and all for one."

If nothing else, at least we know now there were "about 30" glass makers who received Hirsch's letter. Cool, huh?

Thanks for allowing me to research and ramble. It's what I do best even if my findings aren't always correct.

And yes, I still think the broken-top bottle is from the 1920s [sm=thumbup1.gif]

Later alligators,

Bob

~ * ~

I hope you find the following helpful and interesting ... If any of the shortened links don't work the first time, they will on by trying them again.

1. Harold Hirsch Letter April 26, 1915

http://xrl.us/bpgrkz

2. Earl R. Dean / Root Glass Company:
See Page 23 under title: Monday June 28, 1915
See Page 29 under title: Wednesday June 30, 1915

http://xrl.us/bpgrk9

3. From Page 23 of Last Link

"Root Glass is one of about 30 glass bottle manufacturers in the country that has received a form letter with an invitation to submit a new and distinctive bottle for Coca Cola."

4. From Page 29 of Last Link

"reportedly from 11 contenders."

5. Two 1916 Coca Cola Conventions Held In Atlanta, Georgia ~ Both in January

6. Root/Dean Prototype: 1916 Coca Cola Convention Winner
48,160
Filed: August 18, 1915
Patented: November 16, 1915

7. Graham:
49,729
Filled: June 30, 1916
Patented: October 3, 1916

8. Graham:
49,730
Filed: June 30, 1916
Patented: October 3, 1916

9. Graham Prototype: 1916 Coca Cola Convention Contender
49,924
Filed: June 30, 1916
Patented: November 21, 1916

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

RE: Correction

digdug / Doug

Please accept my apologies. If I offended you in any manner please know that was not my attention. Its just that I'm a stickler for facts whenever possible, especially when it comes to soda bottles potentially worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars. I wouldn't be surprised to hear if/when the Graham/Salb bottle sells, that the selling price will exceed $200,000.00. I would like nothing better than to help confirm that the broken-top bottle (one in near mint condition) is of the same caliber as the Graham/Salb bottle. But before something like that ever happens, I feel someone needs to do the research and find all the facts. Thank you so much for sharing your most unique bottle with us. I love doing research and your bottle has given me something to really sink my teeth into.

Respectfully and appreciatively,

Bob

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

RE: Correction

I wanted to highlight this from my recent post because it encompasses the focal point of my current research. I'm not jumping to conclusions but intend to take a closer look at this possibility and see what I can find ...

Bob

The rarity of the broken-top bottle could simply mean it was produced at the request of a single Coca Cola franchise bottler who was breaking the standardization rules and intended it as a flavor bottle, but was caught red-handed and told by the parent company to cease and desist immediately. This "might" be one of the reasons why there are only two known examples of the bottle and also explain why those two are broken off at the neck.

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

RE: Correction

For starters ...

I don't want to get too far afield with this because my focus is with the broken-top bottle and not a complete history of the Coca Cola standardization program. Even though there are ample hints and references to standardization as early as about 1911 through 1916, the main push for standardization seems to have come about around 1923-1924, which is also when the Coca Cola company slightly altered the contour bottle with the patent change in the hands of Chapman J. Root of the Root Glass Company. Although inconclusive (not jumping to conclusions) this also appears to be about the same time when Graham flavor bottles (four sided/flat panels) start to appear in great abundance.

http://xrl.us/bpguku

http://xrl.us/bpgumi

Bob