SODAPOPBOB
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2010
- Messages
- 11,502
- Reaction score
- 49
- Points
- 0
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) []
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) []