Help with Hobbleskirt ID

[SODABOB]

Hi, Ivy

Good to hear from you and thanks for the photos. It's hard to say for certain, but in the original photos the fourth digit looks like a backwards 3, whereas in the gold-tone photos the lines look fairy straight like an E. Even though mold engravers occasionally made errors, and sometimes did sloppy work, I still think the digit was intended to be an E and not a backwards 3. As far as the P and what might be a legless R are concerned, that will likely remain a mystery as it would have been an easy task for a mold shop worker to fill-in the leg of an R in the molds themselves. I say molds (plural) because in all likelihood the bottle was machine made, and the machine itself would have had several molds - all of which that would have needed to be altered in order to remove the leg in the R. Keep in mind that the molds were concave which would result in the bottle embossing to be convex. In other words, it would have been easy for the mold shop to fill-in the leg of an R with a dab of molten steel to change it to a P. All things considered, it's possible that the lack of the letter S on your bottle that will be as much of a determining factor for its date of manufacture as it is whether the digit is an R or a P. Personally, I think it reads 576EP, but that is just speculation and hopeful thinking on my part. I suppose the best thing to do at this point is to send your photos to Bill Porter and Bill Lockhart and see what they think. I'm in contact with both of them and will contact them later today. I don't know how long it will take to hear back from them, but I will let you know when I do. Thanks again.

Bob

 

[SODABOB]

P.S.

One aspect seems fairly certain - which also raises more questions ...

Reminder; P=1916 / Q=1917 / R=1918

1. The fourth digit definitely appears to be a P for 1916.
2. If it was originally an R for 1918, why change it to a P for 1916?
3. Why back-date it to 1916 instead of forward dating it to 1917 or 1918?

It wasn't necessarily the glass manufacturers who were concerned about date codes - it was for the bottler. One of a bottler's major expenses was the bottles themselves - probably a couple of cents apiece at that time. The filled bottles needed to circulate several times in order for the bottler to realize a profit. Hence, bottlers often requested date codes on bottles so they could keep track of how long a particular bottle had been in circulation. This also factored into their expenditure and budget records. In other words, by using date codes they had a general idea of how many bottles they purchased and when they were purchased. That aspect was so crucial as to account for deposits required on bottles so they would be returned. If the bottles weren't returned the bottler could easily go bankrupt - which takes us back to the mystery of why date a bottle backwards from 1918 to 1916? I can see them possibly "adding" a leg to a P to make it an R for 1918, but not eliminating the leg to reverse it to 1916. That just seems illogical to me.

Bob

 

[Ivybriana]

Thanks SODABOB for the reply and appreciate you taking the time to reach out to them. For what it’s worth I looked at it using USB microscope and there is absolutely no trace of a mark where R leg would be...and you have to wonder, why would they go from an R to a P given how coding works? I wish you could see the bottle in person b/c it’s very difficult to photograph, as you can see here.

 

[SODABOB]

Thanks, Ivy - I agree that the P looks like a P and not an R. I have downloaded, and even enhanced your photos, that I will be sending to the two Bills. The fact that you viewed it with a microscope adds a great deal of credence to things. I will be sure and tell the Bills about you doing that.

Bob

 

[SODABOB]

Ivy

I just sent your photos and information to Bill Lockhart who is going to study them first and if necessary, forward them to Bill Porter. I will let you know when I hear back from either of them. I'm rooting for 1916 but we will see what they have to say.

Bob

 

[Ivybriana]

Thanks! I’m excited to see what the experts think...I thought it was a 1916 as soon as I did some research and understood how the codes worked (the P is very clearly a P and hard to believe it could have ever have been made like that yet intended to be a different letter)..... I just had no idea of the significance of it!

 

[SODABOB]

Even though I have not heard from anyone yet, it's just a matter of time and I will. If not today, definitely by tomorrow. In the meantime, I re-read their articles and gave everything some careful thought. The more I consider things the more I wonder why Glenshaw Glass and/or the bottler would change an older date code to an earlier date code. To me that just doesn't make any sense. However, I can see them adding a leg to the P that would make it an R for 1918. Maybe that's what the articles are indicating but I'm just misinterpreting it. Anyway, let's see what they have to say and then go from there. Whether I hear from them or not, I will be back tomorrow to check-in.

Bob

 

[hemihampton]

Any updates Bob?

 

[SODABOB]

I apologize for the late update - this is taking longer than expected. Even though nothing conclusive has been determined yet, I shared the information about Ivy's bottle, including photos of the bottle, with several more individuals, the foremost of which was Bill Lockhart, and collectively we are trying our best to come up with as much information as we can to solve this. Because of the complexity of combining new information with older studies, we should be prepared for the possibility that the final analysis may end up as inconclusive. It isn't whether the main digit is a P or and altered R that will be the determining factor, as we all agree that it is most likely a P, but it's whether the information contained the original studies is comprehensive enough to make a final determination. In other words, the original studies are being revisited with the goal of clarifying the parts that specifically address the Graham Glass Co. codes in relation to early Coca Cola bottles. This may take a while, so I ask that everyone please be patient. In the meantime, some new finds have surfaced that may put a whole new spin on things. The first of which is a newspaper article from Evansville, Indiana dated September 19, 1916. What's unique about the article, as well as a little confusing, is that it's from Evansville where Graham Glass was located - and yet it says ...

1. "Being made by the Root Glass company"
2. "They are already here"
3. "For a year it will be put on trial"

The article is a new discovery that I have never seen before and seems to raise more questions than it does answers. Four questions being: Why does it mention Root Glass and not Graham Glass? Was Root the only one making Hobbleskirts at the time? Were the Graham bottles made later? If so, how much later?

I have a lot more that I will be posting - which might take me the rest of the day and possibly into tomorrow - so please be patient as I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

Thanks

Bob

Note: I attached two examples of the article - one jpg and one pdf. The pdf is quite dark and hard to read, so I added the jpg that I lightened. I'm not sure yet how either of them will turn out - but I will find out in a second when I click on Post reply ...

 

[SODABOB]

It won't allow me to upload the enhanced jpg version of the article (too big) which I resized five times, so we will have to use the pdf version. Sorry bout that - I don't know if it's me or what. Anyway, I will be back later with more goodies.

Bob