Help with Hobbleskirt ID

[SODABOB]

Next up are several more recently discovered newspaper articles from 1916. I'm going to stick with the pdf format because they can be easily zoomed and include the newspaper locations and dates of publication in the upper right corners. The one from January of 1916 is primarily for those who are not aware that the Hobbleskirt was voted on and selected from about a dozen entries by glasshouses who submitted their examples at the Coca Cola convention in Atlanta, Georgia. Even though it is not my intention to rewrite the entire history of the Hobbleskirt, the date of the convention will establish a timeline in connection with the other articles. Especially notice the bottlers and locations. Even though I don't know who made their bottles, if they exist and are dated, then it will be some good ones to look for that might also include examples from 1916.

More later

Bob

Notice they all claim to be the first - which I suspect means in their individual territories and not nationally.

 

[SODABOB]

Even though only one of these letters is dated (July 27, 1916) the other one is believed to be from 1916 as well due to the wording and reference to the Atlanta convention. They are also considered to be original and not fakes. In case some of you are wondering what any of my recent post has to do with Ivy's bottle, it's to present some pretty strong evidence that Hobbleskirts were very likely introduced in 1916. Most if not all of the earlier accounts claim they were first introduced in the spring of 1917. Hence, it adds a lot more credence to the possibility that Ivy's bottle may indeed be from 1916. More about this later.

Bob

 

[SODABOB]

Now back to the original study and the pertinent parts that are currently being reviewed for clarity. We will discuss and analyze these in more detail later. I have been at this all day, so this will most likely be my last post until tomorrow. I have some interesting photos of some more Graham Glass heel codes that I want us to consider and compare with the 576EP on Ivy's bottle.

Thanks again for your patience - see y'all tomorrow.

Bob

 

[hemihampton]

Interesting, they test market it for first year. How rare are the Q date coded Cokes? LEON.

 

[SODABOB]

Leon

The only Q bottles I am aware of are in Bill Porter's collection. I have never seen one and couldn't find even a hint of one after hours of searching. Hence, I would say they are extremely rare. The same goes for the P-R-S bottles. 99% of the examples I am aware of are marked 576EG. I plan to address those and others tomorrow. See you then.

Bob

 

[Ivybriana]

Thanks for the updates Bob!

 

[hemihampton]

Some of mine have the 576EG. But then 2 numbers after that like 24 & 25 ect., ect. would those last 2 numbers be the Date? LEON.

 

[SODABOB]

Yes, the double-digit numbers are dates. The earliest I have seen is 576EG 20 and the latest I have seen is 576EG 28. Although there could be earlier and later examples. I really can't say. But what I can say is that this discussion might start heading in a totally new direction. The reason I say this is because there has been some sharing of information going on between myself and several others that has raised some interesting questions. I realize this thread is primarily about Ivy's bottle and whether or not it was made in 1916, but what can happen is that one thing can often open up a whole new bucket of worms. Case in point is the following link to a patent 1915 hobble-skirt bottle that sold a few years ago for a whopping $108,000. The key things to look for are ...

1. "The testing was confidential / only bottlers"
2. "Test bottles destroyed"
3. "In April of 1917 the final design was introduced nationally"
4. Etc; etc.

We are not certain how accurate the information is, but it appears the bottle was a test bottle that survived and was owned by a former employee of the Root Glass Company who were located in Terre Haute, Indiana at the time. Also notice what it says about grooves and/or fluting - which the base photos clearly show and protrude around the bottom of the bottle. IF the bottle was indeed a test bottle, and IF the final design did not include the groves/fluting, then any bottle without the grooves protruding around the bottom is most likely a "final design" bottle. All I can say at this point is that Ivy's bottle does not have the grooves around the bottom like the one that sold for $108,000. By the way, I have a patent 1915 hobble-skirt that I bought several years ago for $150 that is clearly marked on the heel with ROOT 17. It is also embossed on the base with SCRANTON PA. It does not have the grooves around the bottom. Based on everything I know about the bottle it was made in 1917. When I bought it, I thought it was the very first hobble-skirt bottle, other than for a few prototypes. And I still believe that! At least about it being one of the first hobble-skirts that was distributed nationally. However (and this is the tricky part) the 1916 newspaper ads I posted earlier show an illustration of a hobble-skirt that does not have the grooves. This is where the big question comes in. Does the illustration depict an actual bottle or is it an imaginary bottle? All I can say in answer to this is that due to the amazing detail of the illustration, whoever drew it must have been intimately familiar with the design. But was that person a Coca Cola employee from the parent company in Atlanta, Georgia, or was it some newspaper illustrator who just came up with it on their own? Before I continue, please be reminded that the 1916 Evansville, Indiana article did say the bottles were being made by Root Glass and that they were trial bottles. Regardless of the auction description, that particular newspaper article seems to carry a great deal of weight in favor of Root/Trial bottle. So, how does all of this tie in with Ivy's bottle? The only answer at this point is, we really don't know. All I can conjecture is that if the 1916 test bottles did indeed have the protruding grooves around the bottom, then I would say that Ivy's bottle most likely was not made in 1916 but is one of the "final design" bottles that were distributed later. As far as the Graham Glass codes are concerned, P=1916 Q=1917 R=1918, they need to be restudied to see if they are accurate or not. At this point I would say they are NOT accurate. However, please don't throw the towel in just yet, this is still a work in progress and who knows where the rabbit will jump out next. Here's the auction link for everyone to view and study ...

Lot Detail - COCA-COLA ROOT GLASS CO. MODIFIED PROTOTYPE BOTTLE.

Be sure to scroll back and take another look at all of the 1916 articles I posted earlier. Maybe someone will find something that I missed.

I'll be back!

Bob

 

[SODABOB]

P.S. / A few more thoughts before I call it a day ...

1. Especially watch for the part in the auction description where it says the testing was confidential.
2. Notice in the 1916 Tampa, Florida ad where it says, "We have just received 172,800 of these new bottles."

3. If the testing was confidential, why would the Tampa bottler advertise them for everyone to read?
4. 172,800 bottles sure doesn't sound like an order for "test" bottles to me!?

Bob

 

[hemihampton]

From what I know about Test cans, Beer Cans, it works like this. You have 2 types of test cans, the ones that are more like Prototype/samples/ experimental but never released to the Public. Then you have what they call Test Marketed Cans. Test Marketed Cans are usually Sold to the public in limited areas for a small limited time frame. Like smaller cities for 6 months. If the results are good meaning they sell well then they may produce in Mass production Nationwide. If Sales poor the idea is dropped. Not sure if Coca Cola was doing the same thing back in 1915 but possibly. The $108K Bottle looked more like a test/Protype never offered to public. LEON.