Help with Hobbleskirt ID

[Ivybriana]

all my older cokes from 1915,1923 & D-Patents say 6 oz's embossed right on the bottle, on opposite side of date, take a look at yours, should say 6 oz right on it. LEON.

It does, which was my question, why do these sources (even Coke themselves) say 6.5 when it was clearly 6?

 

[SODABOB]

Hi, All

Even though I have consulted as many people as I can, and revisited as many reliable resources as I can, not to mention looking at hundreds of the patent 1915 hobble-skirts, the final analysis regarding Ivy's particular bottle can only be deemed as inconclusive at this point. I acknowledge that it was me who started this merry-go-round about the possibility of Ivy's bottle being made in 1916, but that was based primarily on the information I posted earlier, which I considered to be accurate at the time. As it turns out, the earlier claims are now considered not to be entirely accurate. At least not all of them. Meaning; the 'P' almost certainly does not stand for 1916 as previously thought. Another significant possibility to consider is that Ivy's bottle is missing one or more letters and/or numbers. As I alluded to earlier, it was the mold engraver's responsibility to add whatever codes the molds needed. All it would take is a single mold engraved incorrectly to account for the 576EP on Ivy's bottle. In other words, an error on the engraver's part. When you couple this with the possibility that Ivy's bottle is currently the only known example to have the 576EP, then it adds a great deal of credence to the possibility that her bottle is an error bottle. The fact that Ivy's bottle has a blank base is certainly interesting, but not significant enough to determine anything definite about. There are ample examples of bottles with blank bases, with no clear explanations as to why they were made that way. Unfortunately, it seems the only thing we can be confident about is that the 576 and the E are marks that were used by the Graham Glass Company to designate their plant in Evansville, Indiana. As far as dating them is concerned, the short answer is that no one really knows for certain. There is some conjecture that the Evansville plant did not start making hobble-skirts until 1917, but even that is based on some degree of speculation. So, I suppose the gist of things is that more extensive research is needed, and if anything conclusive is found, to revise the earlier studies accordingly. The good news is that because Ivy brought all of this to the forefront, she is not only to be commended, but also credited with the possibility of setting the Glenshaw record right, not to mention rewriting history. Speaking of rewriting history, this is the first discussion I am aware of that disclosed the fact that hobble-skirts were first advertised and almost certainly distributed in 1916, and not in 1917 as the majority of accounts claim. Speaking of which, some believe that most if not all of the 1916 bottles did not have a maker's mark on them nor any type of codes. Of course, by 1917 they went national and just about everybody was using and marking them in some manner, such as including city and state locations on the bases. Even though I am not entirely done here and have more that I would like to address shortly, I want to take this opportunity to apologize for getting everyone excited about what now appears to have been a wild goose chase. But that's how it sometimes goes in the bottle collecting world, with new finds replacing old finds and previously believed notions being replaced with new facts. And in time even those so-called facts can sometimes be amended by new ones. Like I often say, you never know where the rabbit will jump out next!

Thanks again for everyone's participation - I'll be back! Wait until you see what I bought on eBay the other day.

Bob

 

[SODABOB]

I forgot to mention in my last post ...

Although unconfirmed, it is believed by some that the Graham Glass plant in Evansville, Indiana did not start making hobble-skirts until 1920, and that they started using double-digit dates codes at the same time, such as 576 EG 20 for 1920. They may have been made at their Checotah, Oklahoma and Loogootee, Indiana plants earlier, but that is also unconfirmed as far as I know. However, since this discussion is primarily about the Evansville plant, the others will have to remain a topic for another discussion. Attached are the only confirmed marks I have been able to find for Evansville that range from 576 EG 22 to 576 EG 28, although there are a few gaps that I could not find. If there are any earlier or later marks, I have not been able to find any PHOTOS of them. I saw what seemed to be a reliable reference for a 1920 mark, but there was no photo of it. So, until I or someone else finds a photo of the 576 EG 20, let's just list it as a strong "maybe." In the meantime, check out the ones I did find, and I will be back later to show you the bottle I bought on eBay.

Bob

Note: Some of the photos are not that good but should suffice well enough for our current needs.

 

[SODABOB]

Before you view the attached photos of the bottle I bought on eBay, please keep in mind that I have not received the bottle yet - the photos are the ones the seller posted. Speaking of the seller, I will also include their copy/pasted description. Once I receive the bottle, I will examine it closely and see if the seller's description is accurate or not. As I mentioned earlier, there are some who believe the first hobble-skirts (whether they were trial bottles and/or just first issue bottles from 1916) that they did not have maker's marks or any type of codes, including the bases being blank with no city or state. Plus, being various shades of blue and not the "Georgia green" like the later bottles. Even though this bottle fits those criteria, I have no way of knowing at this point when it was made, by who, or when. However, I won't deny my hope that it's worth $100,000 or more. (Lol)

Bob / "Pie-in-the-sky" Bob

Note: One thing I am especially curious about is what appears to be a disjointed seam where it transitions from the neck to the finish (Lip). Even though I am confident the bottle is machine made, that offset seam is not typical of machine-made bottles. Some may suggest that it's an "applied" finish, but the jury is still out on that, and we will see what develops after I receive it. But first, here is the seller's description ...

I have for your consideration an aqua colored Coca Cola bottle with a patent date of Nov. 16, 1915. The bottle is great with typical manufacturing flaws such as air bubbles. Please view all the photos closely as they give an accurate depiction of the bottle. The condition seems to be very good. There are two small rough spots on the exterior. I am not sure if those are flaws during manufacturing or if they were dinged over time. The bottle measures about 7.5 inches in height and around the bulbous area where the logo is it is a bit under 7.5 inches around. The narrow part at the bottom measures about 6.5 inches. And it is about 2.25 inches across the base. Please note that there are no numbers or letters around the bottom of the bottle. It was suggested that this bottle somehow missed that process, or this bottle was made before adding the numbers/letters was required, or this was an earlier prototype.

 

[SODABOB]

These links are for those who may not be familiar with the three patents associated with hobble-skirts ...

ROOT 1915

1499085706825155700-D0048160 (storage.googleapis.com)

ROOT 1922-23

1498395901835055942-D0063657 (storage.googleapis.com)

Eugene Kelly 1937

1498696289403556552-D0105529 (storage.googleapis.com)

 

[SODABOB]

Last but not least ...

The original pencil sketch and prototype bottle. In 2010 the sketch sold at auction for $228,000 and the bottle sold for $240,000. I'm not sure about the mold, but it was described as one used for the patent 1915 bottles that were made between c191? and c192?

Bob

 

[hemihampton]

Here's some pics of the ads I found. Take a look. LEON.

 

[Ivybriana]

Can anyone figure out how to access this? I cannot, the link they give is broken, but would be interesting to see....

https://indianahistory.org/wp-content/uploads/graham-glass-company-letter-and-flier.pdf

 

[hemihampton]

I was able to open & view it. But I'm still using a Computer, not a phone. In reading it, it had some of the same info from my reasearch. LEON.

 

[hemihampton]

Some Grahams info. Leon.