Hobbleskirt Coke with 1916 date error

[SODAPOPBOB]

P.S. If we can determine the who, what, where, and when the artist image was created, then we might discover the origin of the 1916 date error.

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

As Morbious_fod mentioned earlier, the date error could have been the result of a "typo" sent to the glass makers. It would be interesting to know what type of detailed specs the glass makers received, which surely included some type of official drawing from the parent company as well as the measurements and other pertinent information such as the text they wanted embossed on the bottles, not to mention a correct patent year. And because the original patent image is of the wider prototype bottle and the design was changed to a slimmer version before it went into full production, its highly unlikely the glass makers used the patent image for their specs. Even though I've searched but have been unable to find anything related, I have to believe there was some type of specific drawing, etc. that was sent to the glass makers other than the original patent image. But just what that drawing and information was, we may never know for certain.

Part of the explanation could be related to the fact that the prototype bottle was not voted on and chosen as the new bottle style until one of two Coca Cola conventions held in Atlanta, Georgia in January of 1916. It could be that someone got the 1916 convention date mixed up with the bottle's patent date. But if that was the case, just who that "someone" was is the $64 question. Was it one of the design artist - the design department manager - or possibly even one of the head honchos such as the president or vise president of the Coca Cola Company? You'd think someone would have proofed every advertisement and every spec that was sent to the various newspapers and glass makers ahead of time, and yet there is ample evidence with both the ads as well as the bottles themselves that this proofing obviously did not occur.

The following link is to the original 1915 patent. Click on the little image of the bottle and when it changes click again on the blue "original image," which will create an enlargement. Then use the + symbol.

The reason I'm sharing this is to emphasize it wasn't the patent image the glass makers used. They had to of received and used "something else."

https://www.google.com/patents/USD48160?dq=48160+Bottle&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W4eIVJfTI8PwoATHl4HYBg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

For those who might not know, even though the original patent has Alexander Samuelson's name on it, the original prototype bottle was actually designed/invented by Earl R. Dean. The following link is to a portion of the book titled "The Man Behind The Bottle," which was published in 2010 and written by Earl's son, Norman Dean. Of particular interest are ... Chapter 2 ~ Birth Of The Bottle ~ Page 23Chapter 3 ~ Coke Bottle Inventor Tells His Story ~ Page 40 ... which can be accessed by either speed-scrolling or by clicking on the blue Contents links. Especially notice the part where they talk about the "pencil drawing" that was sent to the U.S. Patent Office and how Earl Dean kept one-half of the drawing. By the way, Dean's half of the drawing sold at auction in 2011 for $228,000.00. The prototype bottle itself sold separately at the same auction for $240,000.00. https://books.google.com/books?id=dGTbe_4NXkAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Man+Behind+The+Bottle&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9IiIVOrCOompyATz04CYCg&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20Man%20Behind%20The%20Bottle&f=false [ Attachments ] 1. Book cover2. Original pencil drawing3. Original prototype bottle

 

[Canadacan]

The 1916 date on that bottle probably came from one glass house that took the letter head date as the patent year. This is from the article............ "The Coca-Cola Co. sent a blueprint drawn by C.W. Mourey to various glasshouses, including the Chattanooga Bottle & Glass Co. (as described in Napier’s directives). Dated August 16,1916, this almost certainly marks the earliest transmission of bottle details to any companies other than Root ......that blueprint was the revised bottle. As for the advertising with the 1916 Date?....well you have to remember the 1915 patent date applied to the prototype bottle not the revised bottle. The revised bottle had no patent! I assume to protect their interest in the revised bottle they advertised it with the the 1916 patent hoping no one would ever be any wiser....essentially Coca-Cola was flying by the seat of their pants. I don't think the advertisements were errors. Why were other bottles not changed to 1916?...simple...cost! It would have been very expensive to pull molds from production to change the the year to 1916 for which they had no patent anyways, at least the revised bottle bearing the the 1915 patent somewhat resembled the drawings that were submitted to the the US patent office. Well that is what I'm thinking makes the most sense out of all this.Ivan

 

[Dmellman]

Link to ebay auction from earlier this year of same bottle. Unfortunately pics are gone. http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-NOV-16-1916-ERROR-HOBBLESKIRT-MOLD-COCA-COLA-BOTTLE-BLUE-3-or-4-KNOWN-/151254352416?nma=true&si=B1v%252FnupT3vpUio4jxrfMj%252FytbiE%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 Link to 2008 thread of similar or same bottle from this site.http://www.antique-bottle...oke-Error-m164299.aspx

 

[Canadacan]

Good link there!....so one of the members claims they are not error bottles?...hmmm must have just came from molds made after the fact and they were directed to put the 1916 patent year on them?The bottle in the link is nice!.

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

Its varying opinions that make discussions like this interesting. With that said, I disagree with those who feel the 1916 date on certain bottles was intentional and not an error. There are lots of Root Glass Company Coca Cola bottles from 1917 and later that have the correct 1915 patent date on them. So why would it not be considered an error for glass makers who used the 1916 date? It doesn't appear Root had anything to hide, especially when you take into account it was Root that Earl R. Dean worked for and where the first hobbleskirt's were made. Speaking of the Norman L. Dean book, I feel fortunate to have an autographed copy that Norman's son, Jeff, had his father sign for me in 2012. Jeff, of course, is Earl Dean's grandson.

 

[Dmellman]

All of these bottles are from one mold, "4". They are all different than the standard size but identical to each other. They must have come from a small run at a glass house, since there are so few, and they all seem to be from the same place, not from varying different ones. To me, the seem very early. I believe this may have been a very early production run from a smaller manufacturer that got it wrong (maybe they had an ad and thought it was right?) , and either stopped making them or corrected the problem. Of course, none of us know for sure, but obviously that 1916 date error is not really a random mistake. The bottles along with the ad signs makes this a very intriguing mystery to me, and I bet they are related as others suggest. If only there was someone from Coke who could fill us in ....

 

[Canadacan]

Hey that's really neat Bob!...yes your right the various opinions are interesting. It's allot to digest in the mind and come up with a definitive answer. In Canada on the second batch of Hobble skirts the D19 as I refer to it, are retooled molds with the patent year 1915 peened out...we still don't know why for sure this occurred? The assumption is that the patent did not apply in Canada?...not sure if there is some connection in all of this.

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

This link ... http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/coca-cola.pdf ... to an article referred to earlier, was published in 2010 by Bill Lockhart and Bill Porter and tells the story best. But even it has varying opinions as to exactly who the first glass makers were for the hobble-skirt bottles other than the Root Glass Company. If these two experts don't know all of the answers, then I don't know who does.