Hobbleskirt Coke with 1916 date error

[SODAPOPBOB]

If all of the 1916 bottles do in fact have a "4" on the base and no other identifying marks, then there's possibly a clue of some type related to that number, which I intend to research and see what, if anything, I can find. I have read the Bill Lockhart and Bill Porter article many times, but don't recall any mention of the number "4" bottle.

 

[Canadacan]

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.

Yup true that Bob! We may never know for sure and I still have questions about my bottles, I was told by my original contact that the Canadian Hobble skirts were made from rejected US bottle molds... and so I just went with that. But you know I wonder if the Canadian glass houses received blueprints just like everyone else and made their own? I can't find any USA bottle that resembles the ones I have.

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

Talk about confusing, I wonder if this is another typo? Maybe we are missing something in regards to the 1916 bottles? The attached images are of a limited edition, reproduction hobbleskirt. Notice what it says on the back side of the tag. So what the heck does that mean? []

 

[Canadacan]

It's a Coca-Cola cover up!...or mess up?[]

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

I'm thinking the 1916 date on the tag is referring to when the bottle was voted on and chosen at the 1916 Coca Cola convention in Atlanta and not when the bottle was patented.

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

During my initial search regarding the number "4" on the base, I found several examples, all of which so far are on the base of the so called 1916 error bottles. Here's the link to one example, which describes the 4 as being "faint."

By the way, I'm convinced the number 4 is a definite clue of some type and not a mold number. There are too many references to the solo 4 in order for it to be a mere coincidence.

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/nov-16-1916-error-hobbleskirt-mold-506104844

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

To clarify ... I don't think the number 4 is a mold number because I have never heard of a bottle machine with only one mold. And if there ever was a one-bottle-at-a-time machine, why a mold number at all? Especially the number 4 ???

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

Or is it being suggested that mold number 4 of a ten mold machine was the only mold that had the 1916 date and the nine other molds had the 1915 date?

 

[Canadacan]

Or is it being suggested that mold number 4 of a ten mold machine was the only mold that had the 1916 date and the nine other molds had the 1915 date?

Yes that would be the case....as he stated all other bottles found seem to be identical down to detail.

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

Okey-dokey, then. Let's examine close-ups of three 1916 bottles and see what we can find in the way of them being identical. Bubbles don't count because they would have been random ...