SODAPOPBOB
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2010
- Messages
- 11,502
- Reaction score
- 49
- Points
- 0
As for my so called investigative skills, some of you might think differently about them after reading the following.
Due to some conflicting information between Bill Porter's 1996 Checklist book and the 2010 Bill Lockhart/Bill Porter article, I am inclined to eliminate the Graham Glass Company as having produced the 1916 error bottles. Originally I was relying on information from the Checklist where Bill clearly states ...
"Until 1920: No mark but usually a large mold number on the base."
The first thing I question is how Bill Porter or anyone could possibly know who made a particular bottle if it did not have a makers mark? What could there be about an otherwise unmarked bottle with only a large mold number on the base that identifies it as a Graham bottle? But that's only part of the confusion; on page 50 of the 2010 article the authors state ...
"Beginning in 1916, Graham added a unique date code system. These codes were based on letters, starting with "P" - the 16th letter of the alphabet:"
P = 1916
Q = 1917
R = 1918
S = 1919
So, as you can see, the information is conflicting as well as confusing to say the least. I suppose its possible that sometime between 1996, when the Checklist was first published, and 2010, when the article was written, that Bill Lockhart and/or Bill Porter finally figured things out which resulted in the new, updated information pertaining to the Graham Glass Company. And if things weren't confusing enough already, there's also this from the 2010 article ...
"On June 28, 1916, the Owens Bottle Co. bought the entire Graham Glass operation but continued to run it under the Graham Glass Co. name."
Plus, as member Canadacan and others have pointed out, there's the advertisements and signs to consider, which also display the 1916 error date. Surely Graham, nor any glass maker for that matter, could have been directly involved and responsible for all of that!
So without further ado, I have no choice except to go back to square-one and focus my attention on three primary targets, namely ...
1. Small glass factories
2. The northeastern part of the United States
3. The number 4
... which I feel are the most reliable clues presented thus far regarding the bottles themselves. As for the advertisements and signs, that presents an even bigger challenge which might never be determined.
Due to some conflicting information between Bill Porter's 1996 Checklist book and the 2010 Bill Lockhart/Bill Porter article, I am inclined to eliminate the Graham Glass Company as having produced the 1916 error bottles. Originally I was relying on information from the Checklist where Bill clearly states ...
"Until 1920: No mark but usually a large mold number on the base."
The first thing I question is how Bill Porter or anyone could possibly know who made a particular bottle if it did not have a makers mark? What could there be about an otherwise unmarked bottle with only a large mold number on the base that identifies it as a Graham bottle? But that's only part of the confusion; on page 50 of the 2010 article the authors state ...
"Beginning in 1916, Graham added a unique date code system. These codes were based on letters, starting with "P" - the 16th letter of the alphabet:"
P = 1916
Q = 1917
R = 1918
S = 1919
So, as you can see, the information is conflicting as well as confusing to say the least. I suppose its possible that sometime between 1996, when the Checklist was first published, and 2010, when the article was written, that Bill Lockhart and/or Bill Porter finally figured things out which resulted in the new, updated information pertaining to the Graham Glass Company. And if things weren't confusing enough already, there's also this from the 2010 article ...
"On June 28, 1916, the Owens Bottle Co. bought the entire Graham Glass operation but continued to run it under the Graham Glass Co. name."
Plus, as member Canadacan and others have pointed out, there's the advertisements and signs to consider, which also display the 1916 error date. Surely Graham, nor any glass maker for that matter, could have been directly involved and responsible for all of that!
So without further ado, I have no choice except to go back to square-one and focus my attention on three primary targets, namely ...
1. Small glass factories
2. The northeastern part of the United States
3. The number 4
... which I feel are the most reliable clues presented thus far regarding the bottles themselves. As for the advertisements and signs, that presents an even bigger challenge which might never be determined.