Hobbleskirt Coke with 1916 date error

[Dmellman]

I'm going to back off about being so definitive. I am going to fall back on Bill Porters position, that there are many similarities to CHATT but there are some differences. As I look in more detail, one of the letters in the top row doesn't quite line up with the letters in the bottom row. Also the peg leg G is falling half way in the middle between the G on the ROOT bottles and the CHATT bottles, hard to say if it is a real peg leg. Another thing, the "c" in Coca is higher than the "o" and "a", they are the same on the CHATT bottle. Everything else is identical. So.... I thing we find ourselves right where Bill Porter left us.

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

"Rings" are the portion of the molten glass tanks that are sometimes referred to as "Ports." The Rings/Ports fed the molten glass to the bottle making machines. It is generally understood there was one Ring/Port per machine. So the way I interpret Toulouse's description is that Tallapoosa had one tank and six rings/machines. I realize this theory about the error bottles being produced at the Tallapoosa plant is far fetched, and would require company records to verify, but because the acquisition occurred in 1917, which is when the patent 1915 were first produced, the timing is right for Chattanooga Glass to have shifted some of it's production to another local. Plus, there must have been a major reason for Chattanooga Glass to have made such an investment at that particular time. I can think of no better reason than for them to have set up a separate operation for the production of the newly introduced Coca Cola bottles which the parent company had specific requirements for, including special molds and a particular color of green glass, often referred to as "Georgia green." The Tallapoosa Glass Company was located in Tallapoosa, Georgia.

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

Dmellman : I agree about the uncertainties. At this juncture I'm just slinging stuff against the wall to see what sticks and what doesn't. Perhaps some of it can be used as clues for future research. I also expect Bill Porter will be giving this some thought and that we might hear more from him on the topic in the future. He gave me the impression that he was as eager as us to solve the mystery.

 

[Canadacan]

The problem is you don't have enough sample bottles to come to any real conclusion. For my Canadian samples I have 4 different mould #s out of 10.....and each bottle varies a little bit. Still pretty interesting and you may find samples down the road that match up.

 

[Canadacan]

Well be interesting to see what comes out of all this. And Bill never mentioned the #4 in any of the articles right?... I assume because he had too little information to go on.

 

[Dmellman]

The "G' on my bottle for your review. Edit "fullsizerender.jpg" led to post new info.

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

This is from one of the Bill Lockhart articles about the Chattanooga Glass "Peg-leg G" ...

 

[Canadacan]

So were they only referring to G in GA as peg -leg or the G in Registered as well? Your G looks peg-leg but on a sample with bolder embossing would show better. Again with limited samples so hard to tell.

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

Here's the text portion about the Chattanooga "Peg-leg G" ... Notice it included the G in REGISTERED

 

[Canadacan]

Ah yes thanks Bob!...I missed that some how [&:]....hard to keep your eye on the ball with this one.