Possilbe prototype Mountain Dew bottle or hoax?

[morbious_fod]

Quit looking at anything other than bottles for your answers. No Mountain Dew bottle had Mountain Dew on the jug the hillbilly is holding, this was mostly in the advertising. The second sign you posted has the Pepsi era Hillbilly on it. This hillbilly has softer features and is holding the jug with two hands just like on the label of the bottle in question, exactly like on the bottle in question.

I finally decided to look at Bridgeforth's book where he has a time line of the hillbilly designs the Pepsi hillbilly design was first introduced in 1965, it wasn't put on the bottles till later. The bottle is most likely a prototype that was never used, I feel even more sure of that than ever. Too bad I can't afford it right now.

 

[morbious_fod]

ORIGINAL: cowseatmaize

In an attempt to educate myself I have a couple questions. I don't collect ACL.
1) Is that the way paint chips on these, is it a flaw, intentional or not caring with a prototype?
2) When were things like Fl Oz, ingredients etc. required?
I guess that's it until I find a book.

I would say that is a flaw due to the acl process, it could be a chip as well. If I was interested enough I would have the seller take a picture of the other side of the bottle.

Some of these earlier swirl bottles had the Fluid ounces embossed at the heel, but yeah the fluid ounces were below the acl on some of the teems so the lack of this information is interesting. Would this need to be required on a design prototype?

 

[morbious_fod]

Alright I ask for a picture of the other label.

 

[cowseatmaize]

OK, question three. Would they just prototype a sample bottle for other reasons than test marketing? It's seams quite an expense to see if a silk screen will work, not that Pepsi didn't have the money but shouldn't they be known and tested?
I guess I'm into the marketing now, not the bottle, sorry.

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

Quit looking at anything other than bottles for your answers.

Morb ~

You're right! And I have decided to take you advice. I have already spent a lot more time on this than I can honestly justify. Plus, I have come to the conclusion there is no way (at least for myself) that the bottle can be positively identified based on the current information. I don't see how it can be unless ...

1. The person(s) involved with it's creation come forward and declare their position(s).
2. It can be tested to show proof positive that it was made using an actual factory process.
3. The seller has additional information (good or bad) that he has not declared yet.

Otherwise it may just continue to mystify myself and others for some time to come. It is certainly too much of a risk to gamble a possible $500.00 to $1000.00 on. It's also possible that the seller will never get even reach his reserve, let alone the type of money I'm sure he is hoping for. But I seriously doubt we have seen the last of this little green bottle. I suppose only time will tell it's eventual fate. But I sure would like to have it despite the controversy ... []

Thanks again for bringing it to our attention.

Respectfully,

SPBOB

 

[cowseatmaize]

Ask for a rotational view. I see nothing on the reverse to distinguish it from the front.
I would still like to know the dates of requirements for Oz and ingredients though. I thought Oz was early 1900's, ingredients more like the 60's.
Is there a book, I'm more into research that collecting now. My space requires it.

 

[SODAPOPBOB]

cowseatmaize ~

I am not sure this is exactly what you are looking for, but it should get you stared in the right direction if you wish to research it further. And although it is not mentioned in the following text, there was a grace period that extended the 1906 law to either late 1913 or early 1914. A little additional research will confirm the exact deadline. But suffice it to say that the 1965 bottle in question was well beyond the deadline, and had it ever gone into full production and/or distribution it would have been required by law to have the contents (ounces) clearly visible on it.

I hope this helps, and thanks for bringing up some interesting questions.

SPBOB

{Text}

The Gould Amendment sponsored by Rep. Samuel W. Gould (D) of Maine, amended the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 by requiring that the contents of any food package had to be “plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package in terms of weight, measure, or numerical countâ€

 

[OsiaBoyce]

I bet Moon Willie messed wit ya bad.

I'll wager it's a genuine item and should bring around $800.00.

Logic decrees it.

 

[Anthonicia]

I am nobody, but if my opinion does anything for anyone, maybe just rile you up, well, it looks like a Throwback silkscreen. So yeah, maybe it's a prototype, maybe not. I think it's a pretty good fake using modern technology and modern (Throwback) advertising. I've been wrong before, but that's my opinion.

 

[cowseatmaize]

So if it's not on the color label it should be embossed? Why isn't that stated? Has that been asked? I don't see it even with the zoom and there's no base shots.