Years that MY COCA CO was in production
- Thread starter grime5
- Start date
Welcome to our Antique Bottle community
Be a part of something great, join today!
surfaceone
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 11,161
- Reaction score
- 24
- Points
- 0
Evening Greg, Jamie, and Dustin,
I did a kind of double-take when I saw Greg's post. I, at first, thought he was talking about his Coca-Cola. Jamie beat me to the head scratching. I reread it and discovered he was talking about My Coca-Co. So I went looking for that.
.JPG)
.JPG)
"Circa:1905-1916 My Coca-Co. is another company that decided to try their "fake" cola on the market. Of course they didn't last long either due to lawsuits or just lack of sales.
(This bottle is quite common and can usually be found on Ebay. Can pick this bottle up for less than $40.)"
"Circa:1905-1916 My Coca-Co. bottle. Much harder to find Aqua bottle." Found at this Cool Site.
They have another example Greg:
.JPG)
"Circa:1905-1916 Another version just in Aqua color. Notice that this bottle just reads "MY-Coca and does not have the "Co." at the end. Perhaps due to the fact that this was a franchised bottler."
Okay, now I know that this was another in the long line of Coke imitators that were sued into oblivion by the Coca-Cola Co. But then I found a pretty interesting site that has the records of many of these lawsuits. Gay-ola, Taka-Cola, Koke, Chero-Cola, Toca Cola, Koa Cola and a host of others are enjoined, told to cease and desist, pay damages, etc
Here's more than you ever wanted to know about Coca Cola Co. vs The Leonard Hotel Co.
"IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
No. 807 SEPTEMBER 23, 1916
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
v.
THE LEONARD HOTEL COMPANY.
This cause is before me for final decree. The plain-
tiff is the manufacturer and seller of the well-known
drink, Coca-Cola, The defendant owns and operates
a hotel in Lexington, Ky., and in connection there-
with a bar. At that bar it sells a drink similar
in appearance and taste to plaintiff's article, known
as My Coca, manufactured and sold by a concern in
which defendant's proprietor and manager is the
largest stockholder. The defendant had for a num-
ber of years sold Coca-Cola, but three or four years
ago ceased to do so and ever since then it has sold
My Coca, The complaint made against it by the bill
herein, which was filed October 7th, 1915, was that
it was selling My Coca as and for Coca-Cola to cus-
tomers calling for Coca-Cola, and the relief sought
was an injunction against a continuance of such
selling.
That such selling is a wrong to plaintiff and en-
joinable is well settled. That it has been so doing
before the bringing of the suit is beyond question.
Plaintiff's detective, Ross, testifies to sales on three
separate occasions on March 4th, 1915, on four on
March 5th, 1915, and on two on June 9th, 1915, on
277
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
two on June llth, 1915, and on one on June 14th,
1915. As to one of the sales on March 4th, Ross is
corroborated by the testimony of one of plaintiff's
traveling salesmen, and as to the sales in June, by
the testimony of two persons employed by him to
assist in his detective work. The Special Commis-
sioner, who saw these witnesses and heard them tes-
tify, finds that their testimony is "absolutely true,"
notwithstanding the denial of defendant's bartenders.
That they were engaged in detective work does not
weaken their testimony, especially in view of the
fact that there was no desire to involve defendant
in a lawsuit, as shown by the fact that, after the
sales in March, defendant's attention was called to
the matter, with a request that such sales cease.
Had this notice and request been heeded there would
have been no lawsuit. I
This testimony is corroborated by certain of de-
fendant's witnesses. Their testimony not only had
this effect, but it tended to establish other such sales ;
indeed, it tended to establish that it. was the custom
before this suit was brought to make such sales,
whenever opportunity afforded. H. C. Deering was
an employe of defendant. He worked at the cigar
stand in front of the bar, with a partition between
them. He had so worked for two years. He fre-
quently went into the bar. He testified that he had
observed that when Coca-Cola was asked for the
bartender explained that they did not handle Coca-
Cola, but did handle My Coca. When asked as to
when his attention was first called to this, he first
said that it was in the last five months. He then
said that, it was in three or four or five months,
then that he would not say that it was in six months,
but in about three or four months, and then, that he
had not noticed it prior to four or five months. Kit
Blevins, a barber, worked in the hotel barber shop.
He had worked there some time previously to June,
1915, but continuously since that time. He went into
278
v. THE LEQNABD HOTEL COMPANY
the bar regularly, or most every day. Before then
he had been in there off and on for over three or
four years. He had observed the same thing that
Deering had when Coca-Cola was called for. When
asked when this first happened, he said that he did
not remember any further back than that it hap-
pened within the last six or eight months. Further
on he testified that recently when he called for Coca-
Cola they would make the explanation, and when
asked how recently, he said in the last five or six
months back that it had become a joke between
him and the bartenders because of this suit. Ollie
S. Honaker, a florist, was a patron of defendant's
bar. He had been so regularly for two years. When
he called for Coca-Cola he was told that they did
not have Coca-Cola, but had My Coca. He was asked
as to how long ago this had happened, and he said
that it had been six months, in the last six months;
that was as near as he could state, but it was prob-
ably longer; that he did not think that it was any
less time than this, but he supposed, if anything,
it was longer.
J. J. McGurk, a confectioner, was a patron also of
defendant's bar. He was there on an average once
a day. He sold Coca-Cola himself, and hence never
asked for it there. He had, however, on a good many
occasions, observed others call for it, and the expla-
nation heretofore referred to given. He first said
that he had noticed this during the last six months
or eight months, and then that he had heard it within
the last six months and possibly previously to that,
but could not say positively.
The implication of the testimony of these four
witnesses was that, before they had observed that
such explanation was given, My Coca was furnished
when Coca-Cola was called for, without explanation,
i. e., that it was sold as and for Coca-Cola. They
vary slightly as to the time when they first observed
this, Deering putting the time shorter than the other
279
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
three. They testified on February 3rd, 1916. This
suit was brought October 7th, 1915, nearly four
months before. The estimates as to the time were
approximate only. The reasonable conclusion is that
the time when they first observed this was at the
bringing of this suit. Blevins testifies that the call-
ing for Coca-Cola by him and the explanation given
by the bartender was a joke between them because
of the bringing of the suit. The unreliability of
McGurk's testimony estimating the time is shown
by the fact that he testified that a sign which de-
fendant had placed in the bar informing customers
that it did not sell Coca-Cola, but sold My Coca, had
been up longer than he had observed the explana-
tion given by the bartenders. The sign had been
put up after November 12th, 1915.
The testimony of other witnesses than these four,
outside of the bartenders, introduced by defendant
is not sufficient to make out a different state of fact.
When they testified defendant's bartenders had, no
doubt, for nearly four months, at least, been quite
regularly explaining that the article which they sold
was My Coca and not Coca-Cola. The questions put
to them covered this time. They were not limited
to the time before the suit was brought. In giving
estimates as to how long they had observed this they
could readily fall into error. How readily they could
do so is shown by the fact that one or two of them
estimated that the sign which, then, had not been
up for as much as three months, had been as much
as, or over, a year.
Besides this evidencee covering the time before the
bringing of this suit, it was testified to by plaintiff's
detective that after it was brought, to wit, on De-
cember 21st, defendant's head bartender sold him My
Coca as and for Coca-Cola, and his testimony was
corroborated by a disinterested witness. This tes-
timony the Special Master also finds to have been
"absolutely" true.
280
v. THE LEQNAED HOTEL COMPANY
Apart from the denials on the part of defendant's
bartenders as to their making such sales, the sole
defense is that such sales, if made, were contrary
to the instructions of the defendant's proprietor, Mr.
Shouse, and it. was innocent of any intent to appro-
priate plaintiff's business. The Special Master finds
that such sales as are shown by plaintiff's evidence
to have been made without explanation ''were made
against the proprietor's and manager's direct instruc-
tions and without his knowledge or consent or ap-
proval and were made through carelessness and in-
advertence and without any intention whatever to
deceive the public or to wrong the complainant."
I do not find it necessary to go into the question
as to the correctness of the finding. Accepting it
as correct, it is not a good defense to plaintiff's right
to relief. The bartenders were defendant's repre-
sentatives, and it is responsible for their action. It
is a matter of common knowledge that the demand
for such drinks as Coca-Cola, My Coca and the like
was created by plaintiff's article. My Coca resembles
it in appearance and taste. The persons to whom
defendant sold My Coca when Coca-Cola was called
for were plaintiff's customers, i. e., persons desiring
plaintiff's article. It availed itself of the opportunity
presented by the call for Coca-Cola to sell its ar-
ticles in its stead, and that even though full expla-
nations were made, which it had the right, to do.
This condition of things called for its seeing to it
that its bartenders did not sell My Coca as and for
Coca-Cola, This it did not do. Plaintiff was sat-
isfied to call defendant's attention' to the wrong that
was being done it, when first advised of it. Find-
ing that the wrong continued it had no recourse but
to bring this suit. And since the suit was brought
it has continued. There is some evidence that the
bartenders regard it as a joking matter. The sign
was not heeded. It did not better conditions. If
anything, it worsened them. The tendency of the
281
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
sign is to cause the bartenders to think it is suffi-
cient. What is needed is notice that the responsi-
bility is on the bartenders, and if the wrong is con-
tinued he will be discharged and pains taken to see
that he complies with instructions. Abundant author-
ity exists supporting the position that plaintiff is
entitled to the relief which it seeks. None other
need be cited than this extract from Mr. JUSTICE
BROWN'S opinion in
Saxlehuer v. Siegel Cooper Co., 179 U. S. 42,
to wit:
"In the case against the Siegel Cooper Com-
pany there was no charge of an intentional fraud,
and the court found there was no evidence of
fraudulent conduct on its part, and dismissed
the bill as to that company. As to the other
two cases, the court found* that the clerks in
charge of their stores, in response to special
requests for Janes water, wrapped up and de-
livered Matyas water, purchased of the Eisner
and Mandelson Company. In other words, they
had palmed off the one for the other. We think
that an injunction should issue against all those
defendants, but that as the Siegel Cooper Com-
pany appears to have acted in good faith, and
the sales of others were small, they should not
be required to account for gains and profits.
The fact that the Siegel Cooper Company acted
innocently does not exonerate it from the charge
of infringement."
The plaintiff is entitled to a decree. The Commis-
sioner is allowed $100.00 for his service.
A. M. J. COCHRAN, Judge.
September 23, 1916.
Candler. Thomson & Hirsch, Atlanta, Georgia,
Selligman & Selligman, Louisville, Ky.
For Complainant.
282
v. THE LEONARD HOTEL COMPANY
No. 807 NOVEMBER 2, 1916
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
v.
THE LEONARD HOTEL COMPANY.
This case having been heard by the Court and the
Court being sufficiently advised, it is now ordered and
adjudged as follows:
1. That the defendant, the Leonard Hotel Com-
pany, its agents, servants and employes and each of
them be and they are hereby enjoined from selling
My Coca or any similar drink to persons calling for
Coca-Cola without first informing such intending pur-
chaser or purchasers that the defendant does not
handle Coca-Cola, and cannot sell it to them, and
that the article that is offered or tendered for sale is
not Coca-Cola, or in any other way selling My Coca
or any other similar drink as and for Coca-Cola to
such persons.
2. That the complainant recover of the defendant
its costs herein expended.
A. M. J. COCHRAN,
Judge.
Nov. 2, 1916.
A copy. Attest:
J. W. MENZIES, Clerk,
By C. N. WARD, D. C.
283 " Found here.
P.S. For collectors of some of these bottles from companies that were forced outta business by Coca-Cola, you may find the above site of interest. One case was adjudicated by Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, for the lawyerly, baseball guys.
Thanks for asking this question Greg. I learned a buncha new stuff.
I did a kind of double-take when I saw Greg's post. I, at first, thought he was talking about his Coca-Cola. Jamie beat me to the head scratching. I reread it and discovered he was talking about My Coca-Co. So I went looking for that.
"Circa:1905-1916 My Coca-Co. is another company that decided to try their "fake" cola on the market. Of course they didn't last long either due to lawsuits or just lack of sales.
(This bottle is quite common and can usually be found on Ebay. Can pick this bottle up for less than $40.)"
"Circa:1905-1916 My Coca-Co. bottle. Much harder to find Aqua bottle." Found at this Cool Site.
They have another example Greg:
"Circa:1905-1916 Another version just in Aqua color. Notice that this bottle just reads "MY-Coca and does not have the "Co." at the end. Perhaps due to the fact that this was a franchised bottler."
Okay, now I know that this was another in the long line of Coke imitators that were sued into oblivion by the Coca-Cola Co. But then I found a pretty interesting site that has the records of many of these lawsuits. Gay-ola, Taka-Cola, Koke, Chero-Cola, Toca Cola, Koa Cola and a host of others are enjoined, told to cease and desist, pay damages, etc
Here's more than you ever wanted to know about Coca Cola Co. vs The Leonard Hotel Co.
"IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
No. 807 SEPTEMBER 23, 1916
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
v.
THE LEONARD HOTEL COMPANY.
This cause is before me for final decree. The plain-
tiff is the manufacturer and seller of the well-known
drink, Coca-Cola, The defendant owns and operates
a hotel in Lexington, Ky., and in connection there-
with a bar. At that bar it sells a drink similar
in appearance and taste to plaintiff's article, known
as My Coca, manufactured and sold by a concern in
which defendant's proprietor and manager is the
largest stockholder. The defendant had for a num-
ber of years sold Coca-Cola, but three or four years
ago ceased to do so and ever since then it has sold
My Coca, The complaint made against it by the bill
herein, which was filed October 7th, 1915, was that
it was selling My Coca as and for Coca-Cola to cus-
tomers calling for Coca-Cola, and the relief sought
was an injunction against a continuance of such
selling.
That such selling is a wrong to plaintiff and en-
joinable is well settled. That it has been so doing
before the bringing of the suit is beyond question.
Plaintiff's detective, Ross, testifies to sales on three
separate occasions on March 4th, 1915, on four on
March 5th, 1915, and on two on June 9th, 1915, on
277
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
two on June llth, 1915, and on one on June 14th,
1915. As to one of the sales on March 4th, Ross is
corroborated by the testimony of one of plaintiff's
traveling salesmen, and as to the sales in June, by
the testimony of two persons employed by him to
assist in his detective work. The Special Commis-
sioner, who saw these witnesses and heard them tes-
tify, finds that their testimony is "absolutely true,"
notwithstanding the denial of defendant's bartenders.
That they were engaged in detective work does not
weaken their testimony, especially in view of the
fact that there was no desire to involve defendant
in a lawsuit, as shown by the fact that, after the
sales in March, defendant's attention was called to
the matter, with a request that such sales cease.
Had this notice and request been heeded there would
have been no lawsuit. I
This testimony is corroborated by certain of de-
fendant's witnesses. Their testimony not only had
this effect, but it tended to establish other such sales ;
indeed, it tended to establish that it. was the custom
before this suit was brought to make such sales,
whenever opportunity afforded. H. C. Deering was
an employe of defendant. He worked at the cigar
stand in front of the bar, with a partition between
them. He had so worked for two years. He fre-
quently went into the bar. He testified that he had
observed that when Coca-Cola was asked for the
bartender explained that they did not handle Coca-
Cola, but did handle My Coca. When asked as to
when his attention was first called to this, he first
said that it was in the last five months. He then
said that, it was in three or four or five months,
then that he would not say that it was in six months,
but in about three or four months, and then, that he
had not noticed it prior to four or five months. Kit
Blevins, a barber, worked in the hotel barber shop.
He had worked there some time previously to June,
1915, but continuously since that time. He went into
278
v. THE LEQNABD HOTEL COMPANY
the bar regularly, or most every day. Before then
he had been in there off and on for over three or
four years. He had observed the same thing that
Deering had when Coca-Cola was called for. When
asked when this first happened, he said that he did
not remember any further back than that it hap-
pened within the last six or eight months. Further
on he testified that recently when he called for Coca-
Cola they would make the explanation, and when
asked how recently, he said in the last five or six
months back that it had become a joke between
him and the bartenders because of this suit. Ollie
S. Honaker, a florist, was a patron of defendant's
bar. He had been so regularly for two years. When
he called for Coca-Cola he was told that they did
not have Coca-Cola, but had My Coca. He was asked
as to how long ago this had happened, and he said
that it had been six months, in the last six months;
that was as near as he could state, but it was prob-
ably longer; that he did not think that it was any
less time than this, but he supposed, if anything,
it was longer.
J. J. McGurk, a confectioner, was a patron also of
defendant's bar. He was there on an average once
a day. He sold Coca-Cola himself, and hence never
asked for it there. He had, however, on a good many
occasions, observed others call for it, and the expla-
nation heretofore referred to given. He first said
that he had noticed this during the last six months
or eight months, and then that he had heard it within
the last six months and possibly previously to that,
but could not say positively.
The implication of the testimony of these four
witnesses was that, before they had observed that
such explanation was given, My Coca was furnished
when Coca-Cola was called for, without explanation,
i. e., that it was sold as and for Coca-Cola. They
vary slightly as to the time when they first observed
this, Deering putting the time shorter than the other
279
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
three. They testified on February 3rd, 1916. This
suit was brought October 7th, 1915, nearly four
months before. The estimates as to the time were
approximate only. The reasonable conclusion is that
the time when they first observed this was at the
bringing of this suit. Blevins testifies that the call-
ing for Coca-Cola by him and the explanation given
by the bartender was a joke between them because
of the bringing of the suit. The unreliability of
McGurk's testimony estimating the time is shown
by the fact that he testified that a sign which de-
fendant had placed in the bar informing customers
that it did not sell Coca-Cola, but sold My Coca, had
been up longer than he had observed the explana-
tion given by the bartenders. The sign had been
put up after November 12th, 1915.
The testimony of other witnesses than these four,
outside of the bartenders, introduced by defendant
is not sufficient to make out a different state of fact.
When they testified defendant's bartenders had, no
doubt, for nearly four months, at least, been quite
regularly explaining that the article which they sold
was My Coca and not Coca-Cola. The questions put
to them covered this time. They were not limited
to the time before the suit was brought. In giving
estimates as to how long they had observed this they
could readily fall into error. How readily they could
do so is shown by the fact that one or two of them
estimated that the sign which, then, had not been
up for as much as three months, had been as much
as, or over, a year.
Besides this evidencee covering the time before the
bringing of this suit, it was testified to by plaintiff's
detective that after it was brought, to wit, on De-
cember 21st, defendant's head bartender sold him My
Coca as and for Coca-Cola, and his testimony was
corroborated by a disinterested witness. This tes-
timony the Special Master also finds to have been
"absolutely" true.
280
v. THE LEQNAED HOTEL COMPANY
Apart from the denials on the part of defendant's
bartenders as to their making such sales, the sole
defense is that such sales, if made, were contrary
to the instructions of the defendant's proprietor, Mr.
Shouse, and it. was innocent of any intent to appro-
priate plaintiff's business. The Special Master finds
that such sales as are shown by plaintiff's evidence
to have been made without explanation ''were made
against the proprietor's and manager's direct instruc-
tions and without his knowledge or consent or ap-
proval and were made through carelessness and in-
advertence and without any intention whatever to
deceive the public or to wrong the complainant."
I do not find it necessary to go into the question
as to the correctness of the finding. Accepting it
as correct, it is not a good defense to plaintiff's right
to relief. The bartenders were defendant's repre-
sentatives, and it is responsible for their action. It
is a matter of common knowledge that the demand
for such drinks as Coca-Cola, My Coca and the like
was created by plaintiff's article. My Coca resembles
it in appearance and taste. The persons to whom
defendant sold My Coca when Coca-Cola was called
for were plaintiff's customers, i. e., persons desiring
plaintiff's article. It availed itself of the opportunity
presented by the call for Coca-Cola to sell its ar-
ticles in its stead, and that even though full expla-
nations were made, which it had the right, to do.
This condition of things called for its seeing to it
that its bartenders did not sell My Coca as and for
Coca-Cola, This it did not do. Plaintiff was sat-
isfied to call defendant's attention' to the wrong that
was being done it, when first advised of it. Find-
ing that the wrong continued it had no recourse but
to bring this suit. And since the suit was brought
it has continued. There is some evidence that the
bartenders regard it as a joking matter. The sign
was not heeded. It did not better conditions. If
anything, it worsened them. The tendency of the
281
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
sign is to cause the bartenders to think it is suffi-
cient. What is needed is notice that the responsi-
bility is on the bartenders, and if the wrong is con-
tinued he will be discharged and pains taken to see
that he complies with instructions. Abundant author-
ity exists supporting the position that plaintiff is
entitled to the relief which it seeks. None other
need be cited than this extract from Mr. JUSTICE
BROWN'S opinion in
Saxlehuer v. Siegel Cooper Co., 179 U. S. 42,
to wit:
"In the case against the Siegel Cooper Com-
pany there was no charge of an intentional fraud,
and the court found there was no evidence of
fraudulent conduct on its part, and dismissed
the bill as to that company. As to the other
two cases, the court found* that the clerks in
charge of their stores, in response to special
requests for Janes water, wrapped up and de-
livered Matyas water, purchased of the Eisner
and Mandelson Company. In other words, they
had palmed off the one for the other. We think
that an injunction should issue against all those
defendants, but that as the Siegel Cooper Com-
pany appears to have acted in good faith, and
the sales of others were small, they should not
be required to account for gains and profits.
The fact that the Siegel Cooper Company acted
innocently does not exonerate it from the charge
of infringement."
The plaintiff is entitled to a decree. The Commis-
sioner is allowed $100.00 for his service.
A. M. J. COCHRAN, Judge.
September 23, 1916.
Candler. Thomson & Hirsch, Atlanta, Georgia,
Selligman & Selligman, Louisville, Ky.
For Complainant.
282
v. THE LEONARD HOTEL COMPANY
No. 807 NOVEMBER 2, 1916
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
v.
THE LEONARD HOTEL COMPANY.
This case having been heard by the Court and the
Court being sufficiently advised, it is now ordered and
adjudged as follows:
1. That the defendant, the Leonard Hotel Com-
pany, its agents, servants and employes and each of
them be and they are hereby enjoined from selling
My Coca or any similar drink to persons calling for
Coca-Cola without first informing such intending pur-
chaser or purchasers that the defendant does not
handle Coca-Cola, and cannot sell it to them, and
that the article that is offered or tendered for sale is
not Coca-Cola, or in any other way selling My Coca
or any other similar drink as and for Coca-Cola to
such persons.
2. That the complainant recover of the defendant
its costs herein expended.
A. M. J. COCHRAN,
Judge.
Nov. 2, 1916.
A copy. Attest:
J. W. MENZIES, Clerk,
By C. N. WARD, D. C.
283 " Found here.
P.S. For collectors of some of these bottles from companies that were forced outta business by Coca-Cola, you may find the above site of interest. One case was adjudicated by Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, for the lawyerly, baseball guys.
Thanks for asking this question Greg. I learned a buncha new stuff.
surfaceone
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 11,161
- Reaction score
- 24
- Points
- 0
In the fog of all that litigation, I forgot to put up a little more information. No more case law, I promise.
I found this list of "Other" Colas at this Bottling Site.
There were a number that I had never heard of before. Has anyone ever visited this collection?
They list 3 different My Coca-Co.s:
"MY=COCA CO. LEXINGTON, KY -- AM FOOT SCRIPT
MY=COCA CO. LEXINGTON, KY -- CL FOOT SCRIPT
MY=COCA CO. COLUMBIA, KY AQ MIG SLUG W/ CITY" Found on this page.
***************************************************
What with the close proximity to all the above effervescence, I found this Cool Closure.
Has anyone seen this closure in the wild? What is the proper name for it?
I found this list of "Other" Colas at this Bottling Site.
There were a number that I had never heard of before. Has anyone ever visited this collection?
They list 3 different My Coca-Co.s:
"MY=COCA CO. LEXINGTON, KY -- AM FOOT SCRIPT
MY=COCA CO. LEXINGTON, KY -- CL FOOT SCRIPT
MY=COCA CO. COLUMBIA, KY AQ MIG SLUG W/ CITY" Found on this page.
***************************************************
What with the close proximity to all the above effervescence, I found this Cool Closure.
Has anyone seen this closure in the wild? What is the proper name for it?
I sold one of these on ebay that I picked up at an estate sale at the western border of Georgia, Near Callaway Gardens where we were vacationing. I saved text files of all my auctions back then. Below is a photo of the bottle and the original listing text from back in 2004. It sold for just over $50. I have other pics of it if necessary.
This is a clear, tooled crown top, early Coca-Cola or Coke knockoff. The word Coca (in a simular script form) was probably used to get some of the name recognition of Coca-Cola. The embossing on the front reads: MY COCA / ROBERTS BROS. The embossing on the rear reads: MY COCA / WEST POINT, GA On the bottom is embossed: R.B. There is a chipped area on the front edge of the base(see closeup), and a ding on the other side of the base that is just over 1/8th inch. Other than that, there is just some case wear and some light haze. Please email if you have any questions. Thanks for looking!
This is a clear, tooled crown top, early Coca-Cola or Coke knockoff. The word Coca (in a simular script form) was probably used to get some of the name recognition of Coca-Cola. The embossing on the front reads: MY COCA / ROBERTS BROS. The embossing on the rear reads: MY COCA / WEST POINT, GA On the bottom is embossed: R.B. There is a chipped area on the front edge of the base(see closeup), and a ding on the other side of the base that is just over 1/8th inch. Other than that, there is just some case wear and some light haze. Please email if you have any questions. Thanks for looking!
Attachments
CreekWalker
Well-Known Member
Hi , I dug an amber My Coca SS soda, also marked- Memphis 10 (Tenn) quite awhile back, and sold the bottle , (it was damaged)but have a photo archived. Just quicker to check out digger mcdirts past posts and you will see a photo of one. Search " My Coca", there is an amber KOKE SS soda from the same era in Memphis. The MY COCA is much more scarce.
Similar threads
Latest threads
-
-
Dug a Poison and Rare Amber Pharmacy (Digging video)- Started by RIBottleguy
- Replies: 0
-
-
Tumbling bottle with a pot stone in the glass?- Started by Scavenger
- Replies: 0
-
-
Donald Duck orange juice can- Started by Step Back In Time
- Replies: 4