# Four Roses Bottle



## logueb (Feb 5, 2015)

[attachment=2015-02-05 003.JPG] [attachment=2015-02-05 001.JPG]                                                    [attachment=2015-02-05 002.JPG]                         Found this Paul Jones Four Roses bottle at an Antique Mall.  It's embossed New Protective Bottle Adopted July 1914.  Paul Jones Co. Louiusville, Ky.  Also embossed with the roses.  Just picked it up to add to collection of other whiskey bottles.  Anyone have any info of when this bottle was used?  Buster


----------



## botlguy (Feb 5, 2015)

After the end of prohibition (?) up to 1964...               Jim


----------



## CanadianBottles (Feb 5, 2015)

No, that could only have been used in the mid to late teens, up until the start of prohibition.  That's not a "Federal Law Prohibits..." message, it just looks like one.


----------



## logueb (Feb 5, 2015)

Thanks for the replies.Jim, I thought that the embossing read "Federal Law Prohibits" until I took the bottle off the shelf. Canadian, I'm not sure what a "New Protective Bottle " means.  Only info that I came across mwas that the company went to this style bottle after the ones with the applied seal.  Buster[attachment=2015-01-05 018.JPG]


----------



## cowseatmaize (Feb 5, 2015)

It looks like an early Kork-N-Seal closure. Maybe that's what it's referring to?


----------



## sandchip (Feb 6, 2015)

I've seen the Four Roses flasks, but never the cylinder.


----------



## botlguy (Feb 6, 2015)

Mea Culpa. I couldn't read the embossing and ASS U ME d it was the post prohibition wording. Sorry for misleading.  Jim


----------



## logueb (Feb 6, 2015)

Thanks for the replies, Jim, Jimbo, and EricEric, I did a search on Images of Four roses bottles and located one with a porcelain pouring spout.  I also did a Google Patent search on Porcelain Caps patented in !914.  Seems that there was a patent on a device to prevent refilling bottles.  According to the patent it could be manufactured as stated below. "The various parts of the device are preferably made of aluminum, although it will be understood that other metals, glass or porcelain can be employed." Maybe that is what the New Protective Bottle meant. To prevent refilling their bottles.   Buster


----------



## cowseatmaize (Feb 7, 2015)

Sounds good, the date is right anyway. This are they I think? []

The insert is embossed on the top "Pat Feb 17 14" (or possibly 11), and " Reuse Prohibited ". The lead wrapper reads: K ??? To the Trade ; Four Roses ; Absolute Purity Guaranteed By Paul Jones & Co., Louisville, KY.

FROM EBAY AU

PATENT


----------



## rpinkham (Feb 7, 2015)

Thanks for the nice photos logueb, Its a pretty bottle!  Emptied many of the paper labels during college.


----------



## CanadianBottles (Feb 7, 2015)

People used to think that amber bottles protected the contents better than clear bottles did.  I think that might be why Orange Crush bottles switched to amber for a while before going back to clear in the sixties.  So I think that's probably what they're talking about, though most other bottles I've seen that on have been a few decades later.


----------



## logueb (Feb 7, 2015)

Thanks for the replies, Thanks Eric for locating the Ebay listing that shows the patent date of Feb 17 14 on the porcelain pouring spout.  I believe that the intention was to prevent refilling the bottle.  The contents could be poured out,(when the bottle was turned up) but the valve listed in the patent would not allow liquid to be put in when the bottle was upight.  Hard to refill an upside down bottle. I have read stories where whiskey was watered down at bars and saloons or refilled with cheaper whiskey. That's what I like about this forum.  Members are willing to help search and find answers.  For me, the mystery is solved. A non-refillable bottle. This was a forerunner of the "Federal Law Forbids Sale or reuse "Also, mine has traces of the "grout" between the rings.  Buster


----------



## botlguy (Feb 8, 2015)

I agree that this forum is great for helping one another with various things. With that thought, in order to keep information factual, I believe the "Federal law forbids ,,,,,," wording was for the Fed's tax collection reasons rather than concern about watering down whiskey.                Jim


----------



## logueb (Feb 8, 2015)

Thanks Jim,  Refilling bottles by bootleggers was a common problem and the feds were missing their revenue on taxed whiskey.  I remember as a kid the problem with moonshiners down hear.  Saw many destroyed stills in the swamps. I don't believe the problem is as bad nowdays.  Hardly hear of any stills busted today.  Didn't mean to mislead, Buster


----------



## lakegeorgephil (May 21, 2022)

I have the exact same bottle. Does anyone know the value?


----------



## CanadianBottles (May 22, 2022)

lakegeorgephil said:


> I have the exact same bottle. Does anyone know the value?


Probably very little, unfortunately.  There doesn't seem to be much demand for liquor bottles of that era, especially without labels, even though some do have very nice embossing.  Not sure why those fancy liquor bottles never became collectible the way that deco sodas did.


----------

