# DATING OWENS-ILLINOIS BOTTLES



## SODAPOPBOB

On almost a weekly basis someone will come along and inquire about dating bottles, with many of the inquiries specifically related to Owens-Illinois bottles, and especially acls. And althought this subject has been discussed many times in numerous threads, I thought this would be a good time and place to share where I personally obtained most of my information regarding this. The link below will take you to a website that should answer most, if not all of your Owens-Illinois dating  questions. And please be sure to save the link in your favorites file for future reference. It is one of the most informative sites I know of on the subject. I have communicated with the article's author, Bill Lockhart, on numerous ocassions and rate him as one of the most advanced researchers in his field. 

 And yet, even with this said, the site does not answer "everything" related to Owens-Illinois bottles, which leaves me doing additional research of my own in an attempt to find the answers. For example;  I have often wondered ...

      1.  "Why" were the majority of acl soda bottles made by Owens-Illinois?  Is the answer ...

               A.  Because there were more Owens-Illinois glass plants than any other?
               B.  Because Owens-Illinois aggressively pursued that market?
               C.  Because Owens-Illinois was the first and most advanced to adopt the acl process?
               D.  Or some other reason?

     2. "Why" do Owens-Illinois date codes all of a sudden start to appear on a regular basis on acl
         soda bottles at just about the same time as the acl process was first introduced around 1934?

              A.  Coincidence?
              B.  Some other reason?

 So there are still a few unanswered questions as you can see. But for the most part the following site should answer most of your basic questions, and hopefully provide you with a more comprehensive understanding of dating Owens-Illinois bottles in general.

 I hope you find this information helpful. And I am sure you will, especially if you enjoy reading the more empirical discourses as I do.

                      Lesson Number One:  What the heck does "Empirical" mean?   Lol  [] 

 SODAPOPBOB

 Safe Link To Owens-Illinois History/Dating Information by Bill Lockhart :   http://www.sha.org/research_resources/newsletter_articles/lockhart.cfm


----------



## SODAPOPBOB

Answer to one of the questions above ...


 emÂ·pirÂ·iÂ·calâ€‚ 

 â€“adjective [/align] [/align]1. Derived from or guided by experience or experiment.[/align] [/align]2. Depending upon experience or observation alone.[/align] [/align]3. Provable or verifiable by experience or experiment. [/align][/align]






 [/align]


----------



## SODAPOPBOB

Here is an additional question I forgot to list and have often wondered about ...

 3.  "Why" do so many of the earlier (1900 to 1933) embossed and deco-style soda bottles not have
      specific dating codes on them?  (Some do but not the majority).  Is the answer ...

               A.  Because no one thought about it?
               B.  Because there was no need for it?
               C.  Because it was not required?
               D.  Or some other reason? 

 By the way ... Bill Lockhart is not only an advanced researcher, he is also a bonafide "Archaeologist." 

 SPBOB


----------



## SODAPOPBOB

And here is an example of what is referred to in Bill's article as a "Owens Scar."


----------



## SODAPOPBOB

Here is an example of a Owens-Illinois amber 7up acl bottle. Note the absence of a dot after the 5 which tells us it is a 1935 bottle.

                                                               21 <(I)> 5

 However, I have to call into question the 21 which indicates the bottle was made in Portland, Oregon. But all of the list I have seen indicate that the Portland, Oregon Owens-Illinois glass plant did not begin operation until 1960. I do not mention this to challenge anyone, nor to shed the least bit of doubt on Bill Lockhart's extensive research, but rather as another example of a long list of as yet unanswered questions. The only thing I can think of is that the 21 is a transfer number from a glass plant that closed prior to 1960, and that it was somehow overlooked by the individuals who compiled the various Owens-Illinois list. I will be sure to ask Bill Lockhart about this the next time I e-mail him.

 SPBOB


----------



## SODAPOPBOB

The list below is from my acl book. Note the 21 for Portland, Oregon, with indicates a start-up date of approximately 1960. If you go back to Bill Lockhart's site you will see a similar list ... which was orginally composed by and is from Julian Toulouse's 1971 book.


----------



## Wheelah23

I've come across a lot of bottles, and unfortunately most of them have been newer bottles. Most of these were made by Owens-Illinois.

 Based on the current research (at least that I've seen), it is INCREDIBLY difficult to come up with a precise date for an Owens-Illinois bottle, at least those without the two-digit date codes.

 I've come across bottles with an undotted 1 to the right of the logo. This would at first indicate that the bottle was from 1931. However, they also have the "Duraglas" logo on the side, indicating them being from after 1940. 1941 seems to be the most likely date then. So, when did Owens-Illinois realize their date code system was flawed? It certainly took place after 1941. I believe it was even later, as the same situation occurred with a bottle from 1943.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB

Wheelah23 ~

 Did you read Bill Lockhart's entire article?  It answers your question(s) to some extent. But I hear ya and agree there is some confusion regarding all of this stuff. But if they can put a man on the moon I'm sure we will have it all figured out one of these days. Oh, wait! ... Did they actually put a man on the moon or was it ... ???   Lol  [] 

 Thanks for stopping by.

 SPBOB


----------



## SODAPOPBOB

Just for the record, I have an original (1972 Second Printing) of Julian Toulouse's book, "Bottle Makers And Their Marks," and show it here to illustrate where most researchers came up with the Owens-Illinois plant numbers and dates that are so often quoted. And even though it is almost identical to the one I posted earlier, this one is the real deal, but with a few subtle differences.

 SPBOB

 By the way ... Toulouse's 1971 "First Edition" typically sells (with dust-jacket) for about $100.00-plus. I purchased my 1972 second printing for $40.00. It has an amazing amount of information that I would be happy to share with anyone who has a specific question they cannot find elsewhere.  []


----------



## Wheelah23

I'll do you one better: I took the book out through the local library, then I used my printer's scanner feature to scan every page of the book. Took a few hours, but it was worth it. Now I have a picture of each page of the book stored on my computer. This book is a lifesaver. It's pretty convenient too, AND I got the digital copy for free! 

 Just don't tell the book police... They probably wouldn't like to hear about this.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB

You're busted, man! I'm calling them right now! I have your PM address and the FBI can figure out the rest of it from there. Seriously, though. That's a great idea, and one I thought of myself a while back, except that our library didn't have a copy of the book. 

 So I guess this means you won't be contacting me for additional information from the book. Darn ... because I usually charge a penny per word for that service. Oh well, life goes on.  []

 Thanks again,

 SPBOB


----------



## fishnuts

I just read Lockhart's monograph on Owens Illinois bottles for the first time.  It very interesting to read what might be  one of the original sources for for the legend lore relating to sodas.  Fine work overall, indeed.  In the area of the Mystery of the Dot, however, there are very gray areas.  As: he doesn't mention that the dot's sometime appear on the 'mold' number, not the date number, or sometime are on the baseline, sometimes centerline positioned, or sometimes the 'dots' are actually 'dashes'.  There is room to grow and learn, BEGINNING here and not by STAYING here.

  There were some lines in it that I think are very important, not the least of which being: _In a personal communication, Robert C. Leavitt added, "At least some of the dot coding on the bases of modern bottles is for Q C [quality control], to identify the cavity on a machine that produced a specific bottle. If too many bottles fail QC, they know where to look."_  I find this interesting, first because here Lockhart has some information (or proof) that the dot is not a dating device at all, but one for QC.  And then he continues, completely ignoring this piece of information to advance his hypothesis that the dot is a dating icon.  Secondly, Bob, as you recall from last summer, I had mentioned talking to a gentleman that worked at O/I who had told me the very same piece of information.  That is, that the dot is an indicator of mold positioning for potential quality control reasons.

 Later Lockhart mentions his 'dig':  _The site was the old distribution center for Grand Prize Beer, and the Grand Prize Distributing Co. occupied the site from 1939 to 1943. Because Prohibition was not lifted until 1933, this meant that bottles marked with a zero were probably from 1940. However, many of the bottles had a zero followed by a period._  So bottles were marked either 0  or 0-dot.  He knows (or should have, not probably) that all these bottles were from 1940.  Seems to me that the date indicator is clearly the 0 and not the dot.  Again, he continues advancing his hypothesis with now two pieces of data to indicate otherwise...that is, that the dot is not a dating device.  Later me mentions that other bottles (or bottle shards, he doesn't say)  were marked with 1-dot and 2-dot.  He fails to mention how large a sampling he observed.  Five?  Hundreds?  The size of the sampling alters the conclusions drawn.

 Several times his talk falls (e.g.  'somebody at OI must have decided...' ) into speculation.  That's okay...it's often where research actually begins.

 Let's take the example you offer.  The 1935 Seven Up bottle that you show is marked with a five-dot.  From looking at this one sample you could make one of two statements about the bottle from information on the bottom.
    1...ALL Seven Up bottles from this bottler are marked with a five-dot.
    2...SOME Seven Up bottles from this bottler are marked with a five-dot.
 As I understand, upon examining one, and only one sample, you can only make Statement 2.  Making Statement 1 would require you to observe dozens, if not hundreds of like bottles from that same Seven Up bottler.  See?  You cannot hold up a sample of one and state that all must be like your sample.  This is a huge problem all of us have in trying to decipher bottle history...none of us has the resources to examine the quantities of bottles to give us a base of information...empirical data, if you will.

 In this area, I have been carefully observing and logging data from O/I bottles since my stroke (late Aug).  There are some interesting tidbits that I have discovered but I'll not go into that on your thread.  I have now viewed over 600 O/I soda bottles, both embossed and acl...still not a very big sample, if you ask me.  I'd like very much for you, Bob, and all others to help...if you would.  Let's all try to discover the accurate meanings of the codes.  Anyone  that would like to contribute data from your O/I bottles can e-mail me for the information parameters that I am tracking.  That would be: fishnutsebay@yahoo.com .  Underlined only for visibility, eh.

 Thanks, Bob, for your passion in this.  Let's all work towards the truth.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB

fishnuts ~

 Thank you for your most helpful contribution. It is very well worded and constructed, and the sort of thing I personally love to read. I think we all agree, including Bill Lockhart, that the dot/no-dot system of dating soda bottles is not a etched-in-stone science, and may never be. But based on what I call a "majority factor" (Meaning ... when a majority of bottles fall into a consistant correlation of dates) it is still the best system known. But what is the bigger question here, is whether or not this so called system is what the Owens-Illinois glass factories and bottlers had in mind when they first introduced their dating codes? Obviously it was intended as some form of dating and tracking.

 Plus, there is another aspect to this we need to keep in mind. Which is that some of the research done involves connecting the dots to the various histories of the bottlers themselves. Take for example the amber 7up bottle in question, which, by the way, is a "no-dot" 5 and not a "dotted" 5 as you indicated in your post. But irregardless of that, it has been fully established that the San Diego version of this particular bottle was only made during a two year period ... those being 1935 and 1936. This was determined by a local researcher I met once who did some extensive history research on our local 7up bottler. The chart below will help illustrate this.

 All things considered, I say again that I agree with you 100% and that more research in this area is needed, and that it will be individuals like yourself and others who will eventually crack the code. Kepp up the good work. I for one appreciate it.

 Thanks again,

 SPBOB

 {Amber 7up Distribution Locals and Dates / Including Standard ACL 7oz and Stubby (Paper Label) Squat Bottles}


----------



## splante

just when I thought I had if figured out...kinda


----------



## SODAPOPBOB

P.S. ~

 Just to clarify ... my understanding of the 7up chart is that it was compiled based on research done on the bottlers themselves and had nothing to do with dot / no-dot codes. And as far as I know, 7up still stands as the earliest acl (Owens-Illinois) bottles ever produced anywhere.

 SPBOB

 Splante ~

 Hang in there ... you are not the only one who is pulling their hair out over this. I am as bald as a queball!   Lol  []


----------



## fishnuts

Bob,
 Just to clear up one tiny thing before I move on.  Regarding your 1935 Seven Up bottle...the pair of statements that you can make about this bottle still hold true regardless of the presence of the dot.  ALL or SOME.

 While Lockhart has a letter offering alternative meaning to the dot mystery and physical evidence showing both no-dot and dotted versions of his 1940 shards, he plows on even through these pair of  refutations to his hypothesis.  I no longer believe his research went far enough.  How could he not have found any bottles before 1940 with dots?  In my research I have found plenty of them.

 Three more refutations to the dot as a dating icon.
 One:  In beginning the research I wanted to find a quantity of bottles to establish a base line of information.  All I needed was a quantity of  a  brand spread over many years in order to find the commonalities, and the differences, on the bottle bases.  Presto!  The bottlers convention set was the perfect answer.  I own 20 of the first 21 of them and they meet the criteria.  The share common manufacture plant, common G-137 numbers , all have Duraglass, all have two digit date codes and all fall well after the 'early' years.  Yet I found one with a dot after the two digit date code and several with dots placed behind the 'mould' number.  The need for a dating dot on any of the bottles is moot.  Yet there are dots.  The dot is not a dating code.
 Two:  I own five *Cleo Cola* queen bottles.  There is no argument that these bottles were produced during 1937 and as all of mine were and are indicated with a 7 in the date code slot.  Of the five, one has a dot.  I must assume at this point that the 7 is the dating device and the dot is not a dating code.
 Three: The bottle base that  you  show in the very first post has a dot, Bob.  It's obviously not a dating dot as the date code is clearly a two digit code.  I have found this anomaly many times, now.  If the date is perfectly clear by the dating code, then what is the reason for the inclusion of the dot?  It's not there because it is a dating code. 

 One more thing.  The  *O/I Plant Numbers and Dates*  chart must still be a work in progress because as it is printed in the Collecting ACL book it is inaccurate and incomplete.  If it were accurate, we could never find any O/I bottle that fell outside the parameters listed in the chart.  Right?  I found one already that doesn't fit the matrix.  An *A-Treat* dated double digit 53 that indicates Plant 4.  According to the matrix this bottle doesn't exist, yet it does.  Since the bottle exists, the matrix is wrong.  Here's one mystery that anyone can help solve.  Send me all the data you find on any O/I bottle  marked Plant 4.  Once we find enough examples we'll be able to rewrite the matrix chart more accurately.  And that is what our hobby deserves.  Truth.

 Again, all these tidbits can be gained by any of us that care to look.  Please join me in this examination to find truth in our hobby instead of the dogma of legend lore sustained by Toulouse and Lockhart.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB

fishnuts ~

 I'm not sure my brain is fully functioning yet this morning, but I will do my best. And with that said I will start with a quote from the very last sentence in the "Conclusion" part of Bill Lockhart's article where he states ...

                           "Owens-Illinois, however, was very inconsistent with its coding." 

 I point this out as an indication, and to repeat what I said earlier, that neither Bill's information, nor mine is the final word on the subject, but that ... "It is one of the most informative sites I know of on the subject."

 Please don't think I am playing games here or testing anyone, as that is not my nature or intent, but I have to confess that I intentionally posted that particular green bottle base on my initial post to see if anyone would notice the dot after the 51. on the bottom. It was intended to show that I too have found inconsistencies that need to be called into question. Anyway, you caught it and passed my so called "non-test" with flying colors. Congratulations. (The bottle itself is a "Texan" grapefruit drink).

 Another thing to watch for in our continuing research on the subject is the presence or absence of "stippling" on the bases of many acl bottles. Stippling is, of course, the textured (orange-peel-type) of embossing that can be found on many bottles. Sometimes it is on the entire base, and sometimes just around the outer perimeter of the base. (And sometimes not at all). Supposedly it was introduced around 1940 and was intended to create a slight "air space" between the somewhat still molten glass and whatever surface the bottle was set on when it was removed from the mold. I guess it prevented sticking and allowed for faster cooling.

 In conclusion, I would like to share the following that for many, many years now I have been a strong believer in. It is known as "Ockham's Razor" (Theory) which is from the 14th century. It basically states that ... "the simplest answer is usually the right answer."  Which I believe will eventually be the case if/when the Owens-Illinois codes are finally broken. (By the way ... The "Razor" part means the shaving away of fiction from fact).

 Thanks again to all ...

 SPBOB







 Occam's razor (or *Ockham's razor*[1]), _entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem_, is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion, thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one. The principle is attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. Occam's razor may be alternatively phrased as _pluralitas non EST ponenda sine necessitate_ ("plurality should not be posited without necessity").[2] Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. [/align]


----------



## SODAPOPBOB

Although totally unrelated to soda bottles, here is a little something that may be of interest to some. I initially came up with it in my typing class when I was a senior in high school back in 1970. And since it pertains to "dots" I thought it might be fun to include here.

 SODA " DOT" BOB   []


                                                          Connect The Dots

                         If we make a line of 20 standard dots (periods) like the following :

                                               .................... 20 dots = one inch

            And assign each dot to represent 100 years of time, we come up with 2000 years per inch.

 The 2000 year per inch formula equals approximately the age of the common calendar, which started in A.D. 0001

 The earth is said to be four billion years old.
 The universe is said to be fourteen billion years old.

 Reminder : One dot = 100 years. Which is about the maximum Lifespan of the average person. 

 Based on my calculations :

 If two thousand years = one inch of dots.

 Then :

 Four billion years (Age of the Earth)  = TWENTY SEVEN MILES of dots !

 Fourteen billion years (Age of the Universe) = NINETY FOUR MILES of dots !

 The Jurassic age of the Trex dinosaur ended approximately 145 million years ago.

 Thus :  145 million years = ONE MILE of dots !

 [/align]


----------



## SODAPOPBOB

P.S.  ~

            Ockham's Razor (14th Century) was introduced only about 7 dots ago. Like this .......


----------



## jskirk

It really sounds like it pertains to microdots


----------



## jays emporium

I bought a case of Dragon soda bottles and when I was cleaning them I paid attention to the codes on the base.  They were all made at Plant #9, Streator, Ill.  Date codes were 2. 3. 4. 5. 46. and 47.  Mostly 5.


----------



## jays emporium

Here is the 5. bottom from 1945


----------



## jays emporium

Here is the 46. which looks like the 4 was added as an afterthought.


----------



## jays emporium

And here is the 47. which also looks like the 4 was added later.  What I conclude from this is that the Streator plant used single digit date codes on the Dragon bottles until 1946 and then switched to two digit codes.  The dot may be a date indicator which they just kept on using after going to two digits.


----------



## jays emporium

Picture didn't upload, sorry.


----------



## jays emporium

here is a closeup of the dragon.  These bottles are embossed DRAGON BOTTLING CO. SAN ANTONIO, TEX around the base.  I'm going to offer some for sale in the BUY, SELL section if anyone is interested.
 Jay


----------



## SODAPOPBOB

Jay ~

 Thanks for the great pictures and information. Here is a copy/pasted quote from Bill Lockhart's article that may help to explain in part the weird 4 placement ...

 "In several cases, the initial 4 has been added as an afterthought, frequently slightly out of alignment with the other digits associated with the logo. Occasionally, a mold engraver forgot to change the code."

 Another thing that crossed my mind about your Dragon bottles is the absence of _Duraglas_ that typically started appearing on Owens-Illinois bottles around 1940. It appears like they used an earlier mold (pre-acl / pre 1940) and then just changed the numbers. Which is an entirely different aspect to all of this, and one that could become a study unto itself.

 Another thing I noticed is that the 1945 bottle has a dot after the bottom 1. whereas the others don't. But exactly what that indicates, I am not sure, unless it's as Bill Lockhart indicated and it is a quality control mark of some kind. But all things considered, and employing Ockham's Razor again, I'd say there is no question that your bottles are 1940s examples, and in some small sense chalks up one point for the dot theory. Especially when you take into account that 24 out of 24 bottles have the dots.

 When I stop and think about all of this, it blows my mind that something that appears so simple can actually be so complicated. After all, archeological researchers have been studying things like the pyramids for years, and they seem to have a fairly good understanding on them, and those dudes are like 3000 years old. And yet a handful smart guys like us seem to have difficulty even figuring out something as simple as a bunch of old soda bottles that are no more than about 60 years old. It's crazy. Maybe we should start doing carbon dating and forget about all of this code stuff.  Lol  []

 Thanks again,

 SODA "PYRAMID" BOB


----------



## SODAPOPBOB

Hey fishnuts ~

 There is an interesting and somewhat cotradictory aspect to my last post that I bet you will catch in an instant. I avoided it intentionally because I am a little confused about it myself and was hoping you might share your insight on it. I will look forward with anticipation to your next reply regarding it.

 SPBOB


----------



## Wheelah23

> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> I am not sure, unless it's as Bill Lockhart indicated and it is a quality control mark of some kind.


 


> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> and in some small sense chalks up one point for the dot theory.


----------



## coboltmoon

> When I stop and think about all of this, it blows my mind that something that appears so simpleÂ can actually beÂ so complicated.


 
 I have an IO medicine bottle that does not follow the date code norms.  I have been meaning to post a pic for an explanation.  I will get around to one of these days.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB

~  FLY ON THE WALL SCENARIO  ~

 Two 1945 factory workers at an Owens-Illinois glass plant are having a conversation in the break room. One employee has been there six years and is named "Smart Guy." The other employee has been there six months and is named "Dumb Guy." 

 Smart Guy :  So, how do you like working here so far?

 Dumb Guy :  I guess it's okay. But I am a little confused about a few things.

 Smart Guy:  Oh yeah, and what would that be?

 Dumb Guy:  Well, for one thing, I can't remember what the dots next to the numbers on the bottom of
                    the bottles represent.

 Smart Guy:  Are you kidding me? Just about everything we do around here involves knowing about
                    those dots and keeping track of the codes. Even the janitors know that stuff. 

 Dumb Guy:  Yeah, I know. That's what the foreman keeps telling me. But I just can't seem to get a
                    handle on it. Do you suppose you could run it by me again? I sure would appreciate it.

 Smart Guy:  Okay, but write it down this time so you don't forget. It's really not that complicated
                   either. All you gotta remember is that the dot next to the number on the right of the
                   symbol is for ... 

 In conclusion ...

 I have to believe this sort of thing was common knowledge at the time, and that everybody and their brother knew what the codes meant. After all, the codes were put there for a reason of some kind and didn't just mysteriously appear on their own. But figuring this stuff out now sixty-five years later is like trying to answer the question of which came first, the egg or the chicken? I wish I had a crystal ball that could look back into the past. 

 SPBOB


----------



## dmagave

bottles were returnable and this also helped them determine the 'round trips' a bottle would make


----------



## ilovehondas

i have a question i bought a owen illinois 1 gallon jug because of the texture never seen one like it either on ebay or google it has the logo on the bottem with the numbers 256


----------



## fanboy

I would consider if there was doubt creating a new mold that the maker would provide accurate mold information on it. Dots could simply mean that the information next to it is inaccurate. For example in Canadian coins in 1937 & 1948 new dies were not ready so the mint used the previous year's dies and marked them with a dot. I would not surprise me if an OI bottle marked 40. may have been used/made in 1941 (or later). A dot next the plant might mean that it is the wrong plant number on the mold. It was a time where reuse and waste were minimized. They would use it if it was a little off.

 In short the dot may be a date device (next to the date) but is not likely a decade marker.

 As for consistency, I would bet that OI employees worked there for decades. Change was slow for some people. Between old habits and mistakes any number of issues will arise from the bottle molds. In my study if Canadian Glass Coke Bottles, there are a distinct change when the mold marks changed wow the month code was done. However you will find some molds that are 2-3 years later that use the old style codes for month. At first I thought it might be a plant that was slow to change but I have examples from the plant that they did make the change. I an only attribute the old code use to old habits.

 Food for thought...

 Chris


----------



## rd1550

My big ol butt....been lookin at dump debris q....whilr.....since spot was a pup....some of it arrived by mule...thats supposed to imply an 'informed' opinion will follow .....here goes anyhow....try  as I might I can't think of one Owens unerring truth. 

 Maybe the Duraglass 1940 guideline???  I'm reminded.....when did O-I open the Hamlet NC closure plant, 20's?........did it ever produce bottles?

 I want to take this opportunity to thank the two B.L.'s ...Bernard the closure gent and Carol Serr for conduct above and beyond.
 Refreshing doesn't quite do it....

 Can you imagine a kindness done....this day and time..  Several unpaid somebodies actually took time out of their busy day to deal with what typically would turn out to be another inane inquiry by someone too apathetic to read a paragraph or three.

 Thanks ya'll ....an orange and a lump of coal in you stocking this year


----------



## rd1550

Wouldn't let me edit previous post.. I realize this thread ia a bit dated, better than duplicating.  Theres dots and then theirs stippling.  ok I got one quandry in each category.....the '0' rule doesn't take a rocket surgeon to decipher ....splain a med bottle with a '0..' date code.  Plus a dram sprinkler top with a stippled concave base....whch precludes the heat dissipation, conveyor travel diatribe as it can't impart physical anomlies on a flat surface. If its 3dot stuff (code) the existing belief as to that conception needs to be backed up to about 1931. 

 I'll get in the proper forum and relate the series of discoveries over the last 50 yrs that gives insight into the talented youth that roamed my farm and left masterpieces in glass.   Rural youths will turn anything stationary into a canvas and its not unusual to find initialed,dated marbles in my farms dump pre 30's . This boy/girl excelled at it.....the old logo marbles he duplicated in relief...his ability to cleave glass and control the extent of the damage was uncanny. ....take a 30x loupe to check out what looks to be a pinprick on an otherwie untouched vintage marble and see a perfect 'Kilroy' giving you the eye  in miniature.  Bottles are his murals.....he signs o2 or oz, sometimes the date


----------



## wisodas

I've stated this before - the 1 and 1. below the OI mark are two different, but fairly identical molds.  At Streator, and maybe other plants, bottle orders were quite often blown in a pair of molds.  This was a practice that started with the American Bottle Co. at Streator in the 1910's - at that time the pair of molds was numbered 1 and 2 (the whole indicia would be like 18 S 1 and 18 S 2).  By the 1940's the molds were numbered 1 and 1. .  When ACL bottles became popular, there was a need for large numbers of generic-looking bottles, such as the 7-ounce G94's which were used used for emerald green 7-Ups and other colorless 7-ounce bottle orders, and pairs of molds were numbered 1 and 1., 2 and 2., 3 and 3., 4 and 4., etc. to blow these bottles.
 If you carefully compare the 1 and 1. Dragon bottles, I'm sure that you will be able to spot small differences in the embossing or design.  Sometimes it's fairly obvious, other times it's taken me 4 or 5 minutes to spot the differences.  
 I have never speculated publicly on why they were made in pairs, but I would guess that it had something to do with the mechanics of a bottle blowing machine, and that mold 1 and mold 1. for any particular bottle design would be placed on opposite sides of the machine.  That would facilitate sorting of the bottles as they came off the machine.  Just guessing on my part.


----------

