# Hobbleskirt Coke with 1916 date error



## Dmellman (Nov 26, 2014)

I picked this up on a road trip in Virginia. I have read a couple of threads that mentioned this bottle and one eBay auction. It is very crude, the embossed plate is whittled. There are large bubbles. Color is Aqua/sky blue. Some bruising. It is a few millimeters shorter than the Johnson City TN 1915 bottle next to it in the pic and slightly lighter in weight. Base is embossed with "4". It is early ABM given the seams. No heel embossing or marks. Hard to photograph embossing because it is weak. Anyone know more about these. Who made them? Laurens? Or unauthorized? Old ads seem to imply there should be lots out there. 

[attachment=image.jpg]
[attachment=image(DY).jpg]
[attachment=image(VT).jpg]


----------



## scottr (Nov 26, 2014)

What town  is it from


----------



## morbious_fod (Nov 26, 2014)

If you will notice the date on this rendering from a 1917 introduction ad for the bottle. The date is 1916. Maybe the memo sent to the creator of this graphic and that bottle had a typo.


----------



## Dmellman (Nov 26, 2014)

No town listed on bottom. No manufacturer marks except for "4". The other examples also had "4" on the bottom. So far I have seen 3. Mine, the eBay bottle, and one posted here a few months ago.


----------



## Canadacan (Nov 26, 2014)

Hmmmm interesting bottle, I have no idea who made it or the rarity. Even the Canadian adds from 1918 show the bottle with the 1916 patent year...which I believe is incorrect?...the patent was granted in 1915 but it applied to the prototype bottle that did not work out. Here is a link to something you should read...Yo may also want to send Bill Porter an email along with a picture or two and ask him about it if you don't get your answer here.Hope this helps............. http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/coca-cola.pdfCheers, Ivan


----------



## grime5 (Nov 26, 2014)

ive got 2 bottles with the date being nov.6,1915.one from st.louis mo and one from ohio i think.there are some with the 9 in 1915 backwards.guess they were not as good at quality control back then. later greg


----------



## sandchip (Nov 27, 2014)

Wow, that's cool.  I like the squatty look.  Great score!


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 3, 2014)

It would be interesting to know if the error bottles with 1916 were produced by a single glass maker or if it occurred randomly throughout the industry. Even though I have searched, I've never seen an official explanation by the Coca Cola Company that addressed the mistake, but I suppose its possible that one exist. Most of what I've seen places the introduction of the new bottle during the spring of 1917, with the most often mentioned month being April. Speaking of which, it was on April 6, 1917 that the United States officially declared war against Germany and entered WWI. This likely had an effect on the new bottle causing its introduction to be delayed in some areas of the country. Another factor was the sugar rationing which reached a peak in 1918. WWI officially ended when Germany signed the Armistice agreement on November 11, 1918.

I thought the attached newspaper article was interesting, especially where it refers to the new bottle as ...

*"Seven-ounce corrugated green or white bottles ..."*

I suspect the use of the words "Seven-ounce" was a typo because elsewhere in the ad it says "Min. Contents 6 FL. Ozs.," which was the correct amount for the new bottle. However, I'm a little puzzled by the reference to "white" bottles. Surely they meant "clear" bottles? If so, does anyone have a clear glass Coca Cola contour bottle with the November 16, 1915 patent date on it that was issued in 1917? Most if not all of the 1917 bottles were produced by the Root Glass Company and should have ROOT 17 embossed on the heel. I have two of the ROOT 17 bottles but both of mine are green. The November 16, 1915 bottles were used until 1928, which is when the 1923 Patent bottle was first distributed.   

I thought the use of the word "corrugated" was interesting as well. Imagine if the term had caught on and what we think of today as the Contour / Hobbleskirt / Mae West bottle was instead referred to as the "Corrugated" Coca Cola bottle.     

I'm posting the article in three parts for easier reading, which is from ...

The Washington Post  ~  Washington, D.C.  ~  April 20, 1917

1.  Entire Article
2.  Cropped 1 of 2
3.  Cropped 2 of 2


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 3, 2014)

This image was in my photo files but I don't recall where I got it. I titled it as being dated ... *April 12, 1917*


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 3, 2014)

This is from Bill Porter's Coca Cola checklist book and shows the issue dates for the various hobbleskirt bottles ...


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 3, 2014)

"Most if not all of the 1917 bottles were produced by the Root Glass Company and should have ROOT 17 embossed on the heel."....???? Apparently not....This was in the article."The Coca-Cola Co. sent a blueprint drawn by C.W. Mourey to various glasshouses, including the Chattanooga
Bottle & Glass Co. (as described in Napier’s directives). Dated August 16,1916, this almost certainly marks the
earliest transmission of bottle details to any companies other than Root. It also demonstrates that glass houses
– aside from Root – had the capability to make the bottles by that time." I see several of the clear bottles around ...no city no date...they are from the 1917-1919 period but garner little attention because the lack of mentioned. Interesting to note that they did not advertise the bottle until 1918.


----------



## cobaltbot (Dec 3, 2014)

I posted one I found in this old thread:https://www.antique-bottles.net/forum/NOV-16-1915-VS-NOV-16-1916-m212547.aspx?high=1916 No town name only a 4 on the bottom, no heel or other base numbers unless they were where a little chunk of the heel/base is missing, nice blue color.


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 9, 2014)

Thanks for all the responses. Here is a link to another web site forum about an identical bottle. http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/bottles-glass/338368-cool-coke-bottle.html I may be beating a dead horse but this is what I can conclude.1. They were all made by the same glass house who marked the base "4".2. They are all a distinctive aqua color. (I have noticed the color matches some of the southern bottles I have the period, such as from Alabama, South Carolina, or Georgia, these bottles are more sky blue/ice blue than the aqua's I collect from New York from the same period. Different composition of raw materials probably.3. They are shorter and slightly wider at the hip than the usual 1915 bottle.4. Glass seems crude.5. Probably small glass house. Cheaply made. I don't know why they put 1916.  Anyone think these might have been pirated bottles used to sell imitation Coke? Kind of like the knockoff purses you can buy in any city? They might have copies the design from an advertising sign, as people have posted here, rather than from any specs from Coca Cola. Just a thought.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 9, 2014)

The 1916 date error also occurred on some of the signs as seen in this example from eBay that the seller describes as being from the 1920s ... http://www.ebay.com/itm/ORIGINAL-VINTAGE-COCA-COLA-METAL-SIGN-1916-COKE-BOTTLE-ON-THE-SIDE-/171535526115?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27f05068e3&nma=true&si=BIKAHekAbkfMC5qzf1H7kGx0doE%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557


----------



## iggyworf (Dec 9, 2014)

What about this one?http://www.ebay.com/itm/F...mp;hash=item3f428471ea


----------



## cobaltbot (Dec 9, 2014)

That's a 1915, don't see the connection.


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 9, 2014)

Well I'd assume the 1916 on the bottle was an error...if so why did they run the print adds with the patent 1916 on the bottle. No error bottle exist for Canada...that I'm aware of, but the advertisement I just posted on my thread has the 1916 patent year on the bottle[:-]  http://www.antique-bottle...he-D19-m662650-p3.aspx


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

cobaltbot said:
			
		

> That's a 1915, don't see the connection.



 The connection is in response to my saying earlier I had never seen a "clear" Patent 1915 bottle in which a 1917 Washington Post newspaper article referred to as "corrugated" and "*white*."


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

I'm beginning to suspect it was the Coca Cola parent company in Atlanta, Georgia that created the error dates and not the bottle makers. The reason I say this is because I have seen identical ads which appeared in numerous newspapers across the country between 1917 and 1921 that all depict the same image of a hobbleskirt with the 1916 date. Member Morbious_fod posted one earlier by the Dixie Bottling Works of Bristol, Virginia. I have also found the "identical" ad from ... Statesville, North Carolina ~ August 1917San Antonio, Texas ~ May 1919And the one pictured below from East Liverpool, Ohio ~ September 1919 Because the ads are identical, I suspect they originated from the advertising department in Atlanta and were distributed nationwide to various bottlers. What I find weirdest of all is that the same ad was published for several years without anyone ever correcting it.     Its sort of like which came first, the chicken or the egg? Except in this case, the question is ... *Which came first, the error ads or the error bottles? Or did they occur simultaneously? *


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

For a side-by-side comparison, here are two artist renderings of the same bottle from ... 1.  Statesville, Ohio Ad ~ *1917*2.  Monroe, Louisiana Ad ~ *1921* After clicking on and opening one of the images, place your cursor arrow on the image and gently roll your mouse wheel to change the images back-and-forth. Notice certain details like the little ss on the crown cap and various other details such as the placement of the bubbles. As near as I can determine, they appear to be identical drawings, and yet one is from 1917 and the other is from 1921, which is a five year span of using the same image that has a major error in it.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

P.S. If we can determine the who, what, where, and when the artist image was created, then we might discover the origin of the 1916 date error.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

As Morbious_fod mentioned earlier, the date error could have been the result of a "typo" sent to the glass makers. It would be interesting to know what type of detailed specs the glass makers received, which surely included some type of official drawing from the parent company as well as the measurements and other pertinent information such as the text they wanted embossed on the bottles, not to mention a correct patent year. And because the original patent image is of the wider prototype bottle and the design was changed to a slimmer version before it went into full production, its highly unlikely the glass makers used the patent image for their specs. Even though I've searched but have been unable to find anything related, I have to believe there was some type of specific drawing, etc. that was sent to the glass makers other than the original patent image. But just what that drawing and information was, we may never know for certain.

Part of the explanation could be related to the fact that the prototype bottle was not voted on and chosen as the new bottle style until one of two Coca Cola conventions held in Atlanta, Georgia in January of 1916. It could be that someone got the 1916 convention date mixed up with the bottle's patent date. But if that was the case, just who that "someone" was is the $64 question. Was it one of the design artist - the design department manager - or possibly even one of the head honchos such as the president or vise president of the Coca Cola Company? You'd think someone would have proofed every advertisement and every spec that was sent to the various newspapers and glass makers ahead of time, and yet there is ample evidence with both the ads as well as the bottles themselves that this proofing obviously did not occur.

The following link is to the original 1915 patent. Click on the little image of the bottle and when it changes click again on the blue "original image," which will create an enlargement. Then use the + symbol.

The reason I'm sharing this is to emphasize it wasn't the patent image the glass makers used. They had to of received and used "something else."   

https://www.google.com/patents/USD48160?dq=48160+Bottle&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W4eIVJfTI8PwoATHl4HYBg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

For those who might not know, even though the original patent has Alexander Samuelson's name on it, the original prototype bottle was actually designed/invented by Earl R. Dean. The following link is to a portion of the book titled "The Man Behind The Bottle," which was published in 2010 and written by Earl's son, Norman Dean. Of particular interest are ... Chapter 2 ~ Birth Of The Bottle ~ Page 23Chapter 3 ~ Coke Bottle Inventor Tells His Story ~ Page 40 ... which can be accessed by either speed-scrolling or by clicking on the blue Contents links. Especially notice the part where they talk about the "pencil drawing" that was sent to the U.S. Patent Office and how Earl Dean kept one-half of the drawing. By the way, Dean's half of the drawing sold at auction in 2011 for $228,000.00. The prototype bottle itself sold separately at the same auction for $240,000.00.    https://books.google.com/books?id=dGTbe_4NXkAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Man+Behind+The+Bottle&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9IiIVOrCOompyATz04CYCg&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20Man%20Behind%20The%20Bottle&f=false [ Attachments ] 1.  Book cover2.  Original pencil drawing3.  Original prototype bottle


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 10, 2014)

The 1916 date on that bottle probably came from one glass house that took the letter head date as the patent year. This is from the article............ "The Coca-Cola Co. sent a blueprint drawn by C.W. Mourey to various glasshouses, including the Chattanooga Bottle & Glass Co. (as described in Napier’s directives). Dated August 16,1916, this almost certainly marks the earliest transmission of bottle details to any companies other than Root  ......that blueprint was the revised bottle. As for the advertising with the 1916 Date?....well you have to remember the 1915 patent date applied to the prototype bottle not the revised bottle. The revised bottle had no patent! I assume to protect their interest in the revised bottle they advertised it with the the 1916 patent hoping no one would ever be any wiser....essentially Coca-Cola was flying by the seat of their pants. I don't think the advertisements were errors. Why were other bottles not changed to 1916?...simple...cost! It would have been very expensive to pull molds from production to change the the year to 1916 for which they had no patent anyways, at least the revised bottle bearing the the 1915 patent somewhat resembled the drawings that were submitted to the the US patent office. Well that is what I'm thinking makes the most sense out of all this.Ivan


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 10, 2014)

Link to ebay auction from earlier this year of same bottle. Unfortunately pics are gone. http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-NOV-16-1916-ERROR-HOBBLESKIRT-MOLD-COCA-COLA-BOTTLE-BLUE-3-or-4-KNOWN-/151254352416?nma=true&si=B1v%252FnupT3vpUio4jxrfMj%252FytbiE%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 Link to 2008 thread of similar or same bottle from this site.http://www.antique-bottle...oke-Error-m164299.aspx


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 10, 2014)

Good link there!....so one of the members claims they are not error bottles?...hmmm must have just came from molds made after the fact and they were directed to put the 1916 patent year on them?The bottle in the link is nice!.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

Its varying opinions that make discussions like this interesting. With that said, I disagree with those who feel the 1916 date on certain bottles was intentional and not an error. There are lots of Root Glass Company Coca Cola bottles from 1917 and later that have the correct 1915 patent date on them. So why would it not be considered an error for glass makers who used the 1916 date? It doesn't appear Root had anything to hide, especially when you take into account it was Root that Earl R. Dean worked for and where the first hobbleskirt's were made. Speaking of the Norman L. Dean book, I feel fortunate to have an autographed copy that Norman's son, Jeff, had his father sign for me in 2012. Jeff, of course, is Earl Dean's grandson.


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 10, 2014)

All of these bottles are from one mold, "4".  They are all different than the standard size but identical to each other. They must have come from a small run at a glass house, since there are so few, and they all seem to be from the same place, not from varying different ones.  To me, the seem very early. I believe this may have been a very early production run from a smaller manufacturer that got it wrong (maybe they had an ad and thought it was right?) , and either stopped making them or corrected the problem. Of course, none of us know for sure, but obviously that 1916 date error is not really a random mistake. The bottles along with the ad signs makes this a very intriguing mystery to me, and I bet they are related as others suggest. If only there was someone from Coke who could fill us in ....


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 10, 2014)

Hey that's really neat Bob!...yes your right the various opinions are interesting. It's allot to digest in the mind and come up with a definitive answer. In Canada on the second batch of Hobble skirts the D19 as I refer to it, are retooled molds with the patent year 1915 peened out...we still don't know why for sure this occurred? The assumption is that the patent did not apply in Canada?...not sure if there is some connection in all of this.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

This link ...                                   http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/coca-cola.pdf ... to an article referred to earlier, was published in 2010 by Bill Lockhart and Bill Porter and tells the story best. But even it has varying opinions as to exactly who the first glass makers were for the hobble-skirt bottles other than the Root Glass Company. If these two experts don't know all of the answers, then I don't know who does.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

*If *all of the 1916 bottles do in fact have a "4" on the base and no other identifying marks, then there's possibly a clue of some type related to that number, which I intend to research and see what, if anything, I can find. I have read the Bill Lockhart and Bill Porter article many times, but don't recall any mention of the number "4" bottle.


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 10, 2014)

SODAPOPBOB said:
			
		

> This link ...                                   http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/coca-cola.pdf ... to an article referred to earlier, was published in 2010 by Bill Lockhart and Bill Porter and tells the story best. But even it has varying opinions as to exactly who the first glass makers were for the hobble-skirt bottles other than the Root Glass Company. If these two experts don't know all of the answers, then I don't know who does.


Yup true that Bob! We may never know for sure and I still have questions about my bottles, I was told by my original contact that the Canadian Hobble skirts were made from rejected US bottle molds... and so I just went with that. But you know I wonder if the Canadian glass houses received blueprints just like everyone else and made their own? I can't find any USA bottle that resembles the ones I have.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

Talk about confusing, I wonder if this is another typo? Maybe we are missing something in regards to the 1916 bottles? The attached images are of a limited edition, reproduction hobbleskirt. Notice what it says on the back side of the tag. So what the heck does that mean?  []


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 10, 2014)

It's a Coca-Cola cover up!...or mess up?[]


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

I'm thinking the 1916 date on the tag is referring to when the bottle was voted on and chosen at the 1916 Coca Cola convention in Atlanta and not when the bottle was patented.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

During my initial search regarding the number "4" on the base, I found several examples, all of which so far are on the base of the so called 1916 error bottles. Here's the link to one example, which describes the 4 as being "faint."

By the way, I'm convinced the number 4 is a definite clue of some type and not a mold number. There are too many references to the solo 4 in order for it to be a mere coincidence.      

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/nov-16-1916-error-hobbleskirt-mold-506104844


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

To clarify ... I don't think the number 4 is a mold number because I have never heard of a bottle machine with only one mold. And if there ever was a one-bottle-at-a-time machine, why a mold number at all? Especially the number 4  ???


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

Or is it being suggested that mold number 4 of a ten mold machine was the only mold that had the 1916 date and the nine other molds had the 1915 date?


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 10, 2014)

SODAPOPBOB said:
			
		

> Or is it being suggested that mold number 4 of a ten mold machine was the only mold that had the 1916 date and the nine other molds had the 1915 date?


Yes that would be the case....as he stated all other bottles found seem to be identical down to detail.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

Okey-dokey, then. Let's examine close-ups of three 1916 bottles and see what we can find in the way of them being identical. Bubbles don't count because they would have been random ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

On the two aqua blue bottles, notice the location of 1916 under the letters ERED of REGISTERED. Maybe the difference I'm seeing is do to the camera angle, but then again, maybe not. ???


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

Dmellman Speaking of camera angles, the 1916 on your bottle appears to be farther over under the letters RED in the word REGISTERED. Please check your bottle and let us know exactly how the embossing is positioned. Better yet, howz about a new picture from a straight-on camera angle. Thanks!


----------



## hemihampton (Dec 10, 2014)

Anybody ever figure out what the #4 meant. I got some Michigan Hutch bottles in my collection that, instead of having a bottle or glass makers name or mark it only has the # 4. Always wondered what it meant & now wonder if related to these Cokes? LEON.


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 10, 2014)

Really difficult to tell because the angle of photograph is not the same for each and perceived placement of certain letters looks different. What I see...the first bottle, look at the placement of the last E in Registered...appears centered below the A in Cola. On the other two it appears extended to the edge of the A...If this is correct?...it's a different mold.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

More ... 1.  I don't see a comma between Nov 16 and 19162.  I do see a comma between Nov 16 *, *1916 Or am I just not seeing things? []


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 10, 2014)

FullSizeRender-3.jpgFullSizeRender-2.jpgFullSizeRender.jpg


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 10, 2014)

very interesting. Not the same mold.


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 10, 2014)

SODAPOPBOB said:
			
		

> More ... 1.  I don't see a comma between Nov 16 and 19162.  I do see a comma between Nov 16 *, *1916 Or am I just not seeing things? []


They are different...look carefully at the 16 in 1916...in conjunction with the E in registered above...they line up differently.


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 10, 2014)

FullSizeRender-4.jpg


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 10, 2014)

Dmellman said:
			
		

> FullSizeRender-3.jpgFullSizeRender-2.jpgFullSizeRender.jpg


yup your E lines up like I thought...different mold....as are the other 2


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 10, 2014)

So the 4 may be a plant #?


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

Dmellman: Thanks a million for the great pics. I concur, not the same mold! And yet they all have the mysterious number  ...                                                                *4*


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

Speaking of typos, go to the second or page 47 of the Bill Lockhart / Bill Porter article and notice on Figure 2 and Figure 4 where the caption says the images are for the 1916 patent and not 1915. I guess even experts make errors from time to time. Here's the link again ...  http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/coca-cola.pdf


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 10, 2014)

Also, notice that the bottle is shorter and fatter than a standard 1915 or 1923 bottle. darker aqua is 1916, to the right is a 1915, to the left a Jacksonville straight sided, to the further left, a 1923. The 1916 error bottle is exactly the same height as the Jacksonville bottle.FullSizeRender-5.jpg


----------



## hemihampton (Dec 10, 2014)

Could this #4 on my Hutch heel have the same meaning as the #4 on the Cokes in question? LEON.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

I've been doing some research and my initial findings lead me to suspect the number 4 might represent one of the four plants operated by the Graham Glass Company. On page 52 of the Bill Lockhart/Bill Porter article it shows a chart of the four Graham plants, which were located in ... 1.  Loogootee, Indiana ~ 19172.  Evansville, Indiana ~  1918-1927 3.  Okmulgee, Oklahoma ~  ca. 1920-19264.  Chacotah, Oklahoma ~  1921  Remember, the Patent 1915 bottles were being made as late as 1928 and as late as 1930 by Root Glass. So the 1916 error bottles could have been made anytime between about 1917 and 1928. Additional evidence of my Graham Glass theory is found in Bill Porter's Coca Cola Checklist book where, on page 4, he states ... (in part) "Graham Glass Co., Evansville, Indiana. Until 1920: no mark but usually a large mold number on the base." Hence, my current *guess* is the 1916 error bottles were made by the Graham Glass Company at one of their four plants and the number 4 represents that particular plant. And because Graham didn't start using a makers mark until 1920, I'm *guessing* the 1916 error bottles were made sometime between 1917 and 1920.


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 10, 2014)

Excellent work Bob!...I would agree with your findings that it would be a plant #, evidence being that all those bottles are variations. I have a Coke bottle that had been retooled and the patent date removed and the mold # relocated...on the retooled version you can even see under close examination where they peened out the old location of the #. It's amazing to see!...it's like DNA of a bottle!


----------



## hemihampton (Dec 10, 2014)

I got another hutch with just the #3. Could a coke come with the #3? Or am I way off or out of line here? LEON.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

Leon: I'm not a Hutchison expert, but based on what I know about them, they were produced well into the 1920s. So I'd say its possible your Hutchison bottles were made by the Graham Glass Company and the #3 and #4 *might *represent one of their four plants. Based on the brand names on your Hutchinson bottles, do you happen to know approximately when they were made? As for a solo 3 on the base or heel of early Coca Cola bottles, I'm not aware of any but suppose there could be. ???


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

Is it possible that Bill Porter's reference to "large mold numbers" on the bases of early Graham bottles were actually plant numbers?


----------



## hemihampton (Dec 10, 2014)

As far as I know the hutches were gone by the 1920's. lasted until 1912 as far as I know. Could it still be from Graham? LEON.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

The Graham Glass Company was in operation from circa 1905 to circa 1928. So I'd say its highly possible they produced some Hutchinson bottles. But if they did, I do not know if and/or how they were marked.


----------



## hemihampton (Dec 10, 2014)

That was going to be my next question. Indiana not far from Michigan. Interesting. THANKS, LEON.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 10, 2014)

Clarification ... When Bill Porter said Graham Glass did not use a makers mark until 1920, he was referring to Coca Cola bottles made by Graham and not necessarily other types of bottles, which could very well have been marked prior to 1920. After 1920 Graham started marking their Coca Cola bottles with an 'EG', 'LSQ', 'OG', 'G', along with their code for Coca Cola bottles which was the number '576'


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 11, 2014)

On this example notice the 1916 almost extends beyond the RED in REGISTERED. It was described as having a solo 4 on the base but no other marks. The 4 is definitely a common denominator - just wish I knew for sure what it stands for.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 11, 2014)

Something that might help determine the meaning of the number 4 is to narrow down the *location *where the 1916 bottles are turning up. The one I just posted was said to have been found tangled among the roots of a tree on a creek bank in *southern Connecticut*. Which should be a good clue because it no doubt had been laying there since it was tossed away and possibly originated in that part of the country. I should have thought of this earlier, and will go back and see if I can discover what part of the country some of the other bottles originated.  Regarding dates, it was around 1919 when they started embossing the town/state on the base.


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 11, 2014)

I got mine in Harrisonburg, VA. The eBay one was from Cumberland, MD. 

What bottle was that last picture. It looks like a match to mine.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 11, 2014)

Dm Thanks for the info. The last bottle I posted was found in Connecticut. Are the locations you listed where the bottles were *found *or where they were bought and/or shipped from? If found, that gives us ... 1. Connecticut2. Maryland3. Virginia ... which is not conclusive but appears to narrow it down somewhat to the same general region.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 11, 2014)

This chart is from the Bill Lockhart/Bill Porter article and is a list of what they claim are the first glass companies to produce the patent 1915 bottles. I placed a red star on those I think are the best candidates who might have made the 1916 error bottles. At this juncture I am working on the assumption that the 1916 bottles probably originated in the northeastern part of the United States. Your guess is as good as mine as to which of these glass makers, if any of them, actually made the 1916 error bottles. ???


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 11, 2014)

Possible Clue ... In Bill Porter's Checklist book, he says ... "One of my favorites was Reed Glass in Rochester, N.Y. They used an 'R' in a triangle for a mark, and had *blue* bottles." He even underlined the word blue.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 11, 2014)

P.S. I'm eliminating Root Glass as a possible candidate because in Bill Porter's book he says ... "All Root bottles from 1909 on are dated and all have Root somewhere."


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 11, 2014)

I'm also eliminating Lynchburg Glass because Bill Porter says (in part) ... " ... they used gray glass." He underlined the word gray.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 11, 2014)

Based on what I've come up with, that leaves ... 1.  Graham Glass2.  F.E. Reed & Co.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 11, 2014)

I've decided to eliminate Reed Glass because ... 1.  Bill Porter says they used an 'R' in a triangle with no indication their bottles were never marked.2.  They didn't start producing hobbleskirts until 1920, and by that time most of the bottles were     embossed with a town/state on the base. The only glass maker I can come up with that made 1915 hobbleskirts and didn't use a makers mark prior to 1917 was ... *The Graham Glass Company*


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 11, 2014)

This might sound like a conspiracy theory, but did-ja know that Graham Glass also entered a bottle at the 1916 Coca Cola convention in Atlanta, Georgia where Earl R. Dean's/Root Glass bottle was selected? There's an interesting story surrounding the Graham bottle, which I won't go into now, but suffice it to say the Graham entry was a non-winner which resurfaced in recent years and is now considered an extremely rare and valuable bottle. But what's most interesting is, the Graham bottle was patented in 1916 and I suspect there might have been some hard feelings between Graham Glass and the Coca Cola Company because the Root bottle was selected over the Graham bottle. Who knows, maybe Graham did produce the 1916 error bottles and intentionally marked them with the wrong patent date to get back at Coca Cola for not choosing their bottle. 1.  November 21, 1916 Patent for Graham bottle2.  Graham bottle that was entered at the 1916 convention - embossed with Coca Cola


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 11, 2014)

*In Search of ...* *Any *soda bottle with a solo number 4 on the base, especially if it's somehow related to the Graham Glass Company.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 11, 2014)

Here's the base on the 1916 non-winning Graham Coca Cola prototype bottle, which obviously does not have the number 4 on it ...


----------



## cobaltbot (Dec 11, 2014)

Mine was found in Maryland.


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 11, 2014)

Only problem with the conspiracy theory is the advertising had 1916 on the bottles.


----------



## jblaylock (Dec 12, 2014)

Just wanted to say I love reading threads that SPB is investigating a mystery.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

As for my so called investigative skills, some of you might think differently about them after reading the following. 
Due to some conflicting information between Bill Porter's 1996 Checklist book and the 2010 Bill Lockhart/Bill Porter article, I am inclined to eliminate the Graham Glass Company as having produced the 1916 error bottles. Originally I was relying on information from the Checklist where Bill clearly states ...

"Until 1920: No mark but usually a large mold number on the base."

The first thing I question is how Bill Porter or anyone could possibly know who made a particular bottle if it did not have a makers mark?  What could there be about an otherwise unmarked bottle with only a large mold number on the base that identifies it as a Graham bottle? But that's only part of the confusion; on page 50 of the 2010 article the authors state ...

"Beginning in 1916, Graham added a unique date code system. These codes were based on letters, starting with "P" - the 16th letter of the alphabet:"

P = 1916
Q = 1917
R = 1918
S = 1919

So, as you can see, the information is conflicting as well as confusing to say the least. I suppose its possible that sometime between 1996, when the Checklist was first published, and 2010, when the article was written, that Bill Lockhart and/or Bill Porter finally figured things out which resulted in the new, updated information pertaining to the Graham Glass Company. And if things weren't confusing enough already, there's also this from the 2010 article ...

"On June 28, 1916, the Owens Bottle Co. bought the entire Graham Glass operation but continued to run it under the Graham Glass Co. name." 

Plus, as member Canadacan and others have pointed out, there's the advertisements and signs to consider, which also display the 1916 error date. Surely Graham, nor any glass maker for that matter, could have been directly involved and responsible for all of that!

So without further ado, I have no choice except to go back to square-one and focus my attention on three primary targets, namely ...

1.  Small glass factories
2.  The northeastern part of the United States
3.  The number 4

... which I feel are the most reliable clues presented thus far regarding the bottles themselves. As for the advertisements and signs, that presents an even bigger challenge which might never be determined.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

Just for the record ... ( To illustrate the confliction and confusion ) 1.  Graham information from Bill Porter's 1996 Checklist book2.  Graham information from Bill Lockhart / Bill Porter 2010 article3.  Graham date code chart / timeline


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

To help put things into perspective, I placed a *green* star on the states where the 1916 error bottles have been found thus far, which are ... 1. Connecticut2. Maryland3. Virginia


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

We can speculate all day long regarding the shipping cost from glass manufacturer to bottler and how it might factor into things, but because we're talking about 1917 through 1920, I'd say it was a definite concern. Hence, my guess is the glass maker who produced the 1916 error bottles was located somewhere within close proximity of the three states shown on the map ... but where?


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

Here's the chart of early Coca Cola bottle makers again so we don't have to click back to view it. Of course, if the 1916 error bottles were produced by an obscure / small glass factory, that factory would not be on the chart. I'm mainly posting the chart again to have it near the map, which might cause something to jump out at us.


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 12, 2014)

I'm with you...make sense to me. So I assume the #4 still pertains to a glass plant?....which still could have been owned by a parent company?


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 12, 2014)

Could it be a Owens plant #? Graham owned by Owens Bottle Company after 1916, plants became part of Owens-Illinois in 1929.


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 12, 2014)

Well there it is plant # 4...one or the other I guess. Table 1 – Owens Bottle Co. – Factory Numbers, Locations, and Dates* No.** Location Former Name Dates of Operation
1 Libbey St., Toledo, OH Toledo Glass Co. 1903-[1919] 1929†
2 W. Toledo, OH Northwestern Ohio Bottle Co. 1904-[1911] 1918
3 Fairmont, WV Owens West Virginia Bottle Co. 1909-[1911] 1929†
4 Westlake St., Toledo, OH Libbey Glass Co. 1913-1915
4*** Clarksburg, WV Owens Eastern Bottle Co. 1912-[1915] 1929†
– Evansville, IN Graham Glass Co. 1916-1929
– Loogootee, IN Graham Glass Co. 1916-1926
– Okmulgee, OK Graham Glass Co. 1916-1929
– Chekotah, OK Graham Glass Co. 1916-1923
– Newark, OH American Bottle Co. 1916-1929
– Streator, IL American Bottle Co. 1916-1929
5 Greenfield, IN Greenfield Fruit Jar & Bottle Co. 1917††-1921
6 Charleston, WV Owens Bottle Machine Co. 1918-1929
7 Glassboro, NJ #1 Whitney Glass Works 1918†††-1919
8 Glassboro NJ #2 Owens Bottle Machine Co. 1918-1929
5 ‡ Cincinnati, OH Charles Boldt Glass Mfg. Co. 1919-1926
2‡‡ Huntington, WV Charles Boldt Glass Mfg. Co. 1919-1929

* Most of the information in this table was taken from a Table 11, Scoville (1948:113). Dates,
however, are also from elsewhere in the book, Toulouse (1971:393-397), Miller & McNichol
(2002:6-8), or the Owens annual reports.
** Since the companies purchased (as opposed to factories built) retained their former identities,
they were not numbered like the ones originating with Owens and bearing the Owens name.
*** The Clarksburg plant received No. 4, when the Westlake plant closed in 1915.
† These factories remained in business until at least the end of the Owens era; the number in
brackets reflects the date they were absorbed into either the Owen Bottle Machine Co. or the
Owens Bottle Co.
†† Owens may have owned the Greenfield plant by November 14, 1916 (Roller 1994:41).
††† Owens gained control in 1915 but did not own all the stock until 1918. The plant continued
to operate under the Whitney name until the 1918 acquisition.
‡ The Cincinnati factory became Plant No. 5 after the Greenfield factory closed in 1921.
‡‡ The Huntington factory became Plant No. 2 after the W. Toledo factory closed in 1918.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

CC At this juncture I'd say anything is possible. I'm currently focusing on *F.E. Reed & Co., Rochester, New York*, which Bill Porter describes in his Checklist book as being one of the small glass makers at the time and who made blue Coca Cola bottles.


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 12, 2014)

And it's in the right  location..?  4*** Clarksburg, WV Owens Eastern Bottle Co. 1912-[1915] 1929†They received the #4 designation when Westlake closed in 1915.


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 12, 2014)

It almost seems that #4 is in a plant code position.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

CC Here's the link for others to see where you found the Owens Glass information ... http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/owensbottlecompany.pdf However, based on everything I've seen and read so far, I can't find any indication that Owens Glass Company ever produced Coca Cola bottles of any type. Are you aware of any? The only connection between Owens Glass and Coca Cola I'm aware of is when Owens Glass purchased Graham Glass in 1916 but continued to operate under the Graham name and not the Owens name. Plus, according to most sources, the Owens Glass Company used an "O" in a "square" [O] mark from 1911 to 1929, which is when they merged with the Illinois Glass Company to become Owens-Illinois Glass Company.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

Correction ... The [O] mark was patented in 1919 and not 1911. However, I still can't find where Owens Glass ever produced any Coca Cola bottles of any type. ???


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 12, 2014)

Well sure they did...my 1936 bottle with the Dec. 25, 1923 patent is from Owens Illinois ...and is from Plant #4 Clarksburg, WV .....and they shipped them all across the land!...mine is marked Eureka Cal.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

CC If your bottle is a 1936, then it could not have been made by *Owens Glass *because Owens Glass was not in existence in 1936. Remember, Owens Glass and Illinois Glass merged in 1929 to become Owens-Illinois.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

CC The mark your are referring to probably looks something like this ... *4 <(I)> 6 * ... which is an Owens-Illinois mark first used in 1929-1930


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 12, 2014)

Hmmm... just another snippet from the article....this was around 1917 The Clarksburg factory remained in production and became a plant of the Owens-Illinois Glass Co., retaining its distinction as Plant No. 4 in the new company.


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 12, 2014)

SODAPOPBOB said:
			
		

> CC The mark your are referring to probably looks something like this ... *4 <(I)> 6 * ... which is an Owens-Illinois mark first used in 1929-1930


yup that's  the one...........actually    4 <(I)> 36


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

Thanks ... That's an Owens-Illinois mark and not an Owen's mark! I'm not saying Owens Bottle Company/Owens Glass Company did not use plant number, because they did. I'm just saying that prior to 1929 Owens Glass and Illinois Glass were two entirely different companies that merged in 1929. I'm also saying I can't find any indication whatsoever showing where *Owens Glass* ever produced any Coca Cola bottles.


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 12, 2014)

Yea I know what your saying..lol   Digesting some of this it just points out that Coke bottles were made at the #4 plant in Clarksburg right. But is there concrete proof that Owens did?..no , at least not under the Owens trade mark.Is there proof that that Coke with the #4 came from Vicksburg?...noBut this may be a possibility when you connect the dots.....It just seems like an odd coincident that my bottle is from Clarksburg....and that plant was owned by Owens before the merger.... Had the look at the original question again[] ..he picked the bottle up in Virginia.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

CC I hear ya! [] Crazy and confusing all rolled into one! Please continue your Owens search. In the meantime ... 
Please note I am wide open to suggestion and fully prepared to explore all possibilities. I also want to emphasize I am totally guessing at present as to who made the 1916 error bottles. But somebody obviously made them and it's that "somebody" I'm hoping to find. Also note I'm trying to follow clues, as meager as they are, with the hope that one clue will lead to another and another until the mystery is eventually solved. Speaking of which, as I said earlier, the clue I'm currently following focuses on the Reed Glass Company because ...

1.  Bill Porter referred to them in his book as a "small" glass company.
2.  Bill Porter stated in his book they were known for having produced "blue" hobbleskirts.

At present I know zilch about Reed Glass other than at some point they used an 'R' in a triangle for their mark. What I'm hoping to establish currently is "when" they first started using the 'R' mark?


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

More confusion, but at least its a start ...

http://www.glassbottlemarks.com/bottlemarks-4/

R in a triangle ... Reed Glass Company, Rochester, New York (c.1927-1956). The 1927-1956 date range is given by Julian Toulouse in _Bottle Makers and their Marks_ (1971).  *However*, I received a report from Taylor McBurney who confirms this mark on an older, square handmade bottle (prob. Circa 1890-1915) so, assuming Reed was the maker of that bottle, they apparently used the “R in a triangle” much earlier than stated by Toulouse. The “R in a triangle” might also indicate another, unrelated and unidentified company. See “Reed”, Rochester Glass Works, “C-H” mark.

Reed ... F.E.Reed Glass Company (or Reed Glass Company), Rochester, New York (c.1899-1956). See Rochester Glass Works.

Rochester Glass Works ... Rochester Glass Works, Rochester, New York (1862-1908). Alice Creswick in _The Fruit Jar Works _(1995:273) shows this chronology for the Rochester Glass Works and succeeding firms, evidently from city directory listings researched by either herself or Dick Roller: Rochester Glass Works (1862-1881); Kelley & Co. (1882-1885); Kelley, Reed & Co. (1886-1887); Eugene Reed & Co. (1888-1889); E. P. Reed & Co. (1890-1894); Rochester Glass Works (1895-1898); F. E. Reed Glass Company/Works (1899-1900); Rochester Glass Works (1901-1908); F. E. Reed & Co. (or F.E.Reed Glass Co.) (1909-1927); Reed Glass Co. (1927-1946); and Reed Glass Co., Inc. (1947-1956). Several marks were used at various times by this factory, and the exact period of time during which each mark was used is not completely certain at this time. Known marks include “Reed”,  “F.E.R.”,  “F.E.R.G.Co.”,  “R in a triangle”,  and “Rochester Glass Wks”. Some bottles are known with the marking “Rochester NY Glass Works” embossed in a circle on the base. The full factory name could _conceivably_ have been embossed on bottles dating from anytime within the 1862-1908 timeframe.    After a time of inactivity, the Reed Glass Company  plant at Rochester was purchased by Castle-Hanson Corporation in 1959, and the “C-H” mark was used for some period of time thereafter. Later, Leone Industries, based in Bridgeton, New Jersey, purchased the plant and their “L in an unconnected square” mark was used on ware produced at Rochester as well as Bridgeton. Exact dates of later operations of this factory are unclear. (See “R in a triangle”, “C-H”, and “L in an unconnected square” marks).


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 12, 2014)

Hmmm...two angles to work at! ...I have seen a reed embossed REED on the heel...can't remember where.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

I'm finding lots of Reed 1915 hobbleskirts and liking what I'm seeing. Without exception every example I've seen so far is aqua/ice blue in color. However, other than the color connection to the 1916 error bottles, the various 1915 Reed bottles are all embossed in some manner with the Reed identifying mark. Plus, all but the one shown here were apparently produced after 1919-1920 and have the town/state on the base. The interesting thing about the one pictured below is the base is blank and the accompanying caption describes it as ... "Coca Cola hobbleskirt bottle Pat'd Nov. 16, 1915 made by Reed #251 in a light blue/green - deep aqua color. It has no city or state on bottom. Crudely made with thin/thick glass, some bubbles, lines in glass." Of course lots of the first 1915 hobbleskirts were "crudely" made and had bubbles, but its the color that has really captured my attention.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

In case anyone is confused about the blue color I keep referring to, here's a 1916 error bottle next to a 1915 green bottle. Unless I missed something, I believe all of the 1916 error bottles are blue.


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 12, 2014)

Here are images from a 1938 Rand McNally commercial atlas I have. One isIMG_5758.PNG roads, the other railroads. I have circled the location of the bottles.FullSizeRender-6.jpg


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 12, 2014)

I got my bottle in Harrisonburg, VA. Cumberland MD is straight north. It may have come from Maryland. It was with dug bottles from the period from Cumberland. MD, Hagerstown, MD, Staunton, VA, Lynchburg, VA, Roanoke, VA, Alexandria, VA, Portsmouth, VA, Richmond, VA, Charlottesville, VA, Winchester, VA, and several West VA towns. Travel then from Cumberland, Hagerstown, Winchester, Staunton, Roanoke was common back then. I also am from Central New York. I collect Rochester stuff. Rochester bottles frequently moved east, not usually south, but anything is possible.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

Dmellman Great information! Because your 1916 error bottle was "dug" along with other bottles, have you checked the other bottles to see what glass factories made them? I realize this is a longshot, but there might be a connection between who made the other bottles and who made the 1916 error bottle.


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 12, 2014)

Bottle is more crude than any central or western NY bottle I have from that period or even earlier.  I am not sure about Rochester. The bottle seems southern to me. West Virginia? South Carolina? Virginia? Western Maryland? Just a feeling from having hundreds of central new york bottles.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

Dmellman The only other "dug" bottle I'm aware of is the one I posted from Connecticut. It was described as having been found tangled among the roots of a tree on the bank of a stream, and that the tree had toppled over during hurricane Sandy, so I'm assuming the bottle had been there a long time. As the crow flies, it is approximately 350 miles from Harrisonburg, Virginia to the southernmost coast of Connecticut, which leads me to suspect the error bottles originated somewhere in the northeastern region of the U.S. As you know, Connecticut borders southern New York state. Rochester, of course, is in northern New York state.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

I'm beginning to think the only way we are going to even come close to figuring this out is by finding another 1920 or earlier bottle with a solo 4 on the base. No matter how small of a glass factory it was that produced the error bottles, surely they made other bottles marked similarly. What I'm hoping to find is a bottle with a solo 4 that can be identified and possibly dated by the bottler's name that's embossed on it. Find another solo 4 bottle and the mystery "might" be solved!


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

Check it out ... Does a big number *6 *count? []  http://www.fohbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/DatingEarlyCocaColaBottles.pdf


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 12, 2014)

Guys another one to investigate is Lynchburg glass works...1919-1922


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 12, 2014)

They are listed in Bill's article as  producer in the correct time line....they also produced medicine bottles. Possible that #4 is a product #...  Not a plant #.


----------



## hemihampton (Dec 12, 2014)

That article said Macon Georgia was "4"


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

Hey, CC Something weird is going on here! I was literally in the process of reading the info on this link when you posted your Lynchburg query. How strange is that?  http://www.lynchburginsulators.info/L-lookalikes.html


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

hemihampton said:
			
		

> That article said Macon Georgia was "4"



Hemi Are you referring to the article I posted a link to about dating early Coca Cola bottles? If so, which page did you find the reference to Macon, Georgia "4"


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 12, 2014)

Macon did not make early bottles...or Bill at least did not list that state. Besides that far south Coke would not like the blue glass... They specified green.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

Number, numbers, read all about them ... that is if you want to be as confused as I am [8|]            http://www.glassbottlemarks.com/numbers-on-base-of-bottles-containers/


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

Because the general consensus seems to be leaning toward smaller, more obsolete glass makers, the answer might be found here ... and if not an answer, perhaps a new clue. Because the info on the link is so extensive, I've only had time to do a brief search. http://www.sodasandbeers.com/SABBottleManufBeerSoda.htm


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 12, 2014)

Here is another, non-Coke, but Coke knock off from the same era, also picked up from the same place as the 1916 Coke. Looking at the base, it is eerily similar. Difference is , #2 instead of #4, and LGW 21 at edge of base. Both cup bottom molds, both have similar triangular bubbles in the glass, and they are the same color, although in these pics it is hard to tell.FullSizeRender-7.jpgFullSizeRender-8.jpgFullSizeRender-9.jpg


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

At first I didn't see the 2 in the center, but I do now! Fantastic find!


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

For side-by-side comparison ... 1.  Coca Cola error bottle with 42.  LGW 21 bottle with 2


----------



## hemihampton (Dec 12, 2014)

SODAPOPBOB said:
			
		

> hemihampton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 YES, Where it sez page 54, continued from page 15. In the middle column about 2/3rds down. LEON.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

Hemi Thanks - found it! Except the confusing thing is, it says those so called experimental marks were used by Root in circa 1905 and then discontinued. So I really don't know what to make of it. ???


----------



## hemihampton (Dec 12, 2014)

Maybe it means my hutch with the 4 was made by root?


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

Dmellman *If *there is a connection between your two bottles, the numbers could very easily represent a mold "style" or "brand" number as opposed to a mold "count" number. In other words, the Apl-Cola mold might have been cataloged simply as mold #2. Whereas the Coca Cola mold might have been cataloged as mold #4  Are you absolutely sure there are no telltale remnants of a LGW or some other type of marks somewhere on the base? It could be the marks didn't set properly when the molten glass was poured into the mold and it might require a magnifying glass to see them.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

hemihampton said:
			
		

> Maybe it means my hutch with the 4 was made by root?



If the 4 is on the *base* of your hutch bottle, then my guess is "possibly." But if the 4 is on the heel, then my guess is "probably not." I believe the article said the experimental numbers were on the "base" and not the heel.


----------



## hemihampton (Dec 12, 2014)

Somewhere in the article it said the # on the heel was the year for certain glass co's. LEON.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

Everyone's gotta read about Laurens Glass Works in the 2010 Lockhart/Porter article. It talks about blue bottles and no makers mark prior to 1919. It might be what we've been looking for. Here's the link again. Scroll to Page 52 ...  http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/coca-cola.pdf


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

P.S. Dmellman If your error bottle is hand blown (BIM) and has an applied lip, according to the article it could very well be an "unmarked" Laurens Glass Works (LGW) bottle. Please tell me it's a BIM with an applied lip. []


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

P.S. ~ P.S. The article also says the unmarked LGW bottles did not have a *comma *between Nov 16 and 1915


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

Remember this 1916 error bottle without a comma?  Hmmm, I wonder?


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

Triple P.S. Bill Porters Checklist book states ... "Laurens Glass Works, Laurens S.C.Until 1919: no mark (applied lip bottles)."


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 12, 2014)

Dmellman said:
			
		

> It is early ABM given the seams.



Are you saying the mold seams go up to and over the lip?


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 12, 2014)

SODAPOPBOB said:
			
		

> Remember this 1916 error bottle without a comma?  Hmmm, I wonder?


Yea that could be the one?.....I guess like Bill said...nothing is absolute with some dates and details..it's as accurate as can be with bottles they had to sample, sometimes a larger sampling of bottles is required to draw a proper conclusion. I wonder if he actually knows this bottle?


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 13, 2014)

Here's the Laurens Glass Works portion of the 2010 Lockhart/Porter article. The word "punctuation" is referring to the lack of a comma between Nov 16 and 1915 [Cropped into two parts]


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 13, 2014)

Here's one of the 1916 error bottles I came across and is the only one I could find with a picture of the lip. I don't see a distinct mold seam on the top of the lip, but there might be one that's hard to see.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 13, 2014)

I have a feeling Dmellman is going to inform us that his error bottle is machine made (ABM) and not hand blown in a mold (BIM). In anticipation of that announcement I draw your attention to the portion of the 2010 article I underlined in red where it says ... *"At least one machine-made bottle was probably produced in late 1919."*


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 13, 2014)

I will post a detailed picture of the mold seams later. The bottle has a Parison mold seam with a fading ghost mold seam near the base and a blow mold seam, and a neck ring parting line. The finish seam is about 5 degrees from the Parison mold seam and extends to the top of the finish on both sides.  There are no suction marks on the base that I can tell. It was most likely a semi-automatic blow and blow bottle machine. Interestingly, the Laurens Glass Works (LGW 21) bottle I posted has the same seams in the same orientation, same length, same degree apart, except the finish seam lines up exactly with the Parison mold seam. That bottle was marked as made in 1921. The coke bottle must be earlier, likely on the first installation of their new bottle machine (1919 maybe?) As you asked, on the base of the Coke there is no evidence of LGW at all. But the Porter article states the earlier bottles didn't have it. I will post pics later to show you what I am saying.


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 13, 2014)

If the error bottles are Laurens, then they occured at least 2 years after they were already making hobble skirts.  Why the 1916 date. They should have known better. That part makes no sense.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 13, 2014)

Dm Thank you for that well worded description of your bottle. There's nothing I like better than proper terminology when it comes to describing soda bottles. Now if we could only get eBay sellers to follow suit. I totally agree that those responsible for the errors should have known better. The same thing applies to the advertisements and signs. Please be reminded of the two ads pictured below, both of which are from 1919. I still suspect the artist renderings originated from the parent company in Atlanta, Georgia, especially when you take into account the bottle images are almost, if not totally identical to one another. I looked around and found lots of 1915 hobbleskirts produced by Laurens Glass Works, all of which were marked in some manner. However, of the examples that had detailed descriptions and/or pictures by knowledgeable sellers, all were from 1920 or later. None of the later bottles I'm referring to were error bottles - all of them had the correct patent date of 1915. Because of those later examples, we can be certain that Laurens Glass Works was well aware of the correct patent date during it's post 1920 production. But the question still remains unanswered as to whether Lauren's got it right the first time around? And if it wasn't Laurens, it was definitely somebody. At least Laurens was located in the proper region at the time, which was in South Carolina. 1.  Error Ad ~ The Evening Review ~ East Liverpool, Ohio ~ May 31, 19192.  Error Ad ~ Monroe News-Star ~ Monroe, Louisiana ~ July 25, 1919 Observation:  *1919* seems to be the year most often associated with the various errors!


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 13, 2014)

Regarding the 1919 Ouachita ad from Monroe, Louisiana ... that bottling facility was headed by Joseph Biedenharn who is accredited as having been one of the first bottlers of Coca Cola. You'd think if anyone would know better and get the patent date right it would have been him!


----------



## hemihampton (Dec 13, 2014)

What happened to the Valley on the older straight sided cokes, They must of shortened it to just Quachita? Pic of bottom of Coke below. LEON.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 13, 2014)

hemihampton said:
			
		

> What happened to the Valley on the older straight sided cokes, They must of shortened it to just Quachita? Pic of bottom of Coke below. LEON.



*Read all about it ... * https://www.antique-bottles.net/forum/Monroe-La-Straight-side-coke-m660901.aspx


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 13, 2014)

*                           X 4 ~ Laurens Glass Works ~ Coca Cola Bottle ~ 1942* http://www.fohbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/CocaColaXBottle.pdf I've seen examples of the X bottle before but never knew the story behind it until now. But what's especially interesting about the article is found in the last paragraph where they refer to the bottle as the mold number 4 bottle. However, the reference does not sound to me like they are talking about a sequence of mold numbers such a 1,2,3,4, etc. It sounds more specific as if the number 4 held some special significance. Check it out and see what you think. By the way, now that I know the story about the X bottle, I want one more than ever.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 13, 2014)

I'll go ahead and ask the question that I suspect might be on more than just a few of our minds .. Question: I wonder if the number 4 was Laurens Glass Works code for anything they produced that was related to Coca Cola?


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 13, 2014)

This is the most comprehensive histories of the Laurens Glass Works I've ever read. Of special interest is found on page 34 where it confirms that Laurens did not start using a makers mark until *1919* ... http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=lib_facpub&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dfrom%2520cracked%2520to%2520perfect%2520bottles%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCoQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarcommons.sc.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1022%2526context%253Dlib_facpub%26ei%3DD3yvUYuNN4i2yAHioICwCw%26usg%3DAFQjCNE3Epod7yqRGpJpDXRvz45t60vr2w#search=%22from%20cracked%20perfect%20bottles%22


----------



## hemihampton (Dec 13, 2014)

SODAPOPBOB said:
			
		

> hemihampton said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OH, OK, Very Interesting. I only read the first couple of pages months ago. Did not read all that other stuff until now. Only some of it now though, to many pages. LEON.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 14, 2014)

Notice in this snippet from the 2011 Doug McCoy article about the Coca Cola X bottle where I underlined in red that the *location *of the *plant *where the experiments for the bottle were conducted was in *Baltimore, Maryland*. Even though Doug McCoy refers to the *4* as a mold number, I question this because I have never seen a mold number on the side of a bottle. They are always on the base. But what I have seen on the side and/or heel of numerous Coca Cola hobbleskirts, especially those made by Owens-Illinois, are a makers marks, dates, and *plant location numbers*. You can draw your own conclusions, but as for myself, I am inclined to think the *4 *is a plant number and not a mold number. However, what I don't know just yet, but intend to research, is more about a Laurens plant located in Baltimore, Maryland. And for those who might have forgotten, please be reminded that one of the 1916 error bottles was found in *Maryland*. (To be continued)


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 14, 2014)

And here's the image of the bottle showing ... *4 L 42*


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 14, 2014)

I will do a follow up on this later with more details, but I just found a couple of references saying that Laurens bottle molds were not made at the Laurens plant in South Carolina plant but they were made and ordered from a subsidiary of Laurens in Baltimore, Maryland who specialized in making bottle molds. I believe the company's name was The Emhart Corporation.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 14, 2014)

In other words ... 1.  The molds were made in Baltimore, Maryland2.  The bottles were made in Laurens, South Carolina


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 14, 2014)

On page 29 of the Laurens Glass Works history article I posted a link to it states (in part) ... " ... Laurens purchased molds from factories in Toledo, Ohio and other mideastern factories."  (More Later)


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 14, 2014)

P.S. It never dawned on me until now, but its possible that *all *glass manufactures purchased their molds from outside sources. When you stop and think about it, mold making would require a foundry-type operation that melted steel to form the molds. Based on what I know about most glass factories, I don't think they were set up for molten steel, especially involving the making of hundreds of different types of molds. Sure, glass factories had mold "shops / departments," but that doesn't necessarily mean the molds were actually made there.


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 14, 2014)

I would think it's a plant # as well. On a side note, all my early Canadians have the mold # on the side.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

Here's an interesting read where the owner of an early Laurens Glass Works hobbleskirt Coca Cola bottle says its a BIM marked with LGW 17 for 1917. But notice in the comments where Bill Porter (oldcokes) sets the record straight and points out the bottle is actually marked LGW 19 for 1919 and not 1917. However, there is no dispute the bottle is a BIM, Blown In a Mold. Click on any of the images and they will open in a separate window with a + cursor where you can click on them again to enlarge. There is no mold number that I can see. But it at least confirms that Laurens did in fact produce a BIM hobbleskirt as early as 1919.  http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/28305-very-rare-bim-hobbleskirt-bottle 1. Front2. Back3. Heel with *LGW 19*


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

P.S. I just noticed that Bill Porter's first comment is tagged as having been posted "3 years ago" whereas his last comment is tagged as having been posted "1 year ago" *oldcokes*, _1 year ago_
"The pic shows clearly LGW 19. That is the earliest dated Laurens Coke bottle. The dated Tampa is indeed much rarer than the earlier undated one, or the later ABM."  Notice where he refers to an "*undated*" bottle.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

Because of the evidence presented in my last post regarding the LGW 19 BIM 
bottle, I am eliminating Laurens Glass Works as having made the 1916 error 
bottles. The reason I say this is because all of the 1916 error bottles 
presented thus far were machine made. Consequently, it is extremely unlikely 
that Laurens would make a BIM bottle with their makers mark and date mark on it 
and then later on make a machine made bottle without their marks.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

P.S. I forgot to point out the LGW 19 BIM bottle also has Tampa, Fla. on the base, which was a requirement initiated by the Coca Cola Company in 1919. In my opinion there's now way that Laurens would start making machine made bottles after the BIM bottles and not have the town/state on the base.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

Which means I'm back to ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

*However ...* Because of the comparisons we did earlier which indicated the various error bottles did not come from identical molds, I am still of the opinion the number *4*, which is on the base of every error bottle presented thus far, is not a mold number and most likely has to represent something else. And if not a mold number, the only thing I can think of that it *might *be is a *makers mark *or a *plant mark*. So I'm back to searching for glass manufacturers, both big and small, who at some point might have used a 4 as one of their marks.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

P.S. I'm also leaning toward the error bottles as having been produced prior to 1919, which is when the Coca Cola Company initiated certain requirements, including having the town/state embossed on the base.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

*Or ...* The number *4 *might have been the glass manufacture's *code number *for anything/everything they produced related to Coca Cola. Hence, I am leaning toward the number 4 as possibly representing one of the following ... 1.  Glass Makers Number2.  Glass Makers Plant Number3.  Coca Cola Code Number


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 15, 2014)

My gut feeling is still with Clarksburg, It states they made medicines as well as propitiatory bottles?We know they made Coke bottles there at a latter date under the Owens Illinois name, and were well equipped to make them during 1917-1919.But It must be tied into something in here http://www.sha.org/bottle...owensbottlecompany.pdfAmerican Bottle Co. completely controlled the manufacture of soda and beer bottles by the Owens machine from 1905 to 1929?...hmmm.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

Dmellman said:
			
		

> I will post a detailed picture of the mold seams later. The bottle has a Parison mold seam with a fading ghost mold seam near the base and a blow mold seam, and a neck ring parting line. The finish seam is about 5 degrees from the Parison mold seam and extends to the top of the finish on both sides.  *[ *There are no suction marks on the base that I can tell.*]* It was most likely a semi-automatic blow and blow bottle machine. Interestingly, the Laurens Glass Works (LGW 21) bottle I posted has the same seams in the same orientation, same length, same degree apart, except the finish seam lines up exactly with the Parison mold seam. That bottle was marked as made in 1921. The coke bottle must be earlier, likely on the first installation of their new bottle machine (1919 maybe?) As you asked, on the base of the Coke there is no evidence of LGW at all. But the Porter article states the earlier bottles didn't have it. I will post pics later to show you what I am saying.



CC I've read the Owens article before and re-read it again looking for specific clues. I agree, *if *the error bottles were made by Owens, the most likely candidate would have been their factory No. 4 in Clarksburg, West Virginia. However, there are two important attributes discussed in the article that I feel need pointed out ... 1.  Most if not all Owen's bottles were embossed with some type makers mark such as an O in a     square [O] etc. 2.  One of the most distinguishable attributes of Owen's bottles, which is mentioned numerous     times in the article, is what the authors refer to as an "*Owens Scar / Suction Mark*." Because the "Owens Scar / Suction Mark" seems to factor into almost every aspect of properly identifying an Owens bottle, and because Dmellan stated earlier he could not see any indication of the marks (which I boxed in red above from his earlier post), I have to question whether the error bottles have the Owens suction/scars or not? If the error bottles have suction/scars, then I'd say there is every reason to believe the error bottles were in fact made by Owens. But if they don't have the suction/scars, then I'd say they were not made by Owens.      Here's ... 1.  The base of Dmellman's error bottle2.  An example of an Owen's suction/scar      Note:  Owens Scars / Suction Marks are the faint, hairline circle on the base


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

To clarify ... When I say "Made by Owens" ... I mean "Made by an Owens *Machine*"


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

Dmellman : Owens suction scars should not be all that difficult to see. I suspect your error bottle either has one or it doesn't!  What say you?


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 15, 2014)

Hmm.. yes that is true in regards to the suction scar, that bottle base dose look like a BIM , and Clarksburg primarily used ABM or semi automatic. So the the key is to find out which plant would have done it in BIM at that time.Still gota be something Owens controlled I think?...this from the article sticks out to me, but dose not help?..I think[] Between 1911 and 1919, the Owens Bottle Machine Co. controlled a total of 17 plants, although four had closed by 1920. The Owens Bottle Machine Co. was renamed the Owens Bottle Co. in 1919.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

CC Reminder! Dmellman said his error bottle was machine made. BIM stands for "Blown In Mold" which means they were hand blown and not made by a machine. The good news is, if the error bottles can be determined as not being made by an Owens machine, then all we have to do is figure out what glass manufacturers *did not use Owens machines *around 1917-1919?


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

I have to keep reminding myself not to get locked into the 1917-1919 timeframe. Just because that's when most of the error advertisements were published doesn't necessarily mean that's when the error bottles were produced. Because the standard Patent 1915 bottles were made between 1917 and 1928, its highly possible the error bottles were also made as late as 1928. Regarding bottle machines other than the licensed Owens machines being used between about 1917 and 1928, a few names that came up during a recent are ... 1.  The Ashley/Johnny Bull machine2.  The Graham machine3.  The Olean machine4.  The O'Neill Machine5.  The Red Devil machine There were others, but it appears these five were primarily designed to make small-mouthed bottles such as soda and beer bottles.   More info here ... http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/ONeillmachines.pdf


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

And even more ... *Chronology of Bottle Machines* *http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/taleoftwomachines_blockhart.pdf* I haven't read this one in ages and hope to find something interesting and helpful as to what type of machine(s) did not leave a suction scar.


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 15, 2014)

I guess it's the ice blue color that makes me think earlier.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

CC Go to Page 4 of the Chronology link I posted and under the heading "On the OP Trail" read where Bill Porter claimed the only glass manufacturers who produced "blue" Coca Cola bottles were ... 1.  Chattanooga Bottling Company2.  Laurens Glass Works However, Bill Lockhart refuted the claim, so I'm not sure what to make of it at the moment.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

Dmellman : I've almost run out of research options and for me everything hinges on the correct answer to what I consider to be highly significant question, which is ... Are you absolutely certain your error bottle is *machine made*?


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

*                                                         If not machine made ...* *         Every indicator points directly to  >>>>>>>>>>>>>  Laurens Glass Works*


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

Question of the day ... 1.  BIM?2.  SEMI ABM?3.  ABM?


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 15, 2014)

Reminder ... I posted this link earlier and it definitely shows a Laurens Glass Works *BIM* hobbleskirt, which is clearly marked LGW 19 for 1919. Please be reminded that according to Bill Porter, Laurens hobbleskirts prior to 1919 were unmarked but had a large mold number on the base. Porter comments on this link and says the guy's bottle is the earliest *dated *Laurens bottle, which is the same thing as saying there were earlier, undated and unmarked bottles. But in order for things to fit the Laurens theory properly, Dmellman's bottle would have to be a BIM and not a ABM.     http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/28305-very-rare-bim-hobbleskirt-bottle


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 15, 2014)

I just glanced through both articles...So Bill is obviously aware of these bottles with the #'s on the base. That second article was pretty interesting! especially to see that BIM bottle! But they stated there was about 15 holdouts who never switched to Semi-auto machines and waited for the ABM, also three of them that the date is unknown when they switched....the fourth was Texas but that one can be ruled out. Blue glass producer + unknown date when they went to automatic = Chattanooga Bottle & Glass Co. But true the only other possibility is Laurens Glass Works...got their machine 1913 (Jersey Devil)....this one seems the most likely candidate?.....well I'll have to read more!..very interesting!


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 16, 2014)

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?  Err, I mean, which came first, the Collectors Weekly article about the LGW 19 Hobbleskirt or the Antique-Bottles.net article about the LGW 19 Hobbleskirt?


Collectors Weekly Link

http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/28305-very-rare-bim-hobbleskirt-bottle



Antique-Bottles.net Link ~ 2010

https://www.antique-bottles.net/forum/BIM-coca-cola-hobbleskirt-bottle-m367750.aspx


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 16, 2014)

If Dmellman's bottle is truly a ABM it is not the same as the bottles mentioned in the links, it can't be from Laurens Glass Works,or am I wrong? Someone would have mentioned the #4!...seems like it's leaving just Chattanooga.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 16, 2014)

CC         I was favoring Chattanooga Glass for awhile, too. That is, until I read this ...                      http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/ChattanoogaGlass.pdf


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 16, 2014)

I sent Bill Porter an email inquiry about the error bottles and will post what he has to say if/when I hear back from him. If anybody knows about them, I expect he will.


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 16, 2014)

Well for one thing the Color of glass used seems to be a contradiction to the other article.But anything is possible as to where theses #4 bottles came from. Hope Bill gets back to you!...he did for me one time[]


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 16, 2014)

I heard from Bill Porter and he said he's not sure who made the 1916 error bottles. He said the examples he's seen have certain characteristics of the Chattanooga Glass Company but that they are missing certain aspects of Chattanooga that should be present but are not. He added that his personal example has the 1916 located directly under the letters ERED of the word REGISTERED. So I guess that's that! They might be Chattanooga bottles and they might not. If Bill doesn't know, I don't know who does.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 16, 2014)

Here are some of the characteristics Bill said are typical of early Chattanooga hobbleskirts, plus tid-bits of information regarding his 1916 error bottle in particular ... Interesting to me is ... The "Vertical L" in ColaThe large letter legend below the TMThe "Hook C" in Coca 
The closed 4 on the base
These markers hint at Chattanooga Glass, but the "Peg-leg G" is not there
Chatt Cokes of 1916 (notably Claxton, GA. straight-sides) usually have the peg-leg G
Some are blue, but this deep blue is unique too
There are other early hobble-skirts with vertical L's
I guess this needs more work!
Very interesting mystery though. I will think about it!


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 16, 2014)

P.S. The "Peg-leg G" is discussed in the last link I posted, which I need to re-read again.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 16, 2014)

To help illustrate what Bill meant by the "Vertical L" in COLA, here's a Graham Glass 1915 hobbleskirt next to one of the 1916 error hobbleskirts. It is the vertical L that Bill said is one of the characteristics of a Chattanooga hobbleskirt. Notice the 1916 error L is vertical (straight up & down) whereas the Graham L leans to the right ... 1.  1916 Error Bottle2.  1915 Graham Bottle


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 16, 2014)

Well at least there is some closure on this [&:]  I'm sure he investigated to no end! But with no real evidence about the bottles origin a mystery remains! I had noticed that vertical L...but what is a peg-leg G? [] But really to finalize on this it is like 80% + probability it's from Chat. or 90, 95 or what ever.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 16, 2014)

Here's an actual *1915 / **CHATT 20* to illustrate the vertical L                                  ( And still searching for a "Hook C" and a "Peg-leg G" )


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 16, 2014)

Actually ... I believe you can see the so called Peg-leg G in the word REGISTERED in the last pic I posted. Notice the G has a little leg like a comma attached to it.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 16, 2014)

I think in order to make a proper comparison between the error bottles and the CHATT bottles we need to find close-up's of a 1915 CHATT bottle made around 1917 or 1918. The bottles themselves shouldn't be that hard to find, but good close-up's might be a challenge.


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 16, 2014)

100% ABM.  As the main focus of my collection is pre-ABM soda/beer bottles, I am confident about this statement. Not an Owens Machine. Absolutely no suction scar. Bill Porter's comments are interesting. I have another Chattenooga Glass 1915 bottle and a 1923 and several straight sides. Color is very similar blue but darker. Script is very similar also, but subtle differences.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 16, 2014)

Dmellman Thanks for the follow up. I vote ... *CHATTANOOGA GLASS COMPANY  * Perhaps we'll know for certain one of these days. By the way, I just got another email from Bill and he said to tell my friends that his latest updated Checklist book will be available "soon"


----------



## squirtbob (Dec 17, 2014)

Hi Bob,  I don't know if these pictures will help or not, but here's an ice blue 1915 LGW Coke bottle that I have. The heel is clearly marked L.G.W-19. and it does not have a seam in the neck.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

squirtbob : Very helpful, especially if it has the number 4 on the base. Speaking of which, is there a town/state on the base? The LGW 19 posted earlier was from Tampa, Florida.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

*Food for thought ...*

I'm thinking that whoever made the 1916 error bottles probably realized their mistake at some point and either changed the molds or else replaced them with new ones before producing any more. If this was in fact the case, then there is a possibility the same company made later hobbleskirts with the correct 1915 date on them. But if this did occur, I'm not sure what those later bottles might look like, nor whether they had a makers mark and/or date code. The only thing I can think of at the moment is to search for a hobbleskirt with the correct 1915 date on it that also has the number 4 on the base. If we can find a Nov. 16, *1915* hobbleskirt with nothing but a number 4 on the base, then I'm thinking it might very well be connected to the error bottles.


----------



## squirtbob (Dec 17, 2014)

SODAPOPBOB said:
			
		

> squirtbob : Very helpful, especially if it has the number 4 on the base. Speaking of which, is there a town/state on the base? The LGW 19 posted earlier was from Tampa, Florida.


Sorry, no # or city/state on the base.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

Hmm, that's weird! One LGW 19 with Tampa, Florida on the base and another LGW 19 with nothing on the base. What the heck?


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

Check out these LGW bottles. (Ignore the fact they are purple, they were altered intentionally).

But notice ...

This one is described as having a LGW 27 on the heel and the Coca Cola script on the base. I wonder why Laurens Glass Works would make a LGW 19 (1919) with Tampa, Florida on the base, like the one posted earlier, and then in 1927 make one without a town/state on the base?

Http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/purple-1915-coca-cola-bottle-18820829


Here's another altered purple bottle described as having LGW 26 on the heel, plus the Coca Coca script on the base. I wonder what the *4-L *on the rim of the base is all about?

Http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/1915-purple-coca-cola-bottle-292989844


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

P.S. I'm assuming the term "rim of the base" is actually referring to the *heel*


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

If you go back to the LGW 26 4-L link you'll notice the bottle apparently did not have a town/state on the base. I'm sure the seller would have mentioned it if it did. Anyway, take a look at this LGW 26 described as being from Washington, D.C. that has *5-L *on the heel. It would be easy to assume the 4-L and 5-L are mold numbers, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are mold numbers. The 4-L and 5-L could very well stand for something else such as a location number. In case you're wondering where I'm going with this, its the result of searching for bottles with the correct 1915 date that also have the number 4 on the base. Hence, the 4-L and 5-L bottles came up during my search. I have to believe whoever made the 1916 error bottles also made other bottles later on and didn't go out of business and just disappear off the face of the earth.  
*LGW 26 ~ Washington, D.C. ~ **5-L*

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/1915-washington-c-coke-bottle-421918815


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

This bottle is interesting. Heel marked CHATT 23, 1923, 1915 bottle. Amber.  But look at the embossing. Nov. 16 1915, 1915 past ERED. Bottom row larger than top. Other letters in top and bottom row seem identically aligned to my error bottle. Look at the M in Trademark relative to P in PAT,... the same. Is there a 4 in the middle of the base?? Looks like a faint 4 rotated on it's side. coke2.JPGcoke23.jpgcoke25.jpg


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

Another one, no city. Same embossing.  coke1.jpgcoke12.jpgcoke13.JPG


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

Could this be the corrected error bottle?


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

SODAPOPBOB, go to work and line these up and see if you can confirm.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

Here's a no town/state LGW *25 *with *5-L* I'm not sure what the 4-L and 5-L stand for, but I'm starting to think they are not mold numbers. ??? http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/purple-coca-cola-bottle-1915-ice-blue-250693891 I'd sure like to see a good close-up pic of either a 4-L or a 5-L but haven't found one yet!


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

and another Chattenooga TENN on base coke3.jpgcoke31.JPG


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

Dmellman said:
			
		

> SODAPOPBOB, go to work and line these up and see if you can confirm.



Dm You've definitely got my attention and will study them closely the first chance I get. Right at the moment I'm heading into "town" which is a 50+ mile drive - and it's raining pitchforks ta' boot! By the way, do you own the nuked amber bottles or find them on the Internet?


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

no these are ebay bottles Im finding. Im looking for matching embossings.


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

I stay away from nuked bottles. I find them offensive.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

After this I'm gone-gone for the day but will be back later. I rotated and edited the picture of the base with a possible 4 for closer examination ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

Or does it need rotated in this direction?


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

This is what I saw. coke25mod.JPG


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

I have superimposed the 1923 Nuked CHATT 23 bottle with mine using a superimpose app.  I have chosed a similar angle from my bottle and lined them up. This picture is a composite of the two bottles together. Notice they superimpose PERFECTLY. Notice the final 5/6 number is blurry because they are different numbers on each bottle. The rest of the embossing reinforces each other, including the script, same angles, etc.. The best way to see this is on the app where I can fade one into the other, but I don't know how I can post something like that.IMG_5776.JPG


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

Amazing! Now, just for the heck of it, howz about posting the separate images side-by-side for comparison?


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

I took another picture of the error bottle in a very similar orientation to the eBay photo.  I have tried to show how they superimpose.  Honestly the best way is standing looking at the error bottle with eBay photo in hand.  All letters match exactly the positions between the two bottles. IMG_5802.JPGIMG_5803.JPG IMG_5801.JPG


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

P.S. If the side-by-side's turn out, I'll send them and your superimposed image to Bill Porter and knock his socks off. He really got a kick out of the error advertisements I sent him. He wrote me back and referred to the hobbleskirts as the "corrugations" (Which is how they were described in two of the ads).


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

Keep in mind this is only true for a subset of the error bottles where the date extends past the top line.  The other error bottle is another type.  Although likely made by the same company given the presence of 4 on the base of both types.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

Gracias' We must have been posting the same time. I'm studying them now.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

Is the nuked eBay bottle current or from an older listing?


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

FullSizeRender-10.jpgIMG_5803.JPG


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

Notice how in both bottles the letters match up exactly on the same position with the segments below. Notice how each relative position of the top line and bottom line letters are the same. Notice how the script lines up with the top line the same.


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

the bottles are current, just search for Chattenooga 1915 Coke bottle


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

Making progress ... Does your error bottle have the so called "Peg-leg G" with a little tail on the end?


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

The appears to be a peg leg g in registered


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

I have some Chattanooga straight sides and the G is the same on them too.


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 17, 2014)

I believe that there is little doubt now that this bottle is a CHATT bottle, I will speculate earlier than the early twenties e-bay examples, given lack of location on base, perhaps this was the first attempt at hobble skirts for whatever plant made it. That still leaves the other type. I can understand one mistake, but two different molds with a mistake from the same place? Hard to accept. Unless it wasn't a mistake.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

They will probably ship me off to the funny farm after this one - but that's okay, I'll take the risk. Anyway, I have been reading up on the history of the Chattanooga Glass Company hoping to find something that might explain why they marked certain bottles, such as early, straight-sided Coca Cola bottles, but didn't mark some of their later bottles? The attached snippet is from Julian Toulouse's 1971-72 book "Bottle Makers And Their Marks" which I have a copy of that I scanned the image from. Notice where it says ... 1.  "By 1912 there were three tanks with 12 rings." Also notice where it says ... 2.  "The company's first of several ventures in buying other companies came in 1917 with the acquisition of the closed Tallapoosa (Ga.) Glass Co., founded in 1908, which had one tank and six rings. Chattanooga operated it until 1920 and liquidated it in 1926." Now here's the funny farm part! I wonder if the 1916 error bottles were made at the Tallapoosa plant and they used the number 4 as a code for that plant because it would have constituted Chattanooga's fourth tank? Which might explain why the error bottles don't have the CHATT mark.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 17, 2014)

To clarify ... "Tanks" are where the glass was melted and held until fed to the bottle mold machines. Maybe Chattanooga Glass wanted to keep track of which tank and/or "batch" of molten glass the new Coca Cola bottles came from. Thus, a 4 for tank/batch number four.


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 18, 2014)

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 (Dec 18, 2014)

"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 (Dec 18, 2014)

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 (Dec 18, 2014)

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 (Dec 18, 2014)

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 (Dec 18, 2014)

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


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 18, 2014)

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


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 18, 2014)

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 (Dec 18, 2014)

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


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 18, 2014)

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


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 18, 2014)

More images from the Chattanooga article, including the "empty L's" and the "squared off C's"


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 18, 2014)

I still vote for "*The Chattanooga Glass Company*" because ... 1.  Most of the evidence points in that direction2.  Bill Porter leans in that direction Perhaps when I'm old and gray (which I already am []) we'll know for certain.


----------



## Canadacan (Dec 18, 2014)

Empty L's and squared off C's are cool!.


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 18, 2014)

The error bottle's 'L' is not empty. FullSizeRender (1).jpg


----------



## cowseatmaize (Dec 18, 2014)

What do you get what you click the link? I still get to the new post area. Maybe a glitch?


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 18, 2014)

"C" in error bottle is squared off.


----------



## Dmellman (Dec 18, 2014)

Interesting base.coke41.jpg


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 19, 2014)

cowseatmaize said:
			
		

> What do you get what you click the link? I still get to the new post area. Maybe a glitch?



When I click on one of Dmellman's "Render" links it opens to a new post but I don't know why.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Dec 19, 2014)

Dmellman said:
			
		

> Interesting base.coke41.jpg



Dmellman : Is the Cartersville, Georgia bottle a CHATT?  If so, what year, etc.?  ( I see the 2 )


----------



## sscokebottles (Apr 5, 2015)

Hi yall. Wish I found this thread earlier! Just posting to say I too have one of these 1916 error bottles, so I guess that makes this bottle a little less rarer. It is ice blue, crudely made, but still 100% ABM nonetheless, and has a number 4 on the bottom. I'm looking over the exact lettering and such to see if the mold matches, and I will post pictures soon. 

I've had this bottle for a long time now (about 4 years I think). I got it at the Kalamazoo bottle show for a reasonable price ($5-10 maybe, I don't remember). I thought it was special because of its color and the 1916 error date, so I emailed Reggie Lynch of antiquebottles.com on the bottle. He said mold errors were not uncommon for the time period and since it had no city, it was not that rare of a bottle, so I thought nothing of the bottle and it just sat on my coca-cola bottle cabinet as a curio for a while. But now because of all of your guy's extensive research and seeing an identical one sell on eBay for such a high price, I'm starting to think more of this bottle!

Again, I'll post pictures in a bit, but if there's anything specific you'd like to see, I'll be happy to deliver. I know this thread is fairly old, but thanks for all the information on this bottle!


----------

