# Possilbe prototype Mountain Dew bottle or hoax?



## morbious_fod (Jan 3, 2011)

Flittering around the bay just now and found this item. It appears to be using a Teem bottle design, but has a never before seen by me acl on the shoulder. Was this actually an attempt by Pepsi to make the Mountain Dew bottles fit the rest of their line, and was abandoned, or is this a fake created by someone with a Teem bottle and money on their minds? The guy seems to have a huge reserve on this as I bid just over $150 and didn't even crack it.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Extremely-Rare-10-oz-Mountain-Dew-bottle-1965-NICE-/130471424449?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e60b3f1c1


----------



## fishnuts (Jan 3, 2011)

Speaking from the point of view of a screen printer (for 54 months) the pair of screen for this artwork is going to run well over $100.  At least in Arkansas...and in the late 90's.  That's just for the screen creation.  The artwork itself has to come from somewhere and that cost money.  Then one would need the specialized screen printing machine that does cylinder bottle shapes.  And a dryer.  And the oven for annealing the paint onto the glass.  Money, money and more money.
 One would have to make at least two dozen to make it worthwhile.  In this hobby, we all know, if a cluster of  previously unknown bottles turns up, that the first one is high then not so much for each one after that.  And because  the bottle is no longer deemed rare if a case, or more, turns up.   It doesn't seem a sensible  enterprise to me.  Lots of front-end labor with not much payoff on the back end.  Plus gaining the eternal enmity of all bottle collectors (as if a dirt bag counterfeiter cares what his marks think).

 I know absolutely nothing about the 'real'ness of this bottle, but I posit that one would be loopy to try and pull off a fake like this.
 I was planning to call the seller anyway...I'll let ya'll know what he knows about it...unless he's on here...then I'll ask him to tell us.


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 3, 2011)

I realize that Fish, that's why I also put forth that this is possibly a previously unknown prototype that Pepsi produced to make the brand blend in with the bottle style that permeates the rest of it's line during this period. I personally can't stand Pepsi bottles from this period, so I'm glad they didn't go with this. On top of that the font and the hillbilly used are the ones used on the later "laughing pig" bottle design, which tells me that even at this early date of 1965 they were already working on replacing the Hartman design, which gives me more proof that this is a prototype. Also the bottle looks to have never been used. That's why I placed a $150 dollar bid, the pro-real points greatly out number the cons, but I just don't have the money to blow a thousand dollars on an unknown bottle. I doubt that there will be more for the same reason, if there are more they will be far and few between. This one has the potential to reach the price range of a party jug.


----------



## fishnuts (Jan 3, 2011)

...so, why can't it possible that it is neither prototype, or fraud?
 I'd be interested to know if these were overprints.  Possibly some bottle maker or bottler has thousands of Teem bottles and made secondary use out of them.  Creating this interesting item, and the puzzle it represents.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 3, 2011)

Mainly just tagging thread and posting photo of a 1960s "Teem" bottle for easy comparison. But while I'm here I thought I would, as Morb touched on, (and according to my sources,) mention that on December 30, 1965, PepsiCo, Inc. officially became the owner of the Mountain Dew trademark. I mention this "just in case" the bottle in question turns out to have an earlier date on the bottom. Unless I missed something, I didn't see in the e-bay description where a "specific" date was indicated.

 Hey Morb ~

 If December 30, 1965 is in fact the official date for the acquisition of the trademark after dissolving "The Tip Corporation of America," is it feasible that PepsiCo would already be messing around with prototypes or "any type" of new bottle design? And when I stop and think about it, I guess that is what this thread is all about and trying to determine.

 Final Question :  Do we know for sure that the bottle is marked 1965 on the base?

 I hope I didn't muddy the waters here with too many unanswerable questions, and mis-information. If so, my apologies.

 Thanks,    

 SPBOB

 Notice on this original Teem bottle that the dots are higher up on the neck. Not that this tells us anything, but rather just an observation.


----------



## cyberdigger (Jan 3, 2011)

Couldn't it just be a rare bottle? Perhaps less than 145 produced? Looks legit to me.. and you all know what an expert on ACL's I am.. [8|]


----------



## madman (Jan 3, 2011)

hey morb looks real to me very nice!


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 3, 2011)

I honestly think it's real, too. But just for the heck of it I just this minute sent the seller the following copy/pasted message. I will let you know what he has to say if/when I hear back from him. And even though I think it's real, it just strikes me as totally odd that PepsiCo would be making bottles marked 1965 that they didn't even have a copyright to until December 30, 1965. Maybe they made it on December 31st ... ???

 SPBOB

 Message sent to seller ...

*Dear bottler,

*The bottom of you bottle should have an embossed date code that might look something like this ... 21 <(I)> 65 Could you please check it for confirmation of what is embossed on the bottom, even if different than the above?

 Thank you,

 RCB


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 3, 2011)

Morb ~

 How certain are we/you regarding the transition date from the "side-by-side" application of the words Mountain Dew on their earlier bottles vs. the "over-under" application that apparently didn't start until 1968? The e-bay seller's bottle is "over-under." I know you already touched on this, but are there hard facts to establish the transition?  "If" it is a fake, this may be where the counterfeiter messed up! ???

 SPBOB


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 3, 2011)

I just heard back from the e-bay seller. Here is his reply copy/pasted ...

       Hello. On the bottom is LG 65 and underneath that is 25. That is all the numbers on the bottom.  James[/align]
  [/align][/align]


----------



## fishnuts (Jan 3, 2011)

I phoned the seller a few moments ago.
 The seller said this bottle came from a find 17 years ago( did not elaborate on where, etc.).  Since it had no city...and he has no experience or interest(collects picture labels only...but would not take my Orchard in trade)) in MD, it just sat.  And sat.  Six years ago a Texas (unnamed) collector heard of it and offered him, well..a lot (unspecified).  He turned the offer down. 
 It is not an overprint, he said, as best as he can tell.  It's in super good condition.  Doesn't know the origin.
 Hopefully expects a price in the value range morb stated.

 Good Luck Dew Hounds.


----------



## splante (Jan 4, 2011)

could be legit but sounds fishy , too many red flags. The copyright and mountain dew transaction questions would keep me away from it for now.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 4, 2011)

I just upped the bid to $200.00 ... but reserve still not reached.  Should I / Would you go to $500.00 ??? 

                      And here is the generic bid confirmation I just received from e-bay ... 

 So far, so good! Your bid has been confirmed, and you are the high bidder. It's almost yours, but you could still be outbid. You can improve your chances of winning by increasing your bid.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 4, 2011)

*        I'm Convinced!* 
                             [/align] [/align] [/align] [/align]*It's a Prototype!*[/align][/align]


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 4, 2011)

Here's the reason I think it it a prototype. First off if there were a gross (100 pcs) ordered even as a re-purposed bottles one of these should have already surfaced with the sheer amount of Mountain Dew hillbilly bottle collectors out there. If there was an actual production run of several grosses then the possibility of one surfacing before now increases greatly. There are very few unknown bottles in Mountain Dew bottles, there are some that we even know should exist; however, haven't seen the light of day yet. Most of these are from the pre-Pepsi period. Basically it's condition appears to have never been put through a bottling line, it sports a later previously unknown design using the later "Pepsi Hillbilly" in a much earlier period, the transition to the new Pepsi hillbilly tends to be around 67 or 68. It's not the fact that the words Mountain Dew are over and under, there is a change in the font from a thinner to a fatter font between the two logos, check out the W and the dot on the eye between the two, they are similar but very different. Pepsi acquired the Tip Corporation (Mountain Dew and all) in 1964, according to the Wall Street Journal article from September 9, 1964, also Marion Bottling Company (a Pepsi bottler) first picked up the brand in 1965.

 It just looks too good to be a fake; however, it could still be one. I do think Fish is right that the cost would be prohibitive. Could this be a prototype made for a single bottler, that is possible, but the use of the later Pepsi Hillbilly during the Hartman Hillbilly period is odd. This thing is going to hit the roof, and I don't blame the seller for turning down your trade. If this is real it will reach the Party Jug levels in value.

 As for whether or not to take a chance, this is one of one so far and no provenance or other proof of it's authenticity has been seen. Buyer beware.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 4, 2011)

Morb ~
 I apologize for hogging so much air time here, but since I have decided to dip into my savings and take a shot at the bottle, I was hoping you wouldnâ€™t mind my exuberence and grant me a little leeway here. I realize it is still a bit of a crap shoot as to whether the bottle is original and genuine, but based on everything I have been able to ascertain at the present, I am 100% convinced it is the real deal.

 Some may ask, if I intend to try and be the highest bidder, why draw any more attention to it than necessary? Wouldnâ€™t it be better to just let it alone and see what happens? My reply to this is that I am intentionally _trying _to attract attention to it! I _want _someone to break the reserve so I (and numerous others) will know exactly where we stand. I never did like that reserve business anyway, but suppose there may be advantages to it that I am not aware of. Personally, I think a seller should just establish a minimum starting price and let the chips fall where they may. 

 I wonâ€™t go into detail as to how much I intend to bid, but suffice it to say that I feel we may very well be looking at the next â€œHoly Grailâ€ of acl soda bottles. My philosophy at the moment is to â€œshoot firstâ€ and then ask questions and do the research on it afterwards. If it turns out to be a fluke of some kind, then so be it. But I am willing to take that gamble on what I presently feel is a 80% possibility of it being a genuine prototype that for one reason or another just never made itâ€™s way into full production.

 And for those who have been following this thread with the same measure of interest that I have, Iâ€™d like to share the following article I came across recently regarding part of the transition period when the Mountain Dew brand was becoming a PepsiCo product. I am not entirely sure what year(s) the article is referring to, but I believe it was either in the late 1950s or very early 1960s. And the part I would like to focus on is near the end where it talks about Bill Jones _â€œtestingâ€ _different formulas. I know it is talking about testing the flavor formula itself and not a new bottle design, but it may be a clue that suggest the possibility that other forms of experimentation (including a new bottle design) were being conducted during this same time period. Thus, as Morb brought to light during the very onset of this thread, that the bottle could very well have been a prototype. And thatâ€™s good enough for me!

 Morb : Thanks again for allowing me to participate in this most interesting topic, and especially for bringing it to our attention in the first place. Now thatâ€™s what I call _sharing._

 Your â€œBuyer Bewareâ€ recommendation is duly noted! Thanks.
_
 SODAPOPBOB
_
 {Article} / {Slightly edited for clarity}

 When Bill Jones took over the Tip Corporation, and in order to finance his new enterprise, he needed investors, so he offered shares in the new company to some of his bottler friends. The original investors were Pepsi-Cola bottlers: Herman Minges of Lumberton, North Carolina; Richard Minges of Fayetteville, North Carolina; Allie Hartman of Knoxville, Tennessee; and Wythe Hull of Marion, Virginia.

 Using Wythe Hull's Pepsi-Cola bottling facility in Marion, Virginia as a base of operations, Jones began _testing_ different formulas. Employees at the Marion Pepsi plant were the first to sample each new version of the drink. Finally, one mixture seemed to have the right taste. 

 IS IT POSSIBLE THE BOTTLE CAME FROM OR WAS CONNECTED IN SOME WAY TO THE MARION, VIRGINIA BOTTLING PLANT ?






 ã€€
 ã€€
 ã€€


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 4, 2011)

I just upped the bid to $300.00 and the reserve is still not met!  Dang it!  []


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 4, 2011)

Like you need permission to post. I started the tread to discuss this possible new exciting find in the brand's history.

 Bill Jones did modify the formula in the early 1960's; however, not the bottle. I had always kinda wondered why Pepsi kept the straight side Mountain Dew bottle design when they produced nearly every other offering in either a swirl (Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, etc) or the diamond pattern design (Patio, Teem, etc), this bottle shows that it is very possible that they did indeed try to modify the Mountain Dew bottles to fit in with the rest of the line, but ultimately decided against it. This bottle is a very interesting find that expands the story of the brand. It would be nice to have one, but I don't think I am willing to take that much of a chance, just in case this is a hoax.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 4, 2011)

While we are waiting to see what develops (3 days 19 hours left) I could use a little help on something. I am trying to determine what year the "Teem" bottles (if they ever did) started showing up with the dots on the lower part of the neck as seen on the Mountain Dew prototype in question? The two bottles below are {left} 1962 and {right} 1969. The only example of a "low dot" bottle I have been able to find was on the gono.com site, and that was a barely discernable black and white photo.

 If anyone has an example(s) of a Teem "low dot" bottle, please check the date(s) and let us know what you come up with. This may not tell us anything specific, other than the possibility of giving us some idea of just how many of these so called "low dot" bottles that went into production. If it turns out there are zero or very few, it may be a clue of some kind to aid in future research.

 Thanks a lot,

 SPBOB

 Teem 1962 (no dots) & 1969 (high dots)

 Reminder ... We are looking for "low dot" examples. Thanks.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 4, 2011)

In answer to my own question, I just found this example of a Teem bottle that is currently on e-bay and has the "low dot" acl application I was referring to. I lucked out in that the seller's discription said it was embossed on the bottom  LCW63  2  (No doubt they misread the G and thought it was a C). Which most of us know translates ... Laurens Glass Works 1963. And which we also know is what the Mt. Dew/Teem bottle has on the base ... LG65 (1965). 

 I am not exactly sure where I am going with us, or what it might and might not reveal, but at least we now know that the Laurens Glass Works is a legitimate maker of PepsiCo bottles, and that the "low dot" acls were certainly available at least as early as 1963. 

 My next task will be to try and determine if there are 1965 "low dot" bottles. And hopefully with the help from members here we may be able to determine just when the dots migrated to the upper part of the neck. Of course, if there are multiple-multiple variations, then my search here may be in vain.

 The main thing I'm attempting to determine here is if the dots were on the Mountain Dew/Teem bottle intentionally or just happened to be there when the Mt. Dew label was applied?  We know the bottle is obviously a Pepsi/Teem bottle, but it just strikes me odd that PepsiCo (even if this was a prototype experiment) would use the dots on an already established design. "Or" (if it is a fake) that the alleged counterfeiter just forgot to remove the dots when he "scraped off" the Teem acl?

        So back to my request ... I am currently looking for a 1965 Teem bottle with "low dots." 

   (If this is driving you nuts, just think of the scrambled eggs that are cooking inside of my head) []

                                                            Thanks again

                                                               SPBOB

 TEEM LGW63


----------



## madman (Jan 4, 2011)

bump


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 5, 2011)

Morb ~

 I've been doing my homework and can't seem to find a single Mountain Dew bottle that has the word "Ya-hooo" on it prior to about 1968. I'm not saying the phrase wasn't used prior to this, only that I can't find it "applied" to a "bottle" prior to 1968. Is it possible that I just haven't looked in the right place yet, or did the "Ya-hooo" actually get introduced in 1968? And just to be clear, I am not referring to the phrase "It'll tickle yore innards." That's altogether different. And if it wasn't introduced until 1968, then what the heck is "Ya-hooo" doing on a 1965 bottle? 

           Just tell me I'm crazy and I will back away from this obsession of mine and call it a day. 

 Thanks,

 Bob


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 5, 2011)

Exibit # 1   (Now I'm starting to hope someone will hurry up and top my $300.00 bid. Yikes!!!)  []

                    Please tell me the "Ya-hooo" slogan was used on bottles before 1968. 

                                                              SPBOOB ???


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 5, 2011)

> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> Exibit # 1   (Now I'm starting to hope someone will hurry up and top my $300.00 bid. Yikes!!!)  []
> 
> ...


 
 That is a good point, the Ya-hooo doesn't appear until the Laughing pig era around 1968, even more evidence that this is a possible prototype. Soda quit freaking out you still haven't breached the reserve yet so you haven't won it. I'd say he has at least five hundred on this bottle. Pepsi era Hillbilly, Pepsi era font on Mountain Dew, the presence of Ya-hooo, all makes me think this is a prototype even more.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 5, 2011)

Thanks ... (Seriously) 

 Yeah, I knew about the reserve part. But what I actually meant was (thinking to myself) should I stay involved with the bidding war or just let it go based on the possibility of a hoax? There is a big difference between "prototype" and "fake."

 Soda


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 5, 2011)

This is true, but I the rabid Mountain Dew collector bailed out at half the present amount. Sometimes the risk just isn't worth it.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 5, 2011)

?  ~  More Pieces to the Puzzle  ~  ?

                    For starters:  The bid is up to $305.00 now - reserve still not met - 19 bidders.

 Out of respect for Morbious_Fod and my genuine desire to help keep this thread fresh and interesting, I hope my ongoing enteries are truly worth posting. Which requires me to admit that I am somewhat confused at the moment regarding the bottle's authenticity. But I suppose this is to be expected by a so called mystery item that has never been seen before. Although contridicting myself, on one hand I honestly feel the bottle is genuine, and yet at the same time I think it's a fake. Go figure. Earlier I was 80% convinced it was the real deal, but now that figure stands at 50/50. Which is enough for me to draw my reins in a little and hold off placing any more bids until further research can be done. But as there are only about three days left on the auction, I better hurry and make up my mind. If I knew with absolute certainty that the bottle was genuine I wouldn't hesitate for one moment to hang in there to the bitter end. I have about $1000.00-plus to (invest ?) play around with here that wouldn't effect me all that much one way or another. But I definitely don't want to invest that kind of money in a fake! I won't deny that my original intent here (and hope) was to snag the bottle for about $500.00 max, hold onto for a while, and ten try and re-sell it for three times that much - or more. Remember; the Party Jug typically sells for about $3000.00.  But if something more substantial and positive doesn't present itself soon, then I'm outta here!

 So the research continues ... which brings me to the following questions that I hope some of you will be able to help me answer.

 1.   I'm wondering why the jug the hillbilly is holding on the mystery label doesn't have the words "Mountain Dew" on it?  I know there are exceptions to this feature along the way, but in this case is it correct or incorrect?

 2.  There are at least two variations that I know of regarding the hillbilly itself. One I call "The Bug-eyed Hillbilly," and the other I call "The Realistic Hillbilly." The mystery label is of the more realistic looking hillbilly. Question: When did they change from the "bug-eyed" to the "realistic" image?

               Following are two examples of the hillbilly that may help answer my questions.

 The photo below and the photo to follow on the next page are of similar signs that are currently on e-bay. Both are being offered by the same seller at the same price of $750.00. (I will provide links to both for yore examination). The seller shows photos that one is dated 5-65 and one that is dated 9-65 ... Which are May and September of the same year (1965). 

 The seller claims that both signs are 100% original - and that each sign has the date of origin on it. 

 First up is the (5-65) May 1965 sign showing the "Bug-eyed" hillbilly and no "Mountain Dew" on the jug.

 Here's the e-bay link :   




http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=400185497952&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT[/align] [/align]May 1965[/align] [/align]


  [/align]


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 5, 2011)

Next up is the September 1965 sign showing the more realistic hillbilly. "Mountain Dew" is on the jug.

 e-bay link  :  
http://cgi.ebay.com/Mountain-Dew-metal-sign-hillbilly-dated-9-65-Rare-one-/160527167511?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item25602a3017

             Repeat question :  When did they change from the Bug-eyed to Realistic hillbilly?[/align]


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 5, 2011)

Footnote:  Regarding the 19 "Bidders" I referred to, the actual count is as indicated below ... Two of which are mine. (And for those that may not know this, the count can be found by clicking on the number 19 on the original e-bay page). I guess some of the "other bidders" are like myself and are just trying to determine what the reserve is.

                   Here is the original link again so we don't have to back-page to access it.

[/font]http://cgi.ebay.com/Extremely-Rare-10-oz-Mountain-Dew-bottle-1965-NICE-/130471424449?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e60b3f1c1[/size] 




Bidders:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


[/color]6  Bids:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


19 Time left:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


3 days 1 hour 45 mins  Duration:
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


5 days


----------



## cowseatmaize (Jan 5, 2011)

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


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 5, 2011)

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

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


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 5, 2011)

> ORIGINAL:  cowseatmaize
> 
> In an attempt to educate myself I have a couple questions. I don't collect ACL.
> 1) Is that the way paint chips on these, is it a flaw, intentional or not caring with a prototype?
> ...


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

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


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 5, 2011)

Alright I ask for a picture of the other label.


----------



## cowseatmaize (Jan 5, 2011)

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


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 5, 2011)

Quit looking at anything other than bottles for your answers.

 Morb ~

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

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

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

 Thanks again for bringing it to our attention.

 Respectfully,

 SPBOB


----------



## cowseatmaize (Jan 5, 2011)

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


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 5, 2011)

cowseatmaize ~

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

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

 SPBOB

 {Text}

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


----------



## OsiaBoyce (Jan 5, 2011)

I bet Moon Willie messed wit ya bad.

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

 Logic decrees it.


----------



## Anthonicia (Jan 5, 2011)

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


----------



## cowseatmaize (Jan 5, 2011)

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


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 5, 2011)

Anthonicia ~

 I think you may actually be onto something with yore "Throwback Theory." Please follow through with it and see where it leads. Thanks

 Plus, I had this in my photo gallery, but I cannot recall where I got it or when. But there is something mighty perculiar looking about the bottle on the bottom row ... 4th in from the right. You may have to save and zoom it for better clarity ... but it sure ain't no regular Mountain Dew bottle like I've ever seen.  ???

                       Morb suggested we look at bottles, so that's what I'm ah doin'  []

                                                                   SPBOB


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 5, 2011)

cowseatmaize ~

 Myself and others have discussed the topic of ounces, etc. on other threads, and although I cannot link you directly to them, I do recall that the earlier (non acl) bottles were embossed with the ounces, and that the later acls were only required to have it "visible," which meant that the painted label application with the contents (ounces) was fully allowed and legal.

 I'm sure it's like Morb said, that "prototype" (or experimental) bottles would not be required to have the ounces on them.

 SPBOB


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 5, 2011)

> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> Quit looking at anything other than bottles for your answers.
> 
> ...


 
 Don't take me the wrong way, I was noticing that the more you looked into it the more confused you were getting. I was just trying to snap you out of that. LOL! Sometimes you just have to take a chance, because the answers just aren't out there right now.


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 5, 2011)

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


 
 That is always the nagging doubt scratching at the back of my mind with this one. Sometimes things look far too good to be true. That's why I dropped out at $150 I just can't risk anymore on this bottle logically, it was the thrill of the moment that caused me to bid that much.


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 5, 2011)

> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> Anthonicia ~
> 
> ...


 
 Hold on thar partner. That is the *"Last Bottle Produced    Mt. Vernon, Ohio     April 30, 1986" *bottle that came out in 1986.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 5, 2011)

Okay, Mr. Eagle Eyes. I guess it's back to the drawing (key) board. By the way, what's that one on the top shelf ... 12th from the left?   Lol  []   (Smile - Yore on Candid Camera).

 I'm starting to see some interesting "Throwback" stuff.  Maybe anthonicia hit onto sumptin' after all ???

 SPBOB


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 5, 2011)

The seller has posted two more pictures of the otherside of the bottle and it has the scene that closely mimics the earlier bottles however, uses the Pepsi era font and the Ya-hooo! I'm really wishing I could afford this as I am becoming more convinced it could be real. As for the ounces question, I was right it is embossed near the heel of the bottle.


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 5, 2011)

> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> Okay, Mr. Eagle Eyes. I guess it's back to the drawing (key) board. By the way, what's that one on the top shelf ... 12th from the left?   Lol  []   (Smile - Yore on Candid Camera).
> 
> ...


 
 Can't see it for the flash. Check out the auction now, I got him to post pictures of the other side.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 6, 2011)

I guess we might as well have a look at it. I didn't realize it had a different image on the opposite side. Cool. But the nick on the paint is a bit of a bummer. By the way, have ya heard the one about that it ain't a hillbilly neighbor he's shootin' at but instead is a government "Revenuer" that's runnin' for cover into the out house? (Sorry, I just couldn't help myself for sharing something that I never heard before and just learned today. But whether it's true or not is as big a mystery to me as the bottle itself).  []

 SPBOB


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 6, 2011)

Closeup


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 6, 2011)

I don't think the cult of Hillbilly dews would be nearly a large as it is if this one had passed muster. Something about that large acl.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 6, 2011)

I think what bugs (and confuses) me most about this whole deal is the large white background on the label. It just doesn't look right, almost like it's homemade or something. Maybe this was just a first draft and the final look was intended to be without the white. It just looks stuck on and totally without character. And, like you said, no true-blue "Doin' The Dew'er" would ever want to adopt this orphan.

 SPBOB


----------



## splante (Jan 6, 2011)

that close up of the acl...something 's not right.  just above  the h in yahoo looks peeled and laid back down....almost looks like a sticker..but its late and it might just be me


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 7, 2011)

This is from the seller's detailed information section regarding his return policy. Exactly how how are we to interpret it?

 From Seller ...
*Return policy : *Item must be returned within 7 days after the buyer receives it. Refund will be given as Money Back. The buyer is responsible for return shipping costs.

 Interpretation ?

 1.  Returned and back into the seller's hands within seven days of the buyer receiving it?

 or ...

 2.  Return postmark dated within seven days of the buyer receiving it?

 And although I am still holding at a 50/50 opinion regarding it's authenticity, I still have the money available to possibly win it. All I need now is something, anything, to help change my current opinion of 50/50 to 51% real and I may give it a shot. If it turns out to be the next "Holy Grail" of Mountain Dew bottles (or even number two next to the Party Jug) I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to add it to his collection.

 Current bid at $360.00 ... Reserve not met ... appx 24 hours to go.

 SPBOB


----------



## OsiaBoyce (Jan 7, 2011)

> ORIGINAL: SODAPOPBOB
> 
> I honestly think it's real, too. But just for the heck of it I just this minute sent the seller the following copy/pasted message. I will let you know what he has to say if/when I hear back from him. And even though I think it's real, it just strikes me as totally odd that PepsiCo would be making bottles marked 1965 that they didn't even have a copyright to until December 30, 1965. Maybe they made it on December 31st ... ???
> 
> ...


 
 .


----------



## OsiaBoyce (Jan 7, 2011)

> ORIGINAL: SODAPOPBOB
> 
> *        I'm Convinced!*
> [/align] [/align] [/align] [/align]*It's a Prototype!*[/align][/align]


 
 See it's the real deal.

 Unless you want to change your mind again.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 7, 2011)

Thanks Osia ~

 I remind myself of that every day. But I also suspect that I am not alone here in having mixed feelings regarding the bottle's authenticity. Nor do I believe I am the only one among us who has changed his opinion during the course of what I believe morbious_fod intended to be a fact finding discussion. If one member can provide me with "proof positive" that the bottle is 100% real from 1965 and made by the PepsiCo company, then I am prepared to go as high as ... (to be determined) ... to win it.

 Thanks again. 

 Respectfully,

 Bob


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 7, 2011)

Proof positive, can't give you that. Sometimes you just have to go on faith, but when the price becomes prohibitive to take a chance as it is now for anyone aside from someone who wipes his posterior with $500, then sometimes you just have to let it go. You are going to be up against hardcore Mountain Dew collectors who can afford to pay three thousand dollars for a party jug. This thing will go through the roof when the snipping starts.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 7, 2011)

Morb ~

 As always, I highly respect your opinions. And your prediction that "this thing will go through the roof when the snipping starts," is probably accurate. But surely even collectors with money to burn aren't going to blow a possible $3000.00 simply based on faith? Which, if this does occur, can't help but lead me to believe they know something that we don't. And that's my question, and the reason for my obsession here ... "what" is it they know that we don't? And "where" did they find that information? Is it truly just a roll of the dice or is there something somewhere that we missed? I am astute enough at this juncture to realize that even if someone did have the so called proof we are looking for, (especially someone intending to bid on the bottle) that they probably wouldn't share it with us now anyway. But that shouldn't prevent myself (and others) from trying to solve this so called mystery for the benifit of everyone concerned. It's just a bummer that we only have 24 hours left to try and solve this thing.    

 Appreciatively and Respectfully,

 Bob


----------



## athometoo (Jan 7, 2011)

for that amount of money it should have a base pic and a heel pic . good luck sodapopbob . buyers remorse , complete happiness , or forever not knowing . hindsight will tell all . still a good read .  sam


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 7, 2011)

athometoo ~

 I agree ... and even though I "suspect" the LG65 on the base as indicated by the seller is no doubt correct, you still gotta wonder when a possible $1000.00+ is on the line. It may not be too late to ask for additional photos if someone wanted to request them. But I did ask him earlier about this and posted his copy/pasted reply.

 And while I've got you on the phone here, has it crossed you mind yet why the closeup photos are blurred? I guess it could be (like myself at times) that he has difficulty properly focusing ... but, then again, maybe there is some other reason. ???

 They say hind-sight is always 20/20 ... but I'm still 50/50 regarding the "real deal" part of it.  []  

 Thanks

 SPBOB


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 7, 2011)

Please bare in mind and take this for what itâ€™s worth as the off-beat (but possibly still interesting) ramblings of a â€œwanna-beâ€ owner of a possible one-of-a-kind Mountain Dew Bottle.

 The following is the result of at least six hours of research  involving the close scrutiny of every book in my library, as well as surfing the internet for everything I could possibly find related to Mountain Dew. Which included scrolling through the entire 1,900+ listings currently on e-bay. (About 20% of which seem to be related to Dale Earnhardt Jr. collectibles).

 I realize Morb suggested we focus our attention on bottles, (which I appreciate the logic behind), but since I kept coming up totally empty handed in that regard, (suggesting a possible one-of-a-kind bottle) curiosity got the best of me and I decided to revert back and try to determine where the â€œexactâ€ image of the hillbilly shown on the bottle might have originated.  And, I might add, this was no easy task and is still inconclusive. To date I have found no less than a dozen variations of Willy the Hillbilly, which include full color images  from day one back in the early 1950s to the present with some of  the  more generic Throwback stuff. 

 Being as I watch a lot of those CSI type of TV programs, I decided to take a â€œforensicâ€ look at the hillbilly image itself and see if I could find even a single example of it prior to about 1968. I even made a list of multiple points to look for such as the position of the hillbillies hands and fingers in relation to where they are placed on the jug he is holding. My list also included the number and position of the checkered squares on his shirt - the distance between his chin whiskers and the jug - the type and size of the â€œcloudâ€  emitting from the jug. You name it, and I put it on my list to look for. Including the fact that it is done red and not green, which a lot of the images I found were done in. Iâ€™m sure by now that most of us have noticed that the hillbillies hat has been â€œcropped/erasedâ€ to accommodate the right side of the label. I took all of these things into account and came up with the following. (Note: I havenâ€™t researched the label on the opposite side, and most likely wonâ€™t. One is enough for my intent here).

 I think you might be surprised to discover that what turned out to be the most interesting, and hardest to find duplicate image was the feature at the very bottom of the hillbilly and the jug where most of the images I found show a portion of his elbow and shirt. On the bottle in question this feature is missing. 
 I fully realize that any number of things may be have been involved  with the creation of the label, and that it could have occurred anytime, anyplace, and by a multiple of different methods. Which I kept in mind during my six hours of research, as well as now as I write this.  So, again, I emphasize this is only an observation of mine and not intended to be hard evidence either way to prove or disprove the authenticity of the bottle.

 In conclusion, I only found one image that filled the entire scope of the criteria I was searching for. And, ironically, it just happened to be one of the very first images I found and could have ended my search right then and there had I know at the time that it was to be the best of what I was looking for.

 And the single image I found that best matches the one on the bottle (not counting the cropped had which I feel is just an abnormally) is the one shown below. Itâ€™s origin is pretty much self explanatory, and I invite everyone to draw their own conclusions about it. And if it is evidence, Iâ€™d say it is evidence that  supports the likelihood of the bottle as being an original prototype. That is unless the fountain label below was just stuck on the bottle and somehow â€œbakedâ€ into place.  Lol  Iâ€™m  totally kidding about the â€œbaked onâ€ part, and donâ€™t believe that for one second. I was just joshinâ€™ those who  might have been thinking along those lines.

 I have no doubt there are other images better than the one below, but this is the best that this forensic scientist from the backwoods of California could find. And thanks to all concerned for allowing me to indulge myself here. 

 I hope it can be said â€¦ â€œThat I tried my very best to solve this thing.â€

Sincerely,

 SODAPOPBOB


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 7, 2011)

Closeup of bottle label again for comparison.


----------



## sodapops (Jan 7, 2011)

OK, I'm going to stir the honey pot up here a little, but here iit goes. I was on e-bay when I came across the bottle in question and realized I knew the seller as a fellow Oklahoma Collector. So I gave him a call and he told me he was selling that bottle for a friend who has had it for many years. The only details he could give me is he thought his friend purchased it many years ago at an antique store and didnt have much more info. The owner was offered several hundreds of dollars before but turn them down. He did not tell me the reserve price. Now the owner may have more info but I dont know.[]


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 7, 2011)

Sodapops ~

 Fantastic!  That's the kind of info we have been hoping for. Of course it doesn't prove the bottle's authenticity, but at least we know it wasn't cooked up in someone's garage last week. Apparently fishnuts has a connection to the seller as well, so that's a double wammy in support of the seller not being a fraud. I have to believe that one friend would not lie to another friend, and that the bottle did in fact "mysteriously appear" out of nowhere and show up in an antique shop. That's good news!  

 Thanks. I'm almost at the point of transferring funds from my savings account to my checking/debit account. I will decide that first thing in the morning, and can be accomplished with a simple click of my mouse by accessing my online account.

 Thanks again,

 SPBOB 

 Lastly, I would like to add the final observervations and comments below. Otherwise we "might" see ya'all in (as Morb put it best) "when the snipping starts" tomorrow.   [] 

 Final thoughts ...

 Footnotes:

 1. Just because the applied color label is on a 1965 bottle doesnâ€™t necessarily mean it was done in 1965. Even if it was done legitimately by the PepsiCo Company, it could just as easily have occurred in 1975, and that whoever was in charge at the time simply said something like â€¦ â€œJoe, go grab me a hand full of those blank Teem bottles without any labels on them yet and we will use those for our little experiment here.â€

 2. The primary reason for my six hour search was to try and determine if that particular hillbilly image was even around in 1965? And had it turned out that I couldnâ€™t find a single image, or even a close proxy of it, then my personal conclusions might have been that the bottle in question couldnâ€™t possibly have been from 1965.

 3. And even though the closest example I could find was on a fountain handle dated â€œcircaâ€ 1960s, at least that established for me that the image was around at least as early as 1969. Thus, just a wee bit more evidence to support the possible 1965 date, and that the bottle may indeed be an original of â€œsome type.â€


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 7, 2011)

I just upped the bid to $500.00!  "Reserve Met!"  Game on!  []

 SPBOB

 Original e-bay link: 
[/color]http://cgi.ebay.com/Extremely-Rare-10-oz-Mountain-Dew-bottle-1965-NICE-/130471424449?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e60b3f1c1


----------



## Brains (Jan 7, 2011)

i've been watching this with a lot of interest as to weather or not the reserve would be met.  Now that the reserve has been met i can sleep again at night, bravo.


----------



## T D (Jan 7, 2011)

> Game on!


 


 As of a couple of minutes ago, it is.  Now that you've busted the reserve, this one's gonna bust loose.  Good luck


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 7, 2011)

> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> I just upped the bid to $500.00!  "Reserve Met!"  Game on!  []
> 
> ...




 Good luck to ya.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 7, 2011)

Morb ~

 Thanks. I intend to give it my best shot. That is if I can prevent my heart from pounding out of my chest when the action begins. I had a taste of that today when I bid the $500.00. My daughter and possible co- investor suggested that I try some yoga exercises beforehand. But I told her ... well, just suffice it to say that I told her what she could do with her yoga stuff.  []

 Anyhoo ... and I hope you don't mind my posting this here, but while I was scrolling through e-bay yesterday looking at the 1,900 listings for Mountain Dew, I came across and purchased the Hartman bottle shown below. All I know about the brand is that one of the first investors in Mountain Dew was Allie Hartman, Knoxville, Tennessee - owner of the Hartman Beverage Company. The bottle is dated 1959 and from Knoxville.

 I'm sure you are familiar with it and was hoping you could tell me a little more about it. It is the first one like it that I've seen and was wondering if they are considered common back in yore part of the country? I should be receiving it in about a week.

 Thanks a lot.

 Bob


----------



## splante (Jan 8, 2011)

good luck on the mountain dew bottle  sodapopbob ..hope you get it...


----------



## ktbi (Jan 8, 2011)

This is an interesting post - you guys sure know your stuff.  Bob - I hope you get it....Good luck....Ron


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 8, 2011)

This might appear to some as a last-ditch effort on my part to dissuade as many individuals as I can to drop out of todayâ€™s bidding so as to increase my own odds of winning the bottle. And in a way I suppose there is some measure of truth to that assumption. But more so I honestly consider this to be a truly valid observation that is worthy of consideration. It came about as the result of a nagging question that has been eating at my brain now for the past 48 hours. So much so in fact that it disrupted my sleep last night, causing me to get out of bed and conduct additional research into the wee hours of the morning.

 What I was looking for was a single example of where the image of the Hillbillies hat was chopped off on the back side as it is on the label of the bottle in question. And even though there may be a case of this having been done somewhere along the line, I could not find a single example of it. Which leads me to suspect now more that ever that the bottle was more of an experiment than a prototype.

 If we think about it for a minute, we might agree there is a difference between the two terms. A prototype is generally an item or idea that is intended to serve as a model of something for future use and/or production. Whereas an experiment can simply mean that someone was messing around with something with no particular goal in mind.

 So the personal conclusion I have arrived at is that the likelihood of the PepsiCo company going to all the trouble to set up a silk-screening for a possible prototype, and one in which they may have actually intended to use, and then to just chop off the hillbillies hat in the process, seems very unlikely to me. But on the other hand, I strongly feel this could have been something that a silk-screening employee could have created out of boredom and/or for reasons that we may never know. 

 I openly admit that my so called observation is based entirely on speculation and in no way is supported by any hard facts or documented evidence. It is nothing more than my personal opinion, resulting from hours and hours of research. But even with this said, it would take some hard-pressed convincing to sway me from suspecting that the bottle was actually intended to be a prototype.

 But this doesnâ€™t mean that I donâ€™t believe it was created in a PepsiCo factory, because I do. I also believe that it may very well be a one-of-a-kind and worth itâ€™s weight in gold to serious Mountain Dew collectors. 

 The only reason I even post this here and now is because in time I think we will eventually find out a lot more about this mystery bottle. I would like to go on record as saying that I doubt the PepsiCo company will ever hold claim to the bottle as being that of an actual prototype they ever intended to use. At least not one that had the hillbillies hat chopped off. That would be incredulous in my opinion.

 So without further ado â€¦ let the bidding begin!

 Blast-off time:  One hour thirty minutes and counting.  []

 Thanks for all the support. I am definitely "In-It-To-Win-It" 

 SODAPOPBOB


----------



## surfaceone (Jan 8, 2011)

Hey Tenacious B,

 Best of Luck in the closing hour. It sure has gotten some wings...


----------



## coboltmoon (Jan 8, 2011)

This has been a fun one to watch. 15 miniutes left US $1,324.00


----------



## beendiggin (Jan 8, 2011)

$$$$$$$1,509.  Yaa hoooo


----------



## fishnuts (Jan 8, 2011)

*$1509*


----------



## fishnuts (Jan 8, 2011)

I'd rather have a Big Hit...and some change to buy something else.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 8, 2011)

Sorry to say ... I was Out-Bid!  and  Out-Classed!  My absolute maximum available funds (part of which was my daughter's) was $1200.00

 SODA "POPPED" BOB  []















[/align]
 Please wait[/align]Image not available[/align][/align][/align][/align]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/align]

 Extremely Rare 10 oz Mountain Dew bottle/ 1965/ NICE![/b]

 Item condition:
 Used

 Ended:
 Jan 08, 201111:21:33 PST

 Winning bid:

*US $1,509.00* [ 35 bids ][/align]

 Shipping:

 $8.95 USPS First Class Mail[/align]

 Seller:

*Member id *bottler ( Feedback Score Of[/b] 540





) [/align]


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 8, 2011)

Gee ... Wasn't it nice of e-Bay to send me the following message?  I feel a lot better now ... not!  []





*eBay sent this message to ... (Deleted By Me).*
 Your registered name is included to show this message originated from eBay.[/align][/align]

 Someone outbid you; sorry you didn't win this time.





 [/align][/align]

 Hi Robert, 

 We're sorry you didn't win this time around. While this one got away, there's other stuff to find. Don't give up. 








Extremely Rare 10 oz Mountain Dew bottle/ 1965/ NICE!

 Sale price:
 $1,509.00

 Your maximum bid:  (Deleted By Me).


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 8, 2011)

I hate to say I told ya so, but I TOLD YA SO! LOL! Ok so it didn't crack three thousand; however, it is the second rung of the Mountain Dew ladder. I'm sure if there were more actual prominence and actual paper work, such as a blueprint or letter regarding it's creation, proving this bottle was real then it would have gone through the roof. I knew the vultures would jump on it like rabid dogs when it got down the wire. Congrats to whoever won this bottle, unless it turns out to be hoax after all, and sorry you didn't get it Soda. Diehard Mountain Dew collectors are crazy!

 It only went for ten times my highest bid, is that bad? LOL!


----------



## Poison_Us (Jan 8, 2011)

When your a Dew addict, your REALLY and addict!

 So, Bob, blessing or bummer?

 We lost out on our big score too. Our max just wasnt  good enough..  no bottle for 2nd place. []


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 8, 2011)

Poison_Us  ~

 I hope this doesn't freak anybody out, but I thought I'd share the photo below that my daughter took of me when the bidding lingered at $1200.00 for about 15 minutes. You can't see my lips moving in the photo, but I was saying something like ..."Whatta we do? - Whatta we do?" And the rest was, as they say, "History."  []

 By the way, did anyone besides myself notice that the winning bid is dated (yesterday) Jan 7, 2011? And that it was placed at 16:54:25 PST which was appx 4M Pacific Time / 7M Eastern Time. I admit I may be wrong regarding some part of this, but if someone cares to double-check it, perhaps they can explain it to me. Does this mean it was an automatic bid entered yesterday and that it nulified everything that followed? Remember, I will never figure this out by myself because I'm still in shock as the photo below illustrates.

 SPBOB


----------



## T D (Jan 9, 2011)

Bob-  
 The guy (or gal) who won it in the end was the person who's bid showed up as $510.00 soon after you met the reserve at $500.  He put in a bid at $1509 PLUS at that time and it showed up to us as $510 because it was the next increment that ebay automatically bid for him.  It ended at $1509 only because the second place guy bid it up to $1499.00 with his 8 bids.  The winner actually won it thirty minutes after you met the reserve.  We'll never know, but the winner COULD have had a $3000 (or more) bid placed.  That's the beauty (or ugliness) of ebay bidding- depending which side you fell on!

 My rule of thumb is- bid you max or close to it with your 1st bid, wait until near the end of the auction, see how it's going and put in a little more if you want to extend it some.  Saves a lot of heartache and anxiety.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 9, 2011)

T D  ~

 Thanks for the bidding information. I took another look at it myself and realize now I was doomed all along. I should have bid something like $2900.00 just to force the the winner's hand. But that would have been dirty-pool, not to mention putting me in a tight spot if his max had only been $2500.00.  []

 I still don't think we have seen the last of that bottle. My personal intentions were hopefully to snag it for about $800.00 to $1000.00. And then after holding onto it for a while and doing some additional research to try and confirm it's authenticity, to re-sell it for a jillion dollars. I bet if someone found the right person connected to the early days (mid to late 1960s) of the PepsiCo company, and then picked their brain for info, that the answers we have been looking for might be found. Who knows, maybe the buyer is following all of this and will eventually honor us with what he knows and/or finds out about it. Heck ... I saved some photos and may even make a few of those inquiries myself. I will let everyone know if and when I do.

 SPBOB


----------



## Anthonicia (Jan 10, 2011)

I am no bottle maker, or professional acl analyzer for bottle collecting means either!  But, I wonder how hard it would be to fake you one of deez?  Maybe we can all get together and play our parts, sell our makings and rule the world with our gajillion dollar profits!!!!  

 If it's fake, and that's a big if.  We will see some more of these come up because of the high price.  I am sure I could make some dew bottles out of old acls.  Especially since it's getting easier and easier to come across the new Throwback 'billy stuff prints.  Call me stupid or silly, idk....


----------



## Anthonicia (Jan 10, 2011)

Speaking on behalf of the chance that it is real....  Well, I can't post a pic right now, but I will if requested.  The canadian versions of the Hartman/Hillbilly bottle has dots on the neck like the spoken bottle.  Now, I don't know if or how many U.S. bottles may be printed like that also since the acls and bottles were made by the same company(s)?  That could mean I purchased a fake, or that the bottle was made at the same plant?  

 If I have time tomorrow I will post what I am speaking of.  G'nite ya'll!


----------



## jays emporium (Jan 10, 2011)

> ORIGINAL:  Anthonicia
> 
> If it's fake, and that's a big if.  We will see some more of these come up because of the high price.


 
 I don't think it's a fake and I don't think there is only one of these bottles out there, so very likely there will be more appearing for sale because of the price of this one.  I know if I had one sitting on the shelf and didn't know the rarity before this I would be selling it now.


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 10, 2011)

I hope you are right Jay. I would like to add one of these to the collection just to have an example.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 10, 2011)

~  Bob's Booby Prize  ~

 Last friday, January 7th, (one page back) I posted a photo of a "Hartman Beverages" bottle that I found on e-bay and purchased while I was doing some Mountain Dew research. The guy I bought it from said he had it in his collection for thirty years and for some undisclosed reason decided to sell it. 

 It arrived today in great shape (except for some slight label wear that I knew about when I bought it). I consider it my booby prize for losing out on the other bottle, and it will serve to remind me of what you end up with when you just don't have the funds to cut the mustard.

 I was surprised to discover that the Hartman bottle is marked 8 3/4 ozs. Which I thought was an unusual size. Otherwise I didn't know much about it until I contacted Morbious_fod via a PM, following which he kindly provided me with the following information. Thanks, Morb. I appreciate it. At least I didn't come away totally empty handed.

 SPBOB

 Info ...

 The Hartmans started out with an Orange Crush Franchise in Georgia and moved to Knoxville, Tenn. in the early 1930's to partner with an existing Orange Crush franchise there. They started bottling Pepsi-Cola in the 1930's and were good friends with Charles Lazier of Mil-K-Botl/Sun Drop fame. Which makes the next statement odd considering Charles Lazier owned the brand in question. According to Bridgeforth's account the Hartmans couldn't get their favorite drink in Tennessee, Natural Set-Up, so they created Mountain Dew as a "private mixer" to replace it. That was supposedly Mountain Dew. Ollie Hartman "Ally" on the bottles due to an error, died in the early 1950's, and Barney carried on the business. At some point Hartman Beverage was sold to one of the big Pepsi bottling groups as they dropped the Hartman Beverage name.

 Hartman Beverages - Knoxville, Tennessee - 1959 -  8 3/4 oz.


----------



## epackage (Jan 15, 2011)

The winning bidder was lj204 and might be a member here, he/she also won this Dew sign back in December for $200....


----------



## madman (Jan 15, 2011)

VERY NICE  HEY MORB NO ANY OTHER KNOXVILLE INFO!


----------



## fishnuts (Jan 25, 2011)

New scuttlebutt regarding this mystery...
 Remember when I posted on Jan 3?
_The seller said this bottle came from a find 17 years ago( did not  elaborate on where, etc.).  Since it had no city...and he has no  experience or interest(collects picture labels only...but would not take  my Orchard in trade)) in MD, it just sat.  And sat.  Six years ago a  Texas (unnamed) collector heard of it and offered him, well..a lot  (unspecified).  He turned the offer down.  

_Firstly, as we all now know the Ebay seller was selling it for a third party, right?_
_At the Jackson show I actually ran into the collector/dealer who was the unnamed Texas guy, Gary Westmoreland, who stated to me that he had seen the bottle years ago and offered the owner $200 for it.  He is a Dr Pepper collector and had never seen the bottle previously.  Again, as we know the original owner turned him down.  But he did mention to Gary that he got it from a guy that was 'just goofing' at the bottle plant and that they had just made up the bottle from thin air.  So the owner knew it to be a fraud bottle?!!
 This fills in some history, if all true second-hand/third-hand info, but adds to the puzzle.  Considering the process of making an acl bottle from start to finish with all it's bits and pieces of work...that seems to be a lot of serious 'goofing time' on their hands.  Guys working there would have had the technology to do such.  And equipment.  And the costs...borne by the employing company for the guy, or guys, at the screening division of the bottle plant to do it.  And, apparently they had opportunity...we have the bottle pics to show for it.
 I cannot believe, however, that this bottle is singular and unique.  As long as the perpetrators were 'goofing', I can't believe they would create the entire process to make only one example.  Then, if they did, was their purpose prank related or for profit?   Where is Sherlock Holmes when you need him.


----------



## coboltmoon (Jan 25, 2011)

If the label had been made for a legitimate product I could see a couple of factory workers goofing off and putting the label on a take home piece.  But to make something from scratch just seems too hard to imagine.


----------



## digdug (Jan 25, 2011)

I know no one asked...but here is my opinion.  I think bottles like this is what some collectors call a 'Third Shift bottle' or 'Midnight Shift bottle'.  These bottles aren't 'fake' or a 'hoax'.  These bottles were made at a 'real' glass company, made by 'real' glass workers, but they were either goofing off, maybe testing the equipment, etc.   I have seen incorrect glass colors, upside down ACL text, incorrect ACL colors, a bottle that had a Pepsi logo one side and Coca-Cola on the other, etc.    Many of these bottles made it home with the workers.  We may not ever know if this Mountain Dew was a prototype or a glass workers joke, but to call it a fake or hoax makes no sense to me.


----------



## splante (Jan 25, 2011)

Kind of interesting that no feedback has been left for the MD bottle. Its been a couple of weeks wondering if they are canceling the deal or if any issues arrised


----------



## epackage (Jan 25, 2011)

> ORIGINAL:  splante
> 
> Kind of interesting that no feedback has been left for the MD bottle. Its been a couple of weeks wondering if they are canceling the deal or if any issues arrised


 The seller left positive on the 10th, nothing from the buyer yet...It's possible the buyer isn't someone who leaves feedback, I have had this experience....

 Paid promptly! Good ebayer and thanks for bidding! Buyer: Member id lj204 ( Feedback Score Of 336)  Jan-10-11 14:20 
   Extremely Rare 10 oz Mountain Dew bottle/ 1965/ NICE! (#130471424449)


----------



## morbious_fod (Jan 25, 2011)

> ORIGINAL:  digdug
> 
> I know no one asked...but here is my opinion.  I think bottles like this is what some collectors call a 'Third Shift bottle' or 'Midnight Shift bottle'.  These bottles aren't 'fake' or a 'hoax'.  These bottles were made at a 'real' glass company, made by 'real' glass workers, but they were either goofing off, maybe testing the equipment, etc.   I have seen incorrect glass colors, upside down ACL text, incorrect ACL colors, a bottle that had a Pepsi logo one side and Coca-Cola on the other, etc.    Many of these bottles made it home with the workers.  We may not ever know if this Mountain Dew was a prototype or a glass workers joke, but to call it a fake or hoax makes no sense to me.


 
 Someone had to draw up the design, in another department, create a screen to apply the label to the bottle, most likely yet another department, waste time setting up the machine to use this design thus shutting down valuable equipment which should be producing usable bottles, all to produce this as a joke. I don't buy it, this would have to be a conspiracy involving people from several branches of the glass company to pull off, and well beyond the reach of just a glass worker joke. The difference between those and this one is that there were already existing acl screens for those bottles, this one is a previously unknown label design, which I doubt could have been produced by workers on the floor alone. Which is why I say it is more likely a prototype created for Pepsi with the cooperation of the drafting department, the screen making department, the glass workers, and management, or it's a fake created by an industrious person with some impressive skills.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 25, 2011)

Note:  "Opinion sharing is healthy and often leads to more clues and sometimes even the truth." (I'm not sure who said this originally, but I read it somewhere once). 

 Personally, I lean toward Morb's observations as being the most logical. But we may never know for sure what took place unless someone who was involved and/or there at the time comes forward and confesses their 'sins.'  

 Whatever the truth may be, I still feel the likelyhood of that actual label as being intended for the final product is extremely slim. Call it a prototype / experiment / fake / or whatever, but for me it still boils down to the hillbillies chopped off hat. I am sure there is a reason for it, which could be as simple as the label just wouldn't fit the bottle without cropping it. Show me a single case on any Mountain Dew product or advertising where the hat it chopped off like that and I will shut my yap!  [] 

              Please remember ... This is just one man's opinion and nothing more. Thanks.

                                                                SPBOB


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 25, 2011)

Just for the fun of it I have been looking for original trademark/patent information regarding the image of "Willy the Hillbilly." I thought it would be interesting to see what the original drawing looked like that was submitted for the trademark/patent. If you have access to any images or information that relate to this please share it with us.

 Thanks

 SPBOB

 I found this that may help ...  (I believe the student's name was John Brichetto, but I'm not sure. John Brichetto may have been the one who did the final drawing in 1953).  ??? 

 In 1946, to further the joke of this *"Home Brewed Concoction"*, Barney had a young high school student draw up a paper label. The label showed a hillbilly with a gun, and on the label they wrote *"Home Brewed by BARNEY and OLLIE"* (The High School student misspelled Ally).The mixer was so popular at parties, that during the next two years, friends convinced the Hartman brothers to take this *home brewed mixer* commercial, and they applied for a patent in *1948*. The patent was awarded to the Hartman's on both the name *"Mountain Dew"*, and also awarded on the now famous design in *1953.*


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 25, 2011)

~  P.S.  ~

                      I think the actual term I am looking for regarding the hillbilly image is ...

                                                          "TRADEMARK"

                                         As opposed to Patent and/or Copyright.

                                         But so far I can find none of the above.

                                                                 SPBOB


----------



## Dragon0421 (Jan 25, 2011)

I would have to agree with digdug on this one with all the variations of third shift bottles and have seen how it goes on in glass factories i believe they had some creative people having alittle fun just my ideas on it.


----------



## fishnuts (Jan 25, 2011)

I'm putting in with morb here, too.  This is just too elaborate to be a prank.  And it took 7+ years to finally sell the 'first' publicly known to us all.  The(se) alleged perpetrator(s) sold this bottle to a still unknown seller that James acted for..  And For ???  Not too much, I bet.    Too many holes in the 'story'.  Too impractical.  Too many stretchesof imagination.
 It doesn't seem that any of the people connected with this bottle, including the two that I personally know, know much about the bottle.  
 If it's unique it came from management, for whatever hare-brained reason, because they are the only ones that could command ALL the various resources required to build a single bottle.

 Segue shifting gears...
 I have seen some great Third Shift beer cans.  Back in the late 70's to early 80's there were some fellers at the Texas Schlitz brewery that were making aluminum Schlitz cans in decorator colors: olive drab, cobalt blue, maroon, burnt orange, I recall. Each had the brown Schlitz markings but colored instead of silver backgrounds.   Air filled and 'smuggled' out of the plant in lunch boxes and they sold for $35 and up as novelites at can shows.  Folks knew they weren't real but had to have them anyway.


----------



## coboltmoon (Jan 25, 2011)

quote:

 ORIGINAL: splante 

 Kind of interesting that no feedback has been left for the MD bottle. Its been a couple of weeks wondering if they are canceling the deal or if any issues arrised 



 About half of ebay customers donâ€™t leave feedback


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 25, 2011)

I may already have posted something similar to this previously, but when I went back and looked for it I couldn't find anything. So it may have been another Mountain dew thread I was thinking of, there are so many. []  In any event, I thought it would be worth taking another look at. I got it from an internet web site (copy/pasted).

 I thought the part about "Teem" being the top-dog at the time when PepsCo took over Mountain Dew was especially interesting. This doesn't prove anything one way or the other about the actual bottle in question, but I still found it kind of interesting, and it may be worthy of more investigation. Has anyone researched the whole "Teem" part of this yet? (Introduction dates, etc; etc.)  I know I haven't.

 SPBOB

 Copy/Pasted Exactly As I Found It ...

*Unfortunately for the Tip Corporation, at the same time they were launching Mountain Dew, the Pepsi-Cola Company was introducing its own lemon-lime drink, Teem. Most of Tip's customers were Pepsi bottlers who were reluctant to compete with the parent company, so they ended up selling Teem, rather than Mountain Dew.*

*The success of another soft drink Sun Drop, and competition from Teem, consequently caused Jones to take Mountain Dew in a different direction, away from the lemon-lime flavor to an orangey taste.*

*Using Wythe Hull's Pepsi-Cola bottling facility as a base of operations, Jones began testing different formulas. Employees at the Marion Pepsi plant were the first to sample each new version of the drink. Finally, one mixture seemed to have the right taste.*

*This new Mountain Dew was test-marketed by the Minges with overwhelming success. Tip began to solicit Mountain Dew franchises, the company's shareholders agreed that Pepsi-Cola bottlers should be given the first opportunity at a charter. That's why most of the first Mountain Dew bottlers were also Pepsi-Cola bottlers.*


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 25, 2011)

P.S.  ~

           In case I failed to make my point in my last reply, I would like to clarify by saying ...

 It appears there may have been some coin-tossing going on back then as to which brand to push (Mountain Dew or Teem) and maybe, just maybe someone said ... "Hey, I wonder what a Teem bottle would look like with a Mountain Dew label on it?"

 SPBOB


----------



## splante (Jan 26, 2011)

About half of ebay customers donâ€™t leave feedback
 [/quote]


 dont have atonof ebay experience about 300 transactions. guess I have been lucky I get about 95% feedback...just thought that a $1500 transaction would get feedback 99% of the time.  anyway what happened to the link http://oldantiquebottle.com/ says it has expiered..hey I like your like your store coboltmoon...may bid on a few things.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 26, 2011)

Here I go again ... Call it a probing mind groping for answers, or lunacy if you wish. But something keeps nagging at me about the shape of the label. And I'm not referring to the hillbilly image or the lettering this time. But rather to the shape of the white background part that I call a flat-top pyramid. I knew I had seen that shape before, and found it on another bottle. But on a much later bottle that I am not sure what year it was introduced. My best guess would be the early 1970s.

 Compare the two bottles that follow and you will see what I mean. Forget the lettering difference that is obvious. Just notice the shape of the white part. I haven't taken an exact measurement of the two labels yet, but they appear to be about the same size. I wonder if this is a coincidence or intentional? There are not too many Mountainn Dew items from that era that have that particular pyramid shape.  

 I know how crazy this all sounds, but I'm just trying to figure out why that bottle has a "newer" look to it? It just doesn't have the same character that an oldie but goody does. Is it possible there is more to this mystery bottle than we think?  Could be. Maybe in time we will find out for sure.  

 Anyhoo ... Just more food for thought. And if anyone knows when they introduced the later bottle, please let me know. The book I have doesn't say. And please note that I still think it was made in the factory, only that it was an experiment of some kind that went sour and was rejected. It must have been rejected if there is only one of them that we know of.  []  

 Thanks a lot.

 SPBOB

 E-Bay Bottle w/ white pyramid background.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 26, 2011)

Later bottle w/ white pyramid background. (And please note that I understand the multi-step acl process and how spaces are left out in the screening for the lettering. It's just that dang white pyrmaid that's bugging me).


----------



## OsiaBoyce (Jan 26, 2011)

Bob.....your "Flat Top Pryamid" is actually an isosceles trapezoid. It follows the CONTOUR of the bottle. I'm pretty sure it is done for one of two reasons one being EASE OF MANUFACTURING. The other AESTHETICS.

 They have been using the "flat top pryamid" from the begining of the acl process.

 Here are a few from the 70s to show how aesthetically pleasing the trapezoid is.


----------



## OsiaBoyce (Jan 26, 2011)

If you were to use a square or a rectangular the lable would appear to be turning downward.

 Here's an example w/ a paper lable.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 26, 2011)

Osia  ~

 Thanks. I agree that isosceles trapezoids and trapeziums (3-sides-equal) are shapes that have been around and used on acl soda bottles for some time now. I think where I am going with this can best be illustrated by the picture below that shows what is described as "The Second Generation" Dew bottles that were first introduced around 1969. (Four years after our mystery bottle). I realize now they didn't start using the solid white background until a little later, the dates of which I'm still not sure of.

 Based on everything I know about the history of Mountain Dew and the transition that began when PepsiCo took over in 1964/65, it seems apparent they were determined to evolve the brand from a hillbilly drink to a "new generation" drink. This marketing strategy continues today which focuses on the younger, more active outdoor type.

 Which makes me suspect our mystery bottle may have been one of the first experiments along these lines to transform it into the new image they were looking for. A transition they were finally successful with as shown in the 1969 bottle below. Of course they don't have the white background, but they do have the block-type lettering in a rectangular form.

 So maybe the mystery bottle (that I still believe was authorized and factory made) was nothing more than a early experiment that was initially rejected and then was eventually perfected into the design we call today as "The Second Generation" acl bottles.

 Whatever the truth may be, I continue to wonder if it is actually worth $1500.00? I was prepared to throw down about $1000.00 on it, but if it were to show up for auction again I'm sure I would think twice now about paying even $500.00 for it. I think more needs to be determined about it first before getting caught up in a frenzy like that again.

 And if it were proven to be a one-of-a-few transition bottles made at a PepsiCo factory, who that make it worth $1500.00 ... or possibly more? 

 SPBOB


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 26, 2011)

Slight correction ... Instead of "who that" in the last sentence, I meant "would that."  (I guess it's just the hillbilly in me that explains these types of errors).  []


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 26, 2011)

This is for the e-bay buyer in case he/she should ever come across this forum and read this.

 Dear Buyer  ~

 Please tell us what you know about the bottle now and/or find out about it in the future. Any confirmation of it's authenticity can only increase it's value. Who knows, in time it may become the "Holy Grail" of acl soda bottles and be worth as much as ... $????.??


----------



## towhead (Jan 26, 2011)

I can't get to EBy from here....but, if you click on the buyers number, to get to feedback area, you can check "Feedback Left For Others"....has buyer left Feedback for other purchases?  Does he leave feedback right away??   -Julie


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 26, 2011)

Julie  ~

 I am not sure yet how the following will post. If I comes out like scramble eggs I will attempt to cancel it if possible. If not, then just try to make the best of it. I feel a little weird posting it, but since it is public knowledge I suppose there is no harm done.

        It is the recent bidding history of the individual who bought the bottle and is known as ...  j***j 

                                                                SPBOB

         P.S. ~  It didn't come out quite like I copy/pasted it, but I suppose it's better than nothing

 [/align]Bidding Details[/align]











*Bidder Information*

 Bidder:





j***j
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




( 336
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Feedback:





100%
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Positive 

 Item description:



Item Title: [/b]Extremely Rare 10 oz Mountain Dew bottle/ 1965/ NICE!

 Bids on this item:





1





*30-Day Summary*

 Total bids:





16

 Items bid on:





8

 Bid activity (%) with this seller:





6% 








 Bid retractions:





0

 Bid retractions (6 months):





0





 [/align][/align][/align][/align]

 [/align][/align][/align]30-Day Bid History[/align][/align]






Category





No. of Bids





Seller
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	











Last Bid
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	















Collectibles > Soda





2





Seller 1





4d 16h






Collectibles > Soda





1





Seller 1





6d 16h






Coins & Paper Money > Silver





2





Seller 2





1d 23h






Coins & Paper Money > Silver





2





Seller 2





2d 






Coins & Paper Money > Dollars





1





Seller 2





2d 6h






Coins & Paper Money > Silver





5





Seller 2





2d 23h






Collectibles > Bottles





1





Seller 3





18h






Collectibles > Soda





2





Seller 4





1d 14h[/align][/align][/align][/align]


----------



## epackage (Jan 26, 2011)

The bidder does leave feedback and the bidders user ID is lj204, after winning the Dew sign I showed it took the winner 2 weeks to post feedback.......


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 26, 2011)

epackage ~

 The auction closed on January 8th. Which was two weeks ago last Saturday. So maybe something will show up soon. But if he is anything like me, my standard feedback looks like the following, which doesn't really say much about the particular item that I purchased. I usually write ...

                  GRRRRREAT!  A FIVE "R" TRANSACTION! THANKS! I'LL B-BACK! 

 SPBOB


----------



## epackage (Jan 26, 2011)

> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> epackage ~
> 
> ...


 After spending $1500 any positive feedback is good for the seller I would think SPB, I'm guessing lj204 isn't a member here or if he/she is they don't want to say they bought the bottle just yet...jim


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 26, 2011)

epackage  ~

 I agree. And you gotta wonder if the buyer actually knows what they bought or if they just had money to burn and went with a gamble on a roll of the dice? But what could he/she possibly know about the bottle that 100+ members here (many of which who are advanced collectors/researchers) don't know?

                                        I guess that's the $64,000.00 question.  []

                                                                 SPBOB


----------



## epackage (Jan 26, 2011)

[]  I agree..


----------



## towhead (Jan 26, 2011)

ok!  Can't wait to see if he leaves Feedback....-Julie


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jan 26, 2011)

Please note that I am the guy who "almost" plopped down $1200.00 on the bottle. I actually feel better now that I didn't. But in my continuing quest (obsession?) to try and figure it all out, some of my research has taken me where no man has gone before.  []

 Which brings me back to my recent inquiry regarding the original "Trademark" image of the hillbilly. And it isn't so much that this trademark image will prove anything one way or another, but rather that it challenges me when I try to find something that I know exist but can't find.

          Here is the best clue I have found so far regarding a date for the original trademark image.







 On November 12, 1948 the Hartman Brothers filed for and received a trademark on the now famous label â€“ a professional redraw of the 1946 paper label. 

 Additionally ... Here is a link for those of us who would like to have a better idea of the Mountain Dew "timeline." I have seen others like it, but this particular one is my favorite because of it's simple format.

 SPBOB

 Link to Mountain Dew timeline.    
http://www.twoop.com/food/mountain-dew.html
 [/align]


----------



## OsiaBoyce (Feb 19, 2011)

You want belive how I hate dredging this back up.

 Somewhere in this post I read "Texas collector.........", most of us know "who" that is, and as allways he was at Columbia.

 So I says "Mr. G.W. tell me about that Mnt. Dew bottle."

 He say  ".................I offered xxx.xx, no deal............................................"  
 "Ok" I say. Then I follow up, "Where did it come from?"

 ....and here's what he told me. 

 It was made by a few  guys that were working in a Oklahoma glass house.
 Also to note, he said they made three or four of these bottles.

  Whether or not this is the actual case, I don't know, but that's what has been told to me.


----------



## acls (Feb 19, 2011)

Were they made in a glass house in the 60s as a prototype?

 or

 Were they made in a glass house recently to deceive Mountain Dew collectors?


----------



## OsiaBoyce (Feb 20, 2011)

They were just messing around the way I understood it.


----------

