# Amber Anchor-Hocking Coke bottle.



## groverdill (Apr 29, 2014)

Hey all. It's been a while since I've visited the forums. I picked up this amber Coke bottle over the weekend, but I don't know much about it. I'm in the process of researching it, but I thought I'd post it here, maybe get some quick opinions on it. As you can see, it's amber. On the bottom is the Anchor-Hocking logo. Both the front and back have the Coca-Cola script (as opposed to "Coke" being on the back like I usually see). On one side, below the script, it says trade mark registered contents 6 1/2 fl. ozs. On the other side, below the script, it says trade mark registered in u.s. patent office. The only other marking I see are 62-42 on one side near the base. I bought it assuming it's some sort of commemorative piece. It's in very good condition, so probably never used, only displayed. Does anyone know more about this? My only real concern is that it's just something some one made to make a quick buck. If it's a novelty piece produced and sold by Anchor-Hocking, I'm OK with that. Thanks. Mike


----------



## celerycola (Apr 29, 2014)

Back in the seventies workers at Oak Ridge would take Coke bottles to work in their lunch boxes and have them irradiated to turn amber. These were all over the flea markets for years. I've been told the bottles retain unsafe levels of radiation.


----------



## cowseatmaize (Apr 29, 2014)

Read this. http://www.glassbottlemarks.com/glass-manufacturers-marks-on-coke-bottles/ But I do have a problem there. It looks like a more natural amber than nuked, maybe that's just the image though. I think 64 is the year and 42 is the mold ID.I wish I could say for sure.


----------



## UncleBruce (Apr 29, 2014)

I think it looks unnatural.  I doubt big brother Coca Cola would have varied their bottles in such a way.  The image of a brand is everything with many companies and this looks out of sorts for the controls they might have had in place.  Just my feelings with no facts to back that claim up.


----------



## 2find4me (Apr 29, 2014)

I would say it is irritated, there are lots of them out there.


----------



## groverdill (Apr 30, 2014)

Thanks for the replies. Based on what's been said so far: It might be irradiated (or irritated, depending on who you ask[])It's probably from 1962.My hair might fall out if I handle it too much. Well, that's a start. I was hoping for something more definitive, like "Oh hey, that's a '62 Hocking commemorative display piece, 15,000 were produced for the Schmeckillyville Annual Hog Parade". Or something like that. I'll do my best to get a positive ID and let you know the results. Thanks again. Mike


----------



## cowseatmaize (Apr 30, 2014)

Sorry for the mistype, I meant 62, not 64.


----------



## 2find4me (Apr 30, 2014)

I meant irradiated, sometimes I have spelling probz. []


----------

