# GRAHAM GLASS COMPANY / FLAVOR BOTTLES / COCA COLA / SEARCH / RESEARCH



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 2, 2013)

This thread is a spin-off of my last thread which involved bottles from the 1916 Coca Cola convention ...

 COCA COLA / 1915 PROTOTYPE / EARL R DEAN / RAY A GRAHAM 

 https://www.antique-bottles.net/forum/COCA-COLA-%2F-1915-PROTOTYPE-%2F-EARL-R-DEAN-%2F-RAY-A-GRAHAM/m-600389/tm.htm

 ~ * ~

 My intent with this new thread is to focus specifically on the Graham Glass Company "Flavor Bottles," with the ultimate goal being to hopefully find answers to the following questions ...

 PART ONE ~ IN SEARCH OF

 1. Which glass company made the Coca Cola embossed flavor bottle pictured below? 

 (This bottle was first brought to our attention by member digdug and can be found on Page 5, Post 100 of my other thread).

 2. Was the bottle pictured below ever patented / distributed, and if so by who?

 ~ * ~

 I think it only proper to mention I have spent the past week researching this topic and have discovered there is a lot more to those so called "ordinary" flavor bottles than meets the eye. So the next time someone post what we normally think of as a "typical flavor bottle" and they ask for information pertaining to it, please keep this thread in mind because it might shed some new light on the subject.

 Note: By "Flavor Bottle" I am referring specifically to the one's with what I call the bulbous base and shoulder and were used by most if not all of the Coca Cola bottlers between the mid-teens and the 1940s and 1950s.   

 It appears the earliest patent on this type of flavor bottle was secured by Robert C. Graham of the Graham Glass Company and patented in 1916. (Patent images to follow on subsequent pages). The reason I say "appears" is because there are so many variations of the patent that it gets a bit confusing as to the who-what- where-when of the design. The earliest patent I could find was the one from 1916 but similar patents (variations) can also be found during the early 1920s. I looked around on eBay and elsewhere and discovered that every flavor of this type that had information associated with it always listed the bottles with dates from the 1920s. Which brings us to ...

 PART TWO ~ RESEARCH 

 1.  Are there any flavor bottles of this type (Coca Cola or otherwise) that are dated 1916 through about 1920? If they exist I have yet to find a single example. The earliest I have found so far is a 1922.

 2. I need your help and suspect the majority of us have a "bulbous" flavor bottle or two as they are fairly common and easy to recognize. Please check the one's you have and share with us "all of the marks" they contain. We'll figure out later what the marks might mean as it can be a bit confusing and complicated.

 3. To familiarize yourself with the various Graham marks/codes, please access the following link and note the chronology on Page 7.

 http://www.sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/TaleofTwoMachines_BLockhart.pdf

 4. The following links contain brief information pertaining to the Graham Glass Company. Note the date on the first link stating that the Owens Company purchased the Graham Company on July 21, 1916.

 http://xrl.us/bpd6uy

 Graham / Owens ~ Brief history

 http://xrl.us/bpdztm

 ~ * ~

 Regarding some of the confusion I mentioned, I have seen examples of flavor bottles which look almost identical to one another but were made by different glass companies, including; Graham Glass ~ Owens-Illinois ~ Laurens Glass Works, and others. I have one of the later variations (which has the four stars on the shoulder) that has a 1916 Graham patent number on the heel but was made by Laurens Glass Works in 1948. It is marked with ...

 PAT NO 49729
 4LGW8

 Most likely many of the flavor bottles, like my LGW example, are the result of one glass company acquiring/purchasing the rights to use that design from another glass company. Or perhaps they traded designs in some manner. I'm not sure yet just how all of that played out and would be interesting if someone found something explaining it.  

 ~ * ~

 To summarize / clarify 

 I am primarily looking for two things ...

 1. Who patented / made the flavor bottle pictured below and when?

 2. What is the earliest date that can be confirmed on these types of flavor bottles?

 I realize that looking through a bunch of bottles can be a pain in the you-know-what, but because flavor bottles are easy to recognize it might not be as bad as we think. If you do have a flavor bottle you'd like to share, but not sure of the codes, please post it anyway and hopefully as a team we can figure it out.

 Thanks in advance to everyone who participates in this search and/or follows it with interest ... and please have a Happy Fourth of July.

 Sincerely,

 Sodapopbob

*Mystery Bottle ~ Who made it and when?*


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 2, 2013)

On this page and and several pages to follow are examples of the various types of patented flavor bottles.

 Reminder: We are looking for the "*Earliest*" example.

 Thanks again,

 Bob 

*Patent 49,729 ~ Robert C. Graham ~ Filed June 30, 1916 ~ Patented October 3, 1916*


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 2, 2013)

*Patent 49,730 ~ Robert C. Graham ~ Filed June 30, 1916 ~ Patented October 3, 1916*


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 2, 2013)

*Patent 70,281 ~ John M. Lents (Assignor to Graham Glass) ~ Filed February 15, 1926 ~ Patented July 1, 1926*


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 2, 2013)

*Patent 76,032 Frank R. Miller (Assignor to Graham Glass) ~ Filed November 9, 1927 ~ Patented August 14, 1928*


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 2, 2013)

*Patent 63,365 ~ Robert C. Graham ~ Filed May 29, 1923 ~ Patented November 27, 1923*

 This is the "Star" variation I mentioned ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 2, 2013)

Minor correction ...

 My 4LGW8 Flavor bottle has six stars, not four which was a typo. I believe all (or most) of the "Star" bottles had six stars ... but I'm not certain about that. 

 Bob


----------



## pyshodoodle (Jul 2, 2013)

Around here (PA) We have ribbon cokes. Never saw this style before. (Although I have a similar designed bottle which contained Yeasto! yum!)


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 2, 2013)

Meet ...

 The Graham Brothers. 

 (Sometimes we think of individuals like this as just names and not working glass heroes).

 This story starts on a small farm in Washington, Indiana where brothers Joseph, Robert and Ray Graham were born and grew up. Father Ziba and Joe buy shares in a small start up glass container company, Lythgoe Bottle Co. Joe, 19 at the time, creates and patents a new process for blowing better bottles so they wouldnâ€™t break so easily. It becomes so successful that they ended up owning the company by 1905 and change the name to the Graham Glass Company. They buy out their major supplier of raw materials and merged with the Owens Bottle Company in 1916. The base product started with the manufacture of canning jars. However, the money started poring in with bottle patents, Coca Cola bottles in particular.


----------



## epackage (Jul 2, 2013)

*Bob are you aware that they went into the automobile business later on???*

 Brothers Joseph, Robert, and Ray Graham were "Indiana sharpies," to quote auto historian Jeffrey Godshall -- farm boys with "dreams beyond the bucolic life." Sharp they were. After starting a glassmaking business that grew to become Libbey-Owens-Ford in 1930, the brothers built trucks for Dodge.

 They did so well that by 1926 they were running Dodge's entire truck organization. Then, suddenly, they left and bought the declining Paige Motor Company in 1927 to build their own cars. The first appeared the following year under the Graham-Paige banner, which continued through 1930. The name was then changed to simply Graham, though Paige remained in the company name and on its commercial Â­vehicles.

 The Grahams prospered with cars as quickly as they had with trucks, volume soaring to more than 77,000 in calendar 1929. By that time they'd set up a vast new factory in DearÂ­born, Michigan, plus facilities in Indiana and Florida. HowÂ­ever, 1929 would be the firm's production peak.

 Graham's 1930 line was expansive, comprising Standard and Special Sixes on a 115-inch wheelbase and Standard, Special, and Custom Eights on spans of 122, 134, 127, and 137 inches. Engines were conventional L-heads: 207- and 224-cubic-inch inline-sixes with 66/76 horsepower as well as 298.6- and 322-cid straight-eights with 100/120 bhp. Among numerous body styles were beautiful long-wheelbase Custom Eight town cars and limousines by the LeBaron studios at Briggs Manufacturing Company. All models featured Graham-Paige's famous four-speed transmission.

 This basic lineup continued through early 1932, joined in the spring of 1931 by the hopefully named "Prosperity Six," a cheap four-model series priced as low as $785. But the Depression was on, and Graham-Paige failed to prosper. Model-year 1930 car production sank to about 24,000, then slid to 20,000 for 1931.

 Undaunted, the Grahams came back for 1932 with the Blue Streak Eight. This mounted a generous 123-inch wheelbase that perfectly suited magnificent new styling by Amos Northup of the Murray Corporation. Northup had just created the 1931 Reo Royale and was also responsible for the earlier Hupp Century. The Blue Streak was no less stunning. Smooth, ultraclean bodies hid unsightly chassis components, windshields tilted jauntily back, a radiator with tapered vertical bars and no cap fit flush with the hood, and fenders were artfully drawn down to hug the wheels -- the "skirted" treatment was a first for a production car.

 The Blue Streak bowed with only a coupe, four-door sedan, and convertible coupe. All carried a 90-bhp 245.4-cid eight with an aluminum head and pistons. Beneath the trend-Â­setting bodies was an equally advanced chassis with straight side rails, outboard rear springs, and "banjo" rear-axle mounting. The result was exceptional handling stability combined with great ride comfort, abetted by adjustable shock absorbers and, a bit later, low-pressure tires. Standard and Deluxe trim was offered at attractively low prices ranging from $1095 to $1270.

 In good times, the Blue Streak would have sold well. But 1932 wasn't a good year for anyone in Detroit, and Graham's calendar-year volume slid to 12,967. Most were Blue Streaks and conventionally styled Sixes.

 The Blue Streak was renamed Custom Eight for 1933, when its little-changed basic design spread to all "second-series" Grahams. Competitors' styling began mimicking the Blue Streak, so Graham proclaimed itself "the most imitated car on the road." With almost every 1933 American car wearing Â­fender skirts, they were right. Below the Custom were a new 113-inch-wheelbase Standard Six and 119-inch Standard Eight. All models rode stronger frames with front K-brace and sported gracefully vee'd front bumpers. Yet for all this quality and appeal, Graham-Paige production sank again, hitting 11,000 for the Â­calendar year, though the firm somehow eked out a tiny $67,000 profit.

 Still hoping for better times, Graham sprang a surprise for 1934: the Supercharged Custom Eight. Tagged as low as $1295, it was America's first moderate-cost supercharged car. Boosting its newly bored 265.4-cid engine was a Graham-built centrifugal blower that helped deliver 135 bhp -- good for Â­lively midrange urge and 90 mph all-out. Daredevil driver "Cannonball" Baker drove a Supercharged Custom cross-country in 53 hours, 30 minutes; a solo record that would stand until 1975. Baker's feat also testified to the utter reliability of the Graham blower. Over the next six years, Graham would build more supercharged cars than any company ever had before.

 Other Grahams saw little change through the "first-series" 1935 models, though the lineup was juggled several times and built-in trunks were a notable new option for sedans (at $35). With calender 1934 output rising to 15,745 cars, things seemed to be looking up.Offerings shuffled again for 1935's "second series." Coupes and convertibles looked much as before, but sedans began backing away from Blue Streak styling, which was becoming a bit dated anyway. A smaller new Standard Six arrived with a 60-bhp, 169.6-cid engine and Blue Streak styling on a trim 111-inch wheelbase. It lacked some big-Graham technical features, but sold well. A good thing, as eight-cylinder sales declined sharply. So even though model-year volume went up to near 18,500, Graham was now feeling a severe financial pinch.

 Accordingly, the firm abandoned Eights for 1936 but offered America's first supercharged six: a 217.8-cid unit that would be Graham's mainstay engine right to the end. It arrived in 115-inch-wheelbase Supercharged and unblown Cavalier series sharing Hayes-built coupe, sedan, and convertible bodies with Reo's 1935-36 Flying Cloud, an arrangement worked out during 1935. The two companies never "married," but Graham used Reo bodies through 1937, which resulted in some very ordinary looking cars. Graham's price-leading 1936-37 Crusader used 1935 tooling, which was later sold to Nissan of Japan to bring in needed cash. And Graham needed that, losing $1 million in 1936 despite higher calendar-year sales of over 16,400.

 Hoping for a miracle, Graham unleashed the radical "Spirit of Motion" for 1938, a blown and unblown four-door sedan with a sharply undercut front that soon earned the dubious nickname "sharknose." It was Northup's last design before his untimely death in 1936. (Ray Graham had passed away in 1932; he was only 45.)

 Graham was trying to be the style leader it had been with the Blue Streak, but the public didn't buy it -- literally, as model-year production ended at 5020. A "sharknose" two-door sedan and "Combination" club coupe arrived for 1939, when running boards were eliminated. Horsepower remained 116 supercharged, 90 unblown, and all models offered Deluxe and better Custom trim. Despite impressive supercharged performance (10.9 seconds 0-50) and fuel economy of up to 25 mpg, the "sharknose" remained a poor seller. It thus departed after 1940, seeing little further change save slight horsepower gains (to 120 and 93). Respective 1939-40 model-year production was 5392 and an estimated 1000.

 By now, company president Joseph Graham had spent a half-million dollars of his own money to keep his firm going. He needed something new, but how to pay for it? The answer came in 1939 with Norman De Vaux, who'd failed with automobiles marketed under his own name. De Vaux had bought up the tooling for the late 1936-37 Cord 810/812 Westchester sedan, and had talked equally struggling Hupp Motors into building a modified version with rear-wheel drive instead of front drive. Joe Graham proposed building the bodies, provided his company could sell its own version of the car with Graham power. Aside from that and minor trim differences, the resulting Graham Hollywood and Hupp Skylark were identical. The Skylark was announced first, in April 1939 at the New York World's Fair, though that proved premature. Gearing up for production took longer than expected, so neither model was built in significant numbers until May 1940.

 Like Hupp, Graham planned to offer a sedan and convertible, but only one Hupp convertible was ever built and maybe up to five Grahams. Production Hollywoods carried Graham's own 120-bhp supercharged six, and thus cost a bit more than Hupp's unblown Skylark: initially $1250 versus $1145. Both models rode a 115-inch wheelbase, 10 inches shorter than the parent Cord's. To fit their tall engine beneath the Cord's lower hoodline, Graham engineers offset both carburetor and air cleaner. Both versions wore a handsomely reworked face (by the renowned John Tjaarda) with a double grille (fully chromed on Hollywoods), exposed bullet headlamps, and nicely shaped front fenders.

 Unfortunately, the old tooling was simply unsuitable for volume production -- the same thing that had tripped up the Cord. The roof alone comprised seven separate panels. Joe Graham hoped to simplify matters, but was distracted when he agreed to take over Skylark production, which necessitated a complete overhaul of Graham's assembly line and added further cost and delay.

 Though Hupp called it quits in the summer of 1940, Graham pressed on for '41, adding an unblown Hollywood priced at just $968 and cutting the price of the supercharged model to $1065. HorseÂ­power was upped slightly on both engines. But it was all to no avail, and Graham finally gave up the auto business, too, in September 1940.

 Ironically, departing the car business proved quite timely, as Graham prospered through World War II on $20 million of government defense contracts. Joseph W. Frazer then bought the firm in 1944. His namesake Frazer car was built as a "Graham-Paige" product in 1946-47, though at Kaiser's Willow Run factory rather than G-P's old Dearborn plant. In early 1947, Graham-Paige sold its remaining automotive interests to Kaiser-Frazer, and in 1952 quit farm equipment as well. G-P then dropped "Motors" from its name and became a closed investment corporation. It later operated Madison Square Garden and owned several professional New York athletic teams. All these endeavors proved far more profitable than carmaking had ever been.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 2, 2013)

Jim / epackage

*YES*

 Thanks for posting that phase of the Graham legacy.

 Bob


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 2, 2013)

The first/early/teens Graham flavor bottle I am looking for will most likely *not have stars* on the shoulder. Based on everything I have seen and know about this type of bottle, it appears that the stars were added later in the 1920s. The star bottles versus the no star bottles are starting to look about 1,000 to 1, with the star bottles winning by a landslide. I have no specific information regarding the bottle pictured below but it is the only one I have seen so far that doesn't have stars and which comes the closest to matching the 49,729 1916 Graham patent.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 2, 2013)

Here's the 1916 Graham patent again for (no scrolling necessary) comparison ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 3, 2013)

For future reference ...

 The help find the earliest Graham flavor bottle, the marks to look for will be those prior to 1920 which, on the bottles themselves, will be accompanied by various numbers. Look for anything that has a 16 - 17 - 18 - 19


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 3, 2013)

Even though I said earlier that I have been researching Graham flavor bottles for a week, I am still in the process of doing "picture" searches which involve a great deal of time. The problem with picture searching is the lack of information in the descriptions as to how the bottles are marked which, more often than not, don't contain that information whatsoever. Understandably, most non-collectors wouldn't know a Graham bottle from a Graham cracker. But this doesn't mean that some individuals don't try their best to describe a bottle's details. Take for example the following that I found ...

 Link and Description:

 http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/rare-coca-cola-soda-water-bottle-pre-stars

 A VERY OLD SODA WATER BOTTLE FROM COCA COLA. ITS UNIQUE SHAPE IS AN EYE-CATCHING MIXTURE OF STRAIGHT LINES AND CURVES, FLAT SURFACES AND ROUNDED EMBELLISHMENTS. IT IS FAR MORE BEAUTIFUL AND COMPLEX THAN THE TRADITIONAL COCA COLA CONTOURS THAT WOULD COME LATER. THE WORDS "SODA WATER" ARE PROMINENT AND APPEAR TWICE, FRONT AND BACK. IN SMALLER LETTERS IT READS "PROPERTY OF COCA COLA BOTTLING CO. CON 6 FL OZ." AROUND THE BOTTOM EDGE IT READS "PAT OCT 3 1916 - NOV 14 1922."  THIS BOTTLE PRE-DATES THE MORE COMMON SODA WATER BOTTLE WITH STARS. THE BOTTOM OF THE BOTTLE SAYS WEATHERFORD, TEXAS.

 ~ * ~

 I like the indication of "Pre-Star" but am confused about the second date (November 14, 1922). The October 3, 1916 date definitely ties in with the Robert C. Graham patents but the 1922 date eludes me in relation to this particular bottle. I don't think it's a typo but it could be. All I can say with any measure of certainty is that I have not been able to find anything specific connecting this particular bottle to 1922. Maybe it's not a patent date as the description suggest but rather the date when that particular bottler from Texas was distributing it. If nothing else, at least it provides us with another example of a *non-star* flavor bottle.

 P.S. Wait until you see the next "*mystery*" flavor bottle I found, which I will try and post either later today or tomorrow.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 3, 2013)

P.S. ~ P.S.

 Although I have never fully researched it, patents were usually/always? issued/dated on a Tuesday. That's why I don't think the November 14, 1922 date is a typo because that date was on a Tuesday and fits. Just as October 3, 1916 was also on a Tuesday.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 3, 2013)

.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 3, 2013)

This isn't the "other mystery bottle" I referred to earlier (I'm still researching that one) but rather is intended to show another variation of a 1920s Graham flavor bottle. I'm beginning to think Graham flavor bottles were the most redesigned bottles on the planet and at present have no idea as to how many variations there are, other than it was a *lot*. But don't worry, I have no intention of posting every one I find. I'll save that project for another thread and another day.

 Anyway, check it out. Here's a guy who took some really great pictures but fell a little short on the description aspect. Look close on the mouse/zoom images and on one of them you will see an EG2? on the heel of the bottle, which looks like EG2*6* to me, but I could be wrong. Either way, the EG is definitely a Graham Glass Company mark and, according to the chronology I posted, was used between about 1920 and 1926. But the main thing to notice is the 1923 patent date and then compare it to the 1923 patent image I will post on the next page. As you will soon see, the 1923 eBay flavor bottle is a definite variation of the 1923 Graham patent. 

  http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1923-Coca-Cola-Soda-Water-Bottle-from-Elkins-WV-Excellent-Condition-/110874759218?ViewItem=&item=110874759218&nma=true&si=hVONcvp6fH115j3MpMEFy0NH6tE%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 3, 2013)

For Comparison ... 

 Man O' Man, how many variations are there?


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 3, 2013)

P.S. ~

 The more I study the eBay images the more I think it is EG26 for 1926 and not 1923. ???


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 3, 2013)

I decided to post that "other mystery bottle" now because I have given up trying to make sense of it. I'm not even sure if it's a Graham bottle. Notice it is straight all the way to the bottom and does not have a wide base. The thing about it that intrigued me most was in the description where it says "fancy writing." But because the image is so small (and I have been unable to enlarge it), I can't make out the so called fancy writing. I was hoping it was Cola Cola in script he was referring to but he does say the fancy part are the words "Soda Water." Whichever the case might be, I have never seen "any kind" of fancy writing on a flavor bottle, except the one that digdug shared with us and is the main bottle I am currently looking for.

 Anyway, check it out. And if you know of some way to enlarge the image, please do so and share it with us. Plus, if you can find what he refers to as a "sister bottle," please share that with us as well.

 Thanks

 Bob

 ~ * ~

 I find it especially interesting where he says "ATLANTA" is on the bottom.

 Description: [ slightly edited ]

 AN OLD 1915 (NOT DATED ON THE BOTTLE, MEANING THIS BOTTLE WAS MADE BEFORE 1920, AT LEAST 1915 TO 1917) COCA COLA SODA WATER BOTTLE, 6 OZ ~ ICE BLUE IN COLOR, THESE OLD FIRST SODA WATER BOTTLES IN THE COCA COLA HAD A LOOK OF THEIR OWN, LOOK HOW SODA WATER IS WROTE WITH THE FANCY WRITING, THIS BOTTLE IS ROUND AND OLDER THAN THE SQUARE BOTTLE ~ 6 STARS AROUND THE SHOULDER ... ON THE BOTTOM IT READS: ATLANTA (NOT MAKED GA BUT THAT IS WHAT IT IS FROM, BIRTH PLACE OF COCA COLA). 

 http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/old-1915-6-star-soda-water-bottle-coca-cola-atlanta-1


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 3, 2013)

P.S. ~

 That bottle looks like a "*star*" variation to me and despite what the guy says, I'll bet you dimes-to-donuts that it's not a pre-1920 bottle but rather a 1923 or later. ???

 Bob


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 3, 2013)

P.S. ~ P.S. 

 I forgot to acknowledge where the guy said, "OLDER THAN THE SQUARE BOTTLE ~ 6 STARS AROUND THE SHOULDER," but if those aren't stars I see in the image he posted, then what are they?


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 4, 2013)

*HAPPY 4th of JULY*

 Some of the following might be thought of as pure speculation, but I prefer to think of it as an educated guess. Call it what you will, but after pouring over numerous publications and documents dating back to the teens and 1920s, and taking notes for later comparison, certain common denominators came into focus which helped support my believe that ...

 1.  At least as early as December of 1915 the Owens Bottle Company (Some references use Owens Bottle Machine Company and others use Libbey-Owens), was involved in negotiations with the Graham Glass Company for Owens to buy them out. Negotiations would continue through early 1916 with the buy-out finally occurring in July of 1916.

 2.  In January of 1916, the Coca Cola bottlers convention was held in Atlanta, Georgia where numerous bottle designs were entered and voted on in response to the Coca Cola Company's request for a standardized bottle. Two of the entries were one by the Graham Glass Company and one by the Root Glass Company, with Root winning the competition.

 3.  In order for the Graham Company to have a prototype bottle ready for display at the January convention, logic dictates they were working on it prior to the December 1915 negotiations with the Owens Company.

 4.  Even though the Owens Company bought the Graham Company in 1916, the plant names and operations would remain pretty much as they were prior to the buy-out. (I strongly suspect the Graham brothers still had some influence in the company after the buy-out, at least as consultants. But documentation's regarding this are vague - with a portion of the vague part being related to who retained the rights to the Graham bottle patents - at least one of which is the primary focus of this thread and patented in 1916 ).

 5.  When the new standardized Coca Cola bottle (contour / hobbleskirt) finally went into production / distribution in early 1917, the Root Glass Company apparently had full control of it because it was they who held the patent at the time. Thus, Root was the dominant producer of the new bottle in the first year and made a jillion dollars as a consequence.

 6.  However, because of the huge demand for the new Coca Cola bottle, Root could not keep up with the supply, which required other glass companies to start producing it as well, which included the Graham/Owens Company.

 Now for the good part ...

 7.  I have reason to believe the Graham Glass Company actually thought they were going to win the 1916 bottle competition, which would have allowed them to fully dominate the Coca Cola soda bottle industry like it did for the Root Company. But when this did not occur as anticipated, Graham/Owens decided to work with their other 1916 patent ( the 49,729 bottle ) and push that one down everyone's throat instead!

 8. By 1918 Graham/Owens was producing the Coca Cola contour bottle, but Root still held the patent and taking in truck-loads of royalties because of it. 

 9.  It's impossible to say how many of the patent 49,729 bottles (and it's variations) were produced by the Graham/Owens Company over the years, but based on what I have seen and researched, the count could very easily rival that of the contour bottle. If this hypothesis of mine is even close to being accurate, then it suggest to me that the Graham brothers weren't such big losers after all.

 Bob


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 4, 2013)

[sm=thumbup.gif]


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 4, 2013)

P.S. ~

 10.  I also suspect the Coca Cola Company had their finger in the pie when it came to the Graham/Owens 49,729 bottle. There has to be some logical explanation why every? Coca Cola franchise bottler used the Graham/Owens flavor bottle at some point, and I don't believe it was just a coincidence.

 Bob


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 4, 2013)

.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 4, 2013)

By the way ...

 In case you're wondering about those "other types" of flavor bottles, it looks like the Root Company jumped on the band wagon around 1922-1923 ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 4, 2013)

Like the Graham flavor bottles, Root also produced variations of the own patents. Here's one of them ...

 http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-CC-SODA-BOTTLE-MONTROSS-VA-/290556125699

 BOTTOM - MIN. CONTENTS 6 1/2 FL. OZ.  - COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY - BOTTLE PAT'D NOV 6 1923 - 3497 ROOT


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 4, 2013)

Final P.S. for today ... and then it's "Fourth of July Party Time" with the family!

 Graham/Owens and Root would both be absorbed into the newly formed Owens-Illinois Company by 1930-1932, but the original Graham patent numbers would continue to appear on various flavor bottles by various companies well into the 1940s and possibly even the 1950s.

 Here's my Laurens Glass Works example which is dated 1948 and embossed on the heel with 4LGW8  49729


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 6, 2013)

I recently acquired an original 1920 edition of the book pictured below which was written by William S. Walbridge who was the vice president of the Owens Bottle Company at the time. I purchased the book hoping it would have a picture of a Graham soda water bottle, which it doesn't. In fact, despite the title, it's more about Owens machines than it is about bottles, but is still very interesting and informative. It wasn't until after I received the book that I discovered it is also available online, which I am providing a couple of links to. (Even had I been aware of the online book beforehand I would have purchased the original copy anyway because it is a cool collectible).

 One thing of particular interest which I have discovered so far can be found on pages 104 and 105 where it says ...

  http://xrl.us/bpex7v

 "At the same time [1916], the Owens Company purchased the plants of the Graham Glass Company, at Evansville, Ind., and Loogootee, Ind., as well as an interest of the Graham Glass Companiy's plant at Okmulgee, Okla.  These plants remained in charge of their former managers, Messrs. Joseph, Robert and Ray Graham of Evansville, Ind." 

 ... which helps confirm what I posted earlier (post #24) about my belief that the Graham brothers remained involved with the company even after it was sold to Owens in 1916.   

 Entire Book

 http://xrl.us/bpex7n


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 8, 2013)

*Update / More pieces to the puzzle*

 During the course of my ongoing search/research, which involved looking at dozens/hundreds? of the so called ...

 Four-Sided / Square-Sided / Star / Non-Star / Soda Water / Flavor Bottles  

 I discovered that ...

 1. 100% of the examples I've seen all had "Coca Cola Bottling" embossed on them.

 2.  Some contained the 1916 Graham patent number 49,729.

 3.  None had a date code earlier than about 1922-1923.

 4.  The 49,729 patent number appears on bottles made by at least three different glass
      companies, including; Graham Glass ~ Laurens Glass Works ~ Owens-Illinois.

 5.  The majority of the 49,729 flavor bottles I've seen are from TEXAS.

 6.  Although inconclusive, it doesn't appear that a 1916 thru 1920 Graham patent 49,729
      flavor bottle was ever produced.

 7.  I have read (vague / unconfirmed) references stating that the Graham 63,365 bottle, which
      was patented on November 27, 1923, was intended to be a "*companion*" bottle for the so
     called Coca Cola Christmas bottle which was patented on December 25, 1923.

 8.  The claims state that the 1923 Graham flavor bottle is the exact size and of similar shape
       as the 1923 Coca Cola contour bottle and was designed so that both bottles could be
       handled (washed/refilled) by the same types of bottle machines.

 9.  Joseph Graham served as "president" of the Owens/Graham Glass Company until 1924.

 I'm still searching for a digdug/Coca Cola script flavor bottle but so far have not found a clue that even hints to it!

 I'm also searching for confirmation regarding the so called "companion" claim and continue to believe the Coca Cola Company had some direct involvement in the mass production/distribution of the 63,365 1923 flavor bottles.  

 More later!

 Bob


----------



## celerycola (Jul 8, 2013)

1. I've seen many without "Coca-Cola" and some with specific bottler names unrelated to Coca-Cola.

 2. some have the reissue patent date instead of the #.

 3. often they have no date code and could easily predate 1922.

 4. add ROOT as a maker of these.

 5. widely used in South, MidWest, and Northeast.

 6. see #5 - if you've only seen a few bottles from Texas you haven't seen a representative sample.

 7. sounds like an advertising spiel from the glass maker - not an endorsement by the Coca-Cola Bottling Company.

 The Coca-Cola Company was not directly involved in the bottling operations except for New England where they directly issued bottling contracts after the Seth W. Fowle contract ended in 1912. They did require their New England bottlers to use the standard Coca-Cola bottle adopted at the 1911 Convention of the Coca-Cola Bottling Company (Whitehead). The other Parent Bottler organizations adopted the same 1911 bottle as standard.

 The most likely reason for the use of the "square" soda water bottle is the fact that it was advertised in The Coca-Cola Bottler magazine sent free to bottlers (which was not owned or connected with either The Coca-Cola Company or the various parent Coca-Cola Bottling Companies. The magazine was the sole property of Sam Willard who made his living from the paid advertisements. If you want to learn about the Coca-Cola bottling business 1910-1920 you need to reach The Coca-Cola Bottler magazine.



> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> *Update / More pieces to the puzzle*
> 
> ...


----------



## pinballdude (Jul 8, 2013)

The broken-top  bottle in the first post has Coca-Cola in "script". Its always been my understanding that flavor bottles had identifying lettering in "block" lettering and usually stating
 "property of the Coca-Cola Bottling Co.". Why isn't this just a broken straight side coca-cola bottle? Did I miss something?  The only thing different that I see is that it is not a conventional straight sided bottle. Since this was before "standardization" came into play, why couldn't this be a different bottle as the bottler might have had their own way of doing things, seeing there were clear, brown, green glass bottles at the time? Please educate me.
 Terry


----------



## T D (Jul 8, 2013)

> Please educate me.


----------



## OsiaBoyce (Jul 8, 2013)

> ORIGINAL: pinballdude
> 
> The broken-top bottle in the first post has Coca-Cola in "script". Its always been my understanding that flavor bottles had identifying lettering in "block" lettering and usually stating
> "property of the Coca-Cola Bottling Co.". Why isn't this just a broken straight side coca-cola bottle? Did I miss something? The only thing different that I see is that it is not a conventional straight sided bottle. Since this was before "standardization" came into play, why couldn't this be a different bottle as the bottler might have had their own way of doing things, seeing there were clear, brown, green glass bottles at the time? Please educate me.
> Terry


 
 Yep, you missed something.


----------



## pinballdude (Jul 8, 2013)

Oops. Sorry. I guess this is a case of "ask a stupid question..."


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 8, 2013)

> ORIGINAL:  pinballdude
> 
> Oops. Sorry. I guess this is a case of "ask a stupid question..."


 
 pbd ~

 Welcome to the forum and thanks for participating. 

 No apologies necessary. It's easy to get confused, especially with such a bombardment of uncertain information regarding a bottle that seems to be eluding us. My best guess is that the "broken-top" bottle is most closely related to the 1916 49,729 Graham patent (see post #2) because it features a more "pointed" bulge at the bottom and has the fluted neck. Plus it has the arrow, which is typical of the earlier (amber) Coca Cola bottles between about 1910 and 1916. But the most striking aspect of the broken-top is the Coca Cola "script signature" on the shoulder, which appears to be a one-of-a-kind that, apparently, no one knows who made it or when. It could very well be just another variation flavor bottle - but then again, maybe not. The primary focus of this thread is to try and find out who made it and when.

 Bob


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 8, 2013)

celery ~

 Thanks for the helpful information.

 By the way, do you still have the bottle pictured below that you featured on a thread back on October 10, 2011? And did you ever research it to determine if it was a flavor (soda water) bottle or a true Coca Cola bottle? On the heel I can just make out what appears to be a G21, which I believe stands for "Graham 1921."

 Thread Link:  https://www.antique-bottles.net/forum/m-454427/mpage-1/key-/tm.htm#454427

 Thanks.

 Bob

 [ Image courtesy of member celerycola ]

 Soda water/flavor bottle or Coca Cola bottle?


----------



## celerycola (Jul 9, 2013)

Bob, 

 I have conducted extensive research, both online and offline, and have consulted the best experts in the hobby. I have been unable to determine whether the block-letter embossing "SODA WATER"  actually means "soda water" or whether there is some hidden meaning lost to history. And if you read the post in the link you know the bottle does not belong to me.



> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> celery ~
> 
> ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 10, 2013)

*Forensic Observations Requested* ... 

 As we know, the Graham/Salb Coca Cola prototype bottle and the first Graham flavor bottles all have the same "Filed" patent date of June 30, 1916. And even though all three bottles have the same "Filed" dates, the flavor bottles were patented on October 3, 1916, whereas the Graham/Salb prototype bottle was patented on November 21, 1916.   

 Graham/Flavor 49,729 @  HTTPS://www.Google.com/patents/USD49729?pg=PA1&dq=49729+bottle&hl=en&as=X&ei=bK7dUfHgNafuyQHpnoD4Dw&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=49729%20bottle&f=false

 Graham/Flavor 49,730 @  HTTPS://www.Google.com/patents/USD49730?pg=PA2&dq=49730+bottle&hl=en&as=X&ei=2a7dUaqoJ8rIyQHN6ICoDA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=49730%20bottle&f=false

 Graham/Salb 49,924 @ https://www.google.com/patents/USD49924?pg=PA2&dq=49924+bottle&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IK_dUai4B_KgyAHI4IHIBw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=49924%20bottle&f=false

 The June 30, 1916 filing date suggest (to me) that all three bottles were "possibly" designed at the same time.

 And even though we do not know by who or when digdug's broken-top bottle was made, I think most of us agree that it has all of the characteristics of a Graham Glass Company bottle. Plus, in my other thread, there were comments posted indicating the possibility that the broken-top bottle might have been one of the contenders at the 1916 Coca Cola convention.    

 So just for the heck of it, let's assume for the moment that digdug's broken-top bottle and the Graham/Salb bottle were both designed at the same time, which likely would have been sometime prior to the January 1916 Coca Cola bottlers convention(s).  

 Now, with all of this in mind, take a close look at the following two images and see how many similarities / dissimilarities you can find in the script. I'm still studying them myself but have not formulated a final opinion yet and would like to hear other opinions. My thinking is, if both molds were cut at the same time, that the "mold guy" would have cut them the same. ???

 IF, If, if both of these bottles were designed and made at the same time, and both were entered at the 1916 Coca Cola convention, do you think the embossed script signature is ...

 1. Identical?
 2. Almost Identical?
 3. Similar?
 4. Dissimilar?
 5. Nothing in common?
 6. Other?

 Note that both are embossed with an almost identical ...

 6 1/2 FLU. OZS.

 Let's have some fun with this (study them closely) and please not get sidetracked about speculating. In this case, speculation / opinions are totally allowed! (Lol)

 Note: The following two images are the best/only one's currently available to work with. Maybe later we can get some better close-ups.  

 Gracias'

 Bob

*digdug mystery bottle *


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 10, 2013)

*Graham/Salb prototype bottle ... Image enlargement courtesy of member Jim / epackage ]*


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 10, 2013)

Here's the one with the 6 1/2 ounces ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 10, 2013)

I'm not sure what happened to Jim's enlargement, but will try it again ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 10, 2013)

Here's digdug's bottle again because I want them side-by-side for comparison of the embossed script ...


----------



## epackage (Jul 10, 2013)

Here are the two the best I could show them for comparison...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 10, 2013)

Jim ~

 Thanks for the images.

 Maybe the following will help ...

 http://cocacolaloft.blogspot.com/2006/04/coca-cola-script-trademarklogo.html


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 10, 2013)

A couple of things I've noticed are ... *  

 1.  The tip of the "tail" on the Graham/Salb bottle almost touches the 'C' in Cola but it doesn't on the digdug bottle.

 2.  The tail of the 'a' in Coca on the Graham/Salb bottle appears to be touching the 'C' in Cola but it doesn't on the digdug bottle. 

 * Of course this could be an optical illusion because of the different sized images. ???

 Bob


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 10, 2013)

In other words ...

 There appears to be noticeably larger gap between Coca and Cola on the digdug bottle than there is on the Graham/Salb bottle.


----------



## epackage (Jul 10, 2013)

The difference may have to do with the placement on the bottles themselves Bob, one horizontal/smaller area and the vertical/longer area to work with...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 10, 2013)

> ORIGINAL:  epackage
> 
> The difference may have to do with the placement on the bottles themselves Bob, one horizontal/smaller area and the vertical/longer area to work with...


 
 Jim ~

 That crossed my mind as well and you could be right.

 I'm not sure how accurate the signatures are on the link I posted, but take another look at them and notice the relation between the tail of the 'a' in Coca and the dash. Some of the a's are right under the dash and some are off to the side. Now look at the a/dash on the two bottles.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 10, 2013)

Here's the signature I like best from the site ... (Tail of the 'a' directly under the dash).


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 10, 2013)

I just discovered this picture of Gary's bottle that I didn't realize I had because it was mistitled in my files. Anyway, it shows a pretty good image of the script for additional studying ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 10, 2013)

P.S. ~

 For those who might be confused and wondering where I'm going with this ...

 1.  We know Gary Salb's Graham bottle is from 1916, with ample evidence to support it.

 so ...

 2.  I'm trying to date digdug's bottle by a process of elimination and possibly separate it from anything later than about 1923, which is when the revised Graham patent was issued and is the square bottle with the stars. Separating digdug's bottle from anything later than 1916-1917 would be nice, but I doubt we will be able to do that because of the limited information, although its worth a try. 

 Bob


----------



## epackage (Jul 10, 2013)

.


----------



## Bass Assassin (Jul 10, 2013)

Definitely not the same script. Noticeable difference in the capital C in Cola on digdug's bottle. Look at the top loop and see how far down the loop drops as compared to the other bottle(not to mention digdug's loop is larger). Can see several other minute differences as well as the capital C in Cola on the other bottle has a more vertical look.


----------



## celerycola (Jul 10, 2013)

*Just Speculating*

Since earlier information on the "Bottle Contest" points out that there was a rush to get the bottles made before closing the furnaces for the summer it is possible that Graham had two different workmen separately working on molds for the two bottles. Slight differences in script would be more likely to occur than the many bottles we have seen with backward letters or mis-spelling.


----------



## cokebottle1916 (Jul 10, 2013)

*RE: Just Speculating*

Wow!!!!!!!!! That has to be the Nicest Coca-Cola Bottle I have ever seen............Thanks Gary


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 11, 2013)

> ORIGINAL:  epackage
> 
> .


 



 Jim / epackage ~

 Thanks for the photo editing - you did a great job. I'm not sure what the comparisons tell us other than the script on the two bottles is different. The more I study them the more Gary's bottle looks similar to the 1903 signature below which has the tighter loop in the Cola 'C' like Bass Assassin pointed out. I also agree with celerycola that it's possible Graham had two different employees working separately on the molds for the two bottles. I think the one thing more than anything else that keeps coming to mind is digdug's comments on the other thread where he said the flavor bottle didn't have any makers marks or codes which I think would be highly unusual for a bottle from the 1920s or later. All I know for certain at the moment is that I have looked at hundreds of similarly 'shaped' flavor bottles like digdug's but have not found a single one with the Coca Cola signature on the shoulder.

 ~ * ~

 Hey Gary ~

 How'd it go on your road trip? Are you a millionaire now? 

 Thanks again to all.

 Bob


----------



## OsiaBoyce (Jul 11, 2013)

*RE: Just Speculating*



> ORIGINAL: cokebottle1916
> 
> Wow!!!!!!!!! That has to be the Nicest Coca-Cola Bottle I have ever seen............Thanks Gary


 
 Yes it is at that, to bad the tops broken off.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 11, 2013)

> ORIGINAL:  epackage
> 
> .


 
 Just for the record ...

 Here's what the script embossing on a 1915/*1926* Graham Coca Cola hobbleskirt looks like. It is marked ...

*E 76 E G 26*

 http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/coca-cola-pat-d-nov16-1915-e-76-e-g26-hagerstown


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 11, 2013)

*Search Suggestion / Tip* ...

 Because most posters on eBay and elsewhere don't know a Graham bottle from a Graham cracker, but do occasionally include codes in their descriptions, I have had some success in using search wordings such as ... 

*OP Coca Cola Bottle*

*LG Coca Cola Bottle*

*G Coca Cola Bottle*

 Etc; etc. (See chart below).

 Because the Internet is more sophisticated these days, it will pick up on the letters (such as G) and isolate them from other listings. Try it! You just might find another digdug / broken-top bottle.

 Bob


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 11, 2013)

For the record ...

 I recently discovered that *J. M. Lents* (whose name is on the 70,281 June 1, 1926 patent pictured below) was actually the president of the Graham, Checotah, Oklahoma glass plant between 1923 and 1927. So just because his name is on the patent doesn't necessarily mean he designed that particular bottle ... just like the Root hobbleskirt wasn't designed by Alexander Samuelson but rather by Earl R. Dean. The same might be true of the Ray and Robert Graham bottles - patent holders but not necessarily the designers.

 Bob


----------



## celerycola (Jul 11, 2013)

*RE: Just Speculating*

Just a minor lip chip.


> ORIGINAL:  OsiaBoyce
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 11, 2013)

> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOP


 
 Regarding the John M. Lents patent ...

 We can add Chattanooga Glass to the list of manufacturers who made the square/star flavor bottles (C in a circle). Notice in the description and pictures where the bottle is embossed with *June 1, 1926*.

 http://www.ebay.com/itm/COCA-COLA-SODA-WATER-BOTTLE-6-OZ-JUNE-1-1926-FOUR-STRAIGHT-SIDES-SIX-STARS-/121140597620?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c348ad374

 So far I have found the following manufacturers who made one variation or another of the 'square' Coca Cola flavor bottles ...

*Graham Glass Company
 Laurens Glass Works
 Chattanooga Glass
 Owens-Illinois*


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 11, 2013)

P.S. ~

 I believe the Chattanooga Glass Company switched from marking their bottles with 'CHATT' to a 'C-in-a-circle' around 1930 which, if correct, would date the last bottle between about 1926 and 1930ish.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 11, 2013)

Correction ...

 What I meant to say was ...

 No *earlier* than about 1930ish


----------



## celerycola (Jul 11, 2013)

*Correction*

As pointed out earlier in this discussion you have omitted Root.


> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 11, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

celery ~

 That's because I haven't seen a ROOT square-star-type of flavor bottle yet. I've seen plenty of their somewhat straight-sided flavor bottles like the one pictured below but not the square type. Are you saying ROOT made a flavor bottle with a Graham code/date on it? If you have a picture of one please post it.

 Thanks.

 Bob


----------



## celerycola (Jul 11, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Bob,

 Please re-read post #32.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 11, 2013)

*RE: Correction*



> ORIGINAL:  celerycola
> 
> Bob,
> 
> Please re-read post #32.


 
 I believe you mean post #33, but specifically which part do you want me to read?


----------



## OsiaBoyce (Jul 11, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Oh, oh, oh...............................is it #4 Dennis?

 I bet you've seen a lot of those 'Root' bottles huh Dennis?

 I mean you've wrote what, 3-4-5 books? Attend 10-15+ bottle shows a year. Go to countless antique stores and know a ton of long time collectors and have seen there collections.

 You may not have a picture, but I belive ya.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 12, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

I wish someone would tell us exactly which ROOT bottles are being referred to? I'm not saying ROOT never made a soda water bottle for Coca Cola, I'm just saying I have never seen a ROOT bottle that looks like digdug's bottle, which has all the characteristics of a Graham patent. The three pictured below are ... left to right

 1.  Graham Coca Cola flavor bottle
 2.  Graham Coca Cola hobbleskirt bottle
 3.  Root Coca Cola flavor bottle

 I don't consider the Root design to be the same as the Graham design. If someone knows of a Root flavor bottle that looks like a Graham flavor bottle, please post a picture of it. And if a picture isn't possible than please provide us with a link.

 I realize that some of this variety are unmarked, but surely we're talking about marked bottles because how else would you know it's a Root bottle if it's not marked? 

 Thanks

 Bob

 http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/lot-3-vintage-coca-cola-soda-bottles


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 12, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

As a reminder to those who might have forgotten, here's digdug's broken-top Coca Cola bottle again and is the one I am looking for. If you know of a ROOT bottle that looks like this please share it with us.

 Thanks.

 Bob


----------



## T D (Jul 12, 2013)

Since there have been suppositions aplenty, I propose digdug's bottle has maybe half the characteristics of the Graham bottle (the shoulder looks nothing like it, and for that matter who knows what the neck looks like) and is not a flavor bottle and it held good ole Coca Cola.  Can I say that?  Is it too late?  Will this thread take on the characteristics of pull rope housing that is not carefully taken off a mower?  Just my opinion.

 A very rare bottle design that held cola, most likely nothing to do with the Graham design.

 And it was dug with Root in it.  Hence the broken top.

 Or did it hold Root beer.  I'm confused now...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 12, 2013)

*RE: Correction*



> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB


 
 https://www.google.com/patents/USD76032?pg=PA2&dq=bottle+76,032&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NYffUda7GITbyAGwgoGQCA&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=bottle%2076%2C032&f=false


----------



## cokebottle1916 (Jul 12, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Good Morning Bob: I did not sell the Bottle. I had plenty of offers, only a handful are being considered. Thanks. Gary


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 12, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Gary:

 Thanks for the reply - its good to hear from you and I'm glad you got some offers on your bottle, which I hope were astronomical because both the bottle and you deserve to be fully recognized and properly rewarded. I'm sure your grandfather and great-grandfather would have been tickled 'Georgia green' if they knew that their family heirloom had finally reached its proper place in soda bottle history.

 As most of us know, the Root/Dean bottle eventually went on to become nicknamed the "Hobbleskirt," which was a popular dress fashion in the early 1900s. But to tell you the truth, I think your bottle looks more like a Hobble Skirt than the Root bottle does. Its too bad your bottle design never went into full production - it's just about the coolest soda bottle I've ever seen and hope to see more of it in the future, especially when the headlines say ...

 "*COCA COLA BOTTLE SELLS FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS*"

 Take care and good fortune to both you and yours.

 Bob

 Hobble Skirt Postcard ~ Circa 1911


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 12, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

*


----------



## Bass Assassin (Jul 12, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

That is one gorgeous bottle


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 13, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

*CURRENT OPINION* 

 My current opinion (which is subject to change later if I should so choose) is that digdug's broken-top Coca Cola bottle ...

 1.  Was not a prototype entry at the 1916 Coca Cola bottlers convention.
 2.  Was made in the late 1920s.
 3.  Was an *experimental* flavor bottle.
 4.  Was made at the request of the Coca Cola Bottling Company in Atlanta, Georgia.*
 5.  Was made by the Owens/Graham Glass Company.
 6.  Was never mass produced or distributed beyond a limited test area.
 7.  Is extremely rare.

 *   The reason I feel the bottle was made at the request of the Coca Cola Bottling Company is because ...

 1.  digdug said it was embossed on the base with *ATLANTA, GEORGIA*
 2.  Flavor bottles of this type were already being used at the time in vast quantities by numerous franchise bottlers and the Coca Cola Company thought they would try an *experimental standardized flavor bottle* but for some reason decided against the idea.     

 Bob


----------



## celerycola (Jul 13, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

The one small problem with this theory is that every history written on Coca-Cola, whether by the Company or independent author, states that they produced a single product-Coca-Cola until the 1960's. Robert Woodruff was reported to be fanatical not only against selling soda water, but against using anything but the patented 6 1/2 ounce bottle. As a result they didn't use a larger bottle until thirty years after Pepsi. 

 Also,  the arrow device was introduced by Coca-Cola in their advertising in 1909. It does not appear in advertising after the new bottle was placed in use in 1917. 

 The reason for the wide variety of soda water bottles is because bottling soda water or not was left up to the local bottler. The variants of soda water bottles described in this thread were used by many Coca-Cola bottlers and many others unrelated to Coca-Cola. 

 It is implausible to suggest that Coca-Cola adopted a standard bottle for soda water when the Company did not make soda water. It is also unlikely that they would use the arrow device in the 1920 s ten years after they retired it. 

 The Root 1915 bottle, the Graham Cola-Cola prototype, and the Graham "square" bottle reported by Doug share the following characteristics: Coca-Cola in the regulation Spencerian script, contents 6 1/2 ounces, and Atlanta, GA. all embossed. Since the Graham square bottle was patented in 1916 and the arrow device on Doug's example was discontinued within a year that bottle is contemporary with the bottles in the contest. Add to that the fact that there is a single known example and it is possible that the Graham square bottle was in the contest.



> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> *CURRENT OPINION*
> 
> ...


----------



## Bass Assassin (Jul 13, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Very interesting assessment


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 13, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

I thought it might be interesting and helpful to post digdug's comments from my other thread ...

 Page 5 ~ Post 100

 https://www.antique-bottles.net/forum/COCA-COLA-%2F-1915-PROTOTYPE-%2F-EARL-R-DEAN-%2F-RAY-A-GRAHAM/m-600389/tm.htm

 "A friend showed me this bottle years ago. I think it was one of the contest bottles too, but was the loser. We all know the contour from ROOT won. This bottle has arrows on the neck area, panels, much like the soda water bottles used by Coca-Cola bottlers, marked: ATLANTA, GA on the bottom. And no makers mark. I have seen two in the past 6 years. Both damaged in much the same way. It looks as if someone knocked off the neck on purpose. Maybe this is what happened to the 'Losers' of the contest!"


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 13, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Additionally ...

 Here's a link to an interesting read with references to ...

 Standardization / Charles V. Rainwater / Robert Woodruff

 http://xrl.us/bpfvx8  (If this shortened link doesn't open the first time, try it again and it will).

 I'm currently doing a little research regarding the early standardization years and find it most interesting. This research is where I came up with the idea that Coca Cola might have authorized the production of digdug's bottle, but not as a bottle for Coca Cola itself but rather as an *experimental / test* bottle to capitalize on the demand for flavored beverages that all of the Coca Cola franchise bottlers were producing at the time. I emphasize "*experimental*" because when it came down to it I feel the experiment failed and the idea was abandoned, especially after it was presented to the standardization committee which I believe was spearheaded by Charles V. Rainwater. All things considered, and until verifiable evidence is presented to refute it, I am still of the opinion that digdug's bottle was made in the 1920s and not the teens. 

 Bob

 I hope the following image post large enough to read - it is a letter composed by Charles V. Rainwater and dated December 18, 1911. Although it refers to "crown bottle caps" and "orange and peach soft drinks" and not bottles, it gives us a little insight as to just how early the Coca Cola Company was concerned with all of this standardization stuff. I believe it wasn't until the early 1920s that Coca Cola finally got a handle on standardization.


----------



## OsiaBoyce (Jul 13, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Nothing like personal opinions and conjecture.


----------



## celerycola (Jul 13, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

All facts considered, and until verifiable evidence is presented to refute it, there is no evidence to indicate that Doug's bottle was made later than 1916. Had I based my thesis on soda history at Cal State on such random speculation rather than scientific method based on fact, they never would have granted Graduate Degree in History and Archaeology.

 It is unconscionable to select ranodom facts and ignore others and apply random speculation to support your own unrealistic theory. This approach of re- writing history to support your own end has failed every time it has been attempted. 



> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> All things considered, and until verifiable evidence is presented to refute it, I am still of the opinion that digdug's bottle was made in the 1920s and not the teens.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Try the following experiment and see what you come up with. I realize it's not proof-positive of anything, but I think its fun and interesting ...

 1.  Minimize this post with the two Coca Cola embossments pictured below.

 2. Now go to eBay and search STRAIGHT SIDED COCA COLA BOTTLE  (When I last looked there were 233 listings under this heading).

 3. Look close at the embossed Coca Cola script on as many straight-sided bottles as you can that have a clear picture of the signature. 

 4. Each time you find a clear picture on eBay, go back and forth from minimize to maximize and compare the scripts below to those you find on the eBay straight-sided bottles.

 5. Once you get the hang of going from minimize to maximize and back and forth from eBay to this post, compare the "top loop" in Cola on the eBay straight sided bottles to the "top loops" of the bottle embossments below and see if you don't agree that the *majority* of the eBay bottles have the small loop like that on the Graham/Salb bottle.

 I realize this is a bit of a tongue-twister the way I worded it, but its the only way I know of to explain a procedure that I do all of the time. Occasionally I will minimize as many as ten different websites at a time when there is something like this I am trying to compare. 

 The bottom line here is ...

 The *majority* of the embossed scripts on straight-sided Coca Cola bottles (which generally date prior to 1920) *do not* look like the embossed script on digdug's bottle ... but they do resemble the script on the Graham/Salb bottle. 

 Anyhoo, try it. It's fun once you get the hang of it.

 Bob


----------



## celerycola (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Bob, there are currently 9,481 bottles listed for sale on eBay under Coca-Cola / Bottles. More are listed only under Bottles / Sodas -1900 and Sodas + 1900. If you are looking at only 233 bottles and not the thousands listed on eBay and thousands more for sale at bottle shows then you do not have a scientifically reliable sample. 

 Again, you are using selective facts to prove your otherwise unreliable theories.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*



> ORIGINAL:  celerycola
> 
> Add to that the fact that there is a single known example
> 
> ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*



> ORIGINAL:  celerycola
> 
> Bob, there are currently 9,481 bottles listed for sale on eBay under Coca-Cola / Bottles. More are listed only under Bottles / Sodas -1900 and Sodas + 1900. If you are looking at only 233 bottles and not the thousands listed on eBay and thousands more for sale at bottle shows then you do not have a scientifically reliable sample.
> 
> Again, you are using selective facts to prove your otherwise unreliable theories.


 
 That's your *opinion*, which I acknowledge and respect. Please respect mine even if you don't agree with it. You will never convince me with "words" that digdug's bottle was a convention contender nor that it was made prior to 1920 unless you can *prove* it. Just as I cannot prove that it wasn't. What we need here is *proof*, and until (if/when) it is proven one way or another, I am fully entitled to my opinion. 

 Bob


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

celery ~

 Please explain to us where you came up with ... (Post #82)

 "Add to that the *fact* that there is a single known example ..."

 Did you not see on my Post #84 where digdug said ...

 "I have seen two in the past 6 years."


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*



> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> I thought it might be interesting and helpful to post digdug's comments from my other thread ...
> 
> ...


 
 Key words in digdug's post ...

 1. I *think*

 2. *It looks as if*

 3. *Maybe*

 If those words are not an *opinion/conjecture* then I don't know what is. Let's admit it, no one knows for certain by who or when the broken-top bottle was made, nor for what purpose. All we have here are opinions - assumptions - conjectures - and speculations. And mine are currently just as viable as anyone else's.

 Bob


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Regarding the broken-top Coca Cola bottle in question, I rest my case with ...

POST 1920

 That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!

 Bob


----------



## celerycola (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Shouting does not prove a point anymore than disagreeing with the proven facts. Selectively choosing which facts to use and ignoring other relevant facts is bad research. I just believe it is more important to document real evidence rather than prove a point. 


> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> Regarding the broken-top Coca Cola bottle in question, I rest my case with ...
> 
> ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*



> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> celery ~
> 
> ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

*In Search of ...**

 A pre-1920s Coca Cola bottle with an embossed arrow that shows the arrow *pointing down*.

 * Not including the broken-top bottle which we already know about.

 * I'm not saying there are no pre-1920s Coca Cola bottles showing the arrow pointing down, I'm just saying I have not been able to find one yet but am continuing to search. All of the examples I have seen so far show the arrow *pointing up*.

 Bob


----------



## OsiaBoyce (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

You should also ask for a post 1917 bottle w/ an arrow.

 I would think that the direction of the arrow would be less of an issue than it's inclusion as to date the bottle.


----------



## epackage (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Since the top of the bottle is missing we don't know that there wasn't an arrow on the other end pointing upwards as well... []


*MONKEY WRENCH!!*​


----------



## T D (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Bob, the research that you do is fantastic.  The volumes of it just boggles my mind.  I really envy the time that you can spend researching this great hobby.  There are many cool facts that you uncover, but when you start going into a direction that is purely conjecture, you ruin the value of all your hard work.  When you throw in lines like "I hope the headlines will be Coke bottle sells for a million", or whatever was said, it just cheapens everything that is done.  When you completely ignore what Dennis has researched for years, and the resources that he will gladly make available you stick your head in the sand.  When you make a statement like in a recent post along the lines of- well Celery answer my question first and stop changing the subject, blah, blah, blah, then that is just being childish.  Everytime Dennis or I or anybody that questions some of your research, or tries to impart a little wisdom, you either ignore it or get mad.  When going to ebay and searching what is available at that one small time in history, you severely limit your actual base.  Some things just take time and more research before a blanket can be thrown over an area of research and declared done.

 I can't claim knowledge in but a VERY small segment of the hobby, but that I do know about is based on years of research and dealing every day in the subject.  Just be patient and listen to others that are willing to share.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

What I mainly want to know at the present is where did celery come up with ...

 "* Add to that the fact that there is a single known example *"

 Its a simple question that can be resolved with a simple answer. And maybe there is only one known example and the two that digdug saw might just be optical illusions. But I am just genuinely curious what makes celery think there is only one? The thing is, it errks me when I am jumped on for what some members might consider my contributing misleading information, but when someone like celery does it, I guess its okay. That's what I call a double standard and its neither fair nor helpful to the topic. If other's think the broken-top bottle is from the teens and possibly a convention prototype, then just say so and don't be afraid to express your opinion. But definitely don't hide behind someone else's conjectures who think the bottle is from 1916 but who have nothing to substantiate it other than their *opinion*. I'm not trying to make waves here, I'm really not! But what else am I suppose to do? And how many times do I have to say ... 

*I honestly feel the broken-top bottle is from the 1920s and possibly even the "late" 1920s*. 

 Is it okay if I have an opinion, too?

 Thanks.

 Bob


----------



## epackage (Jul 14, 2013)

> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> No apologies necessary. It's easy to get confused, especially with such a bombardment of uncertain information regarding a bottle that seems to be eluding us. My best guess is that *the "broken-top" bottle is most closely related to the 1916 49,729 Graham patent *  (see post #2) because it features a more "pointed" bulge at the bottom and has the fluted neck. Plus it has the arrow, which is typical of the earlier (amber) Coca Cola bottles between about 1910 and 1916. But the most striking aspect of the broken-top is the Coca Cola "script signature" on the shoulder, which appears to be a one-of-a-kind that, apparently, no one knows who made it or when. It could very well be just another variation flavor bottle - but then again, maybe not. The primary focus of this thread is to try and find out who made it and when.
> 
> Bob


 Hi Bob, you seem to have talked yourself into changing your mind somewhere during this post, as you can see in the highlighted area above. There is so much info/facts/conjecture/speculation to take in that it's tough to follow everything in this post. It's outside my scope of collecting and there are so many avenues to pursue to try and help find answers that I don't don't know which one to go down. I hope you get your answers, I have the utmost trust in Dennis considering his years of expertise in the field, if I were you I would reread his posts and put together the most pertinent questions you have that he can help you with.

 Good luck fellas...[]


----------



## celerycola (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Bob, I am interested in getting the facts straight and have lauded your efforts when you have held to the facts. When you post theories that are counter to the facts it is reasonable that members here try to bring you back to earth.

 I remember when you claimed I didn't have my facts straight on the history of Celery-Cola. If you have something against me personally I would appreciate it if you would address it in a pm and keep the list friendly as it should be.

 Several members who have previpusly made invaluable contributions to this forum no longer follow it or post. They tell me they don't appreciate the often negative tone of the discussion. That damages this forum and the hobby in general.



> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> What I mainly want to know at the present is where did celery come up with ...
> 
> ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

celery ~

 How'z about skipping everything else and just answer the question!

 Are there one - two - or more than two known examples of the broken-top bottle? And if you don't know, then just say so.

 Thanks

 Bob


----------



## T D (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Wow ~


----------



## OsiaBoyce (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DmYLrxR0Y8

 []


----------



## celerycola (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

+1


> ORIGINAL:  T D
> 
> Wow ~


----------



## T D (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

I try, but I always become the


 http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1rrsj_auEKs


----------



## celerycola (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

+1


> ORIGINAL:  OsiaBoyce
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DmYLrxR0Y8
> 
> []


----------



## T D (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Gotta go soon because soon I'll be

 http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=-6te_t4n5NU


----------



## T D (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

But Bob from California will always be

 http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=-6te_t4n5NU


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 14, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

.


----------



## digdug (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*



> Are there one - two - or more than two known examples of the broken-top bottle? And if you don't know, then just say so.


 
 1. I can't say how many examples there are of this broken bottle.
 2. I can say how many examples of this broken bottle I know of......2
 3. The broken bottle was patented in 1916, just like Gary's.
 4.This broken bottle has ATLANTA, GA embossed on the bottom, just like Gary's
 5.I regret posting the broken bottle on the forum!


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*



> ORIGINAL:  digdug
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 digdug ~

 I appreciate your stopping by but now I'm more confused than ever. How do you know when the broken bottle was patented if it's not marked?

 Thanks

 Bob

 ~ * ~

 Digdug / Page 5 / Post 100 of my other thread ...

 "And no makers mark"

 https://www.antique-bottles.net/forum/m-600389/mpage-5/key-/tm.htm

 Digdug / Current

 "The broken bottle was patented in 1916"


----------



## digdug (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Basing the patent year on some of the Patents you placed earlier-Patent 49,730 ~ Robert C. Graham ~ Filed June 30, 1916 ~ Patented October 3, 1916 

 I think that is a very close match.

 OK-I'll shut up now.  Sorry to confuse you Bob.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Please compare the shoulders on all three images ...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Embossing ...


 Top: Broken bottle

 Bottom: Graham/Salb bottle


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

My primary reason for starting this thread was twofold ...

 1.  To identify and date the broken Coca Cola bottle.

 2.  To find the earliest date "marked/coded" Graham bottle patent 49,729

 This thread was not intended to determine who had the most expertise in the field of soda bottle collecting, nor who published the most books. Of recent this thread has become the primary focus of the broken bottle which is not marked. I am currently attempting to point out that the "shoulder" design on the broken bottle and the Graham patent number 49,729 are distinctly different. I am also attempting to point our that the embossing on the two bottles is distinctly different as well. Thus, I am currently of the *opinion* that the two bottles are not the same.

 Respectfully

 Bob


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Clarification ...

 "Thus, I am currently of the opinion that the two bottles are not the same."

 By "two bottles" I am referring to the Graham patent 49,729 and the broken bottle. I did not mean to imply the broken bottle and Gary's bottle.

 Additionally ...

 If anyone can show me a "marked / coded" bottle that has a protruding/roundish shoulder like the 76,032 patent (by any manufacturer) that is dated earlier than 1920, then I will be the one that shuts up and goes away. That roundish shoulder is highly distinctive of 1920s bottle designs. Look into it and you will see what I mean.

 Thanks again

 Bob


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Another clarification ...

 Roundish shoulder and "square-sided"


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

By the way ...

 After searching for hours I finally found a *ROOT* bottle which is similar to the Graham bottles that have four sides. The only codes/markings on the bottle are on the heel and is embossed with ...

*108c*

 The ROOT bottle is also embossed on the shoulder in block letters with ...

*Coca Cola Bottling*

 I do not know exactly when it was made but suspect it was sometime in the 1920s.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

For those who are not familiar with the following website, please check it out because it provides a good sampling of the types of bottles under discussion here. Notice the first patent pictured is that of the Graham/Salb bottle. But especially examine the 1920s bottles and of the various one's with the roundish shoulders I have been talking about. You will have to click on each image separately to see who patented it and when. 

 http://www.bottlebooks.com/Designer%20Sodas/designer_soda_bottles.htm

 Also of useful interest is Google Patents ...

 https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts

 I typically find most of the bottles I am looking for by typing in ...

 Design For A Bottle

 Which is how most of the early soda bottles patents are listed. You can also add dates and specific names as well, which will help isolate certain bottle patents you might be looking for.

 I hope you find both sites helpful and fun.

 Bob


----------



## epackage (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*



> ORIGINAL:  SODAPOPBOB
> 
> Please compare the shoulders on all three images ...


 Bob I think you're not seeing these drawings for what they are, these bottles are all basically the same form, but on the third Patent Drawing(76,032) they also show the bottle turned 45Â° so you can see the bulbous shoulder which overlaps the flat area. Forgive me if I'm mistaking what you were trying to say... Jim


----------



## epackage (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

This is from the top looking down, it shows you the same bottle gives you two very different looks, this would hold true for Patents 49729 & 49730. They just didn't give a drawing of the bottle turned 45Â° like in Patent 76032...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Jim ~

 I'll get back to you later and comment. For now I just wanted to post a picture of the broken bottle so it appears on the same page as your highly forensic illustration. Great work, by the way. I really need to learn how to do that stuff.

 Thanks

 Bob


----------



## epackage (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

With DigDug's bottle..


----------



## bottleopop (Jul 15, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

The difference between design patents 49729 and 49730 is that 49729 has the 6 facets on the neck.
 The difference between design patents 49730 and 76032 is that 76032 has the grille of tiny squares on the flat panels.

 There are many 'deco' bottles that have no design patent.  The down-arrow Coke bottle might be one of those, or it might be following design patent 49730.

 Not all bottles citing a particular design patent number look exactly like the drawing.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 16, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Jim / epackage

 First of all, I want to commend you again for the great work you did on the enlarged and intelligible bottle comparisons. Although I fall short of being a photo editor myself, stuff like that really talks my kind of lingo and is something I can relate to. Even though I was already aware of the various angles and how the shoulder feature protrudes in one view and is more straight-sided in another view, your illustration definitely helps to emphasize this and is more beneficial than a thousand words could ever explain.

 As much as I appreciate your efforts, and as much as I would like to use those thousand words and explain my position regarding the features of the broken bottle vs the features of the various patents, I will forego that lengthy and possibly painful discourse by cutting to the chase and saying ...

 "I am still of the opinion the broken bottle is from the 1920s."

 With this said, I beg of you to please not think of me as being unobservant, closed minded or argumentative, because this is simply not the case. I also beg of you to not think of any of the following as a cop-out (avoidance). The following best explains my current position, which for me boils down to three essential things, all of which are primarily directed toward the broken bottle itself and not necessarily the patent illustrations.  

 1.  Attributes:

 By attributes, I am primarily referring to the square-sided / flat panel aspect of the broken bottle and the fact I cannot find another example like it that is not from the 1920s. Of the hundreds of examples I have researched and that were dated, every one was from the 1920s. Some members might assume just because I cannot find one like it with an arrow on the neck, embossed in Coca Cola script, and not marked, that it automatically identifies it as a pre 1920s bottle. I consider that assumption to be inaccurate and inconclusive.

 2. Empirical  Examination:

 By empirical examination, I am primarily referring to the actual broken bottle being examined (hands on) by a expert and not examined by a few random pictures of it. This empirical aspect is something Bill Lockhart (of the Bottle Research Group) has emphasized to me several times in email's we have exchanged. I do not know member digdug and not saying he is not an expert, but he did indicate that his opinion of the bottle was primarily based on patent illustration comparisons, which may or may not be accurate.

 3. Opinions:

 When we take the first two observations from above into account, all I can see that it leaves us with is "opinions." And despite what some members might think of as an expert opinion based on the pictures, for me they are still just that - opinions - including my own.

 In conclusion, I recommend the bottle be fully examined by a bona fide expert in the field and see what he or she comes up with. I especially recommend a thorough examination of the embossed script styling of the words "Coca Cola" because its possible that an accurate dating of the bottle might have more to do with that than anything else.

 Thanks again to everyone who has contributed to and has been following this thread.

 Respectfully,

 Bob 

 P.S. ~ Although I did not count them nor intend it, maybe I did exceed one thousand words. (Lol) []


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 16, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

P.S. ~

 And as for the broken bottle being a style that was entered at the 1916 Coca Cola bottlers' convention, I have seen no substantial evidence yet to support that possibility.

 Bob


----------



## T D (Jul 16, 2013)

*RE: Correction*



> P.S. ~ Although I did not count them nor intend it, maybe I did exceed one thousand words. (Lol)


 

 approximately 660 in post #131


----------



## T D (Jul 16, 2013)

*RE: Correction*



> I do not know member digdug and not saying he is not an expert,


 
 I do know Doug, and I guarantee you if I had a question about an Atlanta Coca Cola bottle he would be the first I call.


----------



## OsiaBoyce (Jul 16, 2013)

*RE: Correction*



> ORIGINAL: T D
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Yep, I've met Doug several times, and I gotta agree w/ TD about Doug knowing about Coca Cola bottles.


----------



## celerycola (Jul 16, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

I'm happy to have a signed copy of Doug's Coca-Cola Bottle book on my shelf. When I saw him at the Coke Convention a week ago he said he is working on a book about Coke Soda Water Bottles. If you want to know about Coke Bottles and their evolution you need to buy a copy.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 17, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

SCENARIO / TIMELINE 

 If you thought my last posting was long, wait until you get load of this one ... and it only took me six hours to put together!

 First of all, I would like to remind everyone that my primary intent in starting this thread was with the hope of finding another broken-top Coca Cola bottle like the one that member digdug shared with us in my last thread, which is the same bottle that has been the subject of discussion here. And if I/we failed to find another example, I was hoping that by spotlighting it that it might eventually lead to some documented information or leads that would assist us in being able to accurately identify and date it. 

 Secondly, my intent in starting this thread was not to insult or challenge anyone's integrity nor their credentials. I am merely searching for facts that hopefully will benefit the soda bottle collecting community as a whole, now and in the future.

 If you feel the broken-top Coca Cola bottle has already been properly identified and accurately dated, then please consider the following scenario and think about how you might react if you saw a listing on eBay something like this ...

 Extremely Rare Coca Cola Bottle ~ One-of-a-kind ~ From 1916 Coca Cola Convention

 Description:

 "Bottle is in near-mint condition. Style is similar to the Coca Cola soda water bottles that have the flat sides, but this one is embossed on the shoulder with Coca Cola in cursive script. I have never seen another one like it in my 30+ years of collecting. It's truly a one-of-a-kind bottle! The base is embossed with ATLANTA, GEORGIA which is one of the features that confirms it was displayed at the 1916 Coca Cola bottlers' convention in Atlanta, Georgia. There are no other markings on the bottle. A must have for all serious Coca Cola collectors!"

 * Before deciding on how you might react to a listing like this, the bigger question is ...

 Based on everything you currently know about the broken-top bottle, and if you owned one in the condition like that described above, would you, in all seriousness, use a similarly worded description if you were trying to sell one eBay? And if you did have one and listed it accordingly, how would you respond to an inquiry that asked the following three questions? 

 1. How do you know for certain the bottle was made in 1916?
 2. How do you know for certain the bottle was displayed at the 1916 Coca Cola convention?
 3. How do you know for certain that it's a one of a kind?

 Please note: The scenario above is not necessarily intended for anyone to respond to openly, but you can if you wish to. It is mainly intended for us to think about. Which leads me to two more question (no response necessary).

 1. If another, possibly mint bottle eventually turns up, do we really know enough about it yet to announce to the world and describe it as my make believe eBay seller did?

 2. But more importantly, and if money was no object and you had bottomless pockets, would you actually pay as much as, say $50,000.00 for a similar bottle based on what we currently know about it?

 Again, I don't ask that anyone responds to these questions. I only ask that you think about them. 

 Now for the fun part!

 I put together this so called "Timeline" hoping it would give us a little more insight as to how things might have taken place and why way-back-when in 1915 and 1916. Please note: I emphasize the word ... "might" have taken place and why. Also please note: Some of it is documented and some of it is suggestive.

 ~ * ~   

  In April of 1915, Harold Hirsch sends a letter to about thirty glass manufacturers, inviting them to design a new Coca Cola bottle to replace the straight-sided bottles. It is not known exactly how many manufacturers respond but reportedly about eleven of them end up submitting a bottle at the January 1916 Coca Cola bottlers convention in Atlanta, Georgia. 

 The Root Glass Company jumped on the challenge right away and had a bottle designed, made and patented by November of 1915. It is not known exactly when the Graham Glass Company designed and made their entry (the slender bottle 49,924) but we do know it was finally patented after the convention in November of 1916. Graham Glass also designed two other bottles in 1916, with all three bottles being filed together in June of 1916. It is not known why two of the bottles were granted patents in early October any why one (the convention bottle) wasn't granted a patent until late November? But irregardless of the reason, it appears that all three bottles were likely designed at about the same time.

 Note:  I find it extremely interesting (coincidental) that Graham Glass "filed" for all three of their bottles "exactly one year later to the day" as to when Earl R. Dean poured the molten glass to create his prototype bottle. (See Wednesday, June 30, 1915 on link below).

 Cut to the chase ...

 Based on everything I've read and continue to research about the chain of events between April of 1915 and November of 1916, I have yet to see any documented evidence indicating that the Root Glass Company and the Graham Glass Company were spying on each other despite the similarity of their respective convention bottles. Nor have I come across any evidence that either company entered more that one bottle at the convention. In fact, in the 2010 Norman L. Dean book "The Man Behind The Bottle," Norman clearly states that his father, Earl, said he designed "only one" Coca Cola prototype bottle for the 1916 convention. The only mention of Graham Glass I can recall from the book is where it indicates that Graham Glass started producing the contour bottle "during the second year of production," which I understand to mean was in 1918. The first Root contour bottle hit the market place around April of 1917.

 Furthermore, in the hours/days that I have spent searching the Internet for another Coca Cola bottle like the broken-top example, I have yet to find one with Coca Cola embossed on the shoulder. Of the one's I have seen that are similar with the four sides/ flat panels, all were from the 1920s and embossed with Coca Cola in "block" lettering. Some individuals might suggest that my inability to find another example of the broken-top bottles is evidence of it's extreme rarity, which for the most part I agree with, but I do not agree that it means the bottle was made in 1916 nor that it was a contender at the 1916 convention. For all we know at the present, the rarity of the broken-top bottle could simply mean that it was produced at the request of a single Coca Cola franchise bottler who was breaking the standardization rules, , intended it as a flavor bottle, and was caught and told by the parent company to cease and desist immediately, which "might" be one of the reasons why their are so few of them (two) known. And what I presume to be a fact that the two known bottles are unmarked "might" be indicator that an unscrupulous bottler was trying to get away with something and didn't want his name or any traceable connections on the bottle.

 Anyhoo, I fully realize most of this is conjecture, and you can criticize me for that if you want to. But before doing that, please keep in mind that my primary goal here is to find facts if at all possible and not to create controversy or hard feelings. Please know that my motto is and always has been, "One for all and all for one."

 If nothing else, at least we know now there were "about 30" glass makers who received Hirsch's letter. Cool, huh?

 Thanks for allowing me to research and ramble. It's what I do best even if my findings aren't always correct.

 And yes, I still think the broken-top bottle is from the 1920s [sm=thumbup1.gif] 

 Later alligators,

 Bob

 ~ * ~

 I hope you find the following helpful and interesting ... If any of the shortened links don't work the first time, they will on by trying them again. 

 1. Harold Hirsch Letter April 26, 1915

 http://xrl.us/bpgrkz

 2. Earl R. Dean / Root Glass Company:
 See Page 23 under title: Monday June 28, 1915
 See Page 29 under title: Wednesday June 30, 1915

 http://xrl.us/bpgrk9

 3. From Page 23 of Last Link 

 "Root Glass is one of about 30 glass bottle manufacturers in the country that has received a form letter with an invitation to submit a new and distinctive bottle for Coca Cola."

 4. From Page 29 of Last Link 

 "reportedly from 11 contenders."

 5. Two 1916 Coca Cola Conventions Held In Atlanta, Georgia ~ Both in January 

 6. Root/Dean Prototype: 1916 Coca Cola Convention Winner
 48,160
 Filed: August 18, 1915
 Patented: November 16, 1915

 7. Graham:
 49,729
 Filled: June 30, 1916
 Patented: October 3, 1916

 8. Graham:
 49,730
 Filed: June 30, 1916
 Patented: October 3, 1916

 9. Graham Prototype: 1916 Coca Cola Convention Contender
 49,924
 Filed: June 30, 1916
 Patented: November 21, 1916


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 17, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

digdug / Doug

 Please accept my apologies. If I offended you in any manner please know that was not my attention. Its just that I'm a stickler for facts whenever possible, especially when it comes to soda bottles potentially worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars. I wouldn't be surprised to hear if/when the Graham/Salb bottle sells, that the selling price will exceed $200,000.00. I would like nothing better than to help confirm that the broken-top bottle (one in near mint condition) is of the same caliber as the Graham/Salb bottle. But before something like that ever happens, I feel someone needs to do the research and find all the facts. *Thank you* so much for sharing your most unique bottle with us. I love doing research and your bottle has given me something to really sink my teeth into.

 Respectfully and appreciatively, 

 Bob


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 17, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

I wanted to highlight this from my recent post because it encompasses the focal point of my current research. I'm not jumping to conclusions but intend to take a closer look at this possibility and see what I can find ...

 Bob

 The rarity of the broken-top bottle could simply mean it was produced at the request of a single Coca Cola franchise bottler who was breaking the standardization rules and intended it as a flavor bottle, but was caught red-handed and told by the parent company to cease and desist immediately. This "might" be one of the reasons why there are only two known examples of the bottle and also explain why those two are broken off at the neck.


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 17, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

*For starters ...*

 I don't want to get too far afield with this because my focus is with the broken-top bottle and not a complete history of the Coca Cola standardization program. Even though there are ample hints and references to standardization as early as about 1911 through 1916, the main push for standardization seems to have come about around 1923-1924, which is also when the Coca Cola company slightly altered the contour bottle with the patent change in the hands of Chapman J. Root of the Root Glass Company. Although inconclusive (not jumping to conclusions) this also appears to be about the same time when Graham flavor bottles (four sided/flat panels) start to appear in great abundance.

  http://xrl.us/bpguku

 http://xrl.us/bpgumi

 Bob


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 17, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Graham also did some revising to their patent at this time ... and even beat Coca Cola to the draw by about a month!


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 17, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

I am not suggesting the three bottles pictured here are identical to the broken-top bottle. I know they're not and I haven't forgotten the broken-top bottle has an arrow on the shoulder/neck and no stars. I am merely establishing some additional groundwork in connection with my ongoing research involving the span of years and popularity of Graham soda water bottles and Coca Cola. 

 All three bottles are said to be from Front Royal, Virginia and date from 1924 - 1926 - and 1929

 http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/coca-cola-sodawater-bottles-front-129692109


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 18, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Good morning. Guess who?

 Please Note: I feel it necessary of late to include a disclaimer with each posting in the hope it will help prevent any controversy or criticism. In other words, please believe me when I say I am not trying to shove my observations down anyone's throat nor present them as the final word. I am merely searching for information whose end result I hope will lead to a factual identification and appreciation of the broken-top bottle. I also acknowledge and respect those of you who have already formulated your own opinions and/or conclusions. My observations are primarily for those, like myself, who question certain claims and are still searching for answers. Also please know that I remain open minded.  

 ~ * ~    

 I obviously do not have an example of the broken-top bottle to do what I referred to earlier as an empirical / hands-on examination of it, but that doesn't mean the pictures aren't helpful because they are. The more I look at the pictures of the bottle the more I've noticed how uniformed the embossed signature looks. In my most recent experiment I printed out a close up of the script and then went on eBay and did some comparisons. The mouse/zoom feature available on eBay now really helps. Anyway, I compared the script to at least 100 bottles, which included straight-sided bottles as well as early contour/hobbleskirt bottles. I wasn't entirely sure what I was looking for but the more comparisons I did the more I noticed on straight-sided Coca Cola bottles (typically pre-1920) that the embossed script appears what can only be described as "whimpy / skinny." Whereas on the hobbleskirts the script is typically bolder, more uniformed, and what might even be described as "standardized."

 I fully realize how inconclusive an experiment like this might seem, and yet I feel I would be doing you a grave injustice if I did not point out that in every instance the embossed script on the broken-top bottle more closely matched that of the hobbleskirt's than it did the straight-sided bottles. 

 In other words ... 

 My current observation suggest the broken-top bottle might have a standardized script on a non-standardized bottle.   

 Bob


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 18, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

Here's an example of what I call a standardized script on a non-standardized bottle ...


----------



## epackage (Jul 18, 2013)

*RE: Correction*

I think the script on the broken top arrow bottle strongly resembles the script on Gary's bottle, except for the fact it seems to slant to the right a little, while the script on Gary's bottle seems more vertical. Since Gary's bottle was designed in the teens I'm leaning more towards the broken arrow bottle being from that time period as well...


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 18, 2013)

INCONCLUSIVE CONCLUSION ...

 Although you might not have anticipated this coming so soon (but possibly pleased to hear it), I have decided to call it quits on this thread. I realized after my recent and exhausting research attempts that I will most likely never find the proof necessary to fully support my observations in that ... 

 1.  The rarity of the broken-top bottle could simply mean it was produced at the request of a single Coca Cola franchise bottler who was breaking the standardization rules and intended it as a flavor bottle, but who was caught red-handed and told by the parent company to cease and desist immediately. This might be one of the reasons why there are only two known examples of the bottle and also explain why those two are broken off at the neck.

 2. The embossing on broken-top bottle might be of an example of standardized script on a non-standardized bottle.

 Until such time if/when that someone provides a factual and verifiable accounting of the bottle's origin and date of manufacture, I guess I'll stick with my own observations for the time being. My observations might not be accurate, but they are the best I can come up with based on the currently available evidence. However, this doesn't mean I have closed the book on the subject nor that I don't acknowledge and appreciate the observations of others, because I do. It only means that I feel the bottle's true place of origin, date of production, and purpose (Coca Cola or flavored beverage), still remains a mystery and is still unresolved.

 Thanks again to everyone. I hope you eventually figure it out and that you don't hold it against me for sharing my nickle's worth of research.

 Bob

 P.S. ~ Please don't change the subject heading. That really hurts my feelings. Boo-hoo  [] (Lol) Thanks


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 18, 2013)

P.S. ~

 I forgot number ...

 3. My strongest contention has been my inability to find a *marked* four-sided/flat panel bottle from the teens. If one can be found and shared, I will become convinced that that particular bottle style was manufactured prior to the 1920s. But as it stands, everyone I have seen so far that is marked was from the 1920s or later. I see no evidence of that bottle style ever being produced in the teens.

 That's it! I'm through rambling! I'm done!

 Bob


----------



## cokebottle1916 (Jul 19, 2013)

Bob Please don't stop. I like reading the research. Investigate my bottle all you want. Tks Gary


----------



## SODAPOPBOB (Jul 19, 2013)

Gary:

 Thank you for the compliment. I had not planned on posting any additional information to this thread, but since you addressed your comments specifically to be I feel its only appropriate that I reply to them. I'm glad to hear you enjoy my research findings even though some of them are somewhat ambiguous and inconclusive. If I come up with any additional findings regarding your particular bottle I will post them on my other thread because that is where your amazing bottle is spotlighted.

 As for this thread, the only thing I wish to add pertains to a couple of ILLINOIS GLASS CO. catalogs - One from 1920 and one from 1926.

 In the 1920 catalog, scroll to the "Beverage Bottles & Related" section and click on the various pages pertaining to soda bottles. You will not find one similar to the broken-top bottle.

 1920 Catalog Link:  http://www.sha.org/bottle/igco1920.htm

 However ...

 In the 1926 catalog, scroll to the "Soda, Beer & Water Bottles" section and click on Page 162 - "Private Mold Soda Bottles." Notice the bottle on the lower right portion of the page. (Also see picture below). I realize the bottle pictured in the catalog is not identical to the 1916 Graham patents, but it is somewhat similar with the "bulges" at the base and shoulder. Although inconclusive, this suggest to me that that type of bottle design was popular and in demand in 1926 but wasn't necessarily popular and in demand in 1920.

 1926 Catalog Link:  http://www.sha.org/bottle/igco1926.htm

 Bob

 [  From 1926 Illinois Glass Catalog ~ Page 162 ~ Lower Right Bottle  ]


----------



## bottleopop (Jul 20, 2013)

I agree with cokebottle1916.  These research articles by sodapopbob are extremely interesting and are an excellent feature of this forum.  I applaud his efforts and look forward to more of his posts here!  Keep them coming, Bob!


----------

