Move Over Krueger Special !??!

[Leon]

i can see the date code from here its 1940 40 ( o with I in it) 4 E Owens ill glass co , is (o with I in it )[/quote]


Since when do brewing co emboss there glass with there name in 1940, Since when do the brewing co put Permit #'s on there 1940 labels or the rate Prescribed by? You got some bad info there???? LATER.[/quote]



brewing companies??? are you nuts?? you must be misunderstanding me. i never said the brewing company put the code there, its the glass company Owens ill glass company.. who puts their mark on bottles ..... i wasn't referring to anything else.. i clearly had the glass company listed as the ones who put it there. the glass companies usually make the bottles not the breweries, unless like Anheiser Bush who we all know bought his own glass company after the failed attempt of C Conrad and co because of the high cost of making bottles almost bankrupted his brewery. but still its the glass company mark is on the bottle not the brewery. sometimes they do have a tax date in holes on the label. but it was usually put there by the tax people. i don't have ton of beer labels. and im not the beer expert, but i have seen it on vinegar labels.




Your Misunderstanding me. Take a look at my 2 bottles posted. Look above the paper label. Do you see the G. Krueger Brewing co embossed in the glass. Thats what I'm talking about. Breweries or bottling co did not emboss the glass with brewery name in 1940. Do you understand me now Sssesshhh. I'm familaiar with the Owenss Illinois mark, I have Hundreds of bottles with this mark. This bottle does not have this mark. LATER.

[WMassPete]

abandoned houses you say :)

[CMD]

If that can doesnt have Krueger on it or any other brewery reference , it doesnt even go for $500...its just then a curiousity , but because it does , its historic

out

Dan

[Sweeperman]

If that can doesnt have Krueger on it or any other brewery reference , it doesnt even go for $500...its just then a curiousity , but because it does , its historic out
Dan

BUT, is it not plain to see that the the word Kruger was painted with a paint brush similar to those used to paint a model car etc? At best this is a touched up can with a large percentage being touched up. At worst it's a fantasy can.

[CMD]

If that can doesnt have Krueger on it or any other brewery reference , it doesnt even go for $500...its just then a curiousity , but because it does , its historic out
Dan

BUT, is it not plain to see that the the word Kruger was painted with a paint brush similar to those used to paint a model car etc? At best this is a touched up can with a large percentage being touched up. At worst it's a fantasy can.

A fantasy can from 1932!!!!

[Leon]

so the numbers near the base of the bottle don't have the o with the i in it?

NO, It does not. The O & I is usually seen on the bottom anyways. Which this one does not. LEON.

[Sweeperman]

If that can doesnt have Krueger on it or any other brewery reference , it doesnt even go for $500...its just then a curiousity , but because it does , its historic out
Dan

BUT, is it not plain to see that the the word Kruger was painted with a paint brush similar to those used to paint a model car etc? At best this is a touched up can with a large percentage being touched up. At worst it's a fantasy can.

A fantasy can from 1932!!!!

Your hung up on the 1932 date. If it is a "fantasy can" the creator of the can could have used any date. 1917 ,1932, or 1972 it would'nt matter because the man with the paint brush just picks a year and paints it on the can. Just pick a reasonable date before something beer related happened, find a faded can from the period and print your money, I mean paint your can.

Some examples. Take a faded olive drab dumper and paint " 1939 the first beer can for military use" or " "the first olive drab beer can 1938-1939"
Take a faded J-spout and paint "first can with spout to hold beer 1934"
do some research find a name of someone from a canning company get a sun faded aluminum can and write on it "the first aluminum can with beer"
or.... you get the picture. The possiblities are endless.

I can't get past the hand painted letters to take this can serious.

The only question I have is was a black sharpie used or a paint brush?

[CMD]

Look, Its not rocket surgery.......once the engineers were done with the design or happy with the sucess of that version, someone could have sent it over to the art department , where an artist , painted what he was instructed to put on the can or an engineer did it himself....how else would an artist written on that can....a hammer and chisel ??? I Know , you would have preferred that method! Were they supposed to send off to have it lithographed?

This group of engineers only concern was to design a can to hold pressure and keep the metal from coming into contact with the beer...............graphics and aesthetics were not thier concern

who knows the real story, but a few collectors thought enough of it to spend some real $ on it and preserved beer can history

out

Dan

[josh]

Look, Its not rocket surgery.......

Is that like oral science?

[Sweeperman]

It's not brain science either! I'm just saying the same thing you are. You are making a case that someone could have sent it to the art department in 1932 and I'm saying someone could have done the same thing in 2012. Just because the only way an artist could have written on the can was with a paint brush in 1932 dosn't mean the same way won't work in 2012.

We said the can would have come from a canning company not a brewery. Those canning companies were canning other products and drinks. I'm sure those cans had lablels and were not painted by hand by who know who. So why would someone feel the need for this "first beer can" to be written on at all. And if there really was a need to document the can why not send it to the art department that produces labels for the frank n beans across the hall.

This isn't like the can itself was just invented. I think a real company doing real research would have had more resources to produce something real. I'm trying to just slow this train down before it is just accepted that the first beer can really was from 1932.

[Daev Larrazolo]

I'm confused is this about beer cans, rockets, or bottles?

[jomama]

i can see the date code from here its 1940 40 ( o with I in it) 4 E Owens ill glass co , is (o with I in it )

Since when do brewing co emboss there glass with there name in 1940, Since when do the brewing co put Permit #'s on there 1940 labels or the rate Prescribed by? You got some bad info there???? LATER.

brewing companies??? are you nuts?? you must be misunderstanding me. i never said the brewing company put the code there, its the glass company Owens ill glass company.. who puts their mark on bottles ..... i wasn't referring to anything else.. i clearly had the glass company listed as the ones who put it there. the glass companies usually make the bottles not the breweries, unless like Anheiser Bush who we all know bought his own glass company after the failed attempt of C Conrad and co because of the high cost of making bottles almost bankrupted his brewery. but still its the glass company mark is on the bottle not the brewery. sometimes they do have a tax date in holes on the label. but it was usually put there by the tax people. i don't have ton of beer labels. and im not the beer expert, but i have seen it on vinegar labels.

i went back and rechecked my facts. and it seems like you guys are pretty much right .but only about when the bottle was made. but everything i have learned teaches me the bottle wasn't used until the next year. of course as you know i might be wrong i was wrong before. I'm not perfect. I have so many bottle books i cant even remember where i might look up this info.but it does look like you guys got me. you are mostly right. i never said i know everything. in fact i learn new stuff everyday. like yesterday i learned that the r H P Juerst worked at 2 different breweries and was an inventor and he invented and patented the process for detachable dial phones in 1954 and the EBULLIOMETER Official Instrument for Determining the Percentage of Alcohol in Beverages. Especially adapted for determining the percentage of alcohol in beer. It was widely use for the 3.2% near beers. it didn't perfectly measure the alcohol but it aided in the brewing process. which kruegers made during the prohibition. like kruegers special beer.(from the info on the http://keglined.pssht.com website.) he was also in charge of measuring the amount of alcohol in beer at a brewery for years at Harvard. The brewery had been purchased for $300,000 by New York interests, headed by Erwin F. lange, in late 1932. Considerable monies were put into the plant and its equipment, with the result that Harvard was in remarkably good shape as it entered the next chapter in its history.The 1930s were basically good for Harvard. Its brewmaster, Dr. Richard Juerst .inventor and brewmaster. i guess inventing an item that measures the amount of alcohol in beer might make you a good brewmaster. seems probable that he invented and early prototype beer can also. could this be the prototype for the kruegers special can? maybe kruegers was on board in making their beer in cans way before the official start of the whole thing.



i have a book on date codes for glass companies i can look it up to make sure..(the o with an I in it is the glass company.)
I"m guessing about the( o inside the I) because i cant really even really see it. plant 4 would be Clarksburgh W VA. in operation from 1929 to 1944.
I'm not just making this up these beer bottles are very similar to the soda bottles from the period. they often have the date on them. the date codes state the the 40 is one of ones that they believe to be from 1940 and its not one of the ones that can be like a 3 sometimes is 1943. if the bottle also has bbgco on it it can be from 1930. i cant see all the letters and numbers on the bottle. the applied color label soda bottle second edition is where i got the plant number from and it matches the glass milk bottles and their marks book i have also. it also matches very closely to the coca bottle checklist by bill porter and i have discussed the dating on the front of coke bottles with him quite a bit. well it does say that some of the California.. .. well i guess none of this is an exact science. i found some new info i didn't remember and which is not know by many collectors!! . coke bottles made at the plant in California that have the dates on the base where this number is.
have 24(mark)4 would be 1934. this is not your normal code for this company. only that plant did it that way. i don't know how you both knew this. it is crazy you would would know this. you are right this bottle was probably from 1934. i guess i had bad information. i did go back and recheck my facts... I'm sure its not the last time ill be wrong. i totally forgot about the other plant in California. i have authenticated that you have the correct date and why.. even though i was wrong.remember the date on the bottle will still be one year later for when most bottles were first used. and that doesn't tell you how many times it was used so we still don't know. but we do know the bottle was probably made in 1934.

it does look like after reading the 3 books i have that this very well could have been a 1934 bottle. this dating thing is not always an exact science. we are still learning how to date the bottles.

i cant totally see if its a o with an i in it but I'm guessing because its a quite common glass company. glass companies and their marks. its on the front of most coca cola bottles but the numbers were after the o-i mark until 1951. you forget your talking to one of the top experts on soda bottles. is it a O with an I in it?

glass companies put the date on their bottles not the breweries. I'm telling you the date that the glass co put on the bottle i don't see any other codes. the bottles were used more than once and also the bottle was first used one year after the date on the bottle from everything i have learned over my 20 years and not counting the 10-12 years of digging bottles but 20 years of going to bottles shows and educating myself on them. I can usually date a bottle quite well . i would love to see the other letters and numbers on the bottle and see them more clearly. remember the date on the bottle will still be one year later for when most bottles were first used.


if you look near the heel on most coke bottles there is 2 numbers then 2 more after the (O I) mark if the first 2 numbers are a 51 or higher that the date if the first 2 numbers less than a 51 than the second 2 numbers tell you the date the bottles was made. the bottle was generally used the next year. if i knew all the numbers and letters and everything on the bottle i could tell the date better. i have been answering questions on bottles on this site for quite a long time and you know i don't just pull crap out of my but and put it up here. all the info i have points to this being the logical year the bottle was made so far. there might be more numbers i really wish we could see more numbers and letter if there are any. usually this method is quite foolproof. its that one glass company that got me. i guess you got me this time. but i was able to find my mistake. I do believe your right about the date.

Just curious... What is the code for O/I Clarion, Pa.? (My hometown O/I plant closed a couple years ago, moved jobs to south America)... O/I Brockway, Pa. is still up and running.

[Leon]

I'm confused is this about beer cans, rockets, or bottles?

I've heard of bottle rockets. Never heard of rocket surgery though LEON.

[yoerg4]

I have worked in product development. We would start with a concept and invite manufactures to submit rough samples(often times not finished products) so we could get an idea of what the item would look, feel, work like. Once we received a hand made sample container that looked like it was fabricated with a mallet and shot bag.
I'm guessing that things worked much the same back in the 1930's. This was possibly not a beer can per say but an example of what a future beer can would look like.

Just a thought.

[canhawk]

Dr. Richard H. P. Juerst, Harvard Brewmaster with some time at Krueger under his belt:
http://keglined.pssht.com/19330928_lowe ... riteup.pdf

Key puzzle piece: Newspaper story from 1933 saying Juerst spent time at Krueger during Prohibition, and spent four years there as brewmaster. "While with the Krueger Co., Dr. Juerst also developed the formula for the manufacture of all soft drinks in the newly erected beverage plant at Newark."

More extraordinary evidence supporting this extraordinary find ...

Thanks Phil,

[bradflinders]

beating dead horse.jpg (7.54 KiB) Viewed 3577 times

[The Can Kid]

Maybe Juerst painted that on it later, so he could keep it as a souvenir of his work at Krueger? It could be the first beer can ever, but have been painted on later.

[ILLINICANS]

Some years ago Kevin Lilek stated that the paint on the Pisengold Bock needed to be analyzed. If i spent 3800.00 on this can, I would spend a few more bucks to have it analyzed....just saying !!

[BeerCanRich99]

Mr Juerst's 3 Great-Grandchildren were all still alive in Massachusetts as of 2011. I won't give any more details than that in this forum but I found that info on the internet so anybody could do the same. If I won the can (which I didn't) I would be inclined to try and contact them after I had time to examine it. They may know nothing about it, but who knows?

[Leon]

Seems odd they mention his Invention of the Alcohol meter & mention while at Krueger they give him Credit for the Soda Formula's but never mention his involvement with the Beer can, Why not LEON.

[EVILBUNNYHUNTER]

Leon, I totally agree, worked as a BrewMaster and soda developer, so a chemist not a container maker, nothing supports this find other than the sellers words, who by the way is the only person going to benefit from those words. Use of common sense is NOT over-rated. Besides, its UGLY, I collect because of 2 things, beauty and value, this can lacks both IMO.Its a curiosity at best, like the 2-headded snake at the fair.

[OctoberAle]

I'm pretty firmly on the side that this is an authentic something. A prototypical can perhaps. A painted commemorative almost certainly. A commemoration painted on an actual, perhaps the actual, prototype can developed by Juerst. At the least it provides evidence that more than one company or individual was
working on suitable cans for beer. Which we already knew anyway.
And as far as value goes - well this can clearly has value. Not much of a looker, perhaps, but we
just watched it sell for 3800! Almost as much value as a white Altes zip!
To be clear, I personally don't value it that highly, but if I had to choose between the Altes or the Juerst,
I would take the Juerst!

Perhaps this can was given in recognition that, "Hey you (Juerst) were on the right track, look how similar
the actual Krueger cans are to your prototype." Who knows?

Anyhoo, I struck up a conversation with the seller, which is reprinted below. I personally edited one sentence from his correspondence. I think it's safe to say he's not pleased with the implication that this piece is in any way faked.

My correspondence is in italics...


Dear gjg64,

Hi, Regarding your recent auction of the Krueger prototype beer can, thought you might want to read this discussion and weigh in with any additional thoughts.
See: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24726
Regards, SP

I have actually been following it, but as I'm not a member I can't add to it.

- gjg64

Dear gjg64,

I think you can just register without officially becoming a member, then post comments. Your perspective may provide some levity. Regards, Steve

Oh, trust me, I've really wanted to pipe in a few times, but didn't feel it was appropriate. The buyer is welcome to share what I've passed on to him, but as the seller it would be taken as biased info. (edit) I've seen and handled plenty of prototypes of various manufactured items over the years (and own some) and they are never exactly like the finished product. And as far as faking it, once someone sees this in the flesh, they'll realize there is no way to fake this thing. We're not talking about a multi-million dollar Vermeer here........

- gjg64

Dear gjg64,

Everything about that can looks and feels authentic to me. I spent several years doing paint research on historic buildings, and when you peel away layers of paint and arrive at a layer of decoration from say 1930 or 1890 it is really easy to identify. The hand of the artist, the visual vocabulary - everything is usually very obviously from a certain slice of time. Such is the case with the painted font on this can judging from the photos. It would be extremely difficult to convincingly mimic, let alone build in the aging.


Exactly. If one is experienced enough, one has a feeling for something. I have seen items that are just "too right" to be right. I've seen things with fonts that are trying to be of a period but that font was developed in the 70s to look old. I know where this piece came from and how I obtained it so I know it's right. And believe me, I don't even remember what I paid for it, so it wasn't much. If someone was trying to make money faking this, they didn't.

Oh, and I love how someone thinks I stumbled on Juerst's name and worked backwards from there........I've spent enough time on Ancestry.com looking up my own family.....I have no desire to look up obscure brewers.

Anyhow, you're welcome to share my info. The buyer is bound to eventually, trust me on that. I have to honor his privacy and not say who he is for now though.

- gjg64

[chaunasknight]

Not like the seller is going to say "yeah I just screwed over somebody didn't I?"

That said, I'd like to hear more about where it came from, whay it in the shape it is in. Might help convice the masses. I think I buy the fact it is a real "something".

[CMD]

If that doesnt convince you , nothing will...gentleman...what we have here is one of the first prototype beer cans!!!

out

Dan

[The Can Kid]

We need to find out who bought it. I hope they're an RBer or at least in the BCCA... We need to get this thing to an expert!

[OctoberAle]

Not like the seller is going to say "yeah I just screwed over somebody didn't I?"

That said, I'd like to hear more about where it came from, whay it in the shape it is in. Might help convice the masses. I think I buy the fact it is a real "something".

Well, OK, but what if we invert the challenge, starting from a point of wishing to create a successful fake? How about this:

1. Select a well established collecting hobby, about which you have limited prior knowledge.
2. Hobby must have thousands of passionate collectors, some of whom have been collecting for virtually a lifetime.
3. Fabricate a prototypical object 'unique' in appearance.
4. Convincingly 'age' or distress the object to give it the appearance of being at least 70 years old and not well cared for.
5. Make the object deliberately unattractive, void of color or graphics.
6. Make a connection to a completely overlooked figure in the history of said collectible.
7. Position your fake so that it precedes and upends all prior thinking as to the developmental timeline of said collectible.
8. The historical figure will be positioned in such a way that he will be verifiably present at the right place, and at the right time for the object to have been linked to him. He will also be a known inventor and innovator in his field.
9. The object must also be directly linked to the earliest known mass producer of said collectible.
10. The object must also be linked to a previous owner in a part of the country wherein such an object may conceivably originate.
11. Having achieved and established all that, list the item on ebay with a starting bid of $99.00.
12. And here's the hard part - sit back and watch the bids reach $3,800.00. If anyone is up to this challenge, go for it!
I'll buy you a case of really good beer, plus you'll pocket the sweet 3800.00. Just remember the challenge has to be in a collecting hobby other than breweriana.

[stringsx24now]

As for finding out who won it, I am guessing, although not betting, that there will be a nice article in the BCCA magazine in the not too distant future about it. There SHOULD be, in any case.

[Leon]

My 1930's American can co. booklet say's it had it own Research Lab, Chemist, Engineers, ect working on the Beer can. It does say they called on other Chemist to help them perfect the lining. Could one of these chemist been Mr. Juerst? Possibly. As far as I read American can co takes full credit for inventing the first beer can & nobody else. The only time my booklet say's they contacted Krueger Brewing co was after they had already perfected the can & now was looking for somebody to fill it. LEON.

P.S. Here's what American can co had to say below. Sorry for the Watermark.

[OctoberAle]

Thanks Leon, but remember this debate isn't about proving or disproving who invented the 1st beer can. It's about whether or not the can in question is a fake. As I said it could be that Mr. Juerst did devise an early prototype - it just didn't make it all the way into viable production.

[Leon]

Thanks Leon, but remember this debate isn't about proving or disproving who invented the 1st beer can. It's about whether or not the can in question is a fake. As I said it could be that Mr. Juerst did devise an early prototype - it just didn't make it all the way into viable production.

I think if you can prove who invented the first beer can then that would prove if this can was fake or not. LEON.