Krueger's Special

[Tom Hoefer]

My brother (Canoe) and I were talking about this today and both of us independently thought the date scratched in the lid is odd. Canoe wondered if the formatting was in use in the 30s (10/15/33) or if they used a different style then like the European way with the day first, then month and year. Or maybe they didn't use the slashes between numbers. I have looked online and can't find any history of it. I can find a lot of English people who think we are "quite daft" for putting the month first rather than the day.

Also, isn't that exactly the kind of thing a forger would put on a can?

I think the style of opening instructions is the best reason to believe it's real. That would be hard to fake. For that reason alone I lean to this being real, but I could be convinced otherwise.

Man this is going to be fun.

[Longopener]

They did use that format in at least 1940....I have a Goebel OI with the date scratched into the side of the face. 6/22/40

[Senator Seebs]

I work at a company that has to formalize date and times. There are so many, 20ish different versions of date/time. Nothing is universal and when it comes to layouts consistency needs to occur. So finding out what was the norm would be interesting. Perhaps signatures on the back of some of those brewery checks people keep - perhaps they use a date time style germane to the time period.

[Chris E.]

I think the style of opening instructions is the best reason to believe it's real. That would be hard to fake. For that reason alone I lean to this being real, but I could be convinced otherwise.

I agree and the other two reasons I am inclined to vote real are the alcohol statement and the permit number which I do not recall ever seeing on a baldy. The only thing I think is weird is the IRTP statement, but I don't know when they were first required on bottles. If they were required by the fall of 1933, it would make sense that Krueger thought it would have to be on the test cans that were being given out in 1933.

Chris E.

[renokenn]

Definitely same can or same image. I wonder if someone like Barry Travis could comment if the original image could have been used and then enhanced with some fancy digital imaging. The anonymous envelope and strange pictures just seems odd to me. Way better quality pics and views of the can could've been taken, JMHO.

I agree the picture is a little funky with the picture being taken at a weird angle. It would be nice to see some straight on shots of the front and both back panels. I so think though, we are probably dealing with the real thing here.

Chris E.

[blake]

In the spirit of blowing up the GAgreement......

Dang. I thought that I was going to pick that baby up for a song and a dance.

[OctoberAle]

Surely the owner of the can is watching it being discussed online, don't you think? Maybe he can post more pictures here? One can remain relatively anonymous here, no?

[DaveNH]

A quick Google search of Tax Paid at the Rate Prescribed by Internal Revenue Law verbiage turned up this along with info about U-Permits. Not sure this supports or detracts from the legitimacy of this can or not, but it's interesting nonetheless. Since in 1933 all beer except the Krueger's Special can was in bottles it provides info on how bottled beer required the tax statement and U-Permit verbiage.

Here's the link:

https://books.google.com/books?id=cH12C ... es&f=false

[Pokey]

Does anyone have a bottle label from Krueger's that dates to 1933? The U-Permit # and the terminology "Tax paid at the prescribed rate..." are both very common on labels from 1933.

[keithker]

Not to say it helps validate the can but at least it would seem that the permit number it correct if it is based on the brewery history data from one of our great sponsors Tavern Trove.....

Krueger Beverage Co. 1920-1933
Issued brewery permit NJ-U-322 in 1933

[Wrestling Nut]

I don't see the big deal. I was just drinking a six pack of these the other day. They're all in the recycling bin now. Beer wasn't even that good.

Brad

[Leon]

Here's the bottle, I've posted it in here many times before. it has the Same NJ Permit # as the can in question although it is very difficult to read in top band of label. LEON.

[Rand]

In the spirit of blowing up the GAgreement......

Dang. I thought that I was going to pick that baby up for a song and a dance.

Better be a damn fine dance.......

:-)

[Leon]

Also, The maximum amount of Alcohol content allowed was 3.2% as of 10/15/33. More then 3.2% was allowed in December of 1933. So the Krueger Special can falls into the right % range, Since my Bottle above sez not more then 4% I can assume it dates from December of 1933 or after. Also, many 1935 & 36 cans will say full prewar strength (ww1) or full strength before prohibition. This just means it was back to the old days of more then 3.2%. LEON.

[Mike S]

Hey i just seen a unicorn! Does anyone have any info on who is sending these pics, history of the can etc?? I have to say it does seem it's the same can as the old photo except the "S" looks taller and thinner in the photo that someone above put all 3 together. It could be the size and angle making it look that way though. Whoever buys it (if they do) better do it in person!

Mike s

[canhawk]

Also, The maximum amount of Alcohol content allowed was 3.2% as of 10/15/33. More then 3.2% was allowed in December of 1933. So the Krueger Special can falls into the right % range, Since my Bottle above sez not more then 4% I can assume it dates from December of 1933 or after. Also, many 1935 & 36 cans will say full prewar strength (ww1) or full strength before prohibition. This just means it was back to the old days of more then 3.2%. LEON.

I agree with Leon, the can says 2.8 to 3.2%, based on the sender's letter. The first step of repeal came in March 1933, allowing sale of 3.2 beer. Full nationwide repeal of alcohol came Dec. 5. Also, the required IRTP statement was required in 1933 as well. It could be argued that marketers of a new beer container would want to show the label meets the law.

[CMD]

Here's a better example of the Krueger's special label ...same permit # , plus a Kent ale...note the Kent is not IRTP ??

There is a different Kruegers special bottle on breweriana.com that also does not have ITRP on the label heres the link to that one K special bottle

[mtracy64]

Note also that TAXPAID is one word as it is on the can . . .

Marc

[oldindiapaleale]

Looking at the two envelopes that were received and shown, more info and questions are revealed:

The hand writing is consistent, being from the same person, look at how the capital letter "S" has a flat top resembling a "5" and that a 9-digit zip code was used. Where would the sender have easy access to a mailing list with a full 9-digit zip?

The stamps (which are not shown) were not cancelled, which is not that unusual, however a postal employee at some point would have pen/marker cancelled them. Do either of these envelopes have the bar-coded "band-aids" or any other markings that show the envelope actually having gone through the mail?

Has anyone else received this mailing, either a dealer or prominent collector? -Agent Scully

[Leon]

The big dealers are all probably making big offers on it now. And trying to keep it under wraps.

[steve36333]

The guy did a loT of research before creating this KNOCK-OFF. iS THERE anyway to" SCIENTIFICALLY" PROVE IT IS REAL?..
METAL TESTING/ PAINT TESTING./ ETC, ETC......

[Daev Larrazolo]

Steve Gordon had a great idea...that they should raffle it off with 2000 tickets at $100 each

[Mike S]

Here's a better example of the Krueger's special label ...same permit # , plus a Kent ale...note the Kent is not IRTP ??

There is a different Kruegers special bottle on breweriana.com that also does not have ITRP on the label heres the link to that one K special bottle

Just out of curiosity is it possible the kent has the IRTP on the neck label?(if there was one) Not sure of the laws regarding the placement if there was any.

Mike s

[keithker]

One theory behind why the Krueger Special can never got produced could be that the brewery originally produced a "Krueger's Special" cereal drink during the 1920's and possibly could have gotten the buyer confused. Here are some 1920's ads as well as one billboard. It was sold in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and as far south as North Carolina. The better ads were posted in the New Jersey papers but sadly newspapers.com wanted another $139 to access their "publishers special"...........included in those New Jersey posting's was information on how to make "Welsh Rabbit" using the 1920's Krueger's Special" drink......

[CMD]

Why does this can have IRTP but the 1st Baldies do not???

where is the Can company info?? on the side not shown??

[PotosiDug]

On the surface, unfortunately this appears to be a gigantic scam. Perhaps M. Shepard variety. Why not post a current picture to validate authenticity?

[Senator Seebs]

If this is not the goods and it does sell for $many I would be pleased. That is a felony, not lifting a can at a show, but jail time scam. Would love for that to occur if this is a stinker.

This wouldn't be the only can being fought over.

[idigrust]

The other side.

[eric]

The other side.

Well that seems to have closed down the debate.

If it's a hoax, it is a very good one. The secret mailings and bad pictures don't bother me, it is exactly what I would do if I had a can that I wanted to show but not be harassed with offers.

The weird paint blob near the top bothers me a little.

All in all, I'm inclined to believe it's real.

[Pokey]

I would like to see the can in person before coming to a final conclusion, but it looks real to me.

If not, it is the best damn forgery I have ever seen! Way too many details and even incongruities with future cans that a forger would not be congnicent of to put into this.

If not real, then hats off to the forger!!

I think it is legit.