Moderators: Forum Moderator, Current Officers, Previous Officers
unless it is there and I'm missing it
Lilek's "picture" had the Keglined, but then he noted that it was not trademarked until Sept. 1934. The absence of the Keglined is what makes me believe it is real. If it is a hoax, it is extremely well-thought out and researched.Why no Keglined anywhere on the can?
Eric, where is the article on the can that showed up in the 80s? I can't recall.eric wrote:Lilek's "picture" had the Keglined, but then he noted that it was not trademarked until Sept. 1934. The absence of the Keglined is what makes me believe it is real. If it is a hoax, it is extremely well-thought out and researched.Why no Keglined anywhere on the can?
Also, there was some question about the date scratched on the lid. The article on the one that showed up 30 years ago actually says it had that date scratched on the lid.
Very well said.eric wrote:... If it is a hoax, it is extremely well-thought out and researched...
That makes sense but there still should be some kind of can makers mark on it.....every tin can usally doeskeithker wrote:Dan.....It sees odd but not unrealistic since Keglinged supposedly wasn't patented until 1934 according to the Keglined page....can't say it validates it any further but maybe can add to the discussion....
http://www.keglined.com/
On Through the Summer of '34
ACCO spends much of the year perfecting their brewer's pitch. But the substance isn't exactly cooperating.
The better it sticks to corners, creases, & seams, the worse it responds to pasteurization, and vice versa.
Finally, ACCO turns to Union Carbide, whose proprietary Vinylite can be applied to the insides of tin cans. Vinylite — the substance chosen to 'kegline' insides of cans — is the same polymer used to make vinyl records.
September '34
Working with Vinylite, ACCO develops a dual coat process ("C" enamel + Vinylite), and attach to it their "Keglined" trademark (like copyrights, trademarks are automatic and do not have to be registered to be valid).
Good point, but remember, these were not being sold commercially, but were being given out as an experiment or such. If it failed miserably, maybe the can maker didn't want to have its name on it.CMD wrote:That makes sense but there still should be some kind of can makers mark on it.....every tin can usally doeskeithker wrote:Dan.....It sees odd but not unrealistic since Keglinged supposedly wasn't patented until 1934 according to the Keglined page....can't say it validates it any further but maybe can add to the discussion....
http://www.keglined.com/
On Through the Summer of '34
ACCO spends much of the year perfecting their brewer's pitch. But the substance isn't exactly cooperating.
The better it sticks to corners, creases, & seams, the worse it responds to pasteurization, and vice versa.
Finally, ACCO turns to Union Carbide, whose proprietary Vinylite can be applied to the insides of tin cans. Vinylite — the substance chosen to 'kegline' insides of cans — is the same polymer used to make vinyl records.
September '34
Working with Vinylite, ACCO develops a dual coat process ("C" enamel + Vinylite), and attach to it their "Keglined" trademark (like copyrights, trademarks are automatic and do not have to be registered to be valid).
Canco is another trade name, or possibly an operating division, of American Can Company. They seemed to use the name on their metal, non-can items such as church keys and serving trays. However, the Canco name is on the beer test can.Tom Hoefer wrote:I have a question that maybe somebody knows the answer to. Did Canco pay ACCO or the brewers for advertising their opener on the cans? It seems like an awful lot of advertising for them to give away.
On the 2nd pic on the first page of this thread it looks to me like a black stripe of paint with a lighter underprinted color that missed registration and bled a little beyond the stripeCap-Sealed wrote: The label could be correct, but it still could be a can-wrap.... is there an edge at the left of the seam? Shouldn't this be flat? Just a thought...
These photos came in a letter in the mail to a few different collectors. Charlie Smith took pictures of the letter and posted them on Facebook.Sweeperman wrote:Did I miss the part about why it is a picture of a picture??
The BCCA didn't claim to know it's whereabouts, by my reading. The article states that the owner was being assisted by a BCCA member to sell the can. Could that have been Dave Stark, as he claimed to have held the can in his hand? Accounts I've heard was that he was unable to buy it from the owner. You know how squirrelly people get about cans when they realize their value. Especially a non collector. What kind of money might have been offered for it in 1985? At that time weren't the Tiger and Rosalie still top dogs at 6k per?Leon wrote:The 1985 BCCA article say's it was for sale way back then. 32 years later & it still hasn't sold? why? nobody wanted it for past 32 years? BCCA said they know who had it way back then. Why didn't they get a pic of it for the BCCA book when they started on that book way back in 1993. LEON.
Leon wrote:The 1985 BCCA article say's it was for sale way back then. 32 years later & it still hasn't sold?
A 1985 surfacing, and another now, with 32 years of fog in between. We can only wonder what happened in 1985 or in the intervening years. I believe this is the 1985 can. Unless, as already mentioned, we are witnessing a spectacular ruse.OctoberAle wrote:The article states that the owner was being assisted by a BCCA member to sell the can.
