"4" -VS- "Four" % on Cone Tops

Discussion issues on Beer Cans,, Breweriana, Attended Shows etc...

Moderators: Forum Moderator, Current Officers, Previous Officers

User avatar
Conehead
Former Officer
Former Officer
Posts: 2420
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:03 am
Answers: 0
Rusty Bunch Member Number: 109
BCCA Number: 17406
eBay name: Conehead4
Year Started Collecting: 1978
Location: Logan, Utah
Has thanked: 629 times
Been thanked: 464 times
Zodiac:
Status: Offline
United States of America

"4" -VS- "Four" % on Cone Tops

#1

Post by Conehead »

Does anyone know why a brewery would use a number "4" as apposed to a written out "Four" for their 4% cone tops? Some breweries used these differences when the content was expressed "by weight" as opposed to "by volume" but that isn't what I am talking about.

I assume that it was a state or federal requirement but I really don't know for sure.

I know of 2 brands that used a "4" and "Four" on an otherwise identical can. They are Grain Belt and Koenig Brau. Both are post war IRTP's, but I believe the "4" is the earlier of the two variations.

More importantly does anyone know of any other brands that did this. I thought maybe these other Midwest labels may come this way but I haven't been able to prove it.......Peerless, Braumeister, Old Style.

Here is some pictures to see what I am talking about.

The Koenig Brau is a little harder to see.....click to enlarge. IRTP, DNCMT 4% by weight.
The second set is the Grain Belt. This is the orange label IRTP, DNCMT 4% by weight.
Attachments
HP3475c.JPG
HP3470c.JPG
HP2742c.JPG
HP2740c.JPG


I shall leave no cone unturned!!
Uncle Jackson
Rust Master General
Rust Master General
Posts: 529
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:09 pm
Answers: 0
Rusty Bunch Member Number: 929
BCCA Number: 953
eBay name: JLC0953
Year Started Collecting: 1969
Location: North East, PA
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 108 times
Zodiac:
Status: Offline
United States of America

Re: "4" -VS- "Four" % on Cone Tops

#2

Post by Uncle Jackson »

I would look at the language in the state laws that required the disclosure. Different states may have different required verbiage. Also, I have seen fixed numbers, does not exceed, % ranges, usage of strong and others - each of which are likely driven by the state rules. May be a way to date these cans if the language changed as the rules changed.

Do you have any idea when these statements moved from the side of the can to the lids?

Is all this a research project for someone to develop a listing of states and what was required when?

Great start to a thread.
Jerry Cole
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “General Discussion”