Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

#121

Response to January 16 question pertaining to 16 ounce cans. The 15 ounce Burgie is not unique. Obtained several six-packs, in the heavy card stock carrying container, of this rather unusual version in the early eighties. This came from a large find of cans from a drinker who couldn't discard his empties. For over 15 years the fella never tossed a can and filled two entire rooms with these undiscardables. All in original containers they were purchases which were either from the cheapest item available or brands which were on sale. He wasn't supposed to drink and thus stashed his 'evidence' (should it be placed in the trash, he'd be, er, busted). After he died, folks selling the estate contacted a flea market guru who then began to sell the mint beer cans at a greater San Jose area flea market.
Got in on the closing wave of inventory which cost a dollar a can and I spent close to $600. Most cans were Burgie, Lucky and Hamms, 12 ounce. Grace Brothers stuff, although stashed away first and oldest of the lot, was (amazingly) discarded first. There was a side entrance door, which room had a larger window. Being on the second floor of a turn-of-the-century home this was right above the commercial dumpster. Yep, this stuff was tossed until the thing was FULL. This was the only reason product remained!
The dump, less than three miles from this Los Gatos location, offered proof of what once was. Was able to enter the remote back section via hiking trails of a county park and look for remains (as a runner, this hunt & search wasn't difficult). Destroyed cans, track marks and mauled cardboard were found. All branded with beer advertising. The crush no one ever wanted to experience!

#122

May be a one of a kind? Anybody got one? not pictured? LEON.

Somebody just e-mailed me a pic of one they have, probably just a overlooked can that did not make the book. I guess scratch this can from list

#123

Leon, A milwaukee collector turned up another Miller olive drab this past summer. i believe he is still trying to peddle it.

#124

Matt, now this is very interesting. I wish we had pics of all of them. Some I knew a little about but many..........no. cool

#125

I've gotten a few emails over the last year saying this thread has been updated when it doesn't have a new entry. Must be someone editing a previous comment? That's rather hard to find (with 5 pages of entries)---- I'd prefer to see new comments!

Since the list seems to be pretty stable now, my question is who has the most of these? I kind of regret not going after the Hillmans harder now. I only have one on the list, but a couple others that are "maybes" but didn't make this particular list. I'm pretty sure I know someone who has two of these....Anyone have three or more, or are they spread throughout the hobby?

#126

I've deleted a few cans off the list without making any comment, for example a second block letter Rheingold Extra Dry quart flat went off on ebay back in the late winter. That makes two... no longer list-worthy and unfortunately I ended up #2 bidder so I can't post a pic.

The Twins tried a survey some years ago to count numbers of various cans among the RB, but found it tough going. There are just so many inactive/oldtime/closet collectors out there, it's a crapshoot what supertough cans they might have.

BCCA magazine is doing a story on the supertough cans in the next issue or two, hopefully we'll learn a little from that. We're so specialized I doubt anyone has more than a few off that list.

I'm plenty open to new cans to put on here. Throw out a picture or book number, wait a bit to see if anyone knows of another, and take it from there.

#127

A gentleman out east has four of the Crowntainers, all from the same find. Two of the J-Spouts are mine. With several of the cans having changed hands, I'm not certain that anybody else has two or more. Bob McCoy had three of the cans before he sold his collection. I only know for certain where two of the quarts reside, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if three or even four of them are all in the same collection. Two of the OD's were in the same collection at one time, but apparently one of them has since parted.

Marc

#128

The quarts are all in different collections at the moment.

Those crowns are something else. I just dug through my old magazines, I believe at the time they turned up that 13 were unknown so 9 have since popped up elsewhere. I guess it's just a matter of time.

So many collections I've never seen...

#129

Looks like the Stein Canadian can come off the list since the one pictured in the USBC is different than the one pictured in the BCCA article on 25 rarest cans. So there are at least two.

Also-- are the Hillmans diferent enough that they aren't just version differnces of each other? they're not in the USBC, so I haven't seen them together.

#130

Hoping the Falsrtaff test can I have fits into this - it may be sorta rare, it may be one of a kind. Expecting to get an education during Canvention.

#131

cansnatcher wrote:Looks like the Stein Canadian can come off the list since the one pictured in the USBC is different than the one pictured in the BCCA article on 25 rarest cans. So there are at least two.

Also-- are the Hillmans diferent enough that they aren't just version differnces of each other? they're not in the USBC, so I haven't seen them together.

The Stein's in the article appears to be a better photo of the same can shown in Class and USBC. The spotting has a lighter appearance in the article photo, but the spots are in all the same places. The two Hillman's are different enough that I'd want to count them both.

Senator Seebs wrote:Hoping the Falsrtaff test can I have fits into this - it may be sorta rare, it may be one of a kind. Expecting to get an education during Canvention.

Dude, no test cans (well, maybe a couple...)

menke wrote: Those crowns are something else. I just dug through my old magazines, I believe at the time they turned up that 13 were unknown so 9 have since popped up elsewhere. I guess it's just a matter of time.

Thirteen seems like an awful high number. Besides the ones we've discussed here, the one Old Dutch is the only other one I ever recall hearing might be unique.

Marc

#132

cansnatcher wrote:
Also-- are the Hillmans different enough that they aren't just version differences of each other? they're not in the USBC, so I haven't seen them together.

Check the Scroll of Fame, they are next to each other at the beginning.

#133

Why no mention of Falstaff crowntainer? Still only 1 known. I Falstaff gallon too? LEON.

#134

Leon wrote:Why no mention of Falstaff crowntainer? Still only 1 known. I Falstaff gallon too? LEON.

It was mentioned as seen below a few times and in fact did make the list along with the other unique Crowntainers from Bill's find.

Marc

mtracy64 wrote:
- I'm suspicious about all of the unique Crowntainers from Bill's find; I'd want to either include all of them on the list or leave them all off.

Marc

#135

Took me a while to figure out what the Scroll of Fame was.

After viewing, I still contend that the Hillmans are just variations. They're way too close to be two of the unique cans on the list. 98% is the same. But it's not my list.....

#136

cansnatcher wrote:After viewing, I still contend that the Hillmans are just variations. They're way too close to be two of the unique cans on the list. 98% is the same. But it's not my list.....

I'm sure many would agree with you, including the keeper of the list. I guess I'd want to include both because there's a noticeable change on the front, as opposed to a simple back panel change to fulfill a government requirement. The fact that the can was known only from advertising for decades probably influences my thought processes some as well. However, if I was going to fight to have something added to the list, it would be the Associated paper label OI, the National Bohemian Bock LP cone or the white Chief Oshkosh Crowntainer. But I'm reasonably content with the list as it stands.

Marc

#137

Marc- I agree tha those should be considered. As should the green/red Lucky xmas can that the BCCA included in their "non-test can" list. But are you sure the associated paper label can is unique? An RBer found a six pack of dumper green/brown Brown Derbys a few years ago. They had glue on them as I recall. Is that enough evidence to determine that they had a label over them? If so, is it enough evidence to determine that the Associated paper label isn't unique?

I also think the Schlitz Bock crowntainer should be included, but that's just me. And the goofy Pfeiffers discovered in Czech Republic.

Just thinking.....

#138

AHA: The thread I started about rarest cans from the survey and their distribution across the country--it was kiond of addressed in this thread just a few posts back. I wouldn't have started the other thread if I had seen these recent posts, or someone more tech savvy could put a link from on thread to the other....

#139

How would a can like the WFIR Gold Hamms FT fit in to the only one known category? The can I had was a drinking mug with a factory rolled lip and installed handle. Later a flat sheet surfaced that was rolled in to a can. To the best of my knowledge a can that was produced to actually hold beer has not surfaced. Unless someone else knows better.

#140

Krueger Cone from Wilmington, Delaware. The 3.2% statement on the front of the can where the Distributor info normaly is located.

#141

bradflinders wrote:How would a can like the WFIR Gold Hamms FT fit in to the only one known category?

Seamonkey wrote:Krueger Cone from Wilmington, Delaware. The 3.2% statement on the front of the can where the Distributor info normaly is located.

Well, below is the original criteria as specified by the originator of the thread and "keeper of the list".

menke wrote:This is strictly a list of wildly unique cans. I'm a variation whore as much as the next guy, but to make that list would be a life's work.

I'll ignore condition, cans with different Canco codes for different years, can company, OI panel, small text or panel changes, keglined panel and patent differences, alcohol and tax statement differences, gray vs. silver, enamel vs. metallic, varying primer coat/background colors. We're talking major label, widely collected differences only.

Of course a lot of great cans get left off, but if you count all those smaller details you'd have a thousand+ cans many of which we have on shelves and don't even know it, as well as so deep a level of detail it'd be no fun to read. There has to be a cutoff somewhere, so this shorter list gets right to the point.

Cansnatcher,

I guess I missed the comments below somehow.

cansnatcher wrote:Marc- I agree that those should be considered. As should the green/red Lucky xmas can that the BCCA included in their "non-test can" list. But are you sure the associated paper label can is unique? An RBer found a six pack of dumper green/brown Brown Derbys a few years ago. They had glue on them as I recall. Is that enough evidence to determine that they had a label over them? If so, is it enough evidence to determine that the Associated paper label isn't unique?

I also think the Schlitz Bock crowntainer should be included, but that's just me. And the goofy Pfeiffers discovered in Czech Republic.

Just thinking.....

I'm inclined to give the Lucky Ale the benefit of the doubt myself. Herman's Brown Derby find established without a doubt that the Associated paper label cans were filled and sold; I would put it on the "unique" list with the reasoning being that nobody shelved an Associated from that find and so far only the one original can has surfaced...perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but that's my view of it. It also doesn't hurt that the one known example was "collected" ("dumped", I believe) by a gentleman who began collecting in 1936, has been in collections since that time, and that what little can be seen around (i.e., underneath) the paper label is consistent with what one would see if there was a Brown Derby underneath...

The Schlitz Bock Crowntainer is a really cool can that I've had the pleasure of viewing on several occasions, I just think it's unlikely to have been filled and sold. I certainly could be wrong on that point, and if anybody ever digs up a copper Crowntainer, I'll change my tune in a heartbeat. The Pfeiffer's you speak of is undoubtedly one of the strangest and most interesting cans to ever turn up. I still don't know exactly what to think of the can, but it would be on the list if it was up to me.

Marc

#142

Sorry, please bump my last post.......

#143

Alcohol variations are variations of course, but not wildly different. Anyone is welcome to start up the list of unique variations down to the finest line; it would be a fascinating read and get a ton of people looking closer at their cans and finding duplicates (or not) of those cans. I look forward to reading that in 17 years or so, and then we can all criticize it. it's just a huge job and it's not the most basic question.

Marc, let's talk Lucky next month. I may have missed the memo on that one.

On the Brown Derby/Associated, my gut feeling was that having had dumpers turn up of the Brown Derby appearing to have label remnants (the ultimate low-grade example when you know what it was even though you can't see any of it left) and R turning up the Associated paper label, that one way or the other it was no longer unique.

Pete Sorbi digs a tall Crown cone in Mass. There is no paper label left, but it's still an Ebling's Ale, right?

#144

nc sodapopkid wrote:the kruegers special beer taste test , 4 of each sent to 500 familys, that we don't totaly know if it really is a real can or not should be on the list.

i have 7 vinal old milwaukee genuine draft beer variations like the ones on page 225 of beer cans vol II. with the wallpaper background of the logo in black behind the red label part of the can.
4 are close to can 20 on the page with the horse and buggy unloading barrels of beer but they all have genuine draft beer inside a border above the picture. they say 12 fluid ounces under the picture and one has a blue gray tint to the white part on the can. the red on the can is extra dark.
3 other ones are close to can # 23 with one having a light gray blue where the white usually is and the red is very dark on it also.
the 2 blue gray variations, with the super dark red , i think might qualify for for one of a kind cans.

i have 3 different storz hand painted paper label mock up cans that were made as possible test cans from an employee that worked there.
do those count?
i have a pile of prototype soda cans that are one of a kind cans. just like the pabst qt root beer prototype .
my olive drab hires root beer gallon syrup can is a one of a kind can.
so is the black cherry bottoms up flat top can.
there are a ton of r0 ,one of kind soda cans right now. but the diggers a just now concentrating on the soda cans and finding new cans all the time.

I personally feel there is little doubt that the Krueger's Special Beer was produced and distributed as stated in several 1930's publications. What we lack is sufficient evidence that such a can actually exists today. I'd put the can on the "none-of-a-kind" list (along with the Gretz Bock J-Spout and Crowntainer) until the existence of a can is verified.

As for the remainder of the Beer cans you list, I get the impression you're referring to test and/or mock-up cans? While many of us would find that list very interesting, Matt's goal here (as re-stated below) was not to identify those cans. Rather, he was focused on major label differences of cans which were produced, filled and distributed, and which only a single example is currently known.

menke wrote:Standards: Unique labels that DON'T count: Lilek numbers for cans with different Canco codes for different years, can company, OI panel, keglined panel, and patent differences, alcohol and tax statement differences, gray vs. silver, enamel vs. metallic, varying crowntainer background colors, cans with legit reason to think they're mock-ups or rolled cans. We're talking major, easily seen, and widely collected differences only.

As for your follow-up posting listing Triangle Deluxe and Autocrat (amongst others) - I've held a Triangle Deluxe that was obviously not the can shown in the USBC, and the can I held was also pictured in the September, 1985 BCCA News Report. I've also held two different Autocrats, both pictured in USBC-OI, and a third example sold on eBay several years ago. One of the variations remains unique, and I hate myself for not remembering which one...

menke wrote:Marc, let's talk Lucky next month. I may have missed the memo on that one.

On the Brown Derby/Associated, my gut feeling was that having had dumpers turn up of the Brown Derby appearing to have label remnants (the ultimate low-grade example when you know what it was even though you can't see any of it left) and R turning up the Associated paper label, that one way or the other it was no longer unique.

Pete Sorbi digs a tall Crown cone in Mass. There is no paper label left, but it's still an Ebling's Ale, right?

I don't have any specific information on the Lucky Ale, except that someone posted here that it carries a 1941 date code. If forced into a corner, I would vote "production can" based on the supposition of a very short-lived existence right before production ceased for WWII and on the fact that General Brewing apparently struggled with a color scheme for the Ale.

On the Brown Derby/Associated, "remnants of paper" do indicate that the Brown Derby cans were sold with paper labels applied...but does that necessarily mean they were Associateds? We're inclined to think that way because of the one known example...which, again, was collected in the 1930's, by a gentleman who though not technically "dumping" per se, is known to have picked up cans from garbage cans and roadsides. And I don't see where Rawley's finding an example of the label has any bearing on the status of the can...a very cool find for sure, but you can't really call it a can.

Similarly, we surmise that a tall cone found in Massachusettes without the paper label is an Ebling's Ale because we know that was produced and because it was found in "Ale Country". But consider that several early Crown Can Co. ads exist which tout the usage of "blank cans with paper labels" because of the flexibility and cost savings they offer. Pete may well have dumped a tall Fitzgerald's or Hanley's (other known very early users of Crown Cans), or something even more difficult for us to imagine decades after the fact. It's also entirely possible that some unknown brewer may have opted for a "lithographed" version of the tall cone and that we simply haven't seen one yet.

Marc

#145

nc sodapopkid wrote:those were a couple i never saw. heck i learn something new every day. i should have let the experts do this one.

No, the more input the better. This thread started in 2007, and the list has changed numerous times since then. Cans like those on the list are statistical anomalies, and crossing paths with the ultra rare is often a fluke occurrence that can happen to anyone. I arrived at the Blue/Grey show one year just in time to see the previously unknown dumper of Autocrat as the new owner was taking it back to his room after snagging it. The information in this hobby is very fragmented...there's just too much information spread out amongst too many people for anybody to really be an expert on everything. There are dozens of guys here whose knowledge is encyclopedic on whatever it is that really turns them on, and this website has been a quantum leap forward as far as getting a lot of that information out to people who crave it. Anybody who frequents this board learns something new every time they visit.

Marc

#146

On the Brown Derby/Associated, my gut feeling was that having had dumpers turn up of the Brown Derby appearing to have label remnants (the ultimate low-grade example when you know what it was even though you can't see any of it left) and R turning up the Associated paper label, that one way or the other it was no longer unique.

I have to side with Marc on this one Matt. Pete and Heman's find of the Brown Derbys was just that, a find of Brown Derbys rather than a find of Associateds. With nothing left of the original paper labels you really can't count those cans as Associated. In my opinion all they do is give further proof that the can was actually sold and is not a paper label mock up (Roy Nelson has also found them years ago so this was already proven). Not sure what I think about Rawley's label, it's really not much different than finding an unrolled sheet of a unique can but different enough to confuse me a bit. If you found a sheet of a one of a kind can and had it rolled the can would no longer be unique but I don't know if that means you could just wrap the Big R's label around a can and count it as a second example. I suppose if you could get a hold of a top grade Brown Derby and wrap it around that it might count?? I don't know, what do you guys think? At this point I still count the Associated as a one of a kind.

#147

Rustmonger wrote: Pete and Heman's find of the Brown Derbys was just that, a find of Brown Derbys rather than a find of Associateds. With nothing left of the original paper labels you really can't count those cans as Associated. In my opinion all they do is give further proof that the can was actually sold and is not a paper label mock up (Roy Nelson has also found them years ago so this was already proven).

Paper label cans do present a quandary, don't they? If it's found inside, we're suspicious that it's a mock-up; if it's found outside, the paper is almost always either gone or unidentifiable. I was not aware of Roy's find, but the depth of the history we have on the indoor can is beyond remarkable and I accepted it as a real can on that alone.

Rustmonger wrote: Not sure what I think about Rawley's label, it's really not much different than finding an unrolled sheet of a unique can but different enough to confuse me a bit. If you found a sheet of a one of a kind can and had it rolled the can would no longer be unique but I don't know if that means you could just wrap the Big R's label around a can and count it as a second example. I suppose if you could get a hold of a top grade Brown Derby and wrap it around that it might count?? I don't know, what do you guys think? At this point I still count the Associated as a one of a kind.

Paper label cans do present a quandary, don't they? Finding just the label confuses me some also. Of course, we confuse ourselves somewhat right from get-go...a single rolled example of a unique can doesn't count for the list, but in the case of a rolled example of a can for which a unique all-original can also exists, the rolled one does count and we knock the can off the list. It's a game we agree to play by a certain set of rules, but the occasional can pops up that makes us examine the finer points of these rules more closely, and there really is no set of rules we can apply to every possible case. An unrolled sheet of a can which is known to have been produced indicates the intent for the unrolled sheet to become a can, and I would say that Rawley's Associated label also indicates that intent. The fact that you need another specific can which happens to be rare itself (the Brown Derby) to turn that label into the closest possible analogy of a "rolled can" is the really confusing part. If another "all-original" Associated turns up, do we have to be able to discern the Brown Derby underneath in order to accept it as real? What if the all-original example had a common can underneath? Could we wrap Rawley's label around an example of that common can and accept it? Do we accept the Brown Derby as a real can, or do we consider it an "incomplete" Associated?

I can see where it's awkward to have a can on the list which is virtually impossible to debunk as unique can based on the dumper record, but there's still only one example known to the hobby. That and the fact that we accept that it was actually produced, in my mind, gives it more credence than a can that is known only from a single rubbed-out example like the Trent Ale quart (I'm not arguing it's inclusion, just acknowledging that an argument against it can be built). But, these grey areas exist and different people will obviously focus on different aspects to draw a conclusion. It's interesting to delve into the minutiae and form an opinion, and to hear the opinions of others, but there are a few other cans I'd argue more strongly for.

Marc

#148

I love this crap. Paper labels... yeah, if Rawley put his paper label around a regular Brown Derby I'd call him a fraud. If he put it on a dumper green Brown Derby, I'd roll my eyes. The "donor" can would have to be an equally clean, green Brown Derby for it to be a properly "rolled' can.

Yet, what if the brewer put other paper labels on those Brown Derby's? They're so rare as an Associated can, that the odds are 50/50 that the second legit paper label to turn up will be some OTHER paper label. Perhaps I am assuming too much that label remnants should necessarily be what we expect them to be.

The lacquer collection Steve/John/I got a couple years ago had a Charge tab, the tough one with the different saber and detailing. What are the odds... then I saw another collection last fall that was also accumulated in the 50's and IT had a curved saber Charge. In these cases, you see a Charge label and assume it's the common one. But both collections were put together on the fly back in the day, not accumulated from swap meets where dealer stock was dominating. That's all it took for these two cans to appear to me as The Rare One. Add 30 years to the mix and it would surprise me less if a unique can turns up a second sample and there's something drastically different. The second Hillman's is different, the second Manhattan Bock is different, Autocrats are different, Ilsners, Old Golds, it goes on an on. A new example turns up and it's different is almost the rule rather than the exception when you look at it this way.

Is my reasoning sound here or did you guys just beat me up?

#149

This topic has become a bit tedious to read through looking for prior submissions, and or denials. I searched it, but was unable to find this can.
The can was sold on Eaby some time ago, and although it wasn't a can I desired, it intrigued me. A red " Derby " that also has the Beer in red. Unlike any of the other Brown Derby's listed. I know it's not an uber exciting can, and I should have saved all the pics, but the rest made it appear original, not rolled. Maybe someone else here saved more pics, or won it. Seems like there might have been a brief discussion on it in the GD section?

: Red Hat Brown Derby.jpg (10.55 KiB) Viewed 93894 times

#150

BROWN DERBY:PITTSBURGH BRG.CO.PITTSBURGH,PA.USBC.VOL.II #46/30.(PULL TAB).

Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans

Re: Ongoing List of Only-One-Known Cans