OI Detective Work

#31

I'll remember that the next time you let us all know that you are gonna "get your licks in."

#32

With you it might take three hands.

Later,

Tom Inman

#33

PreWar wrote:.... its educating the hobby and for those hardcore OI collectors its of great importance I would think.

As a hardcore OI collector.....it is of importance to know which is which. Again, if anybody has a comprehensive list of these issues, I'll pull them all together and document them on a web page and keep it up to date. Otherwise, I'll harvest it out of this thread some weekend.

Rand

#34

For me it just taints the whole book, everything in it is questionable now. It started out with "well, the Krueger's Special is fake but the rest of the book is great." Then it moved into "Yea, there's a couple of fakes but it's still better than the book you never put out". Right now we're up to well over a dozen fake cans with two new ones coming to light in the past couple of weeks. Where does it end? Even if you stamp "FAKE" on the ones we know about how many others are there that have gone unnoticed so far? Even the back story on this latest Bay State is a fabrication. Even when you knew some of the cans were fake it was still cool to read "this was found in the brewery rafters in the early 50's" or "this dull gray Pabst Bock was found in the Philippines" but now even that kind of stuff is questionable. I brought up some of these points a couple of years ago when this first came to light and was absolutely CRUCIFIED on this site for daring the question the integrity of Kevin's life’s work. I just wonder how you can trust any of the information in a book like this. Even if you're holding the pictured can in your hand how can you be sure any of the information on the cans background is accurate. If you're willing to fake the actual can would you also be willing to make up some production dates, rarity ratings, or an interesting back story for the can as well? I'm not saying this is the case (although it's obvious on the Bay State) but how do you know for sure this didn't happen? If guess that's my point, how do you know for sure that any of it is legit?

#35

One of you serious collectors needs to come up with an all anal retentive comprehensive shows every variation known to man book. You guys take this way to serious. As for spending money on the book. I drop twice that at an Astros or Texans game.

Later,

Tom Inman

#36

The stuff about cans being issued in 1945 in brighter/shiner colors to "celebrate" the end of the war is BS as well. Somehow those breweries managed to get enough cans despite the strict rationing of metal and issue them without the brewer's trade press noticing or without a newspaper ad showing the special cans?

When I see a notice in "Brewers Digest" or "Modern Brewery Age" I'll admit I was wrong and apologize but until I see proof it's BS.

MarkB

#37

I agree with Tommy Kegliner - Whose being too serious now? Look at the overall picture - would you rather not have the OI book at all? Ok - so he took liberties on 20+ cans, the other 97% of the cans in the book are real and the book is a great resource. Nobody is perfect. I am sure Kevin will refund anybodys money if they send their book back, even if you scratched your name out in the credits.

#38

It almost seems pointless to even have Relative Rareness ratings or even values for that matter. But its nice to have some sort of guideline. A minimum price value is nice to have to at least have a guess at what a can may sell or trade for. Its disappointing that more and more cans and their stories, seem to be embellished or enhanced. And its also disappointing to see the negativity increasing towards Kevin's work. I enjoy the photography and seeing these cans nonetheless. Otherwise, I may never see some of these cans in such detail.

#39

Kegliner1 wrote:With you it might take three hands.

Later,

Tom Inman

dink :sign5:

#40

Some of the same people calling for the head of Dirtcheapproducts for making fake cans will say of the book, "so what if he fudged 20 or so cans".....

#41

If you bought Kevin's book, at least you have the right to bitch about it. I bought 2 of them and I dont care about a few "fake" cans or some made up stories in it - it dosn't matter to me. I enjoy the photos of the real cans. I do not spend countless hours, scanning every minute detail of every page. Who needs to get a life? I use it especially when I come back from digging and check to see if I have a tough or unknown varation. Maybe spend 5 minutes of month with the book. It's too big to read in the bathroom.

As far as Dirtbag - most of the stuff he makes looks like crap, but if he made a Tiger, Yorkshire Ale or Class and they looked halfway decent, I may buy one for the hell of it.

#42

Ed, this is somewhat related to the O/I book and something you may be able to answer since it's your area of expertise. It's been proven that the Manhattan Ale 4 panel in the book is faked but, what I'm wondering is, are there any examples of that can in collections that you're aware of? I never knew there was a 4 panel Ale until I saw it in the book but, after finding out it was fake, now I'm back to wondering if there is such a thing. Have you ever seen one? Thanks.

#43

when I come back from digging and check to see if I have a tough or unknown varation

How do you know if you have a tough or unknown variation if you can't trust the book?

#44

i like the book to look at the pics. for me i just collect from what i dump, so i am merely a casual fun guy when it comes to cans. . i like the fact that i won the Book set in the RB raffle. i like that, along with Dwight, we got our names in the book for finding a new variation with those dull grey Running Waiters. like a proud little kid when you got your pic in the local town newspaper, i like to show off my special page i am on to friends when they come over. just put some asterisks on pages, like they are with Barry Bond-roids.

#45

Rustmonger asked about the Manhatten 4-panel Ale. I wonder about the Alpen Glen Ale. This can was rumored for years but nobody had ever seen one. I was blown away when it turned up in the book. How hard would it be to photoshop an Alpen Glow into an Alpen Glen? Can anybody verify that the pictured can in the book actually exists?

Scott

#46

We all like to think about cans that may not have been discovered yet. There are posts about them. Sure Kevin took some liberties. But it gives us an idea of what has yet to be discovered. Should he have added footnotes to these cans in his book? Probably. But when you are financing it yourself the expenses add up fast. I challenge you nay sayers to do better. KB has a good idea. Just add your own asterisks with footnotes.

Later,

Tom Inman

#47

Scott , I heard the Alpen Glen ale showed up at the Santa Clara canvention in 91 , I looked for it then just to see it , found out later Tommy Leo bought it (not verified) but had never seen it in person ,then or since

out

dan

#48

You never know what will turn up someday. It's only logical that a manhattan Ale 4-panel can exsist. If someone finds one - it's all ready in the book!

BTW -Rumor has it that Manhattan Ale came in quart cans and was sold in Savannah, Georgia!

The book is still useful for :

1) identifying cans for trade & buy/sell lists
2) rough ball park value
3) promotes collecting OI beer cans
4) also give collectors more varations to collect. Kevin has introduced the whole new world of "ACCO bowtie 47....."
5) sets a goal for collectors on what cans there are out there to collect, minus the mistakes/fakes.
6) enjoyment of having a big fat beer can book loaded with really cool beer cans to look at that we may never own!

Make your fake can lists and post it if it makes you feel good. But let's not throw Kevin & the whole book out the window. That's taking it a little bit too far.

#49

I guess a black sharpie is the best idea. If you dont like something in the book - cross it out.

#50

Since I started this thing.....and since there seems to be a bit of a bashing of Lilek bashers.....and my comment on that subject probably got lost at the bottom of the previous page.....I feel a need to re-make this comment:

I am a fan of the book....no other beer can book has ever attempted to document this level of detail about the cans.....no other beer can book has ever attempted to photograph this much detail about the cans......no other beer can book has ever attempted to provide this size of photograph for the cans....and I will go to my grave thinking it is a tremendous achievement.

Now.....with that said.....I still think it is important to create another document that provides the "footnotes" to the master and supplement books detailing the photoshopping liberties that were taken.

Whew.....I feel better now.......

Rand

#51

I'll direct this message partly to Rand and his volunteering to maintain a website for "questionable" OI's from the book--any way we could turn that into a sticky on here instead?

I can kind of imagine a "hierarchy" of sorts of reasons for "photoshopping" cans in the book:

1. A can exists and photos were taken of it, but the photos were somehow lost or corrupted by the printer or before the book was made. These cans were photographically reproduced to appear in the book (and yes, I would favor the author saying so if that were the case).

2. A can is absolutely, positively verified to exist, but for whatever reason there isn't a photo that could be taken for the book.

3. A can is not absolutely verified but it "should" exist. For example, suppose variations #1, 2 and 3 of Bay State Ale exist and #1 and 3 of Bay State Beer exist, so Beer #2 must exist out there, and it's "rumored" to exist, but it hasn't been 100% verified.

4. A can "ought to" exist but hasn't been verified.

I could see a lot of value in not only keeping a list of "photoshopped" OI's, but also which "type" they are (and these are just suggestions--does my list make sense above? additions or deletions?). For example, I would definitely have a problem with producing a photo of a can that "ought to exist" but hasn't been verified by anyone--yet I see this as a very different animal than just taking a can that is absolutely, positively known to exist and creating a photo of it. Personally, I don't have a problem with recreating a photo of known cans (though it would help to know for sure where that appears in the book).

If such a list could be put together, and the "reason" for the can given along the lines of this post, I think it would be a great contribution to our website! In my opinion, it would make the book even more useful than it already is.