Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
Moderators: Conehead, Forum Moderator, Current Officers, Previous Officers
-
- Grand Marshall of Rust
- Posts: 1945
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:15 pm
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 1064
- Year Started Collecting: 1973
- Location: Kansas: The Land That Beer Forgot...
- Has thanked: 26 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
- Zodiac:
- Status: Offline
Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
Okay, it's less of a mystery now, but as a high school kid circa 1980 I found a couple of crowntainers on a hillside in my Kansas hometown, the only crowns I ever found. Tuesday I was out scouring the same hillside and found another. Same deal as 1980 - when I cleaned it, no logo, just vertical stripes. Now that I have the can books I see it was almost certainly a Gluek's, possibly a Gluek's Stite instead. So were the vertical stripes a separate undercoat and the logo applied on top of it? And any ideas on how to tell which it was so I can add it to the Kansas list if nobody's previously posted one? Thanks!
I'm constantly finding good cans... in my mailbox. *** My third year of waging Schlitzkrieg on the Flint Hills of Kansas ***
- Sea Monkey
- RB Raffle Coordinator
- Posts: 5885
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:04 pm
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 958
- BCCA Number: 33638
- eBay name: Pollywoggray
- Year Started Collecting: 1976
- Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
- Has thanked: 789 times
- Been thanked: 708 times
- Zodiac:
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
The PAPER label has been lost to time......
Scott Gray
BCCA# 33638 / RB# 958 / Qwarts-R-Us #8 / Iron Guts #6
BCCA# 33638 / RB# 958 / Qwarts-R-Us #8 / Iron Guts #6
- Daev Larrazolo
- Supreme Rusty Being
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:37 pm
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 804
- BCCA Number: 31724
- eBay name: HEYBLAMEITONRIO
- Year Started Collecting: 1977
- Location: West Columbia SC
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Zodiac:
- Contact:
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
I don't think they had paper label crowns.
WANT ANY MONTANA BREWERIANA
- Tom Clark
- Rust Master General
- Posts: 749
- Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:19 am
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 48
- BCCA Number: 17611
- eBay name: milesclarkco
- Year Started Collecting: 1976
- Location: Kansas
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Zodiac:
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
Hey Kevin that is a Glueks paper label crowntainer either 194/28 or 194/29. I have both in my collection, I bought them, haven't dumped any of them in Kansas. All information was on the paper label and the label itself was applied last so there isn't any coating covering the label and can. Without the label there isn't any way to tell which can it is.
-
- Grand Marshall of Rust
- Posts: 1945
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:15 pm
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 1064
- Year Started Collecting: 1973
- Location: Kansas: The Land That Beer Forgot...
- Has thanked: 26 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
- Zodiac:
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
Thanks, guys! I wondered if there were paper label crowns. I know they sold Stite here in the late 1950s, dunno about plain Gluek's. Hmm.
I'm constantly finding good cans... in my mailbox. *** My third year of waging Schlitzkrieg on the Flint Hills of Kansas ***
- Tom Clark
- Rust Master General
- Posts: 749
- Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:19 am
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 48
- BCCA Number: 17611
- eBay name: milesclarkco
- Year Started Collecting: 1976
- Location: Kansas
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Zodiac:
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
Hey Kevin I should have been more detail, its a Gluek's Stite Malt Liquior. On the left side of the paper label on both the 3.2 can and the no alcohol content listed can it says Legend No. 4. What does that mean?
- Sea Monkey
- RB Raffle Coordinator
- Posts: 5885
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:04 pm
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 958
- BCCA Number: 33638
- eBay name: Pollywoggray
- Year Started Collecting: 1976
- Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
- Has thanked: 789 times
- Been thanked: 708 times
- Zodiac:
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
That's why you just collect..............Daev Larrazolo wrote:I don't think they had paper label crowns.
Scott Gray
BCCA# 33638 / RB# 958 / Qwarts-R-Us #8 / Iron Guts #6
BCCA# 33638 / RB# 958 / Qwarts-R-Us #8 / Iron Guts #6
- crowntainer
- Rust Master
- Posts: 488
- Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:11 pm
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 933
- BCCA Number: 0
- eBay name: frommydoortoyours
- Year Started Collecting: 1974
- Location: NW Houston, TX
- Zodiac:
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
The same can was also used with a paper label for Fort Schuyler besides several variations of Glueks.
-
- Grand Marshall of Rust
- Posts: 1945
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:15 pm
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 1064
- Year Started Collecting: 1973
- Location: Kansas: The Land That Beer Forgot...
- Has thanked: 26 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
- Zodiac:
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
Legend #4 must have differentiated the label in some other way than the alcohol statement... what era were the Stite crowns? I remembered I dumped the green Stite 8 oz too. Only Stite had the paper label, not the pilsener?
I'm constantly finding good cans... in my mailbox. *** My third year of waging Schlitzkrieg on the Flint Hills of Kansas ***
- Conehead
- Former Officer
- Posts: 2419
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:03 am
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 109
- BCCA Number: 17406
- eBay name: Conehead4
- Year Started Collecting: 1978
- Location: Logan, Utah
- Has thanked: 624 times
- Been thanked: 464 times
- Zodiac:
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
The Gluek's Stites do have different Legend No.'s that correspond to different alcohol contents. It is very similar to the way that continental used different letters on the canning code to note different alcohol contents. Here are a few.
Legend No. 2. No alcohol content. Legend No. 4. CMT 3.2% by weight. Legend No. 1. Strong. The Gluek's Pilsener Pale also have the legend No.'s.
Legend No. 5. DNCMT 4% by weight. Legend No. 3. Contains 5% by volume. Legend No. 2 Strong. Legend No. 1 CNMT 3.2% by weight.
Legend No. 2. No alcohol content. Legend No. 4. CMT 3.2% by weight. Legend No. 1. Strong. The Gluek's Pilsener Pale also have the legend No.'s.
Legend No. 5. DNCMT 4% by weight. Legend No. 3. Contains 5% by volume. Legend No. 2 Strong. Legend No. 1 CNMT 3.2% by weight.
I shall leave no cone unturned!!
-
- Grand Marshall of Rust
- Posts: 1945
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:15 pm
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 1064
- Year Started Collecting: 1973
- Location: Kansas: The Land That Beer Forgot...
- Has thanked: 26 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
- Zodiac:
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
Two years to turn up a crowntainer, three days to find two more. On one I can see the Gluek's stripes. The other is probably one too but hope it's something different!
I'm constantly finding good cans... in my mailbox. *** My third year of waging Schlitzkrieg on the Flint Hills of Kansas ***
- Leon
- Supreme Rusty Being
- Posts: 16707
- Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:13 pm
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 643
- BCCA Number: 29171
- Year Started Collecting: 1975
- Location: Mopar City
- Has thanked: 136 times
- Been thanked: 288 times
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
Conehead wrote:The Gluek's Stites do have different Legend No.'s that correspond to different alcohol contents. It is very similar to the way that continental used different letters on the canning code to note different alcohol contents. Here are a few.
Legend No. 2. No alcohol content. Legend No. 4. CMT 3.2% by weight. Legend No. 1. Strong. The Gluek's Pilsener Pale also have the legend No.'s.
Legend No. 5. DNCMT 4% by weight. Legend No. 3. Contains 5% by volume. Legend No. 2 Strong. Legend No. 1 CNMT 3.2% by weight.
Conehead, Your Legend #1 Strong is a fake. As far as I know the easiest, best way to tell which ones are fakes or real is the real one will say Brewed & Filled by or canned by while the fakes will say Bottled by because someone will put a bottle label on these. Also notice that bottled by label is bigger then the others. LEON
FAVORITE SAYING: WHY DUMP LOCALLY & FIND PROGRESS O/I's WHEN I CAN DRIVE A THOUSAND MILES AND FIND NOTHING.
NOT SO FAVORITE SAYING: SOME CRAZY RICH CLOWN OUTBID ME
ANOTHER SAYING: LIGHTS ARE ON BUT NOBODY'S HOME?
NOT SO FAVORITE SAYING: SOME CRAZY RICH CLOWN OUTBID ME
ANOTHER SAYING: LIGHTS ARE ON BUT NOBODY'S HOME?
- Conehead
- Former Officer
- Posts: 2419
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:03 am
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 109
- BCCA Number: 17406
- eBay name: Conehead4
- Year Started Collecting: 1978
- Location: Logan, Utah
- Has thanked: 624 times
- Been thanked: 464 times
- Zodiac:
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
Hi Leon,
I have been told that before about the bottled by wording. I purposely didn't say anything to see if someone would notice so I could ask the below question, and someone did! Thanks Leon!
My question is, do we REALLY know it is faked or just assumed. The words "bottled by" do appear on numerous other cans so there is a precedence for using "bottled by" on cans. Two quick examples that come to mind are USBC #187-14 (Trophy Beer by A.B.D. Co.). The other is USBC #188-13 (IRTP Van Merritt). I picked these two because "bottled by" is easily seen in the book. By the way, the IRTP Van Merritt also comes with "filled by" which is not shown in the book.
Link to Van Merritt variation thread:
viewtopic.php?f=194&t=49489&p=419819&hi ... tt#p419819
With all the strange things that the canning companies were doing in those days, ink stamp alcohol statements, blacked out alcohol statements and mandatorys (some of which were clearly done by hand), etc. why wouldn't Gluek have possibly started with the "bottled by" mandatory which they were already using on bottles and switched to "filled by" when the cans took off, or even just used whatever was available? Just saying? I really don't know the right answer.
I actually have the Legend #4 both ways:
I have been told that before about the bottled by wording. I purposely didn't say anything to see if someone would notice so I could ask the below question, and someone did! Thanks Leon!
My question is, do we REALLY know it is faked or just assumed. The words "bottled by" do appear on numerous other cans so there is a precedence for using "bottled by" on cans. Two quick examples that come to mind are USBC #187-14 (Trophy Beer by A.B.D. Co.). The other is USBC #188-13 (IRTP Van Merritt). I picked these two because "bottled by" is easily seen in the book. By the way, the IRTP Van Merritt also comes with "filled by" which is not shown in the book.
Link to Van Merritt variation thread:
viewtopic.php?f=194&t=49489&p=419819&hi ... tt#p419819
With all the strange things that the canning companies were doing in those days, ink stamp alcohol statements, blacked out alcohol statements and mandatorys (some of which were clearly done by hand), etc. why wouldn't Gluek have possibly started with the "bottled by" mandatory which they were already using on bottles and switched to "filled by" when the cans took off, or even just used whatever was available? Just saying? I really don't know the right answer.
I actually have the Legend #4 both ways:
I shall leave no cone unturned!!
- hemmings
- Grand Marshall of Rust
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:39 am
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 0
- BCCA Number: 29000
- eBay name: rareamerica
- Year Started Collecting: 1977
- Location: Gainesville, FL
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 389 times
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
Hi Jim, Brought your comment from the Kamm's thread here as it gets a LOT more complicated with the Gluek labels... It's making my head hurt after a long day so I'll try and edit this with whatever I can get together... But...
I built a Gluek label composite list this spring- sitting at 165 different known labels right now. I have 10 different of the Black Gluek Stite's and all are brewed and bottled. I think you have 3 different Brewed and Filled versions on cans so I will add the missing one to my list- Plus I can read the Legend # on yours way better than from the books so thanks for putting them up.
In just this series of black labels the Legend No. is NOT consistent. I think you showed this already too with Legend No 2 as no contents and also as Strong. Same for Legend No. 1 Strong and CNMT3.2% by weight in your list...
I have three flat matte paper IRTPS that do NOT have Legends at all. I just have Legend #1 as strong but Bottled.
Legend No.2 I have as a blank in 8oz and 12oz but I also have it as Alcohol More than 3.2 and not more than 7% by weight- all three bottled. So that makes 3 different alcohol contents in just this series on Legend 2.
I'm gonna have to quit for a while but a couple of more things I can say real quick - No IRTP Gluek labels of any kind have Legend anything on them. The Black Gluek Stite's in foil are the first to have Legends on them. The only other Gluek label series' with Legend match the Blue and Purple crowntainers. I'me doing this with just my labels and not the full list so may have to edit it but.... The purple labels are all Legend No.1 and all say CNMT3.2%Aby weight. The Blue striped like labels I have as Legend 2,3, and 4 which are Strong, C5%of A by volume, and nothing respectively. Also, in both the Blue and Purple series they made variations of ink color in Legends and contain statements to either side of the word Gluek's.
It's funny- when I started typing this I was thinking hmm maybe we've been wrong on the bottled versus filled thing... But after looking at the other two series of labels that match the striped blue and purple crowntainers I think I am convinced for the moment that the brewed and bottled labels on cans are fake. The known labels that match the blue and purple crowntainers all say Bottled while the cans say Packaged. In building my list it has become very clear to me that someone/s were paying VERY close attention to the specific wording and other details... For now I just don't think the Brewed and bottled labels on cans are legit. Though I readily admit I am trying to prove a negative which is essentially impossible.... Andy
will come back and edit this....
I built a Gluek label composite list this spring- sitting at 165 different known labels right now. I have 10 different of the Black Gluek Stite's and all are brewed and bottled. I think you have 3 different Brewed and Filled versions on cans so I will add the missing one to my list- Plus I can read the Legend # on yours way better than from the books so thanks for putting them up.
In just this series of black labels the Legend No. is NOT consistent. I think you showed this already too with Legend No 2 as no contents and also as Strong. Same for Legend No. 1 Strong and CNMT3.2% by weight in your list...
I have three flat matte paper IRTPS that do NOT have Legends at all. I just have Legend #1 as strong but Bottled.
Legend No.2 I have as a blank in 8oz and 12oz but I also have it as Alcohol More than 3.2 and not more than 7% by weight- all three bottled. So that makes 3 different alcohol contents in just this series on Legend 2.
I'm gonna have to quit for a while but a couple of more things I can say real quick - No IRTP Gluek labels of any kind have Legend anything on them. The Black Gluek Stite's in foil are the first to have Legends on them. The only other Gluek label series' with Legend match the Blue and Purple crowntainers. I'me doing this with just my labels and not the full list so may have to edit it but.... The purple labels are all Legend No.1 and all say CNMT3.2%Aby weight. The Blue striped like labels I have as Legend 2,3, and 4 which are Strong, C5%of A by volume, and nothing respectively. Also, in both the Blue and Purple series they made variations of ink color in Legends and contain statements to either side of the word Gluek's.
It's funny- when I started typing this I was thinking hmm maybe we've been wrong on the bottled versus filled thing... But after looking at the other two series of labels that match the striped blue and purple crowntainers I think I am convinced for the moment that the brewed and bottled labels on cans are fake. The known labels that match the blue and purple crowntainers all say Bottled while the cans say Packaged. In building my list it has become very clear to me that someone/s were paying VERY close attention to the specific wording and other details... For now I just don't think the Brewed and bottled labels on cans are legit. Though I readily admit I am trying to prove a negative which is essentially impossible.... Andy
will come back and edit this....
Interested in breweriana with Native American images or language of all kinds.
- Conehead
- Former Officer
- Posts: 2419
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:03 am
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 109
- BCCA Number: 17406
- eBay name: Conehead4
- Year Started Collecting: 1978
- Location: Logan, Utah
- Has thanked: 624 times
- Been thanked: 464 times
- Zodiac:
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
Andy,
Thanks so much for the reply. This is the type of thing that really fascinates me about the beer can hobby.
I am aware of 2 more "brewed and filled by" labels that are not on this thread. So that is a total of 4 that I am aware of.
These variations I came across on Gary Gauger's Crowntainer Central website.
Maybe Bill @jacoby4664 can add something to this conversation?
The first is Legend No. 5, Content 6% by weight.
The next is Legend No. 2, 3.2% to 7% by weight. So this would be consistent with the one you have that states "Brewed and Bottled by".
Something to notice on the label though. The font of the alcohol statement is different (as well as using upper and lower case letters) than the rest of the informational printing on the label. I believe that this statement was added after the fact and not printed when the original label was made. The brewery just used existing no alcohol label stock. That would account for the duplication of Legend no. 2 (the no alcohol variation). I would be interested to see if your 3.2% to 7% Brewed and Bottled by label has a different font. I highly suspect that it is.
Thanks so much for the reply. This is the type of thing that really fascinates me about the beer can hobby.
I am aware of 2 more "brewed and filled by" labels that are not on this thread. So that is a total of 4 that I am aware of.
These variations I came across on Gary Gauger's Crowntainer Central website.
Maybe Bill @jacoby4664 can add something to this conversation?
The first is Legend No. 5, Content 6% by weight.
The next is Legend No. 2, 3.2% to 7% by weight. So this would be consistent with the one you have that states "Brewed and Bottled by".
Something to notice on the label though. The font of the alcohol statement is different (as well as using upper and lower case letters) than the rest of the informational printing on the label. I believe that this statement was added after the fact and not printed when the original label was made. The brewery just used existing no alcohol label stock. That would account for the duplication of Legend no. 2 (the no alcohol variation). I would be interested to see if your 3.2% to 7% Brewed and Bottled by label has a different font. I highly suspect that it is.
I shall leave no cone unturned!!
- hemmings
- Grand Marshall of Rust
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:39 am
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 0
- BCCA Number: 29000
- eBay name: rareamerica
- Year Started Collecting: 1977
- Location: Gainesville, FL
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 389 times
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
HI Jim, glad you saw this.... aah actually the Legend No2 seem to have printer information across the top in a small font when there is no alcohol statement. I guess I will need to fire up the scanner and put up images of these- sure makes it easier to talk about each variety.
BTW the 6% is, to the one guy in the world making Gluek lists and checkin' 'em thrice, just crazy. That is the one and only 6% from them I have seen. Though I admit there are clearly plenty of variations of many of the post IRTP labels that I have not yet been able to document. They do keep turning up pretty cheap though so I'll keep building...
With 4 known variations now of the B and Filled I really doubt they would have tried the Bottled labels... I kinda have the feeling Gluek was changing their labels ever so slightly every few months or so. Btw, near the end of IRTP/late or maybe mid 40's they seem to have stopped making many labels for anything other than 12oz... One or two 8oz and 16oz for just a few variations until they bring back Glix as a malt liquor.
Andy "no I won't put a bock neck label on a Leinie's crowntainer" H.
BTW the 6% is, to the one guy in the world making Gluek lists and checkin' 'em thrice, just crazy. That is the one and only 6% from them I have seen. Though I admit there are clearly plenty of variations of many of the post IRTP labels that I have not yet been able to document. They do keep turning up pretty cheap though so I'll keep building...
With 4 known variations now of the B and Filled I really doubt they would have tried the Bottled labels... I kinda have the feeling Gluek was changing their labels ever so slightly every few months or so. Btw, near the end of IRTP/late or maybe mid 40's they seem to have stopped making many labels for anything other than 12oz... One or two 8oz and 16oz for just a few variations until they bring back Glix as a malt liquor.
Andy "no I won't put a bock neck label on a Leinie's crowntainer" H.
Interested in breweriana with Native American images or language of all kinds.
- jacoby4664
- Rust Master General
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:32 am
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 0
- BCCA Number: 373
- eBay name: JACOBY4664
- Year Started Collecting: 1969
- Location: ST LOUIS, MISSOURI
- Has thanked: 61 times
- Been thanked: 258 times
- Zodiac:
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
We can't forget the Jordan's crowntainers with paper labels. See attached pictures for your review. The wording is "bottled" and many people assume they are fake. Are they? If that is the case then someone went through a ton of trouble to take this beat up old crowntainer, apply a Jordan's label and then make it look like a leaker ruined part of the label. Is it possible, sure. Is it likely? Why would someone make a fake that looks terrible. Anyway, you decide. Then there is also the wording on crowntainers that say "Brewed and packaged" Noch Eins comes to mind. So we know there are different ways to say the same thing.
Collector of Brewerania Since 1968
William A. Jacoby
107 Lake Forest Drive
St Louis, MO 63117
william.a.jacoby@gmail.com
314-753-0616
BCCA# 373
William A. Jacoby
107 Lake Forest Drive
St Louis, MO 63117
william.a.jacoby@gmail.com
314-753-0616
BCCA# 373
- hemmings
- Grand Marshall of Rust
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 10:39 am
- Rusty Bunch Member Number: 0
- BCCA Number: 29000
- eBay name: rareamerica
- Year Started Collecting: 1977
- Location: Gainesville, FL
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 389 times
- Status: Offline
Re: Mystery crowntainer returns to haunt me
I would say that anything I've said about the Gluek cans Only applies to them. I feel 4 variations will "Filled" and the numerous regular bottle variations make a pretty good case for what I said, but still stuck trying to prove a negative in a way. Really don't know what to make of the Jordan story.
what i've seen people do to fake artifacts makes me realize there is nothing too low to try for a buck to some people. Heck our feedstore had someone try to pass a fake $5..... Andy
what i've seen people do to fake artifacts makes me realize there is nothing too low to try for a buck to some people. Heck our feedstore had someone try to pass a fake $5..... Andy
Interested in breweriana with Native American images or language of all kinds.