IRTP Duquesne cone top question

[Kotto]

I picked this up at Guzzle & Twirl for a local friend who is getting started on cone collecting. Later, I noticed it is the IRTP version, which I didn't have and now plan to keep. No worries, I got my friend a half dozen other relatively easy and cheap cones. However, I just noticed that the example of this can in the BCCA flats & cones book is kinda ratty. So, is this a common can that I never noticed, or something a bit tougher to obtain than the non-irtp versions?

-John

[Conehead]

Hey John,

The white Duquesne IRTP cones are a bit tougher than the non-IRTP but there are
still plenty of them out there.

Jim

[Leon]

I noticed the BCCA book has lots of rough ratty dumper common cans, I don't know why when plenty of mint ones of these common cans exist. One guy close to book committee told my once they got a pic of a can on list they then crossed it off list. So if there first pic of a common can was a grade 3 dumper, they crossed off list & never bothered to upgrade pic with nicer can. This can give the wrong impression that these common cans must be tough or why else would they have a crappy can in pic? LEON.

[CMD]

I noticed the BCCA book has lots of rough ratty dumper common cans, I don't know why when plenty of mint ones of these common cans exist. One guy close to book committee told my once they got a pic of a can on list they then crossed it off list. So if there first pic of a common can was a grade 3 dumper, they crossed off list & never bothered to upgrade pic with nicer can. This can give the wrong impression that these common cans must be tough or why else would they have a crappy can in pic? LEON.

I disagree Leon , I lived in KC, where the book guys lived, during the time they were doing the book and they always went after the best can available even if they already had a picture of it. Sometimes the rough ratty common dumper was the best available example. It was more of the can scouts not finding better cans or not knowing what was photographed already

out

Dan

[Kotto]

Thanks Jim! I kinda figured. Still, nice to add a can to the collection!

[rusteditor]

I agree with Jim as to the IRTP vs non-IRTP rarity.

Interesting comments about the cans pictured in the book. Will keep that in mind while working on DGR updates.

Phil


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Matt Menghini]

John: One other thing that may come into play here. The section of the book on Duquesne cones was not done well. There are mistakes in there, and I'm pretty sure that they included photos of the "left face" of some of the white cans instead of the "right face" (meaning right of seam) which was their usual method, all of which has caused some confusion on the Duquesne cones listed. For example there is a brown Duquesne listed as "non-IRTP" when you can clearly see the IRTP statement at the top of the can (I don't think the non-IRTP actually exists). I know there is confusion on the white ones, but I don't remember off hand what it is. Matt

[Conehead]

I noticed the BCCA book has lots of rough ratty dumper common cans, I don't know why when plenty of mint ones of these common cans exist. One guy close to book committee told my once they got a pic of a can on list they then crossed it off list. So if there first pic of a common can was a grade 3 dumper, they crossed off list & never bothered to upgrade pic with nicer can. This can give the wrong impression that these common cans must be tough or why else would they have a crappy can in pic? LEON.

I disagree Leon , I lived in KC, where the book guys lived, during the time they were doing the book and they always went after the best can available even if they already had a picture of it. Sometimes the rough ratty common dumper was the best available example. It was more of the can scouts not finding better cans or not knowing what was photographed already

out

Dan

I think it had more to do with which can scout you were working with. When they were doing the first USBC we were told to bring cans to the St. Louis canvention that were possible additions to photograph. I took a sixpack of weird off grade cans with me for the book. I was told point blank that they were off grade and they would find better examples to photograph. None of the cans I brought ended up being pictured in the book. One of the one's I remember for sure that I took was the Red Fox Ale hp with the silver stripe down the front. The one I dumped with CMD in New Mexico.

Typical BCCA stuff that has really left a bad taste in my mouth. I know they are looking for variations now to update their book and I have been asked numerous times to help out. My response has always been "you go find all the nice shiny cans you can......when you feel you are down with that, come see me and I'll provide a hundread or so variations for you to pictures". Until then I'll just keep my "rusty crap" to myself.

Jim

[Conehead]

John: One other thing that may come into play here. The section of the book on Duquesne cones was not done well. There are mistakes in there, and I'm pretty sure that they included photos of the "left face" of some of the white cans instead of the "right face" (meaning right of seam) which was their usual method, all of which has caused some confusion on the Duquesne cones listed. For example there is a brown Duquesne listed as "non-IRTP" when you can clearly see the IRTP statement at the top of the can (I don't think the non-IRTP actually exists). I know there is confusion on the white ones, but I don't remember off hand what it is. Matt

I agree, I don't think the brown non-IRTP variation exists.

The book also shows two variations of the white IRTP. As far as I now there is only one white IRTP variation. The images shown are just the front and back of the same variation. I guess it is possible that there is two variations, so I keep flipping them.

JIm

[beercanman]

I had a brown one once that the rim had obscured most of the IRTP statement on. I really had to look for it to be sure it was an IRTP version. I guess there could be a can that was cut a little higher, and then the top would have totally covered the IRTP. That's my guess as to why there is supposedly a non-IRTP version.