Old Milwaukee Flat Question

[bigcitydave]

Did they make this non Script "d" in a flat?

[eric]

I don't have one, and I see they replaced that can with a different one (with the script "d") for the picture in the online supplement

[bigcitydave]

I see that. Probably one of the corrections needed to accurately update the supplemet. I'll stop looking but you never know.

[eric]

I'd keep looking, the genuine drafts with that "d" seem to come as flats.

[conesplus]

Hey Dave,
Thanks for pointing out this variation. I was totally unaware of it.
I always like to check the collection, to see if I have the can in question.
The date on this one is 1965, Milwaukee WI.
Hope this helps,
Neil

[bigcitydave]

Thanks Neil. So they took a can out of the book that really exists. I Wonder if they can put the original can back? Back to looking.

[keithker]

Thanks Neil. So they took a can out of the book that really exists. I Wonder if they can put the original can back? Back to looking.

@bigcitydave I think Neil's @conesplus is a relid.........kidding of course. Yes odd that they would have taken it out unless they had a specific reason.

[bigcitydave]

This happened with a cream colored Northern I had photographed. They took out the white one 103-35, and replaced it with the cream one. Now there is no white one in the supplement. I did have Jim reshoot the white one so it should be added soon.

[J. Page]

Neil, thanks for posting a picture of your Old Milwaukee. Definitely verifies that label exists and I'm not sure why it was removed to begin with. I have reinserted the original image that we had but in keeping with the sequence of dates, I gave it number 1107335. It seems to me that the new can at 1107310 should probably follow can 33 as well but I didn't want to leave a numbering void at 31.
Concerning your other questions, the supplement is a dynamic site where changes can always be made. I am of course trying to follow the original Volume 1 with regards to can numbers and then insert new cans where I hope they make the most sense. This will not always be possible of course given the sequencing errors in the original. We thought it would be too confusing to try to reorder groups of cans, for example Krueger, and stray too far from the original book numbers.
Cans that we now know should not exist, we will leave the image and just caption it "DELISTED". I have done this with 1164080. I have also noticed the Peerless cone that you mention and we are in the process of removing it from the listing. We definitely try to research cans thoroughly before we delist it to avoid confusion later.

Regarding the number of cans and variations still missing, it should be noted that we are nowhere near completion of entering cans. It is a long process of getting the photos and then getting them on the site. Keep checking back as I am constantly adding new images.
Feel free to send me any other questions you might have.

John Page

[J. Page]

bigcitydave, I'm not sure what you mean when you say I removed the white Northern can. The can that was used for 103-35 is the same can that is now pictured in the supplement at 1103350. That is one of the reasons we are trying to find the exact can used in the book so that we can determine what variation was used.

John Page

[bigcitydave]

Hi John

103-35 is a light yellow or cream color and the white one is missing. Take a close look at the white can that Jim shot in Omaha. There is definitely a difference. I could send you a pic of both cans for comparison if you'd like. I just hate to see one missed.

[conesplus]

Hey Dave,
I thought I was upgrading my shelfer. Turns out the "upgrade" is from 1962, so it's different. Also picked up the identical ring pull.
Woo hoo! I had plans to pass along my downgrade to you, but since it's different, it goes on the shelf. SORRY!
Neil