What
prompts me to create a note? Sometimes it is spurred
by a conversation with a fellow
collector. Sometimes it is an interesting item that I
found while doing unrelated research or something that has been mulling around in my head for years. And
sometimes it is some bottle mystery that I have unraveled and
think might be of interest to other collectors. Two
of these triggered this note.
A Wise choice:
In a conversation with a digger and collector at the 2021
Bethlehem Bottle show, I was shown a picture of a recently
dug but damaged Wise bottle from Allentown, Pennsylvania.
Most soda bottle collectors have seen or have purchased a
Wise bottle. But this was not one of the blue porter
or mineral water bottle embossed "THIS BOTTLE / BELONGS
TO / JAMES WISE" on the reverse. It was an orders of magnitude
rarer bottle of this father Daniel Wise. The bottle I
was shown was the more interesting of two Daniel Wise variants
that has a somewhat unique embossing that is the
holy grail of collectors of Allentown bottles; it is
embossed "Wise of Allentown."
Daniel Wise was born in Pennsylvania May 9, 1797. He
was married to Catherine Krause and had at least three
children; Susanna (1832), James (1834), and Hannah (1838).
According to the
History of the Lehigh Valley, he operated
bottling businesses in several locations before locating in
Allentown. This is supported by the 1850 Census, where
he is recoded as a bottler in Pottstown, Pennsylvania.
The 1884 edition of the History of Lehigh County states that
Daniel Wise came to Allentown in 1851 and established a
small brewery. The initial brewery was at Sixth and
Union Streets.
In addition to brewing, a beer and mineral water bottling business
was conducted at this location.
In 1859, Daniel sold the bottling side of the business to
his son, James Wise, but retained the operation of the
brewery. A few years later in 1861 or 1862, he sold
the brewery to his son, who operated it for a number of
years and in 1866 relocated it to East Hamilton and Fourth
Streets.
Daniel went into semi-retirement but was listed as a
landlord in the 1870 Census and as operating a broom factory in
the 1880 Census.
He died on June 17, 1883 and is buried in Fairhill Cemetery
in Allentown.
Daniel Wise
had bottles made in two molds. His
earliest bottles bear an improved pontil and were made in a
plate mold that has "MINERAL / WATERS" embossed on the
reverse. In the plate is embossed "WISE / OF /
ALLENTOWN / PA" and these bottles come in both green and blue
glass and would date 1855-1856. A later bottle is
embossed "D. WISE / ALLENTOWN / PA" in a plate, but only
comes in light and medium green. These bottles come
with both improved pontil and smooth bases. The
pontiled bottles date 1857 and the smooth based bottles
1858. There are no known bottles from Pottstown or
other locations marked Daniel Wise.
Meyred in a Mystery: In 1994, I attended the National
Bottle Show in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. One of the
dealers had a hoard pontiled soda and beer bottles. As
I rifled thru them looking for Philadelphia bottles, I do
not believe I found any, but I found two mystery bottles.
One was embossed "J. DOUGHERTY / NEW PHILA" in a plate and
another embossed "I. H. MEYRE" in a plate with Dyottville
Glass Works in the reverse. I thought that New Phila.
may have referenced a section of Philadelphia and many
Philadelphia beer bottles are not embossed with a town name,
but just the name of the proprietor. These two safely
made it back to my table and into the purchases box hoping
to do some research to prove they were from the city I
collected.
Unfortunately for me, the
J. Dougherty New Philadelphia bottle proved to
be a very rare Coal Region bottle from the town of New
Philadelphia in Schuylkill County and not associated in any
way to my collecting focus of Philadelphia bottles. It
is a small town today with a population of just over a
thousand individuals. The bottle made its way to a
collector of bottles from that area. I have not been
able, so far, to uncover any information on this bottler,
but the style of bottle is one that dates to the period
1856-58.
I encountered many research dead ends when trying to
find the origins of the I. H. Meyre beer bottle, my second
find that day. I search and searched Philadelphia
records to no avail. I then searched the surrounding
counties and states. Still no luck so I searched all
of Eastern Pennsylvania. I found nothing. So the
bottle sat on my "could be a Philly shelf."
The bottle was made in the earliest Dyottville
porter plate mold, which dates to the 1850-51 period.
These bottles were primarily marketed to firms in the
Southeastern part of Pennsylvania. A couple of years
later, I tried to research this bottle again and focused on
these years and this area to no avail. This was getting very frustrating. About
every five or ten years, I would try my research again and
again and again and still I found nothing. Meyre is
not a common name and having a first name beginning with an
"I" is also rare. I found myself searching for the
much more common spellings of Myer and Meyer, but still
nothing.
While doing the research on Daniel Wise and not finding much
more material, I decided to give searching for Meyre another
shot. This time I hit gold. I was searching for
"H Meyre" and I found someone that matched in Reading,
Pennsylvania, but the name was J. H. Meyre. This
individual was the owner of a hotel according to the 1850
Census and hotel and tavern owners sometimes had
bottling establishments. I was hoping to find a
smoking gun and I was about to find it, but first what could
I find out about J. H. Meyre.
Jacob Heinrich Meyre was born on September 2, 1792 In
Markirch, Oberant, Colmar in France. This is in the
Upper Alsace Region whose ownership transferred between
France and Germany over the centuries. Meyer boarded a
ship and traveled from Havre, France to New York
City, arriving on October 31, 1837. The port of entry records
record him as being a farmer and 45 years of age. He
quickly made his way to Reading in Berks County and
established a hotel or guest house there. He married
three times and had a child with each wife. He died of
consumption on January 28, 1852, leaving a widow Wilhelmina
and a young child.
So everything fits nicely as far as the age of the bottle
and its aligning up geographically to this Meyre, but
I really needed a smoking gun to "seal the deal."
There was a lingering doubt in my mind concerning the fact
that the
first letter on the bottle was an "I" and not a "J."
This could be explained as mold makers error or the
historical practice of using "I" and "J" interchangeably if
I could find some reference to Meyre bottling beer. I
found it in an advertisement in the Der Liberale Beobachter on May 7, 1850 as illustrated in Pennsylvania German
with my somewhat poor translation:
For Lease
The undersigned offers fine, comfortable, well
furnished porter cellar, in the Franklin street,
just above the bowling alley to Lease. An
enterprising Man will find a good opportunity to
drive out the mess and under favorable conditions,
all necessary equipment will be taken if he reports
to me soon.
J. Heinrich Meyre, Innkeeper
So we see that Meyre was operating a porter bottling cellar
in Reading. Everything fits together and another
mystery is solved. This has to be one of the rarest of
the Reading beer bottles and I have only seen two examples
in all of my years of collecting.
If someone speaks Pennsylvania Dutch or German, I could use
a more accurate translation.
While doing research for a presentation on
soda bottles, I was looking
for the earliest soda bottle
from each state. When I got to Utah, several sources
led me to believe that a Denhalter firms was the
earliest. I thought that the
Day & Co. bottle looked
earlier (Markota dates the bottles as 1880s), but
facts are facts. The attribution of Denhalter based on
the following, which appeared in different publications with
different edits:
He was born in Neuekirche, Holdedorf, Germany, June 6, 1832.
He was a son of Herman Henry and Molina Denhalter. He
emigrated to the United States in 1849, landing in San
Francisco, and a short time later went to St. Louis, Mo. He
was a steamboat captain and was associated with many of the
famous captains and pilots in the days when the river
traffic was at its height. He later engaged in business in
St. Louis for two years, and was afterward in business in
New York one year. He then returned to California, remaining
there until 1868, when he came to Utah. He established the
Denhalter Bottling Works in 1870, incorporating the business
in 1907. Until his death he was president of that company,
conceded to be one of the largest and most modern soda water
manufacturing plants in the West.
This documents that Denhalter was operating his bottling
works in 1870 and his obituary in the Deseret News on
January 27, 1914 called the Denhalter Bottling Works, "the
pioneer soda water bottling concern of the state" making it
the earliest in the state. But what do we know of the
Day & Company bottle? Is it earlier?
A meticulous search of early records, turned up much on Day
& Company and its two partners. This article will take
a lot of tangent story lines, but I hope the reader will
find them interesting and eventually will determine the
oldest soda water bottle from the Bee Hive State.
Day & Company was organized in the Spring of 1871. The
Company generated a lot of excitement with articles in the
news papers of the time. The growing Temperance
movement fueled the interest in an alternative to bottled
alcoholic beverages and Day & Company intended to fill a
void in the Salt Lake City market. The earliest
reference I was able to uncover appeared in the April 27,
1871 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune:
JAMES M. DAY, of this city, left for San Francisco,
yesterday to purchase necessary machinery for a Soda and
Sarsaparilla manufactory. Being associated with a
practical man of ten years experience in the business.
He will be enabled to furnish the citizens of Salt Lake
and surrounding country with Sarsaparilla and Soda pure
and delicious. Will be put in pint bottle, for
sale in quantities of not less than one dozen, and
delivered to any part of the city free.
It would appear that Day was the financier of the business
and there was a silent partner who provided the technical
expertise. Research indicated that this partner was
Solomon Walter Crown.
Crown was born on November 17, 1829 in Jamesville, Ohio to
William Sterling Crown and Mary Magdalene (Burrier) Crown,
both German immigrants. By 1850, Sol had moved with
his family to Farmington, Iowa and was a brick mason.
By 1860, he had worked his way West and settled in Grass
Valley, California, where he was a clerk and a collector.
It can be speculated that he may have worked for J. A.
Farrell or another bottler there. During 1867 or 1868
he moved to Sacramento, California where he opened a wine
store. That business appears to have failed and he was
listed as a clerk in the 1869 directory, possibly at the
Casey Soda Works, where he is listed as working in 1870. Just prior
to moving to Salt Lake City in 1871, he was a bartender at the
Crescent City Saloon.
Researching James M. Day proved difficult. There was
another individual of the same name who was his uncle and
the twos often crossed paths in the Western States as they
were in the same profession for many years. The
younger Day sometimes used the suffix "Jr." even though he
did not have a father of the same name. I suspect that
was to distinguish him from his uncle, who had no children
surviving childhood.
James Mason Day was born in August of 1844
to Holland Hinds and Catherine (Kate) M. Ross in Illinois
and very likely at or near the family homestead at Vinegar
Hill, outside Galena. The family farm was established by
his grandparents Erasmus Day and Phylena (Mason) Day in
1834. Galena was a center of lead mining in the United
States and was heavily mined during the 1840s. The
senior James M. started working in the lead mines at an age
of 8 and his brother Holland likely did the same.
Mining in the Western States would make both brothers
wealthy men. By 1847 and until 1849, the young Day
family appears to be in New Diggings, Wisconsin, where lead
was also mined. New Diggings is about 11 miles
northeast of Galina. Holland was a 1st Lieutenant in
the Lafayette County Militia and may have risen to the rank
of Captain, a title that both he and his brother James M.
retained for the rest of their lives. Purportedly, he
was involved in the Indian Wars at that time. A daughter Mary
E. was welcomed into the family in 1849. Holland served on a
New Diggings board to sort thru mining claim disputes, but
like many of the miners in this Wisconsin town, Holland went
to California, as part of the 1849 Gold Rush. Being
separated from his family was a common occurrence for
Holland and the younger James M. while engaged in mining
activities. In 1857 the family was together again in
Hastings, Minnesota where Holland was listed as a merchant.
A few short years later in 1860, James M. and is sister Mary
E. were living with their mother in Scales Mound, Illinois,
while their father was mining in Lewiston, California.
Scales Mounds is about 7 miles southeast of New Diggings.
During the 1860s, the Day family moved to San Francisco,
where their mother Kate operated a boarding house, while
their father was running and owning various mines in Nevada.
James M. was just a half inch shy of six feet tall with blue
eyes and dark brown hair. At 23, in the early part of 1868,
he moved to Sacramento to work as a clerk for his uncle the
senior James M. Sacramento was the city his uncle
called home when not mining. It is likely that Crown
and Day met during this time. Crown's wine store was
on K street between 6th and 7th, Day was living a block away
at 5th and K and Casey's soda factory was close by at 107 K
Street, but the question is why did the pair set up shop in
Salt Lake City?
The answer was the Emma Mine near Alta, Utah. The
senior James M. hired the younger James M. as his agent to
represent his interest in the Emma Mine, which was
consolidated into shares of the Emma Mining Company of New
York. The elder gave the younger power of attorney,
even though the younger had no practical mining experience.
This proved to be a problem when the younger, under
influence of counsel of the Emma Mining Company, sold his
uncle's controlling interest in the mine for $375,000 to
some investors, but left him with a 1/16 share on April 1,
1871. This was about half of the assessed value. The Elder James M. was not too happy with the
transaction and immediately revoked the younger's power of
attorney and likely took him off the payroll. The
younger was able work a deal with one of the investors and convinced his uncle to sell his remaining 1/16 share in
the company for $93,750 in July of the same year. The
elder James M. did not want to be beholden to the new
controlling interests and thus took the offer. The new investors with an
endorsement of the United States' Secretary of State were
able to sell the company to English investors for
$5,000,000. The problem was that the mine was deemed
to be played out and an international incident
ensured. The elder James M. was subpoenaed and
testified before Congress as part of their investigation
into criminal activities 5 years later.
Emma Mine, Little Cottonwood Canyon, Wasatch Mountains, Salt Lake County, Utah (circ. 1870)
April of 1871 was a big one for the younger James M.
Day.
We know that he started the soda bottling works in the later
part of the month and now we know it was likely because he
lost his job working for his uncle and needed a new
occupation. But why set up shop in Salt Lake City?
We know that he left Salt Lake City on April 26, 1871 to
purchase bottling equipment and supplies in San Francisco,
but the purpose of that trip did not have that single focus.
The younger married Rachael Amelia (Ray) Clayton on the same
April 26th. The trip was not only to acquire
equipment, but to introduce his new wife to his family.
Ray Clayton's parents were William and Diantha (Farr) Clayton. Her
mother died soon after her birth, but that was not much of
an issue as her father had plenty of other wives and
children to pitch in with her upbringing. Her father
was the State Auditor, Recorder of Marks & Brands and an
Elder in the Mormon Church. More importantly he was
the clerk and scribe to Joseph Smith and recorded many of
his sermons, which formed a basis of the Mormon faith.
Her father eventually had ten wives and forty-two children.
Day & Company set up shop in Ried's Building in Salt Lake
City. They advertised almost weekly to introduce their
soda water establishment to the citizen in and around Salt
Lake City. One Set of Ads simply said in bold
letters at the top of a column "Soda Water" and near the
bottom of the same column "Sarsaparilla." The below
advertisement made an interesting claim in the Salt
Lake Tribune on May 9, 1871:
$5,000 Reward is offered to any person that will give a
bonus of Twenty Thousand Dollars to the Proprietor of those
delightful Summer drinks--Soda and Sarsaparilla.
Failing in this, we are desirous of receiving orders to, the
amount, which we shall be enabled to fill in a few days.
Sarsaparilla and Soda, will be put up in pint bottles and
for sale by James M. Day, Reid's Building,
Another catchy ad appeared in the Salt Lake Daily Tribune
and Mining Gazette on July 7, 1871 and hoped to dismiss a
belief, at the time, that drinking cold beverages was
responsible for diseases by referencing instructions by one
of the founders of Athenian democracy noted for his saying
like "nothing in excess:"
SOLON, OF ATHENS,
Instructed the Athenians to drink COOL DRINKS
In Summer for their BODIES' GOOD
Their observation of his advice made Them POTENT IN GREECE DAY & CO.,
OF SALT LAKE,
Advise the
CITIZENS, VISITORS AND PILGRIMS
To drink their SARSAPARILLA, SODA And
CHAMPAGNE MEAD,
That they may be powerful in this age. TO BE HAD EVERYWHERE.
There was a growing Temperance movement in Salt Lake City,
likely due to the influx of miners in the area and the
religious beliefs of the Mormons. The following
article in the Deseret News on July 5, 1871:
NEW REFORM.-The introduction of Soda Water and
Sarsaparilla, by Day & Co., has done more in the way of a
Temperance Reform than all the lectures that have been
delivered in the country. The natural condition of
man is a thirsty one, and it has long been an
established fact that water will not quench thirst.
The question that arises, can we find a substitute as
harmless in its effects, and more delicious in taste
than anything yet discovered? We find it in Day &
Co.'s Soda and Sarsaparilla. If every one would
sign the Pledge and drink nothing but this Celebrated
Beverage, much degradation, misery, shame and crime
would be prevented in the world. If any one doubts
the truth of our remarks let them step into the first
place they come to and try it. It will vouch for
itself.
Day & Company's dedication to Temperance was not long
lasting as just two and a half months later, they added
"Bottled English Ale, Porter, Oregon Champagne Cider, &c."
to their product line as advertised in the Deseret News on
September 25, 1871. Interestingly, in this same
advertisement, the firm also carried the name of "Salt Lake
Soda Water Company," a name which surfaces in association
with later firms. Their sale of these alcoholic
beverages appears to have been brief.
Like many entrepreneurial soda water manufacturers, Day would
deliver ice cold soda water to the editorial staff of local
newspapers and they in turn usually published a snappy local
interest story touting the quality of his wares. One
such article appeared in the Salt Lake Daily Tribune &
Mining Gazette on November 17th, 1871:
BORDEAUXED.--Our old friend J. M. Day has not forgotten us.
In mid summer, when Sol was scorching and frizzling
everything up, his iced soda-water was often lavished upon
the TRIBUNE; but the snows require a different treatment,
and no one understands the modus operandi better than Day.
On December 25, 1871, the Day family regrouped in San
Francisco to attend the marriage of James' sister Mary Ellen
(Mollie) to Ambrose Bierce, the famous American author.
Holland sent the young couple to England where they lived
for three years.
Business must have been good for the new firm for on April
24,1872, the firm moved into their newly built a soda water
factory and store at 28 Commercial Street. The building
was a wood frame affair, built by Culmer, Armitt & Company,
and cost $1,500. Interestingly many of the buildings,
including one sixteen room $20,000 mansion, built by this
firm were of adobe.
But this move was bittersweet as on April 3, Day lost his
wife and a stillborn girl a little earlier on
February 27. I was only able to find three
advertisements by the firm after Day's wife's death.
They were all articles in response to newspaper staff being
provided a few free bottles of Day & Co.'s bottled goods.
The last appeared in the Utah Mining Journal on July 12,
1872:
THAT soda water of J. M. Day
& Co., received last evening, was pronounced by the
entire JOURNAL office to be a capital summer beverage
and extremely toothsome and healthy. We recommend
the soda water to all temperate people, and to the
intemperate who would reform.
Day & Company's Pioneer Soda Water factory was listed in the
1873 Salt Lake City Directory. At some time after the
canvassing records for this directory, likely in late 1872
or early 1873, McShane & Company purchased the works from Day & Company.
Records from this firm are almost nonexistent. There
does exist a business card listing McShane & Company as
being the successors to J. Day & Company at No. 28
Commercial Street. This firm was short lived and the
business was sold to Smith Whiting as documented in the Salt
Lake Daily Tribune on June 28, 1873:
NOTICE is hereby given that the soda business
heretofore carried on by McShane & Co. at the Pioneer
Soda Works, in Salt Lake City, has been this day
transferred to Smith Whiting. McShane will collect
all bills due the firm and will pay all debts of the
firm up to June 27th, 1873. McSHANE & CO.
So it would seem that Day & Company's Pioneer Soda Works was
sold to McShane & Company sometime in late 1872 or early in
1873. It would appear that after the death of his wife
and possibly a slow business, Day lost interest in the
business and soon returned to San Francisco. Crown
continued to work at the Pioneer Soda Works now under the
ownership of Smith Whiting. Later he was working for
one of the Salt Lake City breweries and late in life was a
salesman. On August 26, 1880, Crown married Sarah
Adeline Hardy . She was born on March 23, 1847 in
Massachusetts, but her family moved to Utah when she was a
child. She was nineteen years younger than he and the
union was blessed with three children; Walter Solomon
(1887-1963), Charles Joseph (1889-1889), and Sarah Lucy
(1889-1963). Crown died May 23, 1907 at Salt Lake City
Utah and his wife thirteen years later on November 11, 1920.
After Day returned to San Francisco, he lived at various
hotels and reentered the mining business, a career he would
follow for the rest of his life. When his father
Holland
returned to San Francisco in 1879, he moved in with him and
his mother at 925 Valencia. In 1890, his father died
in Salt Lake City after a brief illness and was buried next
to James' wife, who died eighteen years earlier.
Holland
had been running the Crismon-Mammoth mine when he took ill.
After her husband's death, Mrs. Day went to live with her
daughter and James moved to San Bernardino and
later in Redlands and appears to have resided there until at least 1896. Day's uncle and namesake, James M. Day, died a very wealthy
man in 1896 at the family homestead in Galena, Illinois.
On May 9, 1892, Day, aged 47, married Edna E. Ellsworth,
aged 20. The ceremony was at the residence of Martin
Jones and performed by Rev. F. B. Pullan. The nature
of the this engagement is described in the book Ambrose
Bierce a Biography by Carey McWilliams:
James Day had fallen in love with the daughter of an aged
clergyman, who strangely enough, was a good friend of Bierce
and, for that matter, of the Day family. The affair was a a
rather sordid one, and the old clergyman was so humiliated
and chagrined by the experience that shortly afterwards he
committed suicide.
I cannot find any evidence to support is claim,
but the scandals out of this marriage had not ended.
James and Edna were to have two children. A daughter,
Evelyn M., was born June 24, 1893 in San Diego and a son,
Harold Holland, born on May 22, 1896. In 1897, the
young family moved to Los Angeles. James continued to
work in the mining industry and was operating mines in
Arizona.
In 1904 he was appointed a delegate to the Mining Congress
meeting in Portland, Oregon.
James' sister Mollie Bierce died on April 25, 1905 and his
mother moved in with her son. His mother Catherine M.
Day died soon after on November 20, 1906 at the age of 83.
It was during this time that Day's wife Edna was
involved in an affair with her neighbor, William E.
McCracken. Elsie McCracken, William's wife,
subsequently filed for divorce in 1905. A paper in Los
Angeles stated that if the McCracken divorce suit "comes to
trial (it) will prove one of the most remarkable ever heard
in the Los Angeles courts." The affair seems to have gone on
for some time enraging McCracken's wife. She hired
some detectives to investigate the affair. The
investigation culminated in Mrs. McCracken and the
detectives observing the lights going
out in a parlor and turning on in the bedroom, from Mrs.
Day's yard. Mrs.
McCracken, overcome by rage, grabbed a large piece of wood
and hurled it thru the window smashing the glass and frame.
Mr. McCracken appeared at the window and his wife pointed a
lantern at him. Mrs. Day called the police and fired
several shots out the window at Mrs. McCracken and her
party. As the trial was about to start, Mr.
McCracken, took a decree for desertion and was able to
avoid the gory details that would have come out in a trial.
What was James Day to think about his cheating wife?
Apparently he forgave her, but did file for divorce a year
later. At the time of the court granting Day a divorce
from his wife three years later in 1909, the Los Angeles
Times ran a story under the heading of "UNUSUAL." The
other subheadings sum up the proceedings: "Ethereal Love Is
Not Legal," Husband Get Divorce From Wife He Adores,"
"Mother of His Children Helps the Plaintiff Win His case,
But Judge Doesn't Like to Grant Decree, Though Law Compels
Him to Do So-Parties Still Friends."
According to the 1910 Census, Day was listed as divorced,
but was living with his wife and children. In December
of the same year, Edna married her lover and former neighbor
William McCracken. Did Day then leave the residence of
his former wife? The answer is no. He and
McCracken were victims of an automobile accident in 1917 and
he was still living with his former wife and husband in
1920. "Unusual" was an understatement.
James Mason Day died on December 17, 1923 so ending an
interesting life, but does he make claim to having
produced Utah's oldest soda bottle?
As previously stated, Henry Denhalter claimed to have
established his "pioneer" soda water factory in 1870, a year
before Day and Company. But is this true? What
do we know about Denhalter during this time?
Henry Denhalter appears in the to be living with his family
in Stockton, California in 1870 and 1871. He is listed
as a saloon keeper and living next to a fruit dealer in the
1870 Census. His son William was working as a
confectioner. This connection and his son's knowledge
of confectionary would serve as a catalyst to the business
that Henry opened during 1871 in Corinne, Utah.
Corinne was founded in 1869 on the newly opened Union
Pacific line and was touted as the gentile capital of Utah
with no Mormon residents. It was a boom town.
Henry opened a fruit and vegetable store on the corner of
4th and Montana Streets and sold confectionaries as a side
line. Likely his son was involved in the confectionary
business based on his experience. A meticulous search
of the Corinne newspapers found no recording of Henry ever
selling soda water. There was another firm, Stone &
Tilton, selling soda water in Corinne prior to Denhalter's
arrival and during 1871. In May of 1872, the newspaper
lamented that there was no soda water being manufactured in
Corinne.
Business most not have been too good for Henry went to Salt
Lake City and registered at the Walker House just after
Christmas 1872. He is listed as being a resident of Corinne.
Soon afterwards, he appears to have partnered with John Metz
in the saloon business and in a soda water works under the
name of Metz & Denhalter. In April of that year the pair
were fined a $100 for a breach of the Liquor Ordinance.
This firm was dissolved on August 28, 1873, with Metz taking
the saloon business and a new firm called Brader & Denhalter
assuming the assets and liabilities of the soda water
business called the Salt Lake City Soda Works.
So Denhalter claims that he came to Utah in 1868,
but documents prove it was not until 1871. He claims to
have established his company in 1870, but his entry in the
soda water business does not appear to have been in the soda
business until 1873. In both cases his claims
are appear to be off by three years.
So since Day and Company started in April of 1871 and
Denhalter did not arrive in Salt Lake City until basically
January of 1873 and all of the Denhalter bottles bear the
Salt Lake City marking, The Day & Company bottle is the
first in Utah. Facts are facts, and source documents
that record events of the day are more accurate than
recollections done years later.
Photos courtesy of Library of Congress, Ancestry.com and American Bottle
Auctions
In 2017, I wrote a note on a New York advertisement for
Adam W. Rapp describing his new ten pin shaped soda bottle.
The note also has a similar ad and similar bottle from
Eugene Roussel from Philadelphia. This note can be
read by
clicking here. In the note I was looking for a
picture of the Rapp bottle to see if it was made from a
modified Roussel mold.
About a year later Adam Woodward provided some pictures of a
broken Rapp ten pin that he found. This picture
differed slightly in that there was on "PHILA" under the
Dyottville Glass Works mark on the face of the bottle.
I wrote off my listing as an error in my recording of the
bottle I saw more than 35 years earlier.
Cycle forward to July of 2021 and Glass Works Auctions was
selling off the blue soda water collection of Dalton Shade
and in this sale was a Rapp ten pin. While processing
the pictures, I noticed that this bottle had the "PHILA" the
embossing below the glass house name. So my original
listing was correct and there are really two variations of
the Rapp ten pin that match the embossing of the two Roussel
ten pins. Each have one with and without the "Phila"
embossing.
Rapp without "Phila"
Rapp with "Phila"
Roussel without "Phila"
Roussel with "Phila"
Photos courtesy of Adam Woodward, the author, and Glass Works Auctions
Much
has been written on John Ryan and his Excelsior Bottling Works in Savannah, Georgia.
However, the dates on the end of his ownership are varied
and that of his successors is not well known.
Hopefully this note will clear this up.
John Ryan founded the Excelsior Bottling Works in 1852
after relocating to Savannah. These works were
eventually listed at 110 and 112 Broughton street.
Ryan was last listed in the Savannah City Directory as
Excelsior's owner in 1882 and is listed as retired in
1883.
What is interesting is the quick succession of ownership
of these works over the next seven years, with almost one
owner each year!
But why did Ryan sell his business? Towards the end of 1881, Ryan published the following
advertisement indicating that his business suffering from
stolen bottles. The ad ran from November 1st thru the
5th in the Savannah Moring News:
NOTICE.
____
SODA WATER is supplied only on conditions that those who
receive it become responsible for the bottles and return
them to me when empty.
They have no right to sell, lend, give away, use them for
other purposes, neither to allow other manufacturers to
purloin and use them, as has been done. The present
loss of bottles is ruinous. I trust my patrons will be
more careful of them.
JOHN RYAN,
110 Broughton street.
You can see that the "loss of bottles" was "ruinous" and
was having a financial impact on the business. A short
time later Ryan was fighting two lawsuits. One was
filed by Frederick Meincke over accounts. Meincke was
somehow associated with Ryan, and in an 1881 advertisement
offering a grocery/liquor store for rent, Meincke listed
Ryan's bottling works as the location where he could be
contacted. The Meincke suit must have had merit as the
Judge in the case appointed an auditor to review the
accounts. While this case was progressing, Ryan ran
the following advertisement in the Savannah Morning News on April 14, 1882:
Business Opportunity. THE
undersigned, on account of poor health, which prevents
him from giving to business the attention it should have, would take an active man with some capital as partner
or sell to one wishing to purchase. Would give all
necessary instructions to conduct the same.
J O H N R Y A N
Manufacturer and Bottler of Soda and Mineral Waters, 110
and 112 Broughton street, Savannah, Ga.
"Poor health" only compounded the pressures on Ryan's
business. Although there is no clear transfer of ownership of
Ryan's business, it appears to have been sold to Meincke & Ebberwein sometime between April 15 and June 15, 1882. George Ebberwein
was formerly a grocer in Savannah and Frederick
Meincke was the litigant in lawsuits against Ryan.
Interestingly these
lawsuits were settled on July 8. Even
though the names of Meincke & Ebberwein were misspelled and
rearranged as Ebberwine & Minche, the following advertisement indicates
that they had bought Ryan's business by the time this notice
appeared in the June 17, 1882 Savanna Morning News:
A Card
A notice appeared in yesterday's News, over the name of
James Ray, that he had discharged me from his service.
Mr. Ray's statement is false. I asked him to pay
me more wages, which he refused to do. I then quit
Mr. Ray, and was immediately employed by Ebberwine & Minche,
successors to John Ryan, who pay me fifty per cent more
wages then Mr. Ray did, and I am now selling soda water
to Mr. Ray's customers-and that's what's the matter with
Hannah.
GEORGE CAMPSEN
The first advertisement from Meincke & Ebberwein as
to the
purchased Ryan's business is this one that first appeared in
the July 25, 1882 edition of the Savannah Morning News:
Notice to the Public.
ALL persons are notified that we claim ownership in all
soda water bottles now in circulation bearing the name
of John Ryan, Von Harten, Premium Mineral Water and
Trusow & Co., and no one has the right to buy, see or
use them. MEINCKE & EBBERWEIN,
Successors to John Ryan,
SAVANNAH.................................................................................................................GEORGIA
This ownership supported by their
entry in the 1883 Savannah Directory and their bottles which
are embossed 1882. Continuing a long standing
tradition of Ryan dating his bottles.
Ryan's poor health caught up with him and he died on
March 22, 1885 at age 59. The following notice
appeared on in the March 23, 1885 edition of the Savannah
Morning News:
Death of John Ryan
Mr. John Ryan, and old citizen of Savannah, died at his
residence, corner of Hall and Barnard streets,
yesterday. The deceased was born in New York city,
and came to Savannah in 1853, engaging in the
manufacture of soda water. He was successful in
his business, which he extended to Augusta, Macon,
Columbus and other interior places, and amassed a
competency. Falling in health, he retired from
business about six years ago. He was prominently
identified with the city's interests, and was widely
known. His funeral will take place at the
Cathedral at 11 o'clock this morning.
The partnership of Meincke & Ebberwein did
not last long
either. On October 1, 1883, this partnership was dissolved and Frederick Meincke became the surviving partner as noted in the October
4, 1883 edition of the Savannah Morning News:
Notice to the Public.
THE firm of MEINCKE & EBBERWEIN was dissolved on the
first day of October. The undersigned will carry
on the business as heretofore, and will be responsible
for all debts. Parties indebted will please come
forward and settle, and those having claims are
requested to present them at once for payment. F.
MEINCKE.
Meincke is listed in the
1884 directory as the Successor to John Ryan, but his
bottles are marked as 1882, as it appears that he modified
the existing molds from the previous partnership instead of
incurring the expense of having new molds made.
Ebberwein went on to establish his own soda water bottling
business at 232 Bay in 1885. To
quell a rumor of his death, a ploy used by competitor to
steal business, Meincke had the following published on January
25, 1884 in the Savannah Morning News:
He is Not dead.
Mr. F. Meincke, successor to John Ryan, manufacturer of
soda and mineral water, No. 110 and 112 Broughton
street, announces that he is not dead, as reported, but
is alive and prepared as usual to supply his customers.
But unfortunately, this rumor was just slightly
premature. Meincke expired just under a month later as
documented in Savannah Morning News on February 24, 1884:
Death of Mr. Frederick Meincke.
Mr. Frederick Meincke, formerly of the firm of Meincke &
Ebberwein, soda water manufacturers, died in this city
last night, at 10:30 o'clock, after a protracted illness
superinduced by cancer in the stomach. The
deceased was a member in the 51st year of his age.
He was a member of the Washington Fire Company and the
German Volunteers. A few days ago the deceased
sold his interest in the soda-water manufactory to Mr.
M. T. Quinan, and was to have retired from participation
in the business on the 1st proximo. The funeral
notice will appear to-morrow.
In a March 20, 1884 notice and advertisement, Michael T. Quinan
advertised he had purchased
the works. Quinan was a saloon owner and
grocer, but previous to purchasing the works, he was a clerk
for Meincke. He is listed as the owner of the works in the
1885 Directory and his bottles bear the 1884 date. Quinan
was also the Secretary of the local Liquor Dealers
Association in 1884 and 1885.
But things were not going well for Quinan, his ads stopped
on March 20, 1885, exactly a year since they started.
Eight days later a Sheriff Sale for the notice appeared for
the soda works for March 31. Somehow he seems to have
evaded the Sheriff and ran an advertisement on April 8,1885
in the Savannah Daily News looking for a buyer or partner:
FOR SALE, the Soda Water Manufactory at 110 and
112 Broughton street; or party with smaall (sic) capital
will be taken as partner. Inquire on the premise.
This advertisement must have caught the eye of James Ray,
the longtime competitor of John Ryan and his successors.
Ray being a shrewd businessman, saw an opportunity in
the consolidation of Quinan's business with his and the two
partnered. But Ray did not partner with Michael T.,
but with his wife, Mrs. Winfred Quinan, as documented in the notice in the Savannah
Morning News on May 10, 1885:
RAY & QUINAN,
MANUFACTURERS and bottlers of SODA and MINERAL WATERS,
BITTERS, SYRUPS, CORDIAL, SIPHONS, etc., beg leave to
notify the public that they have formed a copartnership
under the above name, the business to be carried on at
110 AND 112 BROUGHTON STREET.
where we are prepared to furnish goods in our line of a
superior quality and promise to give satisfaction.
Country orders will be promptly attended to. We
ask a trial to convince all of our ability to meet any
demand. Respectfully, RAY & QUINAN.
TELEPHONE 232.
The old Excelsior Bottling Works must have been at a
much better location than where Ray had been operating for
the past 17 years and Ray saw an opportunity to move to this
better place. Ray also realized that the only suppliers of charged "fountains" or canisters for soda
fountains were his business and that of Quinan. If
they consolidated, they would have a virtual monopoly on
that line of the trade. Ray reported this in The Industries Of Savannah
published in 1886 on the firm of Ray & Quinan:
The firm has fifty fountains which it supplies
throughout the city, and it is the only firm here
performing that service.
This is further supported by the first action the firm
took on May 11, 1885, one day after their founding, to raise
the prices of "Charged
Fountains" to "$2 each" as announced in the Savannah
Morning News. This firm appears to have been
successful and stayed in place for nearly three years.
Unfortunately, there are no known bottles from this firm as
they were likely using bottles from all of the predecessor
firms, including those of Ray. Later these bottles would be
an item of contention. The existence of this firm is supported by
directory listings and other documents of the time.
One thing is certain, there was nowhere near the level of
advertising by this firm as opposed to the all of the
predecessor firms at this location. I was only able to
find one advertisement after the initial two.
In 1888, the Ray & Quinan partnership was dissolved and Ray was
listed as retired. Michael T. Quinan was now partnering with
Victor S. Studer as Quinan & Studer. Victor was
previously a grocer and saloon owner. The announcement
of the new firm was in The Morning News on February 5, 1888:
TO THE PUBLIC.
SAVANNAH, Feb. 4, 1888.
The firm of RAY & QUINAN was dissolved THIS DAY.
The undersigned, have assumed all the liabilities, are
alone authorized to collect the outstanding debts of the
late firm. We are prepared to supply the public
with a superior article of Soda and Mineral water at
short notice. Your patronage respectfully
solicited.
QUINAN & STUDER
110 and 112 Broughton street.
Technically, Ray sold the business to his actual
partner Mrs. Quinan and she turned over assets to the new
firm. This change in business owner is supported
with the 1888 Directory listings and their bottles which are dated
1888. Again continuing the tradition of dating bottle
and like the firms existing before the Ray & Quinan
partnership, they started advertising heavily and using the
name Excelsior Bottling Works. One of their earliest
advertisements involved ownership of bottles and appeared in
the February 14, 1888 edition of the Morning News:
It is interesting that Ryan's bottles were still in use
over 7 years after the business was sold and that there are
no bottles marked "Ray & Quinan" supporting the fact
that no bottles were ever made for this firm. Also the
"T's" in the New York bottles were replaced with the letter
"L." So Cotter became Coller and Schmidtmann became
Schmidlmann. In addition to increased advertising, this firm entered
into an agreement, on June 12, 1888, with George Ebberwein
and Edward Moyle to agree on a lower price for fountains,
which was significantly lower than the monopoly price
charged by their predecessor. Spending more and
lowering revenue is not good for business and it appears
that things do not appear to have been going to well for
this latest partnership as in August and October of 1888,
they were selling unnecessary fixtures of the business, such
as wagons, a safe, a boiler, jugs, bitters, and etc.
James Ray came out of retirement in April 1888 and
opened a new bottling establishment at Congress & Drayton
Streets. Soon after he claimed that he purchased all of his
old bottles from Quinan & Studer. This ignited a bit
of a battle in the newspapers and ended up in a lawsuit that
Quinan & Studer won and were awarded damages. But the
business decline and the firm was sold to F. J. Ruckert of 111 Broughton street
as seen in this August 18, 1889 notice in the Morning News:
DISSOLUTION OF COPARTNERSHIP.
The firm of QUINAN & STUDER, by mutual consent, is hereby dissolved.
All parties indebted to us will please pay F. J. RUCKERT,
111 Broughton street, who has brought out their
interests.
QUINAN & STUDER
During the preceding months, Quinan & Studer were selling
material goods from their business like fountains. It
appears that Quinan & Studer vacated the property at 110
Broughton well before they sold to Ruckert. The 1889
Directory lists Quinan as a clerk at Smith
Brothers and Studer a steward at the Harmonle Club. At
this same time James Ray stepped back in and was operating the works
at 110 Broughton moving from his Congress Street location.
It appears that Quinan & Studer won the battle of the
bottles, but Ray won the war with ownership of the business
location. This started a period of stability in ownership of the Excelsior Works.
Savannah City Council approved a renumbering of the
streets on June 4, 1896. Bay Street was the dividing
line and streets were had East or West appending to their
name based on their orientation from this dividing line.
Decimalization of the blocks was also adopted in the
numbering of houses within each block. The changes
took place over the next six months. As part of this change, 110 Broughton
Street became 24 Broughton
East Street. On March 28, 1900, James Ray died and his widow
Margaret is listed in the Directory. The business was
sold by the estate on July 31, 1900 at auction. His son and
grandson, James C., and James C. Jr., took over the works as
James Ray's Sons. The notice of this change was
documented in the August 3, 1900 edition of the Savannah
Morning News:
SPECIAL NOTICE.
Having purchased the soda water business of our deceased father, Mr.
James Ray, we wish to announce to his customers and the
public generally that we will continue the business at
the same old stand, and will be thankful for any
patronage bestowed on us. Respectfully,
JAMES RAY'S SONS
The new firm continued their predecessors' practice of not
advertising, making tracking them difficult. In 1912 or
early 1913, James Ray's Sons moved the works to 312
and 314 St. Julian Street. They remained there until
1917 when the works were closed and this is the last year
they appear in the Savannah Directory. Likely causes were
Prohibition in Georgia and competition of regional and
national brands, now resident in Savannah, like Coca-Cola,
Lime-Cola, and Chero-Cola. Also, breweries were moving
into the soft drink market as they could no longer brew malt
beverages. There appears to be no successor firm at this
address.
So that end the chain of ownership of Ryan's Excelsior
Bottling Works starting in 1852 and ending in 1917. A
period of 66 years. In summary the following table
outlines the dates each successor firm to Ryan's Excelsior
Bottling Works:
One key to a profitable bottling
business was getting used bottles returned so that they
could be cleaned, refilled, and sold. In the 1850s, price for
a bottle of soda water cost about 2 1/2 cents wholesale and
4 1/2 retail in the larger cities where there was
competition. The expectation was that
the bottles would be returned. The bottles themselves
cost about $5 per gross or about 3 1/2 cents per bottle.
This would require a bottle to make at least three round
trips to cover the cost of the bottles, investments in
machinery, materials and labor.
There were several reasons that bottles were not returned: the consumer using the bottles for other
domestic purposes, consumers disposing of the bottles as
trash, and the theft of bottles for sale to other bottlers
who used them illegally. Often times these bottles
were shipped to other states where the buyers were beyond
the reach of the law. This is supported by the
following article involving John & Alexander Dearborn of New York
City that appeared in the New York Tribune
on June 8, 1850:
CHARGE OF STEALING SODA-WATER BOTTLES.-A complaint was
made on Wednesday against Daniel Tuttle, driver of a
soda-water wagon, by Mr. Alexander Dearborn, who charges
Tuttle with stealing during the month of May last past, 200
dozen soda-water bottles of his property, valued at $124.
The bottles, it seems , were in baskets standing at the
South Ferry, and Tuttle was seen by George W. Prescott to
convey one basket of bottles, which basket bore the
direction of J. & A. Dearborn. The case will be heard
before Justice Osborne.
These used bottles were valued at 2 cents apiece.
To protect their bottles, vendors initially started to mark
their bottles with their names and location. An
example of this, William R. Evans of Philadelphia ran the follow ad that appeared in the
Public
Ledger on December 9, 1844:
TO BOTTLE DEALERS, BOTTLERS, AND OTHERS-The subscriber
has suffered great inconvenience from the loss of BOTTLES,
used in his business, by their being purloined from his
customers, and sold, and has been induced to incur the
expense of having them manufactured for his own use, having
his name on them. Now this is to notify all dealers in
the article, and the public, that whenever such bottles are
ascertained to be in other than the possession of his
customers, prompt legal means will be adopted to recover
them, as stolen property. WM. R. EVANS
Bottlers who used unembossed bottles, had a very difficult
case to make that those unembossed bottles stole from them. Later, starting in 1845,
some bottlers stated adding phrases like "THIS BOTTLE IS NEVER
SOLD" to their bottles as this advertisement by Adam W.
Rapp in the New York
Herald published on May 5, 1845 stated:
TO THE PUBLIC
TO WHON (sic) IT MAY CONCERN.
THE subscriber has, at great expense and labor, got up a
Glass Bottle, in every respect improved on those now in
use in this city, for Soda or Mineral Waters, in the
following particulars the color blue, partially oval,
size larger, and stamped on one side, this bottle never
sold, and A. W. Rapp, proprietor, on the opposite side,
A. W. Rapp, New York. these alterations and additions
have been made with a view of distinguishing the Waters
and Syrup manufactured by myself from inferior articles
which have been deceptively palmed upon the public as
being of my manufacture.
I therefore now thus publicly caution all those concerned, and
others, against purchasing, using, or keeping in their
possession any of the said Bottles, as as there
are none bearing any resemblance whatever to them in
this city, a plea of ignorance, therefore, will avail
nothing; and those bottles will be taken when ever they
are found, and persons prosecuted to the extent of law
for using, purchasing, or keeping them in their
possession, as they are not intended for sale but for my
special and exclusive use.
Orders for Soda or Mineral Waters handed to either of the drivers,
transmitted through the City Dispatch post, or from a
distance by mail, inclosing cash, will meet prompt
attention.
ADAM W. RAPP, No. 95, 3d Avenue, N. Y.
The highlights in the above are mine. Legal actions
brought by Bottlers against illegal users of
their bottles were difficult to prosecute and some times
bottlers took the law into their own hands as documented by
this episode involving Eugene Roussel of Philadelphia in the
Public Ledger on March 15,
1845:
James Guyer was put upon his trial for assault and battery
upon Geo. W. Boggs. The defendant was in the employ of
Eugene Roussel, and he went on the occasion in question to
the premise of the prosecutor, in company with Mr. R. to
seize some mineral water bottles with Mr. R.' names cast on
them, which the prosecutor had in his possession. Mr.
R. claimed them as his, from the fact of the name
being on them, but Boggs resisted, and a melee ensured.
The jury found the verdict of guilty, and the Court
sentenced the defendant to pay a fine of one hundred dollars
and the cost of prosecution.
It is possible that George W. Boggs of Boggs & Company used the proceeds to have his
own bottles made. After years of petitioning, state legislatures slowly
reacted. The first law passed was one in New York state on
May 7,
1847. This was followed by a similar law in
Pennsylvania in 1849. Other states were soon to
follow. The Pennsylvania law was explained as follows in the the
following article in the Public Ledger on April 18, 1851:
Seizure of Bottles and Penalty Imposed.-By a law passed
in 1849, the manufacturers and venders of Mineral Water and
other beverages in bottles, when complying with the
requisitions of said law in regard to having their bottles
marked and publication there of duly made in the newspapers,
are protected specially against the loss of bottles by
stealth or improper detention. It is made unlawful for
any person to sell or dispose of or to buy or traffic in
bottles thus marked not belonging to them, and gives the
owners the right and power under a warrant, to search for
them in the suspects premise, and to seize and take them
away forthwith. The law also imposes a penalty of 50
cents for every bottle so recovered, upon the person in
whose possession they are found.
After these acts were passed, bottlers quickly began to advertise
for protection of their bottles. Some times these were
as generic as marking their names on their bottles,
but other times the embossing would get very specific, such
as this ad following passage of the New York law by Thomas
D. Greene and
recorded in the Evening Post on June 18, 1847:
Caution.-The following description of the bottles used by
me in my business, is published in Compliance with the Law
recently passed by the Legislature:
The following name or mark, to wit, "J. Deane, 164
Broadway," is stamped on some half pint bottles used by me
in the bottling of porter, ale and cider. Said bottles
are of green glass, and a description of said names or mark
and said bottles has been filed in the office of the the
Secretary of State, and in the County Clerk's Office for the
City and County of New York.
THOMAS D. GREENE.
152 Broadway.
Greene had just purchased the business from James Deane
and had not yet had is own bottles manufactured. Some advertisements listed multiple bottles and many of
these ads did so with great detail, which is helpful in
identifying the dates of usage of specific bottles.
One such ad is that from Robinson, Charlesworth & Tryner
of New York City in
the New York Tribune on April 3, 1851:
NOTICE.-The undersigned being engaged in
the manufacture, bottling and selling of Soda and
Mineral waters, Porter, Ale and Cider in bottles with
our names and other marks stamped hereon, do hereby
publish the following descriptions of the names and
other marks so used by us upon our three styles of
bottles, viz:
1
R. C & T NEW-YORK
Stamped in raised capital block
letters on one side thereof.
2
R. C. & T. NEW-YORK
BROWN STOUT. (On the reverse side.)
Stamped as above described.
3
R. C. & T. NEW-YORK
X X (On the reverse side.)
Stamped as above described.
As our bottles are never sold by us, we hereby caution all persons
against selling, and all bottle dealers or keepers of
junk shops against purchasing any of our bottles so
marked or stamped. Such offenders will thereby
become liable to the penalties of law of this State,
passed May, 7, 1847, for which penalties they will
certainly be prosecuted by us.-New-York. April, 1851
ROBINSON, CHARLESWORTH & TYNER
376 Bowery
Note that the first bottle listed in the above
advertisement does not have embossing on the reverse and
the exact three bottles listed in these advertisement are pictured below:
Bottle 1 from Ad
Bottle 2 from Ad
Bottle 2 reverse from Ad
Bottle 3 from Ad
Bottle 3 reverse from Ad
Another example of this notification, by A. P. Smith of
Charleston, South Carolina, with specificity
appeared the Charleston Daily Courier on April 29, 1850:
NOTICE.-The undersigned hereby warns all persons from
purchasing empty Soda Water Bottles bearing his stamp as
follows: SMITH & CO., PREMIUM SODA WATERS, CHARLESTON,
as these bottles are never sold by him; and all persons
buying or offering them for sale, will be prosecuted
according to law.
A. P. SMITH
Ads like the above can provide valuable information to
the sharp collector. A. P. Smith, the Englishman, who
bottled in Charleston, has several bottles marked with his
name and that of Smith & Company,
but only the sided soda bottles are listed in this
advertisement and dates their manufacture prior to 1850, whereas the mug based
bottles, the plate mold soda bottles and the oversized
soda bottles date after 1850.
Sided Smith & Co. bottle dating 1850 and before
Mug-based Smith & Co. bottle dating after 1850
Plate mold Smith bottle dating after 1850
Oversized Smith bottle dating after 1850
Another interesting ad is from George W. Brandt of
Carlisle that also gives use information as towho
manufactured his bottles as documented in the Carlisle
Weekly Herald on August 3, 1853:
NOTICE.
THE subscriber having
complied with the requirements of the act of the
Legislature of Pennsylvania, on the 20th day of April,
1853, cautions all persons against buying, selling or
filling his bottles, under the penalty of fifty cents,
for each bottle bough, sold, or filled, for the first
offence; and $5,00 for each bottle bought, sald (sic),
or filled, for the 2d offense. I hereby announce
my determination to enforce the penalty of the aforesaid
acts, in all cases of its infringement. I find my
bottles are becoming public property, greatly to the
disadvantage of my business.
Description-Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Two hundred Gross Mineral and Ale
bottles, green shade, Dyotteville (sic) make,
with the name of G. W. Brandt, Carlisle, thereon.
G. W. BRANDT.
The highlighting is mine to point out all his bottles
were manufactured by the Dyottville Glass Works.
Another source of
information available to researchers of these bottles is
the chain of lineage of bottling firms. When one
firm bought out another, they typically acquired and
registered the predecessor's bottles. When several
changes in ownership took place over several years,
these ads will list bottles of all the preceding firms.
An example of this is the following ad from Morton &
Richardson in the Trenton State Gazette on March 7,
1854:
NOTICE Is hereby given that the
undersigned has this third day of March, 1854, filed in
the Clerk's Office of the county of Mercer, and State of
New Jersey, a description of the bottles owned and used
by them in the manufacture of Mineral Waters, Spruce
Beer, Mead and Bottling of Porter, in said county of
Mercer, viz our bottles are of the form, size and kind
commonly used in the manufacture of these beverages.
Mineral Water Bottles marked W. Morton,
Trenton, N. J., Porter bottles marked on one side
N. Richardson, Trenton, on the other
"this bottle is never sold. Also Porter Bottles
marked McFarland & Simpson, Philadelphia, Spruce Beer
and Mead Bottles W. Morton, others Morton &
Richardson.
All persons are hereby notified not to destroy, secreted, use, sell, or
traffic in any of our bottles, under the penalty of the
law, in such case made and provided.
MORTON & RICHARDSON
The highlighting is mine to reflect the current firm of
Morton & Richardson and
predecessor firms of Nathan Richardson and William Morton. This ad also mentions porter bottles marked McFarland & Simpson of Philadelphia.
Many times firms would legally buy excess supplies of
bottles or bottles of firms that were going out of business.
The firm of McFarland & Simpson was short lived and the
predecessor and successor Andrew McFarland appears to have
sold off the porter bottles of this firm, but retained the
mineral water bottles. These types of
advertisements can be found throughout the country.
Morton mineral bottle pre-partnership
Richardson porter bottle pre-partnership
Morton & Richardson Mead bottle dated 1854
Perhaps the most extensive list of bottles from
predecessor firms and those bottles purchased, possibly
legally and/or perhaps illegally, was that of that of Edmund
S. Clark as documented in this ad in the Mobile Daily Times
on May 12, 1867:
NOTICE.
I do hereby give notice that I will institute criminal proceedings
against any and all parties, purchasing or selling, for
any use whatever, any of the SODA WATER BOTTLES and
BOXES, branded with the following trade marks, to-wit:
CLARK & WELLS,
CLARK & MUNN
And I do further give notice that all parties who, have received from me
plain Soda bottles and boxes, or of any brand whatever,
and more especially those branded-
J. H. Kump,
B. E. Dye,
Martin & Winter,
J. Schweinhart,
Dearborn,
Daniel Kaiser,
H. Battlemann,
Dewell Bros.,
Honesdale Glass Works,
M. L. Nashville, Tenn.,
A. Lohn,
J. Karns,
Plain Bottles.
have disposed or will hereafter dispose of them, that I
will institute against criminal proceedings for theft,
and against those purchasing the same, for receiving
stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. I having
brought on the whole stock of the above named firms, and
being the only one in possession of it.
E. S. CLARK.
Soda Water Manufactory,
corner Dauphin and Franklin sts.
It is interesting that Clark does not mention bottles
with his own name on them at this time. Clark & Wells
and Clark & Munn were two of the Partnerships that E. S.
Clark was previously a part of in Mobile, Alabama. It is likely
that he bottles with his name were produced soon after this
ad was published.
The J. H. Kump bottles were likely those marked Memphis.
Clark was a partner with Kump in Vicksburg and Natchez,
Mississippi in the firm of Kump & Co. No bottles are known from this partnership. Bryon E. Dye
worked for Philo M. Clark in Indianapolis and briefly took
ownership of the plant when Clark moved on, Philo M Clark
was somehow related to E. S. Clark and later they were
partners in Mobile. Dye later partnered with J. F.
Kump as J. F. Kump & Company in Kansas City. How
J. H. Kump & Company and J. F. Kump & Company in Kansas City are
related is yet to be unraveled. Several of the firms listed were
from the New York City area. These include Martens &
Winter of Brooklyn (misspelled Martins), Dearborn of New
York City, Henry Battermann of New York City (misspelled
Battlemann) and Deuell Brothers (misspelled Dewell) of
Williamsburg. The Honesdale Glass Works bottles were
also likely from the New York City area. The Honesdale
Glass Works were located in Northeastern Pennsylvania, but
much of its product was sent via canal to Newark, New Jersey
and then a short hop to the New York metro area. The
J. Schweinhart bottles were from Pittsburgh. The
Daniel Kaiser bottles are likely from his Keokuk, Iowa
operation and not his earlier Quincy, Illinois operations.
The J. Cairns (misspelled Karns) were likely also from the
operations in Keokuk, but could have been from the Cairns
operation in Saint Louis.
the M. L. bottles are from Nashville as stated from a still
unknown bottler. The A. Lohr bottles (misspelled Lohn) are from Cairo, Illinois.
It would be interesting if the bottles listed in Clark's
Advertisement from these firms are dug in the Mobile area.
Clark & Wells bottle dating before
Ad
Clark & Munn bottle dating
before Ad
Honesdale Glassworks bottle used by
Clark at the time of Ad
Clark bottle that appears were made
after the time of Ad
I have no idea how Clark intended to prosecute holders of
unembossed bottles, but Marsden & Denhalter, of Salt Lake City, Utah
Territory, seem to have solved the problem of identifying
unembossed bottles as their property. They simply claimed
that "all" soda bottles not marked with the name of their only
competitor, Thomas Parsons, in the Great Salt Lake Basin
belonged to them! Their advertisement appeared in the Salt Lake Herald
Republican newspaper for a number of issues, including the
one below on May 10, 1878:
SODA WATER BOTTLES.
Notice is hereby given that all soda bottles in the city
and adjacent towns that have not Parsons' name blown in
them, belong to the firm of Marsden & Denhalter.
Bottle and junk dealers are hereby notified that we
shall prosecute persons buying, selling or filling them,
as they are our private property.
MARSDEN & DENHALTER
So no matter if bottles were embossed with the names of
bottlers from San Francisco, California or New York City,
New York, Marsden & Denhalter claimed all soda bottles were
their property.
These types of advertisements continued through the end
of the nineteenth century. Especially interesting to
collectors are bottles that are listed but are not known to
exist. I have seen several of these in ads from
Philadelphia and hope to turn up actual examples. I
call them phantom bottles as they haunt me! I know
they are exist, but cannot find them.
Photos courtesy of Larry Grotz and Glass Works Auctions.
While doing research for a presentation on
soda bottles, I was looking
for the earliest soda bottle
from each state. When I got to Utah, several sources
led me to believe that a 
