2021 Notes

Click on the links below to jump to the notes:

         Registering Bottles
         After John Ryan
         Rapp Ten Pin Update
         Utah's Oldest Soda Bottle
         Some Pennsylvania Rarities

 

11/15/2021

Some Pennsylvania Rarities

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 J. Dougherty bottlehave 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 hI. H. Meyre bottleit 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:

Meyre Advertisement 1850
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.

Photos courtesy of Larry Grotz and the author.

 

   
 

10/30/2021

Utah's Oldest Soda Bottle

Henry Charles DenhalterJames Mason DayWhile 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?J. Day & Co.

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

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

 

   
 

07/18/2021

RAPP TEN PIN UPDATE

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

 

   

03/15/2021

After John Ryan

Ryan Soda BottleMuch 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.

Meincke & Ebberwein Mineral Water Bottle"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.
Meincke Mineral Water Bottle

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.
Quinan Mineral Water Bottle

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 ad 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 Quinan & Studer Mineral Water Bottlename Excelsior Bottling Works.  One of their earliest advertisements involved ownership of bottles and appeared in the February 14, 1888 edition of the Morning News:

                                                     NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
                                                         QUINAN & STUDER
Having bought all the rights of Ray & Quinan, hereby claim the ownership in all Soda Water Bottles bearing the names of
             JOHN RYAN,
             JAMES RAY,
             F. MEINCKE,
             MEINCKE & EBBERWEIN,
             M. T. QUINAN,
             H. SCHMIDLMANN (sic), N. Y.,
             JAMES REDMOND, Newberne, N. C.,
             JOHN COLLER (sic), N. Y.,
And all persons are forbidden to use them under penalty of the law.
                                                                 QUINAN & STUDER,
                                                              Manufacturers and Bottlers,
                                                             110 and 112 Broughton street.

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.

Ray Ginger Ale Bottle

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 Rays Sons Soda BottleC., 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:

John Ryan About May 1,1852 April or May 1882 30 Years
Meincke & Ebberwein April or May 1882 10/1/1883 17 Months
Frederick Meincke 10/1/1883 3/1/1884 5 Months
Michael T. Quinan 3/1/1884 5/10/1885 14 Months
Ray & Quinan 5/10/1885 2/4/1888 32 Months
Quinan & Studer 2/4/1888 8/1/1889 17 Months
James Ray 1889 8/1/1900 11 Years
James Ray's Sons 8/1/1900 1917 17 Years

Pictures courtesy of Glass Works Auctions.

 

 

2/28/2021

Registering Bottles

One of the obstacles  to a profitable bottling business was getting ones 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. John & Alexander Dearborn bottle 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.

The risk to not getting these bottles back was due to several reasons: 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.William R. Evans bottle

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 actually where their property.  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.  The actions of bottlers to take legal actions against illegalBoggs & Co. bottle 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.  J. Deane bottleSome times these were generic as to having their names marked 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:

R. C. & T. bottle R. C. & T. bottle R. C. & T. bottle R. C. & T. bottle R. C. & T. bottle
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.

Smith & Co. Bottle Smith & Co. Bottle Smith Bottle Smith Bottle
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 toBrandt bottle G. W. Brandt bottlewho 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.

W. Morton Bottle N. Richardson Bottle Morton & Richardson Bottle
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 Soda Bottle Clark & Munn Soda Bottle Honesdale Soda Bottle Clark Soda Bottle
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 where their property.

These types of advertisements continued to thru 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.