2022 Notes

12/31/2022

Doylestown Brewery?

I grew up in Sellersville, which is in Upper Bucks County, and started collecting bottles there in 1972.  Back then, we dreamed of finding some of the Wonsitler & Company bottles from Doylestown, our county seat.  These are some of the earliest bottles from our area and occur in green with the porter shape and in aqua with the pony shape.  The porters come with and without plate molds.  Later when I started to research my bottles, I found nothing on this company.  This summer, after trying to research the S. A. Smith bottles from the same town, I made an earnest search for Wonsitler.  With such a unique name, I was bound to find something. To my surprise I found that the bottles were actually from a brewery and not a beer and soda water bottler. I had never found any information or evidence of a brewery operating in the upper part of the County.

I figured that the bottles were from the late 1860s.  I spent maybe a day looking without finding any information about the Wonsitler business, but did find random records on various Wonsitler family members none of which were related to a firm bottling beer and soda water.  Most of the records were from Nockamixon Township, Bucks County, the family homestead, or from neighboring Montgomery County.  I decided to expand my search a little wider and I found a smoking gun article, which made me happy, but the content saddened me.  The article reported the suicide of Jonathan Wonsitler, who after a series of financial failures, including a brewing business in Doylestown, took his life.  I found the following article that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on April 28, 1872:

Jonathan Wonseitler (sic) of Montgomery county and lately a resident of Skippack, was found hanging lifeless in the woods of Joseph Reiff, Friday, not far from his residence. Deceased was formerly in the lumber business in Montgomery county, and later established in the brewery business at Doylestown, which, however, did not prove successful. It is supposed that financial embarrassments led Mr. Wonseitler (sic) to terminate his life in this deplorable manner. He leaves a family, and was a man well known and respected in the community.

Well now I knew the first name of the Wonsitler who produced the bottles and was able to tie together some of the records I had found earlier and find new ones that helped tell the initial story.  I shared what I found with David Buck, at our Bottle Club, and he was able to uncover some additional records, some of which are reference below.

Doylestown Brewery Complex (1886) after conversion to a Steam Cider Mill and Fruit Distillery.

Jonathan Wonsitler was born to John and Sara (nee Schultz) Wonsitler on May 10, 1834 in Montgomery County.  He married Magdalene Bean in Philadelphia on August 13, 1858. They had seven children: Henry B. (born 1859), Garret B. (born 1861), Franklin B. (born 1862), Sarah (born 1864), John B. (born 1865), A. Jane (born 1868), and Katie (January 14, 1873).  It would appear that Magdalena was pregnant when Jonathan took his life and one cannot but wonder if another mouth to feed was a contributing factor in his decision.

In the 1850 Census, Jonathan is listed as a sixteen year old laborer living with his parents.  In the 1860 Census, Jonathan was listed as a farmer and married with one child.  In 1862 IRS Tax Records, he was a partner in the firm of Rosenbury & Wonsitler who were cattle dealers.  In the summer of 1863, he was on his own as a cattle dealer in Skippackville and continued as such until at least 1866.  He may have been involved in the lumber business after that.

In 1868, he had acquired a property in Doylestown, with the intention of establishing a business there.  The following is his advertisement in the Bucks County Intelligencer on October 28, 1868:

  WILL be sold at Public Sale, on the premises, on THURSDAY, OCTOBER TWENTY-NINTH, 1868, a very desirable LOT of Land, beautifully situated in the Borough of Doylestown, fronting on the pike and extending back to a spring which is well known as one of the best in Bucks county, and was never known to fail.  The lot fronts the Catholic Church at one corner, and runs along the pike a considerable distance, the whole being eligible for building lots, with more depth than is needed for first-class country residences.  It contains ELEVEN ACRES, more or less, in a high state of cultivation and well fenced, and now produces as good crops as any land in the county.  The buildings are all situated in the rear of the lot-far enough back not to be in the way of improvements in the front-and consist of a tolerably good Frame House, and excellent Stone Spring House, and a good Frame Barn.  The Property was purchased by the subscriber with the intention of erecting a Brewery, for which it is admirably adapted; but an opportunity offering of engaging in another desirable business at once, I will now sell this place at public sale on the above named day, at 1 o'clock, p. m.      Manufacturers, brewers, builders and gentlemen, be on hand for this is the place you can fix up for any purpose, and to suit any taste, and I am bound to sell.  Mr. N. P. Brower, of Doylestown, will show the place to any one wishing to view before the day of sale.  Conditions made known on the day of sale.  Conditions made known on the day of sale by
   H. ROBINSON, Auct.                               JONATHAN WONSITLER.

According to the Bucks County Intelligencer a few days later on November 3, 1868, the sale did not go as expected:

A tract of eleven acres of land in Doylestown borough, formerly a part of Capt. Taylor’s farm, was offered at public sale by the owner, Jonathan Wonsitler, on Thursday last, and bid to $6,500, but not sold.

I haven't found any records yet that discuss what happened next, but from later records I can extrapolate what occurred.

Jonathan took in a partner named Martin Herter, and they formed the firm Wonsitler & Company.  Martin Herter or Heerter or Hoerter, was born about 1831 in Wurttemberg and leaving from Le Havre, France, arrived in New York aboard the ship Princeton on November 16, 1857.  His occupation at the time of immigration was that of a brewer. Soon after arriving or prior to leaving, he married a Franciska Eisele and they made their way from New York to Philadelphia very soon afterwards, where Martin plied his occupation of a brewer.  Their first child Mary was born there on February 18, 1858.  Two more children joined the family over the next few years; Martin (born 1860) and Roseanna (born 1862).  In the1860 Philadelphia Census and the 1867 and 1868 Philadelphia Directories, Martin is listed as a brewer, but is not listed in 1869 or thereafter.  Prior to relocating to Doylestown in 1869, he likely was associated with Eble & Herter, who were brewers at that time in Philadelphia.  A relationship with Eble is supported by the fact that a Lawrence Eble was living with Herter in 1870.

1874 Map showing the location of the Doylestown Brewery

The new firm proceeded with Jonathan's original plans to build a brewery and bottling establishment on the property.  This must have occurred in late 1868 or early 1869.  It is known that Jacob S, Geller, a prominent Montgomery Count businessman, worked for the firm as a teamster in 1869. The bottling works not only included their beer, but also soda and mineral waters.

The establishment may have had some success initially, but the market to support a brewery in Doylestown was not sufficient.  Doylestown was basically a small town surrounded by farms.  In the 1870 Census, Doylestown Borough's population consisted of 1,601 individuals being members of 336 families and living in 329 dwellings.  Also, Doylestown is located between two major and two minor brewing centers that historically supplied the areas on its fringes.  Brewers to the North in Easton and Allentown supplied areas as far south as Sellersville with weekly runs.  To the South, beer could be shipped via a short railroad run from Philadelphia, one of the largest brewing centers in America.  To the East, the Kohl Brewery in Lambertville, NJ supplied parts of Bucks County and to the West, the Cox Brewery in Norristown supplied residents of Bucks and Montgomery Counties.

By early 1870, the firm was bankrupt as demonstrated by the following notice the sale of Wonsitler personal property in the Bucks County Intelligencer on June 7, 1870:

The personal effects of Jonathan Wonsitler, a bankrupt, were sold at auction on Thursday last. The property consisted of horses, wagons, harness, &c. Wonsitler came to Doylestown a year or two ago and started a brewery, but the business apparently did not prosper, and his liabilities are said to be quite large

About a month later, the brewery, property, machinery and supplies were sold at auction as reported in the Bucks County Intelligencer on July 5, 1870:

On Thursday last the assignee of Jonathan Wonsitler sold the Doylestown Brewery, and 11 ¼ acres of land, at public sale, to Alfred H. Barber, George Lear, and Richard Watson, of Doylestown, for $6,350, including the apparatus, hogsheads, barrels, bottles, beer and ale on hand, &c. This property was very imperfectly advertised, and the fact that it was to be sold was not generally known in Bucks county.

The three purchasers had no experience in any occupation related to brewing or bottling.  Alfred Barber was a coal merchant, and George Lear and Richard Watson were attorneys.  Wonsitler would have been better off selling the property in 1868 for $6,500 rather than making an investments in the property improvements and purchasing the equipment and supplies.  The new owners tried to sell the property, building and the business in Philadelphia Dispatch as advertised on November 20, 1870:

   DOYLESTOWN BREWERY FOR Sale.-Building new, Lager Beer Vault attached, Mineral Water Apparatus, pumps, bottler, vats, casks, bottles and boxes.  All in good order and ready to use.  Plenty of soft spring water for pumping and brewing.  Dwelling home and stable.  About twelve acres of land.  No other brewery in operation in the county.  Will be sold very cheap, entire or the land divided.
     Apply to                                                           ALFRED H. BARBER,
                                                                                       Doylestown, Pa.

It does not appear that the investors were able to sell the brewery.  It is likely that since Herter was listed in the 1870 Doylestown Census as a brewer, that he may have continued on with the three investors and operated the brewery for a few more years.  Wonsitler moved to North Wales, were he tried his hand at being a Patent Rights Agent.

The next record for Wonsitler and Herter was a bankruptcy hearing as advertised in the Bucks County Intelligencer on January 16, 1872:

                                                        Bankrupt Notice.

  NOTICE is hereby given that JONATHAN WONSITLER, Bankrupt, having petitioned for his discharge and orders on his petition having been issued by the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a meeting of all creditors will be held before George N. Corson, Register in Bankruptcy, at his office in Norristown, Pa., on SATURDAY, FEBRUARY THIRD, 1872, at 10 o’clock, a. m., for the last examination of the Bankrupt, And that a hearing on said application for discharge will be had before said Court in Philadelphia, on WEDNESDAY, the FOURTEENTH day of FEBRUARY, 1872, at 10 o’clock, a. m., where all persons may appear and show cause, if any, why the Bankrupt should not be discharged.
  The Bankrupt and all creditors and parties in interest are notified of these meetings, where they may attend, and also that all matters pending before the second meeting of creditors, upon the call of the assignee, are continued to and will be heard at the meeting before the Register, February 3, 1872.
  And all the creditors of the firm composed of JONATHAN WONSITLER and MARTIN HEERTER, lately trading in the name of J. WONSITLER & CO., or in any other name, are also notified to be present at the said meeting to be held February 3d, 1872, to take action, among other things on the question of division and distribution of partnership and individual property claims and claimants.
                                                                                                   GEORGE N. CORSON
                                                                                                   Register in Bankruptcy.

Afterwards, Herter disappears with no subsequent trail being found, but family records state that he died on January 13, 1897.  Wonsitler moved from North Wales back to Skippack and may have failed in some other endeavors that convinced him to take his own life.  His wife returned to Philadelphia and listed herself as "widow of Jonathan" forty years later in the City Directory.

As for the brewery property, the partners of Barber, Lear & Watson continued to own the Doylestown Brewery and may have operated a few years more, but it was converted into a Distillery and Cider Mill as advertised in the Bucks County Intelligencer on September 8, 1874:

                                                         Cider Wanted.
FIVE to TEN THOUSAND BARRELS OF CIDER wanted to distill on shares, at the brewery, near the Borough Mill, in Doylestown.
                                                                                                             ALLEN H. HEIST

By 1876, Watson dropped out of the partnership and the firm was Barber & Lear and by 1891, the property was subdivided and the Brewery sold to Allen H. Heist, who operated it as a cider mill.

1891 Map showing the Doylestown Brewery property subdivided and now a Cider Mill

To Summarize, Wonsitler & Company's bottles date 1869 to 1870.  During that short period two color runs of the plated porter bottles and a least one of the private mold bottle were ordered.  The plated pony bottle in aqua was likely part of the first order. The brewery may have operated a few years later, but no later than 1874, when it was converted to a cider mill and distiller.

David Buck Collection of Wonsitler & Company bottles showing all styles.

Photos courtesy David Buck, Glass Works Auctions and Galleria Auctions.

12/5/2022

Hamilton or Torpedo or Egg or Oval?

I have seen discussions claiming that the word Hamilton should not be used when describing those early soda bottles that do not stand up and have pointed bottoms.  In the early days of bottle collecting, these bottles, as illustrated to the right, were named after the Hamilton patent of 1809.

An early critic of the name Hamilton was Olive Talbot, who published an article called "The evolution of Glass Bottles for Carbonated Drinks" in Post Medieval Archeology in 1974.  Excerpts of this article and notes from Ms. Talbot where documented in McKearin & Wilson's American Bottles Flasks & Their Ancestry in 1978.  In essence, the premise forwarded is that Hamilton's 1809 patent was for the process of manufacturing soda water only and did not cover any of the other processes described nor the bottles.  They believed that bottles of this sort were probably in use prior to Hamilton's patent was issued in 1809.

Talbot's opinion has been reiterated in books, articles, web sites and forums.  But is it true?

What does William Francis Hamilton's 1809 patent state in relation to the bottles?  His May 4, 1809 patent (No. 3232) states the following:

   I generally use a glass or earthen bottle, or jar of a long ovate form, for several reasons, viz. not having a square bottom to stand upon, it can only lie on its side; of course no leakage of air can take place, the liquid matter being always in contact with the stopper. It permits its contents to be poured out more easily, and consequently with less loss of fixed air. It can be much stronger than a bottle or jar of equal weight, made in the usual form, and is therefore better adapted for packing, carriage, &c. The neck and mouth of the bottle are sometimes so formed, that it may serve as a drinking glass, if necessary.
   I commonly stop with cork; which from the excessive pressure generally existing within the bottle, flies out on the detaining strings being cut, but sometimes I use glass or earthen stoppers, fitted conically in the usual way, or ground in across the neck. I also occasionally use stoppers of various ligneous matter, closing the pores with coatings of insoluble compounds.

Hamilton's 1814 patent does not mention the bottles, but it does illustrate the bottles described in the 1809 patent being used in a filling machine.  The 1814 patent was for lining all the machinery and vessels that were in contact with the carbonated water with glass or a china material in order to prevent the carbonated water from interacting with the metal in the manufacturing and bottling apparatus.  Copper, which was commonly used for these proposes reacted with the carbonated water and affected the taste and safety of the manufactured soda and mineral waters.

I think the point that is missed is that the patent was issued for "all" the stated patent's claims.  There is no difference between his description of the manufacturing and bottling process.  He goes to greater lengths to describe the bottles and bottles usage (343 words) than he does to describe the manufacturing of these waters (294 words).  If the bottles were not part of the patent, why dedicate over half of the patent to describe them.

But is there evidence that these bottles were invented by Hamilton or patented by him and can be named after him?  Evidence can be from contemporary sources, later sources, but within memory, and physical or the bottles themselves.  To understand the introduction of these bottles, we really need to examine earliest artificial mineral and soda water bottles and actual documents.

First are some later sources that document these early bottles.  One of the first sources I found was in relation to an early soda water maker in Dublin, which is where William F. Hamilton resided when he filed the 1809 patent.  The source is from an article titled the "Origin of Soda Water" in the American Carbonator and American Bottler dated February 15, 1904 and states the following:

   There have been many claims set forth lately regarding the invention of soda water, and it is beyond dispute that the first patent for its manufacture was granted to Mr. W. F. Hamilton of Dublin on May 4, 1809. Nevertheless there is good reason for believing that soda water was invented by Mr. Augustine Thwaites, a Dublin apothecary, in 1799. At any rate, an original advertisement dated April 28, 1801, from the "Dublin Journal," which can be seen in the library of Trinity College, runs as follows: "Soda water, &c. Augustine Thwaites, sen. and jun., apothecaries, 40 Marlborough Street, having constructed an entirely new and extensive apparatus for the purpose of preparing mineral waters, respectfully inform the public that they are thereby enabled to produce them of superior efficacy and to dispose of them at the following prices: Soda water, in pints 13s. per dozen; selters do., 13s. do.; Cheltenham do., 16s. do.; Rochelle do. 16s. do.; Pyrmont do. 13s. do. Two shillings per dozen allowed for returned bottles. N. B.--Half pint jars with ground stoppers to be had for dividing and preserving the waters. " Mr. Thwaites purchased Hamilton's patent, in which the use of egg-shaped bottles is mentioned for the first time (Thwaites used ordinary-shaped bottles of black glass) for £600, and descendants, the firm of A. & R. Thwaites & Co., of Dublin, themselves "inventors of soda water, A. D. 1799." .

Key points in this 1904 account, which interestingly seems to have some actual contemporary source information, is that Thwaites was an early producer of soda waters, that they used common black glass bottles, and that they purchased Hamilton's patent for £600.  Also ground stoppered half pint bottles were used to divide the waters form larger containers.

Another slightly earlier account, in 1902, is from William Kirkby's work The Evolution of Artificial Mineral Waters.  In it he discusses the use of pottery and glass bottles as follows:

When mineral waters were first dispatched to a distance from the springs, earthenware receptacles were generally used as containers, doubtless because it was found that the glass bottles of that day were not sufficiently strong to withstand the pressure of the carbonic acid gas liberated by shaking, and expanded by the increase of temperature, which could not always be avoided. These were, however, defective in one respect, they were not always impervious to the gas, consequently the contents frequently lost their sparkling qualities and became "flat." This defect was greatly increased upon the introduction of machinery for the manufacture of factitious waters, which were much more highly aerated than the natural ones. So serious was the trouble that Paul used glass bottles, probably of much greater substance than ordinary bottles, and of the oval shape which is now so familiar. This shape was adopted for reasons which are still quite valid; bottles of this shape must lie on their side, and the corks thus being always moist are prevented from shrinking and allowing the gas to escape; and by inclining them at a suitable angle they can be opened with greater ease and with less risk of discharging the contents than bottles of any other form. The chief drawback to their use is that a portion of the contents cannot be reserved for another occasion because there is no convenient means of re-corking them.

Key takeaways from this article is the use of the word "probably."  The bottles were "probably of much greater substance" and of an "oval shape which is now so familiar."

A source from 15 years prior comes from the Industries of Dublin, published in 1887.  In the description of the firm of A. & R. Thwaites & Company, we see the following description of their early production of Soda Waters:

Happily for Ireland — that land of "punch and potatoes" — A. & R. Thwaites & Co. had then come to the aid of the sufferers, for the modern "Soda-water" was being made by them, according to letters-patent procured in l809-10 — these letters, by the way, being the first granted in any branch of this great industry, and A. & R. Thwaites & Co. still show them with their great waxen seal attached.

Key takeaway is that Thwaites had possession of the 1809 patent, which had to be Hamilton's.

A fourth source is from the prior year and was a description of "The Brewer's Exhibition" in The Chemist & Druggist dated October 30, 1886.  A part of the article was entitled "The Museum of Bottles" and was a description of bottles used to bottle used by the industry.  Of note is the following:

...  Of soda-water bottles, all of the forms which have been produced from 1800 are represented.  At that date the bottle used was strongly made of black glass, and of a 12-ounce capacity.  Ten years later the potash bottle had assumed the shape and color of glass, which we are now familiar, the only advances being in better finishing of the neck. ....  A very valuable document fitly finds a place in the museum; this is Hamilton's original patent for soda-water, an immense scroll of parchment in elaborate calligraphy, which shows that the patent was entered in the High Court of Chancery, and was sealed on October 3, in the fifteenth year of the reign of George III.  The seal which is attached is about 6 inches in diameter.  ......

What a display that would have been!  Maybe there are some pictures of it somewhere.  Key takeaways are again we see reference to black glass bottles and ten years later the introduction and use of bottles in the "shape" that was commonly in use in 1886.  I believe that this reference is to the bottles in question.  Also the original Wm. Hamilton patent was still held in 1886.

An older source comes from an 1866 listing of trademarks from around the world listed in British, Foreign and Colonial Trade Marks' Directory by Otto Blumenthal.  This discusses various products of Thwaites and their origin.

           PATENT SODA WATER.
This water prepared under His Majesty's,
   George III, Letters Patent, is a sparkling
   agreeable water containing a large quantity
   of fixed air with a small proportion of Soda,
   and when taken with THWAITES' Syrup of
   Lemon or Syrup of Ginger makes a most
   refreshing drink.

Single and Double Soda Water, invented 1799
Soda Water, Patent Granted   ...  ...  ...  1810
Carrara Water (Carbonated Lime)  ..   ...  1803
Seltzer   do.   (Super-Carbonated)     ...   1803
Kali        do.   (Potash)  ...   ...   ...   ...   1813
Magnesia do  ..  ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...  1816

Next to the above text is the following text and illustration:

Key takeaways from this book is that the bottle illustrated is associated with the "Royal Patent" and only used in the bottle illustrated.  There are other cylindrical bottles associated with their Seltzer Water and Single and Double Soda Water, which are illustrated below:

Now let's look at contemporary documents.

The earliest description that I was able to locate is an illustration associated with the partnership between Jacob Schweppes, Nicholas Paul and Henry Gosse in 1790.  The bottle was to be made of stoneware and was to have two impressions: one with the initials of the firm "S F G v C" for Schweppes, Paul, Gosse & Company and the other impression, the name of the product.  The illustration below is from the book Schweppes The First 200 Years by Douglas A. Simmons in 1983:

The key takeaways are that at this time stoneware bottles were being used for bottling artificial mineral waters and the bottles were shaped like normal stoneware jugs of the period.

Another Eighteenth Century reference to early artificial mineral water bottles is the below paragraph from an advertisement in the Evening Mail dated March 20, 1793:

Price--In stone quart bottles, 1s. per bottle, and 10s. 6d. per dozen; pint stone ditto, 7d. per bottle, and 6s. 6d. per dozen.--
?od Allowance made to Country Traders, to Hospitals, Dispensaries, and the Poor in General.
                          Allowance for Bottles returned.

Key takeaway are that Schweppe was using "stone"- ware bottles in his early years.

Another early document is Nicholas Paul & Company's 1802 translation of The Report Made to the National Institute of France, which was originally published in December of 1799.  This translation included contemporary notes. This was published with Paul's opening a soda and mineral water manufactory in London in 1802. The pamphlet goes into great length in describing Paul's waters, their production, and how to use them.  In it, Paul comments on bottles as follows:

I shall only observe, with respect to the economical part of this business, that a long experience, and careful comparison of results, have induced me to prefer glass bottles, notwithstanding their higher price, to the earthen ones commonly used for that purpose. My reason for this preference is, that the earthen bottles, from their porous texture, are apt to let a quantity of gas escape. I have experienced, on the contrary that mineral waters could, with proper precautions, be transported in glass bottles to the distance of three or four hundred miles by land, and could bear a voyage to the East and West Indies, or indeed any voyage whatever, without being in the least injured. And besides, the transparency of glass has the additional advantage of affording an easy and certain means of ascertaining their perfect cleanliness. In compliance, however with the received custom, both kinds of bottles will be used, and the public will have its choice of either.

Key takeaways on this publication are that pottery bottles were commonly used to bottle mineral waters at this time and Paul preferred glass bottles, which were more expensive. Paul's London business was going to use glass and pottery bottles and there is no mention of oval or egg shaped bottles, which would have been a novel invention, in this publication.

Another reference in The Caledonian Mercury on April 19, 1802 is from R. Scott, an apothecary in Edinburgh, Scotland.  In his ad he describes his artificial mineral waters sold in pint bottles and mentions that "Purchasers are requested to observe, that Mr. Scotts name is impressed on the seal of each bottle.  An earlier advertisement from The Caledonian Mercury on June 7, 1800, states:

 Please observe, that R. SCOTT is engraved on the seal of each bottle.

I am fairly certain that this was a glass seal on a typical black glass style bottle and not a seal over the cork, which would be unusual for a mineral water bottle.

An advertisement in the August 2, 1802 edition of the Cork Mercantile Chronicle by H. Haines, who was an agent for "Mes. THWAITES" notes:

The Public are requested to observe that the Bottles are stamped in the Glass with THWAITES."

Key takeaway is that sealed glass bottles were used to bottle artificial mineral waters in the first decade of the Nineteenth Century.  Also there should be another early soda bottle with a seal embossed "R. Scott."

On the other side of the Atlantic, where Joseph Hawkins, an English emigrant, who arrived in Philadelphia in 1805, and received the first American patent for the manufacture of artificial mineral waters in 1809, partnered with Abraham Cohen in 1807 to manufacture these waters.  An early advertisement of theirs appeared in the Political and Commercial Register on April 2, 1807 has as its final paragraph:

 N. B. Wanted from 100 to 150 Groce (sic) Bristol Bottles.  Seltzer Water Jugs, or Bottles, taken in exchange.

In New York, George Usher was also using stoneware jugs, likely also German seltzers, as noted in the Columbian Centinel from Boston on October 6, 1810:

                                                               Soda Water.
JUST received from USHER'S Laboratory, New-York, a few doz. genuine Soda Water, in pint juggs (sic), for sale at the Bar of the Exchange Coffee-House.

Key takeaways are that the sturdy Bristol bottles and German seltzer water jugs, both commonly available in America and England, were preferred containers for artificial mineral waters in the first decade of the Eighteenth Century.

Another advertisement from Adelphi, Glasgow, Scotland and also in the The Caledonian Mercury on April 29, 1809 from Nimmo & Company, chemists, advertised their Adelphi Soda Water:

THE above MINERAL WATER, warranted of genuine quality, in quart, pint, and half-pint earthen bottles, packed for home consumption and exportation, in barrels and hampers of all sizes, and in hogsheads, put on board, free of expense, at the Broomielaw or Canal, each containing, of quarts, about 25 dozens-- of pints, from 30 to 40--and of half pints, from 70 to 100, may be had, in any quantity, and on the shortest notice, of the Subscribers, at their Chemical Works. Adelphi.

Another period advertisement in the Derby Mercury August 27, 1812 notes that:

J. SCHWEPPE & Co. beg to inform the Public in general residing in Derbyshire and the Counties contiguous, that they manufacture their SODA WATER, &c. at Derby, where they may be had in equal perfection with those manufactured at their Establishment in London, the same being a very central Situation will tend to lessen the expence (sic) of Carriage, and Bottles being manufactured on the spot, will admit of a reduction of the present prices.

Key takeaway is the pottery bottles were commonly being used at the time of Hamilton's Patent in 1809 and soon after.

There was a shift to use glass bottles during starting around 1815.

Moring Chronicle July 9, 1816: 

Pure Soda Water, prepared without contact with metallic vessels, may be had of Messrs. Bakewell and Co. as above in glass or stone bottles.

Courier July 21, 1818.

J. SCHWEPPE and CO. Soda-water Manufacturers, &c. No. 79, Margaret-street, Cavendish-square, beg to inform the Nobility, Gentlemen of the Facility, and the Public in general, that their esteemed SODA-WATER, and ARTIFICIAL MINERAL WATERS, may be had in Glass or Stone Bottles, as usual as above, it having been imagined, from the Premises having undergone extensive repairs, that a Removal was contemplated.

Key takeaways are that glass bottles were starting to be used more commonly after 1815.

Robert Johnston was a chemist in the Soho district of London and had license to both of Hamilton's Patents.  Below is a chronology of his advertisements spanning nearly 15 years:

The Times September 23, 1812. 

HAMILTON'S PATENT SODA, and other Aerated WATERS, are respectfully recommends to the Nobility and Gentry, and also to the Faculty generally, as very superior in quality, containing a much larger proportion of air than usual, which renders them more salubrious, much more grateful to the palate, and also affords the great convenience of discharging the cork spontaneously, without the aid of a screw.  They may be had of R. Johnson, chemist, 15, Greek-street, Soho.  These waters are distinguished by the singular shape of the bottles, which are oval.

Morning Chronicle May 31, 1813.

BY the KING'S PATENT.-HAMILTON'S IMPROVED SODA WATER is respectfully recommended to the Mobility and Gentry for its very superior quality, surpassing everything of the kind hitherto presented to their notice.  The Patent Water is distinguished by the Patent Bottle, which is egg-shaped and discharges the cork, without the aid of a screw; but as the empty bottles are bought up by unprincipled tradesman, and refilling with an inferior article, it can only be had genuine at the factory of R. Johnston, Chymist, No, 15, Greek-street, Soho.

The Times September 26, 1815. 

SODA WATER in a state of perfection never before attained; prepared in Patent Glass Machines, to prevent metallic impregnation. As this is a matter of some importance to drinkers of Soda Water, they are respectfully informed that this superior water is manufactured by R. JOHNSTON, chemist, 15, Greek-street, Soho, and sold in oval glass bottles, at 8s, 6d. per dozen, allowing 3s for returned bottles; the celebrity of this water has excited some needy characters of meanest capacity and occupations to imitate the bottles, and fill them with an inferior water, made in brass and copper machines, tempting the retailer by a large profit to pass it off on his unsuspecting customers.  The genuine has the inscription. "Hamilton's Patent, sold by R. Johnston" as above.

The following advertisement ran in the Morning Chronicle from as early as June, 20 1816 to at least August 2, 1823. 

As this is a matter of some importance to drinkers of Soda Water, they are respectfully informed this superior Water is manufactured and sold by R. JOHNSON, Chemist, 15, Greek-street, Soho, London, in oval glass or common stone bottles, at the same price as the common Soda Water is sold.  The great celebrity of the Patent Water has induced the common Soda Water Makers to imitate the Patent Oval Bottles-the intention is obvious, and to guard against the imposition, consumers will please to observe the Genuine has the following inscription in the glass:--" Hamilton's Patent, sold by R. Johnson, as above."

Aberdeen Journal October 24, 1821 for R. Johnson. 

These facts are submitted to public observation, that the reputation of HAMILTON'S AERATED WATERS may not suffer from interest imposition, all the common Soda Water makers (a decisive proof of our superiority), having copied the patent Oval Bottles;

The bolding in the above is mine to point out the key takeaways that Johnston initially used glass bottles, that they followed Hamilton's Patent in that they were oval or egg shaped and that later common pottery bottles were introduced.  Also, Johnston's "Patent Bottles" were being copied by unscrupulous imitators.

Thwaites & Company explained the difference between their Single, Double and Patent, was not the carbonation level, but the amount of Sal Soda present in the water.  As explained in Freemans Journal on August 30, 1837, the single had a strong dose, the double twice as much and:

Their Patent Soda Water (that in the egg-shaped bottle, sealed invariably on the cork as above) is filled with a great body of fixed air, and this therefore frequently supposed to be the Double Soda; but though an extremely lively and refreshing Water, it does not possess the valuable properties of the Double and Single.

Key takeaways from this article is the use of "egg-shaped" to describe the bottles and the fact that only these bottles were used for the Patent Soda.

McKearin & Wilson in their epic work American Bottles & Flasks and Their Ancestry discuss the production of these bottles in Philadelphia in a letter between Thomas Strangler and his brother John in January, 1845:

 Now I am trying to make egg minerals they are a very difficult bottle to make they are round like an egg at the bottom and are finished in a large heavy clumsy Dutch machine called a clamp, they must weigh a pound and they are so uncommonly particular with them I can make but very few of them a day [at 14c a dozen].

Other American references include an August 1, 1842 advertisement in the American and Commercial Daily Advertiser in Baltimore, Maryland by George W. Andrews who was offering for sale "a quantity of superior egg-shaped Mineral Water BOTTLES."  A July 24, 1847 advertisement from William M. Cunningham in the Milwaukee Sentinel for "BOTTLED SODA WATER" which was "Put up in half pint egg shaped bottles."  A July 9, 1850 ad in the York Gazette by George Upp Jr. of York, Pennsylvania where he "CAUTIONS all persons against selling, buying, trafficking or filling" his "Egg-shaped bottles with the words 'Geo. Upp, Jr.' blown in the glass upon one side, and the words 'York, Pa.' blown in the glass on the opposite side." 

A later British reference was in the Official Catalogue of the Great Industrial Exhibition Dublin in 1853 where The Dublin Glass Bottle Company listed as their wares "soda water bottles, flat bottomed and egg shaped."

Key takeaways are the use of "egg shaped" in various parts of the United States and in Ireland and "egg minerals" by the glass trade.  Additionally, the use of a clamp in their manufacture eliminated the need for a pontil during manufacture.

We have seen documents, both contemporary and later sources, and now we need to examine period bottles to see what they say.  The focus will be on embossed or impressed bottles and focus on their form.  The first 6 bottles date to the first decade of the Eighteenth Century.

The earliest embossed bottles found, to date, appear to be from Thwaites of Dublin, Ireland.  There are three different seal bottles; one pint sized and two half pint sized bottles:

THWAITES / (eight pointed star)	THWAITES / (eight pointed star)	THWAITES / (six pointed star)
Half pint sealed bottle, 7 inches tall. circ. 1800-1810	Pint sealed bottle, 8 1/2 inches tall. circ. 1800-1810	Half pint sealed bottle, 7 inches tall. circ. 1800-1810
Courtesy Corning Museum of Glass	Courtesy British Antique Bottle Forum-Darren Grey Collection	Courtesy British Antique Bottle Forum-Dave McKeon Collection

Nicholas Paul, one of the partners of Schweppes, Paul, Gosse & Company in Geneva, ran the Geneva business with Gosse until the firm dissolved in 1796, with an effective date of 1793.  Gosse and Paul had a rough relationship and lasted but a few more months, with the latter two partners continuing on their own.  Paul eventually made his way to Paris and established a mineral water factory there in 1799 or slightly earlier.  The firm was called Nicholas Paul & Company.  The firm was reorganized about 1802 into Nicholas Paul, Triayre & Company, which is about the same time that Paul relocated to London to establish a factory there.  Paul appears to have retained an interest in the Parisian and London firms until 1805, when he returned to Geneva and died a year later in 1806.  These two later firms of Paul produced bottles as illustrated below:

Ns Paul Triayre & cie / (six pointed star)	M W / N, PAUL / LONDON (in title case)	M W / N Paul / London (in sentence case)
Pint sealed bottle, 9 inches tall. circ. 1801-1805	Half pint stoneware bottle, approx. 6 inches tall. circ. 1802-1805	Half pint stoneware bottle, approx. 6 inches tall. circ. 1802-1805
Courtesy Ancient Bottles	Courtesy British Antique Bottle Forum	Courtesy British Antique Bottle Forum

Next we will look at bottles that were made between 1810 and 1815. Identifiable bottles are related to Hamilton's Patent.

THWAITES // PATENT	HAMILTONS / PATENT AERATED / WATERS &C (front)	SOLD BY / R JOHNSTON / 15 GREEK ST SOHO / LONDON (reverse)
Half-pint bottle, 8 inches tall. circ. 1810-1813	Half-pint, 7 1/2 inches tall. circ. 1814-1815	Half-pint, 7 1/2 inches tall. circ. 1814-1815
Courtesy BBR Auctions	Courtesy BBR Auctions	Courtesy British Antique Bottle Forum

Key takeaways. Identifiable bottles produced before Hamilton's patent are all black glass bottles or pottery.  Those manufactures using Hamilton's patent used oval bottles.

In Conclusion, tying together the key takeaways from these documents and the physical bottles, seem to support the fact that Hamilton's Patent included the bottles in addition to the manufacturing process and the earliest soda water bottles of the oval design were used by holders of this patent, whereas other early makers used different forms.  Johnston in particular indicates that these oval bottles were "Patented" and initially were unique and singular.  Later he states that others were copying his bottles. There is an absence of period advertisements from Johnston's competitors that they were using oval bottles.  Perhaps printing that they were using oval bottles would have been a provable infringement on the patent.

Therefore calling them Hamilton's is justified and factually correct. Other names could be egg or oval bottles.

What about the claim that Nicholas Paul invented the oval shaped bottles?  It appears that these claims are from a later period.  We know that Paul made all sorts of claims that were not true.  He claimed being the inventor of the Geneva carbonation process, which was the invention of Jacob Schweppes.  Schweppes actually tried to set the record straight during his lifetime as to who the actual inventor was.  During his lifetime Paul claimed to be an originator of soda water, but in reality he had a string of failures.  He failed as a mathematical instrument maker in both Paris and London, his partnerships with Schweppes and Gosse were short lived.  In reality Paul's entry to manufacturing artificial mineral waters, was based on a stolen design of the Schweppes' machine. Paul died in 1806 in Geneva, but his business in London lived on.  This factory was damaged by a fire as described by Freeman's Journal on September 26, 1808 and it continued into the Twentieth Century.  Even Paul's successor firm fibbed about their founding, claiming their business started in 1783 and at another time 1790.  The origin of the Paul claim to being the inventor of the oval bottles may be traced to an article published in the Review of April 1878, where an oval bottle is described.  No doubt the Paul firm of that time was the source of the information.  Remember that Paul never mentioned bottles of this shape in any of his publications and his bottles of this period are similar to bottles used by others.

In my research there is a bottle that could date to 1813 and that is ovoid in shape.  It is from Wallett & Co. and is additionally embossed "PURE MALVERN / SODA WATER."  This was advertised by at least November 26, 1812 thru at least September 9, 1813.  George Wallett was initially the sole proprietor, but by June of 1813, he had taken in a partner or partners and the firm of Wallett & Company was established.  It is interesting in these advertisements, that "he has succeeded in constructing an APPARATUS upon a new principle for the MANUFACTURE of SODA WATER, which will enable him to give it the highest degree of impregnation with Carbonic Acid Gas."  Based on this claim and the timing, it sounds a lot like the Hamilton Patent!  George Wallett jun., a druggist and chemist, was listed as bankrupt in the Caledonian Mercury on September 16, 1813 and no further period advertisements for the Malvern Soda Water were found.  This bottle could date to June thru August 1813, but Willett & Company surface in London as druggists and chemists not long afterwards and it is possible that the bottle is later and produced by this firm, which was in business until at least 1823.  More research is needed to determine the exact age of this oval soda water bottle.

I welcome and encourage comments, discussion or any additional research that can better tell the story of the earliest soda water bottles.  Please email me here to open a discussion.

08/19/2022

Stockton's Lippincott & His Legacy

There has been a lot of speculation on the mug-based B. R. Lippincott & Company bottle from Stockton, California.  In addition to these bottles, there are also bottles marked L. & V. for Lippincott & Vaughn and L. & B. for Lippincott & Belding and even a Lippincott bottle from Saint Louis, Missouri. There is much info on these middle two firms, but none on the first and last until now.  But first some background on Benjamin R. Lippincott and the Lippincott family. 

In Philadelphia, the Lippincotts were known for their ornate soda fountains and for being a competitor of John Matthews in New York.  Matthews claimed his business was founded in 1832, the year he arrived in New York and Lippincott & Company claimed they were founded in the same year.  Both appear to have been stretching the truth.

The principal subject of this note is Benjamin Rush Lippincott named after Benjamin Rush, the signer of the Declaration of Independence and the most famous Physician of his time.  He was son of Samuel Lippincott (1778-1849) and Eleanor (nee: Edwards) Lippincott (1787-1859) and was born on April 30, 1826 in Mauch Chunk (now Jim Thorpe), Pennsylvania.  He had ten siblings, three sisters and seven brothers born between 1807 and 1831.

There were at least three brothers that appear to have been involved in the soda water business; Benjamin R., John (1811-1911) and Charles (1823-1908).  As previously mentioned, the Lippincotts claimed their business was established in 1832 when according to the January 2nd, 1908 Pharmaceutical Era:

In the spring of 1832, Charles Lippincott while as associated with his older brother in the manufacture of special copper machinery in Philadelphia, took up the matter of carbonating water and devising a means or apparatus whereby the water combined with a favored syrup could be readily dispensed and used as a beverage, which ultimately resulted in the Lippincott Marble Soda Fountain---the first offered for sale and used in serving soda water.

An 1895 Product Catalogue for Charles Lippincott & Company had an illustration of their first fountain and states the following about their founding:

This cut represents the Generator and Fountain by our house when it commenced business on April
28th, 1832.  It was invented by PAUL C. LANNING, and was the first
used for generating gas under pressure for charging
portable fountains for the trade.

We can ascertain that the older brother was John, who according to records was living and married in Philadelphia in 1832.  He was also listed in later Directories as being involved in the soda water industry.  So there may be some truth to the story, but Charles would have been nine years old at the time and Benjamin six years old.  It is possible that Charles was working with his brother, but unlikely.  We do know that Benjamin R. was living in Mauch Chunk as he was listed there as a wheel wright in 1848 and 1849, but that was to change.

We know that the lore of gold in California motivated many young men to migrate to the west coast.  Benjamin R. was one of them.  At the time, those planning on going west organized themselves into companies, and arraigned for passage or in some cases purchased ships to make their way to California.  One of the ships that was purchased for this purpose was the barque "Algoma."  The ship was purchased by a group of up and coming Philadelphia men and some from Mauch Chunk.  There were two companies created.  The Algoma Mining and Mercantile Company composed of fifteen Philadelphians and the Mauch Chunk Company composed of eighteen men from that town, mainly experienced miners. Additionally, passage was provided to twenty other passengers from both these locations and others from areas in the general regions.

Benjamin R. was a member of the Mauch Chunk Company, but unlike the other partners of the company, he was not a miner, but a wheel wright.  It is inevitable that while waiting for the ship to leave, he resided with his brother John who was an established manufacturer of mineral water at 158 N Eight Street and likely worked with him during the months leading up to the Algoma leaving port.  Another passenger from the Philadelphia Company was Joseph L. Smith, a shoemaker.  Interestingly, both would utilize mug based soda bottles manufactured by the Union Glass Works of Philadelphia in a few short years.  The ship left Philadelphia on March 1, 1849.

After six months, the Algoma arrived at San Francisco Bay on September 2, 1849.  Making Benjamin R. and his fellow travelers Argonauts of California.  According to his obituary, Benjamin R. went to the gold fields but was not successful.  An 1866 article claims that he was associated with Stockton since 1849, so it appears he set up shop as a wheelwright in Stockton.  In the 1850 California Census, he was recorded as being a carriage maker in the same town.  A series of occupational changes followed.

About two months after the Census, he partnered with Charles L. White as White & Lippincott in Stockton as "General and Commission Merchants.  In the North American, a Philadelphia newspaper, on February 7, 1851 they listed, as references, individuals from Jersey City, Albany, New York, Philadelphia and Mauch Chunk.  White was also a Pennsylvania native.

This partnership was short lived and by May 14, 1851, B. R. Lippincott & Company was formed, when the firms is mentioned as being involved in a great fire. In a June 11, 1851 advertisement, in the San Joaquin Republican, The firm stated that they were "general merchants" on Main Street and would forward passengers and freight to the mines.  Being general merchants, the manufacture of mineral water would not have been outside the realm of their business license.  With access to the mines and lack of competition in Stockton, bottling of mineral waters was a viable business.  With the connection to his brother John, an established mineral water manufacturer in Philadelphia, he had access to the equipment, supplies, and bottles needed to establish a soda bottling business.  During this period, the firm moved from Main Street to Weber Street. Not much else is heard form Lippincott & Company, except mention in the June 16, 1852 of a proposed bridge near their property in the June 16, 1852 edition of the San Joaquin Republican.

We can speculate that the soda water business started to grow to the point that Benjamin R. needed help.  When help was needed, he turned to family.  Luckily, there was extended family member already in California; Andrew Fountain Vaughan.

Vaughan was born in Wilmington, Delaware in 1825 and at a young age moved to Richmond, Indiana with his family in 1827.  Charles Lippincott, who would later join his brother John in the mineral water business and later have a close business relationship with Benjamin R., married Andrew's sister Emma Matilda in 1849.  In fact, three of the Lippincott brothers married Andrew's sisters.  So the connections between the families were strong.

Vaughan left Richmond on October 24, 1849 and via Cincinnati and New Orleans made his way to California, via Panama, with two friends; Daniel Storms and Samuel Caldwell Meredith.  The trio arrived in San Francisco on January 11, 1850 and the trip cost Meredith $412.  What Vaughan did between then and joining with Lippincott in 1852 is currently a mystery.

In the July 7, 1852 edition of the San Joaquin Republican, the firm of Lippincott & Vaughan is mentioned as a landmark on Weber avenue and a few days earlier on July 1 and 2 they are mentioned as "Syrup Manufactory," in an 1852 Census.  An article in the July 24, 1852 San Joaquin Republican, proves they were bottling soda water:

We were furnished on Wednesday last, by Messrs. Lippincott & Vaughn, with a couple of dozen of their choice Soda---lemon, sarsaparilla, and ambrosia ---for which they will please accept our thanks.

This July founding date is supported in An Illustrated History of San Joaquin County, California, published in 1890, which states that "Lippincott & Vaughn ... started in the business of soda-water manufacturing in July, 1852."

On August 1, 1853, Edward Gilpin Vaughan, Andrew's younger brother, joined the firm of Lippincott & Vaughan.  In August of 1852, that bridge was order to be built on Webster near the property of Lippincott & Vaughan.  On October 6, of that same year, they advertised their soda water and syrup manufactory and were selling "100 gross soda water bottles of Philadelphia make" in the San Joaquin Republican.  Were these the old B. R. Lippincott & Co. bottles?

Benjamin married Juliet Virginia Manderson, born in 1830, on March 19, 1855.  To this union was born Loretta Manderson Lippincott on February 4th, 1857.  Unfortunately, Loretta died about ten months later on November 27th, 1857.  She was followed in death by her mother less than a year later on October, 5, 1858.  Benjamin, about fourteen months later, returned to Pennsylvania and married Nettle Barnes at Bethlehem on January 3rd, 1860.  Nettle died in September of 1865.

According to Peck and Audie Markota in their book Western Blob Top Soda And Mineral Water Bottles, John B. (sic: John Dickson) Vaughan and Charles Belding failed in an attempt to establish a soda water business at Murphy's California and after this failure, on April 17, 1857, Charles Belding became a partner in the firm of Lippincott and Vaughan.  This is supported in an advertisement in the San Joaquin Republican published on April 19, 1857.  In the same paper, exactly three months later on July 19, A. F. Vaughan was noted as leaving Stockton for the East.  A few days later on July 25, 1857 and in the same paper, the dissolution of the firm of Lippincott & Vaughan was announced:

                                                                  NOTICE
THE connection of A. F. Vaughan with the firm of Lippincott & Vaughan ceased April 17th.
  The firm name is from this date changed to Lippincott & Belding, who will continue the business as heretofore.                                                                    B. R. LIPPINCOTT,
                                                                                   CHAS. BELDING.
Stockton, July 21, 1857

Vaughan returned to Richmond, Indiana, and in 1864 bought into a machine shop, he retired in 1868 and died in 1879.

The firm of Lippincott & Belding continued to operate in Stockton for over a decade.  By 1859, they had won several premiums at State fairs.  In 1866 they expanded into Marysville.  Lyman Belding, Charles Belding's brother, was operating a soda water works in Marysville as early as January 1863 according to IRS Tax Records, but his memoirs state he came to Marysville in 1862.  The Firm was known as L. Belding & Company in various tax entries and advertisements.  It is not certain who was Lyman's partner was.  According to later tax records, it appears that in May of 1866 that Lyman was in full control of the firm.  His control was short lived and the firm of Lippincott & Belding took control later that summer.  Lyman, interests were elsewhere.  He was prominent self-taught ornithologist or bird expert who published several books on California birds starting in 1879.

Benjamin R. Lippincott was the partner who moved to Marysville to take over the operations there as documented in the Stockton Independent on October 22, 1866:

Yesterday morning, B. R. Lippincott, of the firm of Lippincott & Belding, and one of the most highly respected citizens of Stockton, took his departure on the steamer Mary Emma for Sacramento, thence he will go by railroad to Marysville, where he intends to reside in the future.  His family accompanies him.  Mr. Lippincott has been a constant resident of Stockton since 1849, and all with whom he has come in contact, either socially or in a business capacity, in consequence of the uniform courtesy of the nature and upright character of the man, became his friend.

Benjamin R. Lippincott married Miss Mary Tilton, of Stockton on March 1st, 1869.  Benjamin R. headed east as appeared in the Marysville Daily Appeal on October 1, 1870:

GOING EAST.--B. R. Lippincott, one of our oldest and most esteemed citizens, goes East this morning on a brief visit, and will return shortly with his family.

Soon after, he and his family headed east permanently and dissolved his partnership with Charles Belding in December of 1870. 

Lyman Belding returned to Marysville on December 7, 1870 and operated the soda works there for his brother.  His memoirs state that he retired from business in 1875, but he is listed in the directories in 1877 as a soda water factory and continued to be involved into the 1880s when George Ball managed the works until he was murdered in May of 1891.  Walter L. Belding, Charles' son, was manager of the Marysville branch in 1898 thru 1901.

On January 11, 1902, Walter L. Belding turned over the management of the Soda Works to Martin Moran, his brother-in-law, and moved himself and his family to Stockton to manage the Family Ranch outside the city.  On January 17, 1904 Charles Belding sold his Marysville Soda Works to Martin Moran, his manager, and John Giblin. Martin's brother-in-law, of Marysville.  Charles Belding died less than a year later on February 17, 1905.

In January of 1905 Eames Brothers took over the Marysville Soda Works from Giblin & Moran, and they thoroughly upgraded the building and equipment.  In February 1908 Moran Brothers, formerly employees of Charles Belding in Marysville, took over the Maysville Soda Works form the Eames Brothers.

The Stockton plant continued to be managed by Charles Belding.  On June 1, 1896, Belding took in Samuel B. Hustins as a partner and traded under the name of Belding & Huskins.  As previously stated Charles Belding died in 1905 and the business continued under the same name and was managed by Hustins until he died on January 15, 1907.  After that his son Walter B. Huskins managed the works.  In 1907 Walter L. Belding was the foreman of the Coca-Cola Bottling Co. in San Francisco. Walter B. Hustins continued to manage the Stockton works until the spring of 1910 when he took full control of the operation and retired the Belding name.  The last listing I can find for the plant is at the end of August in 1911, ending a continuous run of 60 years.

What about Benjamin R. Lippincott?  On his first trip back East in October of 1870, it is likely that Lippincott was meeting with his brother Charles in Philadelphia, now running a successful soda fountain supply business at 916 Filbert Street.  Their brother John, who is believed to have started the business in 1832, had a son named Samuel S., and the pair established soda water plant in Saint Louis under the name of J. & S. S. Lippincott & Company in May of 1860.  It is interesting that in their introductory advertisement in May 15, 1860 Daily Missouri Democrat that the partners had over 20 years' experience manufacturing these waters starting about 1840, not 28 years or 1832 as later claimed.

By 1863, if not earlier, a restaurant was added to the mix.  Samuel S. was running the business by 1866, as S. S. Lippincott & Co., and in 1867 was in full control of the business. Soon after he opened a factory to manufacture soda fountain apparatus.  But Samuel was running into financial issues.  In January, 1871, his assets were seized by the Sheriff in respect to a $1,700 debt Samuel owed to an Oliver Lippincott.  Charles and Benjamin and possible other family members decided that Benjamin would take over the Saint Louis operation.

In February of 1872 Benjamin R. advertised that he had taken over the soda water and fountain manufactories of his nephew Samuel S. in the March 8, 1871 Missouri Republican.  Soon after he advertised he was the "Western Depot," likely representing Charles Lippincott's Philadelphia operations.  In 1877, Isaac Cook patented a gas regulator, an item needed for carbonating soda water and assigned one-third rights to Benjamin R. Lippincott and Philo M. Clark, all of Saint Louis.  It is not known what the relation between the three were.  Cook was a model maker and Clark was a coal oil dealer.

In 1876, Benjamin ran into financial difficulties and filed for bankruptcy.  Apparently there were two parts of the business; soda water manufacture and soda water apparatus.  The bottling segment seems to have gone bankrupt.  He appears to have sold part of the business to his brother Charles and James Patterson doing business as Charles Lippincott & Company in Philadelphia.  The firm in Saint Louis also became known as Charles Lippincott & Company.  Benjamin was listed as a partner until 1880, when he is listed as an agent to the Philadelphia firm and was no longer listed as a partner.

In 1885, Charles Lippincott & Company are no longer listed in Saint Louis and Benjamin partnered with Otto Rautenstrauch and Joseph R. Berktold as Lippincott & Company, manufactures of soda water. 

In 1891, Tuft’s Arctic Soda Fountain Company consolidated with A. D. Puffer and Sons of Boston, John Matthews Apparatus Company of New York and Charles Lippincott of Philadelphia to become the American Soda Fountain Company with James W. Tufts as the company's president. An 1895 trade catalogue for Charles Lippincott & Company of Philadelphia listed the location of Lippincott & Company at 1130 Pine Street as their Saint Louis Branch.  There appears to have been a relationship between the Saint Louis Lippincotts and the Philadelphia Lippincotts and the American Soda Fountain Company.

About 1897, Otto Rautenstrauch, withdrew from the firm and Charles son, Thomas E., joined the remaining partners.  It appears that the firm was sold during this year and the partners became employees of the firm.  Possibly being sold to Charles Lippincott & Company back in Philadelphia and was going under the name of Lippincott & Company.

The firm of Lippincott & Company continued on after Benjamin's death on January 12, 1900 until it became T. E. Lippincott & Company during 1905.  The firm name changes again to the Lippincott Soda Fountain & Supply Company during 1909.  This company appears to have gone out of business in 1910 or 1911 when A. H & F. H. Lippincott of Philadelphia bailed out the business and Thomas E. was their sales agent in Saint Louis in 1912.  This relationship continued thru 1914 when the firms was once again under Thomas E. Lippincott's control as Lippincott & Company.  Thomas Lippincott was in business by himself in 1917 and 1918 and then disappears from the scene.  Thus ends the legacy of Benjamin Rush Lippincott.

The following are the bottles that are covered in this article:

Photos courtesy of Meriam Library, the author, and Glass Works Auctions

08/03/2022

Who was Biggam's Brother?

A trip to visit family on the West Coast included a visit to Ron Fowler and his marvelous Washington and Oregon soda collection, which has to be the most comprehensive in existence.  One item that caught my eye was a stoneware bottle marked "PETER BIGGAM" with a tan shoulder and lip and blue wash in the letters.  There are two Codd bottles from Yakima, Washington marked Biggam Brothers.  These are rare bottles indeed and it is known that James Biggam was involved in bottling in Yakima, but as Ron commented, "no one knows who the other brother or brothers were."  Since there was a bottle marked Biggam and it was from a similar period of the Yakima Codd bottles, there was speculation that somehow Peter Biggam was related to James Biggam of Yakima and possibly was James Biggam's partner.

I love a good bottle mystery and this one seems to have been going on for a long time.  I started my research during down times on my remaining vacation days.  My research included many twists and turns and the running down of a number of dead ends.  Rather than recount the journey, below is a synopsis of what I found.

First a little on the Biggam family.  John (born about 1828) and Janet (nee: Muir) Biggam (born about 1829) resided at the Mid-Glenstockadale Blacksmith's Cottage, Leswalt, Wigtownshire, Scotland. Leswalt is on the extreme southwest coast of Scotland. The couple were married on June 3, 1851 and the couple had at least ten children: all boys!  These included:

     William Biggam: born about 1850
     John Biggam: born about 1855
     Thomas Biggam: born about 1857
     James Biggam: born August 13, 1858
     Andrew Biggam: born about 1864
     Charles Biggam: born about 1866
     David Hunter Biggam: born about 1868
     Peter Biggam: born about 1870
     Alexander Biggam: born about 1872
     Fredrick W. M. E. Biggam: born about 1874

The patriarch, John Biggam, was a master blacksmith and the four oldest sons followed in their father's footsteps taking up the same occupation.  Others became grocers and engineers.

The fourth child, James, was known to have been a bottler in Yakima, Washington, which is a world away from Leswalt, Scotland.  We know that James was working as a blacksmith with his father in 1881.  We also know that he immigrated to the United States and arrived at New York on February 11, 1889 aboard the Ship Umbria as a 30 year-old blacksmith leaving from Ayr.  Later records indicate that he was of dark complexion, with black hair and brown eyes, being 5 foot 11 inches tall and 160 pounds.  He quickly made his way west and in March of 1889, partnered with Thomas Harvey in the purchase of the blacksmithing business of C. McClean on Front and B Streets in North Yakima, picking up the trade he practiced in Scotland.

A year later, on March 15, 1890, James married Mary W. Wilson, four years his younger and born on May 24, 1862.  Mary was raised in Kirkcolm, Scotland a scant four miles from Leswalt, Scotland.  She left Scotland and arrived in New York on September 4, 1888, which was just four months before James Biggam.  She resided in Tacoma at the time of their marriage. Did James know Mary in Scotland?  Did he follow Mary to the US?  One thing we do know is that they did not have any surviving children.

On September 20, 1890, the partnership of Harvey & Biggam was dissolved by mutual consent and Thomas Harvey was the surviving partner of this blacksmithing business.  We lose track of James Biggam at this time, but barely a year later, on August 25, 1891, Thomas Harvey and Frank Sinclair partnered in the blacksmithing business and relocated to a newly built addition to the Sinclair Building.  In December of 1892, James Biggam was back in the blacksmithing business at the old, Front and B Street location.  He advertised until March of 1893.  This shop then fell into the hands of Wilgus & McClair and then back to Harvey & Sinclair in November 1893 and to James Kealing in 1895 and then to Kennedy & Wilgus and then to A. H. Wilgus!  It may have changed hands to others, but it seems that this location, known as the Pioneer Blacksmithing Shop, had a lot of turnover.

I lost track of James Biggam again, but he surfaces as a sheep farmer in February of 1896.  Later newspaper articles discuss prices he got selling wool and he is listed in the 1900 Census as a property owner and "sheep raiser." In February of 1901 he reports that he sold two car loads of ewes to the "Sound" market.  He may have been liquidating his stock, as it appears that he and his wife returned to Scotland and remained there until about September 1902, when they returned to Washington.  I suspect that plans were made during this visit to open a bottling works in North Yakima.

In February of 1903, just five months after returning from Scotland, James Biggam brought two lots in the Dunning Villa track, which appears to have included East Chestnut.  The months following this purchase, Biggam built his bottling works and equipped it with machinery, bottles, and supplies, cumulating in this article in the Wednesday, July 22, 1903 Yakima Herald:

New Bottling Works.

   Biggam Bros. on Monday, opened a new bottling works at the east end of Chestnut street, and began to put some of the products of the new factory on the local market. The gentlemen have erected a neat building over a fine stone basement, where the bottled goods are put to keep cool after being put up. The main floor contains the machinery, which is run by a large gasoline engine. The machinery is of the latest pattern and was brought here direct from Belfast, Ireland. It is set upon a heavy cement floor which gives the place a solid and cleanly appearance.
   The gentlemen will manufacture all flavors in soda waters, the flavoring being imported goods. They are busy unpacking the bottles of which there are 200 gross. These bottles have an automatic stopper in the shape of a round glass marble which is forced against a rubber in the neck of the bottle and held in place until empty by the gas in the soda water. Utmost care is used to keep everything in order and clean. The water used is obtained from a pure spring near at hand and as an extra precaution is well filtered.
   The plant is an exceptionally neat and complete one. The gentlemen expect a nice local trade but will also reach out for business along the line.

So we know that Biggam Brothers started business on July 20, 1903, that they were using Codd bottles and we understand that James Biggam was one of the partners, but who was the other brother?  First, we know that a Peter Biggam was bottling around the turn of the century and James had a brother named Peter.  Is Peter Biggam the partner?

One of the first things I found was an article written by Gregg Wilson that indicated that in addition to the Peter Biggam stoneware bottle, there is also a Codd bottle!  It is marked Stranraer, a fair sized town about four miles southeast Leswalt in Scotland and the bottle is nearly identical to the Biggam Bros. bottle.

We know that Peter Biggam was living in Leswalt with his family, including James, in 1881.  Being 11 years old, he was listed as a scholar.  In 1891, he had moved to Stranraer and was boarding with Thomas Spence, a blacksmith, and had the occupation of "Grocers Assistant."  In 1901, he was now a "head grocer" at 37 Castle and married.  A 1903 directory of Stranraer, list Peter as a grocer on his own at 35 Castle Street.  By 1911, Peter was a bank agent in Stranraer.

We have to assume that at some point as a grocer and before he became a banking agent, Peter bottled aerated waters in the Codd bottle and likely ginger beer in the stoneware bottle.  Since he is in Stranraer at the same year that Biggam Brothers were operating, it is unlikely that Peter was the partner.

Knowing that Biggam Brothers opened their doors in July of 1903, I was able to focus and concentrate on who came from the United Kingdom between September of 1902 and July of 1903 that was related to James.  I found it was his brother David Hunter Biggam.  David was living with his family and was a scholar at the family homestead in 1881.  By 1891, he was an engine fitter living with a similarly aged Alfred Chapple in Liverpool, England.  He was still there in 1898 as a chief engineer.  During 1903, he was residing in Stranraer, Scotland and in April of that year boarded the ship Etruria and arrived in New York on April 11th.  With $20.00 in his wallet, he proceeded to his stated destination of Yakima, Washington, and his stated relative, James Biggam.  Likely, being an engineer, he helped outfit the new bottling plant.

James and David Biggam advertised their bottling works from about August 5th thru to at least October 2, 1903 with the following ad that ran in the Yakima Herald:

If you drink

B

IGGAM BROS.'

Aerated Table Waters
      (ALL FLAVORS)

   you will enjoy good health.
           _____

  Imported Ginger Ale

    is our specialty, and is the
    finest drink manufactured in
    North Yakima. Ask for it.

At All Soda Fountains and Pop Stands

         PHONE 613.

The Biggam Brothers business did not last seven months as reported in the Yakima Herald on February 10, 1904:

Biggam Brothers have disposed of their bottling works in this city to H. D. Baylor, proprietor of the Yakima Bottling works, and the two plants will be consolidated, that gentleman being the sole proprietor. There is not room in Yakima for two plants of this kind, but Mr. Baylor is satisfied that one can do well. The consolidation will double the capacity of the Yakima Bottling works, which is becoming an important institution under the energetic management of Mr. Baylor, who has put in the most modern machinery that could be obtained and spared no expense to bring his plant strictly up to date. Mr. Baylor is also going to push the Soda Springs proposition on the Ahtanum, of which he now has the control and is figuring on erecting a modern hotel in the near future.

The Ahtanum is a river, and the Soda Springs were a sort of summer camp and mineral springs close by.  There was great hope that a hotel and resort would be built on the Soda Springs.  On March 1st, just 20 days later, Baylor moved the Yakima Bottling works from its 108 South Second Street site to the former Biggam Brothers plant at the east end of Chestnut Street.

So what became of the Biggam Brothers?  First David Hunter filed a declaration of intent to become a United States citizen on November 2, 1903.  He apparently made his way to Nelson, British Columbia and later went to Cedar Rapids, Iowa to marry Jane Smith Lock on October 6, 1905.  She had just arrived from Stranraer, Scotland, accompanied by her sister Anna Sloss, whose residence was in Cedar Rapids.  The couple returned to Nelson, where three daughters, Jeanne Lock (1907), Hetty Lock (1907), and Margareta (1909) Biggam were born.  In 1921 David was listed as a marine engineer living in Yale, British Columbia. He died on April 29, 1925 in Vancouver.

As for David's older brother, James, the next record we have for him is a 1908 Directory listing as president of the Yakima Mineral Spring Company.  Harry D. Baylor continued to run the Yakima Bottling Works and in January of 1905, he, Robert G. Brautigan, and Edward Whitson, filed articles to incorporate the Yakima Mineral Spring Company, which took over the existing business.  In February of 1907, Baylor was involved with the Inland Real Estate Company, but still appears to be associated with the bottling works as late as July, 1907.

So Biggam was back in charge of his former business in 1908, if not earlier.  In the 1910 Yakima Census, James was listed as making his "own income" and having a farm, even though he continued to be president of the Yakima Mineral Springs Company.  In 1913, he is still associated with the bottling works and Soda Springs, but in the next available directory, 1917, he is listed only as having the Soda Springs and the bottling works were under the control of Robert A. La Bissoniere.  Biggam is listed in 1918 as a rancher only and appears to have disposed of the Soda Springs.  In the 1920 Census he is listed as "meats" and "farming."  This is also the last year where he has an occupation listed in the directories.  On December 8th, 1923, James applied for his declaration of intent to be a United States citizen.  His occupation was still listed as a farmer.  Mary Wilson Biggam died on September 29, 1936.  James died a few years after his wife on June 8, 1939.

So now we know about the three Biggam Brothers and their bottles from Scotland and half a world away in Yakima, Washington.

Ron Fowler and his most comprehensive collection of Washington & Oregon Soda memorabilia

Pictures all courtesy of Ron Fowler.

4/18/2022

De Mott & Owen Identified

For years I have tried to figure out where the De Mott & Owen bottle hailed from.  The bottle is embossed on the face "DEMOTT & OWEN" and on the reverse "D & O" in large bold letters.  There is no town name embossed on it.  The bottle was clearly made in the Philadelphia area and has the appearance of a bottle manufactured after 1845 and before 1850.

There is a bottler of this period named George V. De Mott  who bottled during this period in New Jersey in what is now Jersey City, just across the river from New York City.  The name De Mott is most common in New Jersey and New York States.

I've had many queries and had spent years researching, off and on, the origin of this bottle.  My focus was concentrated in the New York and New Jersey areas.  I suspected there was some connection between George V. De Mott or a relative and someone named Owen.  Perhaps it was a short partnership the preceded De Mott owning the business himself.  I searched records, News Papers and Directory listings to no avail.  I thought that I had found some possibilities, but always ended up discounting them as wishful thinking.

Along came an email with a picture of a George P. Fey bottle from Cincinnati.  I had pictures of all the other Fey and Fey & Company bottles, but was missing this one.  The owner of the bottle had found directory listings for Fey during the 1850s, when he was operating a wine store.  I had the same listing linked to Fey in the "Directory" search feature on this site.  So I thought that I would do some research to see if I could find anything.  The bottle has the appearance of a later 1840s bottle, which is earlier than the existing directory listings.  So off I went!

Well I did not find much.  Fey was operating his wine store as early as 1848, based on one of the few ads I was able to find.  So basically a dead end.  I thought that I would try and search for soda and mineral waters in the Cincinnati with the addition of the word Fey.  I used this technique in the past with some degree of success, but I end up having to weed thru lots of unrelated advertisements.  I found lots of entries including many that I had seen before.  The name Fey was distorted into all sorts of unrelated words.  So all I was finding were ads from other bottlers of mineral waters in the Queen City.

I saw a thumbnail picture of one ad for C. B. Owen that had a horse and wagon that was from 1847.  I saved this off for later inclusion in the "Newspaper" listings on this site. Imagine my surprise when I saw the following at the end of the advertisement under the C. B. Owen & Co. signature:

Late Demott & Owen

What luck!  I was dumbfounded.  My research focus quickly changed and it paid off as I found several ads for De Mott & Owen.  It appears that the firm was formed before the 1846 mineral water season and was first listed in June of that year.  It was dissolved on October 24, 1846.  So it appears to have been short lived, just five or six months duration.  Out of this firm Chauncey B. Owen and James P. Turner joined together as C. B. Owen & Company and this firm was to operate for the next ten years in Cincinnati.

The firm of De Mott & Owen was made up of Chauncey B. Owen and G. V. De Mott.  There is no doubt that G. V. De Mott was none other than the George V. De Mott of New Jersey.  This raises more questions.  Subsequent research seems to indicate that Owen was also from New York and was about the same age as De Mott.  Is it possible that the two worked together in New York and formed a partnership to establish themselves in Cincinnati?  Did they both go or did De Mott stay in New Jersey.  Did the firm have branches in Hudson (Jersey) City and Cincinnati?  Did they take the bottles and equipment with them from the East?

The answers to some of these questions are answered during an interview with George De Mott on the occasion of his 96th birthday recorded in the Passaic Daily News on April 27, 1918:

As a young man, Mr. De Mott and a friend from New York decided to go West to St. Louis.  They got as far as Cincinnati where they engaged in the soda water bottling business, Mr. De Mott remaining there for two summers, coming east again because of ill-health.

So they appeared to have operated their soda water business in the summer of 1845 and 1846.  In the fall of that year De Mott returned to New Jersey and during spring of the following year opened a soda bottling establishment in Hudson County (Jersey City), New Jersey.

Another Maverick identified!  Early bottles of the successor firm are illustrated below.  Source documents can be found by click on the following links: De Mott & Owen, C. B. Owen & Co., George V. Demott.

C. B. Owen & Co.	C. B. Owen & Co. reverse	C. B. Owen & Co.	G. V. De Mott	G. V. De Mott reverse

Photos courtesy Michael Kolb, Kevin Kyle, and Glass Works Auctions