Alan, here is an easy to find reference for the Hazel-Atlas Glass Company that states "The Hazel-Atlas mark, usually placed on the back of the product, is an 'A' nested underneath an 'H'. The mark was reportedly first used in 1923, according to trademark office records quoted by Peterson (400 Trademarks on Glass)".
Yes, thank you, I was well aware of the Wiki entry. Also Ricker Jones posted the exact same language from a different web site back in Reply 110. What I was discussing is whether Wiki/"Peterson" have it right, or have the entire story. Plus, it references the "trademark office", and I believe it is not unknown for companies to use names, and logos, before going through the official filing process. Anyway, IMO there is reason to question it, as other data are strongly suggesting that the jar is older than 1923. That's why I am hoping the official report now in preparation can untangle this for us.
Also the mark is not distorted as shown in this reference.http://glassloversglassdatabase.com//marks/ats00002.html
Possibly we have different definitions of "distorted". As I look at Randy's photo "glass4.jpg", what we believe is/was a complete block letter "A" is not really recognizable as such unless you already know what it should be. John Kada's reference to "Babylonian cuneiform" is quite apt IMO.
Alan, as usual you have summed it up nicely. Someone can go on the glasslovers database on Wiki, and read that HA was first trademarked in 1923. Putting that information to use on jars leads to a date of 1923 or later.
Except that isn't the whole story.
Most websites agree that HA was the only symbol ever used with some slight variations.
http://hazelatlasglass.com/hazel-atlas-mark.htmlWhere it tends to get confusing, and where the 1923 date comes up, is that is the first year Hazel Atlas made plates. It's that simple. They moved from industrial production to the kitchen. Since most glass collectors databases are concerned with collectibles such as plates, vases, ect, the 1923 date is frequently said to be the start of the H over A use. They started producing plate and dishes and applied their trademark to such.
As Alan mentioned, most items found by search, and most collectors of glass suggest Hazel Atlas used an H over A since they merged. Now some jars, just like the plates were not marked at all. Some special containers such as milk containers were marked in different fashions, I.E, "registered" might be the only marking on the glass.( they had to reuse the glass and it was for food products). Also jam jars had variations.
But bottom line, an H over an A doesn't mean it was made after 1923. Markings are murky in general on industrial glass. The bottom of jars were not made for looks. Some plants would add even more detail than others, for example production lots and runs.
Sometimes special runs were made with a buyers name embossed in the glass bottom.
What we do know, and have found, is way back a few pages in this thread. Where it was found that in several years of the trade Journal "the National druggist", (where cream companies might buy a jar for their ointment), that this clear jar was not available for sale by hazel atlas after 1918, and was available only in opal(white).
So in my opinion, until better evidence is presented, the best evidence I have seen is this is a 1918 or earlier jar.
Whether that jar was brought to the island by New Zealanders, or tree cutters, Earnhart, birds, or tidal action is for each to decide.
Out of all of the above, I cannot fathom why Amelia would be using a 20 year old bottle of ointment and that possibility seems unlikely to me. A 1924 group of men needing sunscreen, that is a possibility perhaps.