The email was simply to several bottle sellers on Ebay and Etsy to ask for a photograph of the bottom of the bottle they were selling so we could have a look at any markings on the bottom. That was all.
Jeff, let me say first of all that your research on the Skat is probably some of the finest work I have seen in my association with TIGHAR. When Robert Ballard spoke of putting his students "through the ringer," in the State Department's announcement of Earhart Search 75, he surely had someone such as yourself in mind. I can't compliment this work enough.
You've shown that it is definitely possible that at least 1 additional product besides Campana Italian Balm carried the same distinctive OI stamp with date code, factory code, maker's mark and patent number as the artifact.
I have some good news to report as well regarding the Skat: I think we can safely eliminate this product from consideration as a possible identity for the artifact bottle. Tonight I stumbled upon the complete formulary for "Gallowhur Skat." (Gallowhur Chemical Corporation is the name on the 1943 bottle Jeff initially brought to our attention.)
From Marion Gleason, Clinical Toxicology of commercial products, 1957, the following ingredients are listed:
2-ethyl hexanediol-2, 3: 20%
Alpha, alpha-dimethyl-alpha carbobatoxydihydro-gamma-pyrone: 20%
Dimethyl phthalate: 60%
A screen print of the relevant page is attached. Gleason's is the same book used to verify the ingredients in Campana Italian Balm. Both EAG Labs and Jennifer Mass at Winterthur Labs thought it authoritative enough to cite in their own reports. These reports showed from lab testing that both the remnant on the artifact bottle and Campana Italian Balm contained Tragacanth Gum.
The ingredient list for Skat does not contain Tragacanth Gum, nor does it contain rapeseed oil or linseed oil, all compounds identified from the testing.
Therefore, it is impossible for Skat to be the identity of the bottle on Niku.
This is the good news.
The bad news is that any other product with the distinctive stamp (attached) found, if any, must undergo the same process of elimination, based upon chemical analysis and ingredient matching.
Since some of the 1943 bottles did not have periods, we must evaluate any products with the stamp on the merits of their contents, not their stamp date codes.
For now, at least in my opinion, Campana Italian Balm is still amply shown to be the most probable match for the artifact. It matches on enough FTIR spectra to make this, in the words of one scientist, a "very good spectral match." The putative date range on the stamp (1933-1943) is safely within the production dates for the product; however, the fact that Campana was not using a straight-sided bottle after 1941 would seem to indicate that the 1933 date is much the favored.
The good news is - for now - a delight to me. My research on this bottle can stand, until proven otherwise. The bad news has a silver lining - it is true news, the only kind really worth reading about.
Thank you again for your assistance.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER