A Google image search for vintage or antique brilliantine bottle shows that "brilliantine" was produced by everybody and their brother pretty much, in a wide range of bottle sizes and styles and was even sold in ointment pots (in gel form).
Nice research, Doug. I had not realized, prior to your mentioning it, that brilliantine is not a proper noun. It would seem Brilliantine was not a trademark but rather a common noun defined as any "scented oil used on men's hair to make it look glossy." Brilliantine, therefore, was most likely not a name that could be trademarked as the special brand of a single producer.
Obviously the usage of the word Brilliantine on the co-op store inventory list can't be taken to indicate any specific producer and may be nothing more than just a generic reference to a period hair tonic.
While specific product brands e.g.,
Emu Tobacco,
Capstan Tobacco, and
Cabin Biscuits do appear to be mentioned in the
inventory of 'goods in hand at the Co-op Store in 1939 on Nikumaroro, Brilliantine, which is also listed in the inventory, would not seem to indicate any easily identifiable bottle to which we could compare the artifact 2-8-S-2a. Identifying X2-98 as Gallagher's bottle of Brilliantine would appear to be as great a challenge as saying Earhart's bottle was Campana Italian Balm.
Current ebay posting seems to be a similar bottle to the artifact, other than base stamping:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/X2-98-Vintage-Ideal-Hair-Dresser-And-Tonic-Bottle-RARE-/221278942476?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item338540b50c
We don't know for sure this artifact was Campana Italian Balm. We don't know for sure this artifact was Amelia Earhart's. The best we can do is look for the most probable match we can find (so far that's Campana Italian Balm) and use the archaeological record of its surroundings (its context) to formulate an hypothesis of how and why this bottle came to rest where it did.
This task is more difficult than one may suppose. In terms of researching this artifact's identity, we used 3 criteria:
1) Does the candidate for a match share the artifact bottle fragment's shape and design.
2) Does the candidate for a match share the same base stamp, including placement of mold number, date code, plant code, and Owens-Illinois trademark.
3) Does the candidate for a match share similarities in chemical profile of its contents to that of the artifact (assessed using FTIR spectral results from an
ISO-accredited lab).
The Brilliantine bottle in the eBay auction you listed appears to satisfy criteria 1 and 2. Criteria 3 is the most difficult to satisfy and it can also be the most revealing but it also poses the most challenges in interpreting the results. Remarkably, I find that some formulations (
here , and
here) of Brilliantine did contain a key ingredient, Tragacanth Gum, which was detected as a 'good' match to a remnant on the artifact's interior. (Tragacanth was also on an ingredients list for Campana Italian Balm, and it was detected by FTIR on an authentic bottle of Campana Italian Balm as well). These Brilliantine formulations, however, appear to be for "sticks" and "pastes" that did not pour well from bottles with a narrow finish (as the artifact had) but rather were usually put up in "squatty wide-mouthed bottles of about 2-ounce capacity." (quoted from link above) Moreover, we know of no actual product that used these formulations and even if we did, the product would need to be in the exact same type of "imperial oblong" bottle, of which the artifact bottle fragment is an example.
Here is where the challenge begins. To say with confidence that a current eBay posting for X2-98 vintage hair dresser is truly a "similar" bottle to the artifact, as you do say above, we would need to obtain a bottle of X2-98 exactly like the one pictured. The bottle would need to have Tragacanth on its interior surface that separated (in the form of tiny reddish brown spots) from the overall product by the same processes of evaporation and decomposition that occurred over time on the glass fragment found at the Seven Site on Nikumaroro. Then, in order to exceed the likeness of the chemical comparisons made between an actual Campana Italian Balm bottle and the artifact bottle, additional remnant materials would also need to compare favorably by FTIR analysis and interpretation. (We were unable to find chemical similarities on all of the remnants found on the surface of the glass on the artifact, although we believe there are logical reasons why this would not necessarily have been expected.)
Does X2-98 deserve this test? Certainly. But it's frightfully expensive and the cost is the same whether the results come out as you expect them to or whether they don't. I've put up a significant amount of time and resource on this artifact. However, no individual has ever come forward who was willing to test these bottles on their own initiative. A few years ago, a researcher brought me a bottle of Skat Insect Repellent with the same base stamp and shape as the artifact. The critics howled I was unwilling to test it because I was afraid of what it might reveal. So I did test it, on my own dime and posted the
lab results, showing Skat had no possible chemical resemblance. Scientifically, I see the merit of testing each and every bottle that has even a 1% chance of matching the artifact. However, at some point, I need to admit candidly, I simply can't afford to do that. Perhaps you can, and if so, hat's off to you and congratulations. I can refer you to the scientist who will test it if you're willing to put it to the test. If it comes out X2-98 had Tragacanth, I'll modify all prior hypotheses I advanced on the artifact's identity and say that X2-98, a men's hair tonic, could, yes indeed, have also been a match to the artifact bottle fragment.
We've discussed this artifact at length since the
research bulletin on this topic came out. We've re-evaluated things such as when we think it was made and new information has come to light. (For one, our bottle research guru Bill Lockhart believes the dating of this piece is not so straightforward as it once appeared.) The bulletin needs an update and at some point we need to provide a more nuanced synthesis of everything we've learned and what still puzzles us. This will take time but I'd like at some point to do it. At this point I just don't know when.
I hope this rather extended reply, on a topic of which I've become admittedly "invested," does not come across as overly confrontational. I love the bottle and appreciate the research and hope you will keep looking and commenting.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C