Print

[Ric Gillespie]

Here's an interesting bit of info related to the Mennen bottle-  an ad from 1946- showing the same or similar logo found on the bottle fragment.

Yes, we have that ad and many more.  The Mennen bottle is one of those artifacts that's difficult to attribute one way or the other.  That's why we don't.

[Randy Conrad]

Ric and Joe....Stumbled upon this...this afternoon. Was wondering if any of you might have encountered  the codes off the jar or seen any of them...Let me know...thanks!!!!!

[Ric Gillespie]

A forum reader who prefers not to venture on to the bloody sand of this arena sent me the following:

***********
You have some people there working real hard to discredit your hypothesis, using at least in my mind very poor application of the scientific method.   Particular attempts to data the bottle prior to 1924.
Here is what I found, in just an hour or 2 hours of ‘googling.’
1.   Hazel Glass was formed in 1885 and merged with Atlas in 1902, so the absolute earliest the bottle would be that date.
http://www.wvculture.org/HiStory/wvhs1721.html
2.   As has been noted in the thread, Hazel Atlas first trademarked the HA symbol in 1924.  What is not noted is that prior to that, it’s only trademark was Atlas, first registered in 1908.   Just go to the Patent & Trademark office site here:  http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4006:nrjtes.1.1
3.   As has been noted on the thread, this book, which appears so far to be the only ‘authoritative’ reference, says the trademark was not used prior to 1924.:
http://www.amazon.com/400-Trademarks-Glass-Arthur-Peterson/dp/0960566414
4.   This book claims the HA mark was first used in 1920:
Toulouse, Julian Harrison.  1971   Bottle Makers and Their Marks.  Thomas Nelson Inc., New York.
5.   Hazel Atlas certainly did produce what is called ‘flint glass.’  See the advertisement and the specimans in the background.
http://www.spglass.com/dgads5.html
6.   The book / pamphlet noted in the above was published at least as far back as 1939, which implies HA was a producing flint glass in quantity.
http://www.abebooks.com/ATLAS-BOOK-RECIPES-METHODS-HOME-PRESERVING/426160844/bd
7.   The following site discusses how to identify and date bottles.
http://www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm
8.   Here is information on class color:    From the jpg, I detect the straw tint:

“The term flint glass was and still is used somewhat erroneously by glassmakers to describe colorless glass that is made with low iron sand.  It is, however, not true flint glass. …. Colorless glass which was de-colorized with selenium or arsenic (or typically a combination of the two in conjunction with cobalt oxide) results in a very faint "straw" or amber tint to the thickest portions of the glass (Scholes 1952; Tooley 1953; Lockhart 2006b)…. One can be quite confident that if the fragment is colorless with a slight straw tint, it very likely is from a machine-made bottle, unlikely to date from much prior to World War 1 (i.e., mid-1910s), and could date as late as the mid-20th century (or later).
http://www.sha.org/bottle/colors.htm#Colorless

9.   Here is information on bottle closure type:   While your object is a cosmetic jar it has a closure similar to a wide mouth mason jar: 

“…Wide mouth external thread finishes are most commonly found on canning jars and other food storage jars dating back at least to the invention of the Mason fruit jar in 1858 and continuing up to the present day.  Mouth-blown external thread finish jars (usually pre-1910) have a ground rim (i.e., top surface to the finish); machine-made versions (after 1900 and almost always after 1915) have a smooth, non-ground top rim.  Jars made during the transition period from hand-made to machine-made production (approximately 1900-1915) were made by either method with increasing domination by machine-made items as the period progressed and automated technology became better, cheaper, and more available (Toulouse 1969a).  Because of the wide date range of use, the dating and/or typing of jars and bottles with this finish must be done using other diagnostic characteristics….. The aqua machine-made wide mouth external thread finish to the left is on an Atlas Strong Shoulder Mason jar that dates from the 1920s (Creswick 1987).  This example is typical of the finish found on the plethora of machine-made, wide mouth external thread fruit jars made throughout the 20th century….”
http://www.sha.org/bottle/finishstyles2.htm#Large%20Mouth%20External%20Thread
10.   Here is another – how to date machine made, screw type bottle with illustration and date ranges for screw types:
11.   http://www.bottlebooks.com/Dating%20Old%20Bottles/dating_bottles_by_their_tops_and.htm
12.   What has never been discussed is what might have been the closure of the jar.  It would have used a screw type cap.  Of what type?    “…Bakelite - an early thermosetting plastic - made its debut in 1927 as a screw cap closure material though was first patented in 1907 (Berge 1980).  This provides a terminus post quem (earliest date of use) of 1927 for bottles with the plastic cap still present…”
13.   Here is a complete section as to how to date:
http://www.sha.org/bottle/dating.htm#Dating%20a%20Bottle%20Section%20of%20Dating%20Page
14.   From the jpgs, it seems clear that this is a machine made jar.
15.   This reference has lots of good information on identifying and dating historical artifacts, including a flowchart for dating bottles.
www.alpinearchaeology.com/Historic%20Artifact%20Handbook.pdf
16.   If you want to ask questions, this looks good:
http://www.antiquebottles.com/
17.   Since the bottle has traces of Mercury, the latest date for production would be 1938-1940.  Most cosmetics compounds with mercury disappeared by the early 1940s  (page 181-182)
http://www.amazon.com/Quicksilver-History-Lore-Effects-Mercury/dp/0786435968

See also ….”.…The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 was passed after a legally marketed toxic elixir killed 107 people, including many children. The FD&C Act completely overhauled the public health system. Among other provisions, the law authorized the FDA to demand evidence of safety for new drugs, issue standards for food, and conduct factory inspections….”
http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/default.htm

**************

I ran these observations past our bottle-guru Bill Lockhart who says:

"In general, the research is good.  Just a few caveats:

2 & 3 – The actual trademark document says that the HA logo was used since July 1923.

4 – Everything in the Toulouse book should be viewed with suspicion and taken as approximate.  He did a great job with 1970 technology, but we know SO much more now.

8 – Even though I helped write some of Bill Lindsey’s webpage, the passage on “flint” glass is misleading.  Glass houses STILL use that term to mean colorless glass.  I think the glass would have to be cleaned to the point of destroying the surface to determine any straw color.  "Straw color" is actually a very faint orangish tint that is usually only noticeable when viewed beside a clean, colorless bottle or jar.  Typically, it is almost impossible to tell from glass that is patinated -- as is the ointment pot.

14 – There is no question that the jar is machine made.  First Atlas – then Hazel-Atlas – made jars exclusively by machine.

The early date of 1923 is a good one due to the trademark for the logo.  Screw lids on wide-mouth jars is more difficult to justify.  The 1940 end date looks really good."

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Two posts by Kada and Gillespie have been moved to a topic dedicated to the Seven Site.

[dave burrell]

To Mr.Anonymous Poster who disagrees with the attempts "to discredit Tighar's hypothesis using unscientific methods". in reference to the cream jar.

Nobody has tried to discredit anyone's theories.
Tighar never dated the jar, so some decided to help. More input always welcome.
Let's see what your SCIENTIFIC GOOGLING method of one to two hours has found-
The company start date, I think that was previously covered, Mercury last used in 1938, yes we googled that too, the merger of Atlas and Hazel, check, googled that already. However, previous posters did screen their work and did not include tidbits such as references to flint glass versus straw colored glass, versus clear glass. References to canning jars and screw top types on wide mouth jars were not mentioned, nor thermos caps were discussed so far.

I believe none of that was covered earlier because we don't have a canning jar, nor the lid. There is also no argument whether it's flint or clear, or the color differences in clear glass. This jar was offered in flint and opal based on every document I have seen. So fascinating documentation on canning jar types from the anonymous member, but most of the post had little relevance to dating the artifact jar.

In the only area where it matters, the date of the jar based on the logo patent date what was found?

3 different books giving 3 different dates, 1920,1923,1924.
Then the OP says he found a friend who says 1923 would be his choice.
I think that means a lot of people are taking a WAG on the logo date.
So using the logo to date the jar "might" give a range. It might not.
Pick another book, get another date.

The REALITY is it takes more work to date industrial glass sometimes.
I believe Tighar and Mr.Joe C. has had the jar for what two years? and hadn't definitely dated it. So more work might be necessary than 2 hours unless you get real lucky.
Sometimes dating can be done with the style jar, sometimes with the logo date, sometimes with the glass color. Sometimes it is just a date range. Collector's opinions differ as was just shown. Glass books tend to pick a date that relates to the items the author collects,or has experience with. It was previously discussed in this thread, that 1924 was the first date Hazel Atlas made kitchen wares, glass plates, dishes.(some say 1923).
So that is where some get the 1924 date. They have a hazel platter and list it as being available beginning in 1924. True. But what about the milk jug being produced in 1912, right after the merger of Hazel and Atlas,  what did it have for a logo?
Obviously Hazel atlas made milk jugs, so what was the logo then?

So you see it gets tricker dating by logo unless something is found showing a logo style change for different years. Like company documents. That would be great.

That is the way it goes with industrial glass.Sometimes no logo is on the glass at all. They did not make these mass produced jars for looks and date them like fine china.
It usually takes a few more hours of googling and then it's a guess usually.
Reference books are not geared to throw away items like cream jars and I have yet to find a reference book on glass that was completely accurate.
As the OP has found out.

What might be a bit more definitive than trying to date it off a logo nobody agrees on, would be to find some written documentation showing what color glass was produced in what year. That might work. For instance Platonite glass was produced starting in 1936. Now if clear(or flint) and Opal were both made from 1908 to 1962 in this style jar, the color type would not help in dating obviously. But we seem to have got lucky.  Catalogs for a national distributer were found for several years in a row showing this style jar was ONLY offered for sale in opal(meaning white) after 1917.

I would say that is the best proof yet that 1917 would be the latest year the jar would be made in clear.Patent dates can vary widely from production dates. A 1917 catalog date from a national wholesaler of jars would seem to be harder evidence, as I doubt the company produced these jars in clear and then did not want to sell them.
If anybody has the right date, it's the wholesaler trying to unload the things.
Short of a Hazel Atlas catalog, a wholesaler catalog is as good as it gets.

But if you prefer, call it 1920, or 1923, or 1924. It's still too old.
So back to the drawing board anonymous, we need documentation this style jar was sold in clear around the mid 30's.
More scientific googling needed.

[Ric Gillespie]

It is still too old a jar for the AE flight in 1937.

Not bothering to answer your questioning of the not-earlier-than 1924 date, who set a date for the maximum age of a jar Earhart had with her?  You?  Earhart cannot have something with her that was first made after 1937 (just as the bottles made in 1933 cannot have come from the 1929 shipwreck), but if, by any chance, Amelia did use the product that was in the jar we have no information about how long she may have had that jar.  If it was Freckle Cream I imagine that "a little dab'll do ya." I had a bottle of seasickness medication (meclazine hydrochloride tablets) that I took with me on expeditions over a period of 12 years - same bottle.  I've been using the same contact lens case for at least 30 years.  My wife has a container of scented talcum powder that she's had for at least 25 years.  I'm sure others could cite similar examples.
You're knocking down a strawman of your own creation.  Maybe this is the sort of thing Mr. Anonymous Poster was referring to as a very poor application of the scientific method.

[dave burrell]

Well Ric, if the wholsaler catalog is correct the jar would be 20 years old if Amelia was carrying it with her. Yes, it's possible she used small dabs.
Or maybe she carried a good luck charm in it, who knows.
But a 1917 jar on a 1937 flight is not real hard evidence in my opinion.
Of course, to each his own opinion.

[Joshua Chaires]

After studying the Freckle Cream jar the dimensions and look of the jar are consitant with the freckle cream jars manufactured of that time period.  My only question is the color is different from the one recovered from the seven site as compared to an original version. Do you guys believe Amelia and Fred could off burned the jar on a camp fire thus discoloring it and than using it as a cutting tool?

[dave burrell]

Well Ric, if the wholsaler catalog is correct the jar would be 20 years old if Amelia was carrying it with her. Yes, it's possible she used small dabs.
Or maybe she carried a good luck charm in it, who knows.
But a 1917 jar on a 1937 flight is not real hard evidence in my opinion.
Of course, to each his own opinion.

Is the wholesaler catalog an exhaustive source such that we can know from it that there are no other possibilities?  I find that source interesting, but the conclusion to be a bit of a stretch.

Maybe she did use small dabs - I just threw out some old cologne the other day that was given me for high-school graduation several decades ago and tired of seeing the old thing that I'd never managed to use up.  It sat there for years out of a certain fondness... some of us people are most peculiar about little things like that: had it had a more useful shape / open mouth I might have used it to store doo-dads, or for transporting shampoo or something like I do with other old, re-used containers now and then...

The jar is of course not real hard evidence - but it is indirect evidence of something, and it is something in-hand that can serve as a 'marker' consider where it was found, etc.

Yes, we may each have our own opinions, of course.

No Jeff I dont think it's an exhaustive search. I have been exhausted searching hours but still haven't found what I am looking for, which is an actual Hazel Atlas catalog series for several years. I think I know where one is at, the Cornings glass museum I believe in Indiana, they seem to have a nice library. There is also one I believe in Santa Barbara. So if I was a researcher I know a couple of places that might have one or more.
Sometimes you can't get everything though given time and money constraints, so right now the National Druggist Wholesaler catalog is the best that can be found to date the artifact. Credit for that goes to Alan Harris who put some time searching for that one. I did find a hazel atlas book series on ointment jars, but it's not a master catalog. Per the books, by the 1924 at least, they were not listing any ointment pots but white. But I don't have a 1917 book to match the Wholesaler catalog.

I think a huge wholesaler should have correct information, along with the books I have on seen on Hazel Atlas. If it was a one year catalog, I might discount it as a temporary shortage of Clear glass. Several years in a row stating "available only in opal" probably means the artifact is probably WWI era glass.
 
BTW on the issue of trademark logos, a lot of jars that are Hazel don't have the HA trademark. I have the same "freckle cream" jar in white as well, with no logo at all. It has the companies name and is mid 1930's based on research I did on the the cream company. It is called vanishing cream. It could be Amelia had vanishing cream. (bad joke but true), but shows that the issue of trademark HA logos was sometimes applied, sometimes it was not. Again industrial glass is a different animal than dinner plates.

I also have another marked Hazel atlas cream jar, in a different shape, that is clear that is around 1912. So yet more confirmation that Hazel Atlas like everyone else was changing to white glass for creams.(white glass which shouldnt be confused with milk glass). By mid 1930's Ponds and Noxema and every ad found on ebay seems to be white or blue glass.

[Gary LaPook]

Maybe she did use small dabs - I just threw out some old cologne the other day that was given me for high-school graduation several decades ago and tired of seeing the old thing that I'd never managed to use up. 

Yes, but of all the things you could have chosen to take with you on an around the world flight, you didn't choose your cologne bottle because you weren't using it. IF Earhart did choose to bring freckle cream with her an obvious conclusion is that she did use it regularly so the contents of the jar probably did not last many, many years.

gl

[dave burrell]

After studying the Freckle Cream jar the dimensions and look of the jar are consitant with the freckle cream jars manufactured of that time period.  My only question is the color is different from the one recovered from the seven site as compared to an original version. Do you guys believe Amelia and Fred could off burned the jar on a camp fire thus discoloring it and than using it as a cutting tool?

a campfire would not burn hot enough to change the elemental chemicals to clear. It would have to melt, and still would be white.
So little doubt it was/is a clear jar, or flint if you will,  not a white jar changed to clear through heat or exposure.
It may be discolored and probably is, but it started it's life as a clear jar. But keep this in mind, I have heard a lot of theories about AE using it to boil water. NO WAY. These are tiny jars when seen in person, like 2 ounces. It wouldn't be worth the effort to boil anything in them.

[Gary LaPook]

Well Ric, if the wholsaler catalog is correct the jar would be 20 years old if Amelia was carrying it with her. Yes, it's possible she used small dabs.
Or maybe she carried a good luck charm in it, who knows.
But a 1917 jar on a 1937 flight is not real hard evidence in my opinion.
Of course, to each his own opinion.

I posted this before:
""Consistent with"  actually means "not inconsistent with". The only things that would be "inconsistent with" Earhart on the island would be a 1938 dime (or other objects with a date after 1937) or an object too large to fit in the plane. Anything else can be described as "consistent with" the TIGHAR theory. Here is an example. Let's say on the next expedition they find an old Roman coin at the seven site. Look at the requirements and you will see that this Roman coin is "consistent with" Earhart being on the island since it is not dated after 1937 and it is small enough to fit in the plane. The explanation is that Earhart could have carried it as a "good luck coin." Is there any evidence that Earhart ever owned a Roman coin, no, but that doesn't mean that she didn't, she could have. Then the skeptics will be challenged to provide evidence that Earhart never had a Roman coin and, of course, there is no such evidence so TIGHAR will continue to claim that the Roman coin supports their hypothesis."

Now just substitute "freckle cream jar" for "Roman coin," that is the sum of the TIGHAR position.

In fact, it is worse than that. With a "Roman coin" you at least know what you have, you have a "Roman coin," but with the glass jar you have no proof that it ever held "freckle cream," it could have held many kinds of unguents.


gl

[Alan Harris]

Googling's great and I guess we all do it - but we can only get from it what someone else has bothered to load into the net when we depend on it as a source.

- I'm just not sure we can get it by - "...More scientific googling"

- Unless 'scientific googling' means more work with folks who are expert in this area and who may have more information than Google can yield.

How true.  I would go further and say that in general we also have no real idea that what someone has "bothered to load" is even correct.  The frequent garbage on Wikipedia being a prime example.  Which is why it seems IMO somewhat ironic that The Anonymous Poster takes such a firm, even pejorative, stance based on 2 hours of Googling.

As an example we have the issue of first use of the "H over A" logo on Hazel-Atlas glassware.  As posted some time ago, we have the principal HA collectors' group saying the "early 1900's", and another web source saying "fruit jars dating to around 1910".  These presumably could be considered "experts" in the sense that they have spent much more time in the glassware field than most of us posting here, of course including myself.

Then we have people relying on the registered trademark from 1924, which is parroted on sites all over the web.  But Dave Burrell is certainly correct that even that may not be a hard data point relevant to an industrial jar.  To amplify what he is saying I will offer first another Google result, lol, but one which I think is quite well agreed among HA experts:

After the 1902 merger, Hazel Atlas continued their production of fruit jars and commercial food storage containers, as they had for many years prior. However, fierce competition in the fruit jar industry and a desire to expand the business, led the company to seek out other lines of production. This expansion had its beginnings in the early 1920s when Hazel Atlas would first produce, something that up until that time had primarily been relegated to the pottery and porcelain industry; A dinner ware line for the average homemaker. Not a line of elegance or superiority, not a line of notable decoration and style to appeal to the wealthy, rather a simple and plain line that the common housewife could purchase inexpensively and use everyday. This concept began in 1923 when Hazel Atlas designed and began production of what we know today as the Ovide pattern.
That year Hazel Atlas would be the first glass house in America to produce for widespread use, a colored transparent dinnerware, which today we refer to as Depression Glass. The Ovide pattern, which was originally produced only in green, would become the testing ground for the large majority of the Hazel Atlas dinnerware lines over the next 30 years.
Enjoying mild success from this first venture into dinnerware, other companies took note and began producing their own lines of dinnerware as well, only expanding the idea and adding in intricate patterns.

[Emphasis added]

Now, with that 1923 event of dinnerware introduction in mind, consider the exact wording of the actual 1924 Trademark Application:

Hazel-Atlas Glass Company . . . has adopted and used the trademark shown in the drawing . . . for GLASSWARE – NAMELY, TUMBLERS, DISHES AND GLASSES . . . The trademark has been continuously used and applied to said goods in applicant's business since July 23, 1923 . . .

[Capitals in original]

Given: (1) the very specific language of what goods the TM application applied to; (2) the stated date of first use; and (3) the idea that other glassmakers soon began to compete with HA in this particular market; then it seems a reasonable inference that HA applied for the trademark specifically for the line of household dinnerware.  (In fact, from the language it would seem the HA mark was still not federally protected on any other sort of glassware –ointment jar– even after trademark registration.)  There could be several possible scenarios for HA's action, two of which are:

• HA created the "H over A" logo at the same time as the dinnerware line, and the first use of it, ever, was on the dinnerware.

• HA had used the mark earlier on fruit jars and industrial/commercial glassware prior to 1923, but did not feel the need for federal trademark registration until entering the competitive home-tableware market.  Note that per the law "rights in a mark" are established based just on "use of the mark in commerce, without a registration".

I would submit that the evidence is not there to confirm either of these scenarios, although as stated above there is anecdotal "Google" evidence that the latter is more likely.  In summary, we really don't know about the mark/logo usage with respect to HA products such as the small ointment jar.  Likely we never will unless we find some actual HA company records.

Getting back to Jeff's post, Googling is useful when it leads us to true expertise.  That is indirectly the case here.  IMO the only information in Ric's post transmitting the Anonymous Poster that is both not previously known and relevant/useful is that which Ric was able to add after consulting with an expert, such as the unreliability of one book source, and as to glass color. 

The other case in which Googling can be useful is when it reveals copies of actual primary or contemporary documents.  Such as the Trademark Application quoted above.  Another example is the advertisements we have found that appeared in copies of the National Druggist.  (Dave, I have to make a minor correction:  that is a trade publication containing ads directly placed by the Hazel-Atlas Co. itself, not just a wholesaler.)  These clearly show that HA offered ointment jars in clear glass up till 1916 and offered them only in white ("opal") for a span of years from 1918 into the 1920's.  We have not formally "completed" that mission of searching National Druggist and similar publications all the way into the 30's, because so far those issues are not found online and no one has traveled to a library for hard copies.

To close this ridiculously long post, I have to admit to a certain amount of confusion as to why this detailed talk about the jar has come up again.  I understood Ric's Post #267 to say that the provenance of the jar, and the nature of its contents, are of small importance; the points being that the jar was somehow there for a castaway to find/use, and what the castaway then did with it.  Maybe I am not "getting it", wouldn't be the first time.   

[Ric Gillespie]

IF Earhart did choose to bring freckle cream with her an obvious conclusion is that she did use it regularly so the contents of the jar probably did not last many, many years.

Not necessarily.  I have a bottle of sunscreen that I rarely use here in Delaware but I've brought it along on several expeditions. I can easily see AE having only occasional use for freckle cream but definitely wanting to have it for a trip around the world in the tropics.

[Ric Gillespie]

I understood Ric's Post #267 to say that the provenance of the jar, and the nature of its contents, are of small importance; the points being that the jar was somehow there for a castaway to find/use, and what the castaway then did with it.  Maybe I am not "getting it", wouldn't be the first time.   

To repeat myself:
"• The jar was found at a site where we can be quite sure a castaway, probably female, died prior to 1940.
• The jar was broken, almost certainly intentionally. (The glass is quite thick. Just dropping the jar on the coral rubble would not be sufficient to shatter it.  There is damage to the lip of the jar that suggests it was broken by hammering - possibly to get the lid off.)
• One piece of the broken jar was apparently used to cut up a turtle some distance from where the jar was broken.
• All of the above strongly suggests that the jar is associated with the castaway.
• Other broken glass containers found in the same area also suggest castaway-association, are of American manufacture in the early 1930s, and are of small (3 ounce) size.  One has been conclusively matched to Campana Italian Balm, a popular hand lotion made in Batavia, IL marketed to American women in the 1930s."

I'll add that whether the jar contained freckle cream, vanishing cream, or whipping cream, the design of the jar strongly suggests that it was marketed primarily to women.  Hence, it joins other artifacts found in the same context which are gender-specific to females, i.e. the mirror and cosmetic presumably from a compact, the Campana Italian Balm bottle, and the part of a woman's shoe found by Gallagher.  Add to that the modern re-evaluation of the bone measurements that the skeleton was probably that of a white female of Earhart's height and you get a preponderance of evidence that speaks for itself.