Dr. Berry's Freckle Cream

[Ric Gillespie]

If we have the found bottle, what can be the mystery about the size of the bottle?

All we have is the bottom.  We know from the patent number that the bottle is an "Imperial Oblong" and we know that they came in many sizes including 2 oz. and 3 oz. but I can't tell which size our artifact is by eyeballing the bottom.  The best way to identify an artifact is to find a known object that is identical to the unknown object. What we need is an intact Imperial Oblong of the same size as the artifact bottle.

[tom howard]

If we have the found bottle, what can be the mystery about the size of the bottle?

All we have is the bottom.  We know from the patent number that the bottle is an "Imperial Oblong" and we know that they came in many sizes including 2 oz. and 3 oz. but I can't tell which size our artifact is by eyeballing the bottom.  The best way to identify an artifact is to find a known object that is identical to the unknown object. What we need is an intact Imperial Oblong of the same size as the artifact bottle.

i think that was just done with the skat bottles located. Joe Cerniglia said his 2 ounce skat insect repellent bottle arrived and it was a perfect match. Therefore Joe Cerniglia determined a few days ago that the skat bottle bottom and the artifact bottom matched. The skat insect repellent is 2 ounces. That is why mr. Carter is now trying to find a similar 2 ounce campana bottle because Joe Cerniglia has not been able to locate a 2 ounce campana bottle now that Joe determined 2 ounces was a match.This all happened in the last few pages of this thread and week.

[tom howard]

Joe did not rule out any sizes. He did not say it was impossible for example for a two ounce bottle and a 3 ounce bottle to have the same bottom. Only that the 2 ounce skat bottle was a perfect match, however joe still considered skat unlikely due to the bug repellent chemical makeup.

However, Given that a 2 ounce skat bottle does match in size and markings and was produced in the millions in ww2 jungle kits, perhaps testing the chemicals of the artifact and skat would be smart.

[Ric Gillespie]

Joe Cerniglia said his 2 ounce skat insect repellent bottle arrived and it was a perfect match. Therefore Joe Cerniglia determined a few days ago that the skat bottle bottom and the artifact bottom matched.

Joe can't make that determination. He doesn't have the artifact.  I do. 

[Ric Gillespie]

Don't we already have a chemical analysis of the content remnants on this article?

Yes, and it quite conclusively matches Campana Italian Balm.  I've never really understood all the fuss about Skat. 

[tom howard]

Don't we already have a chemical analysis of the content remnants on this article?

Yes, and it quite conclusively matches Campana Italian Balm.  I've never really understood all the fuss about Skat.

well i do not believe the chemical analysis conclusively matched campana. I believe Joe said the artifact had lanolin. Campana did not have lanolin.
Or any other ester. Neither has Joe found a campana bottle that matched the artifact bottom.
Therefore Mr carter thought of skat and it does match the artifact in shape size and markings. And it does contain an ester.
But in any event from reading the lab reports campana never really matched for lanolin or esters without degradation.
It seems like the first lab said it was probably lanolin so sounds like handcream not sure why campana was picked it never really seemed to match in size or for lanolin.

[Joe Cerniglia]

Ric stated,

"Joe can't make that determination. He doesn't have the artifact.  I do."

I apologize if imprecise wording in an earlier post led to confusion.  Let me be more precise. What I meant was the base dimensions for Skat, length and width, 1.75" roughly and 1", appear from checking earlier emails from Ric to be a size match to the base dimensions of the artifact for base length and base width only.

The message snippet I used to back this could be ambiguous.  From a mesage dated Nov. 27, 2010, I was attempting to compare via EPAC email the dimensions of a Campana Italian Balm bottle to the artifact:

Joe:  "1) The base length at 2 inches is longer than the approximately 1.75 inches for the artifact base. (The width is 1 and 1/8 inches. Would that match the base width?)"

Ric: "The base width of the artifact bottle is bang on 1 inch."

Because Ric let stand my remark that the artifact was 1.75 inches in length, I have presumed this was the correct measurement.

I phrased this better when I stated in an earlier post;

"We don't know the exact ounce size of the fragment found on Nikumaroro.  Ric listed it on EPAC as 3 oz. or less.  As a result, the only way to match sizes to candidate bottles is to compare them, and even in this regard we only have the base to compare, not the top."

Knowing the base dimensions does not corroborate the volume in ounces of the container.

I have been working each night this week with fellow EPAC members to pull together more precise and thorough research regarding Skat Insect Repellent, Campana Italian Balm, and the artifact bottle.   Your patience, I promise, will be rewarded.  All the questions I have seen deserve a thoughtful answer.  Allow me a few days to present the work of my colleagues, including yourselves, in the best possible format.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER

[Jeff Carter]

Here's a few more Insect Repellent bottle bottoms showing use of 85925 bottles on different brands.  They are being sold as WWII items, but cannot be sure if they are WWII-era.

Eveready: (looks post-war to me)
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25860
http://militaryitems.com/store/images/archive/d_32981.jpg

Gaby Brand:  (can't make out the logo but says DES PAT 85925)
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25850
http://militaryitems.com/store/images/archive/d_32956.jpg

This one I can't make out, looks right shape but don't see the DES PAT:
Skat
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25844

Pond's Brand Repellent apparently used some Hazel-Atlas jars of roughly the same shape.
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25865
http://militaryitems.com/store/images/archive/dsc06703.jpg

[Joe Cerniglia]

Here's a few more Insect Repellent bottle bottoms showing use of 85925 bottles on different brands.  They are being sold as WWII items, but cannot be sure if they are WWII-era.

Eveready: (looks post-war to me)
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25860
http://militaryitems.com/store/images/archive/d_32981.jpg

Gaby Brand:  (can't make out the logo but says DES PAT 85925)
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25850
http://militaryitems.com/store/images/archive/d_32956.jpg

This one I can't make out, looks right shape but don't see the DES PAT:
Skat
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25844

Pond's Brand Repellent apparently used some Hazel-Atlas jars of roughly the same shape.
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25865
http://militaryitems.com/store/images/archive/dsc06703.jpg

Yep.  Greg George saw them too.  Here's his message:

From: Greg
To: Joe
Subject: other insect repellants in the same bottle
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:16:12 -0500

National Carbon and Allied Product (label unreadable but mfr. inferred from my research) sold insect replellant in the exactly the same bottle.   Many companies were recruited during the war years to make the large quantities required, and so as not to have all the eggs in one basket.
 
http://fishingcollectables.com/images/

###

There is a hive of activity about this behind the scenes.  Much more to say soon.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER

[Joe Cerniglia]

Here's a better link for above:
http://fishingcollectables.com/images/m269.jpg

[Jeff Carter]

Here's a few more Insect Repellent bottle bottoms showing use of 85925 bottles on different brands.  They are being sold as WWII items, but cannot be sure if they are WWII-era.

Eveready: (looks post-war to me)
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25860
http://militaryitems.com/store/images/archive/d_32981.jpg

Gaby Brand:  (can't make out the logo but says DES PAT 85925)
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25850
http://militaryitems.com/store/images/archive/d_32956.jpg

This one I can't make out, looks right shape but don't see the DES PAT:
Skat
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25844

Pond's Brand Repellent apparently used some Hazel-Atlas jars of roughly the same shape.
http://militaryitems.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=268&products_id=25865
http://militaryitems.com/store/images/archive/dsc06703.jpg

Yep.  Greg George saw them too.  Here's his message:

From: Greg
To: Joe
Subject: other insect repellants in the same bottle
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:16:12 -0500

National Carbon and Allied Product (label unreadable but mfr. inferred from my research) sold insect replellant in the exactly the same bottle.   Many companies were recruited during the war years to make the large quantities required, and so as not to have all the eggs in one basket.

http://fishingcollectables.com/images/

###

There is a hive of activity about this behind the scenes.  Much more to say soon.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078CER

Here's my list FWIW:

Insect Repellent Brands in "85925-Shaped" bottles.

Brands with "WWII-Military-Looking" labels (with warning about solvent on goggles, watches, etc.)

• *** Skat
• Gaby Insect Repellent (* One example has Pat. 85925 but logo unclear.)
• Insect Repellent Stock. No. S13-450. Bottled by Ponds  Extract Co., Clinton, Conn.
• Repellent, Insect. Block Drug Co., Inc., Jersey City, N.J.
• *** Repellent, Insect. National Carbon Co., N.Y.
• Insect Repellent Stock. No. S13-450, Allied Product. Patent 1,727,305.

"Non-Military" Looking Labels:

• *** Insect Repellent 6-12
• *** Skat Insect Repellent, Formula No. 0-262
• UNXLD 448 Insect Repellent
• Insect Repellent, Chemical Compounding Corp, Brooklyn N.Y.
• *** Eveready Insect Repellent, National Carbon, Co. Inc.
• 6.2.2 No-Bite
• Stanco (* Text description by EBay seller says has "DES PAT 85925" on bottom. No photo available.)
• Bug-a-boo Socony-Vacuum
• Z/ZZ French Laboratories
• Pflueger Shoo-Fly
• Nosect

[Edit: I added *** next to brands known to have an example of an O-I bottles from O-I logo visible in photographs of the bottom of bottles.]

[tom howard]

For what it is worth, I was talking to an elderly man who owns a warehouse full of military supplies. In fact owns a very cool ww1 working tank!
He has crates of these skat type 2 ounce bottles. Pulling some at random direct from ww2 crates the list Jeff Carter gives is long and correct and probably not all.

Everybody was in on the action using these owens illinois bottles.
Some have the patent glass trademarks and some dont. Some have dates with dots and some don't. Some have private labels and some don't. Ponds, allied, skat, cpc, no real point in finding and listing them all. The military was in such a rush they were not exactly concerned with labels or vendors or purchasing direct from stores.
                                                                                                                                                                   

He did say that every crate he has seen with a stock number on the label like sf-450 were for the navy. The others non marked were for the army. But to sum it up there were millions of bottles and lots of vendors who used this bottle style Jeff is referencing. Not much sense in listing all of them or every bottle mark variation in my opinion.
The key to the jungle repellent bottles is do they match the artifact in size obviously, and would the dried remains match the graphs from the Evans lab charts in all aspects. If the white flaky remains in the artifact match bug repellent then that is pretty strong evidence.

[Ric Gillespie]

The key to the jungle repellent bottles is do they match the artifact in size obviously, and would the dried remains match the graphs from the Evans lab charts in all aspects. If the white flaky remains in the artifact match bug repellent then that is pretty strong evidence.

The match would have to be better than the match to Campana Italian Balm.

[tom howard]

I agree with Ric, so far these little bottles are intriguing cause the size seems real close and they have the same owens illinois marking on the bottoms. Most of them do anyway. But nobody knows if the chemicals in skat match the artifact. Need a lab for that.
Just my hunch but I am thinking the artifact is neither bug repellent nor campana balm.
Given the lanolin found on the artifact (or a lanolin chemical cousin), I would bet tighar had it right back in 2007 and the artifact held an unknown handcream or lotion.

[Jeff Carter]

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.

I don't own the book, and the Google preview makes it hard to read the introduction to the data, but I wonder if the book is only listing active ingredients.  It would seem very unusual if the three active chemicals added up to exactly 100% and there was not at least some other chemicals in some quantity.

Take a look at this bottle, where the exact same ingredients are listed as "active ingredients" in the exact same ratios.  (I believe Indalone is Alpha, alpha-dimethyl-alpha carbobatoxydihydro-gamma-pyrone.)
http://go-armynavy.com/index.php/vmchk/collectibles/wwii/u.s.-military-wwii-insect-repellent-single.html