I am looking for what the alcohol statement is on the Schlitz Lager Flat bottom / Inverted Rib cone that's canning code at the bottom of the side panel reads:

c.c.co 41-11-F PAT. APPL'D FOR

The "F" being the key difference.

Also, if you have any Schlitz Lager FBIR with any canning code letter after the letter "G", I'd like to know the exact alcohol statement on those as well.

I have one Im allmost positive has an F and the content
is 4 3/4. hope this helps. hard to find one with those
tiny letters readable, had to break out the jewelers loupe.

Chris,

Did you get a box from me??? I'm guessing yes. Like what you saw?


Daniel J,

You spelled "loupe" correctly! You a jeweler? Nobody spells it the right way unless they get very lucky, are the spelling bee champ, or are in the business.

Steve

non of the above, my spelling SUCKS, I only knew it
from buying it on E bay. Thank You though!

Steve, I noticed most people spell Camouflage incorrectly. LEON.

Those of us who can't spell usually write it as CAMO.

Daniel J: Thanks for the info. If you can read it, I really need to know what the exact statement is.

I have a "Contains 4 3/4 % of alcohol by Volume" but that one has the letter "A" after the "4-11-"

Hey Chris:

So what will you learn on the different letters("A","F","G",etc.)on the canning codes? Does that help you identify dates brewed?

Very confused

Brent

Chris, Both of mine have the letter A & 4 3/4% but also concaved bottoms. My Vitamin D's have the letters A,C,& W. LEON.

Brent: From what I can tell so far, Continental Can Co. put a letter after the: "c.c.co. 4-11-" to help them identify which statement the can had on it.

Leon: So far, I am just concentrating on FBIR LAGER cans but I see where you are going with looking to other Schlitz cones for guidance in this. By the way, is the "W" on your WF Vit. D?

I've looked at a couple of my other Schlitz cones and found that a brown vit. D and a LP copper Vit. D have the "F" in the canning code. What adds to this mystery is that they have different alcohol statements on them.

chris the one i have has the leter A and is 4.3/4 % and i got it from daniel, hope this helps some.
mike

Thanks Mike. What is the exact alcohol statement wording on yours?

I have canning codes "A" - "E" and "G". I am missing "F" and any of the letters that may have come after "G".

The USBC says there's a 3.2% - 5% statement, but I haven't seen one before. Does anyone have that variation?

hey, Ill check when I get off work tonight,
I dumped about a case of fbir Schlitz and the ones I could read the back on were all 4 3/4.
will see if I can make out the whole statement.

Chris i cant read it all but ill get the magnifier out later or tomorrow and write down what i can see.
mike

looks like "contains 4 3/4 of alchohol per volume"
and does have an F after 4 11.
hard to read though, cant look at it anymore, gave me a headache.
I do come acrossed these fairly often allthough the condition aint that good. will keep you posted
if anything different comes up.
hope this helps!
take it easy!

Danel, it's odd that your can has an "F" and the alcohol statement matches exactly what the "A" variation has. Hope you can find a really nice side paneled one for me to trade you for!

Im pretty positive its an F. not many letters can be mistaken for an F except a P mabye, tried to get a pic. but it just wouldnt turn out right.
If I do get a good one I will let you know,
only found 2 of these in any real decent shape, Mike S
got the one with the best back and I kept the one with the best front. I have a few more with decent backs but no pat. applied statement.

Chris, Yes, I Figured you'd figure the W was the Withdrawnfree can. Did'nt some western guys just dump some odd % variation of these not pictured in the book recently? LEON.

Chris,
I cant make it all out but got enough to see its the same as yours, contains 4 3/4 % alcohol by volume. also under that it says "c.co 4-11-A" but the rest is too bubbly to read. Whatcha doing trying to do a timeline reference to when certain letters were used?
mike

Chris and I were talking about this once. While I don't have anything new to offer on the Schlitz cans, I did save dumper cones extensively for quite awhile and was able to deduce, comparing minor variations on a number of different brands, that the letter in Continental's canning code referred directly to the specific plate set used in the lithography process itself. The code similarly differs, for instance, on the E&B Special cones - the letter is different on the standard version versus the 3.2 - 7% version. This makes sense. Every brand had its own distribution areas, many or all of which could differ when it came to disclosure of alcohol contents...or, for that matter, ANY variations between similar labels that were contemporaries of each other. The breweries had to order their cans from the can companies, obviously, so having different lithography "forms" on hand for producing otherwise identical labels would mean simplicity and efficiency for the can company. "Schlitz just called with an order for 20,000 4 3/4% cans. We'll run those on the night shift with the plates from Storage Bin F. Then, we'll change over at 6AM and run 100,000 A's tomorrow."

So, the cool thing about it is that Continental appears to have actually flagged their different variations for us, right in the canning code! Sure beats the re-run, re-paint method of changing label details...like Frankenmuth black-lining the mandatories on their Kentucky cans so they could legally be filled in Michigan. Or doing the mandatory changes on the side panels of the Old Golds. Tedious!

Dave

Dave, is this just speculation or do you have a Documentation? LEON.

I think that is a very good educated guess on Dave's behalf. Excellent theory complete with accompanying evidence to substantiate. I think Dave would have said he had documentation from Continental Can Co. if he had it.

Chris - thanks for the vote of confidence. I felt for a moment there as if I were being asked to produce my passport!

Leon, nearly all of what we know - or THINK we know - about our hobby is based on observation. With the exception of certain fluke instances, we believe what the body of evidence demonstrates for us. Chris and I stood and examined his Schlitz cones one night probably 3 years ago. Lo and behold, each variation was accompanied by a different letter in the canning code. Sucked in by curiosity, I returned home and examined a number of different brands in my own cone collection - then, about 600 cans with lots of minor variations - and found this pattern echoed on other groups of related labels. That was evidence enough for me to deduce that the canning codes and the accompanying minor variations were, like...you know...CONNECTED.

Speculation begets hypothesis, which (properly tested) begets theory. Thus is the organic development of BELIEF, sculpted in this case by a diligent application of the Scientific Method to those tiny little letters appearing on Continental cans. If I ever come up with, as you put it, "A Documentation," you'll be the first to hear about it. But then I won't need my little theory any more. It will have acceded to the throne of SCIENTIFIC LAW.

Dave,

YOU FUNNY!

Now for a follow-up question. I was just looking at a Milwaukee Club cone. It's got a letter also. I think it was 52-A something or other. Anyway, since those are also Schlitz items it would make sense that they also follow the lettering hypothesis/theory you set forth in the aforementioned posting. Right?

Steve

Hey Steve -

Well, I sure hope so. Since I just put my "can" on the line with this (note the little yellow guy at the bottom of my last post), all I ask is that you break it to me gently if I'm completely wrong.

Dave

Well at least if you're wrong your pants are already down! You'll be able to accept your beating ... or your whatever!!!!



Steve

True enough, Steve.

Just remember that my SPECULATIVE ANALASYS of this issue requires that the labels actually BE contemporaries of one another...that is, they must have been produced and marketed concurrently. Otherwise, this doesn't work at all. So in the case of Milwaukee Clubs, you'd have to compare two variations that were marketed simultaneously.

To illustrate: Haas made three different cones that we're aware of. One is simply a hi-pro version of its immediate predecessor. Therefore, there were only two graphic variations of the label ever produced. For all the times I've found those cans (plenty), the latter variation with the "12 Fluid Ounces" side panel appears to have succeeded the oldest variety with the "Cap Sealed" panels. Since these variations were NOT contemporaries, the canning codes would not reflect this change as a "form" variation.

But, in reference to the E&B Special example I laid out previously, you'll find that they fit the pattern like the Schlitz cones. The standard label (I'm at work and doing this from memory, so bear with me) is a 52-A or something to that effect, while the 3.2% - 7% version is a 52-B. Check 'em if you have 'em and let me know if yours are any different, but I doubt it. The percentage cans were intended for distribution in Ohio, and the others stayed in Michigan. Regional demand would have dictated the order quantities for each label form at any given time. And, in fact, this is how they are typically found from a geographical perspective.

Another one that I couldn't verify because I didn't have the can was the Frankenmuth Air-Free with the 3.2% to 7% statement on the side. I think Chris has one, so maybe he'll check them and report on the results. But, if my SPECULATIVE ANALASYS is correct at all, I'd bet dollars to donuts that there's a difference in codes between that one and the garden-variety Air Free, as well.

I was able to verify this philosophy on a number of different Continental labels. My dumper cones have now been parted out and I don't have anything concrete to refer back to, but variations coupled with different canning codes did appear to be an established pattern. At least on MY basement walls.

Maybe Leon's are different, and I'm certain he'll keep us apprised.

Dave: Chris did have a Frankenmuth 3.2-7% but I believe this recently went to another Michigan collector. Taking a look at my 3.2-7% variation I see:

CCCO 52-2B-1 for the 3.2-7%

CCCO 52-2A-1 for the non-alcohol
CCCO 52-4A-1
CCC 64 A-1

Very similar to the E&B cones, "A" for non-alcohol, "B" for alcohol statement. Note the USBC lists a Frankenmuth 3.2%, USBC 163-32, but I am certain this is a book mistake and they really meant same as USBC 164-01 with the 3.2-7%.

Also, regarding documentation, your speculation likely just as accurate if not more so. Just because something was in print in the 1940-1950's doesn't make it 100% accurate either. I have seen way too many mistakes in current documentation that years from now may be taken as "fact".

-Randy

Hey Randy -

Good to hear from you. I suspected as much, regarding the Frankenmuth cones. I appreciate the feedback, particularly since it seems to leverage the hypoth-eory a bit more.

I have no doubt that exceptions will be found to this, depending on how Comtinental decided to handle minor updates to labels and such. Like the black-linbed Frankenmuths that came up in wesatern Michigan courtesy of Taylor and company. They had alcohol contents on the side painted over with a black box that would have been unnoticable if one weren't slightly worn. I think I still have one of those, and I'm sure Chris does, too. Since they were originally Kentucky mandatory cans, I'd be curious if one of us can read the code on that one. Maybe it's a "C" form label or something like that.

I think I'm gonna have to dig that one out and give it a look!

Nice to see you back Dave. Don't disappear so long next time.

As for Michigan cans, don't forget pictures of all documented variations can be found on my MBC website. Click here for pictures of the Kentucky paintover. The specific canning code for this paintover is "CCCO 52-2" which has neither an "A" or a "B". Perhaps those filled at the short lived Kentucky brewery were only going to states with alcohol requirements and thus all of them carry the same alcohol statement. Black square probably painted when left over can blanks filled/distributed in Michigan.

Now if you do happen to dig one of these out of your storage, and you would rather it be prominently displayed along with other Frankenmuth buddies, I would be happy to oblige!!! Just let me know what you would want in trade...

-Randy

I know I should have looked first, and mispoke in my last post. Canning codes for the Frankenmuth cones filled in Kentucky:

CCCO 52-4 A-2 for non-alcohol
CCCO 52-2 for 3.2-7% Kentucky paintover

The "A" for non-alcohol is consistent with your theory, but would have expected a "B" for the 3.2-7% paintover. However, hard to tell if the canning code visible on the paintover is the original from Kentucky (and thus under the rub out) or the visible code is on top of the black square, with original canning code possibly covered with black?

-Randy

Ahh!

OK. Now, without elaborating too much (I probably already have myself into deep enough doo-doo with this thread), I think there is also a significance to the "2" and "4" designators on those canning codes. I will reserve judgment on that bit of trivia for a moment...but let me ask you this, Randy, since you obviously have those cans at your disposal: are they both Pat's Applied For cones?

I'll need some more information, but I do NOT believe that the two cans you just reported on were true contemporaries. I think one predates the other. In which case, the original notion may still be holding water.

Let's see for how long. Let me know what you see there.

Wait a minute...I just pulled a stupid. Of COURSE they're both Pat's Applied For - you noted that both codes started with CCCO. My bad.

Nonetheless, I still have a sneaking suspicion that the cans are not contemporaries. We can discuss this by email, if you'd like, which will serve the dual purpose of (1) keeping me from looking like Public Moron #1, and (2) alleviating the "subject matter fatigue" that many visitors to this message board may well be experiencing by now.

New email, incidentally, is brewsterrooster@comcast.net - let's toss this around. I'll never lose interest in the Michigan variations!

Randy, On my Frankenmuth Kentucky Paintover the Black out obviously only covers the Alcohol% statement only & never covered the canning code. Dave, I never paid much attention to these canning code #'s but find there meaning Interesting, Possibly your Speculation right on? Maybe not? Who knows? Makes sense possibly. LEON.

Forgot, If you can no longer produce a Passport you will be subjected to a Full Body Cavity search. Sorry, I dont make the Rules

Well, OK...but you won't like what you find.