"This bottle remains the property of..." date range

[Andy Orr]

"This bottle remains the property of..." is a common mark on beer bottles - I'm guessing from the mid-1900s til at least the 1970s(?).

 

I came across the following explanation online

-- Beer came in bottles sold at licensed premises either locally or in larger cities visited during shopping expeditions.  Bottles were recycled remaining the property of the manufacturer who paid for their return. People collected bottles to return.

Can anyone enlighten me as to when this practice and and/or the marking of bottles to this effect ended in Victoria? 

Cheers,

Andrew Orr

Triskel Heritage Consultants

[pat gaynor]

Hi Andrew

I have a 1977 beer bottle marked  'this bottle is the property of the NSW Bottle Co.' .  Not sure if they got to Victoria or what brand of beer was in it, but it was still happening  in NSW then.

Regards

Pat Gaynor

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OzArch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to oza...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ozarch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Andy Orr]

Thanks Pat,

I haven't seen one likely to date later than 1970s myself. Wondering if anyone else has? 

[Michael Lever]

Hi Andy, 

I believe Bron Woff completed Honours a year or so ago, and examined the history of bottle-washing plants in Melbourne. These functioned to collect, clean, sort and return bottles to their owners.

I'd suggest that the demise of bottle-washers would be an effective indication of the end of bottle ownership.

I can put you in touch with Bron if you don't have her details.

Cheers 

[Michael Lever]

N.B. A Trove search for the term "Bottle Washing" in Victorian newspapers did not return any results dated after 1956.

 

There were 1,861 mentions of the term in Victorian newspapers prior to this, including frequent adverts for bottle washing machinery....

[Andy Orr]

'56 sounds a little early Michael. Maybe it indicates an end to out-sourcing bottle-washing or some other change to the workflow. Yes, do please put me in touch - and...@triskel.com.au

[Michael Lever]

I think one has to be careful not to confuse two issues Andy.

The branding of bottles with an owner's name seems tied to the business of commercial bottle washing. Once owners ceased stamping bottles and paying for their return in clean whole condition, the demand for commercial bottle washing ceased (circa 1956).

This is quite different to the government-run bottle refund schemes such as currently run in South Australia, and once run in Victoria. Scouts and similar groups in South Australia still raise funds through collection of bottles and their return to government depots. 

Once returned, these bottles are sorted and broken for recycling - not for re-use. See the SA Recycle website: http://www.recyclesa.com.au/index.html

Relevant legislation is here http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/epa1993284/s65.html

Cheers

[Iain Stuart]

I don’t thing Andy is confusing the issue at all Michael it is you who need to explain your data of 1956 against the recollections of others that they were involved in bottle drives collecting beer bottles in the early 1970s. South Australian data may not be relevant to the situation in Melbourne and Sydney.

 

As I recall it was the soft drink bottles that attracted a deposit not the beer bottles which were sold to a “Bottle o” who collected them in bulk. What we need to establish is what the bottleo did with them – were they returned to the breweries or to AGL in Spotswood.

 

Cheers

 

Dr Iain Stuart

 

JCIS Consultants

P.O. Box 2397

Burwood North

NSW 2134

Australia

 

(02) 97010191

Ia...@jcis.net.au

--

[Michael Lever]

Ian,  

My thinking is as follows:

The question Andy posed  is the date span of proprietory impressions on glass bottles. This is a separate issue to the date span of boy scout recycling drives. 

While bottles were predominantly branded and returned to brewers, a thriving bottle-washing industry existed in Melbourne. 

I'm proposing that the disappearance of the bottle washing industry is tied to the end of brewery ownership and reuse of bottles.

As there are no references in Victorian newspapers to bottle-washing after 1956 (but some 1,800 prior) I am suggesting the industry was defunct by then.

This does not mean that bottles were not still being collected by bottle-o's or boy scouts. They were - under Victorian legislation which has since been phased out but which appears to have been similar to current South Australian legislation, bottles were redeemed for a small refund, and were then recycled (not reused).

Cheers

[Andy Orr]

Hi Michael,

I've made the assumption that the phrase "this bottle (always) remains the property of...." indicates that the bottle should be returned for re-use rather than recycling. 

Previous comments indicate that collecting for both purposes continued into the 1970s, which would accord with my initial guesstimate. I'm just trying to discern if there was a distinct cut-off date, after which the practice of re-use had ended, and consequently the statement of ownership would have ended (again an assumption).  As you point out, this differs from general recycling of bottle-glass. 

On a side note, I've come across a few trove references to the use of this phrase in the 1930s (Reschs Beer), which was earlier than I'd initially guessed.  

[John Pickard]

Good morning all,

 

Following on from the discussion about “This bottle remains the property of ...” is the related question of WHEN bottles were first sold / advertised as “not for refilling”. Most of us would assume it came about with very thin-walled stubbies. Not being a beer drinker, I don’t know when this occurred, perhaps in the 1980s, but I’m sure that some OzArchers would know.

Q: “When were alcoholic beverage bottles first advertised in Australia as “non-refillable”?

 

A: Way before stubbies! The earliest I know is an ad for Johnnie Walker in the Pastoral Review (16 June 1916, p. 542).

 

So there’s a challenge dear to the hearts of archaeologists focussed on league tables of oldest dates for anything. Mine’s older than yours. And no, I’m not offering a bottle of JW as a prize!

 

There is obviously a serious question about why JW switched to non-refillable bottles. It was in the middle of WW1, and I would have thought that the demand for glass for military and essential civilian uses would have been such that recycling was at an all-time high. But apparently, the officer-class and the rather poncy-looking gambler had other things on their minds. With no data at all, I’d have thought that most JW was still consumed by civilians, so it would be difficult to argue that there was some military-related reason for non-refillable bottles. I doubt that too many JW drinkers on the front-lines would have been too concerned about returning the empty bottles anyway. 

 

BTW: on the subject of “This bottle remains the property of ...”, has anyone ever considered the social history etc. of the tradie’s friend: the milk crates that are all marked as remaining the property of some dairy company. Virtually every tradie has one or two in in the ute, and many / most families have one or two storing things in the garage. The commercially-available “storage cubes” sold by e.g. Bunnings, are crap, and break too easily, so tradies stick with the milk crates.

 

I was once advised to either study something so rare that everyone gets priapic about it, or study something so common that everyone has ignored it. I doubt that blue milk crates would meet the first criterion, (although some seriously disturbed archaeologist out there may think otherwise), but the millions in unauthorised private “ownership” certainly they satisfy the second.

 

Cheers, John,

John Pickard
john.p...@bigpond.com

[Bronwyn Woff]

Hi everyone,

I complete my honours thesis through LTU in 2014, "Bottle reuse and archaeology: evidenced from the site of a bottle merchants business". HV have a copy if you'd like to check it out.

Although my thesis focused on bottle reuse in early Melbourne, pre-1915, I do have some info on later washing /reuse /recycling of bottles in Victoria.

So first off, these "this bottle remains the property of..." bottles were in circulation from very early on, when two-part bottle moulds were in use, and into the period of automatic bottle machines.

As Victoria didn't have a successful glass bottle factory until the 1872 (Felton and Grimwade), bottles were highly sought after, being that they had to be transported from overseas (UK) or other states and were expensive. Even once Felton and Grimwade set up their factory, it was hard for the company to keep up with demand, until the introduction of the bottle machine to Victoria in c.1911.

As mentioned above, there are records of companies taking others to court over the use of their bottles, but this was a hard trade to regulate or keep track of. Unscrupulous companies sometimes sold counterfeit products off as the real deal in bottles they didn't own. In a bid to get their bottles back companies began charging for their bottles in the price of a product, with the price of the bottle returned to the customer when the bottle was returned. Many articles were published trying to solve "the bottle question" (see the Australian Brewers Journal etc)

Bottles were returned to companies through a variety of avenues: direct to the company, through grocers/other shops that sold that product, through bottle merchants and through bottle-ohs.

As suggested above, there is a distinct difference between bottle reuse, and bottle recycling. As my thesis covered the period of bottle merchants at the site excavated on A'Beckett Street, I didn't specifically answer the question of when bottle reuse ceased in Victoria. But from general information I read whilst researching for my thesis (sorry I can't remember the actual references!) 1950s-1970s seems to be a good guesstimate.

A huge factor in the decline of bottle reuse, leading to an increase in bottle recycling was of course the introduction of the bottle machine c.1911. Bottle washing and reuse also declined when the public and govt. became concerned with health and cleanliness. This timing also seems to be related to location though, as my family members, living in South Gippsland at the time, can remember in the early 1970s returning Marchants and Joe's Cordial Factory (Korumburra) for reuse (not recycling). Recycling, being that the glass was washed, crushed and made into more bottles/other objects also became the norm in the 1950s-1970s.

Particular bottles with "this bottle is not to be reused" etc that spring to mind are poison and kerosene bottles, but I believe this happened earlier than the decline of bottle reuse, more because of people domestically reusing them for food or other beverages and being poisoned etc.

I hope this answers some of your questions. If anyone wants to contact me, me email is bronwy...@outlook.com.au

Cheers,
Bronwyn Woff

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 

Hello everyone,

An interesting discussion on bottles that has been running.

Does anyone have any info they can send me on history/archaeology of the area around Penrith glass works?

I imagine was once a major producer of glass bottles but for years now the place has functioned in a lesser capacity.

It is situated on the northern flank of what was once a LAGOON, then an agricultural setting.

However the immediate lagoon and environs became Penrith sewerage works and land south and west was zoned for rather heavy industry.

To the north of it the land along the small creek running north from the lagoon has become a large housing development (a 'Florida Keys' style one focussed on artificially made of enlarged short waterways).

My guess would be that of the hundreds, nay thousands, now living or working in that area, few would be aware that an original Penrith lagoon ever existed there.

Between there and the Nepean River the local archaeological club has dug out a number of cess pits or old wells that became rubbish repositories.    The one I know best yielded, after sieving  and washing, some 10-20 boxes (the size of A4 paper boxes) of fragmented material.   It would be interesting to estimate the amount of glass versus ceramics and metals (but metal was very minor).   I would think the  majority is glass - reflecting on how important glass was to the people of 1800s-1900s.

I don't collect bottles myself but frequently run across people who do.   I was not long ago on the old (dirt) road that runs from near The Sphinx down to Bobin Head, and a man I met there said the he thought the mounds alongside that track (still something of a mystery as to origin) had been "Made by the Army" .. I replied "Naw, the Army [in WWII] was at St Ives Showground, Lane Cover and Middle Harbour valleys, etc., but never known to be here" and together we had a look around these mounds, which are old enough to now have large trees growing from  them.   There are some old beer bottles we saw and he said he'd come back later and collect them all.   He said he home brews beer and prefers to bottle it in genuine old bottles he can find.

Cheers,

 

John Byrnes

 

~~~

----- Original Message -----

From:

oza...@googlegroups.com

To:

<oza...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Sat, 27 Jun 2015 01:39:12 -0700 (PDT)

Subject:

{OzArch} Earliest non-recyclable bottles?

[Bronwyn Woff]

Hi John,
A good place to start would be "Thirsty Work" by David Jones. It's all about the beverage factories of Sydney.

Cheers, Bronwyn

[John Pickard]

Hi Bronwyn,

Obviously the bottle industry was a lot more complex than I had realised,
but this still does not explain why Johnnie Walker was making such a point
of the non-refillable bottle in 1916. For me, the anomaly is why introduce
such waste at a time when glass and other raw materials were needed for the
war effort.

I suspect that Jeannette Hope may be right: it was just an early example of
BS marketing.

Poison and kerosene bottles marked "Not to be refilled" are a different
category, and with a very obvious safety reason. It's been illegal in NSW
(at least) for many years to put anything other than potable stuff into a
bottle originally sold with contents for human consumption. Thus putting
petrol or other solvents into empty soft-drink or beer bottles or empty
sauce bottles is illegal. For obvious reasons. This didn't stop the garden
staff at the Royal Botanic Gardens (Sydney) carrying spare fuel for the lawn
mowers in empty 1 gallon orange juice bottles. Illegal and dangerous given
the similarity of colour with orange juice, and the fact that the LDPE of
the bottles is completely porous to petrol. Took a bit of effort to get the
practice changed.

So as things stand, the ad for Johnnie Walker in 1916 seems to be the
earliest ad specifically extolling the virtues of non-refillable bottles.


Cheers, John

John Pickard
john.p...@bigpond.com

[Jeannette Hope]

Hi John et al

There was a shortage of whisky during WW1 but not entirely due to transport problems. Here's some quotes form a quick Trove search (many, many more, including detailed description of the use of high grade alcohol to make gun-cotton).

Geelong Advertiser 19 March 1916: WHISKY FAMINE IN SIX MONTHS?

A leading importer of spirits, whose headquarters are in Geelong, estimated yesterday that Australia has not more than a six months' supply of whisky on hand. Home price lists just out show the exceptional advances made up to the end of 1915. One line of cheap grain whisky that could be landed in Geelong some time ago at 5/- per gallon is in the home lists at 6/10. One cause of the advance is that the Government has taken over some distilleries for "munition" making: in other words, to make sure of alcohol for explosives, but the chief factor is the rise in the price of barley, seldom quoted at more than 35/- in nor mal times, but now ruling at 65/- per quarter. Each quarter produces 15 gallons of spirit, and each gallon on that basis costs 4/4 without regard to other expenses. The best indication that home stocks are seriously short is that an Australian firm has refused requests to ship stocks to London at fabulous rates. It is finding a ready 'sale in Australia at a rate 4/- per gallon, or 70 per cent, in advance of pre-war lists.

Warwick Examiner and Times 11 September 1918: THE WHISKY SUPPLY / SHORTAGE OF SCOTCH WHISKY. /THE PAST, THE PRESENT, AND THE FUTURE.

The supply of whisky in Australia, and the sources of that supply, have become the subject of much argument. The supplies of whisky for Australia came chiefly from Scotland and a portion from Ireland, although there was never a large demand for lrish whisky. Several large shipments of whisky were on the water when war was declared, and these reached Australia shortly after. But for these large shipments the Scotch supplies might have given out long ago. At the war progressed, shipping has steadily declined, has almost ceased, in fact to Brisbane.. It is, therefore, seen the supply or Scotch whisky in Australia must be steadily diminishing by reason of the want of shipping.

But what of the supply of whisky in Scotland itself? When war was declared, the output of the distilleries was commandeered. The spirit was found to dissolve quickest and most effectively the ingredients for high ex plosives. New or "young" whisky has been found best for this purpose, and of the suitable whiskies the Government did not leave the proprietors more than two per cent, that two per cent could be used how the makers pleased. The older whiskies which the distilleries were keeping for blending purposes, might be anything up to fifteen or twenty years old. It can be well under stood then that the standard quality of Scotch whisky is at present actually higher than it has ever been, for the very excellent reason that as none has been made for throat-oiling for four years, only existing stocks are being worked on. These are growing older and better in quality, for age is one of the most important factors in the de termination of quality.

A letter which reached Australia by a recent mail gives the price of bulk whisky in bond at a sale in Edinburgh. Whisky, bonded at dates varying from 1904 to 1915, brought from 60s to 68s a gallon, yet the whisky by the same makers was sold before the war at 6s and 7s 6d per gallon: It is clear that the whisky is a better quality, but it had need to be when it is costing nine and ten times its former price.

The Australian supply was reinforced by shipments from Canada by Canadian malt and Canadian rye whiskies. When the United States went in for prohibition, and Canada also for war-time restrictions, the supplies were hastily despatched from Canada and from the United States to every available market. Australia, therefore, received a large accession to its supplies. Australian whisky is gradually coming on to the market, and there are at least three distilleries in Australia manufacturing and developing their supplies for sale. During the shortage of Scotch whisky, whisky has come into Sydney from Japan, Siberia and Russia, but such were seldom sold as Japanese whisky, Siberian whisky, or Russian whisky, and were only heard of, incidentally, in Brisbane by the people in the trade.

Vigilante 1 July 1918: WHISKY AND THE WAR.
Mr. L. D. Smith, Australian manager for James Buchanan and Co. Ltd., has written the following letter to the Press: — Messrs. Hammond and Marion, and other prohibitionist leaders, continue to repeat the assertion that foodstuffs are used in Great Britain in the distillation of spirits. We desire to put the facts clearly before your readers, that the distillation of potable spirits from grain in the United Kingdom is absolutely prohibited. That grain is used for the distillation of high-strength alcohol for munition purposes is perfectly true, but no distillery in the United Kingdom is making spirits for beverage purposes. Do our prohibitionist friends condemn the distilling of spirits for the manufacture of explosives, or do they hope, by means of a half truth, to produce an impression which may be advantageous to their cause? That Scotch whisky distillers should have to discontinue the production of pot- able spirits is surely handicap enough, without the industry having to submit to the attacks of people who, by flagrant misstatement, endeavor to mislead public opinion.

There was clearly an opportunity to put sub-standard whisky (maybe that Siberian stuff?) in false bottle. There are lots of newspaper articles on fake alcohol and all sorts of things during the WW1 years.

And a search for information about the newspaper 'Vigilante' (clearly anti-temperance) led me to the following great article: 'Pigs, Hogs and Aussie Blokes: the Emergence of the Term 'Six-O'clock Swill.
http://journals.publishing.monash.edu.au/ojs/index.php/ha/article/viewFile/347/359ryi.

Cheers

Jeannette

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 
Thanks Bronwyn,

I didn't know about that work by David Jones at all.

Best Regards,

 

 

John

 

~~~~

----- Original Message -----

From:

oza...@googlegroups.com

To:

<oza...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Sun, 28 Jun 2015 03:37:22 -0700 (PDT)

Subject:

Re: {OzArch} Earliest non-recyclable bottles?

[Michael Lever]

In possible, partial, retraction of my 1956 terminal date for owner embossed bottles - I tender the following:

The renowned academic repository "The Australian Womens Weekly", contains a 1966 piece griping over embossed litter:

The Canberra Times extend this gripe to 1970 - with explicit reference to boy scouts. Clear proof that boy scouts existed.

Cheers

[john...@ozemail.com.au]

 
Hello,

Boy Scouts existed long before 1970.

They probably formed about 1906 and the founder was Robert Baden-Powell

I have been after ANY old photos a truly gigatantuous camp they held at Bradfield (international) before WWII.

In WWII the Government took over at much the same spot and trained RAAFers there .... even my dad went there (umpteen thousands did?).

Now the same spot is McMansions.

An ?interesting recent trend I found out about from someone at the Homebush scouts/guides hall is that although the Councils around Sydney allowed the Movement to build halls all over the place on Council lands the Councils (perhaps told to do so by the State for more revenue gathering) they in recent years re-iterated that they (Councils) own the buildings [even if scouts/guides/parents built them] because they are in Council land .. therefore RENT MUST BE PAID.

I have not checked the truth of all this .. just was told verbally.

Cheers,

 

John

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From:

oza...@googlegroups.com

To:

<oza...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Mon, 29 Jun 2015 00:46:32 -0700 (PDT)

Subject:

Re: {OzArch} Earliest non-recyclable bottles?

[Bronwyn Woff]

Hi everyone,

Still no sign of an end date for ownership statements, but I did come across a reference last night for the beginning of these embossed bottles:

Pg 19:
In Adelaide, Smith (a manager for the Melbourne Glass Bottle Works) "resolved the issue of recycling bottles for non-original purposes by convincing the industry to adopt branded bottles..." somewhere between 1907 and 1915.
1907 - The Adelaide Bottle Society "would soon be ordering wine and beer bottles with their name and brand embossed on them"

Pg 24:
1908 - contract between MGBW and the Manufacturers Bottle Company of Victoria to put "the 'property clause' " on MBCV bottles

1896 - MGBW advertising  "the comparatively small extra cost of its 'locally-invented method of lettering the bottles'. These 'lettered bottles' were not legally sold with the contents, as were generic bottles, meaning that they remained the property of the company, and could be returned to and re-used by the bottler for a nominal cost .... "

Pg. 25:
In Adelaide this " ... effectively put a stop to the Bottle Co-operative Society of South Australia's resale of second-hand bottles for non-original purposes, and was thereafter adopted nationwide."

From: A history of the Melbourne Glass Bottle Works site including its industrial context Spotswood, Victoria. Prepared for Museum Victoria by David Moloney, December 2012

Cheers, Bronwyn