The first to bottle Coke
I did an interview this morning with Newstalk 6PR radio station in Perth, Australia. Of course, that means it was an evening radio show in Australia! One part of my job is to serve as a Coke spokesperson on our heritage, history and collectibles. That means I sometimes see myself on re-runs of food or travel shows when I’m not expecting it!
Graham Mabury, the host of the program, asked me about an anniversary from today -- the first person to put Coke into bottles. I have to admit that there is a bit of discrepancy around which specific date this bottling began, but I was happy to talk to the people in Perth anyway!
Some of you may know about our bottling system today – the Company (where I work) makes the syrup for Coke and our other drinks, while bottling companies produce the finished product. (You can read more about bottling here.)
The basis for today’s system of bottling Coke began in 1899. However, a few years earlier, in 1894, a man named Joseph Biedenharn of Vicksburg, Mississippi, actually became the first person to put Coke into bottles and sell it.
He noticed the growing demand for
I’ve included a photo of what the bottles he used looked like. (These bottles, called “Hutchinson” bottles, are highly collectible today. If you happen to have one, hang on to it!)
My name is Phil Mooney, and I've served as the historian/archivist for 
i have a brown coca cola bottle 6 1/2 oz from columbia,tn early 1900 need to find date and value
Posted by: sandy1 | March 14, 2008 at 02:27 PM
Sandy1 - Brown Coca-Cola bottles (which we call "amber" bottles) were used in the early 1900s, before the introduction of the contour bottle. These bottles (that have straight sides instead of the curves of the contour) were in amber and clear. Different bottles were used in different geographical areas. The amber bottles vary in price depending on condition and the cities they are from. I don't have an exact value for the Columbia, TN, bottle, but the amber bottles range in value from $65 to over $200. Thanks for your message -- Phil
Posted by: Phil Mooney | March 14, 2008 at 05:16 PM
Hi. I am a student of Goizueta Business School of Emory University. I was reading about Coke bottles and realized the price of coke stayed at a nickel from 1886-1959, which is a long period of time. Throughout this long period of time, I am pretty sure inflation and other costs were of impact. However, why did the coke price stay at a nickel for 73 years? I have decided to write a paper on this subject and would like to request any information concerning this question. Thank You!
Posted by: gahn | March 15, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Gahn – Thanks for your message. One of my very first posts in January actually was about the 5 cent Coke. While the price was a nickel in some areas until 1959, inflation and rising costs did impact the price in other areas, causing the cost of a Coke to go above a nickel by the late 1940s. The 5 cent Coke was a tradition for us, and that’s in part why the price remained the same -- everyone was committed to keeping the price at a nickel. In World War II, in fact, longtime Coke leader Robert Woodruff extended that commitment so the U.S. Troops serving overseas also could get a Coca-Cola for 5 cents, no matter where they were. This history of Coke might help with your paper History of Coke. Thanks - Phil
Posted by: Phil Mooney | March 17, 2008 at 05:33 PM
Does Coca-Cola still offer a similar program for the military today by providing products at a discount?
FYI: I just found this blog and love the idea of educating consumers on the rich history of such a global brand.
Posted by: Mary M | March 24, 2008 at 07:10 AM
Mary M - I'm glad you like the blog and hope you will tell your friends about it! While the 5 cent Coke is not around any more (for the troops or the rest of us), Coke does have a long history of supporting the military and the USO. While the price may have changed, Coke still provides a memory of home for those serving overseas, and we're all proud the support continues today. Thanks -- Phil
Posted by: Phil Mooney | March 24, 2008 at 04:55 PM
Dear Phil,
I spent my vacation in Saipan and found buried in the sand in the ocean a bottle of Coca-Cola. I was told by a local that this bottle was discarded in the ocean by a US soldier during WWII. I wonder whether you can help ascertain this statement. The bottle is see-through (not green), has the Coca-Cola logo on it with "Trade Mark" written underneath the logo and on the lower part of the bottle it says "7" ,then the copyright symbol and "44" on it, all of the before mentioned inscriptions are moulded i.e. are part of the glass bottle.
It is difficult for me to tell whether the Coca-Cola logo is the "fishtail" type or the one before that period.
Thanks in advance for your opinion.
Olaf
Posted by: olaf | March 27, 2008 at 08:35 PM
Olaf - Thanks for your message, and it does sound as if you have a bottle remaining from WWII. I've heard several stories of divers finding bottles underwater or people uncovering bottles in the sand as you did. During the War, Coke shipped 64 bottling plants overseas -- to areas in Europe and the Pacific. More than 5 billion bottles of Coke were consumed by military personnel during the War, in addition to countless other servings through dispensers. Because there was no easy way of returning the bottles, many were simply consigned to the deep. Though the bottle you have has great historical value, it will probably not have a large monetary value. -- Phil
Posted by: Phil Mooney | March 28, 2008 at 04:59 PM
To the writer"Olaf". many coke bottles were discarded in the Pacific war zone in WWII. Coke promised evry GI would get a bottle of coke. I have authenticated bottle from that war zone with the original sand still in it along with pictures of where it was found. Can you send me a picture and I'll see if it matches with mine?
Posted by: The Dog | August 31, 2009 at 09:03 PM
Hi Phil - I am writing in regards to a series of three 1942 Coca-Cola blotter illustrations: Girl reclining on beach blanket -- Girl in rowboat -- Girl reclining reading magazine.
As I have one of these blotters, I've been conducting research to identify the illustrator and concluded it was Gil Elvgren. This conclusion is supported by the following facts:
-- In 1940, Evgren joined the Stevens/Gross Studios in Chicago
-- Stevens/Gross had a major Coca-Cola advertising account at that time
-- During that period Haddon Sundblom worked at Stevens/Gross
-- Sundblom was Evgren's mentor and taught him 'lush' illustration technique
to make girls 'glow' and depict the 'girl-next-door'
-- Sundblom suggested to Howard Stevens and Earl Gross that Elvgren was the
perfect candidate to take over much of Coca-Cola advertising work. They
agreed and assigned Elvgren to the account
-- The 1942 Coca-Cola blotter series illustrations were
produced during the period Elvren had Coca-Cola illustration responsibility and before he left Stevens/Gross.
-- Elvgren's style is known for portraying an 'All-American Girl" beauty while
also evoking a subtle, sensuous look through what became known as the "pin-up
style"
-- The 1942 Coca-Cola blotter series illustrations of girls-next-door employ both the 'lush' girl-next-door technique and the "pin-up girl" style of Elvgren,
such as the reclining poses, shorter length clothing and somewhat more exposed
legs than normal in Coca-Cola ads of that period. Of course, in the context of
Coca-Cola Americana, the images stopped short of the more sexy 'pin-up style'
illustrations.
Whereas I could find nothing that specifically credited Elvgren with the 1942 blotter series, the fact that he was responsible for Coca-Cola
illustrations during that timeframe, and given the matching style cues, it can deduced that he was the illustrator.
Furthermore, as 1942 was early in his illustration career before he became
famous and known as America's most important pin-up and glamour artist, it would
not be unusual for such small early advertising pieces as blotters not to be
published as pieces of his work.
I would be interested to know if you agree with the above conclusion.
Thank you -- Tom
Posted by: Tom | October 04, 2009 at 03:26 PM