Patent No. 2085879A: Bottle Capping Machine

Today in 1937, US Patent 2085879 A was issued, an invention of Edward N. Trump, for his “Bottle Capping Machine.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

This invention relates to new and useful improvements in a bottle capping machine and pertains more particularly to an apparatus for applying hooded or over-all caps to the head of milk bottles or the like. The caps are pre-formed in one piece, preferably from a sheet of light, strong and non-corrosive metal having a high degree of ductility, malleability and tenacity, such for example, as tissue aluminum of about the thickness of the cellulose product commonly known as Cellophane or of thin tinfoil, and which is capable of. being easily molded by pressure under atmospheric temperature to conform to the its form under ordinary usage.


Patent No. 3259265A: Reseal For Tab Opening Cans

Today in 1966, US Patent 3259265 A was issued, an invention of Edward P Stuart, assigned to the Crown Cork & Seal Co., for their “Reseal for Tab Opening Cans.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

This invention relates to seals, and particularly to reseals for apertures or the like made in an end of a container such as the top of a can, and to a method of inserting such reseal.

In recent times, the tab opening type aluminum or other metal cans has become popular because of its ease of opening. As is well known, one need only pull on the tab to tear open the pre-indented area of the can top to obtain access to the contents of the can. While such cans have been employed in the beverage industry, particularly for beer, they have also been used for other commodities, which are more of the reusable type as opposed to those which are used and the containers then thrown away. As examples of the type of materials which might be only partially used initially and then used again at a later date, one may consider floor wax or flour. Limitation to such materials is not there intended, however, since any type of commodity may be used with the containers in question.

In between uses of the commodity, it is desirable to reseal the container, as by placing some sort of seal in the torn-out opening made for pouring purposes by pulling the tab off the can top. As is Well known, these pour openings are generally of keyhole shape in that they have an elongated or channel area with a larger aperture at one end near the edge of the container end. Generally, also, the opposite end of the elongated area has another aperture which is usually circular in form and slightly larger in diameter than the width of the channel which results from ripping out the rivet that held the pull tab to the can top.

It is the primary object of the present invention to provide a reseal for such a container pouring opening, along with a method of inserting that reseal.

It is another object of this invention to provide such a reseal which will remain in place at the portion thereof which seals the inner end of the channel, or the rivet aperture at the inner end of the channel, but has a snap fit as to the channel and pour aperture at the outer end of the channel.


Desperation Propaganda

The ink was barely dry on my last post about Alcohol Justice’s tenuous grasp on honesty where they claimed Craft Brewers Just Don’t Care when they did it again, with this tweet:


The funniest part of their tweet is the claim that the Carlsberg Group, the fourth largest beer company in the world, producing 6.2% of the world’s beer, is “desperate for market share” and therefore gave up on beer and decided to diversify into beauty products. This they apparently concluded from an article on Mashable entitled Men, stop drinking beer and start rubbing it on your face. As the article itself makes abundantly clear — but is virtually ignored by AJ — using beer or beer ingredients in health and beauty products has been around forever and is nothing new. There are almost too many instances to mention. Shampoo with beer in it has been around for years, if not centuries. Dogfish Head and many others have been making soap with beer for just as long. There’s nothing in the article about why they’re diversifying (though anyone with a working knowledge of how a business operates will say “well, duh,” diversification is almost always a good move). These came out of the Carlsberg Lab, which has been doing research on beer for over 100 years, and in fact the lager yeast known as Saccharomyces pastorianus, was also once known as Saccharomyces carlsbergensis because of work done by the brewery on yeast in the late 1800s and early 20th century. Here’s the The press materials for the new products.

So there’s absolutely nothing to suggest that Carlsberg’s Beer Beauty products have anything whatsoever to do with desperation. Alcohol Justice just made that up. Why? Because they have to turn a lighthearted story into something they can use as propaganda. Because the truth is not something they seem remotely interested in. If anything, I think it shows their own desperation in trying to find something to complain about.


Patent No. PP8824P: Hop Plant Named “H87203-1″

Today in 1994, US Patent PP8824 P was issued, an invention of Gene Probasco, assigned to John I. Haas, Inc., for his “Hop Plant Named ‘H87203-1.'” It’s almost identical to the previous patent for the hop plant named H87207-2. Here’s the Abstract for this one:

A new variety of hop plant (H87203-1) originating as the result of a controlled corss pollination between unpatented Galena female hop plant with unpatented John I. Haas, Inc. (Haas) male hop plant No. 833-53M, and unique particularly for its cones’ unusually high percentage of beta acids when compared to its female parent variety Galena (unpatented) and otherwise as herein described.

It’s been 21 years since this other hop variety was patented. Did it ever get its own name? Does anybody know?

Patent No. PP8823P: Hop Plant Named “H87207-2″

Today in 1994, US Patent PP8823 P was issued, an invention of Gene Probasco, assigned to John I. Haas, Inc., for his “Hop Plant Named ‘H87207-2.'” Here’s the Abstract:

A new variety of hop plant (H87207-2) originating as the result of a controlled cross pollination between unpatented Galena female hop plant with unpatented John I. Haas, Inc. (Haas) male hop plant No. 833-53M, and unique particularly for its cones’ unusually high percentage of beta acids when compared to its female parent variety Galena (unpatented) and otherwise as herein described.

It’s been 21 years since this hop variety was patented. Did it ever get its own name? Does anybody know?

Craft Brewers Just Don’t Care

Nobody can piss me off faster than Alcohol Justice, the self-styled do gooders and self-proclaimed “watchdogs” of those of us in the evil alcohol empire. I just noticed this yesterday, but for at least the last week, they’ve been tweeting this inaccurate and misleading message that “High-calorie craft beer maker’s don’t care.” Here’s what they say:


You don’t have to be Noam Chomsky to parse this sentence and figure out what they’re saying. Beer has lots of calories and brewers just don’t give a shit, painting craft brewers in a negative light, something Alcohol Justice has turned in to an art form. But is that the truth? Is that even what the source of this claims? Regular readers won’t be surprised to learn that AJ once again has taken a statement and twisted into something else to promote their own agenda. Shocking, I know. The original source of this comes from an article in the Columbus Dispatch on June 26 entitled Small breweries sometimes make high-octane, high-calorie beers.

It’s all about calories and how some higher alcohol beers made by craft brewers have more calories than lower alcohol beers, which is a world class “duh.” If you claim you don’t know that more alcohol has more calories then I’m amazed at the level of ignorance you’re willing to admit. If you’re drinking an imperial stout and have convinced yourself it contains no more calories than a pale ale, you’re willfully deluding yourself, and you probably know it, even if you won’t admit it. But I’m not terribly interested in the calorie question, it’s been done to death and certainly isn’t going away anytime soon. What really annoys me is Alcohol Justice’s flippant hatred of brewers and insisting they don’t care, as if that makes them bad people. The reality, of course, is quite different. Here’s the relevant portion of the article:

Unless they’re aiming for a low-cal beer to appeal to dieters, day drinkers and the like, craft brewers say they don’t give two pints about calories. They’re after flavor and aroma and other qualities that make drinking good beer worth it. The qualities of your favorite porter or citrus-forward IPA depend upon a series of ingredient choices and the complex interplay of water, grain, hops and yeast that follows.

So it’s not that the brewers “don’t care” about higher calories, it’s simply that they place more emphasis on aromas and flavors, preferring to create beers that feature those more prominently. They’re not willfully making high calorie beers just to fatten people up and make them unhealthy, as AJ suggests. And why pick on brewers? This is especially galling since wine and sprits, with far more alcohol, has … wait for it … far more calories. Beer has the fewest calories of any alcoholic drink by ounce. I’m sure people will argue that people drink more beer so that’s moot. But the point of drinking better beer is to drink less of it. To me at least, beer with flavor is not made to pound, but to enjoy at a more reasonable pace, usually determined by the circumstances. Imperial stout is not made to be swigged, but shared in a snifter or similar glass, so the idea that it’s the same as any other beer seems at best facetious. If you’re downing pint glasses of Parabola or Ten FIDY you’re doing it wrong. Here’s an infographic that accompanied the article.


But the larger point is why do we attack beer and alcohol makers for the natural amount of calories created by the way they’re made? We don’t do that for calorie-rich desserts like cake, ice cream and pie. You know what else is high in calories? Cereal, avocados, bananas, nuts and berries, granola bars, pasta, lobster and so many more foods we love. But we’re not lambasting the people who farm, grow or make those for not caring about how high in calories they are. That’s because they’re not intentionally making them high in calories, it’s just the result of their nature. The same is true for beer. Brewers aren’t intentionally making high-calorie beers to fuck with people the way Alcohol Justice so churlishly insists. They’re making them because they taste good, and people want them, not because they just “don’t care.”

Are there no ethical standards for non-profits? Shouldn’t “watchdogs” who claim the moral high ground have to at least be honest and truthful themselves? Because even though they claim “beer makers don’t care,” they certainly don’t seem to care about their own veracity, and instead twist anything they can to fit their increasingly narrow narrative that everything having to do with alcohol, and especially beer it seems, is bad.

Patent No. 763973A: Bottle

Today in 1904, US Patent 763973 A was issued, an invention of Michael Joseph Flynn and Dennis John Flynn, for their “Bottle.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:

The subject of this invention is a bottle which while designed more particularly for containing beer and like beverages may be utilized for other liquids; and the principal object of the invention is to practically prevent to a considerable extent the improper reuse of the bottle.

With the above and other purposes in view the novel bottle comprises a mouth portion containing a main or pouring opening and a small auxiliary passage or passages, both the pouring-opening and the auxiliary passage or passages all being designed to be closed by a single metal cap having a crimped engaging flange, which type of cap is in vogue at the present time. In using my improved bottle upon the removal of the cap the liquid contents can be poured from the bottle through the main opening, the auxiliary passage or passages serving under such condition as a venting provision. Manifestly after such employment of the bottle it will be unserviceable for further use in connection with an ordinary cork, because when the latter is inserted within the main opening the open character of the auxiliary passage or passages will preclude the service of the bottle with carbonated or charged liquids, besides presenting the additional disadvantage of not completely closing the bottle. Corks of special shapes, including upper lateral flanges, might be resorted to; but such would add considerably to the expense and difficulty of using the bottle, and hence constitute obstacles that would ordinarily deter the improper reuse of the bottle.


Beer In Ads #1606: 4th Of July Snowman

Saturday’s ad is for Rheingold Beer, from 1937. This was an unusual ad for independence day, using a snowman in July to talk about “the glorious Fourth.” And the snowman is lighting a firecracker, it must have really stood out in a magazine or newspaper published in the summer. And another oddity: there’s a circle containing the pjrase “beer is best,” which was a phrase being used at the time in Great Britain by a brewers trade group so it’s interesting to see it in an American ad during the same time period.


Patent No. 4844932A: Separation Of Wort From Mash

Today in 1989, US Patent 4844932 A was issued, an invention of Iyadh S. Daoud, assigned to The Brewing Research Foundation, for his “Separation of Wort From Mash.” Here’s the Abstract:

A barrier cross-flow separation method is used to separate wort from mash in beermaking. The separator medium is preferably a cylindrical element with an internal diameter of at least 20 mm and a pore size in a range of from 10 μm to 100 μm. High gravity wort is obtainable from a four-step separation process which can handle mash free of husk and including large amounts of cereal adjunct. The wort may be clarified in a subsequent filtering step.