Bay Bottles

Wm. R. Warner & Co., Philadelphia

William R. Warner is one of several individuals recognized as pioneers in the manufacture and distribution of sugar coated pills in the United States. According to a feature on Warner found in a publication entitled: “First Century of the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy,” published in 1922:

Like the process of percolation the sugar coating of pills was discovered in France but was developed in America by the labors of Warner, Bullock, Wiegand and others.

Born in Caroline County, Maryland in 1836, Warner first entered the drug business with the Easton, Maryland firm of Chamberlain and Anderson. His experience there apparently inspired him to attend the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy where he graduated in 1856. Shortly afterwards he opened his own retail pharmacy at Second Street and Girard Avenue in Philadelphia.

According to his son, William R. Warner, Jr., who was quoted in the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy story, it was at the Second Street pharmacy that Warner began the manufacture of sugar coated pills. That being said, initially they were not distributed under the Warner name.

My father conceived the idea of sugar coating pills when a lad in the drug store at Easton, Md., and accomplished the feat though somewhat crudely. I am inclined to believe that he perfected his process of covering pills with sugar shortly after 1856, or probably the next year. He made and sold them to Bullock and Crenshaw in bulk and they put them up and marketed them as their own, such is now done by druggists under “buyers name.” My father was not known by the profession as the real maker of sugar coated pills at that time.

It appears that Bullock and Crenshaw began selling Warner’s sugar coated pills under their name sometime in 1858 as evidenced by this notice dated May, 1858. Sounding introductory in nature, the notice starts out with:

The attention of Druggists and Physicians is particularly invited to the Pills of our Pharmacopeia, coated with sugar, which we are now able to supply…

This situation changed in the mid-1860’s when Warner purchased the wholesale drug business of John C. Baker at about the same time that his contract with Bullock and Crenshaw expired. Located at 154 North Third Street in Philadelphia, it was here that according to William R. Warner, Jr., his father began to manufacture and market his pills under the name and label of William R. Warner and Co.

The change had certainly occurred by 1867 as evidenced by this Warner advertisement that appeared that year in the “Handbook of the Great Manufacturers and Representative Mercantile Houses of Philadelphia.”

That same year, now in direct competition, both William R. Warner & Co. and Bullock and Crenshaw, exhibited their sugar coated pills at a September, 1867 exhibition sponsored by the American Pharmaceutical Association. In fact, both firms were listed directly adjacent to each other in the exhibition summary .

Warner remained on North Third Street for the next 10 years during which time he frequently marketed his sugar coated pills to the medical profession. An example of his marketing pitch appeared in the 1870 edition of the “Humboldt Medical Archives” under the heading “Notice to Physicians.”

The solubility of Officinal and other Sugar Coated Pills as made by us, is an indispensable quality, and a matter of so much importance as to command your special attention. An experience of thirteen years, with careful attention and study, has enabled us to achieve a perfection otherwise unattainable.

We claim this art of Sugar Coating, avoiding the necessity of drying so hard as to render them insoluble and inert make them permanent.

Being extensively engaged in the Wholesale Drug business, and in the manufacture of Standard Officinal Preparations, and New Remedies, in our own Laboratory, affords us facilities for supplying Physician’s orders with all articles of the purest quality at the lowest prices.

A discount of 25 percent will be made to Physicians on all orders for Pills amounting to $10.00 net. Less quantities will be sent by mail or express pre-paid on receipt of catalog prices.

Please specify our make (W. & Co.) when it suits your convenience to order elsewhere. Half freight paid on shipments of Drugs to distant points

A good customer could even get a “Pill Globe and Sample Bottle” along with his 25% discount..

It was also during this time that the company began to expand its product line well beyond sugar coated pills to include elixirs, fluid extracts and medicated lozenges among other things.

The company’s success on North Third Street ultimately lead to a period of expansion that began in the 1870’s. This expansion was documented in a January 9, 1908 feature on the business published in “The Pharmaceutical Era.”

In 1876 the business having outgrown the quarters on Third Street, the fine large building at 1228 Market Street was purchased, elegantly fitted up and occupied. About this time, on account of the extensive growth of the business, branches in London, England and New York City were opened, and these were soon followed by branches in Chicago, New Orleans, Atlanta, St. Louis, Denver, Portland, Ore., and Minneapolis, Minn.

In 1886 a large laboratory building at Broad and Wallace was erected and put into use, the business having outgrown its quarters on Market Street.

Renderings of both Philadelphia locations were included in the ninth edition (1897) of “Wm. R. Warner’s Therapeutic Reference Book for Physicians.” The top view depicts the Broad Street laboratory while the lower view is of Market Street.

The business operated out of both locations until 1899 when the Market Street building was completely destroyed by fire. The fire was described like this in the February 17, 1899 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Snow on many roof tops proved to be a blessing in disguise last night, when a great fire raged at Thirteenth and Market Streets, calling forth every energy of those who were battling with it to save a vast amount of property on all sides that for a time seemed doomed to destruction. It was a fire that brought out the entire department, that swept away an immense six-story building, or rather three in one, entailing a loss estimated at from $400,000 to $500,000….

The story included this sketch of the Warner building in flames.

As early as the next day the company had formulated a plan to move on as evidenced by this February 18, 1899 story in the “Philadelphia Inquirer.”

In regard to the future plans of the firm of William R. Warner & Co., Mr. William R. Warner, Jr., said last evening: “All the employees of our Market Street store, numbering some fifty, have been notified to report at our laboratory, at Broad and Wallace Streets. Those that are available for work in that line will be given employment immediately and the others will be kept on full pay. The laboratory will be made headquarters for the firm and all the offices will be removed there. We intend to rebuild at 1228 Market Street as soon as possible, but as to the size of the new building or its equipment I am not able to speak as yet. All the old men will thus be retained and none of them will suffer by our misfortune.

Less than a month later, on March 13, 1899, an item in the “Philadelphia Inquirer” announced that the company was fully back in business, now filling orders at their Broad Street laboratory.

Around the same time, a March 18, 1899 “Philadelphia Inquirer” story announced that Warner was planning a new 10 story building at 1228 Market Street, however, it appears the company never followed through on those plans and a year later, in June, 1900, the Montana Diamond Co. ran a ‘Philadelphia Inquirer” advertisement announcing their plans to move into a newly constructed eight story building at the 1228 Market Street location.

As far as I can tell William R. Warner & Co. never reopened another location in Philadelphia but instead continued to operate solely on Broad Street.

When Warner passed away in April, 1901, he left the company to his son, William R. Warner, Jr., who, as early as 1880 had been associated with the business, first as a cashier and later as a partner/principal.

In 1908, Warner Jr. sold the company to Henry & Gustavus Pfeiffer, who, at the time, owned a drug business in St. Louis. The Pfeiffer’s retained the William R. Warner & Co. name and continued to operate the business out of Philadelphia where, in 1910, it was listed with William R. Warner, Jr. as president, Henry Pfeiffer as vice president and Gustavus Pfeiffer as secretary/treasurer.

As late as 1916 the company was in the process of constructing a new headquarters in Philadelphia when the Pfeiffer’s acquired the Richard Hudnut Company of New York City. The acquisition was reported in the August, 1916 edition of the “Pharmaceutical Record.”

An announcement of interest to the trade was recently made by Richard A. Hudnut, who has sold substantial interest in Richard Hudnut to Messrs. H. Pfeiffer, G. A. Pfeiffer and G.D. Merner, of the firm of Wm. R. Warner & Co., of Philadelphia and St. Louis. Mr. Hudnut continues as president, and the business policies that have made the name “Richard Hudnut” famous in the perfume and toilet goods world will be continued…

The acquisition of Hudnut apparently motivated the Pfeiffer’s to change course and headquarter both the Warner and Hudnut companies in New York City. This led to the purchase of a large property on West 18th Street in Manhattan. The announcement appeared in the October 26, 1916 edition of the “Philadelphia Inquirer.”

W. R. Warner & Co. Leave City

Having purchased the whole of the old Altman store, 113 to 123 and 131 to 143 West Eighteenth Street, and 110 to 124 West Nineteenth Street, New York, William R. Warner & Co., manufacturing chemists, employing about 500 persons, will abandon their property at 639 North Broad Street, this city. The price paid for the new location is said to have been approximately its assessed valuation, $1,100,000, all of which was paid in cash…

Three days later, another announcement in the “Philadelphia Inquirer” put their new Philadelphia building, still under construction, up for sale.

This building is now being constructed on Willow, Seventh and Marshall Streets, Philadelphia, by Wm. Steele & Sons Co., for Wm R. Warner & Co., Manufacturing Pharmacists.

Their move to New York, as announced, will bring into the market for sale this new modern six-story, heavy concrete, sprinkled, loft building. The fact that the building is now under construction enables you to adapt it to your needs…

We are also offering for sale an unexpired lease on the present Wm. R. Warner & Co. plant at 639-41-43 N. Broad St. which continues for a term of years.

The building that was under construction 100+ years years ago, remains to this day. Here’s today’s view courtesy of Google Maps. It appears that a seventh story was added, taking the place of the roof top “Wm. R. Warner Co.” sign.

As early as 1917, the New York City directories listed both Wm. R. Warner & Co. and Richard Hudnut, Inc. at the West 18th Street address in Manhattan.

Both continued to be listed under their respective names at that location until 1950, when they were combined under a new corporation called Warner-Hudnut, Inc. At that point both Warner and Hudnut were listed as separate divisions under the Warner-Hudnut umbrella.

Five years later Warner-Hudnut merged with the Lambert Co., makers of Listerine, forming the Warner-Lambert Pharmaceutical Co. The merger was announced in the February 9, 1955 edition of the “Philadelphia Inquirer.”

Directors of Warner-Hudnut Inc., and Lambert Co. approved plans for a merger of the two companies, with the new concern to be known as Warner-Lambert Pharmaceutical Co.

The new company would have estimated annual sales of $100,000,ooo and assets of $45,000,000.

On the same day the merger was announced, plans to build a new factory in Pennsylvania were unveiled. According to the February 9, 1955 edition of Lancaster Pennsylvania’s “Intelligencer Journal” the plant was slated to replace the company’s West 18th Street facility.

The new plant, according to a Warner-Hudnut spokesman, will replace one operated in New York by the company. It will manufacture the firm’s nationally-known line of “Richard Hudnut” hair preparations and toiletries..

Last November the company announced it had contracted to sell its New York buildings to Webb & Knapp, Inc.

The new factory opened in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania in November, 1956. By then, the corporation was completely out of New York, having also moved their offices to Morris Plains, New Jersey earlier that year. The company had announced the move to New Jersey in the February, 1956 editions of several local newspapers.

When completed in mid-summer, this modern air-conditioned building will be the new headquarters of Warner-Lambert Pharmaceutical Company, now located in New York City. It is being built on a knoll across Mt. Tabor Road from Warner-Chilcott Laboratories, our ethical drug division.

The site will be the administrative center of our world-wide organization. From here we shall direct our five divisions in the United States, as well as our manufacturing plants in twenty-two foreign countries, and our sales agencies in one hundred more.

Over the next several years Warner-Lambert continued to grow through acquisition. According to a December 15, 1967 story in Philadelphia’s “Intelligencer Journal,” between 1955 and 1962 they acquired a number of well known brands that included Bromo Seltzer, Chiclets, Dentyne, Rolaid’s and Clorets.

Warner-Lambert merged with Park-Davis in 1970, ultimately becoming part of Pfizer in 2000.

Over the years I’ve found two Wm. R. Warner bottles. Both include “Philadelphia” in their embossing, dating them no later than 1916 when the company moved their headquarters to New York City.

The first is a small mouth blown vial. A little over three inches tall, it likely contained a small quantity of pills? The other, also mouth blown, is cobalt blue and six inches tall. It appears to have contained an effervescing salt called “Bromo Soda.”

The product was frequently advertised in the late 1880’s and 1890’s:

For The Speedy Relief Of Nervous Headache and Brain Fatigue.

Consumers Park Brewing Co., Brooklyn, N.Y.

Established on November 29, 1897, the Consumers’Park Brewing Company was a syndicate of saloon owners that operated Brooklyn’s Consumers’ Park Brewery from 1900 until 1913. This early 1900’s photograph of the brewery recently appeared on an internet sale site.

The circumstances that lead up to the formation of the company were laid out in a December 23, 1897 story published in Brooklyn’s “The Standard Union.”

The production of beer and ale by the large breweries during the past few years has reached an output that hardly seems possible. The output has become centered in the hands of a few large brewers, who by combination have put the output in their own control. A number of the heavy consumers, including a class of dealers who use from 1,000 to 5,000 barrels annually, conceived of an idea of forming a syndicate to manufacture for their own use beer and ale, thus accruing to themselves the profit that heretofore went to the large brewers. It was this proposition that first gave life to what has now become a regularly incorporated company since November 29, 1897, under the name of “The Consumers’ Park Brewing Company…”

The company’s plan, which included much more than just the manufacture and distribution of their own beer, was detailed in a January 13, 1898 “Brooklyn Daily Eagle” story.

The block bounded by Franklin and Washington Avenues, and Montgomery Street, is owned by the company. It is in one of the best parts of the city and adjoins Institute Park and the Botanical Gardens. It is but a stones throw from the Willink entrance of Prospect Park. On this site an immense brewery will be erected, but its promoters say there will be nothing about it in appearance that will not be in keeping with the location. Architecturally the brewery will be an ornament. The grounds around it will be beautifully laid out in walks and drives and here and there a fountain. A hotel will be built with broad verandas running around it and a band will give concerts twice a day. The cuisine will be of a high order, it is promised.

There will be a beer garden with tables under small trees, where Brooklynites can drink beer and listen to the music in the hotel. For those who care to dance there will be built a large ballroom, and there, too, an orchestra will be stationed. There will be a bicycle ring and bowling alleys. Particular attention will be paid to the class of people admitted.

Two years later, with the brewery scheduled to open in the first week of January, the company had assembled over 200 stockholders. The upcoming opening was announced in the December 31, 1899 edition of the “Brooklyn Daily Eagle.”

The new plant of the Consumers’ Park Brewing Company, the stockholders of which number more than 200 saloon keepers in this city and vicinity, and which was organized to fight the trust is to open its doors for business on January 6. On that date the first beer made by the new brewery will be delivered, and it is expected that the saloon men interested in the concern will substitute beer of their own manufacture for that of other brewers.

Advertisements for the “opening” that also included an invitation to inspect the new brewery appeared in several local New York and New Jersey newspapers that week.

Herman Raub, a restaurant owner and hotel keeper, was serving as president of the Consumers Park Brewing Company at the time the brewery opened its doors that January.

That being said, he almost didn’t make it through the opening day festivities when the temporary platform he was seated on collapsed. The January 5, 1900 edition of “The Times Union” told the story.

A bad accident marked the formal opening and inspection of the Consumers’Park Brewery at 946-973 Franklin Avenue, yesterday. The company entertained guests on Wednesday and the festivities continued yesterday afternoon. During the afternoon for the amusement of those assembled the heavy truck horses were put through their paces in the brewery yard and the trucks loaded with kegs. The guests were seated on a temporary platform where they could see. Right in the midst of the performance the platform collapsed and the occupants were thrown heavily to the ground.

Raub survived the event with a broken foot and went on to serve as president until 1907. This photograph of Raub, along with the company’s entire board of Directors appeared in the July 1, 1900 edition of the “Brooklyn Daily Eagle.”

Shortly after the brewery opened, the promised hotel, cafe and concerts were all up and running on the brewery grounds, as evidenced by announcements that began appearing in the Brooklyn newspapers in the Fall of 1901. The following, touting a concert by the “Tyrolean Zither and Warbler Sextet,” appeared in The December 22, 1901 edition of the “Brooklyn Daily Eagle.”

In case you’re interested, the show was reviewed in the January 19, 1902 edition of the “Brooklyn Daily Eagle”

The Tyrolean Zither and Warbler Sextet had made quite a hit in their Sunday concerts at the Consumers’ Park Brewery, opposite the Willing entrance to Prospect Park. They appear in national costume and the snap and sparkle of their music are very pleasing.

The above advertisement finished up with the phrase::

Always on Draught, the adjacent Consumers’ Park Brewing Co.’s AMERICAN STANDARD BEER.

A lager, according to their January, 1900 grand opening announcements, that brand was being produced at the brewery from day one.

The “American Standard” Beer, light and dark, one of the best brews in the market, will be on draught at all our customers’, on and after Saturday, January 6, 1900.

Four months later, in the Spring of 1900, the company introduced a Bock Beer as well. This advertisement inviting the retail trade to their “First Bock Beer Festival” appeared in the April 1, 1900 edition of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle.”

Their Bock Beer Festival ultimately went on to become an annual spring time event, however, it was their “American Standard” that was the brewery’s number one seller. A story commemorating the company’s one year anniversary provided some details. It appeared in the January 5, 1901 issue of the “Standard Union.”

The Consumers’ Park Brewing Company’s opening a year ago will be recollected by many. Since that time the officers, headed by the president, Herman Raub, have made the company one of the leading breweries in Brooklyn. A few days ago the company published a statement which shows that the sales for the first year nearly reached 72,000 barrels, and that a dividend of 7 percent, was payable Jan. 15, 1901. This is a remarkable showing, considering that a year ago the company was a novice, and credit is due to the management for its ability and intelligence in obtaining such satisfactory results.

While the above advertisement mentioned a first year production of 72,000 barrels, an advertisement included in the same edition of “The Times Union” strove to be more accurate. It was, in fact, only 71,953 11/12 barrels.

“American Standard’s” main clientele was the company’s 200 or so stockholders, however, they did have at least one unique customer and from a marketing perspective they certainly made the most of it. Consider the following story that appeared in the February 24, 1902 edition of “The Brooklyn Citizen..”

BROOKLYN BEER FOR PRINCE HENRY

It Was Ordered from the Consumers’ Park Brewing Company and Delivered in Style.

All the beer used on board of the Kaiser’s yacht Hohenzollern is supplied by the Consumers’ Park Brewing Company, of Brooklyn. It is certainly a recognition of the progress of American industry if these German sailors select a strictly American beer to quench their thirst and the brewing company can justly be proud of this fact.

The Consumers’ Brewing Company had a wagon built specially for the purpose of sending the beer on board. The special delivery wagon attracted considerable attention going through the streets of New York and Brooklyn. Being decorated in white and gold, showing the imperial crown and the German colors on each side, it certainly presented a most impressive appearance. The brewery had no difficulty in selecting four beautiful horses from its large stable, as all the horses are first class in every respect. The horses’ harnesses are richly ornamented with silk ribbons and rosettes. In order to promptly deliver the beer the managers of the brewery had two of its best drivers, dressed in tasteful uniform, placed in charge of this fine team.

Versions of this story appeared in several Brooklyn newspapers that day each of which was followed up with this advertisement.

At some point the brewery even added a “Hohenzollern Brau,” to their beer menu, as evidenced by this October 5, 1907 advertisement found in the “Brooklyn Daily Eagle.” By that time they were also making a “Double Stout” and “India Pale Ale” as well.

In 1907, Herman Raub was forced out as president by the company’s Board of Directors, replaced by August Ludeman. Raub’s August 6, 1915 obituary in the “Brooklyn Daily Eagle” suggested that the reasoning behind his removal was never revealed:

Mr. Raub lost out in the Consumers’ Park Brewery venture. After he had organized it and had long been its president and general manager he was forced out for a reason that has never become public by the board of directors in 1907. He took the case to court at the time in an attempt to prevent his removal but was removed before he could serve an injunction he had obtained.

Six years later, in 1913, the Consumers’ Park Brewing Company merged with the New York and Brooklyn Brewing Company. The merger was reported in the January 3, 1913 edition of the “Brooklyn Daily Eagle.”

Another step toward the consolidation of the breweries of Brooklyn has been taken by the directors of the Consumers’ Park Brewing Company and of the New York and Brooklyn Brewing Company, who have drawn up an agreement for the merger of the two concerns into what will be styled as the Interboro Brewing Company.

The stockholder vote held on January 15, 1913 was unanimous and the plan moving forward was summarized in a January 23, 1913 “Brooklyn Daily Eagle” story.

The plant of the New York and Brooklyn, which in itself, represents a merger of several minor brewing companies. will eventually be shut down, all of the output henceforth to be manufactured at the Consumers plant, which is said to be one of the finest in Brooklyn. While no definite plans have yet been formulated as to the ultimate disposition of the New York and Brooklyn’s plant, it is probable that a new company may be formed and the plant converted into an artificial ice plant,

The new Interboro Brewing Company is now the third largest brewery in the borough.

Over the next several years, the brewery operated under the Interboro (sometimes Interborough) Brewing Company name. During this time, newspaper stories suggest that the former Consumers Park facility was noted more for their safety violations than for their product. The one receiving the most attention involved a smoke condition that continuously impacted nearby Ebbets Field, home of the Brooklyn Dodgers. The situation was described in a March 16, 1916 “Times Union” story.

The Interborough Brewing Company of 964 Franklin Avenue, was fined $250 today in the Court of Special Sessions for violating the Sanitary Law. Frank H. Schmitz, of 99 Hawthorne Street, engineer of the concern, pleaded guilty.

Charles Ebbett, Jr., claimed that the dense smoke coming from the plant of this company had caused $40,000 damage to Ebbetts Field.

“We had to paint all the fences and the stands,” said Mr. Ebbetts. “Because of the coating on them caused by the black smoke from this brewing company. We lost a lot of patronage too, because people got tired of having their hats and cloths ruined and getting cinders in their eyes.

Schmitz told Justices Salmon, Gavin and Edwards that he has ordered a better grade of coal, but that as yet he had been unable to have it delivered to him.

Whether the better grade of coal helped is not clear however the situation likely resolved itself when the brewery shut down sometime in 1917 or 1918. At that time the rationing of fuel as a result of World War I, not to mention looming Prohibition, was taking its toll on the brewing industry. A September 7, 1918 story in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle made it clear that the Interboro Brewing Company had been extremely hard hit.

An official of the Interborough Brewing Company, formerly the Consumers’ Park Brewing Company, said:

“The situation is very hard on us. Of course we are closed now and have been for some time. We closed because of high taxes and the lack of fuel and material. We were among the first to comply with the suggestion of the Breweries Board of Trade to consolidate and the Ebling plant has been making our beer.”

An advertisement in the May 6, 1919 edition of the “Brooklyn Daily Eagle,” signaled the official end of the plant that had opened on January 6, 1900.

Several of the original brewery buildings remain to this day. This is evident by comparing the early 1900’s photograph of the brewery with a similar view from today, courtesy of Google Maps.

The two buildings in the foreground of todays view are clearly visible as the third and fourth buildings in the older photo. The larger building is also visible in both photos however it appears that the original pitched roof has been removed.

The bottle I found is a champagne style, approximately 12-ounces in size. Machine made, it likely dates to the latter half of the 1900 to 1913 time frame when the brewery operated under that name.

The embossing on the bottle includes the company’s trademark, described like this in the November 20, 1899 edition of the “American Brewer’s Review:”

Essential Features: The representation of a broken triangular feature, composed of three diamond shaped figures, arranged with their adjacent points or apices touching.

The trademark (no. 33,658) was dated October 31, 1899 in the U.S. patent records; several months prior to the brewery’s grand opening.

C. B. Ellin’s Horseradish, New York

Clifford B. Ellin was a native New Yorker born in 1880. He was active in New York City’s wholesale grocery trade during the first two decades of the twentieth century before relocating to Morrisville, in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

His business career began at the age of twenty when he partnered with Charles S. Heron forming C.B. Ellin & Company. Located in the Bronx, N.Y., the company was first listed in the 1901 N.Y.C. Copartnership and Corporation Directory at 769 East 167th Street.

A year later, the 1902 edition of the same directory listed their address as 1238 Brook Avenue. During this time N.Y.C general directories identified Ellin’s occupation as “teas.”

C.B. Ellin & Company was no longer listed in the 1906 N.Y.C Copartnership and Corporation Directory (the next one I have access to) and after 1903 Ellin’s general directory listing drops the Brook Avenue address; all suggesting that sometime between 1903 and 1905 the formal partnership between Ellin and Heron was dissolved.

Later, sometime in 1906, Ellin apparently went into business for himself as a wholesale dealer in both “pickles” and “horseradish.” Now located in lower Manhattan, the business was originally listed at 425 Greenwich Street until sometime around 1909 when it moved to 503 Greenwich Street

An item in the September, 1915 edition of a publication called “Simmon’s Spice Mill” referred to C.B. Ellin as “the headquarters for horseradish root in wholesale quantities.” The item appeared under the heading: “Queries and Answers of Special Interest.”

Fresh Horse Radish Root

“M. S.,” of Marion, N. C. asks: “Will you do us the favor of telling us from whom we may obtain fresh horse radish root?”

Ans.- C. B. Ellin, 503 Greenwich St., New York, is headquarters for horseradish root in wholesale quantities. We understand that at the present time, however, there is no actually fresh horseradish root on the market and that there will not be any root on the market until after September; but correspondent can obtain cold storage horseradish root from the above named firm.

The company remained at 503 Greenwich Street until 1918 or 1919 when Ellin apparently closed up shop.

By 1920, Ellin had moved to Morrisville, Pennsylvania where, according to a March 12, 1920 story in the Bristol (Pa.) Daily Courier, he established a business operating a bus route between Morrisville and Trenton, N.J. By then he was also serving on the Morrisville Borough Council.

The jar I found is eight-sided and measures 2-1/4-inches wide at the base. Towards the top it transitions to an approximate 1-3/4-inch round opening. It dates to the 1906 to 1918 time period when Ellin marketed horseradish. Blown in a mold, it likely trends to the early end of that range.

Leslie Dunham & Co., Brooklyn, N.Y., 1-lb. Pure Honey

Leslie, Dunham & Company were wholesale dealers in honey, maple syrup and sugar that operated in Brooklyn, N. Y. from 1888 to 1908. Ultimately the company opened another location in New Jersey where they continued in business until the mid 1920’s and possibly longer.

Their honey was sold with brand names like “Orange Blossom,” and “Choice Extra Clover,” while their maple syrup brands were, among others, “Green Mountain” and “Maple Twig.” “Green Mountain” was apparently one of their most popular.

The company’s founder and long time senior member was a native Canadian of Scottish descent named Charles G. Leslie who settled in Pittsfield, Massachusetts sometime after arriving in the United States in 1848. According to his September 27, 1907 obituary published in the “Berkshire Eagle:”

Mr. Leslie was born in St. Bridget, Canada, moving to the United States when a young man. He spent most of his life in Brooklyn, N.Y., where he was actively engaged in business, being the head of the firm of Leslie, Dunham & Co., which he established some 50 years ago.

The above obituary suggests that the business was established sometime around 1860, a fact that’s referenced in several of the company’s business cards published years later in the Brooklyn city directories.

That year census records listed both Charles G. Leslie and Darius W. Dunham as farmers living in the Berkshires of western Massachusetts. The census records, along with the obituary of Darius Dunham, published in the 1896 edition of the “Pittsfield Sun,” indicate that in 1859 Leslie married Dunham’s daughter Malissa. So the Leslie’s and Dunhams certainly had a personal relationship by then.

That being said, through the early 1870’s there’s no reference to either Leslie, Dunham or the company in the city directories for Brooklyn, New York City or even Boston for that matter, so any business apparently remained local to Pittsfield during that time.

That changed in the mid-1870’s when both Charles G. Leslie, along with Darius Dunham’s son, Jasper T., both began to appear in the Brooklyn directories with the occupation of “syrup manufacturer” and/or “honey” albeit at separate locations; Charles G. at 150 Nassau Street, and Jasper T. at 478 4th Avenue. During the early 1880’s Jasper also spent some time across the Hudson River in Jersey City where he was listed with the occupation of “honey” at 133 Coles Street.

Whether a partnership existed at this point is not clear, however by 1888 they were certainly in business together when this item appeared in the March 24th edition of the “Brooklyn Daily Eagle.”

On Greene Avenue near Grand, Messrs. Leslie & Dunham are about to build a two story brick factory 25 x 95, to cost $8,000.

Subsequently in Brooklyn’s 1890 “Lains Business Directory” the Leslie, Dunham & Company name appears for the first time with an address of 275 Greene Avenue. That year , their business card was included with the directory listing.

Also listed individually at the Greene Avenue address were both Charles G. Leslie and Jasper T. Dunham along with Leslie’s son, Merwin. The business remained on Greene Avenue for the next 20 years, listing 281 Greene as their address in later years.

Apparently a relatively small operation, the New York State Factory Inspector’s Report for the Year Ending November 30, 1900 listed seven full time employees, all working a 60 hour week.

In 1904 the company opened a second location, this one at 252 Livingston Street in Newark, New Jersey, where the 1904 Newark Directory named Merwin Leslie as “plant superintendent.”

In 1908, with Charles Leslie having passed away the year before and Dunham either retired or having taken a step back (he passed away in 1944 at the age of 96), the Brooklyn plant disappeared from the Brooklyn directories. The Newark operation, with Merwin now listed as principal, remained at the Livingston Avenue location until sometime in the mid-teens at which time it relocated to 644 Montgomery Street in Jersey City. The company was still located there in 1925 (the latest directory I have access to).

It’s not clear when the business came to an end, however, Merwin Leslie was still living in New Jersey and continued to list his occupation as “merchant, maple products” in the 1930 census records, so its possible the life of the business extended into the 1930’s.

The bottle I found is 6-1/2-inches tall with a 2-1/4-inch square cross section that transitions to an approximate 1-3/4-inch round opening. Its embossing includes the “Brooklyn, N. Y.” location, dating it between 1888 and 1908.

A. Hupfel’s Son’s, 161st St. & 3rd Ave., New York

Three generations of the Hupfel family owned and operated two breweries located in and around New York from the mid-1800’s up through the start of Prohibition. One was situated in New York City’s Borough of Manhattan and the other in the Westchester County town of Morrisania, that later became part of the Bronx.

The Manhattan location got its start in 1854 when a German immigrant named Anton Hupfel along with several partners established a brewery on East 38th Street. The founding of the brewery along with its early history was described in a publication entitled “One Hundred Years of Brewing,” published in 1903.

In 1854 John Roemmelt, Anton Hupfel and Dr. Assenheimer, under the firm name of John Roemmelt & Company, founded a brewery in New York City, in Thirty Eighth Street, between Second and Third Avenues. In 1856 Andrew Leicht, Charles K. Leicht and John M. Leicht purchased Dr. Assenheimer’s interest, and two years later (1858) Anton Hupfel bought out Messrs. Roemmelt and Leicht.

Much of this history is supported in the N.Y.C. directories where Roemmelt & Company was first listed in 1855/1856 as brewers with an address of 151 and 153 East 38th Street. By 1858/1859 Anton Hupfel was listed individually as a brewer on East 38th Street.

Later, in 1863, Hupfel acquired his Morrisania brewery. Its history prior to Hupfel’s acquisition is somewhat muddled. According to “One hundred Years of Brewing:”

About 1857 Xavier Gnant built a small brewery in New York City, which he operated until his death. His widow (Eliza) married a Mr. Schoemig, who in 1863, disposed of the business to Anton Hupfel.

Records associated with an 1868 Westchester County Supreme Court Case, “Xavier Gnant against Anton Hupfel,” tell a different story. They indicate that Xavier’s brother, George Gnant actually established the brewery and was the Gnant actually married to Eliza. In 1857 George deeded the brewery to Xavier in an effort to protect the property from the claims of an ex-wife. Though the property was deeded to Xavier, it was George who continued to run the business and it was his death in January, 1862, not Xavier’s, that resulted in Eliza’s marriage to Schoeming and the sale of the brewery to Hupfel; a sale that Xavier would go on to unsuccessfully contest.

A reference to the brewery found in the 1858/1859 N.Y.C Directory refers to the business as G. Gnant & Co. which serves to support this version of the brewery’s early history. Either way, it’s quite certain that by the end of 1863 Hupfel was running the brewery.

The Supreme Court records generally located the brewery in an area bounded by streets formerly named Carr Avenue, Cliff Street and Avenue A in the Town of Morrisania, with the 1858/1859 directory listing its address as 93 Avenue A. In 1874, Morrisania, along with much of the surrounding area west of the Bronx River, was annexed to New York City and ultimately became part of the Bronx. At that point N.Y.C directories were listing the brewery’s address on St. Ann’s Avenue (3rd Ave.).

Both breweries operated under Anton Hupfel’s name until 1873 when, according to “One Hundred Years of Brewing,” he disposed of his entire interest to his two sons, J. Christian. G. Hupfel and Adolph G. Hupfel. Over the next 10 years the sons continued to operate both breweries as a single business entity that was listed in the directories as A. Hupfel’s Sons. This advertisement that exhibits the address of both breweries under the A. Hupfel Sons’ name appeared in the December 31, 1878 edition of the “New York Times.”

In 1883 the Hupfel sons dissolved their partnership at which time Adolph Hupfel continued to operate the 161st Street brewery under the the A. Hupfel Sons’ name while J. Chr. G Hupfel retained possession of the Manhattan plant. Individual advertisements for each brewery published in late 1883 and early 1884 serve to confirm the new arrangement.This December 25, 1888 “New York Sun” advertisement located A. Hupfel’s Sons solely on 161st Street in Morrisania…

….and an April 27, 1884 advertisement, also in the “New York Sun”, put J. Chr. G. Hupfel on 38th Street in Manhattan.

A history of each entity moving forward continues below.

J. Christian G. Hupfel Brewery, 229 East 38th Street

In October, 1887 the business incorporated as the J. Chr. G. Brewing Company with capital of $500,000 and J. Christian G. Hupfel as president. The first listing for the new corporation that I can find appeared in the March, 1889 N.Y.C. Copartnership and Corporation Directory.

At some point during the 1890’s Hupfel’s three sons, Anton C. G., Adolph G. and Chr. G. Hupfel were appointed officers and/or trustees of the company, as evidenced by the March, 1900 N.Y.C. Copartnership and Corporation listing below.

A turn of the century depiction of their 38th Street facility appeared on this serving tray recently offered for sale on the internet.

In 1914 the company added a Brooklyn plant, acquiring the former brewery of Joseph Eppig. Joseph Eppig Brewery, Brooklyn, N.Y. The acquisition was announced in the August 8 edition of the Brooklyn “Times Union.”

The plant of the Joseph Eppig Brewing Company, which covers an extensive area at Central Avenue, Grove and Leonard Streets, has been sold by the estate of Joseph Eppig to the J. Chr. G. Hupfel Brewing Company, of 229 East 38th Street, Manhattan. The purchase price is not known, but the property is known to have brought a high figure.

The Eppig Brewing Company’s plant consists of two large brick and one frame structure covering an area of 200 x 500 feet.

Another story covering the sale, this one published in the “New York Times,” went on to say:

Both breweries will be operated in the future under the Hupfel Company’s name.

Five years later, with Prohibition becoming a reality, the Hupfel’s transitioned into the real estate business and in 1919 established the Hup Realty Company. The incorporation notice was published in the October 3, 1919 edition of the “New York Times.”

The address of the realty company, 229 East 38th Street, makes it clear that they were running the business out of their former brewery building. Another advertisement, this one found in the September 3, 1922 edition of the “New York Herald,” indicates that other portions of the 38th Street brewery (items 2 and 3 on the list) were being rented out to other businesses.

That being said, as Prohibition ended the Hupfels were back in the beer business serving as brewers for Canada Dry who at the time was attempting to expand into the domestic beer arena. The Boston Globe was one of many nationwide newspapers providing the details. They appeared in their August 31, 1933 issue.

CANADA DRY GINGER ALE, INC TO HANDLE HUPFEL’S BEER

P.D. Saylor, president of Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc., and Anton C.G. Hupfel, president of J. Chr. G Hupfel Company, Inc. announced yesterday that an agreement has been entered into between the two concerns, under the terms of which a company will be organized called the J. Chr. G. Hupfel Brewing Corporation, in which Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc., will have a financial interest. There will be no sale of stock to the public.

The new company will immediately install modern equipment in the Hupfel brewery on 38th and 39th Sts., between 2nd and 3rd Aves., Manhattan, New York City, established in 1854.

Brewing will begin about the first of next year, and distribution will start about April, 1934, when it has been properly aged.

Distribution of Hupfel’s beer will be undertaken by Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc. The initial capacity of the brewery will be about 350,000 barrels and may be increased as demand warrants it. A new bottling plant will be erected on the 39th St. side of the property.

The agreement marks the launching of Canada Dry’s domestic beer business.

Canada Dry newspaper advertisements for “Hupfel’s Beer” began appearing in June, 1934

Canada Dry’s venture into the beer business was short-lived with the end of the venture, as well as the end of the Hupfel brewery, coming less than four years after Hupfel Beer was introduced. An October 21, 1939 story in Toronto Canada’s “Financial Post” ultimately served as the final chapter in the brewery’s history.

In 1935, a former contract was revised and a new one signed, whereby Canada Dry was relieved of all financial responsibility with respect to the brewery and from any obligation to market draft beer.

Canada Dry gave back its 50% interest in the common stock of the brewing company in consideration for the cancellation of the original agreement. Canada Dry still had the $1 million first mortgage on the property and when in 1938 the Hupfel Corp. discontinued operation, foreclosure proceedings were started.

The story went on to say:

Canada Dry Ginger Ale acquired the property of the J. Chr. G. Hupfel Brewing Corp. at a mortgage sale recently. Canada Dry was the foreclosure plaintiff and bid in $500,000 for the brewery property. Amount of the mortgage debt involved was about $1.2 million.

A. Hupfel’s Sons Brewery, St. Ann’s Avenue (3rd Ave) and 161st Street

Meanwhile back in the Bronx, Adolph Hupfel continued to operate the 161st Street brewery under the A Hupfel Sons name and in 1889 joined a newly formed corporation called the United States Brewing Company. The terms of the deal were explained in the May 13th edition of “The Journal,” published in Meridian Connecticut.

New York, May 13. – Three big lager beer breweries in Newark, one in this city and one in Albany were combined last week in a great brewing corporation, with a capital stock of $4,750,000. The owners of the plants are Gottfried Krueger, the brewer king of Newark; Mrs. Christiana Trefz of Newark: Peter Hauck of East Newark, Adolph Hupfel of this city and the Albany Brewing Company…Krueger’s brewery is the largest in the scheme, and it is understood that it has been taken at a valuation of $2,000,000, and that he is to receive half in cash and the other half in stock. The valuation upon Hauck’s brewery is said to be $1,000,000, and he gets the same terms. Mrs. Trefz’s is valued at $600,000, Hupfel’s at $600,000 and the Albany Brewing Company’s at $500,000. The management of the breweries is to remain entirely in the hands of the former owners…

The brewery continued to operate under the A. Hupfel Sons’ name up through Prohibition.

This 1896 view of the brewery appeared on a post card recently offered for sale on the internet…

…and a May 23, 1908 feature published under the general heading “Industry and Commerce,” in the Staunton Va. “Leader,” provided this snapshot of the business in the first decade of the 20th Century. By this time, Adolph’s son, Adolph G. Hupfel, Jr. was serving as president.

Four different kinds of beer are brewed by A. Hupfel’s Sons – a light beer, in which rice is an ingredient; a dark German brew which, with the beer used for ordinary consumption, is a malt product and a special brew for bottling purposes.

Twice each day there is a brewing. Each adds 300 barrels to the output of the A. Hupfel’s Sons’ brewery, whose capacity is 600 barrels a day….

Started in 1854 by Anton Hupfel with an output of only a few thousand barrels a year, it now produces 120,000 barrels annually, and has branches at Yonkers, Mount Vernon, Peekskill, Ossining, Fishkill, Mamoroneck and Bridgeport Connecticut. A total of 100 hands is employed.

Between 1913 and 1915 the brewery transitioned from horse drawn delivery to motor trucks. A story found in the March 5, 1917 edition of the “Anaconda (Montana) Standard,” described the associated benefits of this transition in Adolph Hupfel’s own words. It also provides some insight into the issues associated with the operation of an early 20th century brewery.

Mr. Hupfel explained that the great gain affected by the trucks had been in the abolition of two service stations. These were located at Mount Vernon and Mamaroneck. Beer was shipped to the two points in car load lots under the old arrangement and then distributed by horse-drawn vehicles.

At both points it was necessary to maintain full-fledged stations with 10 horses each, 6 wagons, 3 drivers, watchmen, stablemen, superintendent, clerks, etc.

There was also the problem of the extra handlings. Beer had to be carted to the railroad station, taken off, loaded on the platform, thence into freight cars, taken off these at the end of the journey and then put on the horse-drawn vehicles that completed the journey.

Now all the delivery is made from the main garage. The stations have been rented for other purposes and now, in place of being a source of outlay to the company, have become a source of revenue.

The brewery survived prohibition in unique fashion, transitioning into, of all things, a mushroom plantation. A November 4, 1923 story in the “Tampa Tribune” tells the story.

Speaking of prohibition and the changes it has wrought, one of the most remarkable is to be seen from the windows of elevated trains that pass the old Hupfel brewery at Third Avenue and 161st Street. Above the lofty cornice of the big red brick building a sign rears itself: “Hupfel Mushroom Plantations.”

Inside those red walls, covering only a portion of a city block, ten acres of ground, a fair sized farm, is under cultivation, and is yielding daily something like half a ton of fresh picked mushrooms…

Mr Hupfel himself hardly knows why he selected mushrooms as an industry when he had to admit to himself back in 1918 that prohibition was practically sure to come. A brewery represents a very large investment, mostly in the shape of insulated store rooms which are but slightly adaptable to any other line of manufacture. Also as a brewer, one of his principal interests had been the growing of yeast, a very low form of fungus. So it didn’t seem wholly strange to contemplate growing a higher fungus, the mushroom…

Building specially designed racks in the cellars and store rooms he created a skyscraper garden precisely on the principle of the skyscraper office building or dwelling. Now in many rooms six tiers of beds are erected one above the other, which accounts for the existence of a ten acre “plantation” on a comparatively small ground space..

The end product was a paste marketed under the name “Champee,” a name he trademarked in 1922.

The following spring advertisements for “Champee” made their appearance in more than a few magazines and newspapers. The following appeared in the May, 1923 edition of the Chilton Hotel Supply Index.

“Champee” advertisements popped up in other forms as well. Look closely and you’ll see a “Champee’ billboard in this photograph of Yankee Stadium taken on opening day in 1923. The photo is courtesy of the Detroit Public Library.

After Prohibition the Hupfel Brewery resurfaced as a division of the Allied Brewing and Distilling Company called the Pilsner Brewing Company (Listed first below).

A stock offering for the Allied Brewing and Distilling Company, published in the June 28, 1933 edition of Louisville, Kentucky’s “Courier-Journal, clarified Allied’s relationship with the Pilser Brewing Company.

Allied Brewing and Distilling Company, Inc. represents a consolidation of a number of long established and profitable enterprises which have been developed and operated for many years under the present management. The company has acquired all of the assets, including plants, equipment, patents, trade-marks, inventories of merchandise and supplies as well as the organizations of the constituent companies…

This advertisement for Pilser’s “Special Draught” appeared in several Westchester County newspapers in the late summer of 1936.

Other Pilser brands included “Lion Beer,” “Koenig’s Special,” “Champ Ale” and “New Yorker Beer.” This advertisement for “New Yorker Beer” is the last one I’ve been able to find.

The ad appeared in the June 17, 1948 edition of Hackensack, New Jersey’s “The Record.” That year, The Pilser Brewing Company was still listed at 3rd Avenue and 161st Street, now 561 East 161st Street, in the New York City Telephone Directory. After that I lose track so it’s likely the company didn’t last into the 1950’s.

Today 561 East 161st Street certainly looks like it could have served as a brewery office back in the day.

The subject bottle is blown in a mold and roughly 12 oz. in size.. It’s embossed with the company name of A Hupfel’s Sons and an address of 161st St. and 3rd Ave. That associates it with the Bronx location and its tooled crown finish dates it well after the Hupfel brothers dissolved their partnership in 1883. Likely early 1900’s.

Wm. P. Hartley, Liverpool, London

The name Hartley has been continuously associated with the manufacture of jams, jellies and marmalades for over 150 years.

The company’s founder and namesake, Wiliam Pickles (his mother’s maiden name) Hartley, was born in the small English town of Colne in 1846. His biography entitled “The Life of Sir William Hartley,” by Arthur S. Peake, published in 1926, described his birthplace like this:.

Sir William was born at Colne, a small but pleasant little town in East Lancashire on the edge of Yorkshire, a few miles north of Burnley. It is situated on a high ridge and is affectionately called by its inhabitants “Bonnie Colne-on-the-Hill.”

According to Hartley’s obituary, found in the October 28, 1922 edition of the “Cheltenham Chronicle and Gloucestershire Graphic,” he left school at the age of thirteen to help out in his mother’s grocery store and by sixteen had established his own wholesale grocery business. This puts Hartley’s start in business sometime in the early 1860’s.

In 1870, a classified advertisement that appeared in the August 1st edition of the “Leeds Mercury,” described the Hartley business as a “Wholesale Drysaltery,” with an address of “Cloth Hall” in Colne.” At the time, Hartley was attempting to hire an assistant best described as a “jack of all trades;” part bookkeeper, part salesman and part warehouse worker, suggesting that his operation was still quite small at this juncture.

According to his obituary:

Among the goods he supplied was jam…It was sent to retailers in 14-lb. jars, and customers had to take a cup or jar for their pound or half pound.

The obituary goes on to say:

Difficulties with makers led him in 1871 to start manufacturing jam for himself.

Another of Hartley’s classified advertisements, this one in the October 5, 1872 edition of the “Leeds Mercury,” indicated his need to hire a “SUGAR BOILER,” so it appears by then his jam business was beginning to gain traction.

Less than two years later, Hartley, now committed to manufacturing jam, sold the drysaltery and established what he called a “confectionery works” in Bootle, Liverpool. This had certainly taken place by the Spring of 1875 at which time he was looking to hire someone with “extensive and practical knowledge in the manufacture of preserves, jellies and marmalade” to manage it.

While most of the classified advertisements that Hartley ran appeared in local English newspapers, the above ad appeared in several March, 1875 editions of Scotland’s “Glasgow Herald.” This suggests that he was attempting to lure someone away from the well established Scottish business of James Keiller & Son, the makers of “Dundee Marmalade.”

The following year advertisements for Hartley’s preserves and marmalades began appearing in local newspapers. One of the earliest touting them as “Equal to Home Made.” appeared in the May 1, 1876 edition of the “Liverpool Daily Post.”

Another ad, building on the “home made” concept, appeared later that year in the December 19th edition of the “Leicester Daily Mercury.”

The business grew considerably over its first decade as evidenced by a letter Hartley wrote to the editor of the “Derby Mercury.” It appeared in their April 23, 1884 edition.

All the gooseberries, raspberries, strawberries, black currants, damsons and blackberries used by me are entirely English – no foreign whatever being used – and to prove that the quantity is not particularly small, my usual season’s make is:- Gooseberry, 800 tons; raspberry, 800 tons; strawberry, 200 tons; black currant, 400 tons; damson, 600 tons; blackberry,100 tons.

Not long after this letter was written, Hartley was in the planning stages for a new factory, this one located in nearby Aintree. The September 4, 1885 edition of the “Ardsley and Winslow Advertiser:” provided the details.

The Liverpool Journal of Commerce gives some interesting particulars respecting a mammoth preserve factory that is to be erected. Mr. William P. Hartley, who has earned a high reputation in Liverpool and throughout the kingdom for the manufacture of preserves, has succeeded in purchasing a farm of forty-seven acres about four miles north of Liverpool Exchange and about two miles from his present premises. On this farm Mr. Hartley intends to erect new works, which when completed will be capable of producing one hundred tons of preserves per day.

The move to Aintree was accomplished the following Spring as evidenced by an item that appeared in the May 19, 1886 edition of the ‘Liverpool Mercury.” It announced that Hartley’s former Bootle site was up for sale.

A tour of the new Aintree facility was featured in a July 2, 1888 story published in the “Liverpool Mercury.” The facility, as described in the story, certainly had a “campus-like” feel to it.

In shape the works are oblong, and consist of a single story, with a chimney and water tower in the center, the handsome frontage being relieved with castellated entrance gates and broken by abutting offices and dining rooms for male and female employees. Railway sidings, partially covered, run on two sides of the works and cart roads on the other two, and there are ornamental grounds and a girls’ recreation ground along the frontage. A central covered street divides the manufactory from the warehouses, and the workpeople in passing on this trunk road turn either to the right or left direct into their respective departments. The works alone, without the grounds or sidings, cover nearly four acres, and 1420 hands are employed. In the warehouse is storage capacity for 6-1/2 million 2lb. jars, allowing ample space for the working of the tramways on which 100 “bogey” carriages are often running at once. Every room and all the appliances are proportionately constructed for the production of 100 tons of preserves every day in the fruit season, the making of marmalade and candied peel occupying the remaining months.

The story went on to say that Hartley wasn’t done.

the visitors also inspected the plans of a model village – a local Saltaire – which Mr. Hartley is about to erect for the housing of his workpeople.

By the early 1890’s another story, this one in the May 2, 1891 edition of the “Leeds Mercury,” announced that the “model village” was nearing completion.

A MODEL INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY.- Mr. W. P. Hartley’s Marmalade and Preserve Works at Aintree have within a surprisingly short period grown to vast dimensions, so much so that the business carried on may be considered one of the most successful branches of industry in the North of England. The works and premises are unique, being so self-contained, for, from the proprietor’s handsome mansion to the managers’ pretty villas and workpeople’s cozy cottages, all are clustered in well-arranged order, and are entered from a handsome and spacious boulevard, which is laid out and planted in Parisian style. So rapidly does this business increase that new six-story warehouses are being added to the already extensive works, and Mr. Hartley, to give a finishing touch to this model village, is building a noble clock tower one hundred feet in height. The tower will be fitted with a clock of the greatest power and accuracy: the illuminated dials, four in number, will be visible for a considerable distance, as they will measure seven feet in diameter each, while the bell which is being cast will weigh thirty hundredweight, and will have a hammer power of over one hundred pounds.

Certainly committed to his employees, at around the same time Hartley was opening his new Aintree facility he was also making organizational improvements to their benefit. One was the institution of a profit sharing plan that included disbursements on a semi-annual basis. A dinner associated with one such disbursement was described in the December 23, 1891 edition of the “Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser.” The story mentioned several other employee benefits as well including meals and medical benefits.

Last Saturday evening, the workpeople in the employ of Mr. W. P. Hartley, preserves and marmalade manufacturer, of Aintree, Liverpool, participated in their seventh profit sharing. A very enjoyable entertainment proceeded the distribution of 385 envelopes containing various sums of money. Mr. Hartley in his speech, said that cheap and tasty dinners were now being provided for those work people who came from a distance, and that he had also arranged with Dr. Sugden for free attendance and medicine to all employed at the works.

Years later, the observations of an American businessman who had the opportunity to visit the Aintree plant in the late 1920’s make it quite clear as to the impact Hartley’s business and programs had on both his employees and the town of Aintree in general. The observations were included in a March 4, 1928 story published in the Brooklyn “Times Union.”

We motored from Liverpool to Aintree, the home of Hartley’s marmalade, on a beautiful winter morning. Our first impression was one of amazement at the tremendous size of the works, more extensive than the plant of any food product manufacturer in America. The town of Aintree, a small city in itself, is built up around the Hartley factories. The Hartley plant is the sole industry of the community; everyone old and young, is dependent on it and vitally interested in it. The company is like a feudal lord around whose home is gathered all his retainers, rejoicing in his power and happy in their service. A walk through the neat town, glimpses into the tidy, comfortable homes of employees. Conversations with workers, their wives and families, disclosed the illuminating fact that here is a cheerful, contented community of healthy, industrious people, all loyal to the company, and among whom labor troubles and dissatisfaction are unknown.

An aerial photograph of the plant and surrounding area, likely taken around the time the above observations were written was found in the “Romance of Great Businesses,” by William Henry Beable, published in 1926.

Right from the start the Aintree factory was apparently operating at its full daily capacity of 100 tons. In fact, according to a May 28, 1890 story in the “Birmingham Daily Post,” it occasionally exceeded that capacity.

The story mentioned that its 105 ton output that day filled 118,495 2-lb. jars and occupied 90 railway wagons. On a single day two years later, a similar story announced that the number of jars filled had reached 145,000.

So, bursting at the seams, Hartley was forced to expand again and in 1901 opened a second factory in London. The announcement was published in the June 26, 1901 edition of the “Liverpool Mercury.”

Yesterday afternoon Mr. W. P. Hartley’s new preserve works in Bermondsey, London were opened, in order to add ten million jars of preserves to the output of the famous Aintree establishment. The factory is of palatial dimensions, and will give employment to about 700 hands.

The story went on to present the reasoning behind the new location in Hartley’s own words.

In connection with the inauguration a luncheon was given at the Criterion Restaurant, London.

Addressing the gathering, Mr. W. P. Hartley said:… It is only during recent years that we have made any attempt to do a London trade – even that was not sought for by us, but was caused by numerous inquiries from private individuals, as to where our brand of preserves and marmalade could be obtained in London. This arose through ladies and gentlemen from the North and Midlands, who had been accustomed to regularly use our goods, coming to reside in London, and also not a few Londoners who purchased them at various seaside resorts. Although our output at Aintree, Liverpool, is over a hundred tons a day, this was not equal to the demand. It therefore became necessary either to enlarge the works at Aintree, or erect works in London.

A rendering of Hartley’s London works also appeared in the “Romance of Great Businesses.”

With the new factory on line, a June 26th advertisement in London’s “Daily Telegraph” announced that the company had increased capacity to over 1,000 tons per week, almost double the weekly 600 ton (100 tons per day) output of Aintree alone.

The advertisement also makes it clear that by then the company had added bottled fruits to their menu.

Shortly after the London expansion, Hartley began advertising table jellies; the first ads appearing in the Spring of 1902. The following was typical of these early ads.

This June 22, 1923 edition of the “Gloucestershire Echo” mentioned their table jellies along with their jams and marmalades, stressing their usage by British soldiers and sailors during World War I.

Out of all the scores of millions of packages of jam sent to our Sailors and our Soldiers during the Great War by Wm. P. Hartley, there was never a single complaint received either about short weight or about quality.

Ask the soldiers whose jam they like best.

During the early 1900’s Hartley was also adding flavors to the jam menu. One was apricot which, as far as I can tell, was included in advertisements beginning around 1911. This rather detailed advertisement for their Apricot Jam appeared in the October 24, 1924 edition of the “Midland Counties Tribune.”

The addition of new flavors continued into the 1930’s with the introduction of a marmalade flavor called “Bittersweet.” The fan fare associated with its unveiling included a celebrity endorsement and a gala luncheon at the Savoy Hotel, London, all of which was reported in a headlined newspaper story that was in truth, nothing more than a Hartley’s advertisement. The story, repeated in part below, appeared in several English newspapers in February, 1931.

It was a happy idea of Messrs. Wm. P. Hartley, Ltd., to invite Miss Evelyn Laye, the popular heroine of Mr. Noel Coward’s successful Musical Comedy “Bitter Sweet,” to christen their new “Bitter Sweet” Marmalade. This she did at a Luncheon Party held quite recently in the Ball Room of the Savoy Hotel, London.

The Chairman (Mr. A.W. Hewson, the London Managing Director of Wm. P. Hartley, Ltd.) in welcoming Miss Laye assured her that if her name was in future associated with Hartley’s “Bitter Sweet” Marmalade, she might feel absolutely certain that the product would maintain that high standard of quality alone worthy of such an association…

Meanwhile the Savoy chefs were busy in their kitchen boiling the first batch of the new Marmalade, to make which Seville oranges had been brought specially by air that morning. At the close of the luncheon two chefs bore it into the Ball Room in a huge copper preserving pan which they placed on a table in the center of the room. Such an event was unique even in the history of the Savoy hotel, which is among the most famous in the world.

Then to the strains of the familiar waltz from “Bitter Sweet,” Miss Laye (who looked ravishing in a pale beige pony skin costume and small beige hat) walked to the table and tasted a spoonful of the Marmalade.

“Simply delicious,” she said, and, in formally christening it “Bitter Sweet,” remarked that, “ever since she was a little girl she had known Hartley’s Jams and Marmalade, and could speak very highly of them. As a title, she said, “Bitter Sweet” is truly descriptive of the aromatic bitter taste released directly when the teeth pierce the thick, mellow, tender peel – and how succulent is the lovely sweet jelly! Miss Laye wished the new product all the success that has attended the delightful operetta “Bitter Sweet.”

In 1933 the Hartley business added the canning of vegetables to their operation. The company’s entrance into this new field was announced in the June 23, 1933 edition of the “Liverpool Echo.”

NEW LANCASHIRE INDUSTRY

When Lord Derby opens Messrs. William P. Hartley’s vegetable canning factory at Aintree on July 7, he will be launching an enterprise that will immediately benefit some seventy Lancashire farmers, and provide employment for hundreds of workers on the land or in the factory itself.

The farmers who have been very hard hit owing to the low prices which potatoes have been fetching in the markets, have already sown about 400 acres of peas and French beans to meet initial requirements.

“Vegetable canning is an entirely new industry in this part of England,” Mr. Arnold Barkby, a director of the firm, stated today. ” At first, we shall be canning mainly peas and French beans, but later we expect to handle asparagus, spinach, celery and small carrots, the growing of which will further assist local farmers.

“All the machinery in the new factory is of British manufacture, and the plant will have an output of 100 cans per minute…

Though the founder, William P. Hartley, passed away in 1922, the business was still under the full control of the Hartley family when the canning operation went on line. According to a July 8, 1933 “Liverpool Post and Mercury” story:

The opening by Lord Derby at Aintree yesterday of Messrs. Hartley’s pea canning factory reminds me that this firm, which now employs 3,000 people and has nearly eight miles of miniature railway, is still controlled by the Hartley family.

Miss Christiana Hartley, the chairman, confessed yesterday that she never dreamed she would be called upon to occupy that onerous position. She indicated, however, that her father, the late Sir William, had great faith in a woman’s judgement, and when she was quite young used to confide to her all sorts of details concerning the business – details which she has recently found of great value. Under her chairmanship the board today comprises five grandsons of Sir William.

Later the company expanded further, establishing factories in Peterborough and Hereford. According to an October 23, 1959 story in the “Peterborough Standard,” the Peterborough factory was established in 1948. When the Herford factory was established is unclear.

The Hartley family was still in control of the business when, in 1959, Schweppes announced a take-over bid. London’s “Evening Standard” covered the announcement in their October 19th issue.

The 17,400,000 (pound) Schweppes tonic water and bitter lemon group today made a surprise 2,100,000 (pound) take-over bid for the Wm. P. Hartley jam and jelly firm. The Hartley chief, Mr. William Hartley Higham, and the members of his family are to collect more than 1,000,000 (pounds) under the deal.

Mr. Higham advises his shareholders to accept the Schweppes bid. Members of the Hartley family “owning more than half the shares” have already said “Yes” to the offer…Four of the firm’s five directors are members of the family.

In mid November the “Birmingham Mail” reported that the acquisition was a “done deal.”

Schweppes Ltd. announces that having received acceptances in respect of more than 90 percent of the issued ordinary share capital of William P. Harley,Ltd., it has declared offer unconditional. Offer remains open for acceptnce until November 30.

Today, Hartley brand products are still manufactured by the “Hain Daniels Group.”

Their website states:

Our jam heritage originally dates back to 1805, when James Chivers started making jam for his family business. Later, in 1871, William Pickles Hartley followed down the same path, and started producing jams, jellies and marmalades.

Today we are still Britain’s best loved jam selling enough each year to spread over 300 million pieces of toast.

In the United States, as early as 1890, despite William Hartley’s claim that prior to building his London factory he had no interest in expanding beyond the North and Midlands of England, at least some of his product was making its way across the Atlantic. The first evidence of this that I can find is an advertisement announcing that a shipment of Hartley’s jams had just arrived in Philadelphia on the British steamer “Princess.” The ad appeared in the October 31, 1890 edition of the “Philadelphia Inquirer.”

Mention of Hartley’s marmalade and jams also appeared sporadically in early 1890’s grocery store advertisements, primarily in Pittsburgh and Detroit.

Later that decade the firm of R. U. Delapenha began serving as Hartley’s U.S. agent. As early as September, 1899, a list produced by the U.S. Government’s Agricultural Station for North Dakota identified Delapenha as Hartley’s retailer. (At the time, the U.S. government was taking issue with the marmalade’s salicylic acid content).

According to Rudolph Delapenha’s obituary, found in Paterson New Jersey’s “Morning Call, his firm was founded two years earlier, in 1897.”

Born in Jamaica. British West Indies, he came to this country in 1888 and became a salesman for Rockwood & Co., Brooklyn chocolate firm. Four years later he joined Alexis Godillot and Co., New York importers of fancy groceries. He made his home in Montclair (N.J.) from 1897, when he founded his own importing business.

As early as 1899, Delapenha’s business was listed in the New York City directories as a grocer and importer of fancy groceries, confections etc. Originally listed with an address of 81 Murray Street in lower Manhattan, by the early 1900’s the company had moved to 17 Jay Street. This R. U. Delapenha advertisement for Hartley’s Marmalade appeared in the September 20, 1927 edition of the “Brooklyn Daily Eagle.”

As far as I can tell, R.U. Delapenha continued to act as Hartley’s agent right up to the Schweppes acquisition.

Over the years I’ve found Hartley’s stoneware jars in two sizes. The larger is 3-inches in diameter, 4-inches tall, and likely their two pound size. Embossed on the base is the phrase “Not Genuine Unless Bearing Wm P. Hartley’s Label.” A 2006 publication entitled “The Importance of British Material Culture to Historical Archeologies of the 19th Century,” dates the use of this phrase on their pottery to the late 1920’s.

The smaller jar is 2-inches in diameter and 2-1/2-inches tall. It contained maybe a half pound? The base of this jar is embossed W.P. Hartley, Liverpool & London, and includes a lighthouse surrounded by a flock of birds.

“The Importance of British Material Culture to Historical Archeologies of the 19th Century,” dates the use of this embossing between 1900 and 1920. (I’m ignoring the fact that the positioning of “Liverpool” and “London” are reversed) That being said, the London location didn’t open until 1901, so, I suspect that’s a more likely start date.

Up through the late 1920’s Hartley exclusively packaged his preserves and marmalades in these stoneware pots. Peake’s biography of Hartley provided the reasoning for this in a 1901 statement he made at the time of his London factory opening.

Perhaps I ought to say that all the preserves and marmalade made at these works will be from fresh fruit and lump sugar and no other ingredient whatever. We do not use glass jars because our method is to fill the jam into the jars immediately after it is boiled, so that glass jars would not stand the heat without constant breakages and most serious risk of pieces of broken glass getting into the jam, therefore for twenty years we have practically used only the highly glazed stoneware jars.

In fact many of its stoneware pots were manufactured at pottery works the company owned. This practice continued until the early 1930’s when a shift to glass jars was taking place. A story announcing the sale of one of Hartley’s potteries provides some perspective on the shift to glass. It appeared in the April 5, 1930 edition of the “Liverpool Echo.”

The popular demand for glass jam jars rather than those of the pottery type is more or less responsible for a sale of property by Messrs. W.P. Hartley, Ltd., jam manufacturers, of Aintree.

The firm have sold the Melling Potteries at Kirby to Mr. William Moyers, who is managing director of the Bispham Hall Terra Cotta Co., Ltd., of Orrell, near Wigan…

…Formerly they made a great many of their stoneware jars and bottles there, but the popular demand now is for glass jars, which are made in other parts of the country.

Stoneware jars are still made for the firm at St. Helens and elsewhere…

By the early 1930’s the shift to glass jars was reflected in their advertising, as evidenced by this April 12, 1933 advertisement in the “Liverpool Echo.”

On a final note: According to a June 11, 2001 edition of “The Guardian,” Hartley’s London factory at Bermondsey closed sometime in the early 1980’s and at the turn of the century was being repurposed.

HARTLEY’S JAM FACTORY

It once employed 2,000 workers and churned out millions of pots of jam. But now, nearly 20 years after the last jar slipped off the production line, Hartley’s Jam Factory in Bermondsey is about to be reincarnated as a glamorous live/work development, aimed mainly at affluent young professionals and creative firms.

Two years later, an October 8, 2003 real estate advertisement in the “Evening Standard” listed a two bedroom apartment in a Hartley warehouse.

Chas Mau, 561 E. 156th St., N.Y.

Born in 1860, Charles Mau was the proprietor of a New York City bottling business that was active in The Bronx during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.

N.Y.C. directories first listed Mau in 1895 as a bottler of lager beer with an address of 561 East 156th Street. That address puts the business near the corner of St Ann’s Avenue and 156th Street, which was within or adjacent to the confines of the Ebling Brewery. This suggests, though I can’t confirm, that Mau may have started in business serving as a local bottler of the Ebling product.

In 1898 Mau moved to 687 East 159th Street but his relationship with Ebling may well have continued. Now located near the intersection of Eagle Avenue and 159th Street, it appears that the business was still within the same overall block as the brewery.

In 1907, things may have changed when the business moved again, this time several blocks away, to 429 East 159th Street. Around the same time directory references to beer were being replaced with “mineral waters.”

Thirteen years later, the 1920 “White-Orr Reference Register” continued to list Mau as a mineral water manufacturer with an address of 429 East 159th Street, however, census records that same year describe Mau as retired. This points to 1920 as the likely end date of the business.

The bottle I found is mouth blown, with a blob finish. It’s embossed with Mau’s initial address of 561 East 156th Street, dating the bottle sometime between 1895 and 1898 when he listed that address in the directories. It likely contained an Ebling brew.

Whistle, Orange Whistle Bottling Co.

Whistle is an orange soda that hit the U. S. market in the Spring of 1916. Still sold today, it’s height of popularity occurred in the 1920’s when, according to one newspaper source, it out-sold Coca Cola in New York. Early on, it’s advertising slogan was:

Thirsty? Just WHISTLE

The Whistle story begins with a native Texan named Vess (Sylvester) Jones. According to a feature on Jones published in the July 20, 1922 edition of an advertising publication called “Printer’s Ink,” his business career began, not in the soda business, but in the garment industry.

He had been in the clothing specialty line and had built up a profitable trade, but he finally went broke as a result of a prolonged garment strike.

As early as 1912, he had become engaged in the syrup/soft drink business in Oklahoma City where several local newspaper accounts indicate he was serving as the Oklahoma representative for a Texas firm called the Jersey Cream Company of Fort Worth. By 1914, he had moved to St. Louis, Missouri where the 1914 city directory listed him as the vice president of the Orange Julep Company.

The 1922 “Printers Ink” feature picks up the story from there.

In 1916 Vess Jones thought of an idea for a new soft drink…

Having observed that the orange is an unusually popular fruit, Jones figured that a good beverage with orange juice as its chief ingredient should be almost equally as popular. Now Jones wasn’t the first person to hit upon the orange as the nucleus of a palatable beverage, and he knew it, but his formula called for something different from anything he had ever tasted. He aimed to mix a beverage that would make the majority of persons imbibe several drinks at a single sitting.

So, with an idea and $5,000 in savings Jones established the Orange Whistle Company, setting up shop (the “Printers Ink” story referred to it as a shack) at 315 North Main Street in St. Louis where he was initially listed in the 1916 directory. The company’s incorporation notice was published that February in the “Southern Pharmaceutical Journal.”

Though he settled in St. Louis, according to the “Printer’s Ink” feature, his first client was located in Illinois, not Missouri.

When his first batch of syrup was ready for marketing he hired a horse and wagon and started out to make the people of St. Louis acquainted with, as well as cultivate a liking for his new beverage. The bottlers of that city, however, didn’t display any particular interest in Whistle, even when Jones promised to create a demand for it, for at the start it meant no more to them than a hundred and one other soft drinks that have come and gone. Disappointed but not discouraged, Jones shifted his activities to Illinois, just across from St. Louis.

“I’ve got the best soft drink you ever drank.” Jones informed the first bottler he interviewed in Illinois, “and if you will bottle some of my syrup according to my formula and send it out to your dealers, I’ll spend my own money to move it from the counters.”

The proposition appealed to the dealer and he purchased some of the syrup, promising to bottle it immediately. By the time Whistle was ready for the public, Jones had made a tour of the city with his horse and wagon and put up signs and tacked posters around the stand or store served by that particular bottler. He supplemented his outdoor advertising with copy in the newspapers. Two weeks later the bottler, realizing that he had a valuable commodity, asked for and obtained the exclusive bottling rights to the city.

At first glance the above story appears to be nothing more than a fictional tale pumped out years later by an advertising agency, however, recognizing that the earliest newspaper advertisements for “Orange Whistle” appeared in Mattoon and Bloomington, Illinois, two cities located just north of St. Louis, lends credence to the story.

In Bloomington, this April 22, 1916 advertisement in their local newspaper called “The Pantograph” associated Orange Whistle with the H. Quosick Bottling Company.

In Mattoon, it was the Union Bottling Works, whose similar ad was published in the April 25, 1916 edition of Mattoon’s “Journal Gazette.” In fact, in Mattoon, according to this April 18th advertisement in the “Journal Gazette,” Orange Whistle was already being dispensed at the soda fountain in Frank J. Ritter’s Drug Store.

The following month, Orange Whistle newspaper ads were appearing in nine nearby states and by year end that number had increased to 15 states, all in the south and midwest. This rapid growth required the geographical expansion of Whistle’s manufacturing capabilities as evidenced by this story announcing the opening of a new plant in Greenville N.C. It was published in the January 21, 1917 edition of the “Greenville News.”

The Orange Whistle Company…has completed its plant on South Main Street and is now shipping its product to the bottlers of the Carolinas. The concern is one of five in the United States in which the Orange Whistle syrup is made..

Orange Whistle is a comparatively new drink, having been placed on the market only in the last year or so. It originated in St Louis and until the first of the present year, all of the syrup was made there. The demand for the new drink, however, was so great that it became necessary to establish additional factories in various parts of the country.

The story went on to say that Greenville, apparently like Jones’s other newly established plants, was supported by local capital and management.

When the city was selected local capital was invited to take stock in the enterprise. As soon as the fact became known that the company in St. Louis had determined upon Greenville as the logical place for supplying the Carolinas, a number of local business men made a hasty trip to St. Louis with the result that the Greenville Orange Whistle Company was formed.

A similar company, called the Orange Whistle Company of Indiana, was formed later that year around a newly established plant in Evansville Indiana. The pitch to local investors there was included in the July 6, 1917 edition of the Evansville “Courier and Press.”

By mid-1917, less than two years after being established, the company operated a total of seven factory locations, Six were located in the southern and midwestern U.S. cities of St. Louis, Missouri; Dallas, Texas; Birmingham, Alabama; Chattanooga, Tennessee, Greenville, South Carolina; and Evansville, Indiana, the seventh in Havana, Cuba.

By 1918, in addition to manufacturing Orange Whistle, Jones had begun to establish companies to bottle and distribute it as well. According to a September 15, 1918 story in the St. Louis “Globe Democrat:”

Organized in January, 1916, its operations for the first two years were limited to furnishing syrup to bottling concerns. Last January it embarked in the bottling business on its own account, and has plants in several other cities, principally in the South.

Meanwhile, back at their St Louis headquarters, the company was also expanding. Their original “shack” on North Main Street had been replaced with a factory located at 1035 North Grand Avenue and offices at 1418 Pine Street. In addition, the September 15th “Globe Democrat” story announced that a new, upgraded bottling plant was also in the works. Located in what was called the Cadillac Building, at 2920-22 Locust Street, it was described like this:

Equipment that will surpass that of any bottling concern in the United States, it is declared by Jones, will begin to arrive not later than October 15, under terms of the contract, and the cost will aggregate $80,000. Much of the machinery is being constructed under specifications furnished by the head of the Orange Whistle Company, to give it national leadership and also to effect an increase in capacity over the present plant of 500 percent, while lowering the labor force by 50 percent.

The new plant will have a capacity of 144,000 bottles a day. It is what is known as a low-pressure system. Empty bottles are cleaned, sterilized, given a double rinsing, filled, labeled and capped by machinery, without once being touched by human hands.

Early in 1918, the company was also expanding into the northeast and in February they established the Orange Whistle Company of N.Y. The incorporation notice was published in the February 20th edition of the “New York Times.”

The following year, the Whistle Bottling Company of Manhattan was established.

The above incorporation notice, published in the June 5, 1919 edition of the “New York Tribune,” located the bottling company’s offices at 111 Broadway in lower Manhattan. A week later the company leased a building on East 19th Street to serve as their new bottling plant and by August 12th, advertisements in the Tribune announced that “Whistle was now on sale in New York,” and invited the public to inspect their new plant.

Bottling plants in The Bronx and Brooklyn were added in the early 1920’s. According to a December 15, 1922 item in the “Brooklyn Daily Eagle,” the Brooklyn plant was established on Clifton Place.

The industrial department of Bulkley & Horton Co. have leased to The Whistle Company of America the entire building at 197-199 Clifton Pl. to be used as their main distributing and bottling plant to handle Brooklyn and Queens territory.

In the Bronx, the plant was located at 1360 La Fountaine Avenue

What was happening in New York was also happening in other parts of the country and by 1922 the business had certainly achieved a national presence. Around this time the company formed a Delaware corporation called the Whistle Company of America to serve as a holding concern for the various Whistle entities. The holding company’s incorporation notice was published in the April 14, 1922 edition of the “New York Times.”

The new parent corporation was headquartered on Washington Street in New York City , where it was listed in the 1922 N.Y.C. Directory along with both the Manhattan and Bronx bottling companies.

The 1922 “Printers Ink” story put some numbers to their exponential national expansion.

The old shack in St. Louis certainly enjoyed a rapid and healthy growth. Its only a memory now, but its offspring in the form of robust syrup plants are flourishing in sixteen large cities in this country and three in Canada. And these same plants furnish syrup to 1,200 bottlers, who, in 1921 sold 150,000,000 bottles of “Whistle.”

The story went on to credit much of their success to advertising, which at the time totaled $300,000 annually in signs, posters and newspapers. According to the “Printers Ink” feature:

For every gallon of syrup a bottler purchases the company agrees to spend at least ten cents advertising Whistle in that bottler’s territory. As a rule however, it invests from fifteen to twenty cents, and not infrequently it has spent three dollars a gallon at the start in order to create a demand for a new bottler.

It appears the company also supplemented these locally targeted advertising dollars with some rather unique general campaigns as well. One, likely considered “state-of-the-art” at the time, caught my attention as well as the attention of the “St. Louis Post-Dispatch,” who described it in a November 30, 1919 story.

MOBILE BILLBOARD TO ADVERTISE SOFT DRINK

A novel motor truck with a specially built body to be used for advertising purposes by the Whistle Bottling Co. has made its appearance on the streets of St. Louis during the last few days.

Miniature billboards, the length of the truck and about three feet high, are built on either side of the truck and in the rear. Each of the boards is electrically illuminated for display at night and artistically decorated. Pictures of various Whistle plants throughout the country are painted on each side.

C. L. Griggs, national advertising manager of the Whistle Bottling Co., said the truck would be sent to Chicago to attend the National Automobile and Truck Show in January and later would make an ocean-to-ocean journey, calling on many of the plants of the concern throughout the country. Motion pictures during the summer will be shown on a curtain attached to the rear of the truck. The pictures will show how a soft drink is made.

And that wasn’t the company’s only tricked-out truck as evidenced by this undated photograph exhibiting one with a hand-held bottle of Whistle popping out the top.

Also contributing to the company’s success was the attention given to “quality control.” According to Vess Jones in his own words:

“It’s a simple matter to sell anything once,” Mr. Jones said. “But unless you have a standard and see that everyone connected with it lives up to the standard, you’re not likely to hold your market, for confidence that is once betrayed is rarely regained. We could hand out franchises and then forget about them, but we don’t. It’s our duty to see that every franchise is kept valuable, and we do this in various ways.

Before we grant a bottler a franchise we get his rating, learn how he stands with the retail trade, investigate his plant to discover his daily capacity, see how many trucks he operates, and what else he bottles. If he doesn’t own an up-to-date bottling machine we insist that he install one before we will give him a franchise.

Provided a bottler seeking a franchise meets certain prerequisites, we have him sign a contract in which he agrees to keep his plant fit at all times for visitors’ inspection, to buy all his syrup for Whistle from us, to manufacture Whistle strictly according to our formula, to use only bottles with the name ‘Whistle’ blown in, to use them for nothing but Whistle, to see that every bottle of the product carries a Whistle label before it leaves his plant, and to paint his trucks with Whistle colors – orange and blue.”

Sometime in 1927 or 1928 Jones began manufacturing other favored drinks in addition to Orange Whistle. Marketed under the brand name “Vess,” one of the earliest was a ginger ale called “Vess Dry.” An introductory advertisement that appeared in the April 3, 1928 edition of the “Scranton (Pa), Times Tribune,” described it as :

Containing the purest spices available-genuine JAMAICAN GINGER- Pure Cane Sugar and blended FRUIT Essences.

As far as I can tell, at this point the manufacturing arm of the business was now called the “Vess Beverage Company.” At the same time, they continued to bottle and sell the Vess flavors and Orange Whistle utilizing the “Whistle Bottling Company” and its local franchises.

All that aside, there’s little doubt that the success of the overall business was due primarily to Orange Whistle. That success continued until the late 1920’s when the fluctuating price of sugar served as the catalyst for a downturn that ultimately lead to Jones selling the business to long-time employee, Leroy O. Schneeberger. The circumstances that lead up to the sale were recounted by Schneeberger’s son, Donald, in an interview published years later, in the March 29, 1981 edition of the St. Louis “Post-Dispatch.”

“In those days, Whistle provided sugar for its bottlers,” Schneeberger said. “The price of sugar rose sharply. Went from 4 cents to 20 cents a pound, and kept going. Whistle negotiated a contract at 20 cents, but the sugar producers wouldn’t deliver at that price. They had buyers for 30 cents.

Whistle sued. The sugar companies delayed until sugar went down to 4 cents. Whistle won – and had to pay 16 cents more than the market rate.

That drained the company. When the crash came, well, it killed them. My father bought the company for $10,000.

Schneeberger went on to say that only the midwest portion of the business survived.

Vess was never again anything more than a regional brand – the midwest region that the Schneebergers owned. The country was divided into four equal areas. The other three were not aggressive. They let it slip away. You can imagine what it was like trying to get four people to agree on advertising and marketing. That’s what really held it back…

The company operated under Leroy Schneeberger for the next 30 + years. As early as the mid-1930’s they introduced several new brands, one of which was Cleo Cola.

The Cola had a short but noteworthy history as told by Don Schneeberger in another interview, this one published in the June 27, 1994 edition of the St. Louis “Post-Dispatch.”

One name got its start from his father’s habit of smoking Cleopatra cigars, Schneeberger said. “He took the drawing of a girl in an abbreviated costume off the cigar label, put it on a drink bottle and called it Cleo Cola.”

The bottle looked good, Schneeberger said, but it brought protests that it would not be appropriate for a church picnic.

So his father took the girl off the bottle and substituted a shield. He fooled around, changing the bottle and script for the name.

That turned out to be a bad move, Don Schneeberger said. The company was hit by a suit from Coca-Cola, charging trademark infringement in the way the C’s were written. Coca-Cola won and Cleo had to pay a royalty on every case.

The name Cleo is clearly visible in the photograph of this 1935 Vess delivery truck, found in the June 28, 1970 edition of the “Kansas City Star.”

Another new 1930’s brand was a lemon-lime soda called “Bubble Up, advertised as “THE BILLION BUBBLE BEVERAGE.” Both Cleo Cola and Bubble Up made an appearance in this June 25, 1939 Vess advertisement published in the “Chillicothe (Mo.) Gazette.”

The company must have liked the “Billon Bubble” phrase because it wasn’t long before they were lumping the entire menu of Vess beverages under that phrase.

And…Orange Whistle had not been forgotten, as evidenced by this February 13, 1941 “St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times” advertisement that touted its “modern-styled BIG 12-ounce bottle.”

In late 1946 the company became one of, if not the first, to market a caffeine free soda. The December 10, 1946 edition of the St. Louis “Star and Times” announced it like this:

NO CAFFEIN IN NEW VESS COLA DRINK

A “First” has just been achieved by Vess Cola with the announcement by company officials that they are now featuring an entirely “caffein-free” cola drink. Distribution of the new Vess Cola, with no caffein, has now been completed in this area.

The removal of caffein from Vess Cola adds to the appeal of this popular drink. With all the true cola flavor, sparkle and refreshment quality in, and the caffein out, its the wholesome drink for children as well as adults

A known stimulant, caffein is capable of hindering sleep and of aggravating caffein sensitive nervous systems. Normally over-active children often react to caffein by becoming more jumpy and high-strung. With the caffein out, Vess Cola can be drunk early or late without risk of this over-stimulation.

Vess Cola with no caffein has now been distributed to retail outlets and is available throughout this area. Bottled under license of Vess Beverage Company by Vess Bottling Company, St. Louis. Mo.

In the late 1940’s ads like this were appearing in several midwest states.

Many ads went on to include this little jingle:

So whether you drink it early or drink it late,

Vess Cola doesn’t over-stimulate.

No wonder mothers say “Yes” to Vess Cola

The favors keen with no caffein,

According to Donald Schneeberger’s 1994 interview, their caffeine-free soda turned out to be an innovation that appeared well before its time.

Caffeine-free drinks got popular in the 1980’s. But in the 1940’s Vess didn’t have enough money to advertise the no-caffeine drink fully. It passed on without a lot of notice – no big deal.

Still headquartered in St. Louis, throughout the 1930’s and 1940’s it appears the company, now called Whistle & Vess Beverages, Inc., continued to utilize the facilities of the former Whistle company. Then in late 1949 they began construction of a new St Louis facility, a rendering of which was included in the December 25, 1949 edition of the St. Louis “Post-Dispatch”

According to the story that accompanied the rendering

Work has started at the southwest corner of Hereford Avenue and Arsenal Street on a new building to house the offices of Whistle & Vess Beverages, Inc. and the company’s locally franchised bottling agency, the Vess Bottling Co.

The parent concern…now has its office in the Arcade Building and the local bottling agency at 2925 Locust Street

At this point, according to another item in the story, the company was once again branching out geographically with “150 franchised bottlers, all located west of Indiana to the Pacific and south to the border.” That being said, the bulk of their newspaper advertising continued to be focused on Missouri and the surrounding states.

Leroy Schneeberger continued to run the business until 1968 when, according to a March 29, 1981 St. Louis Post-Dispatch story, he sold Vess to a conglomerate. In an effort to continue the “truck’ theme, here’s the conglomerate’s 1970’s version of their delivery truck.

The 1981 St. Louis “Post-Dispatch” feature went on to say that under the conglomerate:

Vess went flat- lost 70 percent of its St. Louis business, 90 percent of its out-of-town trade.

The above statement is bolstered by the fact that in the two years between 1974 and 1975, at least two of their bottling franchises, one in El Paso, Texas and the other in Kansas City, Missouri, filed for bankruptcy.

In 1975, Donald Schneeberger, who had been working at Vess with his father until the mid-1960’s when he left to form another bottling/canning operation called Custom Packaging Corp., bought the company back. He promptly published this notice in the December 3rd edition of the St. Louis “Post-Dispatch.”

The younger Schneeberger served as president of Vess from 1975 until 1994.

During his term as president the business apparently made a comeback as evidenced by this item that appeared in a June 27, 1994 “St Lois Post-Dispatch” feature on the company.

In 1975, when he bought the company, it was turning out about 650,000 cases of soft drinks a year. In the last year it has turned out almost 18 million cases and had revenue of $50 million.

By then, according to a June 1, 1994 St. Louis “Post-Dispatch” story the company was still turning out its Orange Whistle along with 13 other sugar-sweetened flavors, eight varieties of diet soda and spring waters.

It was around the same time, in June, 1994, that Schneeberger sold both Vess and the Custom Packing Corporation to the Cott Corp. of Toronto. The June 27th St. Louis “Post-Dispatch” feature went on to say:

In buying Vess for $27 million, Cott gets a 235,000 square-foot plant here in the Westport area, plus a 130,000 square-foot warehouse and the 154,000 square-foot (Custom Packing) plant in Sikeston.

Donald Schneeberger passed away on December 27, 2019. His St. Louis “Post-Dispatch” obituary stated, in part:

Today his iconic flavors; Whistle Orange, Cream, Grape and Strawberry as well as many others are family favorites to this day.

Here’s an advertisement depicting today’s version of Orange Whistle’s packaging.

At least two St. Louis buildings occupied by the various Whistle/Vess companies over the years remain to this day. One is the Cadillac Building, leased by the Orange Whistle Company in 1918 to house their bottling plant. Located at 2020-22 Locust Street, here’s its present look, courtesy of Google Maps.

The other is the one built in 1949-50 at Hereford Avenue and Arsenal Street to house Vess. Again, here it is courtesy of Google Maps.

The bottle I found is machine made and contains 6-1/2 ounces. In addition to “WHISTLE,” embossed prominently on the shoulder, the words “WHISTLE BOTTLING CO., GLENWOOD LANDING, N.Y.” are embossed in small lettering along the heel of the bottle.

The Glenwood Landing reference almost certainly associates the bottle with the bottling company of a man named George Sessler. Sessler operated a bottling business in Glenwood Landing on Long Island, N.Y.’s north shore from 1907 until sometime in the 1930’s and possibly longer. The 1925 “Beverage Blue Book” specifically identified his business as a “Whistle” franchise.

In addition to his Glenwood Landing plant, Sessler also operated one on Long Island’s south shore in Baldwin, N.Y., as evidenced by this introductory advertisement that appeared in the May 10, 1923 edition of Rockville Centre (L. I.)’s “Long Island News and Owl”

More on George Sessler can be found in another post on this site.

George Sessler

Why Sessler was supplied with syrup from the Whistle Company of Pennsylvania as opposed to New York is unknown.

Our bottle exactly matches the Orange Whistle bottles depicted in advertisements that date from the late teens up through the mid to late 1920’s.

Ads like this one found in the May 7, 1931 edition of the St. Louis “Post-Dispatch” suggest that by the early 1930’s the company had transitioned to a different bottle design.

Camphorine (R.H. Williams, Amityville, L.I.)

In the late 1800’s/early 1900’s, the name “Camphorine,” was associated with a wide range of companies and products. So, recognizing that there’s no company name or address embossed on our bottle, more than just a few potential uses for it exist. The following turn of the century advertisements illustrate several of them. The obvious one is an insecticide for moths.

Others include a “Disinfecting Powder” and “Disinfecting Solution” manufactured by a British firm called the “Sanitary Dry Lime Company…”

…a toilet preparation called “Bishop’s Camphorine…

and even a “Camphorine Shampoo.”

With all these possibilities I had to narrow down the field, ultimately opting to research a purported ‘cure-all” simply called “Camphorine” that was concocted by a man named Reuben Hoyt. The patent medicine had its roots in Brooklyn, N.Y. and was later manufactured in Amityville, Long Island, within shouting distance of the Great South Bay where the bottle was found.

The name “Camphorine,” registered by Hoyt, appeared in the March 2, 1875 edition of the U.S. Patent Office’s “Official Gazette,” under the heading “List of Trademarks, Descriptions of Which Have Not Previously Appeared In Any Printed Publications.” This suggests that it was one of, if not the first product to actually exhibit the Camphorine name.

Hoyt was a New York City druggist dating back to the early 1850’s. Originally listed in the N.Y.C directories with an address of 537 Greenwich Street, sometime around 1855 he partnered with James Quinn and formed Reuben Hoyt & Company. The business remained listed at 537 Greenwich Street but was short-lived and ultimately dissolved three years later. The dissolution notice, dated February 9, 1858 was published in the February 11th edition of the “New York Times.”

Within two years Hoyt, still in the drug business, partnered with Sidney H. Blanchard under the name Hoyt and Blanchard. Throughout the 1860’s the partnership was located on Manhattan’s Fulton Street, initially at 215 Fulton Street (1860 to 1866) and later at 208 Fulton Street (1867 to 1868). Their business card appeared in the August, 1866 edition of the “Druggist Circular and Chemical Gazette.”

By 1870 the company moved again, this time to 203 Greenwich Street and it was around this time, five years before its name appeared in the U.S. Patent Office Gazette, that the partnership began advertising “Camphorine” as a “cure-all.” The earliest advertisement I can find was published in the July 5, 1870 edition of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle.

Shortly after these initial ads were published the Hoyt & Blanchard partnership apparently dissolved. As early as 1871 Blanchard was no longer listed at the 203 Greenwich Street address and “Camphorine” advertisements simply named Hoyt as the proprietor. An early example of the change is depicted in this December 12, 1872 advertisement published in the “Portchester (N.Y.) Journal.”

Between 1872 and 1874 “Reuben Hoyt” advertisements for “Camphorine” routinely appeared in newspapers throughout the northeastern United States from Maine on south to Maryland with many touting it as “The Greatest Discovery of the Age.”

After 1874, Hoyt’s advertisements for “Camphorine” drop off significantly but up through 1879 the N.Y.C. directories continued to list him at the 203 Greenwich Street address with the occupation “patent medicines.”

The following year, in 1880, the directory only listed Hoyt with a home address, and there was no longer any mention of “patent medicines,” or “drugs” as his occupation. Based on this its likely that the business did not survive into the 1880’s; a supposition that’s further supported by 1880 census records where Hoyt named his occupation as Custom House Officer. He ultimately passed away in February, 1896.

While this signaled the end of Reuben Hoyt’s association with “Camphorine,” it didin’t result in the end of the product as a “cure-all, when sometime in the late 1800’s its manufacture was apparently picked up by a man named Richard H. Williams. Also a New York City druggist, directories indicate that between 1875 and 1884 he was living in Brooklyn and working at 180 South Street in Manhattan. Then, according to his wife’s obituary, published in the February 3, 1911 edition of Babylon, Long Island’s “South Side Signal,” in 1886 the couple moved to the Long Island village of Amityville.

By 1900 Williams was certainly manufacturing “Camphorine” in Amityville and marketing it locally on Long Island, as evidenced by this story that appeared in the “South Side Signal,” on March 17, 1900.

Tomorrow (Saturday), weather permitting, our neighbor, R.H. Williams of Amityville, will be in town and will distribute at the residences in the village sample bottles of Camphorine and Silvershine, of which he is the manufacturer. Camphorine is a remedy with an established reputation as a pain reliever, and the Silvershine, as its name implies, is a preparation for cleaning silver. Both are good articles and well worthy of trial. When Mr. Williams or his representatives call on our readers we bespeak for him courteous treatment and counsel a fair trial for the articles he will leave. The goods are advertised in other parts of this issue, and will be placed on sale in Babylon and throughout the country.

The advertisement promised in the story also appeared in the March 17th edition of the “South Side Signal.” and bears a close resemblance to Reuben Hoyt’s previous advertisements, right down to the phrase “The Greatest Discovery of the Age,” strongly suggesting a connection between Reuben Hoyt and R.H. Williams.

While the above story appears introductory in nature, similar advertisements for “Camphorine” appeared sporadically in local Long Island newspapers dating back as far as the mid 1880’s. The earliest one I can find appeared in the December 11, 1886 edition of “The South Side Signal.”

Though none of these ads mention Williams by name, they’re almost identical to the one he published in advance of his sales trip to Babylon in 1900. This suggests that Williams may have begun manufacturing “Camphorine” as early as 1886 when he arrived on Long Island.

By the early 1900’s local newspaper advertisements for Camphorine as a ‘cure-all” disappear completely, a fact that’s not surprising considering that increased public awareness and stricter food and drug laws were clamping down on the outlandish claims of the patent medicine industry around that time.

This advertisement for “Camphorine” that appeared in Charles N. Crittenton’s 1902/1903 catalog of druggist sundries and proprietary medicines is one of the last ones I can find.

That being said, Williams was listed as a drug nanufacturer in the ERA druggist directories as late as 1911 and was still manufacturing ‘Camphorine” as late as 1920, as evidenced by its inclusion on this list of Price Changes published in the April 3, 1920 edition of the “Drug Trade Weekly” (at the bottom.)

The bottle I found is five inches tall with a 1-1/2 inch square cross-section. Mouth blown, its characteristics fit nicely into the late 1800’s/early 1900’s time period that “Camphorine” was manufactured and marketed on Long Island. Recognizing that Long Island is where the bottle was found, makes R.H. Williams a likely source.

That being said, he’s certainly not the only possible source. In addition to the varied uses mentioned at the start of this post, by the early 1900’s other companies were also manufacturing a patent medicine named “Camphorine.” Two even exhibited the Hoyt name. One was E. W. Hoyt & Co., of German Cologne fame and the other was the Hoyt Chemical Co., of Indianapolis, Indiana. As far as I can tell, other than their name, neither one bears any connection with Brooklyn’s Reuben Hoyt.

Brand & Co., Ltd., Mayfair, The “A 1” Sauce

Invention of “The A 1 Sauce” is credited to English chef, grocer and author, Henderson William Brand. According to A 1 advertisements published by Brand in the British newspapers during the early 1880’s, the story went like this:

This Celebrated Sauce was invented by Mr. H.W. Brand (Formerly of the Royal Household) in 1862, when he was cook and co-manger of the cuisine at the International Exhibition in Hyde Park. It was submitted by him among other sauces to the Royal Commissioners for approval for use at the restaurants in the Exhibition, and pronounced by the Chief Commissioner to be “A 1”- a designation which was immediately adopted, and by which it has been known ever since. This is an incontestable proof of its excellence and superiority.

BRAND’S…TRY a Bottle to see if you do not agree with THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER.

Another early advertisement for A 1, this one published in the October 5, 1872 edition of the “Pharmaceutical Journal and Transactions Advertiser” suggested its use with just about any type of food.

The A 1 OF 1862, LONDON AND 1867 PARIS

Most Wholesome and Excellent, is most exquisite and excels with plain Hot or Cold Meats, Chops, Steaks. Poultry, Fried or Boiled Fish, Bacon Eggs or Cheese. Patronized and in general use at the ROYAL HOUSEHOLD, the Principal Courts on the Continent, the London Clubs and large Hotels, and nearly all first-class Restaurants and Refreshment Rooms.

Today the brand is manufactured in the U.S. by Kraft-Heinz and their message is still pretty much the same.

A1 Sauce is great for pork, chicken, fish and vegetables.

While the A 1 brand itself dates to the early 1860’s, the story of Henderson William Brand gets its start back in the 1820’s when he served in the royal kitchen of England’s King George IV. According to “Grace’s Guide to British Industrial History:”

King George IV’s flagging health inspired royal chef Mr. H.W. Brand, to develop an essence of chicken beverage to boost his Majesty’s physical condition.

After leaving the royal kitchen, Brand served as the private chef for various celebrities and noblemen of his era. A feature on Brand & Co., published in the May, 1914 edition of the “Pharmaceutical Era” provided some details.

In due time the chef left the royal kitchens and became in turn chef for various celebrated gourmands and hosts, including T.W. Coke, of Holkham (the “Coke of Norfolk,” at whose table Charles James Fox was a frequent visitor), and afterward to Earl Manvers; then to His Grace the Duke of Norfolk; the Marquis of Ailsa; Lord Rolle, and others.

In 1834 Brand followed this up by publishing a collection of recipes entitled “The Complete Modern Cook,” a work that ‘Blackwoods Lady Magazine & Gazette” reviewed like this in 1841.

The design of Mr. Brand, in the production of the “Modern Cook,” is praisworthy, his object being evidently to furnish the practiced cook with modern novelties, and the inexperienced with every kind of information relative to cookery, written in so clear and concise a style, that to peruse somewhat 400 pages is rendered a pleasure, instead of hard study, as is with some works which have come under our notice…We recommend every noblemen’s and other family to possess a copy, feeling confident that the author, who for distinction sake we shall say was many years in the kitchen of his late Majesty George the Fourth, has done justice in the production.

In 1835, a year after publishing “The Modern Cook,” Brand established Brand & Co. and went into business for himself. The 1843 “Post Office London Directory” (the earliest I can find) described Brand & Co. as:

manufacturers & importers of preserves & preserved fresh & salt provisions & solid milk, beef tea, etc.”

The company listing included two addresses; 61 King William Street in the city, and 11 Little Stanhope Street in Mayfair but it was the Mayfair address that the business was almost exclusively associated with.

As early as the Spring of 1835 advertisements for H.W. Brand began appearing in the London newspapers. The earliest one I can find, published in the May 23, 1835 edition of London’s “Morning Post,” provides evidence that Brand was producing sauces from the very beginning. The advertisement also mentioned among other things his “chicken broth for invalids,” which could be what he served King George IV in his waning years.

Another advertisement, this one published on March 16, 1841 in the “Morning Post,” was addressed directly: “To INVALIDS and to all Persons of Delicate Constitution,” and mentioned specialties that included: “CONCENTRATED BEEF TEA, CHICKEN and MUTTON BROTH.”

A more extensive menu of Brand’s specialties as well as imported items he offered can be found at the end of a second book he wrote in 1838 called “The Modern Process for the Preservation of all Alimentary Substances.”

Certainly a noted chef and author, Brand was apparently not as adept in business and in August, 1843 the “London Gazette” included him on a list of “BANKRUPTS.”

A story in the January 1, 1855 edition of London’s “Daily News” suggests that Brand’s business survived the bankruptcy and was still up and running on Stanhope Street at that time.

Mrs. Jane Brand was summoned by the police, under the authority of Lord Palmerston, and pursuant to provision of the new act for abating the smoke nuisance, for using a furnace not so constructed as to consume its own smoke.

The defendant is a preserved provision and meat compressor, No. 11 Little Stanhope-street, near Newport Market…

That same year Brand sold the business and over the next eighteen years it would change hands twice. The weekly notes of an 1877 court case “heard and determined by the House of Lords” entitled “Dence vs Mason,” provided the basics.

The facts of this case were that the plaintiffs firm originated about forty five years ago, when it was conducted by Henderson William Brand, and was about the year 1855 acquired by Mr. Withall, who, on the 29th of September, 1873, sold the same to Thomas Dence for the sum of 5,000 (pounds). The business has always been carried under the name of Brand & Co.

After selling the business Brand apparently served as a chef in several different capacities during the late 1850’s and 1860’s. It was during this time, while serving as cook and co-manger at the International Exhibition in Hyde Park that he developed his A 1 Sauce.

Later in the decade he would also serve as manager of the “Jersey Imperial Hotel,” as evidenced by an August 31, 1867 story in the “Gloucestershire Chronicle.”

THE JERSEY IMPERIAL HOTEL. – The Jersey Imperial Hotel, at the opening of which we gave an account some months ago, has just been seen to perfection in connection with a splendid ball and supper given by officers of the 66th Regiment. “Seen from the road,” we are told, “the hotel, being most tastefully illuminated with gas, had a fairy-like appearance, and hundreds of persons had gathered there to admire it. The hall and dining rooms, profusely decorated with flowers, and presenting a very elegant appearance, were very much admired by those who had received invitations.” The company numbered 270. The supper was perfect, and the arrangements were ably carried out by Mr. H.W. Brand, the manager.

Shortly after, likely sometime in the early 1870’s, Brand went into business for himself again, this time as H.W. Brand & Co. and, as early as 1872 was advertising Brand’s International Sauce, “The A 1 of 1862,” along with many of his former products. Two, “Essence of Beef” and “Concentrated Beef Tea,” are specifically mentioned in this October 5, 1872 advertisement found in the “Pharmaceutical Journal and Transactions Advertiser.”

His newly established business was initially located at 4a, Villa Road, Brixton,S.W., where it remained until 1880 at which time the May 25th edition of London’s “The Standard” announced that he had moved the business to 21 Sackville Street, Piccadilly

One year later, an item published in the June 27, 1881 edition of “The London Times” announced that H.W.Brand had moved again, this time to 6 Vere Street, Oxford Street.

All the while, his former business, Brand & Co., now owned by Thomas Dence and managed by a man named John James Mason, continued to operate at 11 Little Stanhope Street and with the exception of A 1 Sauce was selling many of the same named products as H.W. Brand. This advertisement for Brand & Co. that appeared in the February 21, 1877 edition of the “The Medical Press and Circular Advertiser” specifically mentioned “Essence of Beef” and “Concentrated Beef Tea,” among others.

Competition between the two firms led to a High Court ruling restricting H.W. Brand from including the word “Company” in the name of his business. Consequently, Brand operated under the name “H.W. Brand,” while Dence continued under the original name of “Brand & Co.” The decision was highlighted in this H.W. Brand advertisement published in the June 18, 1880 edition of London’s “Daily News.”

The competition between H.W. Brand and Brand & Co. continued for the next several years; a competition that might be best illustrated by the presence of each in London’s 1884 “International Health Exhibition” where the Official Catalog listed them right next to each other in the index.

and their product information was strikingly similar.

By the early 1880’s, Brand & Co., in an obvious effort to compete with H.W. Brands A 1 Sauce, was advertising what they called “Brand & Co.’s “Own Sauce.”

The competition between the two firms came to an end sometime in the mid 1880’s, when it appears that Brand & Co. bought out H. W. Brand. While I can’t find specific documentation, this supposition is supported by the following: First, H.W. Brand newspaper advertisements disappear sometime in 1884. Secondly, by 1887 Brand & Co. newspaper advertisements had substituted “A 1 Sauce” for “Own Sauce” in their advertisements…

…and this March 9, 1889 advertisement found in “The Freemason,” calls out 11 Little Stanhope as the product’s “sole address.

Last but not least, born in 1805, Henderson William Brand was in his 80’s by this time. (He ultimately passed away in 1893.)

In 1887 Brand & Co. constructed a new factory in Vauxhall, London at 74-84 South Lambeth Road. According to an article featuring Brand & Co. published in the May, 1914 edition of the “Pharmaceutical Era:”

The business had grown to such proportions that the factory in Mayfair was not large enough to cope with the orders. It became necessary to find a suitable site for the erection of premises on a much vaster scale and the site on which the present establishment stands was selected. This is situated in historical surroundings in Vauxhall in close proximity to the river Thames and only a few minutes’ train ride from Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament, and within a few minutes walk of Lambeth Palace, the residence of the Bishop of London.

A tour through the buildings is both instructive and interesting. One is especially struck by the spaciousness, loftiness and ariness of the various departments. The great “kitchen,” the vast hall in which, at the time of your representative’s visit, the “cooks” were at work carving the finest meat procurable and transferring it to huge steam-jacketed “coppers” in which the processes of extraction are carried on, is a model of cleanliness. It is shown in the illustration herewith.

The business incorporated in 1897 with Thomas Dence named as “permanent managing director.” The incorporation notice was published in the October 9, 1897 edition of “The Chemist and Druggist.”

Over half a century later an item in the November 3, 1949 edition of the South Wales “Western Mail” announced that the company had gone public.

For the first time in the company’s 114 years’ history the public will be able to acquire an interest in Brand & Co., makers of “Brand’s Essence’ and “A1 Sauce.” Arrangements are being made by British Trusts Association for the placing of the 150,000 5% Redeemable preference 1 (pound) shares, and a quotation is being sought.

Ten years later, Brand & Co. became a target for acquisition. An item in the July 4, 1959 edition of London’s “Daily Telegraph and Morning Post” told the story.

Cerebos, the salt company which also owns “Bits” and “Sifta” salt, has made a counter take-over offer worth about 4 million (pounds), for Brand & Co., the “A 1” sauce firm. Earlier this week a 3 million (pound) bid was made by an unnamed company.

Lt.-Col. J.E. Ridley, chairman of Brand, and his co-directors are recommending the Cerebos offer.

Later that month, on August 25th, Nottingham’s “Guardian Journal” reported that the Cerebos take-over had succeeded.

In Britain, Brand & Company was still advertising both Brand’s Essence of Beef and A1 Sauce right up to the time of acquisition. The following ads published in the early 1950’s were typical of the time period.

As a member of the Cerebos Group of Companies, the business continued to operate under the Brand & Co. name and while newspaper ads for their their A 1 Sauce were becoming less frequent the product was still available in British grocery stores, as evidenced by this item that appeared in the financial pages of the “Evening Post” on December 28, 1967.

That being said, their Vauxhall factory was lost to a consolidation sometime in 1967; a fact mentioned by the Cerebo chairman in a statement made in advance of the company’s sixty third annual general meeting. The statement was published in the May 8, 1967 edition of “The Guardian.”

…We have made further progress in our program to consolidate production within the larger units of the Group….The transfer of production to our Greatham factory has been successfully completed and during the current year the Brand’s factory at Vauxhall will be closed and the production transferred to Greatham…

A year later, The July 3, 1968 edition of “The Guardian” announced that Cerebos had been acquired by Rank Hovis McDougall.

Rank Hovis McDiugall, the giant flour milling, baking, and food manufacturing group is merging with Cerebos, the salt (Cerebos and Saxa), Bisto and Scott’s Porage Oats combine. The deal will create a group worth 180 million (pounds).

Shortly after the merger there’s little, if any, mention of Brand’s A 1 Sauce or Brand’s Essence in British newspapers.

Today, Brand’s Essence of Chicken is manufactured by “Suntory Beverage and Food.” According the their web site the product is only available in Asia but apparently its also available on Amazon.

How close it comes to the beverage Henderson William Brand served King George IV almost 200 years ago is anybody’s guess!

In the United States, the introduction of A 1 Sauce dates back to the 1890’s and is generally credited to the Hartford Connecticut firm of G.F. Heubling & Brother. According to a 75th anniversary feature on the company published in the April 30, 1950 edition of the “Hartford Courant,” the company got its start in 1862 when Andrew Heublein established a small hotel that served both fine food and liquors. The feature went on to say:

In 1875, Andrew stepped aside and let his two sons, Gilbert and Louis. take control of the organization. The two brothers began importing choice viands, vintage wines and liquors from France, Spain and Italy, and it wasn’t too long before “The House of Heublein” had established a name for fine products.

Later, 1n 1892 the company added another line of business bottling pre-made cocktails they called “Club Cocktails.”

As early as the Spring of 1895 an advertisement for their “Club Cocktails” also included a reference to Brand & Co.’s A1 Sauce, naming G. F. Heublein & Bro. as “sole agents for the United States.” The advertisement, offering a sample bottle of A 1 Sauce for 15 cents, appeared in both an April, 1895 issue of “Life” and May, 1895 issue of “Puck”magazines.

Over the next 20 years or so “A 1” advertisements in the U.S. named Hueblein as the “sole importer” of the sauce. Advertisements from 1905 published in the “Bulletin of the Hartford Public Library” and 1912 in the “American Federalist” bear this out.

Sometime in the late teens Heublein began manufacturing Brand’s A 1 Sauce in the United States. According to the 75th anniversary feature on Heublein in the “Hartford Courant,” it was World War I that served as the catalyst for this change.

At the start of World War I, shipments of A1 Sauce from England became increasingly sporadic. Heublein made a satisfactory agreement with the Brand organization and began manufacture of the condiment in Hartford.

Several rears later, that agreement turned out to be a blessing for Heublein.

When the National Prohibition Act was passed in 1919, Heublein’s liquor plant closed down. Fortunately the A 1 business continued good and key personnel were transferred there.

By the early 1930’s, not only was it being manufactured in the U.S. but it was being advertised and sold there on a national scale, a fact that was emphasized to grocers in this October, 1931 advertisement published in the “National Grocers Bulletin.”

It’s surprising how easily grocers can add this extra sale of flavor… this flavor that goes with nearly every food they sell. Millions of housewives know A.1. Sauce…National advertising is reminding them of it every month. There are lots of easy profits in suggesting A.1. Sauce. Try this…and see! G.F. Heublein & Brother, Hartford, Conn.

Sometime in the 1960’s A 1 advertisements began to focus almost exclusively on beef and as such it was rebranded “A 1 Steak Sauce.”

By the 1980’s, Heublein had grown from a small 1860’s hotel that served wine and liquors into a $2 billion a year corporation that in addition to A 1 included brands like Smirnoff Vodka and Kentucky Fried Chicken. An early 1980’s breakdown of their products and sales was published in the June 2, 1982 edition of the “Miami Herald.”

It was around this time that Heublein was acquired by R.J Reynolds Industries. The acquisition was reported in the July 30, 1982 edition of the “Hartford Courant.”.

Saying it was unlikely the company could have remained independent much longer, Hicks B. Waldron, chairman of Heublein Inc., announced Thursday that the longtime Connecticut food and beverage company will be merged into R.J. Reynolds Industries Inc., the giant tobacco, shipping and canning conglomerate.

The merger would create a $14 billion concern that will rank 26th at the Fortune 500 list ahead of Chrysler Corp. and closing in on Proctor & Gamble Co. It will rival Hartford’s United Technologies Corp. in size.

The companies made the announcement separately Thursday afternoon, confirming rumors of a merger between the two that had existed for about six months and which grew to a feverish pitch early this week. The transaction is valued at about $1.3 billion.

R.J. Reynolds is a $12 billion company, about six times Heublein’s size.

A 1 is now manufactured in the U.S. by Kraft-Heinz who in 2014 revived the original “A 1 Sauce” name. According to a May 15, 2014 Kraft-Heinz press release:

In the 1960’s, the brand shifted focus to beef and the product was renamed A1 Steak Sauce. Now, with the original product formula remained unchanged, the brand is removing “Steak” from its name and launching a new creative campaign that shows A 1 Sauce is great for pork, chicken, fish and vegetables.

Today, both the “original” and “Steak Sauce” names are utilized by the company as evidenced by this recent Amazon ad.

The bottle I found is 7-1/2 inches tall and roughly 1-1/2 inches square. Machine made, it’s embossed “Brand & Co., Ltd., Mayfair” on the base.

That being said the Illinois Glass Company’s makers mark of an “I” inside a diamond is also faintly visible on the base, indicating that the bottle was American made. The Illinois Glass Company used this mark between 1915 and 1929, indicating that the bottle was more than likely ordered by Heublein & Co., after they began manufacturing “The A 1 Sauce,” say late teens through 1929.