It took two years of research to solve the pressure problem and to develop a half-satisfactory inner coating. Pleased with its efforts, CanCo then approached some of the major American breweries. They did not want to know.
The economics still did not add up. There was no obvious demand from drinkers, and the larger breweries were wary of risking their reputations on an untried container. Two of the brewing giants, Anheuser-Busch and Pabst, had experimented with canning in 1929, and both had decided against the pursuing of what was seen as a poor, novelty product.
Eventually CanCo found a small brewery desperate enough to give tinned beer a try. The Gottfried Krueger Brewery of Newark, New Jersey, was in a poor shape after thirteen years of Prohibition. To add to its problems, when the ban on alcohol was finally repealed in 1933, its workers went on strike.
As the company was prepared to install the canning equipment for free - Krueger would only have to pay for it if the experiment was a success - the troubled brewery had nothing to lose.
In 1933, a test run of 2,000 cans was produced for a trial sampling. Further trials followed. The can was modified. Only in September 1934 did CanCo patent its Vinylite lining under the trademark 'Keglined'. Then, in January 1935, two brands, "Krueger's Finest Beer" and "Cream Ale", went on public sale in Richmond, Virginia.
The tinning took off beyond American Can's wildest dreams. Krueger was also pleased. Its sales shot up, so that by July its production was running at over five times its pre-canning level. By the end of the year, no less than thirty-seven US breweries were following its example and rattling out canned beer, including reluctant giants Pabst and Schiltz, brewers of the beer 'that made Milwaukee famous'.
A major factor in its success was that the packs were easier to carry home; shoppers were even prepared to pay a premium for the convenience. In addition, the compact can fitted more easily into the increasingly popular refrigerators appearing in every home; Americans preferred their beer ice cold. A survey of 750 drinkers found 89 per cent liked the new brightly designed containers.
To help convert wavering customers, early CanCo cans carried the imaginative claim that the contents were better than if served any other way, as the goodness was sealed in, the flavour preserved, and the beer protected from the harmful effects of light.
American brewers discovered that while the unit costs of one-trip cans were higher than returnable glass bottles, there were significant savings to be made in transport costs. Cans were much lighter and could be more tightly stacked - advantages which were also welcomed by retailers. And there were no empties to worry about.
Not surprisingly, the American glass industry was less enthusiastic. It started to kick the can. The Glass Bottle Blowers Association published a list of 'Fads and Fancies'-'1931 Miniature Golf; 1932 Flag Pole Sitting; 1933 Jigsaw Puzzles; 1934 Mah Jong; 1935 Tin Can Beer'.
In Britain, the main can manufacturer, Metal Box, had been watching developments in America with interest. But the company's leaders were far from convinced. 'I can't see the British public cottoning on to the idea', wrote chairman F. N. Hepworth in August 1935.
Managing director Robert Barlow, the driving force of the firm, saw some possibilities: 'I can conceive of some of those beautiful establishments in Carlisle', he replied, referring to the modernized state-owned pubs in Cumberland, 'being rendered even more aesthetic by nicely decorated cans instead of ugly beer bottles.' But he added: 'The whole thing may come to nothing at all. I shall not risk any capital without your approval or without reasonable justification.'
If cans were to take off in Britain, the enthusiasm had to come from elsewhere. It did, from the bottom of the industrial pile - from the hard-pressed tinplate manufacturers of Llanelli in South Wales. They might be tucked away in a corner of Britain, but they had their eyes on the world.
