120 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



The bee keeper then fills it with honey; 

 the varying temperature causes a col- 

 lection of moisture, which frequently 

 rusts the can badly before it is shipped. 

 Can manufacturers do not tin their cans 

 heavily enough to withstand more than 

 a single season's use. 



Then we have inside deterioration of 

 cans, which some dealers in cans refuse 

 to acknowledge. Cans containing thin 

 syrup or honey with caps loosely at- 

 tached will "breathe air," inhale during 

 falling and exhaling during rising temp- 

 eratures. Thus in time oxidation of the 

 tin occurs inside as well as out. If the 

 caps are air tight the cans will swell and 

 shrink from expansion or contraction of 

 air, causing an audible snapping, which 

 in time cracks little cross-shaped leaks 

 in the cans. 



In conclusion I would say go slow. It 

 doesn't pay to buy second-hand cans as 

 a rule. Good, second-hand cans quickly 

 marketed may be all right Cheaper 

 cans may serve in certain cases in selling 

 to a wholesale manufacturer where price 

 is a prominent feature. To ship hard 

 looking cans to a mixed trade will cer- 

 tainly cause the loss of customers, no 

 matter how fine the honey inside. 



We all desire a deserved reputation for 

 a neat, cleanly, and securely boxed arti- 

 cle as well as one of superior quality. 

 If a "kid" handles the honey-gate and 

 the honey spilled is left on the can tops, 

 what will it look like when marketed 

 even in new cans? 



Fill the cans to weight yourself; don't 

 spill a drop on the can. It isn't neces- 

 sary. Then box them up, and either 

 remove at once to a separate room or 

 cover with a cloth, piling five cases high. 

 Don't let bees crawl over cans and cases 

 if they are to look nice. Lastly, don't be 

 stingy with nails. I have never lost a 

 can of honey in my fifteen years of 

 shipping, and 1 attribute it largely to 

 care in screwing caps tightly, nailing 

 cases securely, and also to the use of 

 caution labels. 



Enclosing our product in cheap cans is 

 like dressing in shabby clothes. It gives 

 a bad, if not a wrong impression. Good 

 containers appeal to the average user to 

 the extent of the difference in price, and 

 are fully as convincing in suggesting the 

 quality within as are statements made 

 by the producer. 



Mr. Cavanagh's comparison of second 

 hand cans with shabby clothes is very 

 apt. Putting fine, ripe rich honey into 

 old, battered, rusty cans, is like dressing 

 a beautiful woman in dirty rags. The 



use of these old cans is decidedly poor 

 business management. One trouble, as 

 our friend says, is that many of these 

 cans are more than second hand— they 

 are about fourteenth handed. A can 

 that has been cleaned with water or 

 steam is certain to rust, and the use of 

 such a can will give to honey a taste 

 that is almost putrid. 



The use of bright, new, shining, tin 

 cans is a decided aid in selling the honey. 

 Other things being equal, honey so put 

 up stands a better chance of being sold. 



FILMS VLR5U5 PLATES. 



Some Reasons for the Superiority 

 of the Latter. 



Many of my readers are interested in 

 photography, and one of the questions 

 that they often ask, is whether to use 

 films or plates. I have always used 

 plates, and for reasons given by Louis 

 Derr in an article in the American Annual 

 of Photography for 1911. Among other 

 things, Mr. Derr says: 



But the film is far from perfection. 

 The individual sheets of the film pack 

 often fail to lie flat during exposure, and 

 the detail of many a picture is marred 

 in consequence, if the exposure is made 

 at full lens opening. Roll films are less 

 subject to this trouble, but it cannot be 

 wholly eliminated except by a tension 

 device. The film costs nearly twice as 

 much as a plate of equal size, and its 

 sensitiveness is less than that of the 

 rapid plates ordinarily used. 



In spite of all the eff^orts of the makers, 

 celluloid is not photographically inert 

 like glass, and developed films show a 

 larger percentage of spots and streaks 

 than plates do— a result not wholly 

 chargeable to the practice of developing 

 a number of films at a time in a tray. 

 Finally, the texture of the image on the 

 film is coarser than that on the plate, 

 thus limiting the size of the enlargements 

 rather closely. In a word, the film is 

 not nearly as satisfactory a photographic 

 product as the plate is. 



Films are light in weight, portable, 

 and allow the camera to be loaded in 

 daylight for a large number of exposures 

 — all other advantages are with plates. 



