The search for the names of unidentified insulator embossings is often unproductive, and shrouded by controversy. Old records are often lost or consumed in the flames which claimed many glass producing firms. Existing information, and the re-examination of information which has been hastily covered before, must provide the insulator collector with new clues into his hobby's past history. 

The B.G.M. Co. embossing has been researched by many collectors for years. Although it can be absolutely attributed to no glass producing company, there are sundry theories trying to explain it. The following are a few such theories that I have come across, with some of my own ideas thrown in for spice. 

To date, there are four C.D. styles which I have seen bearing the Brookfield name and the B.G.M. Co. embossing simultaneously. In all cases the insulators are embossed: F-Brookfield B-New York, with B.G.M. Co. visible beneath the New York. The C.D. styles are: 133, 134, 162, and 164. All specimens are aqua. Sometime between 1903-08 the Wm. was deleted from Brookfield molds. Between 1908-18 the New York was dropped also. It is during this fifteen year period that I believe the B.G.M. Co. products were made. 

Mr. N. R. Woodward, in "The Glass Insulator In America", indicated a connection between the B.G.M. Co. embossing and Wilton S. Bloes of Harlow Insulator Co. association. Because the Hawley, Pa. operation was in propinquity to Old Bridge, New Jersey, where Brookfield was located, it is feasible to think that equipment could have been borrowed by Bloes from Brookfield. Indeed, it would have had to be borrowed, as none of the Hawley insulators closely resemble those manufactured by Brookfield. The C.D. 133 and 134 styles were never made in Hawley. Because of the 133 and 134 specimens marked Brookfield/B.G.M. Co., I feel Bloes was never involved with the B.G.M. Co. embossing. The quality of the glass used by the Harlow Insulator Co. was also not of the quality found in the average B.G.M. insulator. As is pointed out by W. L. Brookfield in Milholland's book, his father paid great attention to the quality of glass used in the making of Brookfield insulators. The B.G.M. Co. glass bears this same quality; while Hawley products are somewhat inferior by comparison. The color of the Brookfield/B.G.M. Co. insulators resembles glass produced by Gayner during the same period, thus indicating sand obtained from a New Jersey location. 

Some collectors have tried to solve the B.G.M. Co. dilemma by resorting to a comparison of the individual embossed letters on other insulators found within the same area. One such attempt which came to my attention was a detailed study of the letter "G" found on the B.G.M. Co. glass, and that produced by Sterling. Any attempt by myself to match the actual embossed letters on B.G.M. Co. insulators and those of Hawley-area origin has proven somewhat discouraging. I have compared the "G" on the B.G.M. glass to that found on Sterling and C.G.I. Co. glass. The "G" on all the B.G.M. pieces is distinctly different from that found on the Sterling glass; however, the "G" on the C.G.I. Co. insulator matches that found on the Sterling insulators. All this leads me to believe that, not unlike engravers of today, those of the 1903-18 period were proficient in the letter styles of the day. This evidence would tend to exclude any association between B.G.M. Co. and Mr. Bloes. 

Another aspect in solving the B.G.M. mystery might be associated with the color of the insulators themselves. B.G.M. Co. glass is primarily S.C.A. It may be coincidental that the 1903-08 period of Brookfield glass production was conspicuous for its large numbers of insulators in S.C.A. also. After Brookfield moved to Old Bridge, glass production returned to its usual aqua. 

Another theory which cropped up in my investigation of the B.G.M. Co. mystery was a possible alliance of the Brookfield Glass Co. and that of Gayner Glass Co. and Henry MacAdams (MacAdams bought the Brookfield Glass Co. in 1922). The fact that Brookfield and Gayner were competitors in the same industry is enough to allay any idea of their joining forces, unless there was a third company which they wished to remove from competition. There were fires at both the Brookfield and Gayner plants in the early 20's. Later, attempts were made to stop Gayner's plans at the Lynchburg Glass Co. Were these willful sabotage, or accidental? No one will ever know. Records concerning such underhanded dealings rarely survive anyway. 

The last theory, and this one hypothetical at best, is based on all the information I have gathered concerning the B.G.M.-B.G.M. Co. insulators. The association between Brookfield insulator styles, and the fact that both embossings are found on the same insulators, definitely ties the two firms together. Why try to make up names to fit into the B.G.M. lettering. Between 1903 and 1918, Brookfield deleted the NEW YORK and the family name from their glass. I believe that sometime in the period when Brookfield left New York and moved to Old Bridge, New Jersey (1908-18), the B.G.M. embossing was tried out in an effort to save manufacturing (especially engraving) costs. William Brookfield, in Milholland's 3rd revision, stated that during World War I, good engravers and glass workers were hard to find and expensive to keep. There are no records extant which even hint that such a change was made in embossing, but the Brookfield Glass Manufacturing Co. may have existed. The B.G.M. Co. embossing may have been a short-lived and tentative change, at best.