Lynchburg Glass Corporation
Sell Price-Cost Comparison

While this document is not dated, it is from sometime in April, 1924. The sales prices given are lower than those listed in Price List 1 from January 5, 1924, which suggests that the summaries are from the first days of production in November, 1923 to March of 1924. There is good evidence for this conclusion. The best evidence is that the production costs on this list correspond almost exactly to the costs given in existing production records for those dates. There is other evidence. Production costs for NO. 31 (CD 112.1) are given only for January and February. Production records show that this style was indeed produced for six weeks from the weeks ending January 12 to February 16, 1924. Also, NO. 48 (CD 153) is listed as only being made in February, which corresponds to the Production records that list it as being made only one week in February, 1923. And while the document is damaged at the bottom it apparently lists the NO. 1 Cable (CD 251), which was only produced in March, 1924.

However, there are some discrepancies between this list and the existing production records. For example, while this list shows NO. 30 (CD 121.1) made from November to March, production records show its first production in March, 1924. There are several other discrepancies. This suggests that the existing production records, while extensive, may not be complete. In fact, the "Weekly Operating Statement" documents from which production totals were compiled are clearly noted as "Estimated."

What is especially interesting about this document is that it demonstrates graphically how much money Lynchburg Glass Corporation was losing in its early months of operation. Only 2 months production of 1 style (NO. 10 in Jan and Feb) showed a profit, and that very slim. The worst loss was the No. 2 Cable in December, which cost .78 each to make and sold for .09 each. We know from later correspondence that this was largely due to poor glass quality and a large number of rejects, complicated by labor problems and difficulty obtaining raw materials. Such losses continued to plague Lynchburg throughout its existence.