I m on it.
The flasks were created a little bit where they crossover. As it is, Colt originally, basically made them for each model within the type, with variation , , yeah yeah, anyway, there is simply a flask (from smallest to largest) for,- 48 Pocket (pretty much meaning all the variations with no attached lever rammer), 49/62 Pockets, Belt Old/New, New/improved Army, Dragoons and Walker. In price lists from Colt back then, the flasks were identified by their powder weight. In three basic groups,- Pocket, Belt and Holster (the 60 Army gets going back and forth as a belt/holster).
To 'clean up' the matching, dates of pistol Serial #s (meaning the year they were made) can be applied to the flask pairing (there s alot of Londom stuff in the mix too!). Colt also did a lot of variations to the finish, markings and charger type. Seems this is from the various contractor nuances ,.. This seems to be more of a contractor thing. Finishes were variably,- copper, brass, silver , .No specific tying into a particular flask or whatever. Colt in the 70s/80s did this too! Copper, brass, a kinda pewter ,. Colt in the 80s distinguished the Navy/Army flask only by the charger volume. (20g?/27g). Otherwise they were the same style with angled 'Navy style chargers'.
These are all available today as replicas (Uberti and ilk) and re- intro/continuations (Colt Ind/Colt BAC).
Curiously Colt in the 70s/80s made the Walker and the Dragoon flask the same. CBAC in the 90s made a variation of the Walker flask into a 'Dragoon' flask. It s a little odd that both would go through so much trouble to make beautiful arms with complete packages, and not go that extra inch to be correct (like Colt not making the '49 Pocket model ,.).
Colt/BPAC simply going with existing Italian templates is n o t a good excuse.
At the end of the conversation, there is simply no logical deduction to be applied here, as a rule. Colt was just too variable.
I don t give comprehensive details, just prompting. All Y'all can do a lot of the figur n yourself.
Here,-