You seem to be talking about the exact floppiness of the red hat, the exact wideness of his belt etc, rather than having a red cap and a dark belt however. It's the same fucking character, and now it's down to quibbling about extremely minor details that are already within the parameters for even modern depictions of Santa. Like I said, such things are a far cry from your original claim that Coca Cola in any meaningful way redefined this character. His hat is floppier and his belt is wider are what you come up with when there's literally nothing better to point out.
Maybe if he didn't have a belt before but does have one now, or didn't have a red cap before, but has one now, those would be some kind of point about something. I clipped your entire post in context however, and that was what I was replying to. No, modern Santa didn't erupt whole-cloth out of Coca Cola marketing in a way that is directly contrastable with traditional European depictions. As for the sack, well Nast Santa has a backpack full of toys in both images I linked. While that's not exactly a sack, I don't think it's evidence that Coca Cola redefined what people think Santa looks like 'in all conceivable metrics' or anything like that. That's about accessories, not the core character design. (EDIT: and important point: Nast's Santa wears the backpack because of his roots in promoting unionism during the Civil War, that's a military pack. Other artists of even the 19th century depict Santa with the more common sack).
In fact, you're defending that point but can only come up with what are very minor cosmetic details which aren't even on the level of it being a different character. Which proves the entire point.
I think people are wedded to the myth that Coca Cola remade Santa in their image because it rubs them the right way as a parable which reflects their concerns about capitalism and consumerism, but it's not really defensible from available evidence. Coke's Santa is just a minor variant on already-existing Santas, so the
fixation on Coca Cola is clearly not warranted. Nast's claim, as the creator of the modern idea of what Santa is, is much more defensible, and the fact that his earlier versions aren't as "Santa-ish" as the latter ones only serves to make the case stronger that he first codified the character's major modern traits. Anyone who does in fact spread the Coke myth is doing so
precisely to play off the red-and-white Coke / Santa, color scheme thing, they're clearly not concerned with things like hat-floppiness or belt-thickness.
If you're saying they removed a sprig of mistletoe from his hat and made his hat slightly floppier and his belt a touch wider, that might be so, however at this point it's devolved into proving nothing about anything, because nobody looks at the Nast Santas and sees anything except Santa, and very few people would even notice there's anything amiss. Pretty much any kid, you show them the Nast Santas and ask who that is and they're going to immediately say "that's Santa!" and if you ask if they notice if anything is off they probably couldn't tell you what that is. Which basically disproves the
important part of the Coca Cola theory.
(EDIT: the theory in the form you originally presented it is just plain spreading misinformation, since the underlying implications are clearly that we now think Santa is red and white due to Coca Cola, which I why I pulled you up on that).
EDIT 2: And remember, it's not just the Nast Santas - there's a good 50 years in between Nast and Sundblom in which other artists were all depicting Santa too, and it's clear to see that plenty of people were drawing and painting Santa in a manner immediately recognizable to us today, well before any Coca Cola thing. Just google Santa and any year to find examples pre-Coca Cola.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/dec/18/here-comes-santa-claus-a-visual-history-of-saint-nick-in-pictureshttps://www.wpclipart.com/holiday/Christmas/santa/Santa_illustrated/Santa_in_snow_1918.jpg.html