When I look in the referencegallery, I can see this Petromax 821 nowhere between the other oldies. The other Babies is all marked "821 Baby Petromax" on the fount, but this one is without the 821 and it is written in another type of writing I only can find under the nice 814 - also marked "Baby Petromax". Is it possible to tell when this Baby is born? I would appreciate. Looks messy but it is under restoration and later cleaning Claus C
Here is from the gallery: http://0flo.com/index.php?threads/5751 http://0flo.com/index.php?threads/3774 And then the 814: http://0flo.com/index.php?threads/3711 Claus C
Maybe you can find the date given by some faint hand written numbers at the bottom plate of the fount. Before the war Petromax (mostly) had the date scratched in with a scribing iron. But sometimes it is very hard to recognize, especially wnen the lantern is uncleaned, and/or the bottom is scratched by long and careless usage.
It's the first version of the Petromax tank without the petromax "long t" logo, typical for late 1920's and first half of 1930's. But you also have a label saying petromax in a newer style logo. If the cage and tank are original, I'd guess it was made somewhere around 1935. Please look for the scratched dated numbers on the bottom. Sometimes strong light and some patience is needed to find them.
The scratching of numbers is not a valid way to date a lantern. It is certainly not done in the factory. Imagine how many lanterns before the was would been made a day! And even then: when the factory would date stamp their product would they not use a more automated system or method ?
Thanks I will clean up the lamp soon. The cage is worn the same way as the fount and looks origin. I did take a Maglite-torch and searched for scratchings but couldnt find any - I did use lot of time strong light and different angles. I will therefor clean it up and have another look, but with pessimisme while the bottom is quite clean and has almost none scratches. I will be back 8) Claus C
I can't agree with you Wim. It looks like a typical for Petromax dating system. On later painted lanterns it was switched to an ink stamp on the bottom. The same style dating appeared on the boxes. Also some Aida lanterns have the same numbers scratched. I don't see any reason why a quick scratch of two digits should take more than a second or two, so I don't understand your thesis that it couldn't have been made in factory. So where if not in factory?
Well I agree with PiTu here, while it is the shortest careless shortening of a date possible and no lampbuying person, who wanted to remember the date he got the lamp would use such a small amount of numbers. Maybe if it was the army receiving a larger lot of lamp would do like that but then the number would still count as a date. I saw Karli had succes findíng this magic-number adviced by PiTu - so I went too right away and guess what: I got on a date and the Baby was born january 1934 Have a cigar. Claus C
Hi Wim, I've got not so many Petromax lanterns from pre-war times (but there were different people to look at all of those for confirmation), and all these have the scratched date on the bottom. I agree that this may only be the date for the fount itself, as they could have been re-assembled later on. But I can imagine clearly that simply scratching such date digits could have been part of the final factory inspection. Pre-war manufacturing still might have been less automated than in later times. Best regards, Martin
Hi Claus, the scratching scheme of the "4" seems to be very unique and looks just equal than that of one of my own lanterns. I'll try to take a photo as soon as I can. Enjoy your cigar...
Cant wait Martin to see number 4 - and talking similarity - try looking at Karli's number 1 and compare to my number 1. http://0flo.com/index.php?threads/2698 I am sold for this time to the date-scratcher-idea. Claus C
These scratches on most of the lanterns seem to be made with some kind of template. Most of digits, especially those hard to scratch for ex. "8" or "2", look very similar. There are also some some lamps scratched in hand-write style, but I'm not sure if they are specific for any time period.
...so here's my photograph (sorry, it's in black and white because I had to fit it to the correct size first)... The date is on the bottom of that nice 828 from which I believe that it could be dated 04/1937 due to its Rapid preheater.
I have no doubt that these numbers shows sign of the use of a template. The irregularity shows exactly where the cross is in the number 4 - one way or the other way. The number 1 is also with the same angle and same look if compared to Karlis lamp. No private person would use such a tool to scratch that way. Its a very nice lamp Martin, so old and yet looks so new. I better go look and clean my Petromax 826 oldtimers to see if I can find more scratches 8) Claus C
No it will be one. If that was factory done then that is how a number one is written in Europe, a 7 would have a cross bar. ::Neil::
So here is a new baby - a strange one. When is my "new" baby born? 1, There is absolutely no scratches in the bottom there is as clean as a babys butt. 2. It has a vapourizer in 1 piece like ex. the first version of Optimus 200 from 1931. 3, fiberwheel and unmarked tanklid (not unusual)but oldish. 4, 2 tags - first a 821-tag and second a Petromax-tag. Not the same as the first baby in this topic. 5, the innerhood is screwed on to the 2 parted tophat. This lamp must be either before 1930's or after 1945. Anyone here who wants to date my baby?? Claus C
A very brighteyed german from Pelam-forum, did state the age of my lamp to 14. oktober 1929. It was embarrasing, because I did chek the bottom for template-scratches very very carefully and I didnt find any. But they were there. Conclusion: I am getting old but that is in company with my old baby Claus C
