In a matter of 30 days I went from zero Petromax to three. This one was bought online and I am wondering the era this may be from? I cannot see any numbers on the bottom as it has some sort of bare brass color with a thin silvery coating. It came with a great reflector, but the glass arrived cracked. The seller however compensated for the glass and I am overall happy with my purchase.
Hello, I have often seen such Petromax lamps with a smooth carrying frame without any date marking. They were made in my opinion from December 1956 to perhaps 1958. Attention,collecting Petromax can be addictive. Regards Reinhard
Can you post a picture of your cracked glass please? Looks like the same lamp I came home with recently sans globe. Nice reflector though.
Hi, for what I know that style of collar was on production from 1954 to 1956, so the production date is within this timeframe. Obviously I can be wrong Nicola
The application for the German Patent DE-1023431 with the ribbed collar dates from August 1956. So this lantern should have been produced before that date. Maybe this can be proven by investigating whether there are scratched numbers on the bottom.
The Patent for the ribbed collar ist from 1956. In fact,the ribbed collar was introduced in 1958. The smooth collar was a temporary solution between the "Sicken"(4 beading grooves,1954-1956)and the actual introduction of the ribbed collar. Tomorrow I will take pictures. I have several Petromax from each vintage with date here. Regards Reinhard
WOW, thanks for all the information! I really like this lantern, just the right amount of age to it, cleaned some of the age off it, but chose to just leave it look well used.
As far as I know and have, there are basically four different frame collar variants for the 300/350...500cp Petromax lanterns. 1. Early longitudinal oblong slotted. 2. Smooth and 'beaded' sicken with 4 indentitations at the fount to accomodate the 4 'legs' of the frame. 3. Smooth without the 'sicken' beads like the one on yours here. 4. Horizontally ribbed as for later ones. I'd say the smooth ones are from the 50s, when there were new developments/patents as well as some overlap between the variants.
I'll have to translate DE-1023431 into 'Englisch' to understand a little more about it first.. The patents could have been applied/filed on a certain date but the actual manufacture-date might still remain uncertain unless you can see some scratched numbers underneath the fount. Not all founts have them. Do you see an 'E+G' or just a 'G' on the logos stamped on that fount?
Take a look here: PETROMAX DATIERUNG The shape of the cage had to do with heat. Or better heat transmission onto the tank. So they experimented with shape and surface area.
Just by accident I got these documents as "Entgegengehaltene Patentdokumente/Zitate, in Recherche ermittelt". One is a Coleman patent and the french one is from Imber research. This last one show a almost identical construction as the later Petromax. DE000000358786A DE000000682909A FR000000911384A To download the full document select: Volldokument laden After selecting 300dpi as a resolution.
Here is the Petromax 826 I brought home recently, looks like the same collar as on Reinhard’s lamp. Letter ‘G’ on the logo and I don’t see anything on base.
It's possible they had some of that plastic spiral wrap on the handle to avoid burning fingers. The zinc has oxidised more where the cracks were giving the spiral pattern.
@Nils, that was my idea too but most collectors use the spiral wrap only to avoid scratches by the point where the bail touches the fount.
@Jean J I'll get a pic or two of the glass soon, Im sorry I have not done it sooner. Thats a nice lantern! And for the spiral, as others have said, i wonder if the handle had some sort of plastic wire/chafe guard wrapped on it at one time as they use around electrical wiring and other things.
I don't think its caused by a spiral electrical plastic chafe. It looks like some tape being tightly wrapped on the handle earlier. If the handle could be detached from the frame, a protection sleeve would have been slid over it instead.
