Petromax R 826, with internal Alcohol container and pump.

Hi!

I just bought my first Petromax lamp, which I was planning to restore. Now that I have looked into it a little, it turns out that this lamp is old (1922-1936) and is not very common, and that it will not be so easy to obtain parts for it. The plan was to make this work, but I'd rather tamper with it and replace parts with unoriginal ones if so rare. I am no expert and since this will be my first restoration of such lamps, I would rather not make mistakes.

Can anyone here help me date it (There are no inscriptions on the bottom plate), and maybe give me some tips on what to do?

 

Well rare yes, so clean it put it on display and buy another not arre one to start the hobby ;-)

 

Nice lamp. Get a few of the more common lamps to fettle first and return to this beauty once you have gained more experience. For the time being, gentle clean and enjoy its fine lines.

 

Any scratched numbers on the bottom? Appears to date to possibly the early to middle 1930s. Very nice and rare.

 

You miss ? the upper parts of the fill pipe.
It goes up and down above the pre heater cup.


Copyright Henry Plews.
I made mine, the uper piece pipe, from a ballpoint filling, as you can guess the metal version.

Do you have the wide bail with wooden handle ?

 

Welcome aboard!

 

I think that's the plan

 

@Ivan Skadsdammen
Welcome from Queensland Australia.
Such a nice and hard to get lantern. I would suggest, as others have, to get a few other lamps to repair and get to run to gain some experience before restoring this lantern. In the mean time gentle cleaning without any abrasives and above all don’t force anything.
Cheers
Pete

 

thanks for the welcome! I want to listen to you and the lamp goes back on the shelf for a while! which lamp would you recommend to a beginner? There are many lamps for sale from 60-70's from the norwegian army, which probably have great spare parts access and which can become nice lamps for more everyday use.

 

A lamp that you like the look of and can readily get parts for would be a great start. The type you have suggested would be a good start.
As you gain experience and knowledge you will begin to identify how things are put together and why.
Don’t forget, when you do get a lamp and have any problems, ask for help and advice. This forum has a lot of friendly help and knowledge. Just take pictures to go with your questions, it makes it easier for us to understand and help.
Good hunting.
Cheers
Pete

 

@george I've tried to find this number but can't see it on the underside of the lamp. Now the bottom is pretty much scratched, but after washing and staring and washing again and staring, I have little hope of finding that inscription. Are there any other ways to determine age?

 

@WimVe No, all the parts are there. Also that plate of asbestos in the picture, but I have packed it in a tight bag for safety. I don't have the big handle of wood. The one I have is just metal and has a small hoop for hanging.

 

Welcome Ivan.
A nice old and rare lantern you have there. Sometimes the supposedly date scratches at the bottom are not not easy to spot amidst all the other scratches.

 

hhmm, that is not a standart thing I know of. Most I have seen where just metal plates.

 

@WimVe ok but it is the same plate as in the photo you posted.

 

Ivan, I am not an expert when it comes to Petromax lanterns but this style/type, I believe it dates to the 1930's. The spirit well is something you do not see after the war, so at least up to 1939? This is a very nice example of a pre-war Petromax. Take good care of it!

 

ah yes but the lantern is Henry's.
I think that the way of pre heating was perfected with the rapid design.
At that moment the use of a different fuel to pre heat was not necessary any more.
So that would indeed be around 1935-1937, that dates come from the patents, of which we don't know which where actually got into production. That is the early ones. The "Drehrapid" is the oldest version I know.
Patent DE648446 looks like the Tilley rapid. So I guess they would have been sued for that.