Austramax 3/300 Red Hood.

I could not tell an Austramax from a Ford Anglia but, I was an Imagery Anaylst in military intelligence for 22 years, specialising in the technical analysis of imagery of military equipment. I can add nothing to the history of Austramax, but can add the following - the two lamps shown above are not the same.

It doesn't matter what angle the photos were taken from, or how they were lit. A camera cannot make a curved side into a flat side. One tank has curved sides, one has flat.

The surfaces of both tanks are completely different. One is matt, the other is reflective.

There is nothing personal in this. If my next door neighbour showed me the same photos I would give the same answer. If those two tanks are the same, I'm a banana.

Terry

 

Something like that.
I actually compared a Coleman and an Austramax from different angles 'live' before posting my text above. Just to make absolutely sure it wasn't likely to get that illusion from a straight sided tank.
It wasn't.

Matty, as I already said: I don't think for one minute that you are making this up, but surely your friend has mixed things up.
Or he has done worse, and in that case you should have words with him...

That's the reason it's never wrong to question things.
It shouldn't be taken personal. Actual facts is the important thing.

 

Aye - does look like a mix-up or some chain pulling.

 

The pictures is taken on the same table and the angle of the green plastlike reflecting appears to be correct if you move to the pumpside.
The tank is not straightsided on the on picture and curved on the other.
The missing polish on the one picture compared to the other shiny is strange-ish to me but it could have been done between the pictures to make the writing clearer.
Lamps surface often appears very different on photos - specially when changing side. Lamps tankshape and size also cheats the eyes when taken from different angles.
I am not convinced that this is 2 different lamps - could be the same to me.
Lets see more pictures of this little jewel to kill the reasonable doubt.

Claus C

 

Regarding the 'patent pending' and 'patent applied for' marking on various models of Austramax, perhaps they did apply for a patent, but one that was never granted. To me it does seem to be the simplest explanation.

The database that is online may only keep a record of patents that were awarded, but I haven't played with it enough to see if that is the case.

HD

 

G,,day .
a few things .
they look different to me .
the Austramax has a Coleman globe , that means nothing .
both photos taken on the same surface .
why is the top of the Coleman photo apparently cropped ?

just observations .

kerry

 

I think that hits the nail squarely on the head. To fly off the handle in this way because Tony said he was confused and requested another picture is totally uncalled for and suggests to me that there is something else going on here. If this Austramax/Coleman lamp were legit then I see no reason why a full picture of the lamp hasn't been posted. Forget mirrors and getting both sides in one picture, that's clearly not what is being requested. A full picture of the lamp showing the side with the Coleman stamp would suffice and put all this to rest. Somehow I don't think we're going to get to see that though. Now we've gone into silent mode, I would guess because this thread has had the desired effect and it's time for a hasty retreat. But, we're here, ready and waiting to be proven wrong. The floor is yours....

 

...FFS can we all just stop an think here?

...Everybody stop taking sides, swallow your pride, turn the other cheek.....

We are all friends here, please stop all this bollocks.....

Everybody...SHOW SOME LOVE........otherwise we may as well pack it in

 

Cheeks being turned so fast some folk have got whiplash! Civil discussion is welcome as is Matty. Let's get to the end of this dance.

 

I have been following this thread with interest. I have also discussed it privately with Matt. Essentially we have been presented with a fact that an Austramax lantern has been seen with both Austramax and Coleman stampings. Now I am a cynical old git and like William of Occam query everything and assess probabilities. What Matt presented is the facts as they were given to him. I agree that the supporting evidence is perhaps slightly dubious but given the source I am inclined to believe the base fact despite the image evidence.

Problem here is that neither Matt nor his source owns the lantern in question so there can be no further images. I have therefore had to make an assessment largely based on the integrity and experience of the people concerned. I can't give you a name because I have been asked not to but as it happens I know the gentleman concerned and I am absolutely sure he was telling it as he believed it and if he believed then so do I. This is of course not evidence but just my assessment of the probability. ::Neil::

 

Yes, that is what I believed (or atleast hoped) too.
That's why I kept repeating the question of this person perhaps just simply had mixed up some photos when he sent those two pics to Matt, because they are hardly the same lantern and that fact is what has obstructed the whole thread.

It's an interesting topic.

 

Has the anonymous person physically seen the lamp? Did they take the pics? Are these the right pictures? Tanks look as different as M320 & 300x to me.

 

I don't think anyone is lying about the actual facts, i.e. that someone has seen an Austramax with a Coleman stamp.
Atleast I hope this isn't the case.

But what I do suspect, is that someone has mixed up some pictures along the way.

Perhaps one person hear about an Austramax with a Coleman stamp, and asks for pics.
He get a pic of the Austramax, and along that one an explanatory pic of e.g. an Australian made 249 saying "That Austramax has a similar stamp to this 249 I also attach a photo of".
And somewhere along the line it is believed that both pictures are of the same lantern, and finally presented like that here.

That's just one silly suggestion of how this might have transpired.

But hopefully that straightsided tank just was tossed in to a former disucssion in order to show appr. what the Austramax looked like on the other side.

That is the problem when information pass through too many hands, and from what Neil wrote, this has passed many hands before being presented here:

That is indeed a problem.
Is it really impossible to get in touch with the owner?
That would clear out all question marks.
It would even have been better if we never was presented with that second picture of the straightsided tank (which I assume is a regular Aussie made Coleman?) so the discussion could have continued on the actual matter.
Which I hope it still will do.

 

With respect, surely it's the facts that we've all been trying to establish over the past couple of days.

Taking personalities right out of this, a member presented his hypothesis, theory, belief or whatever you prefer to call it and backed it up with some photographic evidence. This was then subjected to a process known as peer review. This is an entirely normal procedure in the scientific community and has resulted in the vast body of knowledge we have today. Peer review takes place all over the world, all day, every day of the year; it's simply the means by which scientists evaluate each other's work. It's an objective process whereby researchers accept or reject others' findings based on the evidence presented. The outcomes are rarely taken personally although there have been some pretty spectacular bust-ups over the years. It often happens that what has become accepted and is considered conventional wisdom is subsequently re-evaluated when new or further evidence comes to light. Thus the abandonment of old theories, the adoption of new theories and the refinement of existing theories is commonplace and contributes to the accumulated knowledge of Mankind.

What has been found here is that the evidence as presented is unconvincing in its current form and is insufficient to support the original thesis. In such cases it is perfectly normal to ask for further evidence. In this particular case, no further evidence is available (or likely to be available in the foreseeable future) so, as of now, the original theory as posited at the top of the first page cannot be supported - a case of 'not proven', I suppose. It's as simple as that, really; no big deal and no-one needs to get upset. No-one is taking sides, no-one needs to feel got at.

That's how I see it anyway... 8)

 

As I said above, finding a tank with both Coleman and Austramax stamping would be a very important historic finding.

The reason I was interested in seeing whole views of both the Austramax-stamped side and the Coleman-stamped side, is that a Coleman tank stamped with Austramax, and an Austramax tank stamped with Coleman lead to at least two separate lines of hypotheses about the origins of the lantern, and its place in the Coleman and Austramax stories.

Warning: I am not doing what I am about to say I'm doing in order to "disprove" the existence of the lantern, or to "doubt" Matty. As I have said above, I never said I that I disbelieved Matty.

I am really curious as to whether the joint stamping could be on either of those photos (or, of course, on both), so I'm going to take some pics at different angles of my 249 and 3/300s.

Cheers

Tony

 

Colleagues

I am posting this addition to this thread to clarify one aspect of the discussion. Before I do, I want to say the following:

The existence of an Austramax tank with both Austramax and Coleman stamped on it would be very interesting indeed.

I have no reason to disbelieve that such a tank exists.

If that tank was able to be located and fully described (especially with the rest of the lamp), it would help tie down its provenance and date of production.

As it is, if it is the Austramax tank above, it is very curious indeed. In my view (and this is my opinion only) it would most likely have to be either from 1945 to 1950 - before the Coleman Adelaide factory started; or after 1960 - after Coleman stopped producing lanterns in Australia.

There is, though, another possibility, and that is Austramax made Coleman lanterns for Coleman Quicklite Aust. after the Adelaide factory closed down. This story pops up from time to time, but no-one has nailed it yet.

The photographs above show, I believe, two different tanks: one a standard Austramax tank, and the other an Australian-made Coleman tank. My reasons for coming to this conclusion are in the photographs below which show an Australian-made Coleman alongside two different Austramax lanterns:











More to come...

Tony

 

... continued:











... more to come..

Cheers

Tony

 

... cont'd:








That's it.

Cheers

Tony

 

It's a bit over a year since we've had any input into this thread and I just wondered if any progress had been made towards resolving this matter...

 

@David Shouksmith

Yes. PM on way.

Tony

 

A lucky find!

 

@Tony Press I'd be interested aswell.