Austramax 3/300 Red Hood.

I resorted to this sort of dance from previous experience. Normally I can never get to the end because I'm defending myself relentlessly answering the same question asked 3 different ways.

At least this time I got to the end.

I also said right from the beginning, more than once, it was crucial for me to identify and roughly date this lamp before I could go further.

What I have been discussing with the owner of these photos - his story he told me - made a lot of sense to me and tied in with many of my thoughts on the matter.

If this lamp was a 1955-60 lamp his thoughts and mine whilst be on the same path would have been moot. The fact is, the age of the lamp fits perfectly.

If people would read what I say and question me on that and not question me on what I didn't say I'd be happy.

If people would look at a Coleman ad that says Australian made in our Sydney factory and not completely ignore it then ask how does this prove that Coleman had a factory in Sydney perhaps I wouldn't throw my hands up in despair.

Just to try and give a recap before I go on another hiatus:

The bloke that sent me these photos, whom has been collecting for 40 years, told me he was told back in the day that Sydney had a Coleman factory. He has been trying to prove it ever since. He told me he had these photos. He sent them to me.

He said the story goes that when Coleman closed the Sydney factory Austramax bout the plant and had it sent to Melbourne. They were going to make a new model based on the Coleman stamping equipment, if they could get it to work with the rest of the lamp. Obviously they tried and wern't happy with the results.

MY theory is, that once Austramax gave up on the Coleman equipment, Coleman sent it to Colstons in South Australia. Colstons in South Australia began production of Coleman lamps in late 1950 - that is a fact. 1949/50 ties in with the date of this Red Hooded Austramax.

So, if old mate is correct - there is a mass of circumstantial evidence to say he is, including ads posted in this topic, placed by Coleman saying they have a factory in Sydney, that means Coleman were manufacturing far earlier than 99.9% of collectors knew.

That's why for once, just once, I wanted to get to the end of what I was saying.

BTW, Tony was confused, just ask him.

It would do no good to reincarnate Thomas (owner of Coleman Quicklite Australia) as he'd be called a lunatic and a liar.

 

Tony, where does the 1945 date come from?

Matty, I know very little about the history of Coleman in Australia but your original question only asked about the age of the Austramax. It didn't mention Coleman anywhere. Btw, what model Coleman lamp is it you posted the picture of?

 

Nils

The 1945 date is me simply saying that 1945 was when the Patent was applied for (that is, what is on the stamp). The 1952 date was your reference to the nozzle.

Cheers

Tony

 

Matty - Coleman allegedly had factories in the UK where their product was made. As mentioned earlier the address for one location was actually the same address as Monitors actual factory at that time. I believe the consensus is that they didn't actually manufacture. They assembled & repaired & what was made was not made by them.

Similar situation bar the later Colston stuff? Lots of references re British made in UK factories but possibly gilding the lilly slightly? Still good though - British jobs created.

So Coleman flogged their plant to Austramax & then bought it back & sent it to Colstons?

 

Do you have a copy of that patent application or at least a summary?

I wonder if there is information buried at the Austramax factory if you were allowed to dig for it? This seems to be a common theme for most of the Australian manufacturers, but at least Austramax still exists.

 

Nils

As far as I know, the only bit of concrete documentation about the Patent is at the factory.

I'll be there I a few weeks, and I expect I'll get to see it -as well as a look at the manufacturing gear.

Cheers

Tony

 

The only patent I can find was filed in 1947.

http://www.ipaustralia.com.au/applicant/estee-austramax-proprietary-nmi-vide-a-pressure-kerosene-stove-wherein-all-ted-a-body-corporate/patents/AU1947013977/

The details are rather scant.

 

AU1947013977 attached

 

Seriously, forget I ever started this topic.

The lamps a fraud.

Coleman never sent plant to South Australia.

Austramax's don't exist.

The tooth fairy does.

Kayen was a Commie plot.

 

You suggested Austramax bought the plant. Then that Coleman passed it on to Colstons. Maybe you didn't mean the plant? Dunno.

Well - I for one & I'm sure the others are trying to work through this with you. With you - not against you. It's becoming clear you just want agreement with your theory - not questions.

I really don't see what's making you react like this. It's a great, productive thread.

 

It was going well until Tony essentially ignored what I was saying (as he does so well) and implied he wanted to scrutinise the lamp further in case I was pulling a swifty.

Forget saying I read the wrong things into things etc, it aint going to cut it.

I posted these pictures in good faith. I stated they are one and the same lamp. They ARE one and the same lamp. I couldn't give two hoots if Tony is confused or he doesn't want to see what he is seeing. I've been explaining myself over and over for 12 months and no more.

I do not like how Tony went about his business and will not stand and be publicly scrutinised like that again. It's happened too many times in the past and no more.

There are ways to phrase things and there are ways to phrase things.

 

Btw,
You have to agree, the "Kayen was a Commie plot" quip was good.

 

Matty - you didn't start out saying it was the same lamp. The angle the shots were taken had me thinking it was different. Tony's asked to see more pics of the lamp - simple enough. You're making the implication.

I'm really weary of this so no I didn't think the quip was good nor the one I just deleted on the Gloria post.

 

Nils & HD

I'm wrong on on the Austramax application for patent (obviously). For some dim, dark, and undocumented reason, I had 1945 - not 1947 - stuck in my mind.

Cheers

Tony

 

You are weary!

I come to the site to provide positive input to the site. I thought This would be a really cool topic for this site. To me it's an amazing discovery.

You wouldn't think so. No one but I have mentioned that before this. It's always about nitpicking and answering the same questions over and over.

I just confuse people and turn out to be the bad bloke everytime. Not once have I ever had anyone say man, he's got a point. Pick, Pick Pick.

You think My Commie Plot thing wasn't any good and you delete I said just kidding this is a Tilley Hollow wire like I've just committed a crime.

I got into strife last week because a bloke was posting half naked pictures of women (without warning the female members of what they were about to see)but that's fine. He didn't, get into strife I did. I get a post deleted for saying this is a tilley. Ross be fair dinkum, just see it from my side of the fence, just once.

 

Ross, This is now the 3rd time I've posted this.

 

That's because I didn't break the forum rules, Matty, whereas you did...

 

What forum rule did I break? Thou Shall Not Have A Sense Of Humour?

It states in the forum rules you can post naked women but can't say a Gloria is a Tilley Hollow Wire?

 

Matty

You have, for some reason absolutely and incomprehensibly to me, got it completely wrong.

I thought you were on to something that was extremely interesting. - a tank stamped with both Coleman and Austramax would be a very important piece of history.

I was trying to help make that piece of evidence visible to this forum.

I'm no expert on Austramax, Coleman, Tilley or any other pressure stove or lamp.

What I try to do here is pass what I see, learn and know on to others - and help, when I can.

My skills in stoving and lamping, I've learnt here and at CSS - and for that I am grateful to this community.

I really don't know what to say next ...

Tony

 

It is a cool topic! It's positive input. These things often raise more questions. That's the way it is.

When folk make out they're leaving the forum it raises alarm bells as my experience is they can cause disruption in the process. Been burnt before. So a sarcastic reference to this thread posted on another topic where meaning will be lost in the months ahead gets deleted. Precautionary Housekeeping not punishment.

Matty - I try really hard to be fair - I don't need to come over to your side of the fence. Your view of how this thread has gone is completely at odds with mine.

I'm not going to say anymore here (or by PT) as we've been here before & don't get anywhere.

 

Ok, I'll try and be as simple as I can and not get heated.

In a nutshell, you annoyed me when you said I was trying to be mysterious with the lamp. I posted a very large full view picture of an Austramax lamp that I wanted dated. There was or should not have been anything mysterious in what I was doing.

I then quite plainly showed a very large picture of a Coleman stamp and as soon as Nils said that is the same stamp they use on 249's I told him the stamp was on the Austramax. I have had to repeat that twice more.

I don't know how much clearer a picture you want. I have stated it is the one and the same lamp. IT IS. I don't have the lamp, I cannot place the lamp in front of a mirror and take both sides at once or something to prove to you or anyone else I am telling the truth.

If my word isn't good enough, I'm sorry, what is the point of me continuing?

Ross, has now joined the clearer picture bandwagon. I mean seriously. My nose is 2" off the keyboard so I can see to type and I can see the lamp and the stamps just fine.

As I said earlier, I just try to make interesting posts and I thought this would be the grandaddy.

Now I feel (Yes Ross again) that I am beating attackers off with a stick.

Has one question like "wow, Where is this Lamp" "man that ad stating Coleman are manufacturing at their Sydney factory" is cool" Nope. "Matt, that's really something, have you any more photo's you could share? Have you the lamp in your possession? Whoa, where did you get the photos?" nope. "I'm confused...."

I just have to keep repeating myself over and over to half a dozen people and and now the heavy artillery in Dave has joined in to cut me down.

I had a post deleted and frowned upon for calling Kayen a Commie Plot - seriously!

 

I can handle MORE questions.That's the point of forums and the point of me being here. You know that first hand. Just not the same ones over and over. Perhaps people should read the topic from go to whoa then ask questions.

Ross, I had no intentions of PMing you for the same reasons you gave.

If you can't see the point of me being upset over what I believed and still believe that Tony was questioning the credibility of the photos and myself we are at an impasse.

It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters to me what I believe.

 

I have not much knowledge about Austramax and their history, so I think this is a good topic.
Atleast as long as it stick to the subject.

Matty, you can't blame Tony for asking if it's really the same lantern in the two pics.
To me it also look like two completely different shaped tanks.
The first looks like Austramax usually do to me, i.e with a more hemispheric look all around.
The second look like many Coleman's usually do, i.e. with a more cylindrical part at the lower half before it starts to round up in a bit steeper curb.
Higher stretching straight sides, so to speak.

That might very well be an optical phenomenon due to different camera angles or different focal lengths, but it is absolutely not strange that Tony reacted about this and asked if it really was the same tank!
I can't see that he was questioning you personally by doing this.
If anything, he might have been questioning if the guy who sent you the photos perhaps got some lanterns mixed up in the process.

It's not about picking on anyone, but if something new, and possibly revolutionary, is presented, it's not strange that people want full disclosure, so to speak.

Keep the discussion going. It can only bring good if everyone is objective and openminded.

 

Now, getting back to the timeline of Austramax, the patent shown here is for an improvement to a stove. Do you think that would be what they are referring to on the lamps when they use "Pat Pend" on the 2/300 and "Patent applied for" on the 3/300? At the moment all I can say is the following:

the first Austramax lantern was made in 1940 by the Estee trading company.

Sometime in the 1940s they changed the name to
Estee Austramax.

The 2/300 appeared sometime in the 1940s.

There was a patent applied for that was marked on the 2/300 after a couple of variations. The marking was "Pat pend" on the top and base of the tank.

The 3/300 also appeared sometime in the 1940s or maybe very early 1950s. The "Pat pend" marking disappeared but "Patent applied for" was now incorporated in the logo.

The 3/300 had gone through a couple of variations by 1 July 1952.

Some time after the patent application they dropped the Estee out of the name.

These are some of the points in the Austramax timeline that I would like answers to. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

I knew it.

I have repeatedly said there was no need to question the pics I stated quite clearly it was the same lamp.

Is there not one single person that can understand that?

Man, this was really worth doing.

I won't apologise for how I felt and still feel about what Tony said. The 3,000 against me can please yourselves.

I hope one day you find yourself in the same situation as I've been in, in this topic. I knew I shouldn't have started the topic, I knew how it would end as always.

Bares breasts - smell like roses. This is a Tilley - Uppercut.

Makes about as much sense as what went on in this thread.

 

Bare breasts - under review. Uppercut - drama.

 

That's pretty rich coming from you, Matty!

But since you ask:-

My emphasis...

 

Just in case you're referring to me (my name's David) that's not my intention, nor ever has been.

I've been sitting here quietly on the sidelines adding such little information to the thread as I'm able (agreed, slightly off-topic) but otherwise keeping out of it. It was actually you, Matty, who brought me into the debate with your comment above. Please don't blame me for your obvious lack of self-control.

I was determined not to get involved so that I didn't 'carry the can' this time. Like Ross, I feel there's no point in this thread now and I'm outta here... 8)

 

Yes, Matty. I understand that.
But as I understand your anger, it's because Tony still wanted to clarify that it really was the same lantern in the two pics, and I must say that I think that it was a valid question considering how different the two tanks actually appear.
Again, that doesn't mean that he is questioning you. Especially not since you don't have the lantern and didn't take the pictures yourself.

I could ask the same thing, i.e. for some more pics, and that is not because I think you lie. Rather out of curiosity since I don't get the two pics to show the same lantern.

Is there a possibility that the man that has provided you with these pics has confused some things, or mixed stuff up?
Again, this is not to question you, but seriously! Compare the two pics, and you must admit that it raise some questions from the little we can see?

As I already said above, to me the first picture show what looks like a normal Austramax tank while the second show a more straight sided Coleman tank. E.g. from a 249.
It's possible that the slight birds view angle on the former sort of flatten the sides, but frankly I don't really see that happen!

Another detail is that the first picture seems to show a pump that goes out perpendicular from the tank, as on other Austramaxes while from the little we can see of the pump on the other picture it appears to have a slightly sideway, slanted entering into the tank. As expected on a Coleman.
And on top of that, the nickelplating is duller on the first...

You can't blame anyone for wanting more pictures, and even questioning if those two pics actually are of the same tank.
I know I have my doubts from the little we can see here.
And yet again! I don't think you try to fool us or lie about anything.
But I do want to know if there is a slight possibility that your friend has got some things mixed up when sending you the photos.