@OMC @igh371 I return to the bottom stamping questions. I quote Ian from Willander Svea No.10: “But I'm putting it here, rather than in the Sievert/Svea section because the word 'Sievert' doesn't appear anywhere on the stove, and there is nothing on tank base.” After all the Willander informations that emerged Ian dated the Willander Svea 10 around 1907, and in the previous quote (as we have seen also in this discussion) we understand that this example doesn’t have any bottom stamping nor any reference to Max Sievert. So all the Willander examples and, at the moment, these three Svea stoves (with Max Sievert starburst logo) (I added the no 5 to the list today) are without any bottom stamping: Svea No.0 c.1908 Very early Svea No.5 Svea No.11 c.1908 variant. So, knowing that Willander left Svea in 1908, would be this the moment when Max Sievert adds to the bottom plates the MAX SIEVERT - PATENT - STOCKHOLM bottom stamping? Also to reinforce the fact that those SVEA stoves (marked just Willander or SVEA during the previous 3/4 years) were now delivered by Max Sievert? Having also a no 5 (that for sure originally had the 804 burner) entering in these 3 stoves group without bottom stamping I would come to this dating conclusion: 1: Willander Svea stoves 1904-1907 2: Svea stoves with starburst logo and no bottom stamping 1908 3: Svea stoves with the PATENT bottom stamping from 1908 to the creation of Aktiebol. Max Sievert and Made in Sweden bottom stamping. Year? Is this correct? Nicola
Sorry I'm not there yet, both details among open questions with not a lot to go on. Blank bottom, the absence of anything is a curious point/detail to confirm. Absence of stamp and or with or without patent same question applies to various version of Victoria iirc. There too are open questions we may or may not ever answer (may be harder to decipher re Victioria). Ian "Regarding tank bottom markings there are more open questions. Did those with 'Max Sievert Patent' in the tank base provenance mark date only from the earliest years of Sievert's marketing of the Svea stoves (ie 1908/9/10) or not? Also how do those considerable number of Scea stoves from a variety of dates with no tank base provenance mark at all fit into the picture?" Of the 4 you ask for consideration are two 1 pinters and two 2 pinters. the open question and possible answers there include added variables: did the two sizes develop similarly (fwiw 1 pint Optimus 00 did not develop in parallel w/ 2 pint 45, iirc), if they did develop similarly, did changes occur in lock step. "The tank marking 1 pint vs 2 pint differ from the beginning is impression I have, credit Nicola. i suggest, split the observations. I am not neglecting/disregarding 1 pinters but I, myself, lean to the 2 pinters as an initial focus. Any comments welcome and 1 pinters and other SVEA examples DO still factor-in, just, to get sequence established, i think, it will be helpful to limit it to 2 pinter tanks, initially. Multi-cho may have suggested similar above."
Dating of the 'Victoria' is very tenuous, and virtually no 2 examples are exactly the same, with most differences revolving around the NRV issue. It never became a volume production stove in any meaningful sense. Maybe the tantalisingly brief flurry of adverts referred to above offering a 'Svea' named stove, or at least burner, early in 1897 marked a first attempt to move beyond the tarnished 'Victoria' name? But then the problematic issue of what became the hallmark Svea stove external NRV configuration was not finally settled until early 1904.
@OMC The stoves I am observing are: Willander Svea No.10 Willander Svea No.1 1904-7 Svea No.1A - and many questions... Svea No.0 c.1908 Very early Svea No.5 Svea No.11 c.1908 variant. All of them without bottom stamping. So 3 1 pint and 3 2 pints. Nicola
@OMC Regarding Victoria stoves, I have expressed my thoughts. The patent stamping was on top of the tank, with the Victoria name. An additional bottom stamping would have been redundant. Aetna stoves are all marked on top tank for example, there is a lot of space because the few graphic. Willander and then Svea stoves introduced a full decoration on top tank, most of the space was taken by the beautiful graphics, the word patent was huge. An additional new patent stamping could have been placed only on bottom plate, considering that side tanks where also used. But these are just my thoughts. Nicola
Additionally: I seem to remember an early adv by Willander posted here that was emphasizing the beauty of the new stoves and so the top tank engravings… but I can’t find it anymore. Was Willander that important and smart business man that brought the new stoves to the mass? Were the Victoria models, as Ian says, still a very small production with some technical faults or let’s say works in progress? Many smart business men (Steve Jobs is one) have given an important help to the technicians to bring innovations to the mass, thanks to their clever thinking, simplification and innovative marketing strategies. This Willander is an interesting person of the past, I would like to learn more about him. Right now I don’t know much about him and his real role in this story. Nicola
Andreas Willander was certainly an ambitious businessman who made a considerable fortune for himself. But he was not in the top flight and could not be ranked alongside B.A.Hjorth or Max Sievert. Willander had actually worked for B.A.Hjorth as a Primus salesman up until early 1904, and clearly thought he could emulate with Nyberg's Svea stoves what Hjorth had done for Primus. It was Hjorth who had brought paraffin pressure stoves to the mass market. After losing out to Max Sievert for control of the marketing future of Svea stoves in 1908, Willander tried again as a marketer for Eriksson's Svecia stoves. His business relationship with Eriksson's lasted for considerably more years than that with Nyberg, but never developed beyond being just one facet of what had become a wholesale general hardware empire.
This is a work of art and beautiful to our collectors eyes, a masterpiece of craftsmanship: This is a branding and marketing masterpiece, “the best stove in the world “: A Willander Svea would look the same but this photo makes justice to the importance of Svea stove branding. Nicola
@igh371 thanks! Yes I was aware about Willander’s experience with Hjorth at Primus, so it had a good master. To keep making a parallelism with Steve Jobs, he brought Apple to a great success when Microsoft was already dominating the market. He could have had an important role for the big success of Svea stoves, clearly Primus was already solid in 1904. Nicola
I’ve been following these discussions. It’s interesting information. I am, though, having a problem understanding what “nyet” means in the phrase “… the nyet ‘SVEA’ No. 1. stove…”. Tony
Hello, lately I have found this “bubble font” Svea 5* in the same style of this Svea No 1* Some photos (poor quality from listing): What is interesting on this example is mainly the spirit cup, that is the one found on models 25: The model 25 should be datable late 1920 very early 1930, considering that is than replaced by model 35 (and 26 by 36). As we can see the Svea 5* above and the 25 share for sure the same spirit cup if not the burner (unfortunately on the photos is not visible the svea marking on the burner of 5*). The first editions of star models for what we know are found on 1924 Italian catalog, that helped us to understand that 2 pints models with “bubble font” were still available at that date and delivered with 812/813 burners for models 5* and 4*. Now, this 5* with this spirit cup and burner, would bring the “bubble font” 2 pint model up to late 1920. For me it’s hard to believe that the 812 burner and as well the spirit cup were replaced after only 3-4-5 years from the first known date for star models:1924. So @igh371 @OMC what are your thought about this 5* discovery? Nicola
To be more precise, that specific spirit cup is also visibile on: https://classiccampstoves.com/threads/1937-extracts-meyer-catalogue.11687/ So is possible that the burner was updated up to 13-15 years later than 1924. But also the spirit cup was replaced? I don’t know. The 5* above for sure had hard life and use, a blobby solder is visible at riser/tank joint. Nicola
@Nicola Francesco Elia re "Regarding Victoria stoves, I have expressed my thoughts. The patent stamping was on top of the tank, with the Victoria name." I'm not wanting to incl. Victoria more into this topic. Aligning a developement sequence is is challenging to say the least. There is suggestion for a few reasons that Arch's is possibly "Nr2" and later vs earlier. Arch's does not have any circular company or patent stamping (to carry-over the SVEA 1). Fair to mention his is the only example seen in gallery w/o circular stamping. --------------------------- Thank you Ian. PLEASE pardon the slight drift but I think this is worthy of deeper dive: Svea advert 1897 (?) with: --------------------------- For one, it does appear the ad is offering a "SVEA" stove (vs burner). I looked at tank and instantly got same impression as you, a distinct Böhlmark tank shoulder look to it, at same time, I see no svea / victoria resemblance. Tough call, can we rule out Nyberg as source? (that would be convenient) What are we missing? What have we missed, if anything? There are more than a handful of other ad/illustration examples (in-general, not Svea) with zero known examples. We can proceed, given that or... or what? Ya got me hangin'.
Ian, we agree re the many changes during Victoria's brief span. You have enlightened thoughts in that Victoria never became a volume production stove in any meaningful sense. Not staking claim to significant market share (vs Primus). That and the tarnished 'Victoria' name (i was unaware). Time wise this advert seems to sit in the gap between Nyberg's 'Victoria' and 'Svea' stoves. We can revisit *year ranges (with or without above ad), what is "new to me" is considering Victoria had ended (year(s)) prior to "SVEA" (Dec. 1904) launch. Adding that possibility lends to making it less likely (vs more likely) the Victoria was still offered during "SVEA" launch. FWIW there are many shared comments/observations among Car's amazing accomplishments/successes he was more of a failure at sales (marketing, branding and positioning). Sales is where Max (&Bernie) excelled. *this, answering my own question, re update to tentative dating suggestion: "approx. year range for Victoria: began not earlier than c1895 ended ...during or before 1904. Tentative suggestion, for now, holds to the Dec 1904 ad: (N&W) "Nytt Svea Nr1" 1897 ad is a full 8 years prior to (N&W) "Nytt Svea Nr 1"... is it possible Wallander became interested in an actual Carl SVEA stove with near zero sales at the time . tag @igh371 @Nicola Francesco Elia ----------------- [TMI: ny ~ new/novel, nyt ~ new/novel, nytt ~ new/novel, nyhett ~ news, nyhet ~ novelty, nyet ~ my bad. Tony's nyet = no. ok. ]
@OMC everything is very interesting and please keep investigating on your pre 1904 path, I will read with interest. In this early contest I don’t have enough knowledge to be of any help, so I leave this discussion to you, @gieorgijewski, @igh371 and @multi-cho. Clearly all you guys have more references regarding old docs and advertisements. I will keep doing my simple observations on more recent stoves trying to fill the Svea 1915-1924-1934 gaps. Nicola
To be fair none of this summation of the 'Victoria' stove is in any way 'enlightened' on my part. Almost all sources which mention this episode in Nyberg's career come to more or less identical conclusions: e.g. "[His] first [stove] model, the so-called Viktoria, was not very successful, but the later Svea did better. He took many to Russia and soon produced 3,000 a week. In 1906, the company was transformed into a public limited company" (ref.). And when any further detail is added the issue referred to was reliability, which of course linked back to the vexed issue of finding an effective alternative to the Primus patented NRV system. The reference to the importance of early sales of the Svea models in Russia is also useful in the context of this discussion given the prominence of the Cyrillic tank side panels on the earlier examples.
