Hello, I already had an older svea 123 and just happend to be at a tag sale today when on the ground among other junk from the garage was a Primus 71 with its tin box. I bought it for 5 bucks(a steal) and brought it home,, cleaned it up, and after some tinkering got it to fire up. I have three questions for you guys WHich stove svea 123 or primus 71 is a better performer (or are they about the same--since design is almost identical)? The stove has an H stamped on the bottom--according to the primus guide onthis site it dates to 1918--is it really that old (was the 71 around then?) Finally, which stove is more desiralbe/valuable to a collector thanks for your opinions!
The 123 works a little bit better in windy conditions. I personally like the 71 better. It is a little rarer than the 123. I am not sure but I don't think that your 71 was made in 1918. I don't know what condition the tin is in as they have tendancy to get pretty worn with age unlike the 123 which hold up a little bit better. It is all in personal taste but both are very nice little stoves and complitment each other very well. Hope it helps. Rob
I found a six digit number on the tank of my 71 at the base of the rising tube, last two would correspond to year. Although an H would mean 1918, a quick look in the 1922 catalog doesn't find one. $5 was a steal if the parts are all there -- nice find.
Greetings, FIF, In my humble opinion, and backed up by my experiences with both stoves over a wide range of years, the 71 is a hotter stove than the 123. I think it also lights much easier, and is easier to work with. It also has larger fuel tank, which I think is a big plus. But, others have had exactly the opposite experiences, so let your own experiences be your guide. I have one particular Primus 71 that smokes ALL Svea 123's I've ever had, or ever seen, and that's a lot of them! This stove is a roaring monster, and it simmers quite nicely, too. Yes, the Svea 123 and the 123R stoves are very nice, and I like them alot. But, if I had to choose one, or the other, I'd take my Primus 71, and never regret the decision. My experience is that, if you protect both stoves from the wind, the 71 will out perform the 123. But, like I said, try both of them yourself, and see which one you like better. One of them WILL call your name, of that you can be certain. When that happens, you've made your decision! By the way, OUTSTANDING buy!!!! Congrats and I lift a glass of Guinness to your good fortune! Huzzah, Lad!! Have fun playing with your two stoves, and comparing them to each other. Take care, and God Bless! Every Good Wish, Doc Mark
I now have an Optimus 80 and a Primus 71 and four Svea 123's, one in a Sigg Tourist cookset. Each stove shows individual traits, the old 123 (not R) in my Sigg cooker is a mini holocaust. The other 123R's put out less heat, one without the cleaning needle is almost as hot as the older 123. The Optimus 80 and Primus 71 seem to match the older 123 in heat output, and given the chance to choose again, without the Sigg cooker in the picture, I would take an Optimus 80 or Primus 71 over the Svea to be used as an individual. All three are a bit unstable but are dependable as granite and easily lit. The Svea's smaller fuel capacity is no big concern to me as I have always made a habit of filling it before each and every lighting. Gerry
I gave up using my 71 in the field when it tipped over and I lost my dinner and had to go hungry. This sort of behavior could be life threatening. I've gone for an 8R clone, but now I have an Enders Baby I might give it a try it in the field. Jim Ford
I appears that my experience with 123 and 71 and 80 tells me that my 123s perform better than the other two. I would say, however, that 71 usually is a better performer than 80--at least in my collection. My 80 is somewhat modest in its output. I was enamoured with Benzin Baby 9063, and tried out in the field during a canoe trip. Overall impression is that: 1) it is a competant stove for two; 2) a little cumbersome to set up--its loose parts are a little annoying to keep track of. I would rate 8R higher for its large output and convenience of having everything in the clamshell--with room to spare for a primer bottle.
A Svea 123 in a Sigg cooker accompanied by a small flask of extra fuel and you're good for a month. Tne Sigg cookset is nearly uncapsizeable and works a wonder in the wind. It's also one of very few that won't generate CO and gas you if you must fire it up in your tent or other closed space, Gerry
I keep seeing metion of the Sigg cooker and Cookset, but don't know what it looks like. Can anyone point me to an image so I can see what I should look out for, please? Jim Ford
Jim, this version is designed for the 123, which sits snug in the base. Super bit of kit 8) As to which is best, 71 or 123, there is nothing in it in my opinion, much the same stove, although the 123 looks better. The 71 is the type of stove I can imagine my grandfather using to make a cup of tea, or cook a bacon sandwich by the roadside; the 123 would look more at home in the hills 8)
Morning, Thuggy, Feed the Troll yet, today?? If a Svea 123, with a small flask of extra fuel will last you for a month on the trail, you certainly must not be COOKING with it!!!! While I think the 123, and other stoves of it's ilk, are outstanding little cookers, and very fuel efficient, that extra flask of fuel would last us about one WEEK, and not the month that it will last you!! But, then we cook very nice meals, and use the stove at least twice a day, and sometimes three times, if we have a nice lunch of mashed potatoes! If that amount of fuel lasts you a month, you must be living on tea and Top Ramen!! Take care, and God Bless! Every Good Wish, Doc Mark
"My 80 is somewhat modest in its output. " That's interesting as my 80 is just short of a rocket on takeoff. I've never lit my 123 and my 80 side by side, but I would be surprised to see if the 123 put out more heat. Everyone's experiences seem different; it would be interesting to know what accounts for these differences.
Morning, Alan, My Primus 71 is the same as your Optimus 80: a real screamer! I have yet to see the Svea 123 that can equal it. But, as I've said before, each of us has different experiences with the same stoves. Maybe you and I are the lucky ones that have super performing versions of the 71 and 80. And, maybe others have gotten used versions of these stoves that, for whatever reason, do not perform up to par. In my collection, I have two brand spanking new versions of these stoves, one an Optimus 80, and the other a Primus 71. I've been tempted to fire them up, just to see if they, too, are screamers. But, they are so pretty, just as they are, that I will probably never use them, and keep them for display only. And, hey, I already have my screamer Primus 71, and so don't need to fire up the other two! 8) By the way, I also have several Svea 123 and 123R stoves that are fine performers, too. But, none of them can touch my 71!! I'd bet your 80 is in that same class of "Svea Eater"!!! Take care, and God Bless! Every Good Wish, Doc Mark
I keep trying for a 71 on eBay but I keep seeing another Spirit making a dash for it. Sometimes I step back and sometimes I join in. One of these days! Iain
One of the good things about camping today is that there are a lot of quick cook foods around that simply were not there when I started out 35 years ago. I'm a fan of quick cook rice and veg, pasta and sauce etc, they take little cooking and do the job. All these reduce the need for extra fuel; while I still like to "cook real food" I won't turn my nose up at a suitable alternative. I believe we all know the benifits of soaking dried food pre cooking, and the range of food, canned or dried out there on supermarket shelves that make life easier for a camper, dam, its easier now than when I was a kid to knock up a tasty meal from food in a backpack. We are all, also aware of how good a few herbs and spices are to food, again something not practised in this country for sure, when I was a lad. The need for fuel is matched by the food cooked, if you take advantage of easy cook food, an extra bottle of fuel would last an age, especialy if you combine it with "Hay box" cooking (bring a pan to the boil and wrap in a sleeping bag to cook on latent heat).
Hey, Rik, Agreed. Since we home dehydrate most of our foods, they need to be simmered to be really good. But, you are right. Lots of quick cooking foods out there on the market today. For long distance backpackers, weight loss, due to not eating enough good, wholesome foods, is a real danger. When we did our trip, back in '91, one guy last 40 pounds, and he didn't really have it to lose! We had studied a Gal's Master's Thesis, on the dietary needs of long distance backpackers, and planned our meals accordingly. We were the envy of all the hikers we met that year, due to the outstanding meals we were enjoying! So, hey, you "pays yer money, and you takes yer chances"! As for us, we like the more detailed foods, and will leave the quick cooking goodies to those that enjoy them. By the way, what kind of sleeping bag do you use??? If we wrapped a hot pot in any our bags, the nylon shell would melt, and goose down would be EVERYWHERE!!! Take care and God Bless! Every Good Wish, Doc Mark
LOL Doc, you know what I mean; you can wrap a billy can in a shirt and then a sleeping bag; it works, honest Bring to the boil, wrap in shirt and bag, go out hiking and reheat a little; there you go, a good meal. As a group, I for one thing we should look at things like pressure cookers (I believe Ian UK does) as an aid to quick cooking, as well as Thermos type jugs
