The title says it all. I have no idea who might have made this. Even the claim to Britishness is tenuous. And yet this is an endearing stove with many noteworthy features, any one of which could hold the crucial clue that might open a way towards a reasonable assessment of provenance. At first sight it I think it gives an impression of being not unlike a rather squat and dumpy Juwel with the legs angled slightly inwards following the taper angle of the tank sides: Not only that but there are further hints of potential continental origin in the lamp-type tank base and detachable pump: But against that there are the facts that, first, it was acquired in Britain; second that there are British examples of similar pump arrangements near the suggested time (Soutter) and also of lamp-type tank bases (Falk, Stadelmann & Co.); and thirdly there is the weight factor. One attribute that sets most late and immediately post WW1 British stoves aside from almost all other is their shear weight. This stove is no exception, due to the heavy gauge of brass used the basic set up tank weight is a full 2lbs 6oz (c.1.2kg). The date guesstimation is based on a combination of factors, the heavy brass gauge, the nature of the various old seals and washers (every one of which needed replacement), the pump assembly components, profile of the leg top sections, etc. Then to the most distinctive features, can parallels to any of these be found anywhere else? First those decorative solid cast brass feet: Second, in line with its semi-collapsible configuration, there are the removable legs. But these legs do not slot into the sockets, they actually screw into place, I have never seen that before; And then the pump tube cap, this is also quite notably 'different' (as well as well worn): Finally there was now the task of getting this stove back to functionality. That has proven to be a pig of a job. Three different configurations of washer were used before the pump tube fitting stopped leaking. The pump leather carrier had to be replaced with a smaller diameter piece as all available leather cups proved to be of too thick material to be entered into the tube using the original (aluminium) carrier. The original leather cup was far too desiccated and ragged to be revived. I don't like having had to do that with the carrier, so the aluminium piece is being preserved beside the stove. The burner that came with the stove was a relatively modern, but dreadful condition, Svea unit, this I have replaced with a salvaged, unbranded, period British burner which looks comfortably 'right'. And a second part that needed immediate replacement was the modern standard filler Primus filler cap. What was actually required was a combined filler/pressure release unit. So 2 different correct spare period British pieces were re-furbished and the one that worked the best, with the captive hoop-top, is the one now staying on. So I was finally ready for the first true firing, with all the fuel and air leaks now sorted out. The result was a spectacular display of fire power that would not have looked out of place from a Sheen flame gun: The salvaged old burner needs a new jet! And what a difference a new jet makes: Now I think it could be a very satisfying, balanced and solidly stable stove for everyday use, and look forward to using it regularly as such. An absolute beauty. But where did it originate from, and who were the makers??? @kerophile @Nicola Francesco Elia
That pump tube cap? 'Mystery stove': Soutter 1918 (collapsible): More clearly defined ring machined inside knurling edge, but comparable?
EDIT since i began my reply the title has been changed AND moved to Great Britain . I was going to suggest that move lol, so (for me) good good good (to improve chance to solve/confirm origin). ======== all, @igh371 "Endearing stove" yes yes, it is wonderful, it's an *impressive stove thank you for posting. This is (another), researched, VERY well presented functioning example. The presentation is A LOT of work, well done, THANK YOU for your top notch efforts there too!! Sorry for more questions, we have to wonder if ANY further answers will emerge (considering you are stumped). ...move to Great Britain?... lol Stating the obvious: no markings et all. If so that is another similarity w/Souter. Understand that the semi-collapsible of the Souter is questionable but noteworthy. The mystery legs/feet have *made an impression, i cant recall cast brass feet (British or not, threaded or not). I expect there are a few reasons threaded legs weren't adopted as industry standard. Just curious if you screw-in the 3 legs w/same torque do they end up in same/correct position? (a lock-nut could fix the position BUT requires longer threads). What sizes are these 2? Same? Even w/o seeing the bottom of the Souter, the Souter tank shoulder is not industry standard. If same size, might this mystery be the next version, still in heavy WW1 era?
Burner & filler cap threads are Swedish stove compatible? Tossing in the reminder: The mystery stove orig filler cap form & function is an interesting noteworthy clue. [ Wait/what... using different filler cap to display fire power is beside the point (you're maybe jus seeing if we're paying attn to your mystery? lol). It wasnt til the firepower pic that i better grasped the legs inward angle, follow that of the tank (a la Juwel 6) .
Good point to raise. In reality, screwed down to bottom of the threaded sockets, the legs do sit remarkably evenly straight away, but minor tweaks to orientation, for positioning a trivet say, are also easy because the threads are quite firm. The legs do not flop about the way removable legs often do in plain sockets.
Not impossible, but unlikely as the known Soutter super-heavy weights are 1918 dared. On the otherhand Soutter did produce a very short-lived civilian fixed leg stove just immediately after the war (the SWS No.5). But remember too that this stove may yet prove not to be made by Soutter at all!
The photo of the base immediately made me think Falk Stadelmann but they were not in the habit of producing overweight designs.
