Hi stove brethren! Here's a photo I took the other night that I like a lot. I've been using it for a desktop photo. I think it's pretty. You're welcome to download the large version suitable for desktops at: http://home.comcast.net/~bigdog660/mystery_lg2.jpg]Mystery Stove Photo[/url] But-------- of what stove is it a picture? Now taking guesses. Who will get it right? Cheers, Gary
Coleman 500 (Heatmaster/ Speedmaster?)? Don't have one, but it is a Coleman I have always been tempted by when listed. But I promised myself I would stay away from generator based stoves, built in obsolescence! Besides, I have a Kampkook already as an eyebrow singer! Nice pic Bernie!
Hey, BernieDawg, Hummmmmm..... could be a Speedmaster, but doesn't look like the one I have, unfortunately. Maybe a different model/year? Great photo, though!! Well done! Take care, and God Bless! Every Good Wish, Doc
Either Al's right or.... It's the left burner on a 413G...? edit- My OTHER left...THE RIGHT BURNER with the generator....duh.
It looks like the center burner of three burner stove, but I would not know what brand. The grill does not look like Coleman.
The 8 prongs on the grill are 2 more than on my newly-arrived Coleman 413G, but I've seen pics of that model with 4 prongs or even none (i.e. straight through grill rods)...just checked my 'watch' list on ebay for matches. Not conclusive on that. BUT the 2 bolts on the burner plates is a feature I haven't seen. Admittedly my sample is not huge. HHmmm... Michael [|*//
With fresh eyes, it is so obvious to me now bark2much's post is a clue if I am right, and other clues are not more than a million miles from here. The patent office may also offer leads...circa 1920s? Methinks. Michael [|*|]
Hi Gary Great fettle and great looking stove. I have got one of those to fettle as well (along with another 100 stoves). What did you use on the non-brass parts?
BernieDawg, Very nice fettle - you've even managed to make a Coleman stove look slightly attractive. Although I must admit I did have to screw my eyes up very tight to achieve that impression in the absence of alcohol. I reckon it'd be around a 5 pinter Seriously, great job to bring an old'un back to life!
Hey, BernieDawg, Well DANG, it it ISN'T a Speedmaster, after all!! Now that I see it in the light, it looks exactly like mine, except mine's nickel-plated. I have NO idea why I thought it looked different than mine, other than just plain stupidity!! Well done on the fettle and rehab, Gary!! Great photos, too! Thanks for sharing them, and for the neat guessing game! Take care, and God Bless! Every Good Wish, Doc
Outstanding, and an inspiration! I was way off base and should just crawl back into my hole until I know what the h*ll I am talking about Thanks for the fun I had anyways. Michael [|*|]
Hi Gary That is very interesting about the steel bottom on the stove - I have never looked at mine. It seems a very strange thing to do, using dissimilar metals.
Be interesting to know if the steel base was of significantly thicker guage than the rest of the brass fount. Perhaps there is some thought that as well as reducing cost, a thicker base (cheaper in steel) might enable thinner brass to be used for the rest of it? However, thinking about it as I'm typing, that doesn't really work as with both the lantern and the stove, all the business parts would be mounted on the top of the stove which is were any stress points would be created. How about simply cost reduction? From a materials point of view steel would be cheaper for the simple base, but brass is more malleable for forming the fount shape leading to less capital investment required for production equipment? Just working from basic principles - I can count my Coleman stoves and lamps without resorting to either toes or fingers
hi all; the steel bottom is a coleman hallmark dating to their early lanterns pre 1910. brass expands and contracts with time which can cause cracks in brass founts,the steel bottom is the foundation of the stove or lantern not only holding the brass in place but supporting the top part with a steel tube that is attached to the bottom steel plate and extending through the fount giving support to the top portion and relieving stress of weight from above on the brass fount. yes the steel bottom is slightly thicker than the brass. the choice of metals was to maximize quality and longevity , not for cost effective reasons. i have owned and worked on "many" early coleman products over the years and finding a crack in a brass coleman fount is quite rare (in my opinion due to steel base and attached support through fount), where in other brands cracks can be quite common. mike...
hi trevor; on dissimilar metals it is no problem if done correctly. the formula of the two metals to be joined is important as well as the prep. and joining process it's self, example; coleman tinned both surfaces before joining. if not done right electrolysis will cause future problems. coleman got the process right and has stood the test of time as they have used this method for 100 years this year without adverse affect. mike...
Hi Mike Thanks for the info. I am aware of the problems and solutions for joining dissimilar metals. All I was saying was that I am not sure why it would be a chosen method to use. I would have thought that the cost difference would have been minimal, especially as the joining would have had to be very carefully done. But maybe the use of steel had more to do with strength for the base of the stove?
