Mystery Cans Revisited, With Pic

Manufacturers, production numbers, configurations, etc.
User avatar
Fred Coldwell
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2408
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 5:12 am
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Re: Mystery Cans Revisited, With Pic

Post by Fred Coldwell » Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:29 pm

Chuck Lutz wrote:Hang on there Roy...."If you want to run a short experiment then you will discover the same thing I have......which is that these particular cans have certain design elements and construction details that are common to the CONCO/USMC and standard US gas can."
Chuck: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office did this from 1941 to 1943, and in Design Patent #136890 it determined the "standard U.S. gas can" (as you call it) was a "new, original and ornamental" design which qualified for patent protection.
Chuck Lutz wrote:If you compare them you will see the same things I am seeing....plain and simple....you can then arrive at whatever conclusion you want to based on doing the experiment. Unfortunately there do not seem to be anyone who feels doing this is going to help with the discussion.
During WW II, the U.S. Patent Office did not see the same things you claim to see . . . plain and simple. I feel their contemporary (1943) findings will help with this 67 years-later discussion.
Chuck Lutz wrote: In the scientific community it is called "Peer Review"....like publishing a paper on a topic and submitting it to qualified and like-minded individuals before going public with it so the theory or finding can be vetted. Peer Review either supports or finds fault with the theory/finding/experiment and the results it yeilds....I find it hard to understand why NOT trying this experiment makes this discussion move forward in one direction or the other???????
In the United States of America, this is called patent law. It is submitting a design patent application to the entity designated by Congress to apply patent law to submitted designs so design claims can be vetted. Review by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office either grants or denies the patent application and publishes the results. I find it hard to understand how NOT recognizing the legal effect Design Patent #136890 moves your "prototype" design theory towards a conclusion, in one direction or the other???????
Happy Jeep Trails,

Fred Coldwell
1944 CJ2-09 - X33
1945 CJ2-26 - X50
1944 Dodge T233 CC
1945 Dodge T233 Utility
MVPA #283C


User avatar
Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 26829
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Jeep Heaven

Re: Mystery Cans Revisited, With Pic

Post by Chuck Lutz » Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:38 pm

So Fred.....you are against running the experiment and are satisfied that there are no characteristics found on the American Prototype that are found on the CONCO/USMC and standard American gas can........... and that incidentally are not found on German or British cans?
Last edited by Chuck Lutz on Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chuck Lutz

GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3-C 1947

User avatar
gerrykan
G-General
G-General
Posts: 9303
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Ozark Mountains, USA

Re: Mystery Cans Revisited, With Pic

Post by gerrykan » Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:52 pm

Chuck Lutz wrote:By the way Roy, when you lined up those cans and ran the experiment yourself, what results did you find?
My original post that accompanied the image below follows it in a Quote box, along with a link to the thread in which said post resides.
Image
My "Mystery Cans":

Click on images to enlarge.

All these cans have the same dimensions.

Only one can has any markings.
This can was used for SAE 30 oil at some point.
Of the lettering under the SAE 30, I can only make out the last two for certain: CO.
This can was most likely purchased as surplus, and used to sell, or otherwise distribute motor oil post-war.
The markings appear to be black ink applied via a rubber stamp.


S.A.E. 30 applied next to the spout.

The interesting thing contained in this image, is the small steel strap that holds the oval vent tube to the spout.
None of the other cans have this feature.
Was this an early production can? Plenty of stories of the reduction of time and materials to help the War Effort.
I didn't have time to dig out my 1942 CONCO USMC can to compare, but the next picture is a 1943 CONCO USMC can that does not have this strap.




If you enlarge this image, and look closely where the handle is spotwelded between the carry handles.....
The spotwelds resemble hashmarks( / / / ), or canted D's.
The handle spotwelds on all five cans in the first photo are nearly identical, leading to the belief that all were made by the same manufacturer.

Spotwelds found on "three piece body" USA cans are small round dimples.
So above are the results of my lineup.
I did not copy all the image links as they can be found in the original post that can be found here: http://www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=119968" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry Chuck Lutz, but I have had things to do lately that to me are more important than re-comparing the comparisons already compared.
Roy

User avatar
Tom Wolboldt
banned
Posts: 8353
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:36 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Mystery Cans Revisited, With Pic

Post by Tom Wolboldt » Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:25 pm

Chuck,

For those of us that are lost in this soup, Just what is this experiment you keep posting about ?

You wrote:
Fred....the Johnson patent he applied for 9/30/41 is for a Standard American gas can....not the Conco/USMC can so the patent does not concern itself with the opening on the CONCO/USMC nor the various design elements that can owes to the Prototype design.
What are you talking about ??? The verified CONCO/USMC can is almost a carbon copy of the standard American can as patented by Johnson except the two cans have different openings. In fact since Johnson has the patent for a 3 piece fabricated liquid carrying 5 gallon can, the 3 piece verified CONCO/USMC would have had to come after it or the CONCO/USMC can would have received the patent. You are also getting in too deep with this " a can is different if the handles are stick or spot welded ". THEY'RE both WELDED just in different ways - same overall design WELDED ON HANDLES. How if one can had handles that were bolted on and another can had handles that were welded on this would show a slight difference in design and construction.

Please tell everyone how the 3 piece verified CONCO/USMC can varies from the standard American 3 piece can leaving out the pour openings since I believe everyone can see there is difference in that aspect. Better also post photos of what you are calling a CONCO/USMC can and a standard American can. Perhaps there is just a language issue going on here.

User avatar
tipdog
G-Lieutenant Colonel
G-Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 4:44 pm
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Re: Mystery Cans Revisited, With Pic

Post by tipdog » Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:58 pm

...or the CONCO/USMC can would have received the patent...
Not necessarily, if the USN or USMC didn't apply for it.

User avatar
lucakiki
G-General
G-General
Posts: 17578
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 7:18 am
Location: Torino, ITALY

Roy's cans

Post by lucakiki » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:56 am

Image

Roy, could you please tell me if any of those cans was originally painted in that yellowish tan color that has been mentioned and reported by quite a few users when enquiring about their own Mystery cans?

Roy, could you tell me which features in your pictured cans have a connection with the Conco cans made in three pieces ?

Roy, could you tell me if it is plausible that Conco might have not made the spout assembly in house,but rather might have purchased it from a different manufacturer, just as some Water can manufacturers did with McCord ?
Luca

WillysMB#344142 6-19-44 Navy N.S.Blue Grey
45 Bantam T-3 #57248 1-10-45
42 Willys MB-T #13560 11-42
43 Willys MB-T # 25417 4-43
Way too many WWII military tools,hopefully thinning down,and way too many posts...

__________________________________________
_____________________________________________
__________________________________________

Michael Browne
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1964
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:30 pm
Location: Yackandandah, NE Victoria..greatest part of Australia, always 26 deg and sunny

Re: Mystery Cans Revisited, With Pic

Post by Michael Browne » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:16 am

Hello Fred,

Sorry I entered into the discussion, I just fail to see any hard evidence displayed either way.
Fred wrote,
Hi Michael:

The unrefuted evidence is that the 3 piece design of the CONCO/USMC and the late standard American cans is a wholly "new, original, and ornamental Design for a Portable Container for Liquids" and is NOT an improvement of any existing liquid container design. This historical fact comes from William B. Johnson, the inventor who designed the standard U.S. Army fuel container. On September 30, 1941, Mr. Johnson filed a U.S. Design Patent for his new, original design. On December 21, 1943, Design Patent #136890 was issued for his new, original design, and can be see here:
I would only agree that the patent approval was granted as it was NEW and original to the USA and other ideas from other countries are disregarded... after all you had joined us against the Germans by then and one couldn't see them pursuing the matter in court :lol: . Nothing new about the 3 bar handle design, at least from an American inventor.

Even Australia only caught up to worldwide ideas and changed the Australian patent laws from ideas new as recognized by Australia to new in the world using the best research tools available and this only happened in 2003 and we are still hamstrung by not being able to utilize equipment designed in the USA in the 80s until Australian patents expire in 2020.

I suppose what you are getting at with the patent issued, that there can't have been any similar can in the USA previously,, but this is only an assumption, but a good one.

Now I must have some paint to watch drying somewhere :lol: :lol:



Regards
Michael Browne
Heron Hill Motorpool

REAL jeeps have BAR GRILLES and FLAT FENDERS. The rest are imitations.

User avatar
Tom Wolboldt
banned
Posts: 8353
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:36 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Mystery Cans Revisited, With Pic

Post by Tom Wolboldt » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:17 am

Hello Group,

CSI style research almost 70 years after the fact is a very very slow process. Some users on here wants to keep all unknown cans lumped together into one large " mystery " can grouping. Others that are gathering hard data points about many known and unknown cans wants to the rush the process and give various unknown cans names, by proclamation, that they may or not be. This only adds mass confusion to someone/anyone just tuning into the discussion.

We know we have many cans that have lost their identity to us through the years and it is a noble effort to work on figuring out just what this can or that can really is and when / why it was assembled. But final naming of a can as in " The American prototype " comes at the end of the process not in the middle. Naming in the middle mainly only serves to close ones' mind to all the other possibilities that may exist.

I believe the main push of these many threads and pages has been to identify when and why a two piece clam style with an offset pour - cam action spout was used by the US armed forces. Right now we know that most data points to this can as being used by the Marines, so I ( as have others ) propose EVERYONE!!!!!!!! use the term " USMC 2 pc. mystery can " until more hard data about it comes to light. Even this naming may end up covering two or three cans for now. As more data is found this grouping can be further defined to the point where a final description can be given. Until then let's ALL move ahead and shorten this identifying process rather prolong it by constant arguing over what was thought to be known about the subject years ago.

User avatar
lucakiki
G-General
G-General
Posts: 17578
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 7:18 am
Location: Torino, ITALY

Definitions

Post by lucakiki » Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:43 am

Tom, I only objected to the use of the definition American prototype can because, as many guys on here explained,it is flawed and misleading.
Certainly I did not object to it because of Chuck Lutz being the one who tried to introduce it out of the blue.

I would not have any objection on your proposal and use " USMC 2 pc. mystery can ".

May I ask you what would be the best definition for the jerrycans in the following picture?


Image

Although not visible in the picture, the sides have of course the usual big X and no information whatsoever.
The burp tubes are one round, one oval.

Image

second and third can from left

Image
Image
Luca

WillysMB#344142 6-19-44 Navy N.S.Blue Grey
45 Bantam T-3 #57248 1-10-45
42 Willys MB-T #13560 11-42
43 Willys MB-T # 25417 4-43
Way too many WWII military tools,hopefully thinning down,and way too many posts...

__________________________________________
_____________________________________________
__________________________________________

User avatar
Tom Wolboldt
banned
Posts: 8353
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:36 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Mystery Cans Revisited, With Pic

Post by Tom Wolboldt » Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:06 am

Hi Luca,

Based on what I know about cans, To me these are just " American style 2 pc. mystery cans " until more of the photo details are shown covering all of the cans so they may be further defined. Coming up with what a can is may only be done after looking at all the features as a whole and not just a piece or two unless a feature is documented 100% to have never been used anywhere else ever. I do not believe we are anywhere close to IDing a can from just a feature or two.

So why not post the whole can so the features can be documented as hard points of data for these cans and help the can research move forward ?

Perhaps Chuck ( or anyone for that matter ) could do a can database sticky ( rather than having the details buried in these endless threads ) covering all of the various cans' features currently being discussed.

Everyone needed to remember - A can is what it is, not what you believe or want it to be.

User avatar
lucakiki
G-General
G-General
Posts: 17578
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 7:18 am
Location: Torino, ITALY

Re: Mystery Cans Revisited, With Pic

Post by lucakiki » Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:57 am

Tom, as you can imagine, there is no argumentative spirit in my post.
In a way, my enquire could be considered as the typical enquire from the average guy who asks about...a mystery can.
I have no preconceived opinion on the two cans I posted.They are exactly the same cans I enquired about in 2003.
Other guys just borrow pictures around, but never post a picture of their own cans: I snapped those pictures on purpose, so the features could decently show up. No side view of the handle and its attachment to the hump, though. Sorry.

The top pictures shows the pattern of both handles, and the two tabs are also well visible. Same for the two different burp tubes.
The sides of the cans are visible in the shelf picture.Second and third from left.
If there is any more feature you need to give a closer assessment, I will try to oblige.

What prompted you to suggest they are american made? The shape of the handle stamping?
That was my idea, when I excluded they might be british made. But the Conco tabs have a centered hole, and this left me puzzled.

Image
Can we try to consider my enquire as an enquire from an average newbie, and use it as an exercise? :idea:

P.S. : The grey can appears as originally painted in that yellowish tan color reported by many enquirers in the past years.
The O.D. can is a quick respray, but the base color, again, is in that yellowish tan color.
The same color that someone suggested as possible " camoflague"...
Everyone needed to remember - A can is what it is, not what you believe or want it to be.
Agreed 100%!
Luca

WillysMB#344142 6-19-44 Navy N.S.Blue Grey
45 Bantam T-3 #57248 1-10-45
42 Willys MB-T #13560 11-42
43 Willys MB-T # 25417 4-43
Way too many WWII military tools,hopefully thinning down,and way too many posts...

__________________________________________
_____________________________________________
__________________________________________

User avatar
gerrykan
G-General
G-General
Posts: 9303
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Ozark Mountains, USA

Re: Roy's cans

Post by gerrykan » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:18 pm

lucakiki wrote:Image

1.Roy, could you please tell me if any of those cans was originally painted in that yellowish tan color that has been mentioned and reported by quite a few users when enquiring about their own Mystery cans?

2.Roy, could you tell me which features in your pictured cans have a connection with the Conco cans made in three pieces ?

3.Roy, could you tell me if it is plausible that Conco might have not made the spout assembly in house,but rather might have purchased it from a different manufacturer, just as some Water can manufacturers did with McCord ?
1.As you can tell from the photograph, the far right can could be described as "that color"(I would need to check to make sure there is no other paint beneath). The second from right is surface rust with remnants of red paint. the other two rusty cans would have to be checked for paint remnants. I would also have to look at the green can again, but I think it only has the green paint.

2.I would have to get them back out sometime and do a comparison to answer this question.

3.It is plausible.
Roy


Post Reply

Return to “Gerry Cans or Jerry Cans”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests