Mystery Cans Revisited, With Pic

Manufacturers, production numbers, configurations, etc.
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 » Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:36 am

Hello Chuck,

You wrote,
Luca....your unmarked cans were made in Europe, our unmarked cans were made in the States. That would seem to settle it, OK?
I am presuming you can back this up with some link to a manufacture in the USA :| ...... they are after all a mystery can. Just because they have been "found" in the US doesn't mean they were made there..... :roll: That's a bit like finding a Sheffield knife in Peru and claiming the INCA's made it :lol:

More of the research, less of the assumptions, we need to solve the mystery :!:
Michael Browne
Heron Hill Motorpool

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


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 » Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:15 am

Here is the years-long discussion in a nutshell Michael..
1) There are more than a few cans with NO markings on them to identify the maker/country of origin. While Luca insists that they are all a mistery to HIM, I have tried to point out that there is ONE variety of these cans that have similar design characteristics that are seen in the CONCO/USMC and later standard American cans.
2) This variety, which I feel is the prototype of the CONCO and standard US can, I have tried to isolate from the other types which may have been made by other companies in the US or by European companies anywhere in the world, is readily identifiable.
3) This prototype has characteristics that are NOT like the British or the German cans but do appear to be like the CONCO/USMC and standard US can.

Is there any proof of this yet....well, Robin's list of CONCO NAVY contracts and CONCO QMC contracts is interesting because of the dates they were issued and the dates they were completed because if the characteristics of the various CONCO Navy dated cans are compared to the list of contracts, it becomes evident at least to ME that we can begin to figure out which design of them is for which contract. The number of early contracts for which there do not seem to be any dated cans for, and given Roy's observation that the early contracts possibly had some lead time before they wven went in to production.....leaves some of the early CONCO/Navy contracts as possible ones for the prototype can design.

Maybe the prototype can was made by another company than CONCO, I don't know. How these design and construction details that are common to these cans and are not found on the British or German cans has not yet been explained to us here and the question has been ignored.

Do we need to see "evidence" to prove this theory? Sure, I welcome it one way or the other, but a complete denial and an insistance that 'all mistery cans are a mistery" is not going to help figure this out.

Rather than flog this further, I would like you to line up a prototype, CONCO/USMC and standard US can with a British and German can and look at EVERY detail of them and you tell me.....is the prototype like the German? Like the British? or does it have construction and design characteristics not found in British or German cans? I think you will begin to see some found in the Conco/USMC and US can. So far, no one I know of has taken the time to do that so we could discuss here (or they have but can't explain it so they conveniently forget to mention that), but I have shown one or two people this experiment and they come away with at the very least surprise and do see what I feel are the links to the US production rather than the European production. Maybe they can't agree about then beinAmerican made cans yet, but they DO understand my theory and are unable to explain why the British and German cans do not have these characteristics.

Try this experiment yourself and if you need a list of the characteristics and design elements to look for I would be happy to email you that info.
Chuck Lutz

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

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 » Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:26 am

Hello Chuck,

Seeing as I don't have a "prototype" can it will be a little difficult. And how can you say it was made before the USMC can and not postwar :|

Regards
Michael Browne
Heron Hill Motorpool

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

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 » Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:45 am

I can send you photos of the prototype can to illustrate what I am talking about if you have the other cans to compare to if you wish.
Was it made postwar? With 22 million produced, I doubt if there was much interest in going to that design in this country after the war. If they WERE post war, then who made the cans in the USMC photos? The Germans? The British?

If they were made postwar, by whom? If they were gas cans then they needed the ICC markings on them for use in the USA. If they were WATER cans they did not. If they were gas cans for use OUTSIDE of this country, they did not need the ICC markings. In fact, we have seen gas cans from the US forces during WWII that do not have the ICC markings that were made in the US.
Chuck Lutz

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

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

from Luca

Post by lucakiki » Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:19 am

Michael, let me set this straight once more, as if it would be necessary.
The definition Mystery cans has been used by a bunch of gee members, including Lutz, from the very beginning of this forum. Not sure if anyone could claim to be the inventor of this definition, and most likely it just was silently agreed upon.
It is understood that once the mystery is solved for good, the definition will be replaced with a more proper one.

So far a mystery can has been a can with the big X stampings on both sides, german kind of spout,two clams construction, and no nationality or date whatsoever. Some of those have features that suggest possible manufacture by Conco.
So, some of these might be American made mystery cans made by Conco.

The earliest WWII picture showing these cans has a 1942 date, so far.

One guy, Chuck Lutz, insists on calling these cans American prototype cans, suggesting that they are the prototype of all subsequent U.S.five gallon cans.Go figure!
Quite a few members patiently tried to explain to him how this definition is flawed in many respects, and detrimental to information sharing .
He just insists in using it, regardless, showing how much he really cares for a common page for discussions.
He claims that using whatever definition he likes to is part of his freedom, etc. etc.
So far, the undeniable irritation and boredom generated by such a stubborn approach has not turned into unpolite or abrasive comments and reactions. Maybe this is the reason why no thread on the subject has been locked yet, and the moderation's only intervention was a short blue fonted reminder.
I know the audience can judge and gauge the who is who and the who does what on this forum and not only on this forum.

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
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 » Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:03 pm

Michael.......if you want to run a short experiment then you will discover the same thing I have....while there are MANY cans that are unmarked, and Luca wants all of them to remain a "mistery", I happen to feel there may be something to those that have certain details and design elements that are common to the CONCO/USMC and standard US gas cans.

We can choose to keep the "mistery" a mystery or we can make some effort to move forward to identify some of these unmarked cans..... and checking Robin's contracts, the dates on some of these cans and the design elements will possibly move this forward. Luca is 100% against any of this for some reason he has not yet shared, others seem to be warming to the idea there is a connection and others could care less.

If you would like me to email you something so you can do your OWN investigation instead of hearing yet another "they are all mistery cans" dialog, let me know. I would be happy to send you some info if you wish.

PS....the picture he just posted may or may not be of a can with or without any markings on it....but it does not have the design and construction details that the American Prototype can I am talking about does....nor does it seem to be one of those in Roy's picture of FIVE of them, nor is it one of those that Rick/Bombtech has, nor is it one of those in Australia or in New Zealand.

Why he keeps posting something that is NOT what the prototype is defined as is beyond me.
Chuck Lutz

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

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

Re: lies

Post by lucakiki » Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:31 pm

I was among the first ones to enquire about this kind of cans.
I cannot find a polite term to define the untrue statement unsurprisingly posted by the guy who actually is the perfect prototype...
Why should I want to keep the mystery can a mystery?
Not only it would answer a question I have been asking since ages, but also the solution of the mistery might hopefully put an end to that stubborn use of the flawed( useless, confusing,etc..) term American prototype by the only guy who insists on using it.
I do not know why he insists in doing that: maybe he thinks that such an approach does set him apart from the crowd .
On that, Chuck "the prototype" is right.
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
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 7:37 am

This from a guy who wouldn't know a "prototype" if it landed in his backyard...

There are "prototypes" to the MB and the GPW which went into production and then changes took place and the standardized jeep evolved. Surely the same definitions I found for "protytype" fit this scenario as well....early type, lead to changes in production that carried forward some of the same distinct design/construction details, were actually PRODUCED and USED in service.

As opposed to the cam-lock/threaded spout on that "EXPERIMENTAL" Monarch can which was produced for "testing purposes" but not put into mass-production or into service.
Chuck Lutz

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

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

Almost unbelievable.

Post by lucakiki » Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:11 am

Almost unbelievable! :roll:
The " whatever we want to call it" can with two clams contruction, german tipe spout, no information on it, american made because of some of its features, is a prototype of what?
Was it manufactured in small quantities, in order to test it? NO or YES?
Were there contracts awarded for this kind of Jerrycan? NO or YES ?
Was it manufactured in large quantities? NO or YES?
Did it it predate the standard three piece can? No, or YES, or Not determined so far??
Why don't you try with another poll, just to check out how many "reasonable persons" think that the can you insist on calling american prototype might actually be a prototype :?:
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
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 9:25 am

Some of these cans....those with these design and const. details are, according to the definition, PROTOTYPES.
Since those design and const. details do not appear on German or British cans, and they do appear on CONCO/USMC and standard American gas cans, they are "American Prototypes".

I might add that if anyone considers a BRC or an MA or a GP to have design and construction details that do appear on later MB or GPWs to be the "Prototype of the MB/GPW" then they are using the same definitons as I am. Those who do not consider the BRC, the MA and the GP to be the prototype of the MB and GPW should consider that:
a) They have design/const. details of the MB/GPW
b) They have the same construction details of the MB/GPW
c) They went into production and were used in service.
d) If you look at a BRC, MA and GP you can see that they are the "PROTOTYPES" and not "EXPERIMENTAL" vehicles.....which were only produced for "testing purposes" such as the 1942 marked Monarch with the cam-lock/threaded spout example.
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 12:58 pm

Chuck Lutz wrote:Michael.......if you want to run a short experiment then you will discover the same thing I have....
It's amazing that an "open minded, reasonable person" would presume* how another person will decide in his favor. :roll:

*pre·sume   
[pri-zoom] Show IPA
verb, -sumed, -sum·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to take for granted, assume, or suppose: I presume you're tired after your drive.
2.
Law . to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary.
3.
to undertake with unwarrantable boldness.
4.
to undertake (to do something) without right or permission: to presume to speak for another.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to take something for granted; suppose.
6.
to act or proceed with unwarrantable or impertinent boldness.
7.
to go too far in acting unwarrantably or in taking liberties (usually fol. by on or upon ): Do not presume upon his tolerance.
Use presume in a Sentence
Origin:
1300–50; ME presumen (< OF presumer ) < L praesūmere to take beforehand (LL: take for granted, assume, dare), equiv. to prae- pre- + sūmere to take up, suppose ( see consume)

—Related forms
pre·sum·ed·ly  
[pri-zoo-mid-lee] Show IPA
, adverb
pre·sum·er, noun
un·pre·sumed, adjective

—Synonyms
1. presuppose. 6. overstep.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010
.
From here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/presume" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Roy

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 1:41 pm

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."

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.

Nothing presumptious about asking someone to simply take a look at a few examples of something....and indicating that if they do, they will see the similarities that exist with the later American cans....and which, incidentally do NOT appear on the British or German cans.

Please explain your problem with asking for someone to take a look?

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???????
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 2:41 pm

Chuck Lutz,
There is no problem with asking someone to make a comparison, it's your presumption that any comparison "will" automatically result in an agreement with your opinion.
Roy

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 2:47 pm

Chuck Lutz wrote:Here is the years-long discussion in a nutshell Michael..
1) There are more than a few cans with NO markings on them to identify the maker/country of origin. While Luca insists that they are all a mistery to HIM, I have tried to point out that there is ONE variety of these cans that have similar design characteristics (emphasis added) that are seen in the CONCO/USMC and later standard American cans.
2) This variety, which I feel is the prototype of the CONCO and standard US can, I have tried to isolate from the other types which may have been made by other companies in the US or by European companies anywhere in the world, is readily identifiable.
3) This prototype has characteristics that are NOT like the British or the German cans but do appear to be like the CONCO/USMC and standard US can.

. . . Do we need to see "evidence" to prove this theory? Sure, I welcome it one way or the other . . . ,
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:

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id= ... OR+LIQUIDS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Click on the small blue "drawing" and then scroll down below the larger drawings to see the patent text.]

Because it is a "new and original" design rather than an "improvement" of any existing design, the CONCO/USMC and later standard American fuel cans ARE NOT derived from any earlier liquid container design (as Chuck argues in support of his "prototype" theory). Accordingly, earlier liquid containers, including the USMC "mystery" cans, CANNOT properly be labeled a "prototype" for either the CONCO/USMC or later standard American fuel cans. Chuck has welcomed this new evidence one way ("Good one Fred!"), but the other way apparently has not withdrawn his "prototype" suggestion for renaming the USMC Mystery Can in light of this new evidence. In my opinion, Chuck's "prototype" name suggestion fails as a matter of unrefuted historical fact as set forth in 1943 Design Patent #136890. End of argument.
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 3:04 pm

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. In fact the idea of the three-handle top is stolen from the Germans!

By the way Roy, when you lined up those cans and ran the experiment yourself, what results did you find?

Hey....you guys who refuse to try this simple experiment remind me of those people who give bad reviews to movies they have not seen......
Chuck Lutz

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


Post Reply

Return to “Gerry Cans or Jerry Cans”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests