Evolution Of The US Jerry Can

[lucakiki]

Oh well, Mark, if you really have fun, so much the better...
Personally, I do not think it is that fun, but on the other side I do not think that any one should let it go, when someone, anyone, has different agendas than improving information.

By the way, is there anything the guy contributed, regarding Jerrycans, other than reposting other people's pictures?

I have been enquiring, discussing, comparing what we have always called ,by silent agreement, mistery jerrycans.
The goal, for me and for many others, was to reach a level of information that would enable us to stop calling those jerrycans mistery cans, not by changing the name, but by solving the mystery.
IMPOSING new definitions is not useful, and if the definitions are also flawed, plain detrimental.
Agreeing on definitions is the way to go, rather than stubbornly using one's own definition, even looking on purpose for the least opportunity to sneak it in the attempt to form a precedent.

Even from the early stages when talking mistery cans,no one ever considered German origin as possible.
Barring some enquirers, who were misled by the spout and the X, but promptly informed that what they owned belonged in allied environment.
Easy to check, for any one enough patient for the task..

Now, for instance, what is the use of this kind of question?

.

...but who says that all "Mistery Cans" were of German origin?

As if anyone had ever said anything like that.

Or what about this pearl:

..and quite frankly I am not focused on the "Mistery Cans".....

If so, why does he keep posting in these threads?

To introduce is latest discovery, of course! The mistery can are prototype cans, and that is how he want to call them, regardless of what the other guys think...
And that includes " The Cavalry", the dog pack and of course the group of those who are non willing to follow his theories, and are therefore labeled as non reasonable persons.
A childish trick he recently fell in love with.

In lack of other words, Chuck Lutz is the prototype of the Chuck Lutzes.

Oh well, Mark, given you really find it entertaining, let us see how long it will last!

[Chuck Lutz]

Luca's contribution:
"There are cans I call "Mistery Cans" because there is nothing on them to identyfy them"

years go by....more years go by....not a peep from the inventor of the term "Mistery Cans" who did not consult anyone when he coined the phrase but got no flak from the cheap seats when he did it.

Chuck's contribution:
1) There are some characteristics of these unmarked cans that are similar and they seem to be along the lines of the subsequent American designs. I have tagged them "Mystery Cans" to differentiate them from the unmarked ones that do NOT share these characteristics.
(Immediately the howl from across the ocean about how ALL cans, no matter what the design and const. details they do NOT share are still "Mistery Cans")

2) I have seen that there are characteristics of these cans that are aligned with the CONCO/USMC and the standard American jerry can so I feel they are "PROTOTYPES" and therefore a subgroup that can be studied to confirm this approach.
(Again, the whining from Italy about how ALL unmarked cans are still "Mistery Cans")

3) I present photos of as many cans as possible to flesh out this theory, note the differences and other collectors start to post contract and wartime photos.
(More yapping from the cheap seats, but nothing that would DISPROVE the theory, just loud barking)

On the one hand he says a "silent agreement" leaves all unmarked cans "Mistery Cans", on the other hand, isolating those such as the "Letter/letter/Number" cans from the American Prototype is a better way to describe them but then again, his major beef is he did not do any of the research and is whining because he did not come up with another cterm to describe them. This from the guy who IMPOSED the term "Mistery Cans" on a nation of people who do not even spell the word that way!

I am concerned with "Mystery Cans"...not "Mistery Cans" are you really that dense as to not understand the usage of those two terms for DIFFERENT cans of unknown origin? I guess the answer is YES! What part of THEY ARE DIFFERENT do you not get?

Why don't YOU research your "Mistery Cans" and leave the others to people who actually try to find out something instead of setting your self up as the arbiter of terminology and trashing anyone who points out differences and gives them a name?

[lucakiki]

Are you still wearing camoflague underwear, or using adjustible wrenches?
Are you still discussing and nitpicking on the fireman nozzle versus firehose nozzle issue?
Do you still collect parked wrenches, or do you now you prefer parkerized ones?
Do you always identyfy things, or at times you identify them?
Like in your "There are cans I call "Mistery Cans" because there is nothing on them to identyfy them"
Oh yes, at times I misspell Mystery, most likely because of my native language. I am lucky that idiot is almost the same as the italian idiota, or I might misspell that one too.
Should I message you in FRENCH?

[Chuck Lutz]

When cornered, try to misdirect the audience....

How about this for "Re-Directing".

Keep up with the antagonistic person remarks and you will be sitting on the sidelines for a long, long time.
Argue the facts, not the person. Got That ?
No more warnings, Cool It! The next time you'll be sitting out the next 6 months.
It's bad enough on the Tools Forum, but to come over here to the Jerry Can Forum and start the same crap is just too much.

ADMIN

[gerrykan]

Everyone,
At this time, the following images show the only American jerrycan that can be called a prototype through documentation.









The documentaion:




The above text is from here:




Although at least one person will claim the cans he has named are the American Prototypes, he can offer no documentation to this fact.
Without documentation, or some other period evidence, you would be safer calling this the prototype for the jerrycan:

[Chuck Lutz]

Did I miss the use of the word in the article...."prototype"?

Or is it just an "Experimental" design that did not go anywhere....

[lucakiki]

Roy,among the requirements for an industrial product to be called prototype is a limited production: not always the prototypes or the pilot models make it to series production. Never the less they are still prototypes.
As a matter of fact the idea was an improvement in the closure,which has always been the main worry..
As such, the can you picture is undeniably a prototype, and also an experiment.The two terms are perfectly compatible.

[gerrykan]

Luca,
Using Fred Coldwell's definition in another thread, the can I referenced might better be called a pilot model, as a small quantity was produced for evaluation.
I do believe this can is as close we can get to a prototype at this time.

To me, "prototype" suggests the first materialization or model of an idea for something. Typically, to me at least, only one or two prototypes are made to test the idea in actual materials. Once the prototype is worked out, the manufacturer might produce a small number of pilot models for field testing and further refinement. Again, in my mind, pilot models are produced in very small numbers. If the pilot models are successful and/or accepted, then production models are manufactured for mass use.

From here: viewtopic.php?f=37&t=171928&start=30

[Chuck Lutz]

http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_ph ... lys_ma.php

"The Willys quad pilot model jeep of 1940 led to Army approval of a 1,500 unit protytype contract to Willys, subject to design changes to cure problems and deficiencies of the quad.

The result of the redesign (of the pilot model) was the Willys MA."
quotation mark entry is mine.... color highlights also

Evidently some difference of opinion exists in terms of what constitutes a "pilot model" and a "prototype".

[gerrykan]

Evidently.

[Fred Coldwell]

http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_willys_ma.php

"The Willys quad pilot model jeep of 1940 led to Army approval of a 1,500 unit protytype contract to Willys, subject to design changes to cure problems and deficiencies of the quad. The result of the redesign (of the pilot model) was the Willys MA." quotation mark entry is mine.... color highlights also. Evidently some difference of opinion exists in terms of what constitutes a "pilot model" and a "prototype".

Hi Chuck:

Yes, there are differences of opinion. I'm sure you can find more by searching the Internet . . . maybe even the Wiki! So who wrote the above quotation you found? What is his or her name? What year was that passage written? Is it still current? Have you asked its author about it?

As you may recall, for decades most MV collectors called all MA, GP, BRC-60 and BRC-40 jeeps "prototype" jeeps. I'm sure many still do today; some old habits die hard. But personally I think a better term for all of them is "pre-standardized" jeeps because they were produced in a large quantity (very roughly 4,500 or so) which to me is far too many to be either a "prototype" jeep or "pilot model" jeeps.

What does the author you quoted above call these other early jeeps? Does he/she think all Ford GP jeeps are "prototype" jeeps? . . . that all Bantam BRC-60's are "prototype" jeeps? . . . that all BRC-40's are "prototype" jeeps? Or does he think only the MA is the only "prototype" jeeps? What does your author call the Ford GP? . . .the Bantam BRC-60? . . .the Bantam BRC-40? Does he call them all "prototype" jeeps . . . or something else?

Chuck, also please tell us what you think. Is it your understanding today that all Ford GP jeeps are "prototype" jeeps? . . . that all Bantam BRC-60's are "prototype" jeeps? . . . that all BRC-40's are "prototype" jeeps? . . . and that all Willys MA's are "prototype" jeeps? Do you adopt the above author's definitions? Or something else? What do you call each of them Chuck?

I look forward to your answers on early jeeps. Then we can discuss jerry cans in more detail.

[Chuck Lutz]

If the question is regarding the "STANDARD" WWII MB/GPW then those jeeps that were a part of the evolution that preceeded the MB/GPW....and were in production to some extent (as opposed to a "pilot model" which might only be created in a very few number of units for testing pruposes), then yes, those models would also be the "prototypes" of the standardized MB/GPW...

Why not google ""P-51 Mustang" and read how the very FIRST P-51s were sent to England and how they were considered the ...."prototype" of the other models (such as the P-51D) and how the change to the Merlin engine was a part of that evolution. The author of THAT article also chose to use the word...."prototype" and not experimental (afterall, we were in production of them, they were not pilot models or experimental one-offs) or any other word.....the author seemed to know the definition of the word "protytype" and used it.

Should we drag up a gazillion examples of people using the word "prototype" when they mean the early version that was in production (in use) that subsequent models were based on and which exhibit features found on sugsequent models or can we agree that if you don't like the use of the word, that you can use any word you prefer, but that since it seems to be used in the same circumstances as I have used it that perhaps....just perhaps.....it's use is acceptable under the same definitions as many other people seem to use.....without the objections of the gee folk?

[lucakiki]

The way I took it, and Fred will hopefully correct me I am mistaken, Fred introduced the comparison with prestandardized jeeps ( prototypes, pilot, etc..) with the purpose of better explaining to those who were not sharp enough to do grab it on their own, the reasons why the term Prototype is not apt to define those cans that have been so far called Mystery Cans.
A bit of common sense should help in taking in due account that jerrycans are not like a vehicle: hence we cannot expect to use exactly the same terms for a Jerrycan and a jeep.
Should it be necessary to dissect and discuss the terms as applied to jeeps, maybe there is a better place than this forum.
Given it was necessary, we could further discuss whether those 1943 cans are experimental prototypes, pilot model jerrycans,etc..
There would have been no need, and even less there is a need now, to discuss if the Mystery cans, or American made Mystery cans, could correctly and usefully be defined as Prototypes Cans.
As respectable and respected gee members have explained,the answer is NO.
One single guy's objection notwithstanding.
Enough bandwidth has been wasted on that issue, at times getting close to the dreaded lockin more than one thread,while ingenerating boredom and irritation in a number of users.

In the case of the 1943 Monarch can with that peculiar Mc.Cord lid, what we could define as experimental is actually the closure, not the container.
It is quite possible that Monarch were actually awarded a contract , but the amount was too small to appear in documents.

[Chuck Lutz]

I would have to say that the descriptive terms....PILOT MODEL, EXPERIMENTAL, PROTYTYPE or STANDARDIZED.....could be used for a jeep, a gas can, an airplane or almost anything.

Why would you think that "taking into account that jerrycans are not like a vehicle: hence we cannot expect to use exactly the same terms for a jerrycan and a jeep".???????

[lucakiki]

Luca's contribution:
"There are cans I call "Mistery Cans" because there is nothing on them to identyfy them"

years go by....more years go by....not a peep from the inventor of the term "Mistery Cans" who did not consult anyone when he coined the phrase but got no flak from the cheap seats when he did it.

I did not coin the term Mystery can, hence I had not to consult anyone. Whoever did start using this term, should certainly not be blamed, but rather praised.
I have repeated way too many times that my mispelling Mistery for Mystery is only my fault,and does not change the concepts one bit.

Chuck's contribution:
1) There are some characteristics of these unmarked cans that are similar and they seem to be along the lines of the subsequent American designs. I have tagged them "Mystery Cans" to differentiate them from the unmarked ones that do NOT share these characteristics.
(Immediately the howl from across the ocean about how ALL cans, no matter what the design and const. details they do NOT share are still "Mistery Cans")

Where is the beef?

2) I have seen that there are characteristics of these cans that are aligned with the CONCO/USMC and the standard American jerry can so I feel they are "PROTOTYPES" and therefore a subgroup that can be studied to confirm this approach.
(Again, the whining from Italy about how ALL unmarked cans are still "Mistery Cans")

What you feel has nothing to do with the concepts of prototype,as many patient guys tried to make clear.

3) I present photos of as many cans as possible to flesh out this theory, note the differences and other collectors start to post contract and wartime photos.
(More yapping from the cheap seats, but nothing that would DISPROVE the theory, just loud barking)

On the one hand he says a "silent agreement" leaves all unmarked cans "Mistery Cans", on the other hand, isolating those such as the "Letter/letter/Number" cans from the American Prototype is a better way to describe them but then again, his major beef is he did not do any of the research and is whining because he did not come up with another cterm to describe them. This from the guy who IMPOSED the term "Mistery Cans" on a nation of people who do not even spell the word that way!
Once again, I did not impose anything, but accepted that term(whoever coined it)and kept using it along with a bunch of other guys, including you. To say otherwise is a plain lie: it would not be the first time, so your doing so fails to surprise me.
Not sure if you , mr Camoflague, actually qualify for complaining about misspellings.

I am concerned with "Mystery Cans"...not "Mistery Cans" are you really that dense as to not understand the usage of those two terms for DIFFERENT cans of unknown origin? I guess the answer is YES! What part of THEY ARE DIFFERENT do you not get?
How can you accusing anyone of being dense, and at the same time make a difference between Mystery and the misspelled Mistery?
Why don't YOU research your "Mistery Cans" and leave the others to people who actually try to find out something instead of setting your self up as the arbiter of terminology and trashing anyone who points out differences and gives them a name?