Page 1 of 1

What do I have here?

Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:47 pm
by dwesol
I found this unusual can at a car show recently. Is this the mystery can I've read about in the posts here?
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:01 pm
by gerrykan
Not what is commonly known as a mystery can.

These were experimental cans produced in limited quantity in 1942-43 for testing.
They were approved for production, but at the time jerrycan production had halted.
Upon resumption of production only the standard jerrycans were made.

Definitely a good find in my book.

Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:55 pm
by dwesol
Thanks Roy,
Were they used by all of the services? Were they only used stateside? I found no U.S. markings like QMC or US anywhere else on the can.
Dan

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:12 am
by gerrykan
In 1942 the Military Planning Division evolved a 5-gallon can with a cam closure.(21)
During 1943 a limited quantity of these were procured for testing purposes with the idea substituting the cam for the screw-type gasoline can.
As a result of tests made, the Armored Force, Infantry, and other arms of the service went on record as approving the cam type of can if certain defects were overcome.
Under the direction of the Fuels and Lubricants Division, these were eliminated and the Quartermaster Board made satisfactory tests.
Although the Division suggested that standardization of the cam-type closure be requested as an alternate standard to the screw type, no action was taken.(22)
Since at that time no 5-gallon cans were being procured, standardization had become an academic question.



(21) Memo, Col. G. F. Doriot, Dir of the Div, to Production Br, SOS, 13 Aug 42, sub: 5-gallon Gasoline Containers. See also same to same 17 Nov 42.
(22) Memo, Maj E. L. Bradley, Chief of Container Sec, to Hq ASF, 19 Apr 44.
Abbreviations:

ASF....Army Service Forces

Br......Branch

SOS...Services of Supply

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:33 am
by dwesol
Thanks Roy,
Dan

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:58 pm
by Jim Bow
Isn't this a water can? I thought the ID under the handle indicated a water can.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:38 am
by gerrykan
In the 5th picture, there is a G to indicate gasoline.
Water cans had a W.

In 1943 several can manufacturers stamped their info under the handles.

Probably the interpretation of the ICC requirements by a "new guy" put in charge of jerrycan contracts.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:30 am
by lucakiki
No need to add anything to what you said, Roy.
Guys might find it interesting the MC CORD brand on the camlock, same as on Cavalier or Monarch watercans...

If just the mystery cans were so easy to explain !

That kind of jerrycan...

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:14 am
by lucakiki
After two years, this topic is still quite interesting.
The handle stamping was obviously taken from standard production, as evidenced by the hole for the lid chain.
The hole on the lever of the lid, offset to the left, apparently was there to allow the use the hole on the handle stamping , in case a seal of sort might be needed.

U.S. Patent for experimental closure

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:03 am
by Fred Coldwell
Hi Roy:

To see the U.S. Patent 2,365,695 issued to L.O. Grice on December 26, 1944 for this experimental gas can closure, click here:

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

then click on the small blue "drawing" and scroll down for the patent text.

Mr. Grice fled his patent application on March 13, 1942 for this "novel and improved type of closure adopter for use on portable containers such as gasoline cans." Mr. Grice's use of the word "improved" in this patent application has significance; it shows he does not claim his invention is "new and original". Like inventor William B. Johnson, Letcher O. Grice also worked in Washington, D.C. for the U.S. Army. Enjoy!

PATENT FOR IMPROVED CLOSURE

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:15 am
by lucakiki
Thanks, Fred! Extremely interesting, including the implications you underlined. :)

Re: What do I have here?

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:45 am
by Mark Tombleson
That is interesting.

Is there any patent on the cam lock for the Cavalier or Monarch water cans, or anything on the USMC CONCO cam locks?

Were the German cam lock cans patented?

Fred, how does Patent law work internationally or during times of war? Did we in fact copy the German cam lock and use it to our benifit without issue?

Re: What do I have here?

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:27 pm
by Fred Coldwell
Mark Tombleson wrote:That is interesting. Is there any patent on the cam lock for the Cavalier or Monarch water cans, or anything on the USMC CONCO cam locks? Were the German cam lock cans patented? How does Patent law work internationally or during times of war? Did we in fact copy the German cam lock and use it to our benefit without issue?
Mark:

No U.S.A. patent, German registered in the U.S.A. or one filed by Cavalier, Monarch, CONCO or anyone else, was found for the cam lock lids or cam lock spouts under my limited search terms. But I didn't search for "cam lock lid" or use any similar search term, so I cannot say it isn't there; only that I did not come across it during my few searches under inventor names and under "portable liquid container".

I don't know how international patent law works during wartime or whether we copied the German cam lock and used it without paying royalties. But I imagine honoring patents (if any) held by our enemy during wartime was very low on the list of wartime concerns. ;)

Re: What do I have here?

Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:47 pm
by Cobra Doc
Fred Coldwell wrote:I don't know how international patent law works during wartime or whether we copied the German cam lock and used it without paying royalties. But I imagine honoring patents (if any) held by our enemy during wartime was very low on the list of wartime concerns. ;)
The way it worked with the patent for penicillin is that the US seized Bayer USA as enemy assets, and thereby took the patent.

During WWI the US was paying Mauser for the use of their patents in the 1903 rifles, which went into an escrow account until after the war, and Mauser received just shy of a quarter million dollars after WWI ended.