Hi Glen,
On inspecting my pieces, I'm pretty sure mine were genuinely made in Australia. My immediate gut feel was that the cactus plant under the palm was quite different. On comparison the proportions of the pattern differ in very many ways.
Here's my 8.5" salad.
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i120/retro_spection/palmtrees1.jpgAnd the detail:
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i120/retro_spection/palmtreesdetail.jpgCompare these with your bowl. There are differences in relative lengths and angles of the zig-zag element, the detail on the cactus at the base of the tree, the positioning of the stars and the texture of the bark on the tree.
The profile seems to be different - the sides are straighter (which appears to me to be a characteristic simplification that Crown Crystal used when copying patterns).
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i120/retro_spection/palmtrees2.jpg I thought perhaps the bowl that you showed may have been a different size, hence the different proportions. But, the same differences show up on the other pieces I have.
The nappy:
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i120/retro_spection/palmtreesnappy.jpgcf with the nappies Christine found. The positioning of the stars is the most obvious difference in these, but look at the amount the zig zag line comes out from the base of the tree to the right. The colour also seems to be different--Mine's a bog-standard uranium lettuce green.
In the flesh, the vase also shows similar proportions to the other pieces found in Australia, but it's harder to make out the pattern:
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i120/retro_spection/palmvase.jpgThe only one that I'm not entirely sure about is this sandwich plate, which shows a clarity of metal which would be extremely unusual for a Crown piece.
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i120/retro_spection/palmtreessandwich.jpgBut then, these were made in the late 20s before the depression really bit and the standards slid appallingly, so perhaps? Not sure about this one though.
On the weight of that evidence, coupled with the fact that there was a full suite of pieces and a series number ( '78' ), and that I've evidence from various documents that Crown were not above copying pieces, I believe that these items are indeed Australian.
Seriously, they had absolutely no shame. If they were producing them these days, we'd be shooting them down as fakes
Do you have a rough date for your catalogue, Glen?
Cathy