1942 300 which came from another member. This has ticked the box for a much wanted model! Hood with WD and 1942 stamps, later globe.
Nice looking lamp Steve, how far will you go with the restoration? I think once you get that sort of patina it's a shame to loose it.
It’ll get a good clean. The black crud on the hood is a tar like substance that’ll come off fairly easily. It’ll get an oily rag restoration, don’t want to loose its history.
@paparazi This is my first early vapalux, so I’ve a lot to learn! I guess being a military lamp they must have been made in some quantity?
@BigStevie Very nice lamp. It’s very similar to the one I restored last year, but mine sadly didn’t have a date stamp on the hood.
Nice! IIRC that's the very first version of the 300 and supposedly wasn't made for very long-first the pip went then the cap was replaced with the " coolie hat" by the end of the year.
This lamp is a merger of styles seen among the lamps from 1942. Appearantly W&B initially made the typical E41 top also in steel and fashioned this on the newly developed brass ventilator with the 3 visible air buttons. There might be a year punched into the rim of the latter, as in this lamp, but there are without. Also ventilators with Vapalux in small lettering has been found on lamps from this era. A typical W&B product with varying detailing. As to why this E41 style top was soon replaced by the simple coolie style, perhaps making it in steel on the same dies did wear these out rapidly, or produced too many rejects? I am just guessing here. To my eyes the E41 top has the most classy looks; when it was replaced by the simple coolie-style top the lamp as a whole became more utilitarian. Lovely time piece, Stevie!
Yes, and if you ask me, the Vapalux E41 is the love-child of the Petromax and Tilley lanterns of the time. In the '30s, according to their former website, Willis & Bates were making parts for Tilley and Petromax. I think at some point, someone there thought that instead of just producing parts for others, they would do better producing lanterns of their own. Relying on what they already knew and were doing, they merged the better parts of the Petromax design with the better parts of the Tilley design. The result was the first-type E41 with its Petromax-type upper parts (separate and removeable burner/gallery with 'empty' hood) with the Tilley-type lower parts (tank, cock, vapouriser etc.). How this evolved into the simpler second-type E41 and then the 300 model, I put down to the exigencies of war-time. Now I'd be interested to know what others think of that. Tell me it's bo&&ocks it you like, but it does seem to me to explain the appearance/architecture of the E41, bearing in mind William of Occam and his infamous razor. Maybe he cut himself shaving one day...
I see no reason to doubt that theory David. I seem to remember reading a suggestion that the appearance of the E41 was partly based on a left-over stock produced for Tilley, after their acrimonious parting of ways. It does help to explain why the E41 was produced for such a short time. Then again, as you point out, the pressing need for a lamp for the military is motivation enough to optimize production and hence looks, like the dropping of the E41-style top and the introduction of the simple coolie style top.
Thanks Mike. I'm not sure about the left-over Tilley stock idea - I'd don't think any E41 parts are Tilley equivalents - the principles are the same but the dimensions are entirely different. In any case, W&B won the legal battle, though I'm blowed if I can see how. They'd copied Tilley's self-sealing vapouriser tip idea and thus infringed their copyright. W&B simply stopped claiming their vapourisers were self-sealing but didn't change their design one iota so their pricker needle shoulder still mated with the inside top of the vapouriser to produce a seal and continued to do so right up to the end of W&B although by then, they were Bairstow Bros (1985) Ltd. I bet in the South Korean vapourisers, the pricker rod tip still seals the jet! Anyway, this explains why Tilleys have a control cock whereas Bialaddin/Vapalux have a jet cleaner despite these two being, effectively, the same in either lantern. Also, you turn off a Tilley using the control cock and you turn off a Bia/Vap by dumping tank pressure using the pressure release valve on the filler cap. My assumption the E41 is so-called because it came into production in 1941 but I've a sneaking suspicion it was earlier. I'm expecting Neil to chime in here pointing out that no company in its right mind would release a lantern before the patents were secured. That's absolutely correct but this was war-time and we were up to our backsides in blitzkrieg, Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain and The Blitz so probably normal circumstances wouldn't apply, especially with a whopping, and continuous, order from the military in W&B's back-pocket. Obviously that's conjecture but it makes sense to me...
David, I have been wondering about the seemingly odd model names W&B came up with. It would make sense to link the 41 number to that year, but Ian Ashton describes this type of lamp in the making as early as 1940. Perhaps it was 'officially' introduced in 1941, as the Emergence '41? I am just thinking fantasies here. How the 300 moniker came about is yet another questionmark for me. There seemed to come only some method in that name after the subsequent 305/310/315/320 range of models, but why they started with 300 is a mystery to me.
@M.Meijer @David Shouksmith Is there a known date for when this lamp in this configuration went into production? Also, would any of the other component parts of the lamp be marked, besides the hood? The grey enamel on the hood is very like RAF blue, is this just coincidental?
All you ever wanted to know about Vapalux and Bialaddin lanterns (and probably a good bit more besides!):- Blurb Books UK Ian waived the copyright on his intellectual property here, although I seem to recall him telling me that was a condition of having Blurb publish your work. Whatever, the content is free of charge and if you choose to buy a hard copy of the book, all you're paying for is the paper and ink, the cost of production and sending it out. So enlarge the book by clicking on the arrow button and turn the pages with the cursor or clicking on the right or left-hand sides. I suspect the 300 series name arose from them being 300cp lanterns. From there, the various incarnations obviously went up in increments of 5, thus 305, 310, 315 and 320.
Stevie, thanks to the internet as a source of (pictorial) information, and this site especially, there is consensus that W&B has not ever introduced any model of strict appearance at any firm date we are aware of. It was not only the war years that could have explained this unclarity; post-war there was this quick succession of Vapa 300, 300X, then Bialaddin 300x that slowly turned into a 305 in construction and general appearance, but wasn't. Why then the 305 was introduced is not so clear either, as it was a virtual copy of the latest 300X save the smaller fuel cap. And then of course the 305 ended up with 4 different appearances, pre alloy, past brass and in civil and military form without any differentiation by type. It is only with the 310 and successors that a clear image of a lamp emerged, but dates are still an approximation. Thanks to the Ministery of War many lamps were marked with a year, but not all proclaimed the maker in the war years. I wonder if on yours there is a patent number GB540783 in de lower ring of the cage; what exactly it refers to which construction I am not sure, but Ian Ashton unearthed this patent as from oktober 1941. I can recommend buying the book if you have more than a fleeting interest in these lamps. I found it the best investment of my collection, as it is the most used and enjoyed item with direct access instead of this 'mousing' on the internet.
Agree, David. See no reason to argue here. Makes sense. E41, possibly 1941. It's like Tilley with the X246, maybe (Feb) 1946, first year for this new lantern... Mike, Ian's book is a treasure trove of info on W&B Vapalux/Bialaddin lanterns and lamps. Ian admitted at the time the book was published it was in no way complete and all input was appreciated. Wish he was still in the hobby...
Well the works diaries would have helped but they went to South Korea with everything else. I did hear a whisper that there was a copy of them somewhere but if it's true, I've no idea where it might be - I certainly don't have it!
@Matthew James this was what I found when I restored mine. - Hood stamped RD838212 - All steel tank - Filler cap appears to be Speculum-platedor? - Brass tap with arrow on, not see that before - Frame, top and bottom collars steel, vertical supports brass. Marked PAT no 540783 I believe mine to be 1941/42 Yours looks to have a brass tank, larger opening in frame for the control cock and you don’t have the vertical slots. I would says yours is later from 1944. It would have a brown enamel top on like this one.
@Gary Waller The blue one you posted further up is mostly E41. The brass tap is as far as I know unique to E41 yours also has the circular indent in the top of the tank where the frame sits, again E41. If it’s an all steel tank, then I believe that is somewhat uncommon, if you look in the E41 section of the gallery you’ll see 1 example from Ian Ashton. If you could get hold of a two piece E41 hood and fit it to that lamp, then it would all be correct as an E41.
@Matthew92 yes you could be right, but it could also be a first version 300 as detailed by Ian. Who knows what happens to these lamp over a period of 70 years. But I do agree a E41 tip would sit nice on there, but would it be correct.
Well the blessing and the curse of Bialaddin and Vapalux is that most of the parts are interchangeable. The army took advantage of this by servicing / fettling / refurbishing them in large batches, maybe 50 at a time. They weren't bothered how they went back together as long as the lantern worked reliably - thus the military 'bitsa'. I suppose you could then ask (as someone did the other day, though in more general terms), are these 'bitsas' genuine Bialaddin and Vapalux lanterns..?
Does anyone have a clear definition of the differences between the E41 first & second model, and the first 300? I'm asking because I have what I always thought to be a transition model; it is dated 1942, has the E41 type of top, brass knob, pressure tit and brass fount with circular indent. I hope to have it working soon, if I can find a decent vapourizer.
E41s have a separate gallery/burner and ''empty' hood - compare with the Petromax arrangement. Anything later will have the burner and hood as a combined unit - compare with the Tilley arrangement. I'm almost certain the two types are interchangeable. I suspect there was an overlap period in production when the E41 parts were used up so late E41s and early 300s are concurrent. I've no proof of that but I can't imagine a factory foreman saying, 'right lads, we've used up all the old parts now so let's have a cup of tea and we'll start making the new lanterns after that.' - particularly in wartime... I've never been in manufacturing so it's interesting to ponder how model changes are introduced...
