Hello all, sorry if this subject has been spoken about before. I’m sure that I will get a lot of negative responses and that’s fine with me, I want to hear what people think either way positive or negative. I understand why people like the old patina which is great and wonderful thing, I myself haven't restored all my lamps either and will be leaving some lamps as is, I also like the patina as well if it suits the lamp of course why not keep it that way. Maybe some lamps I should have kept in original condition, to late for that now In my opinion I thought the idea was to save these lamps especially if there is rust involved, which leaves you with no choice but to fix the rust or it will destroy the lamp in time anyway, so if you want to save the lamp for the future it’s a no brainer for me. I do also understand how rust works we may not get all the rust out and it will come back eventually, but we have given the lamp more years in its life to preserve it for so much longer than if we had done nothing at all. Then you my say not all lamps are steel, yes this is true so many are brass and painted so why respray or polish them up? My answer is to bring them back from something that looks awful to a work of art, if its too far gone let it shine again and be as it should, that is beautifully made, looking as though it just came out of the factory. The younger generation (not all of course) that we have now, know nothing but new and shiny, buy it throw it away, if it looks old it must be broken throw it away and how many children just get one big skip (container) and put it all in, off to the tip it goes end of story bye bye lamps etc. I also believe that if we want this next generation to care about our lamps, then we need to restore some and leave some as they are. The main thing is that the lamp lives on is it not? This also opens up the question if I restore the lamp its no longer an antique right? Yes, this is true, but and there is always a but, am I doing this to save my lamp or do I want to make money from this lamp? Here are some examples of old original lamps versus resprayed and polished up lamps. This is in no way to show of my work, if you think that you are missing the point of this question. Tilley TL14. Tilley TL10. Tilley TL106. Tilley PL53 Steel Fount. Tilley X246 Pork Pie. Tilley X246 Spectrum Plated. So if you have made it this far please let me know of your opinions thanks.
Hi @Buggerlugs , I do like your colum, to restore or not, I like to restore to working order, so if I can do original I do but you are also right some lanterns and lamps do need the bit extra for future preservation, I dread to see my collection just dumped, I’ve need cataloging, cost time etc. I’ve been giving them away as gifts for family and friends, they are always very happy to receive such a gift from me, I know I can not take them with me but I’m going to try
My maxim is simple - err towards conservation not restoration. But the decision is swayed by rarity and overall condition. So if it is in not too bad shape and/or not so common go for conservation. Restoration does damage the historical integrity of an artifact, however with lanterns where many 1000's were made I think restoration is mainly fine. I do think that some of your restorations end up looking "better" than the originals. I do not think that the brass was that shiny when it came out of the factory, and I suspect your paintwork is of far better quality than the original. You lavish care on your restorations but the lanterns were a mass-produced item so would not have ever recieved the same time that you spend on them. But I must say they do look so very good !
Seriously, do you suppose anyone would think that? I very much doubt it. My preference? Get a stove or lamp to work reliably and well, protect and conserve. Wax polish what’s left of paintwork if not too far gone, and I’ve a high tolerance level of what that is.
John, this high level of tolerance, are you illustrating this with above lamp? In almost still 'factory finish' save the eeny weeny blemishes? Serious? But what a beauty, with the original glass; my favorite model and colour.
presscall has got it right, I think. My vote is for conservation rather than 'restoration'. Return to function and maybe a bit of non-abrasive cleansing are sufficient in most cases. I like a lamp that wears its years.
Always a good (and contentious) question I subscribe to the conservation theme. Repairs, get it operational (where possible) and then stabilise corrosion/give it a bit of protection. Parts - use original, repair original, or adapt a replacement sympathetically so it fits the original application. "Patina" - I generally favour an even patina where possible. With brass it may be as simple as a thorough clean and a good rub with oil to remove verdigris (very effective), a light buff-up with a rag and job done. With steel, if its badly corroded/plating lost I would clean up/de-rust if possible and then either: rub some silicone wax in to preserve it; use a VHT paint or lacquer for heat-affected parts to stop flash rusting; use a synthetic coach enamel paint/clear lacquer lightly baked to preserve non heat-affected parts. If i'm giving something a thorough going over it may be necessary to polish up founts/burners/parts, but the overall luster would compliment the individual parts. ie I wouldn't have a brilliantly polished fount with a patchy hood or cage etc, but I would have stabilised corrosion and tried to keep the patina "even". I don't generally subscribe to museum pieces/shelf queens but I do own a couple which were restored prior to obtaining from the previous custodian But that's just me Alec.
I’ve contributed to this kind of discussion in the past… There’s no right or wrong here, but if the purpose of your intervention is to “preserve the fabric of the object” (that’s heritage conservation language) the extent of your intervention will depend on the condition of the object itself. If your purpose is to result in an object that functions as it would have in the past, your intervention will be greater. The unseemly fights between heritage experts comes when someone intends to make the object “like new”. There are valid arguments on both sides, but I tend to the “respectable user” side these days, where that involves also making sure there’s no further deterioration. At the moment I’m working on a lamp that I may have preferred to have required less intervention, but it is in need of some substantive rust stabilisation, and will require repainting — or otherwise it will end up looking like a bogan’s Ford Cortina. Cheers Tony
Bogan - Wikipedia Edit: There’s another even more local expression: “Chigwell racing stripes” where various panels of a car are different colours and condition because the car has been repaired with panels from other cars and not panel beaten or painted. Chigwell is a suburb of Hobart. Tony
I see..thanks Tony..bogan eh?..hum.. I understand what you mean about repairs especially ones needing welding and/brazing and the visual impact I feel a similar repair can be classed as historic if done years ago such as on a railway lantern or similar.. a kind of running repair? That can almost add to the appeal.. for me anyway
@podbros My intention with the lamp I am working on is to make it feel like it has come out of the railway workshop, rather than the factory. Cheers Tony
Thanks everyone for your comments, I think you all have great answers. It's very interesting to hear people's point of view.
@presscall John, reading back on what I wrote here, I realise this can be seen as a ridicule of your standards, that we all know are high. Me, I wanted to express my amazement, as for looks of a lamp I might be on the other end of the spectrum. If this is the case, I regret these lines, and I offer you my sincere apology. Mike
@M.Meijer Hey Mike, no worries. Truth is I hadn’t returned to this thread since my post in it and had I done so I wouldn’t have interpreted your comments as negative whatsoever. My photo’s flattering, taken after I’d wax-polished the maroon 300X, so not a good choice of pic on my part. This one better reveals what I was trying to convey, that my preference was to retain the original paint finish - missing flecks of paint, worn and darkened around the filler cap and airscrew from handling - rather than stripping it and re-painting. Best wishes, John
Thank you John for your reply; it had me worried that I might have offended you. As for this second lamp you show, I consider this also a clean, rather honest looking lamp. "Honest' as in used as they were supposed to be, but not abused or neglected. 'Dignity' is another word I use for this condition - even if much more paint is amiss - that to my mind often goes lost when made 'pretty'. I am well aware how the condition of a lamp is valued differently, as this site attests, but we are all involved for the hobby, no matter in what shape or form, and that is what counts. Mike
This whole thread supposes that an owner conforms to a social consensus (one way or the other) that an individual makes a conscious decision 'bigger' than the individual lamp being worked on. The conversation seems to infer we are 'historical custodian's' and we are playing just a 'temporary' part in the lamps life on this earth lol..sorry, just me being over dramatic. Buy it, it's yours, do what you want with it, I sure we all just want the best outcome for our lamps, whatever that might be.
That, or my eyes are failing me. Or my mind, as I wondered how you could end up with such a nice pair!
