I think I'd be taking that with a very large pinch of salt! Wasn't there also something to the effect that W&B produced the first steel helmets in WW1? Mind you, I've always thought the Vapalux E41 was a Tilley/Petromax love-child i.e. Tilley lower parts with a Petromax-type gallery and hood. That would make sense if W&B had expertise in manufacturing both types of lantern. When they branched out making their own lanterns, they'd continue with what they knew, choosing the better parts of each design...
In elementary school we learned (our) language by composing simple messages and write them. One of the points stressed by our teachers, was to get the title right, to point the reader in the right direction. Now, few people will be let astray by this goofy title concocted in Korea, but it strikes me as a blunder if the present Vapalux company, build on the history of Willis & Bates cannot get this title right, and leave it there for some time. Amazing oversight even for those not familiar with English. But perhaps the history was written by someone more interested in grabbing attention (works indeed) than come up with a story that is proven to be correct and thus, creditable. The floodlight mentioned however could be based on some information found in the loads of paperwork and documents shipped to Korea as well, a hoard David has been speculating about. Still with a heavy dose of writer's freedom of course, and also not contributing to a solid image. Mike
Well, the words are English ones but make little sense to me, Mike, or even if I'm the David you're referring to... However, I can say that I was told by Ian Ashton that all the W&B / Bairstow Bros. (1985) Ltd. paperwork went to South Korea as part of the buy-out deal. I think that's clear enough.
Maybe I have not made myself clear enough. The 'heavy dose' etc. I place and leave with this writer connected with the present Vapalux brand. Personally I feel this 'history', as can be read on the site, is rather damaging to the image of Vapalux. As for the David I mentioned, that is indeed you, since you have been indicating on several occasions that a non-defined lot of documentation was shipped to Korea as well. I do not question that, other than it's possible contents nobody seems to know about. I was merely speculating here this 'Vapalux history writer' was inspired by some lines from the documentation to fabricate a floodlight designed by W&B. There is however nothing sofar that I know of on the Vapalux site that seems to be sourced from those documents. Mike
If I didn't define exactly what had gone to South Korea it's simply because I don't know - I'm not keeping anything back. I was told it had "all" gone to South Korea - certainly the works diaries went there...
Indeed David, this is what I have understood from you and from Ian, with very little clues what these documents were about. After a 10 years I suppose not much, if anything newsworthy was found among it.
@David Shouksmith and @M.Meijer , a good conversation to provoke thought and awareness. The article above makes two statements about Tilley that I am interested in for now. 1/ All lamp pressings were produced by Willis and Bates between 1925 and 1938. 2/ All lamp pressings were designed by Willis and Bates between 1925 and 1938. Any thoughts on the validity of these statements individually??
I've seen those statements before - I think in a letter written by Peter Sunderland, the Works Manager at Bairstows to a London collector almost 30 years ago now. The rest of the letter was crap so I wouldn't be surprised if there's some degree of inaccuracy in those two statements. The spat between Tilley and W&B is covered in Ian's book and can be read there although the text is unclear in the on-line version (pages 10 and 11). If I recall correctly, it was to do with W&B producing self-sealing vapourisers which Tilley had patented. However, it being war-time, the government had allowed patents to be relaxed on goods produced for them so W&B won the ensuing court case. They continued to produce self-sealing vapourisers but stopped claiming them as such, right up to the end of production at Halifax. I imagine the Korean ones still self-seal but I don't know for certain. Anyway, that's why Tilley lanterns have control cocks and Bialaddin / Vapalux have jet-cleaners with a separate pressure release. Also why the two makes are turned off in two different ways (supposedly, anyway...).
That seems logical and is supported by a High Court Of Justice case in which Wills & Bates, took the Tilley Lamp Coy to court over letters that Tilley had written to Wills & Bates in regards to patents. Tilley's perspective was that their patents were only to be used by Wills & Bates when manufacturing lamps for the Ministry of Supply. Tilley had stated that they were aware Willis & Bates were manufacturing lamps for their own use. Wills & Bates considered the letters threatening. Tilley had also coerced the Ministry Of Supply to write to Wills & Bates on behalf of Tilley. The Ministry of Supply told Wills & Bates that lamps manufactured for use outside of the Ministry of Supply may (According to Tilley) infringe upon Tilley patents and that they manufactured those lamps at their own risk. From memory, the dates of letters sent, put the time that Wills & Bates were manufacturing the lamps for their own use at around 1940.
Sorry, I had not seen your reply when I wrote my previous post. From what I have seen, unless there were two court cases, your version, as told to you, is not really accurate.
WILLIS & BATES LD. v. TILLEY LAMP COY before Justice Bennett 1943. The findings in this case are attached below as a PDF. Cheers Tony
The very interesting thing about this judgment by Justice Bennett is that it is not about the validity of Tileys patent or whether Willis and Bates infringed the patent. The judgment is about whether the letters written by Tilley and the Ministry of Supply, collectively, could be felt by Willis and Bates to constitute a threat (of legal action) contrary to section 36 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1942. The judgment was that those letters were, collectively, a threat contrary to s.36. Bennett J ruled: I think the Plaintiffs have established their right to an injunction, and I think the injunction to grant is: To restrain the Defendants, their servants and agents from, by circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatening the plaintiffs with an action for infringement of patent No. 518,977. In other word, Tilley was restrained from issuing threats, but no judgment was made about the patent itself. Cheers Tony
That is a stretch but not unexpected. The court case does not back up what you have stated at all. You must of missed the part where the court case wasn't about patent infringements.
