Hello I found this lamp with a few odds and ends ( see attachments below ) in a charity shop. I have been perusing your excellent forum threads and pictures and am wondering if what I have is a Tilley TL106, please? Would there be a model number somewhere if I knew where to look? Should the lamp have some kind of translucent shade around the clear glass globe that it already has? As it is it kind of looks unfinished and the top does seem to have a rim that a shade could rest on. Thanks for any help Paul
Well, near enough a TL106 but actually, in this level of trim, a TL116. If it had an opal shade and the glass globe were removed, it would become a TL106. I don't think you will find any model identification markings on it. Ian
Hi Jeff and Ian Thank you very much for the quick replies, for the welcome and for the info. So is the lamp a complete TL116 as it is, please? In real life it looks as if the whole arrangement at the top is too small for the tank at the base. I have to say though, that the effect isn't quite so noticeable in the photo's. Regards Paul
Hello Paul, it's a TL-106, the link below shows my example of this lamp. The opal shade really changes the look of this model, Jeff. http://0flo.com/index.php?threads/2688
Well, according to page 25 of Jim Dick's book, "the designation number TL116 was dropped for this style" i.e. the second version - 1949 onwards. So I think it is a TL106, as Jeff says... Further, "The lamp no longer came with a glass shade but instead had a 'specially designed' plastic shade". Note the difference here between the 'globe' (clear glass) and a 'shade' (translucent glass or other material). So the glass globe is correct and it would have protected the plastic shade (missing, obviously) from the worst of the heat. If and when you light the lamp, you'll find that the light from the unshaded mantle is harsh, hurts your eyes, casts dark shadows and doesn't properly illuminate the room. That's because they were never intended to be used without a shade of some sort. Given that, with a very few exceptions, the plastic shades haven't survived the years, most collectors would just put on an opal shade as Jeff has done. Add one to a running lamp and witness a minor miracle - the light is transformed beyond belief! Hope that helps...
Don't know, Matthew - I've never seen one - but that does look like the example shown in Jim's book...
Yes that is the correct parchment type shade for this lamp. In fact it is also the same shade as used by Aladdin on the Bi-Aladdin table lamps. Paul's lamp above dates from 1949 to 1954 but Tilley stopped using the opal glass shade by this time. Still looks good on them though. ::Neil::
Hi Paul A Tilley TL106, aka "The Queen" (correct me if I´m wrong), is just a very nice lamp. Here is my one, with the champagne colored shade. Regards Niels Chr.
Yes Queen it is and as ever a very stylish lamp with the opal shade. That tank is about the best engineered Tilley ever made. They never used it as a lantern because I guess the brass is too thin to stand the rough usage of a lantern but I have yet to see a split one or one with a seam leak. ::Neil::
Neil, that's a bit confusing to me. I thought these used a plastic shade. The catalogues says plastic shade, and so do you yourself in the PLC. Or was the large plastic shade actually preceded with a "regular" parchment shade for a short while, so both could be correct for a 106 of this period?
Yes well it is listed as plastic because that is what Tilley called it and in fact that is what they are, but as you say that can be confusing so in discussion I prefer to call it a parchment type. Perhaps it would be better to call it a plastic parchment type. As far as I am aware Tilley never used parchment for their shades. They used a similar shade in the 1930s and described it as imitation vellum. Both parchment and vellum are an animal skin product or understood to be so and would have been very expensive. Actually even imitation velum - parchment is confusing because the general accepted meaning of velum would have been parchment when in fact it just means a membrane covering and does not describe the material whereas parchment is a treated animal skin. The confusion is because parchment as a covering is vellum but the converse is not true because velum does not mean parchment but the general public would not make the distinction. So using the term imitation velum is bad English because it means an imitation membrane or covering and therefore "imitation" is a redundant word. Mind you in the 1930s they would not have used the word plastic either because that would not have been understood. So no there never was a "regular" parchment shade only this type in two versions and then the later and perhaps more obviously plastic pleated shade. The two versions are near enough the same except the early one has a vertical line of stitching and the later one is glued with no vertical stitching. The shade illustrated here is correct for the model and was the only shade offered for this lamp. ::Neil::
Thanks Neil. That's pretty much what I figured. So these 106 never came with a parchment shade. I think "large plastic shade" is a description adequate enough. I'm sure (atleast I hope) that everyone knows that a parchment shade is made out of animal skin, so calling a thing parchment shade when it's not really made out of it is not good since many people want to get as close as possible when restoring stuff. But to call it "plastic parchment type", as you suggest, would be close enough. Then people probably would know instinctively how it looks, but then also that it's not actually made out of parchment.
Hello Everyone, This is all very interesting. Does anyone have an idea what to use as a covering for the frame. I don't fancy stretching animal skins, Although there seems to be plenty of horse around at the moment ! Any idea's ? I have frame dimensions posted.
Hi all Wow! Thank you very much for all the info. I guess I'll have to try to find a glass shade to complete the lamp, although, with the diagram provided by Maurice Snowdon, maybe I could make up a frame and a shade of some kind of plastic. My lamp would look much better with a shade I think. It looks so cosy and welcoming in Niels Chr.'s picture. Thank you all again ... regards Paul
G'day all, Sorry to resurrect another thread from gone by days. The posts in this topic have been outstanding to not only help me identify a couple of founts I have but also what is required to complete the lamp. One thing that seems to differ from member to member and Terry Marsh is the dates of the lamp. As long as I have read everything correctly then absorbed it correctly: Maurice Snowdons' diagram of the shade states 1950-58. Mackburner states 1949 to 1954. Terry Marshs' site states !952 to 1956 If I knew which was the correct dating, I wouldn't have brought up the discrepancies. I don't wish to offend anyone, I hope you understand, I'd like to nail down the correct dates though.
This version of TL106 was introduced in about 1950 and replaced the pork pie tank type. It was made up to 1959 BUT in 1954 Tilley started to stamp the rim With "Tilley - owl logo - England". Yours has a decal in the base which means it is not stamped on the rim and is therefore from 1950 to 1954. ::Neil::
