Hi Folks. I have been given a PL 53 lamp and am in the process of tidying it up. The 2 supporting rods that are screwed onto the protruding studs on the font have a knurled "collar" at their lower end. Question... is the collar usually free to revolve on the rod or not ? Both mine seem fused to the rod big time! Maybe it's manufactured "as one" and therefore no amount of WD-40 will free it. Can someone confirm they are fixed, or wll they revolve - eventually ? Many thanks. Mike.
Hello, personally I'd be inclined to leave them alone, risk of snapping the thread off or damaging the fount.
Thanks for the reply KAB. Apologies, maybe I failed to make it clear. The steel rods unscrew fine from the font, the problem is the "female" end of the rods. Does the knurled bit revolve on the rod ? It's steel on steel. Maybe siezed, maybe made "as one". Thanks again anyway. Mike.
I have had the same issue - and came to the view that they were inseparable in some instances, and appeared to be constructed that way. As you seem to have found, removing the central section of the handle by easing the ring eye open allows the threaded parts to be removed. Clearly the eyes must have been formed, or at least closed to assemble the three part handle. But it would seem a little awkward to do this whilst the tank was attached - but maybe the saving in forming the female threads on the handle rather than as separate nuts made it worthwhile.
I wrote this a while ago (before Ian posted his reply) but my 'puter wouldn't let me post it for some reason - it's behaving most oddly this morning:- "The collars rotate on the handle rods (or should do, anyway) which is how the handle is removed from the tank. Otherwise you would have to separate the handle into its component parts to remove it from the tank - which must be what you've already done. The bottom end of the handle rod swells out into a sort of mushroom-head which butts up against the tank studs. The rotating collar screws onto the tank stud and holds the three parts firmly together. That's the best explanation I can come up with in words. Someone will probably post a photograph before long..." I haven't encountered any of the one-piece bottom handle ends so that's interesting information for the future - thanks, Ian. My guess would be that it's quite easy to have these fixed bottom ends on the earlier handle with straight lower rods. I would imagine it's more difficult to do so on the later handle with cranked lower ends - the threads would have to begin in one place only so that each side of the handle lined up on assembly. Having said that, I thought the earlier straight rods were fixed directly into the tank. Maybe there are three different handle arrangements, then. Hmm...
David The straight rod earlier PL53 handles have a male thread. Unless the eyes on the other end were formed after the rods had been screwed into the socket (or, I suppose before the sockets were soldered into the tank) the rod is unlikely to be screwed tight in the socket; it could be up to one revolution away from bottoming out. So if there is a fixed-nut-on-cranked-handle (as Mike suggests) it is no better, no worse in this respect. Now some PL53s do have a loose part on the cranked handles - as does the steel framed Guardsman, so Tilley went over to this, better, system at some stage. You could think that there was an ongoing development process, but the brass framed Pork-pie X246 had sockets as did both (all three?) versions SDR, so Tilley must have been going backwards and forwards in this respect at least. Going right back to Mike's question, I suppose one would have to saw through or X-ray the handle to see if the thread was truly fixed to the handle. I can only say that I have had a couple where it certainly seemed to be, but I have yet to find a Guardsman where the same nuts cannot be undone without real difficulty.
Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. On balance I think I'll leave them "as is". ie. not try and force/rotate the collars relative to the rods. It could all end in something going "snap" and gloom and doom ensuing ! Thanks again folks - much appreciated indeed. Mike.
I have a wartime PL53 with steel tank and one-piece handle. The tubular female threaded nuts rotate on the ends of the handle wire - they have to, otherwise it would be impossible to fit the handle. Once freed off, I found that the very end of the wire had been squeezed in a vice, forming a flat that prevents the wire pulling out through the hole in the top of the knurled nut. Some care was needed to make the flat wide enough to hold the lamp's weight securely whilst allowing the nuts to rotate freely.
