There are so many good examples of this lamp already on the forum I wasn't going to bother putting mine here. The fact I found a date on it changed my mind as I thought that may be of interest to some. This lamp will belong to my eldest daughter one day. Most of my lamps are designated to children or grand children. I'm not sure how correct the lamp is. Even if it isn't fully correct for the period, I like the lamp a lot.
Nice one Matt, sometimes we may get a little picky with lamp collecting, each to his own that suits him, Frank
Anthony, Thanks, I hope to have some photos for you in the next few days. Frank, thanks too. It's a shame that the Kayen bottom insect screen is incorrect for Tilley lamps as they are a classy looking screen, far nicer than the Tilley ones in my opinion. Sadly, it just wouldn't be right to put one on. For those that aren't aware of the screen I'm talking about, here it is. The top and bottom insect screens are about the only thing Kayen didn't pinch from Tilley in what they copied from Tilley.
Tony, I guess I could, no one that see's it would know it's the wrong one. If I do, the next thing I'll be putting a domed Kayen top insect screen on. The ones from Thailand are nice too....
On a 1958 lamp the heat deflector should be a round one not the oval crinkle you have on it now. Since there are repros available I would swap that and save the crinkle for an older lamp when one turns up. Not important of course and either way a damn fine example of the type. ::Neil::
Neil, Thanks for the info and kind words. I didn't know the round heat deflector was correct, I'm glad you have told me. I have seen those repo ones so I will take your advice. Is it clear when they changed from the crinkle to the round heat deflectors or was it a gradual thing where they used both for awhile?
The catalogues and flyers show the crinkle up to 1952. From 1955 onwards they illustrate the round type. The change might actually be earlier than this suggests because Tilley were well known for using out of date images in catalogues. For instance the 1957 catalogues show pre 1940 do nut lamps. However in this case we can be sure the round type had been introduced by 1955 so your lamp from '58 has to have had a round type originally. ::Neil::
Thanks Neil. I'm guessing my example would be one of the earliest that has been dated? To date undated founts, is it possible to do so, ignoring changeable parts? For instance, were the paint schemes changed through the eras? Or were there small design changes that could be noted to distinguish between eras?
Bob, The date stamp is covered by the brass holder once the lamp is placed in the harp. I hadn't noticed the date stamp until I was cleaning the fount with some watered down Gumption.
That's a fine example and it's difficult to date the earlier brass ML., tanks, apart from being pre or post WW2.. The first link below shows information about the copper ML., tanks. The cream painted ML., tanks are to wide to fit into a Tilley Jacobean bowl. The second link shows the 1955 Tilley catalogue and the round heat deflector is shown there. 2, Copper ML-tanks. 2 photos http://classicpressurelamps.com/index.php?threads/421
Jeff, Thanks for the wealth of information you kindly supply in your posts. Is it simply the thickness of the cream paint that makes the founts too large to fit into the Jacobean stand or are the founts manufactured slightly larger? I have another cream ML93 here and also a brass one. I was going to try and do an accurate measurement but on closer inspection of the brass one I can see remnants of cream paint. So it was once painted but then stripped. I don't like my chances of ever acquiring a Jacobean stand so it's all really academic. Still, knowing why the cream painted ML93's won't fit into a Jacobean stand would be good to know.
Matty. Looks good nice and bright to. Notice you have 2 off them good reflection isn't it Keep up the good work . Bob
