Shades, ‘V’ sections and Bases: comparisons and dates

Shades:

Early slimline rolled lip 1935-38:

slimline rolled lip 1938-early 1948:

wider rolled lip 1948/1952-early 1960’s:

Wider no rilled lip 1960’s- 1969:

Bakelite

Both the slimline and wider rolled lip versions bakerlite shades occasionally turn up. These are pretty rare as the bakelite shades were brittle so few survive. I believe the reason bakerlite was sometimes used (though this may be wrong) was that in the run up to and shortly after the second world war, there were often shortages of various materials including aluminium.

During these shortages it was not always possible or affordable for the shades to me made out of aluminium so Terry and Sons would resort, for short periods, to producing  shades from easily moulded bakelite. This was however problematic as they were very brittle and often had faults form during the manufacturing process. The shades also often cracked or shattered during delivery, so as soon as aluminium was once again available they would return to using the more reliable metal.

‘V’ Sections:

First version seen on 3 step base’s:

Other versions:

Centre: Early 2 step models from 1938-mid1940’s

Left: seen on models from 1952- late 1960’s

Right: This is most commonly seen on the Anglepoise Type 75 which replaced the 1227 in 1969. However it is also seen on very very late 1227’s (presumably the crossover period for manufacture). 

Base’s: 3 step (1935-1938):

Genuine originals were painted, usually with wrinkle paint, with uneven castings. Very early examples may have no earth screw and may be stamped ” The Anglepoise Pats Pending’ rather than later examples which simply state “Patented”

Early 2 step (1938-mid1940’s):

Note: no steel cover just lumpy casting, wrinkle paint was used to hide this

Later 2 step (1952-1969):

This is the same as above apart from that it has a pressed steel cover over the cast base, this was brought in when gloss paint began to be used on the lamps to hide the uneven casing.

For a more comprehensive guide to the differences between the different versions of the 1227 please go to the “Dating your 1227 Anglepoise: a rough guide” page of this sit.

5 thoughts on “Shades, ‘V’ sections and Bases: comparisons and dates

  1. I have recently been given a Herbert Terry lamp!! On the ‘V’ All the lamps i have seen have the casting written as “Made in England by Herbert Terry, Reditch… But my Lamp has brass arms and The casting say’s “Made by Herbert Terry, Reditch,Eng , nothing on my lamp is magnetic and the earth wire is attached to the arm just above the V and the bulb fitting is brass with the earth wire attached from the bulb holder to the upper arm. also it has a hole each side of the shade and there is a hard plastic type nob so you can move the shade without burning your fingers, can anybody help age this lamp.

  2. I’m in the course of carefully cleaning / polishing (but definitely not “restoring”) an early three tier version, and have some observations that might be useful to others:

    The base and shade have been finished with black crinkle paint, while the steel arm box-sections and three-part ‘tuning fork’ (your V-section) have been finished in gloss black (now more like satin) with all the pins, screws etc. chromed. The central part of the tuning fork is not chromed. The base finish is very wrinkled, the shade less so – more like mottled – which I imagine is a result of the paint application / wrinkling process requiring heat, which the heavy base will retain where the lighter shade will not and so producing different effects.

    The base seems to have been well machined with only minor blemishes observable, so I’m not convinced the crinkle paint was used primarily to hide problems in the castings: Car parts from the same era often use the same paint, and I’d say its use on the anglepoise looks more like a novelty finish fashionable at the time rather than a cosmetic bandage. This may well have become the case later, as your photo of a very rough 2-tier base casting shows (although I don’t see the crinkle paint finish, which must have been removed?).
    .
    Unlike later versions, both Carwardine’s original design drawings and this example show all the springs to be the same length with, as you note, the central one attached to a separate, shorter pin run through the tuning fork arms just above the longer pin for fixing the two side springs, to allow it to reach the higher connection point of the central arm. The central spring is, however, of a heavier gauge of metal than the side springs. The lower, longer pin does have a central groove which could therefore take the central spring if adjustment required it. I see that Carwardine’s design drawing shows the two arms of the tuning fork made of a much thinner sheet steel than the thicker material always seen now. This may have been thickened up at the prototype stage when found to be too weak, but if one does exist it will be very rare?

    In case it helps with comparisons, this example has the earth screw fitted to the central part of the tuning fork. The top surface of the screw itself is dished, and it has a washer behind labelled “EARTH”. Above this are the words inscribed horizontally “MADE BY / HERBERT TERRY / AND SONS LTD / REDDITCH ENG..” and on the other side the words inscribed vertically “THE ANGLEOISE / PATENTED IN THE PRINCIPAL / COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD”. The central hole in the base has been threaded to take vertical screw fixing down the ‘tuning forks’ without the need for a bolt below. The bottom surface of the base has been machined flat and has a central circular recess.

    From what I can glean, the presence of the earth screw and the patents having been obtained suggest that this example dates from between later in 1935 to the change to 2-tier bases in 1938.

    I’d urge anyone thinking of restoring any vintage object to consider whether the original finishes have a value in themselves, however damaged. The colours and textures used were chosen deliberately and are a part of the time when the object was made that can’t genuinely be replicated now. The minor (and even major) scratches and dings that everything acquires in time are a testament to the period it’s lived through, and gives it a far stronger connection to its history. The overall result of a re-finished (and often over-chromed) object like an anglepoise can only be a modern interpretation that has lost something intangible.

    Many thanks for a very useful site.

    • Thanks for your message very useful and detailed information! I tend to agree with your feelings about over-restoring lamps. It’s very easy to loose the character in the process, for my own part my approach has tended to be to only fully restore a lamp if it is absolutely necessary or if it has been poorly restored in the past. As to the bases it’s probably true that the wrinkle paint was used for aesthetic reasons as well as to cover imperfections. From the examples I’ve seen the quality of the casting varies considerably with some bases exhibiting a rougher finish than others. It seems likely perhaps, that the use of the wrinkle paint in part helped to hide this inconsistency.

      All the very best

      Harry

    • Ypur lamp apears to a be 1209-b anglepoise. this would make it pre ww2.
      the 1208 and 1209were the predecesors to the 1227, although they continued to be produced alonglise their younger sibling.
      You can tell that this lamp is an earlier model becaue the tensioner which connects the shade and the lamp is of the earlier type.
      However this should be noted with caution becaue the Cast iron base is of the lower, later type and the makers stamp is also in the later possition (on earlier examples this was on the metal plate at the ‘elbow’ of the lamp. A very good site detailing the history and evoltion of the 1208 and 1209 can be seen here: https://sites.google.com/site/vintageanglepoiselamps/the-first-anglepoise-lamp/herbert-terrys-1208-09

      kind regards, Ben

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s