Vintage Lighting Can anyone identify this light??

Hi Guys,

I have just purchased an old Fresnel light and it is big! Makes my strand vintage spots look like desk lamps.

The fresnel light has no brand markings on it that I can find I think there may have once been one in the centre of the rear door, but no there is just a hole.
The nuts which tighten the tilt are very large and cast brass, as is the pipe clamp. The pipe clamp has a small B&H stamped in it but this my be the maker of the clamp and not relevant to the light. Screen shot 2012-08-20 at 2.35.32 PM.pngScreen shot 2012-08-20 at 2.35.47 PM.pngScreen shot 2012-08-20 at 2.36.00 PM.png

I have no idea on the wattage or what globe to get as there isn't one to match.

Any help greatly appreciated.
 
Identify, no. It's without doubt designed to be a studio oriented product, the long whip and the cable hanger on the yoke get us that far. It's set up for the mogul bi-pin
type lamp ( ANSI CYX would be the 2k variant ). I'd also venture a guess that the existing whip is a replacement; my money would be that this puppy started out life fed with asbestos leads. The rear door and fold-down reflector are new to me though........
 
If I put a 1k lamp in a 2k light will it blow? or a 2k lamp in a 1k light? Which is the worst scenario to try??

The glass is 255mm Dia so 10", so that would be the 10….what is 8F? There are 12 ribs in the glass. Where ever it came from it was imperial measurements!
 
A 1k lamp in a 2k device won't blow*. A 2k lamp in a 1k device is a very bad idea as it is twice the rated wattage therefore, way more heat is generated (which the fixture is not designed to dissipate) and it is highly likely that the wiring is too small for the demand.

When you're lamping down a tungsten source, you won't run in to problems unless A) The lamp pins don't fit the socket, B) The lamp's physical size is incorrect for the reflector/optics, thus putting the filament in a less-than-optimal position (this measurement is referred to as the LCL). or C) The lamp's voltage differs from the voltage being applied.
Otherwise, the lamp will only draw the amount of current it needs (there is no magical thing in the cord that spits out 2,000 watts regardless). The idea here is similar to putting a 40 watt bulb in a table lamp that is rated for 60 watts. Generally not a problem unless you exceed the rated wattage. The rating is merely a line not to be crossed. You can stop at any point before the line so long as there are lamps available that are suitable for the fixture.

*You can run in to these problems when dealing with a ballasted load (arc lamps, low voltage [see 'C', above], metal halide).

The "8F" could mean that this fixture's lens has an 8" focal length. Wild guess, as the fresnel's focal length changes as you focus the instrument. In this case, it possibly means that the lamp's filament is roughly 8" from the center of the lens in the 'flood' position.
 
Last edited:
My wild guess would be a Barton, with imported lamps being extremely expensive in Australia a great many lamps were made in small factories, a bit like the Chinese do now, I had several various lamps which were locally made, indeed I had a batch of par 64s made in the 70's when imports were extortionately priced.
 
Last edited:
My wild guess would be a Barton, with imported lamps being extremely expensive in Australia a great many lamps were made in small factories, a bit like the Chinese do now, I had several various lamps which were locally made, indeed I had a batch of par 64s made in the 70's when imports were extortionately priced.

Only Barton images I can find look quite different…… David any ideas where I can take this in Melbourne to get a 1K globe to try??
02-barton-theatre-light.jpg


Tried contacting furse….

Hi

We don't think it is a Furse unit (gone back as far as 1966). Could be very early Strand, Altmann or even Major brand.

Sorry we can't help, but thanks for the enquiry

Yours sincerely


Richard Stokes

CCT LIGHTING (UK) LIMITED






Hi

We don't think it is a Furse unit (gone back as far as 1966). Could be very early Strand, Altmann or even Major brand.

Sorry we can't help, but thanks for the enquiry

Yours sincerely


Richard Stokes

CCT LIGHTING (UK) LIMITED
 
Posting for ship, who is currently unable to access the website.
There is hoods and there is hoods. This one given that amount of extension/height should have a baffle, the ones linked to probably also have one. Also concerned about the rear door not fitting correctly.

While I have seen a few electrical boxs at bottom of a fixture to convert say 12/3 type S cable to something asbestos, why in doing so would one run the connection to the lamp socket outside this box for connection, and in the focus range of the slide baffle plate? Also means at least one more bushing than needed at very least in not doing it properly. This is 230v though so the cord out of it could have been a 16ga. It grounded over the oversized hood without baffle under it though helps date it in grounding an option in the say late 40's and where you live probably later.

Too bad we are so far across the planet... could rip it apart and determine a lot with you on what’s added, changed or supposed to be there.

For instance, on the rear door, there is a baffle between it and that center hole, yet there is no seen means of mounting for that baffle. Hinge also seems a bit cumbersome.

Inner light baffles seem to have some form of fastener or stud shown but they don’t have detail and don’t make sense in where they are for mounting the baffle.

I assume the outer louvers are welded to the outer donut parts of the frame as per a later 40's thru 90's style of Mole Fresnel. Yet they had the front hinged door of cast aluminum and didn’t do the hinged rear door. Hinging the rear reflector is very problematic.

I would take some more photos _ not that it will help a bunch in identification, but to more see how it was done and understand quality of some parts verses questions over other parts.

Knob/hinged door on the rear match up with the hood style and hinged reflector for 1930's thru say mid_40's studio Fresnel concept and perhaps a little later given where you found it, say into the 50's but there will have been a baffle under that high hood for any age. I have in stock a Mole Richardson Fresnel of the same size from about 1936 that has the same concept in door and even a similar reflector. It’s cast aluminum front and rear parts though and only a single gel frame clip, not a dual one that is very similar to the 40's thru 90's models. Lacking the fourth gel frame mounting clip either says corner cut or pre_thought of. Stamped steel front and rear welded baffles didn’t get done I think until after WWII I think. The warp in the rear door says probably why the hinged door and hinged reflector went out of style beyond problems overall with the concept.

Lamp socket I would suspect is a solid block of asbestos as both a heat sink and insulator _ not one Mole at least used. While captured in an aluminum casting I think, there is no removal knobs for gripping the lamp seen on the rear door photo. That’s a problem in that all G38 base "Mogul BiPost" lamps until later spring tension and twisting or pin lock to remove them were invented. Very interesting lamp socket in if changing the lamp from the year, either this socket is installed backwards, or it just relies on spring tension that’s not really done even today for such a lamp.

Interested in that secondary yoke _ for the focus knob lock off??? This so as to perhaps more easily remove the lamp in bringing the carriage back to the rear of the fixture, but also some set stop range for focus? Very strange such an application, also the cooling vents on this bottom assembly _ such louvered vents that are kind of stretched as opposed to the vents on the rest of it that require baffles don’t quite fit with the fixture. How they fit also doesn’t really make sense for various other fixtures I have seen before. You install the outer round assembly over the lamp slide assembly. That’s important because you normally cannot fit the reflector assembly about the slot for the under carriage. Given this rear reflector assembly is hinged, possible that it was installed after _ but just doesn’t seem like the lower housing was designed for the fixture. Could be that this was a lower base for an odd fixture but every upper frame of a Fresnel that I have seen before that’s using a baffle plate, also does it below within this questioned period of time when venting. Also, what’s with the holes below those baffles? If baffling holes to a side plate, why add another step in the assembly in also drilling holes? Can’t see if at least baffled holes but assuming the top hood, suspect they are not, or what fastens such a baffle by way of fasteners isn’t the same.

Paint type, My Mole was texture black, while I have seen other even a sort of lacquer black or flat black in use, don’t think I have seen a semi_gloss type black before the 40's. Could be and often hard to tell but I don’t at least think this from the 30's. Interesting the cage of the fixture is very similar to the effects projector I’m researching, but after that can’t help. Similar to the one I’m reaching, but a lot of differences.

Overall, while strange from what I have seen before, believe this is a "Frankenstein" fixture and or if it is one that’s from a brand, it would be really hard to track down. Good curiosity though type fixture.

I would find out more info on who I got it from and where they got it from. Interesting parts but they probably don't belong together. Lots more photos, even the cord grip could tell more on age. A study of the fixture in say dissimilar parts, and etc. would in the end tell more to this hypothis.
 
ok…….That was an extensive reply and I must say a lot of it went over my head. Unfortunately I am not familiar with these type of lights at all.

I will endeavour to take some more photos and read this over again with the light in front of me to see if I can follow it better that way.

The guy I bought it from lives interstate and in Aust. that is a long long way. He also had no idea of make or history. Although he did have two of these units identical.

I also have one of the very first Strand Patt 23 lights (1953) and it has a braided 3 wire cord, I am assuming this would be asbestos and should be replaced? The others I have are slightly later models and have a thin plastic tape wrapped cord.
 
Sorry about the reply, was working on a single screen monitor in flipping between screens, looking and flipping back. Should have waited another night to bullet point or at least edit better.

Two identical lights could say that it is how it is supposted to be, and or it could say something put together for more than one out of parts.

If the fixture is supposted to be that way, I would assume it a local/national brand say from the 40's thru 50's. If something someone "fixed up" and especially given the lack of inner baffles under that high venting hood, it's possible more than one was fixed.

Problems with the supposted to be that way: above noted design problems that more photos might better show or as not problems persay, just clumsy deisgn that used more parts than needed and or bad design.
Problems with made that way as per Frankenstein fixture, the parts that make up this are very much not cheap. Appears almost as if the top carriage of what ever brand had a more modern Altman lower carriage added to it but I don't think it is. Than holes were drilled out in the bottom for unknown reasons. That's a lot of expense that takes some knowledge of what parts to get, yet also assumes no knowledge of venting etc.

Lots wrong on this fixture that more photos hopefully would reveal in not a problem perhaps, Lots of work done to it by intent or making it work. On the other hand... I wouldn't change anything about it. Sometimes it's what is curious in pointing out what is wrong with what was done when for historical sense. Actually paid $25.00 for an origional PAR 38 from the 1960's that really is a medium size coffee can with lamp socket added, and yoke installed that still has the hardware store sticker on the steel plate for it. Provinence however in this case - I know who made it, it's dating and where it came from. Will have never paid anything for this "example" of what they did back in the 60's, except that I was helping Nook the LD in research for his article in PLSN on the PAR can, and we came across this important part of the PAR can history. Certainly I was making them in the 90's, or at least adding cans and gel clips to cans for already made say pinspots into PAR 38's or R-30 track lights into 150w R-30 "powder puff's", but this specific PAR 38 I bought was the history of the PAR can from the 60's in buying.

Anyway, that amongst a few other "modified" fixtures including a Major 6" PC fixture from like 1926 or before, that in the 60's had 1/3 of it's length cut down "for a wider focus" (given new smaller lamps), I wanted it also given the provinance. Not just the history of how antique it is, the story at times in what has been done to it is important in what and why they thought what they did at the time later in modification is just as important. Heck, at some point I'll be trading a brand new Altman 3.5Q5 for one that at some point in the 80's I think, had an iris installed into it in a very well done way. Just have to figure which of two sources it got sold to.

Strand Patt 23 is a really cool light I hope to some day have a look with. It is now on the bring me back list for one of our crew chief's that now lives in England, for next time he goes home. I only have two #73 of historical sense in stock, and I had to invent most of the gizzards and shuters.

Braided 3-wire cord from 1953 is logical - grounding fixtures back than was an option. If from that date, yes it probably would be asbestos. Don't try to save the plug, clip at the bushing and bag it. Clip than at the lamp socket for the next bag it removal. Blow the fixture out next. Dust mask yourself and do it outside if possible in the most simple concepts. Believe way back when I posted a Dr. Doom official asbestos removal way of doing so that can be researched to. One partical of it ten years later can do cancer and just because you survived so far (and believe me, I found a new spool of asbestos wire and used it in the early 90's and in not knowing better wired up like 20 fixtures with it), this doesn't mean even I'm safe now from it. It's that one in the million particle one fears ten years later.

Overall, I once heard on "Antiques Roadshow" that re-wiring an old lighting fixture doesn't hurt its value if done correctly. Certainly asbestos is bad and its removal for what ever you do is necessary. Electrical tape wrapped cord is shotty and consider the age and oxidation of the cord in being able to conduct for why it would need a wiring replacement at least.

Just today got a Kliegl #53 box spot off E-Bay (don't tell my Wife). Already had one, but this one was a different style with similar to your fixture bottom holes drilled into it's base in raising a question of which came first in that the other one I have doesn't have those holes. Nore does my #55 that I lost conformation on existance of. More important, seller says it "works". Amazing, oritional asbestos cord out of it with an oiled braided sleeve over it - kind of like a modern fiberglass sleeving over wires, but this is oiled. That's all fine and factory perhaps.

Curious but in "works" someone added a like 18/3 SPT Zip cord to extend the length of the cord by a few feet. No butt splices or solder splices, just electrical taped lots of stranded wire wrapped in a "rolling splice type of way with a lot of electrical tape to insulate and secure. Ground on the zip cord was just cut at the splice. Extension cable came with a molded Edison plug. Problem was the zip cord was totally dry rotted in every way except chunks of it were not flaking off. This seller in testing if it "works" with a 75w A-19 incandescent lamp, risked his life in plugging it in.

Story above is important, get some help before you work on and or plug in any of these fixtures. Experienced eyes can beyond lamp socket needing resurfacing or replacement also teach you on what is safe to be handling. For even Mole lights... probably worked on at least 40x of them at this point in similar style to these photos. This in total re-wiring or removal so as per prop light made into something else. For stage lighting use, these fixtures could be quite the "pop" in current prop light were you to not fix or do anything to the frame, but insead install a small moving light or LED soure inside of them. Very frequently used as "prop" lights.
 
Last edited:
This is the one I suspect is asbestos
7507-can-anyone-identify-light-img_2281.jpg
7508-can-anyone-identify-light-img_2282.jpg
This is the taped version on the later ones which isn't madern elctrical tape almost look like a black pastic bag
7509-can-anyone-identify-light-img_2284.jpg

7510-can-anyone-identify-light-img_2296.jpg
7511-can-anyone-identify-light-img_2297.jpg
7512-can-anyone-identify-light-img_2298.jpg
7513-can-anyone-identify-light-img_2300.jpg
7514-can-anyone-identify-light-img_2301.jpg
7515-can-anyone-identify-light-img_2302.jpg
7516-can-anyone-identify-light-img_2303.jpg
7517-can-anyone-identify-light-img_2305.jpg
7518-can-anyone-identify-light-img_2306.jpg
7519-can-anyone-identify-light-img_2307.jpg
7520-can-anyone-identify-light-img_2308.jpg
7521-can-anyone-identify-light-img_2309.jpg
7522-can-anyone-identify-light-img_2310.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2281.jpg
    IMG_2281.jpg
    32.9 KB · Views: 537
  • IMG_2282.jpg
    IMG_2282.jpg
    30.1 KB · Views: 517
  • IMG_2284.jpg
    IMG_2284.jpg
    30.2 KB · Views: 545
  • IMG_2296.jpg
    IMG_2296.jpg
    19.8 KB · Views: 501
  • IMG_2297.jpg
    IMG_2297.jpg
    16.4 KB · Views: 529
  • IMG_2298.jpg
    IMG_2298.jpg
    17.6 KB · Views: 506
  • IMG_2300.jpg
    IMG_2300.jpg
    16 KB · Views: 516
  • IMG_2301.jpg
    IMG_2301.jpg
    16.9 KB · Views: 527
  • IMG_2302.jpg
    IMG_2302.jpg
    19.4 KB · Views: 536
  • IMG_2303.jpg
    IMG_2303.jpg
    14 KB · Views: 516
  • IMG_2305.jpg
    IMG_2305.jpg
    28.4 KB · Views: 520
  • IMG_2306.jpg
    IMG_2306.jpg
    24.9 KB · Views: 506
  • IMG_2307.jpg
    IMG_2307.jpg
    21.1 KB · Views: 534
  • IMG_2308.jpg
    IMG_2308.jpg
    21.4 KB · Views: 516
  • IMG_2309.jpg
    IMG_2309.jpg
    21.3 KB · Views: 509
  • IMG_2310.jpg
    IMG_2310.jpg
    21.1 KB · Views: 509
After looking at the latest round of pictures. I withdraw my earlier crack about asbestos. While looking like no great shakes as strain relief, that cable entry affair does look native to the fixture.
 
Wow, and thanks on the extra photos. Love the vintage Patt fixture (yes asbestos) but a great icon of the industry.

Not so sure any longer that with all the further photos, this is a "Frankenstein" fixture. A lot of effort and extra knobs or levers say on the below wiring box that one can only wonder about do something - perhaps it switches it off as might be common as a studio light feature. Still also have no idea on that lower yoke, but there is a lot going on in design and effort. Can only say you have a very fascinating light and it's probably all designed. Probably as per one piece - though still elements of it like how the bottom housing fits, or the outside wiring etc. are perhaps problematic or just design things about the fixture that could have been refined better.

See some form of stamp on the C-Clamp. While probably more designed for a spud than a C-clamp (and older studio clamp design), it is a C-Clamp friendly over spud fixture which might also be old in concept. (Perhaps pre-spud for design.) What is stamped for brand on that C-Clamp for brand might lead to where it came from or at least a start in research to follow. Certainly a different brand of C-Clamp than I have also seen before so it might be the same maker.

Very interesting spot welding on the latch and pounding the hinge to fit the rear. Good to see there is a baffle on the rear, wondering if perhaps also baffle on the top hood but not really seen at what angles of photos were taken. No need to show, either has one or not that would block light in getting out. This might be a replaced part perhaps or not.

Age, still thinking later 40's earlier 50's for Studio Fresnel light. 2,000 Watt Fresnel studio fixture. Unknown brand so far.

Look up your local college perhaps in help in re-wiring it and preserving it. Should be worth a term paper at least in further research for the college and labor to help you with it. Send photos out to your local TV and or movie production companies in asking if anyone remembers such a fixture. In general a lot of asking about in finding "old timers" for the industry in your country to see if anyone remembers it. Heck, I'm about to do that on a I think Hub, Colortran or LECO square backed PAR 64 can to my own sources that I'm also researching. For me at least I have a "red knob" as per past research to say it might be LECO in brand.

No matter the brand thought it could be or not... you still have a very fascinating fixture that you can tell a lot about in why it isn't, but also is. The Patt #23 from Strand you can go into detail about how it's expert design, and it's designer, still often in use even if a PC fixture. Lasts only so long as a presentation, this light you have a lot more confusing about info as per a "transition piece" and at least locally something that was done that shows many elements of both the past and later eras in Fresnel design. Even those bottom venting holes with the bent side venting for the lower assembly. No need for the bottom venting holes at the base of the fixture, that with the more modern bent venting holes in concept for the side of this lower slide focus assembly.

This one part of the assembly that don't fit as well to the top round part, doesn't fit as with the high hood of the top of the round lens train assembly. Shouldn't need that high of a hood on it and perhaps there is a light baffle for it in blocking light or not. Oveall, those side vents from the round section fluiting has enough venting to not require as high of a hood. Way too much ventialation than needed for such a fixture. That said - it has too much and either it's designer didn't understand such concepts or something is interesting about it in "fixing".

None the less, fascinating fixture for discussion over that of the Patt #23 which is huge in a history sense but designed as opposed to this which is very confusing in lots of stuff about it over-designed and not known. Again, think it local in making (for at least country) and a great research project a college can help with.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back