|
Harry Lucas, the guiding entrepreneur of Joseph Lucas Ltd and the son of the company founder, Joseph Lucas, had an eye for inventive advertising and original design. He patented in his own name, on the 25th August 1897, a small oil-powered lamp which had a diagonally divided spherical central body with four triangular shaped, red and green glass segments. These were arranged separately, two on each side of the diagonal dividing-line. The lamp, when put into manufacture, was named the 'Microphote'. Unusually for any patentee, Harry Lucas's 1897 provisional patent specification numbered 19,612, also recorded the de-sign debt of an earlier patent, being number 23,351 of 1896, this specification having been assigned to A. C. Davison of Holloway Road, London, England.
Augustine Campbell Davison was a gifted and qualified civil engineer who had had some experience in perfecting lighting devices. For example in March 1889, he filed a patent for a novel type of solid tyre Safety Bicycle lamp featuring a new arrangement of an exterior oil reservoir. This not only allowed for a large polished concave rear reflector but also an optically correct, double-convexed front lens. The lamp proved to give a particularly good beam and Davison named his lamp 'Holophote'. An interesting word probably derived by combining 'Holo' from the word 'Holographic' meaning the science of light and 'Phote', from the word 'Photometry' which concerns light measurement.
The 'Holophote', (which like the 'Microphote' is pronounced with a silent 'e'), was displayed at the National Cycle Show of 1890. In due course, Harry and Joseph Lucas approached Davison to take up the design and paid Davison a royalty on every lamp sold. Lucas's then offered the 'Holophote' in their 1891 catalogue, issued in November 1890, referring to it as the 'Holophote King of the Road'. The lamp was in production for four years so the Lucas's and Davison must have been well acquainted with each other.
To return to our 'Microphote' story, the aforementioned A. C. Davison's 1896 patent also incorporated a spherical and diagonally divided central burner housing to allow for an increased inner reflecting surface. It was also hinged at the top-rear to facilitate cleaning. Davison appears to have joined the staff at Joseph Lucas & Sons as 'Works Manager and Experimentalist' at about this time. This possibly accounts for the reference to Davison's 1896 patent included in the Lucas 1897 patent specification of the 'Microphote'.
|
While we pause for a moment, there are several interesting thoughts in the light of the above. The writer can not help but muse that there may possibly have been a good reason for Davison joining the Lucas Company at about this time? Did Davisons service contract with the company entitle Harry Lucas access to Davisons prior patent and thereby allow the 'Microphote' to be granted a full British patent without the risk of infringement? We may never know but certainly the investment in Davison, whatever the reasons would, as it turned out, be rewarded handsomely. Also at about this time, somebody, perhaps Harry Lucas, started to collect contemporary advertising illustrations of competitors lamps and glued them in a scrapbook, a photocopy of which I have in front of me. Among the illustrations is an advertisement for the 'Queen' lamp. Was it this image I wonder that inspired the development of the 'Microphote'?
The 'Microphote' was issued the stock-number of 309, weighed 9.5oz, was only 4.5 inches high and re-tailed for 14/6. It was described as a 'Veritable Multum in Parvo' by various press reporters and was ini-tially shown at the Stanley Show and later the National Cycle Show at Crystal Palace in December 1897. It was first offered in Lucas's 1898 wholesale catalogue that commenced distribution in December 1897.
It is quite likely that the 'Microphote' lamp was in production prior to November 1897 because by the Oc-tober of 1897, plans for the flotation of Joseph Lucas & Sons as a public limited liability company were well in hand. I have in front of me as I write a 'Microphote' lamp with both the old company name of Jo-seph Lucas & Son and the new company name, Joseph Lucas Ltd inscribed. This probably indicates that this lamp dates from this transition period and was therefore probably manufactured in October 1897.
Advertised as 'The Lamp for Lady Cyclists' this bicycle lamp of pretty and radical design proved to be the most amazing success, helped of course by Harry Lucas's spirited advertising and like so many good de-signs, it too was also copied. One such firm was the Birmingham Company; Coombes Brothers with their 'Fairy' lamp and the Parker Hudson Company marketed similar creations. However, as we shall see later, the subject of litigation and dispute arose in later months with yet another Birmingham Company.
In 1900 a third oil-powered lamp was added to the family and this was named the 'Mediophote'. As the name suggests, it shared all the features of the successful 'Microphote' but was midway in size to this lamp and the 'King Holophote'. At 14.5ozs and with a height of 4.75 inches it was given a retrograde stock-number of 308. It was priced at 12/6 in the 1900 catalogue, (published in December 1899) and continued in production until 1909. Interestingly the retail price of the 'Microphote' had been reduced to 10/6 during this period but the 'King Holophote' remained at 15/-.
|
It is often said that the best form of flattery is imitation and so it was that H. Miller & Co. Ltd redesigned the 'Petro Lamp' and introduced the 'Miniature Lito', a product akin to the 'Microphote' and illustrated it in their 1899 (issued in December1898) catalogue. The lamp was shown at the 1898 National Show, a full year after the introduction of Lucas's 'Microphote'. However, although it was very similar, it was not by any means the same. The oil reservoir was permanently fixed to the spherical burner housing and the red and green side glasses were diamond shaped and not triangular. In the event, Harry Lucas must have taken legal advice and in1899, sued for infringement. The case was heard at the Birmingham Assizes in Decem-ber 1899. Miller's argued that "there was nothing new about the Microphote", which in part was certainly true. Indeed, as we have previously discussed, this is born out by the number of similar spherical bodied lamps already patented and in production by others. However, the jury were verbally convinced that what made the 'Microphote' unique was the spherical burner housing and top hinge opening arrangement and according to the judge, "the way the various parts were combined that mattered". Judgement was made against Miller's for infringement of the 1897 Lucas patent and Miller's were instructed to re-call all lamps from their agents and to cease manufacture.
H. Miller & Co. Ltd had no choice but to obey the court ruling but as illustrations advertising the 'Miniature Lito' had already been placed in their own catalogues, the cycling press and wholesale publications such as The East London Rubber Company catalogue, they could not now halt demand. Such was the venom with which Victorian industrialists treated each other; Miller's contrived to extract the last laugh. The Miller Company were only too well aware that the substance of the infringe-ment pertained to the spherical body. In view of this, Miller's subsequently designed a lamp that used the same basic components of the 'Miniature Lito' but replaced the spherical body with a square, dice-shaped body and retained the 'Miniature Lito' name. This reconstructed lamp was offered to anyone placing an order for the original lamp, thereby making the best use of the assembled component parts. With this move, Miller's saved a little face and some money into the bargain. An interesting aside is the fact that the Man-hattan Brass Co of New York's 'Queen' lamp, possessing its prior patent of both Lucas and Miller, contin-ued to reign supreme and sold well into the twentieth century.
|
Undoubtedly both Harry Lucas and Davidson were aware of the American patents but as the American designs had not been filed in England, they were safe from accusations of infringement. Patented by David-son in England in April 1899, the lamp consisted of a spherical burner housing of the 'Microphote' type, below that a cylindrical water reservoir and below that, a removable Carbide of Calcium container, hence the classification 'Sandwich Lamp'. This Lucas lamp was first advertised in November 1899 to coincide with the annual National Cycle Show held at The Crystal Palace. Stock-numbered 316, it was described and illustrated in Lucas's 1900 catalogue with a price of 19/-. Great things were expected.
Surprisingly, Harry Lucas broke with sibling naming tradition and for the first time chose a name for a 'Microphote' heritage lamp that did not have 'phote' in its title. It is strange that he called this new acety-lene gas lamp, 'Luminator'. Indeed, what is doubly surprising is that later, in November 1902 Lucas's manufactured an alternative style acetylene lamp that they then named 'Acetyphote', the very name that should perhaps have been utilised for the 'Luminator' two years earlier.
|
The reason for the name- style change, may be a simple one. It will be remembered that Joseph Lucas Lim-ited had already introduced the acetylene gas burning 'Acetylator' lamp in 1898 and this model was still in production when the 'Luminator' was announced. To avoid product and ordering confusion, which after all was the main purpose of naming cycle lamps, Harry Lucas may have decided to break from the 'phote' naming tradition and introduce an altogether new name that would avoid confusion.
However, unlike the 'Acetylator', the new 'Luminator' had a very limited success. Certainly both lamps had their faults but the 'Luminator' had a fundamental fault to the effect that the strap holding the Carbide of Calcium container, was prone to bend and stretch, effecting a less than satisfactory seal for the pressur-ised acetylene gas. It was not long before the Lucas designers (Davison seems to have resigned by this time) came up with yet another, acetylene gas lamp formula. Numbered 333, the (New) 'Luminator' was introduced at the Stanley Show in November 1901. Using yet again the 'Microphote' style spherical burner housing, this time the water reservoir was vertically mounted on the rear of the spherical burner housing. The Carbide of Calcium container, which we will remember has to be gas tight, was held against the under side of the burner housing by a central threaded bolt, tightened with the use of a coin. For a name it may have been appropriate to use the mellifluous 'Acetyphote' name for this lamp instead of the awkward 'New Luminator' but yet again, the 'Acetylator' was still in production and Harry may still have been con-cerned about confusion. Such was the success of the 'New Luminator', however, that it continued in pro-duction, albeit with minor changes until 1909.
Over the years there have been several alternatives to oil, which used the reservoir and open, weave wick principal where fluid was drawn up the wick by capillary action. One of these alternatives was Petroleum; known as Kerosene in the United States of America and was not unlike modern Paraffin, but certainly noth-ing to do with Petrol. Once lit, it required an increase in oxygen to produce a bright white light and subse-quently burnt at a much higher temperature. Also, because of the impurities in its commercial manufacture and heat discharge, it left a nasty sooty deposit on the reflector and chimney. Petroleum burning lamps of-ten utilised a larger porcelain burner together with extra air vents to help dissipate the heat and to aid this, a removable pan was placed at the base of the burner to collect residue.
|
Of the six 'Microphote Family' bicycle lamps manufactured, the 'Mediophote' and 'New Luminator' were the two that stood the test of time and remained in the Lucas catalogues until 1909, eventually giving way to alternative designs.
Microphote numbered 309 1898 to 1904
King Holophote numbered 310 1899 to 1902
Mediophote numbered 308 1900 to 1909
Luminator (first) numbered 316 1900 to 1902
Luminator (second)numbered 333 1902 to 1909
Petrophote numbered 327 1902 to 1903
Peter W. Card
March 2003
