Lux No. 16

Discussion in 'Lux' started by abbahco1, Jun 23, 2017.

  1. abbahco1

    abbahco1 Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Here are 13 detail photos of a Lux No. 16: identical in capacity and features to the No. 1. The Lux catalogue from 1913 (the latest we have here) seems to indicate that the tank of the No. 16 (at that time, at least) was a bit heavier, but this one is a bit lighter than an otherwise identical No. 1 I have.

    This No. 16 is exceptionally well preserved: it still possesses its original burner, elaborately-cast top ring (still with traces of gold paint visible), "globe" filler cap (which appears in no Lux catalogue up to 1913, the year before the takeover), dimpled spirit cup and pump, so it gives a good idea of one of these models in its original state. See the photos.

    I'm not sure whether these Lux stoves are made before or after the Optimus acquisition of Lux in 1914. In profile and detail they do not resemble the products of either Lux or Optimus around this time; however, they share many features with the Optimus stoves from about 10 years later, leading me to wonder if Optimus retained use of the Lux brand post-1914, and for some time thereafter.

    Lux 16 1.jpg

    Lux 16 2.jpg

    Lux 16 3.jpg

    Lux 16 4.jpg

    Lux 16 5.jpg

    Lux 16 6.jpg

    Lux 16 7.jpg

    Lux 16 8.jpg

    Lux 16 9.jpg

    Lux 16 10.jpg

    Lux 16 11.jpg

    Lux 16 12.jpg

    Lux 16 13.jpg
     
  2. abbahco1

    abbahco1 Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Lux 16.jpg

    My questions were raised by looking comparatively at the models from Lux & Optimus from around 1912 through 1914, and then comparing this Lux model with stoves from Optimus through to the middle 1920s or so. One other feature that tends to change with date is the top of the leg profile. The angled profile of the leg tops of the Lux 16 is not found in the 1910s (legs were rounded in a kind of hook profile and not sharply angled). Compare the Lux 16, however, directly with this Optimus from the later 1920s (a poster that was not eventually used by Optimus, it seems). But you'll see that this Optimus looks more like the Lux 16 than do earlier examples by either firm. The assumption was that Optimus acquired the Lux stove business in 1914, and with it the distinctive features such as the globe filler cap and dimpled spirit cup. But neither of those features are found in Lux stoves up to 1913 (there is a catalogue on this site). Those features do not appear in Optimus stoves until the mid-1920s. So, I'm wondering how they could appear as early as 1914? So the only other conclusion might be that Optimus kept the Lux name for stoves for a while after acquisition. Any thoughts? This is not at all conclusive, but it is a bit of a mystery.

    Optimus draft.jpg
     
  3. igh371

    igh371 SotM Winner Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,580
    A little bit of a confusion over translation I think. The 1913 Lux catalogue entry says for the No.16: "är detsamma som Lux No.1 men af lättare vikt" i.e. "is the same as Lux No.1 but of lighter weight" - so the observation of the weight of the No.16 as being lighter than the No.I is correct. Interesting to note how that almost entire 1913 Lux range almost exactly paralleled Sievert's contemporary Svea range, including in the model numbering system; a range with which it also shared the same external NRV arrangement:-k
    Ian:thumbup:
     
  4. igh371

    igh371 SotM Winner Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,580
    @abbahco1 as to the very interesting and challenging questions you raise regarding who would have made this stove, and when, would you be able to add a photo of the tank base that would show which provenance marking, if any, is there?
    Ian

    ps I have just rectified my failure to have included an equivalent photo myself in my internal NRV Lux No.1 gallery post:oops:
     
  5. abbahco1

    abbahco1 Subscriber

    Offline
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Excellent observations, Ian. Both of my examples have the Lux tradestamp on the bottom, which I'd say is a strong argument against Optimus retaining the name. Which would leave us to explain why Optimus did not immediately use the designs they had acquired (and not really until 1920), and what Lux products looked like in 1914 (these must appear in a catalogue somewhere?). I'll keep watch with interest..best, Peter