It has been some time since the ALC (actually, then the ALCC) posted its position paper on optics in American lighthouses, a study by the late and still-missed Cullen Chambers that basically concluded that classic Fresnel lenses should remain in the towers rather than removed for controlled museum display.
Things have changed since then, at least a little. Fresnel lenses again can be manufactured; Dan Spinella’s Artworks Florida does magnificent and historically accurate versions of optical acrylic for less than the insurance value the Coast Guard requires for real ones. That opens an option that didn’t really exist when Cullen was doing his study.
So here’s today’s hot stove topic for lightkeepers — should surviving Fresnels remain in their historic homes, or should they be removed (as the Coast Guard has preferred), conserved and preserved in climate-controlled museum displays?
Like Ralphie’s father’s major-award leg lamp (see Christmas Story, as if you could avoid that movie during the holiday season), these lenses are not only frageelay but increasingly so. Authenticity of place or preservation of the artifact — which prevails, or can both?
In Buffalo, our decision was fairly easy because it dodged that conflict. Back in 1987 we had put a too-small fourth order lens, long removed from the decommissioned South Buffalo Lighthouse, in the empty third-order lantern of the 1833 Buffalo Lighthouse, which at least was a move from a Coast Guard lobby back into a lighthouse. We felt good about that, but the years of sun and temperature exposures were taking a toll and things were looking grim. So we secured $120,000 in grants, took the lens back out again and gave it a full-on conservation before putting it in an enclosed display case in a museum building; then we commissioned Dan to build us a more historically appropriate third order lens for installation in the tower this spring. That was kind of the best of both the conservation and interpretation worlds, but the question can get a lot thornier for the typical lighthouse site.
What’s your take? Do we need to update the ALC research? Should lenses stay or go, at least as far as your site’s ground-level displays?
Here at ALC headquarters in the Dire Straits Lighthouse, we can’t afford any lenses so we’re still using coal fires. There’s no shipping out on the frozen strait, but we light up nightly anyway just to keep warm. And that’s the news from Dire Straits . . .
-mike vogel
It probably depends on the lighthouse.
Not all lighthouse lanterns have the same configuration and accessibility. If the lens isn’t very visible to visitors is there really an advantage in having it physically in the tower?
Not all lighthouse-maintaining organizations are in the some level of staffing/budget. What is each site’s maintenance situation? Are there sufficient quantity and quality of staff/volunteers at the site able perform regular cleaning of the lens and inspection of its condition if it remains in the tower?
Also, I have only heard of replicas up to 3rd order. Is Artworks Florida able to produce 1st or 2nd order replicas? If not then those lighthouses are probably better off keeping their lens in the towers rather than using an ugly modern optic.
(Disclaimer: the above opinions are my own and not an official stance of the historical society which employees me.)
I think depends on the lighthouse.
Not all lighthouse lanterns have the same configuration and accessibility. If the lens is not very visible to visitors is there really an advantage in having it physically in the tower?
Not all lighthouse preservation organizations are in the some level of staffing/budget. What is each site’s maintenance situation? Are there sufficient quantity and quality of staff/volunteers at the site able perform regular cleaning of the lens and inspection of its condition if it remains in the tower?
Also, I have only heard of replicas up to 3rd order. Is Artworks Florida able to produce 1st or 2nd order replicas? If not then those lighthouses are probably better off keeping their lens in the towers rather than using an ugly modern optic.
(Disclaimer: the above opinions are my own and not an official stance of the historical society which employees me.)
I think you’re right about the sizes, Josh. Our third order prisms are pushing the casting technology. But that will evolve, and I think the larger sizes are a matter of time.
Meanwhile, this is an especially interesting path for groups that don’t have any lens at all for their lighthouse, and want one either to put in the lantern or in an interpretive display at ground level. Finding an available lens has been next to impossible in the United States and the ones being sold from Australia and eastern Europe are rare and very expensive to buy and to ship. Modern replicas (clearly identified as such, of course) can be good educational tools.
Thanks to some services donations, our lens project budget had enough left to commission (with donor permission) what we call a “teaching lens,” a cutaway sixth order with just two prism panels filled in, one fixed and one flashing. It’s light enough to carry, and it can be turned by hand to create the “flash.” Great demonstration and volunteer training piece, and we keep it on display (with explanatory signage) when we’re not actually using it that way. I think Dan did another one like that for the Ponce museum; I tried but failed to post a picture here, but there’s one on the Artworks Florida site anyway.
-mike
At Split Rock Lighthouse we continue to preserve the lens assembly in situ in the lighthouse. That includes the 3rd Order bi-valve lens, the Hg bearing, and the clockwork……all in operational order. Fortunately, we are blessed with the support, both public and fiscal, to maintain due diligence on the preservation and maintenance of the lens assembly.
That being said, there no doubt will come a time when curatorial best practices determine that it will be wise to retire the original lens to a setting in the exhibit gallery of the Split Rock Lighthouse Visitor Center. This move would likely be poorly received by the public that visits Split Rock, as the star of the show is without a doubt the rotating lens, in place, in the lighthouse.
Thank goodness that modern technology and options like the replicas offered by Dan Spinella may be able to fill the void in the lighthouse should it ever come to that.
Throwing in 2 cents here. I think regionally there should be select Fresnel lenses left in the towers based on proper care and maintenance practices. This would include one the public can view and the lighthouse open to the public in some way and can be along the east coast one optic per state that is significant or two. Where multiple coasts exist like Michigan, it would be one or two per Lake.
I do support replica lenses as well that substitutes for the real thing. I think the modern LED optics don’t represent the historical look and feel for what a lighthouse was like with a Fresnel lens in the tower, hence the replicas fill that void. Modern LED optics will be present in enough places that people will see these as a change in technology. The sticking point is that the USCG doesn’t want a replica lens as an active aid to navigation to maintain because it is not standard equipment. So this needs to change and replica lenses need USCG approval as standard equipment. The last option to get a replica lens is you need to go private aid, which a lot of organizations will not do because of the lost “active aid status”. If the USCG were to allow a replica lens and they maintain their approved LED optic inside the replica lens, I think this is a best of both worlds solution.
Mike and Josh,
We should be able to produce 1st and 2nd order lenses too if anyone is interested. I’d look forward to the challenge. Mike, can you send me an ALC invitation link to my Artworks Florida email?
Thanks,
Dan