Primarily Petroliana Shop Talk Forums Shop Talk Petroliana Forums General Petroliana Discussion mohawk gasoline lens's

Was there a reason these lens's were made in 2 different colors? Did it denote a different grade of gasoline?

1st guess, 2 different manufactures.
2nd guess 2 different runs/time periods.

I'm siding with Dick here . I would have to say two different runs as these were silk screened in their respective times. Ed Shaver

Could they be faded?

By all means as well as there not being as much ink spread when the squeegee was passed over when they were origionally printed too. Hey printing Convex shapes like this is very delicate and Nylon wasn't in use when most of the Globe lenses we know today were made . Real Silk was employed and yes , it snagged and ran very much so. Ed Shaver

ED, pretty sure lenses were made the same then as they are now. Screened onto disc of flat glass, then placed in a Kiln/Oven & Slumped to a mold.

You would think if one was faded the black would be gray, don't seem to be . jm2c

Red is the quickest fading color to the sun (ultraviolet) light. Not sure if baked on frit colors would fade too.

The art is different between the two lenses. The "A" in MOHAWK is different and the small 'thing' hanging off of the feather at the base of the feather is red on one lens and not on the other . . .

The second lens has lettering at the very bottom - a 'Licensing' disclaimer?

No wonder that they are different when they were made by different companies at vastly different times.

Later . . .

Jim

And the feather clearly doesn't touch the 'H' in the second.

And the feather clearly doesn't touch the 'H' in the second.

The art is different between the two lenses. The "A" in MOHAWK is different and the small 'thing' hanging off of the feather at the base of the feather is red on one lens and not on the other . . .

The second lens has lettering at the very bottom - a 'Licensing' disclaimer?

No wonder that they are different when they were made by different companies at vastly different times.

Later . . .

Good Eye.. I've looked thru numerous books I have & can't find another as I have pictured (RED)& you describe above-
all the feathers touch the H RED or ORANGE & none have lettering at the very bottom - a 'Licensing' disclaimer?

ANY lens with a 'Licensed by . . ." or similar text anywhere on the lense is a Reproduction. If the company that owned the image produced the lens (an original lens), they did not need the 'Licensing' text since they owned the image.

Here is an original lens (IMO):



Later . . .

Jim

I don't see anywhere on this lens where it says
"licensed by" bottom of lens by the notch reads,
PROPERTY OF MOHAWK PETROLEUM CORP. as pictured..

Kind of validates the lens doesn't it? Just goes to show that these lenses weren't always produced by the same person and there could be variances? Kinda wondering others thoughts?

Kevin:

It COULD validate the lens - or it could be a clever dodge by an unscrupulous forger.

Only someone with more knowledge than I have regarding Mohawk images can answer that question.

That being said, the close up looks good IMO. I'm not aware of anyone recreating the knotches on a lens (reproduction or fake), until I started grinding them on my marked reproduction lenses.

Different original manufacturers - or different manufacturering time-frames - could/would explain the color differences and the variations in the artwork.

Remember, all the necessary 'film positives' for these lenses were hand cut at the time they were needed. And the red may have been something that needed to be custom-blended per the company's color specifications.

Later . . .

Jim

added picture of back side of lens..