Primarily Petroliana Shop Talk Forums Shop Talk Petroliana Forums General Petroliana Discussion texaco wide body real or repro

awhile back another oldgasser posted this globe.seems there was some issues as to weather it is real or not but the question was never answered.the owner clearly told me that he was not sure and i would like to try and find out the answer.
By oldnfuelish seems the font and or lack of periods on the trademark is what people were looking at,so lets go oldgassers and give it your best shot!!thanks mick ps the lenses are caulked in so they cannot be removed to inspect the backs.

[This message has been edited by oldnfuelish (edited 02-03-2008).]

Okay I'll jump 1st.... I don't like the fine lined REG T M, and where it's missing the 3 dots/abbrev... T-Way could better answer this question. How much time and money does it take to set up doing a lens ? If it was repoped wouldn't be flooded with this lens? Also you need to remember the different manufactures out there. Not all did them the same.

Doug

Doug

I don't have a problem with the fine line Reg T M as I've seen known original Texaco globes that don't have the bolder print. I don't think anyone could say difinitively one way or the other based on the font as many different fonts were used.

Does anyone know if there were any (unmarked) repops with the missing periods? I can't say I've ever seen an original with the missing periods. Most (not all) of the Texaco repops were marked or dated.

If the lenses are caulked with silicone its very easy to cut the caulking and remove the lens. Seeing the back of the lenses MIGHT hold the answer you're looking for.

if its an original body and lenses caulked in with that old white caulking chances are its original..mm

Doug (and all):

I can't tell you absolutely that it's real or a fake/reproduction.

All I can tell you is the 'TEXACO' lettering bothers me and the 'no periods' in the 'REG T M' bothers me. Not to mention that the 'Black T' is kinda anemic looking (it's a bit on the skinny side if you ask me).

Take a look at a 'real' lens (or even my reproduction) and compare the 'TEXACO' lettering. The above lens has a very different looking font - esp the 'C'. Look at mine ( http://www.t-waysgraphics.com/135detail-pages/135globes-detail6.html ) and compare them. The above version has a 'flat' in the inner edge of the 'C' at 9:00 - where all the real ones I've seen don't.

I also think the black border is a bit thick. But again, without having a known real lens to put side-by-side, I can't be sure. And I don't have a loose one of mine handy right now.

I do not believe that the parent company would have approved the artwork for this lens. But without seeing the back of the lens in person, I can't make a definitive call on the 'repo' status of it.

JMO

Later . . .

Jim



[This message has been edited by T-way (edited 02-04-2008).]

I had gotten this down to post in my first globe forum, but I thought I'd post it here also if it will help anything.





[This message has been edited by Daveb (edited 02-04-2008).]

I put the images side by side. You can see the TEXACO is much higher up on the logo on the one in question. And the T is wider on the one in qustion also.

I keep looking at the one in qustion and see more and more wrong with it. Looks real bad when put beside a real one.

BL

Reproduction....wish I could say differently, but it is.

Here are a couple more examples, against know originals.







Sorry Mick, I think we can all agree (or most) that it's a repop.


Brian

[This message has been edited by BLange (edited 02-04-2008).]

[This message has been edited by BLange (edited 02-04-2008).]

thanks for all the help guys,i apprciate it,mick

Note the fine lined REG TM on the Ethyl. Very similar to to globe in question (except its not missing the 3 periods). I guess we can't rule out it being an original based on that.

Note the relationship between "TEXACO" and the star on the different known originals. We can't rule out the globe in question based on that because its obvious different versions of originals exist.

The black border seems to be the same or very close in width between the globe in question and a known original. Can't call it a repro based on that.

The black outline on the T looks to be the same width as on a known original.

Look at the TEXACO lettering on the different known originals. There are different versions.

I don't have as much of a problem with the C as I do the X......but I wouldn'd call it a repro based on that alone.

I've looked at known reproductions and they don't look like the globe in question.

When this topic aired the first time I asked a well known collector/dealer for his opinion. He wouldn't say one way or the other and asked to see a picture of the backs of the lenses.

There are several things that appear to be questionable. One that was mentioned before was the width of the green T is narrower. Couple that with the other issues and its enough to make most people question this globe.
It doesn't help matters that so many variations of originals exist.
If you think this is bad you should see the different versions of Sinclair red dot H-C globes.




[This message has been edited by Lastgas15 (edited 02-04-2008).]