Artifact Spotlight: Balopticon c.1917

This artifact from the museum is a product of the Bausch and Lomb Company they called a “Home Balopticon”, one of their line of products of “Magic Lanterns”. This model has an indication of its patent Feb. 9 – 1915/ May 1- 1917, which gives us a date to work with for this artifact as late 1910s, possibly 1920s. What is a magic lantern? The early versions of these devices were invented in the 1600s, most likely by Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens, and projected images on moving pieces of glass by illuminating them by candlelight.

As technology changed, so did these devices, becoming a common form of entertainment and education in Europe by the 18^th century. The first use of them in the United States is recorded as December 3, 1743 in Salem, Massachusetts and most likely incorporated the use of oil lamps. “Limelight” – created by a piece of limestone in burning gas until incandescent – was used in the 19^th century, along with kerosene oil. Neither were very bright but accomplished the job with a greater degree of safety that they could be used in a wider capacity. Churches, schools, fraternal societies and even home/toy versions were introduced. They experienced a boom in popularity with electric illumination in the early 20^th century, especially in America.

The Bausch & Lomb Company began in 1853 by German immigrant, John Jacob Bausch in Rochester, N.Y. He partnered with Henry Lomb, also an immigrant to the United States as a result of the German revolution of 1848. They greatly aided and advanced the field of optical technology, from rubber eyeglass frames of vulcanized rubber (revolutionary material at the time) to the first photographic lens in 1883, to the first producer of optical quality glass in the United States in 1912.  Bausch & Lomb produced 40,000 pounds of glass during the 1910s, particularly for the United States government by supplying 65% of its needs in the form of binoculars, rifle scopes, telescopes and searchlights in World War I.

The Balopticon (combining “ba” from Bausch, “lo” from Lomb, “opti” from optical and “co” for company) was first produced in 1911. The 1917 Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. Projection Apparatus booklet describes the Home Balotpicon in this way:

“This Balopticon has been designed to meet the popular demand for a really efficient, but inexpensive instrument, for the projection of post cards, photographs and similar objects in the home, the small classroom and the Sunday school room….It is so simple in operating that any child can operate it, yet it far excels the ordinary post card projector in the quality of the picture produced, the illumination and its wide range of usefulness.”

The device operated by placing an object like a postcard on the bottom of the inside chamber, rather than in the wall like previous magic lantern devices – a bonus to those wanting to project a solid object like a coin or curios or wanted to avoid cutting up a book or magazine to display a portion of the paper. It also allowed for easier changing of items. An interior mirror brings the image into the correct left to right position when projected out the lens for the audience. It operated on 400-watt gas-filled Mazda lamps. Also, according to some sources, the interior chamber was also insulated with asbestos…but not in the company’s official apparatus booklet so maybe, but maybe not.

Like with any good product, there were add-ons that could also be purchased. A larger screen for classroom use could be purchased, lamps of higher voltage, and even the option of purchasing a carrying case. Of course, keeping it simple, you could be a standard or a combination model. Or even one recommended for English Departments that has a larger opening in the bottom of the dark interior chamber.

The version in the museum doesn’t appear to be a combination model, as it is missing the portion directly under the lens. This allowed for an aluminum screen and lantern slide equipment to be attached, with bellows and a front standard carrying a smaller achromatic projection lens in a spiral focusing mount, producing pictures from slides rather than opaque objects. It’s also missing its cord to be plugged in so there won’t be any demonstrations in the near future it seems.

So how much would this precursor to an overhead projector cost you? In this 1917 booklet, the models range from $35, $45, and $84. That roughly would be in today’s money $701.08, $901.39, and $1,682.59.

Waterford's Hamilton Connection

On a scale of 1 to 10, Waterford's "Hamilton Connection" everyone seems to have scrambled for the past few years is a solid....2....maybe a 3 if you're feeling generous.

Is the Hamilton craze over though? It was everywhere last year when the musical was in town. Anyway, for those still interested and since this article was started last year but hadn't had the research time to fully flush it out, Waterford does have a connection.

Nothing like a musical to get people's attention....because it wasn't like his face has been staring at you from the ten dollar bill for a while, right?

Fun fact: Hamilton is the only person continuously printed on currency since printing began in 1861 and is the only one facing led while everybody else faces right. He's also one of two people on bills who never served as President and is the only person on a bill who wasn't born in the United States. Check out more interesting trivia about Hamilton on $2, $5, $10 and other bills at allthingshamilton.com

So how does Waterford connect with this man's history? Family Property

Like with any family tree, it can get a little difficult trying to keep who's who straight. Here's a brief summary: the Van Schaicks, the Schuylers, the Lansings, the Livingstons, the Rensselaers, and a bunch of other notable families strategically connected their families - and properties - through marriage.

Waterford was part of the Halfmoon patent, otherwise known officially as the Van Schaick Patent. It can be seen on this map of what is now Saratoga County from "Saratoga County Communities An Historical Perspective". Waterford is way down at the bottom of Saratoga County. Originally a par of Albany County wen districts were first outlined in 1683, Saratoga County was formed in 1791 during one of several partitions of Albany County. Haver/Havre or Peebles Island didn't become a part of Saratoga County until 1888.

Captain Goosen Gerritsen Van Schaick (1630-1676) held the Van Schaick patent. He had children from two marriages. His daughter Engeltie Van Schaick from his second wife, Annatje Lievens/ Lievers married Pieter Schuyler (1657-1724), the first mayor of Albany.

Engeltie's and Pieter's daughter, Margarita Schuyler, married Robert Livingston the Younger. Their daughter, Angelica Livingston married Johannes Van Rensselaer. And their daughter, Catherine Van Rensselaer married Philip Schuyler (1733-1804). Yes, they were cousins.

Philip Schuyler and Catherine Van Rensselaer were the parents of Elizabeth Schuyler, who married Alexander Hamilton in 1780 at the Schuyler Mansion in Albany. This is a color print of Schuyler Mansion by Philip Hooker (1818), New York Historical Society.

It was Major General Philip Schuyler who directed Polish engineer Andrzej Tadeusz Bonawentura Kosciuszko (aka Thaddeus Kosciusko of the "Twin Bridges" Bridge) to build the 177 fortifications found on the northern portion of Peebles Island in Waterford during the Revolutionary War. While not preserved in their entirety, these never-used fortifications were to act as a last resort in preventing a British march to Albany if Saratoga had not been successful. And it also helped create a visual Patriot presence for the Loyalist population in Lansingburgh that had been chummy with independent Vermont during Vermont's brief and unrecognized claim over the eastern shore of the Hudson River....but that's another story.

Engeltie Van Schaick had half siblings too, which included Geertje Goosense van Schaick. She first married Hendrick Coster, which is why the area colloquially known as "Dial City" (or Doyle depending on who you asked) was first known and labeled on maps as "Coster's Island".  This 1844 survey map, titled "Map of Lands Described in a Deed of Mrs. Annatie Lievers, widow and relict of Captain Goose Vanschaick to Roelof Garretse. Dated Feb. 4, 1687/7" depicts this area as such.

After Hendrick's death, Geertje remarried to Johannes Gerritse Lansing, great-uncle of Abraham Jacob Lansing, founder of Lansingburgh. Their daughter, Elizabeth Lansing (1679-1754) married Stephanus Groesbeck (~1662-1744). Elizabeth's and Stephanus' daughter, Catherine Groesbeck (~1705-1758) married Pieter Schuyler Jr. (1696-1753). Pieter Jr. was the son of Pieter Schuyler (1657-1724) and his second wife, Maria Van Rensselaer. Which makes Margarita Schuyler and Pieter Schuyler Jr. both half-siblings and cousins.

Pieter Schuyler's sister, Alida Schuyler (1656-1727) married Nicholas Van Rensselaer (1636-1678;no children) and then remarried Robert Livingston the Elder (1654-1728). Her second husband was the uncle of Robert Livingston the Younger (husband of Margarita Schuyler, Alida's niece).

Ultimately, it meant that there were a lot of cousins of some variety that either lived, or most likely, owned, the areas of and around what is now the Town and Village of Waterford. Visiting relatives and/or properties, would have brought Alexander Hamilton to the area.

Hamilton would've also visited the Waterford area for reasons other than family connections, as most relatives lived in Albany as he did. His involvement in the Revolutionary War as an Aide to General George Washington led to his visiting Saratoga - his father-in-law's estate - with Washington in 1783. They ventured into Waterford, likely stopping at the Eagle Tavern on Second Street before staying the night at the Widow Peebles' inn on Hudson River Road.

Hamilton's law practice also brought him into Saratoga County in 1796 to help settle a dispute over land titles. Most early court records of the county tend to focus on this particular feature of law disputes. The lawyers representing land owners in this then relatively undeveloped area of Saratoga County, at least since surveys began in 1770, would meet in the "old red meeting house" in Ballston Spa before the first courthouse was constructed in 1819 (seen above). Hamilton went to represent his father-in-law Philip Schuyler for this particular dispute. But it meant he would have traveled into Waterford from Albany on his way to do so.

Where might Alexander Hamilton have stayed during his travels? In addition to places like the Widow Peebles' inn and Eagle Tavern (which may or may not have actually also served as an inn), General Samuel Stewart's home on Broad Street received distinguished  guests. According to Waterford historian Col. Sydney Hammersley, this house (built c. 1802), had several ornate fireplaces. One of these had a bust of Alexander Hamilton carved into the mantle due to being a frequent guest.

So what can you do to trace Hamilton's footsteps in Waterford? The Eagle Tavern is no more, long since demolished and replaced by a Victorian home. The home of Gen. Stewart was used as the local order of the Masonic temple, which is now for sale so no visitors are allowed inside to try and spot this fabled fireplace bust. The Widow Peebles' inn is also a private residence. 

But that doesn't mean you can't walk along Second Street to view the marker for Eagle Tavern and other historic sites and visit Knickerbacker Park on Broad Street to view the old Masonic Temple. And, of course, you can always visit the museum to learn more about what Waterford was like at the time of Hamilton would have visited....once we eventually get around to opening again. 

Artifact Spotlight: Blizzard Lantern

This kerosene lantern has “BLIZZARD LANTERN” stamped onto it, giving a hint to it being a Dietz Cold Blast Blizzard Lantern 2 from c. 1899 – 1936. 

A quick internet search for this and other Dietz lantern models had the company name either on the glass or possibly the base of the lantern. This is a good example of the differences between working on site every day versus remotely. Relying on photographs like this can only get you so far since the writing on the glass gets too blurry to make out when enlarged. A great opportunity to volunteer at the museum – help us take photographs for our database!!!

However, the overall tubular design of this model has significant resemblance to the Blizzard model created by Dietz, as seen in this 1926 advertisement.

The purpose of this lantern should be pretty self-explanatory: lighting. Until the late 1910s, much of commercial, industrial, and domestic lighting relied on combustible fuels like whale oil and camphene, and later coal and kerosene oil. The R. E. Dietz Company, created and led by Robert Edwin Dietz in 1840 in Brooklyn, N.Y, manufactured hundreds of models of lanterns and patents. Their design improved air flow in the tube and allowed for the flame to burn brighter and last longer. As a “cold blast” design, only fresh, cold air was fed to the flame as opposed to partially heated air mixed with fresh air that a “hot blast” lantern used to promote combustion – usually a “dead flame” technique was used in which fresh air was drawn in from below the burner and the hot exhaust escapes from the top.

These lanterns were widely used and Robert employed a good marketing technique by gifting them to celebrities of the day to promote them. It was successful and Dietz’ Hot Blast lanterns – as well as various imitations of their models – were dominating the market. Tinned steel burners were introduced around the same time as this Blizzard cold blast lantern was introduced – and is still sold today. If you want a version of your own, you can click HERE.

So where in Waterford might this have been used? 
Anywhere. 

Yup, can’t really narrow it down too much. If you thought exclusively “railroad lantern” when you first saw this artifact, you’d be in good company. Without being able to definitely read the wording on the glass, it can be speculated that it might have the initials D.H. on it, possibly for the Delaware & Hudson Railroad. But again, that’s something that requires a better look at the artifact rather than a database photograph. 

Armspear Railroad Lantern 
c. 1925

While railroads were known to use “tubular” or “barn” lanterns, there are specific styles designated for railroads. And these tubular/barn styles were used by so many other companies like Water Works, and by private residences.

One of a few lanterns that are in the museum’s collection, this particular artifact also shares the unfortunate situation of not having any of the donor’s information or provenance – the history of ownership and location of an item. While you might think that’s just for art pieces to help confirm authenticity, the same thing applies for artifacts, no matter what they may be (it also helps with legality issues over ownership too, should they ever pop up). 

That information, even if it’s just “something I found in my grandmother's attic”, gives historians a start. It’s a hard thing to admit, but unless we’ve specialized in the history of that particular item, usually historians are looking at an item the same way you are – “Hey, that’s cool – what is it?” 

But museums like the Waterford Historical Museum are always eager to explore the history to the best of our ability. It can be like story-time, a puzzle, and time-travel with these artifacts!