Why Lucifers?

[jerryeberg]

Why are all matches at reenactment Lucifers? Weren't there other match companies?

[flattop32355]

It's a generic term, similar to what "Kleenex" has become for all facial tissues.
Lucifer, as in Satan, as in fires of ****.

[1stTexas]

Maybe the company that made "Lucifers" had a patent on them. They were a new invention.

[Joe_Nski]

"Lucifer" is a Biblical term for the "light bringer", hence the reference to a match.

[hanktrent]

Bernie got it. If you mean why are all brands of matches called lucifers, it's because the early brand name of "Lucifer" became generic like Kleenex. A couple of similar brand names for types of matches that you don't hear at reenactments are Congreves and Vestas.

Though honestly, "matches" was a perfectly common and normal name. I actually heard a reenactor long correct another who called them "matches," as if that was farby and only "lucifers" was correct.

Personally, most of the reenactors I hear these days just call them "matches," as I do.

If you mean why are all the matches you see labelled with a reproduction of a period Lucifer label, I suppose it's just a reenactorism due to a shortage of labels, because other brands were extremely common, especially in America.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyagern.et

[jurgitemvaletem]

There were dozens if not hundreds of match makers at the time period. Why all that anyone seems to sell is the Lucifer brand is beyond me. But personaly I have about ten different types of boxes or labels that I like to use interchangably whenever I like. A couple of mine include the tin box Banner Brand matches and the cardboard tube Gates Match patent matches reproduced and sold by Mr. Crabb from Ezra Barnhouse goods, both well worth the money spent.

[Rob Weaver]

"Lucifer" can't be found in the Bible because it's Latin. The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. (You will find the name in Isaiah 14 in the King James (Authorized) version. Jerome put it in as an interpretation when he translated the Bible into Latin, and none of those scholars in 1611 could bear to take it out. You won't find it in modern translations.) Lux,Lucis = light; ferens, from fero, "to carry" meaning "bearer" (like "Christopher," "bearer of Christ") "Lucifer" simply meaning "light bearing." Smart sounding way to describe what a match is.

[TimKindred]

"Lucifer" can't be found in the Bible because it's Latin. The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. (You will find the name in Isaiah 14 in the King James (Authorized) version. Jerome put it in as an interpretation when he translated the Bible into Latin, and none of those scholars in 1611 could bear to take it out. You won't find it in modern translations.) Lux,Lucis = light; ferens, from fero, "to carry" meaning "bearer" (like "Christopher," "bearer of Christ") "Lucifer" simply meaning "light bearing." Smart sounding way to describe what a match is.

Rob, How Kola!

Yup.... The New Testament is full of little nuances that some folks miss and others are simply unaware of. The biggest, to my mind, is use of the word "Christ". It's Jesus' title, not last name. Using the phrase "Jesus Christ" is similar to saying "Bush President", in english. It would, grammatically, be more correct to say "Christ Jesus" than the reverse. Even Jesus is a translation from the latin Iesus, which was a translation from the aramaic (Jesus' own lingua franca) Yeshua.

Respects,

[Ephraim_Zook]

Hi, Patrick

Since there seems to be a dearth of match labels other than "Lucifers", would you be willing to scan some of your collection and post them? Or offer them for sale?

regards
Ron Myzie

[vmescher]

It's a generic term, similar to what "Kleenex" has become for all facial tissues.
Lucifer, as in Satan, as in fires of ****.

Since "Lucifer" meant "light bringer" it seems as if matches were called that . In 1832, when the advertisements first started to appear, they were called "Magic Matches" and the ad started out with "Chlorate Matches or Lucifers."

Before that date, if the word lucifer was used it referred to a person as a "light bringer" or someone who was bringing a new idea or was the standard bearer for group or was used in the bibical sense.

By 1834 most matches in advertisements were being called "lucifer matches" but the lucifer was not capitalized. In store ledgers, the sale of matches was listed as just that - matches. I have not seen a listing for lucifer matches.

I've not done extensive research on matches but the first patent for the manufacture of friction matches was issued to Alonzo D. Phillips on Oct. 24, 1838, #68. He did say in his application that the composition for the match head was called, "loco foco." There may have been other patents issued earlier but when the Patent Office burned they started the numbering system over again.

[hanktrent]

Since "Lucifer" meant "light bringer" it seems as if matches were called that . In 1832, when the advertisements first started to appear, they were called "Magic Matches" and the ad started out with "Chlorate Matches or Lucifers."

I think Samuel Jones is the go-to guy, for the origin of the Lucifer brand name, around 1829 in England. A google search on his name and Lucifer should bring up some hits.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[1stTexas]

I downloaded the following label I found somewhere on the internet and I printed a dozen now all I need is some strike anywhere kitchen matches.

T.W. Malcom & Sons
Patented
FRICTION MATCHES
Since 1847
Boston, Mass.

My dad, bless his soul, smoked cigarettes all his life and smoking finally killed him after 87 years. He always carried a pocket full of strike anywhere kitchen matches to light up his Old Gold cigarettes. I gave him a new Zippo and he never used it and he never used the lighter in a car, he just struck the matches on the dash. He climed down off a scaffold and the friction matches in his pocket ignited....you should have seen him shuck his britches!

[vmescher]

I think Samuel Jones is the go-to guy, for the origin of the Lucifer brand name, around 1829 in England. A google search on his name and Lucifer should bring up some hits.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

I just went to Google and confirmed my findings with primary sources and found the John Walker invented the match in 1827 and sold them in tins or boxes of 100 accompanied with sandpaper for striking but did not patent his invention. Apparently, he was the one who coined the name "Lucifer matches."

Samuel Jones copied Walker's idea and was the first to really market the matches in 1830 but he did not patent them either. He sold them in small rectangular pasteboard boxes. He did patent a "Prometheus match" (1828 ) that was a wood splinter that had a potassium chlorate top. When this was dipped in sulphuric acid, it was ignite. This combination was sold as paper twists along with a glass bottle for the acid. These did not sell very well.
It is interesting to note that Samuel Jones' name was not mentioned in primary sources about the invention of matches

Apparently Phillips was the first to be granted an US patent in 1836.

[Crabby]

Patrick,

Thanks for the plug........ Our Gates Matches are based on a real match manufacturer. He began producing matches in the late 1840's or early 1850's (I do not have my research with me here at work), continued until his death in the 1870's. His sons kept it up for a while and sold out to the Diamond Match Company.

An interesting note with William Gates - during the war there was a $0.03 tax per 100 matches levied to help with the war effort. Mr. Gates' tax burden on matches during the war was $3,000,000.00!

Crabby

[hanktrent]

I just went to Google and confirmed my findings with primary sources and found the John Walker invented the match in 1827 and sold them in tins or boxes of 100 accompanied with sandpaper for striking but did not patent his invention. Apparently, he was the one who coined the name "Lucifer matches."

All the relevant hits on the first page of a google search for "Samuel Jones" lucifers state that Samuel Jones copied Walker's invention and he was the one who called his copies Lucifers. Haven't done any primary source research to check on it. Do you have better sources showing that Walker, not Jones, originally called his matches Lucifers?

From http://www.ul.ie/~childsp/CinA/Issue61/TOC25_Phosporous.html
In 1830 Samuel Jones sold his version of Walker's 'friction lights' in London and called them Lucifers, later used to describe phosphoric matches. He was the first person to sell matches in small, rectangular cardboard boxes. Lucifer became a popular, generic name for matches - named not for their devilish properties but because they were light-bearing!

From http://www.matchcovers.com/wayne%20article.htm

But it was not until 1827 that a really useful friction match was produced. John Walker, a druggist of Stockton on Tees, England, produced this match. ... Imitations of this match known as "Lucifers" were sold by Samuel Jones of London and by G. F. Watts.


From http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10276312
(This one does show an original Jones' boxed marked "Lucifers.")
These matches were known as lucifers and congreves. Lucifers were a straight copy of John Walker's original friction lights of 1826-7, and were produced by Samuel Jones of 'The Light-House' at 201 Strand, London.

From http://www.rpsgb.org.uk/informationresources/museum/exhibitions/themotherofinvention/wajo.html
Samuel Jones owned a shop at 201 The Strand, London, which he appropriately called 'The Lighthouse'. He was the first person to exploit the sale of matches commercially and his 'Lucifers' differed in no way from Walker's 'friction lights'.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[vmescher]

All the relevant hits on the first page of a google search for "Samuel Jones" lucifers state that Samuel Jones copied Walker's invention and he was the one who called his copies Lucifers. Haven't done any primary source research to check on it. Do you have better sources showing that Walker, not Jones, originally called his matches Lucifers?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

I found all the Google sources that you mentioned but when I went to primary sources only Walker was mentioned. Unfortunately, they are not available to post the links but here are the sources. They may be online somewhere but one will have to do a search for the entire article.

I'm only posting primary sources up to the mid-1870s but I continued to look and print out items well past the 1890s and none mentioned Samuel Jones and friction matches. I also did a search for Samuel Jones and lucifer matches in my primary source databases but nothing came up, only Walker was identified with them as the inventor.


Scientific American, Oct. 15, 1859. "California Matches." "The inventor of friction matches . . . His name as we have learned, was John Walker, a Scotch chemist. . . "

Scientific American, Dec. 22, 1860. "Friction Matches." "the use of the lucifer match, invented by Mr. John Walker, chemist, at Stockton-upon-Tees."

Circular, Aug. 29, 1864. "Match-Making." "To this in 1829, succeeded in the use of the lucifer match, invented by Mr. John Walker, chemist, at Stockton-upon-Tees. Mr. Walker manufactured but few of them himself, but Prof. [Michael] Faraday learning of them, procured some, and brought into public notice."

Youth's Companion, Oct. 8, 1874. "How Matches Came Into Use." "In 1828, Mr. John Walker, a chemist in England introduced the lucifer match, which was lighted by drawing it over folded sandpaper."

I hope that this is what you were requesting.

[Memphis]

The good news is period newspaper advertisements also called them "matches," so a slip up in first person conversation is not always a slip up.

[hanktrent]

I hope that this is what you were requesting.

I guess I'm not so much interested in who invented matches, but in who introduced the name "lucifers," to help answer the question of why matches are called lucifers.

By mid century when all friction matches were generically referred to as lucifers, it would be normal to say that Walker invented lucifers (i.e. matches). But did Walker (or anyone) actually call his invention "lucifers" before Samuel Jones used the name? Unless we can contradict the secondary sources which say that Jones coined the name, I'd tend to believe them.

I don't think there's any doubt that Jones did call his matches lucifers. There's the image of the original box posted above, and I just found the text of an 1833 advertisement for "S. Jones 's Lucifer Matches That ígnite by the friction produced by drawing the match briskly through a piece of sand paper, and are warranted never to impair by keeping. Put the lid upon the box before you light the match. Light House, EOI, Strand. London." http://books.google.com/books?id=ABEAAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA6-PA286&dq

Are there any primary sources to indicate that Walker was already using the name Lucifers before Jones used it? Otherwise, it sounds like Jones did introduce the name.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[vmescher]

I guess I'm not so much interested in who invented matches, but in who introduced the name "lucifers," to help answer the question of why matches are called lucifers.

By mid century when all friction matches were generically referred to as lucifers, it would be normal to say that Walker invented lucifers (i.e. matches). But did Walker (or anyone) actually call his invention "lucifers" before Samuel Jones used the name? Unless we can contradict the secondary sources which say that Jones coined the name, I'd tend to believe them.

I don't think there's any doubt that Jones did call his matches lucifers. There's the image of the original box posted above, and I just found the text of an 1833 advertisement for "S. Jones 's Lucifer Matches That ígnite by the friction produced by drawing the match briskly through a piece of sand paper, and are warranted never to impair by keeping. Put the lid upon the box before you light the match. Light House, EOI, Strand. London." http://books.google.com/books?id=ABEAAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA6-PA286&dq

Are there any primary sources to indicate that Walker was already using the name Lucifers before Jones used it? Otherwise, it sounds like Jones did introduce the name.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

I didn't realize that you only wanted documentation of Jone's use of the word "lucifer." While I can't document that he was the first to use it, your quote from the above link in Google books was dated 1833.

Apparently, another match-maker named G. F. Watt's also was using the term "lucifer matches" in 1832. The ad was found in the United States Telegraph (Washington, DC) Nov. 5, 1832. It was for "Watt's Chlorate or Lucifer Matches" and continued to explain what they were. They were widely advertised in US publications in the years after 1832 as Watt's Lucifers and just "lucifer's" with no other name attached. Watt's was still in the match business in 1853 and Jones was not listed.

In the Pharmaceutical Journal and Transactions (1853) there was additional about Mr. Watts. "In 1826 Mr. Watts, chemist, of the Strand, brought out the "Lucifer," or light-producing match (lux light fero, I bear). These matches were composed of chlorate of potash, sulphuret of antimony, gum &c., covering an ordinary sulphur match and were ignited by being drawn through a piece of sand or glass paper. These were excellent matches, but required a little more attention in their ignition than the majority of people gave.
At the close of 1828 Mr. Jones brought out his 'Promethians.' These, however, were too expensive to supercede the Lucifer." The article continues to explain what the Promethians were.

In the above article nothing was said about Mr. Jones being the first to use the name Lucifer and the 1832 ad is an indication that the term was being used by someone else other than Jones as early as 1832..

No matter who was the first to coin the term "lucifer" for matches, it soon became a generic name for matches and both terms seem to be correct to use, either alone or together.

[toptimlrd]

About a year ago there was some discussion on someone reproducing the block matches, has anyone heard any updates on those yet?

[jurgitemvaletem]

Mr. Myzie,

I do not have a scanner, otherwise, I would be happy to share the ones that I have.

Mr. Crabb,

You have done a great job reproducing the stuff that we would all like to have, you know, the small stuff that some don't think about but bring so much to our impressions. So I would like to thank you.

[Rob Weaver]

At least briefly, weren't matches also call something like "locofocuses?" I vaguely remember a political movement named that after the fact that after the lights were doused in an attempt to dispel the delegates, they lit matches and remained to vote.

[BobSullivanPress]

I've seen and reproduced several different match labels, including the Lucifers label, Barber's, Superior Telegraph Matches, and more.

If you want to know why so many reenactors use the Lucifers label, "blame" it on Bryce Workman and Fred Gaede. Actually, don't blame them, thank them. Back in the 70's Bryce and Fred established an authentic sutler business called National Historic something or other. So if you think authentic sutlers are new, guess again. Anyway, Bryce and Fred and Bill McIntosh worked very ahrd to find and reproduce period labels. The match label they came up with was the Lucifer label that you've now seen reproduced about a million times. Years ago, Fred kindly sent me some of their original sheets. Some of those sheets made their way to Ft. Washington National Park, and some other reenactors got their hands on them and the labels have proliferated to this day.

The name Lucifer became so common, and so associated with matches, that by the time of World War I it was synonymous with matches. Here's the song "Pack Up your Troubles In Your Old Kit Bag" (remember, fag is still a synonym for cigarette)

Pack up your troubles in your old kit bag,
And smile, smile, smile.
While you've a lucifer to light your fag,
Smile, boys, that's the style.
What's the use of worrying?
It was never worth while, so
Pack up your troubles in your old kit bag,
And smile, smile, smile.

[vmescher]

At least briefly, weren't matches also call something like "locofocuses?" I vaguely remember a political movement named that after the fact that after the lights were doused in an attempt to dispel the delegates, they lit matches and remained to vote.

In the first US patent, for friction matches, issued in 1838, the patentee stated, "The composition used in preparing the matches called loco foco and which light by slight friction, is a compound of phosophorus, chlorate of potash, sulfuret of antimony, and gum arabic or glue."

In the US, sometimes the lucifer or friction matches were called "loco foco matches" and advertisements appeared quite often in newspapers starting in 1835 and continued until the latter part of 1837 when the term became more associated with politics.

In the late summer of 1836, the term "loco foco" started to be associated with a political party in New York. The following appeared in Aug. 17, 1836 in the Scioto Gazette (Chilicothe, OH). "The Loco Foco party of New York have hertofore been distinguished from the rest of the Van Burenites by their opposition to all chartered monopolies." There was a great deal more articles about the party and the elections after they were formed.

[Rob Weaver]

So by the War, "loco foco" would have been out of date for all but us older soldiers. Kind of like calling a cigarette a "Lucky Strike" would be today. It just came to mind as another name for matches during the first half of the 1800s.

[Pvt Schnapps]

And then there are "lucifer matches."

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&coll=moa&view=50&root=%2Fmoa%2Fharp%2Fharp0001%2F&tif=00085.TIF&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DABK4014-0001-25

G. A. Sala, says matches, though he appreciated the box of wax vestas he picked up in Mexico.

My favorite is "flaming fusee," which I intend to call someone at any event now.

The BMLBS site has some nice jpegs, as do Belgian and Swedish collector sites.

I think that coming up with a date for a label is a bit tricky, as manufacturers were not under the same obligation to keep records of when they came up with a label as, say, post offices were with stamp designs. But I could be wrong.

[BobSullivanPress]

While I agree with Michael about precise label dating, there are some good guidelines to use when dating labels.

1. The National Trade Mark Act of 1874. The United States did not have trade mark laws in place until 1874. Therefore, if you see a label for an American product with the words "Trade Mark", it most likely post dates the Civil War by 5 years or more. England did have a trademark law in place during the Civil War, so this guideline doesn't apply to English products. For an American company to use the words "Trade Mark" before 1874 would be akin to finding nutritional information labels on products that pre-date 1990, when the Federal Law was passed requiring those labels. It just wasn't done.

2. The "modern" 4-color printing process with color bleeding (which has been replaced by computers anyway), allowing rich, colorful labels with subtle shading came into general use around 1885. While many Civil War labels can be very colorful, most are not, and even the multi-colored ones have a distinct boundary between colors, as opposed to the blended colors of the late Victorian era.

3. Labels with modern types of mailing addresses on them, referring to the location of the maker, are unusual. Most labels with addresses used the mid018th century style of address, with a city and state for most places, and a street name but not necessarily a street number on the label. For example, you'd more likely see "Bob's Elixir, High Street near Market, Philadelphia" as opposed to "Bob's Elixir, 123 High Street, Philadelphia, Penna".

Naturally, there are exceptions to every guideline, but not many.