I've loved lava lamps for as long as I can remember, but I've only been actively collecting them since 2020, after my friends generously gifted me a beautiful Mathmos Telstar for my birthday. I still only own nine lava lamps, but I'm working on growing my collection!
After I started getting more lamps, I became interested in the wide variety of models available - from the major companies Mathmos and Lava Lite as well as off-brand lamps, and from widely known models to rarer curiosities, discontinued models and prototypes.
To share my enthusiasm for lava lamps (and spare my friends any more lengthy monologues about my favorites), I'm starting this blog to showcase and review various lava lamp models, with the aim of providing as much information on them as I can find as well as my personal opinions on their designs. I'm just an amateur enthusiast, though, so my opinions are not that of an expert and I might mess up some info.
This blog is brand new, so I'm still figuring out my footing, but I hope to write informative and entertaining posts for any lava lamp lover!
Sources:
My biggest sources for researching lava lamp info:
The Lava Library
OozingGoo
FlowOfLava
LightOfLava
OozingLava
I try my best to verify all information by searching for different sources, rather than just copying the work of one site or user.
Pictures taken by individuals/collectors will be sourced as much as possible; pictures taken from official brand catalogs/ads will not necessarily be sourced. If I've relied majorly on another source not listed above for a post, I will link it within the post. I will also try to include accurate alt text descriptions for all the pictures included.
Apologies for the absence of recent reviews - life has been hectic, and surprisingly, the reviews do take a lot out of me. On my list for the future (non-exhaustive) are:
- The Mathmos Fluidium - this blog has been very Lava Lite centric, it's high time for Mathmos to shine!
- An update on my review of the Lava Lite Wizard - as I said in my review, the Wizard was my most desired lava lamp for quite some time. I was gifted my own Wizard by my friend and have had it since March, so I'll need to share my own experience!
- Some "off-brand" models - this could mean anything that is not from Lava Lite or Mathmos. Possible reviews may include promotional lava lamp models (like the ketchup lamp I can personally review as I have one, or the crayon lamp), the Fisura tea light lava lamp (also one I have at home), or the double wavy lava lamp.
- Possible some non-review posts, like top 10s of lava lamp models based on some specific criteria (a "most erotic lava lamp models" post is in the works, not sure exactly what audience I think I'm courting with it).
Feel free to suggest models if you would like to see a particular review, it might even get me back to work faster!
I think this is the third or fourth time I've been sent this lamp in the past couple of weeks, lol! I guess it's making the rounds. This is indeed a DIY job by Reddit user Tithund using six small lava lamps on an old chandelier, which can be seen in the bar De Bastille in Schoonhoven, the Netherlands.
For a small personal review - I really like the idea of a lava lamp chandelier, and I think I do enjoy this in a sort of camp way (similarly to stuff like lava lamp Christmas trees), but ultimately I personally wouldn't want to use it, in part because the style clash between the lava lamps and the base chandelier doesn't really work for me, and in part because the sheer weight of six lava lamps with unstable glass globes full of hot liquid and wax hanging from a ceiling seems like a serious hazard (according to Tithund, the chandelier hangs above an audio rack so it's unlikely it would get bumped into, but I definitely wouldn't trust it to be very safe in a home...). Still, I do applaud the creativity and work of the creator.
I've also been asked whether I think it would've been better with matching lava lamp colors, and Tithund themselves said they would have made it that way but just used whatever lamps they had lying around; in my opinion, the color variety is one of the stronger points of this design, even if unintentional.
The eras of Lava Liteâs lamp design are, to me, usually easily distinguished and summarized, their individual design ethos appearing clear. The 1970s are all about pure silhouette; the 1980s (suffering from a sharp decline in lava lamp popularity) focus on a small offering of new colors for classic models; the 1990s bask in novelty, with frivolously decorated models as well as daring silhouettes; the 2000s slump into gimmick with a number of branded and decorated lamps of dubious taste, only sometimes punctuated by a revisiting of past glories; and the 2010s follow in stride, with only the Heritage Collection bringing back a few old and discontinued loves among a sea of Classic models with gaudy prints along their base, cap, and/or globe.
(As an aside â it may seem that my opinion is that lava lamps started out strong and declined from there, but thatâs not entirely true. The 1990s and 2000s brought about some of my favorite Lava Lite models; and though I find them less interesting than their predecessors, some of those garish or gimmicky models of later-years Lava Lite are still incredibly charming to me. As well, Lava Lite is only one lava lamp brand, with great designs coming from other manufacturers throughout.)
But how does one define the 1960s for Lava Lite? Those years bring us some of the most iconic models of the brand (the Aristocrat and Century; the Consort, for better or for worseâŠ) as well as some confounding variations that feel more in line with the printed lamps of the 2000s and 2010s (marbled variants of the aforementioned Aristocrat, the Night Lite and its juggling clown, or the confounding menorah lava lite, which disappointingly is not a candelabrum of seven individually-lit lava lamps, but just a Consort model with a picture of a menorah printed on the globe) and some very out-there designs that seem to try to make the lava lamp more than just a lamp (the Music Box, the Decorator with its planter of fake flowers, the desktop Executive with its swivel pen holders). In a sense, the ethos of 1960s Lava Lite seems to be: design in every direction! Take this wherever you can, as far as you can!
Thereâs one really straightforward way to do that: just make a really big lava lamp. And here comes the Imperial, the largest pre-2000s Lava Lite model.
The initial design of the lamp is straightforward enough: a large cylinder globe topped with a modestly pointed cap. According to hippielight.com, the Imperialâs globe was a standard Corning laboratory glass vessel. Utility was added by ensconcing the base of the Imperial into a 15â round walnut table â a Lava Lite catalog suggests it is âperfect for restaurants, nite clubs, theatres [âŠ] every hotel or motel lobbyâ. Despite this apparent advertising of the Imperial towards businesses, I feel it would make the greatest impression in a living room, where, as both side table and floor lamp, it could be an incredible statement piece.
Today, the Imperial is incredibly rare â according to The Lava Library, less than a dozen models are known to belong to collectors. Due to this rarity, I canât estimate a resell price for the Imperial, though Iâd bet it could be in the thousands. Originally, the Imperial retailed for $149.50.
MY REVIEW:
There is something abruptly charming about the Imperial, a sort of rough beauty. The Imperial rushed out to work late with its hair unbrushed, its shirt buttoned wrong and socks that donât match, but will still catch your eye on the metro. Itâs so easy to imagine a life with the Imperial. Its base diameter is small enough that it would fit in just right next to your couch or by an armchair, and you can easily picture yourself setting down your book or your glass on its little table. And what an impression it would make, its gigantic globe swirling lazily next to you!
At the same time, the Imperial feels almost gauche â this massive cylinder of glass filled with fluid and wax like a lab specimen, thrust into a much daintier mid-century side table. I canât help but anthropomorphize the Imperial. I battle to call it an âitâ, not a âsheâ. I think: gosh, she doesnât really know who she is just yet, does she? Sheâs put on such a pretty dress, but her mannerisms are all rough and her posture slumps inelegantly. Yet I donât want to tell her to stand up straight, to walk with her feet in a line, to contain that ugly nasal laugh of hers. Ultimately, the Imperialâs charm wins me over regardless. Maybe sheâs a little awkward, and her figure betrays her pretensions to refinement. But goddammit, what a woman!
SILHOUETTE: 8/10
Itâs hard to say the Imperialâs silhouette is anywhere near perfect. Thereâs an imbalance to it: the bulky, blocky globe and the fine, light legs beneath. The contrast is accentuated by the difference in texture and color, the brushed metal base into that rich wood. I could imagine a different globe â perhaps one shaped like the Mathmosâs Astrobaby, or even just a thinner, taller one â making for a more cohesive, prettier lamp. All the same, I canât hold this against the Imperial. She charms me endlessly.
DETAILS: 6/10
This is where that contrast in materials really counts against the Imperial. If the base and table matched â if the tips of the feet were the same metal as the base and cap â it would be easier to give it higher points. Some other details also prove unfavorable: the electric cable comes out of the bottom of the base and trails beneath the table, its light switch ending up on the floor. A better design might have had that cable stuck beneath the table or attached to a leg â maybe had a more accessible switch. Still, I have to give it points for the shape of its cap, which I find quite charismatic. A higher point would have looked silly; a flat top, too plain. That cap is just the right shape. The base isnât quite as pleasant, but I admittedly canât think of a better way to do it, so it gets point there as well.
COLORWAYS: 8/10
The available colors for the Imperial are great, but theyâre few. Theyâre the most typical lava lamp colorways: orange wax/yellow fluid, green wax/blue fluid, red wax/clear fluid â with the colored fluids later all being replaced with clear ones. The Lava Library also claims a champagne wax/champagne mist fluid variation existed (which would be cream-colored wax in a hazy amber fluid), but I wasnât able to find any pictures of it.
An example of a "champagne mist" colorway, here in a Consort model.
While I would love to have seen more color variations for the Imperial (Iâm especially a fan of purple and blue combinations), the colorways on offer here are in my opinion sufficient. In a way, they match that unpolished feeling I get from the lamp: just the bare essentials, solid and reliable.
POWER: 10/10
There lies the true strength of the Imperial: its sheer power of presence. So what if her hair is frizzy, she canât quite walk in those heels, and sheâs got something stuck in her teeth? You spotted her from across the room, and for the night youâre in love with her. Tall, imposing, uncompromising, the Imperial is a truly powerful lava lamp.
MY FINAL LAVA SCORE: 8/10
Is my information wrong? Did I miss a detail? Do you have a better picture of this model? Is there another model youâd like me to look into? Please send me an ask or submit relevant pictures!
(Note: this model's name was spelled "Alladin" in catalogs. However, collectors have mostly taken to referring to it as the Aladdin, and I prefer to stick to the typical English spelling of the folk tale.)
Brand: Lava Lite
Introduced: 1975
Discontinued: Unclear, though the lamp no longer appears in a 1979 catalogue.
Base and cap colors: brass
Wax colors: orange, red, green
Fluid colors: clear, yellow, blue
Size: height 16â or 14â, diameter 9â
The 1970s were a time of innovative and out-there designs for the Lava Lite brand. Models of the 1960s established iconic shapes which would be iterated on over the years, and from the 1980s onward, the brandâs new offerings would focus on color and pattern variety as well as lamps with more classical shapes but featuring sculpted and highly decorated bases. In the 70s, though, interesting silhouettes were what made new designs stand out, and I think none is more emblematic of this design ethos than the Aladdin.
The Aladdin is an example of a high-concept lava lamp that does not rely on gimmicky detailing and patterns to get its core idea across. In a way, the Aladdin just makes sense â for what lava lamps are, the Aladdin feels like an inevitability. What is a lava lamp if not the idea of a magical lamp? It remains notable that the Aladdin preceeds the Disney movie â if it had not already been made, maybe it wouldâve come out in the 90s.
The Aladdin originally retailed for $29.99. Aladdin lava lamps can occasionally be found on second-hand sites, where they usually sell for anywhere from $150 to $700.
MY REVIEW:
It feels like the Aladdin should be a lamp one has a strong opinion on. Is it magical, or gimmicky? Is it pleasantly quirky or over-designed? Is it timeless or dated? When I look at the Aladdin, I think I should either love it or hate it⊠But I donât. I donât think Iâm a huge fan of it, really â Iâm certainly not interested in acquiring one â but it also doesnât verge into gaudiness enough to fully turn me off it. Simply put: Iâm pretty ambivalent about the Aladdin, even though I tend to have pretty strong ideas about lava lamp designs.
I also feel I should have a set opinion on the cultural background of its design. At times the Aladdin feels somewhat awkwardly orientalist. Obviously, the lamp is based on Arabian oil lamps, and the name refers to the SWANA folk tale. Is turning this type of lamp (and choosing this particular name) into a cheap consumer product in poor taste? Iâm not sure about that either; I canât manage to really be offended by the Aladdin, at least not more than I am charmed by it. I seem to always be of two minds regarding the Aladdin.
SILHOUETTE: 7/10
My ambivalence towards the Aladdin means Iâm not particularly enthusiastic about its silhouette, but I think it may be more important to judge it based on what itâs trying to achieve, and not simply on whether I think itâd look good in my bedroom. And as far as its design intent goes, the Aladdin does pretty well. The shape of the lamp is immediately recognizeable and unique. You could probably guess its name just by glancing at it.
On the other hand, I also think more care could have been put into the design. If you take a look at the traditional type of lamp the Aladdin imitates, youâll find what I think is a much more elegant shape: far from a stout, round base with a short spout â which is almost more similar to an occidental teapot â these lamps usually have elongated silhouettes and long, curving spouts, which give them a far more refined look. In comparison, the Aladdin looks a lot less elegant and more clumsy.
One example of an Arabian-style oil lamp
Still â you can recognize the inspiration so evidently that the silhouette still works. Itâs also worth considering that making the lamp longer could have also required scaling it up, and making it any bigger would not have made it more graceful.
DETAILS: 9/10
The Aladdin, like other Lava Lite lamps of the era, does without much detailing. In a way, it maintains a degree of simplicity and sparsity of design. Again comparing it to its inspirations, the oil lamps it is based on are usually much more decorated, with varied and intricate carvings. Does that mean the Aladdin should have emulated them, though? Ultimately, I donât think so. With the colorful lava globe being its visual focal point, a lot of extra detailing would have made it look crowded â and I think what would have likely been a poor imitation of traditional Arabian designs would have thrown the lamp squarely into âtoo orientalist for comfortâ.
Though, while the sparse design of the Aladdin works for it, the fact its spout and handle are black and donât match the base is a faux-pas in my book. It makes them look like last-minute add-ons, rather than whole parts of the lamp. I think Iâd have given the Aladdin full points here if those elements matched the brass of the base.
COLORWAYS: 8/10
The Aladdin only came in three colorways, all of them with a brass base: clear liquid/red wax, yellow liquid/orange wax, and green liquid/blue wax.
I think the choice to only include a brass base and cap makes sense: I think only a gold color would have also made sense, and it wouldn't have been different enough from the brass color to really need including.
As far as the globe goes, the different colorways of the lamp work well for what itâs doing. The colors all fit with the Arabian inspiration of the design, and I think they also work in evoking the idea of a genieâs magical form trapped within the glass globe. Still â a few additional colorways would have been welcome. I've seen a few custom Aladdins featuring purple wax, which I think is a good idea. I would have also liked to see a yellow liquid/red wax version; something including either pink wax or pink liquid would have also been lovely.
POWER: 6/10
Once again, Iâm a bit conflicted here. The Aladdin should be really powerful, right? With a rather simple design, it evokes such a clear, defined vision! It almost tells a story simply by existing. But then again â why do I feel so lukewarm about it? When I think of those really impactful lava lamp designs, those that stay with me even when Iâve never had the chance to see them in the flesh, this is simply not one that comes to mind. Ultimately, the Aladdin just doesnât have the kind of powerful draw I find in other unique designs such as the Wizard or the Fluidium.
MY FINAL LAVA SCORE: 7.5/10
Is my information wrong? Did I miss a detail? Do you have a better picture of this model? Is there another model youâd like me to look into? Please send me an ask or submit relevant pictures!
The Wizard is a rework of Lava Liteâs earlier 1974 Carlisle model. Like the Carlisle, it has a conical shape and small cutouts around its base allowing light from the bulb to shine through. It is however distinguished from the Carlisle by some notable features: where the Carlisleâs cap had a flat top, similarly to more classic lava lamp models, the Wizardâs cap is pointed, giving it a shape reminiscent of a wizardâs hat. The cutouts in its base are moon and star-shaped, as opposed to the Carlisleâs pinholes, and there is a row of matching cutouts circling the cap.
The Wizard also offered very different colorways from its predecessor: notably, while the Carlisleâs base and cap only came in a brass color, the Wizard offers four different base/cap colors, none of them brass, and it came with many more wax and fluid options, as well as glitter options.
Pictured: every wax color combination offered for the Wizard.
When examining pictures of the Carlisle and the Wizard, it also seems that the Wizardâs globe protrudes over the sides of the base slightly less, giving it a less pronounced âmuffin topâ effect, though this may be due to perspective. The Wizard is also two and a half inches taller than its predecessor (perhaps owing to the added height on its pointed cap).
Like some other Lava Lite models, the Wizard has a dimmer âfor quick startâ: the user would initially set the light bulb to 100%, making the wax heat up and flow faster, then dim the light as desired.
Though discontinued, the Wizard remains popular with collectors. It originally retailed for $44.99. Second-hand, Wizard lava lamps are usually sold for $80 to $200. While many Wizards are sold second-hand and it isnât hard to find one, it may be more difficult to find a specific colorway, and glitter Wizards are more commonly found than wax ones.
MY REVIEW:
The Wizard is my second-most desired lava lamp, but Iâve yet to find one sold in the specific colorway I want (blue base, blue liquid, purple wax) for a price within my means.
In this review, I won't be considering the glitter options of the Wizard, though they're numerous and appear more popular than wax versions. This is because I personally dislike glitter lamps, so including them would negatively impact the review.
SILHOUETTE: 10/10
The 1999-2000 Lava Lite catalogue describes the Wizard as having a âmagical draw to its mystical shapeâ, and Iâm tempted to agree. Whereas I find the very similar silhouette of the Carlisle to not be particularly appealing, the Wizard makes a tremendous improvement if only by changing the shape of the cap; and by recontextualizing its conical figure as a wizardâs hat, what could have been an awkward-looking lamp becomes evocative and magical.
DETAILS: 9/10
If any lava lamp model expresses boundless personality through simple and effective detailing, it has to be the Wizard. It avoids being gaudy or insisting upon itself; the wizardly appeal is apparent without the need for tacky visuals. When lit in darkness, the cutouts around its base create a constellation of light pinpricks, further increasing its visual appeal. The only thing I would change about it is the thick black circlet at the very bottom of its base, which isnât very pleasing to the eye. (In 2013-2014, Lava Lite offered their "Heritage Collection", a throwback to some of their earlier models. The collection included three of the Wizard's colorways, and this time the black circlet was not included - the red Wizard pictured above is a Heritage model.)
COLORWAYS: 7/10
Several of the available colorways are particularly well-chosen: the black base and cap, the purple and pink waxes, and the blue and purple fluids particularly appeal to me. The red base/red wax/clear fluid variation, while not my personal favorite, is also striking. These colors definitely fit my mental image of âwizardryâ and add to a magical atmosphere.
Unfortunately, I canât in good conscience give it full points, as I feel some of the other color options just donât quite size up. The green wax/blue fluid colorways evoke some sort of alien goo more than any wizardâs spell. The yellow wax/purple fluid and blue wax/blue fluid options are forgettable and donât do the lampâs unique design justice. I also generally feel that the silver base just doesnât look that good with any of the wax and fluid colors.
If I had it my way, the green, purple and yellow wax options and the silver base would be replaced with a variety of new colorways using mainly purple, blue and black in different combinations (such as: a black base/black wax/purple fluid version; a black base/purple wax/clear fluid version; or a purple base/pink wax/purple fluid version, among other potential variations).
My take on alternative Wizard colorways I would have preferred to see.
A number of custom Wizards in various colors do exist and pictures can be found online from collectors - these may have been DIYed (painting bases, switching fluid or wax...) or achieved using alternative globes, such as globes purchased through Lava Lite's Custom Program. While browsing, I even found one matching my imagined "black base/purple wax/clear fluid" version!
POWER: 10/10
Though there are many lamps far more imposing in size, the Wizard dominates through sheer force of personality. The Wizard has no need for unnecessary frills and does not cross the line from âthematicâ into âgimmickyâ. It is disarmingly pleasant, yet not so whimsical as to become meek or juvenile. Where, had its styling been more heavy-handed, it could have been an inelegant childrenâs toy, its restrained and confident design instead makes it both esoteric and tasteful. In short, the Wizard is an extremely powerful lava lamp.
MY FINAL SCORE: 9/10
Is my information wrong? Did I miss a detail? Do you have a better picture of this model? Is there another model youâd like me to look into? Please send me an ask or submit relevant pictures!
The Carlisle was a 1970s lava lamp model manufactured by Lava Lite. Like many early Lava Lite models, it distinguishes itself not through colors, patterns, or novelty gimmicks, but through its unique silhouette: using a similar conical globe to previous models such as the Enchantress, the Carlisle follows the shape of its globe with a wide, conical base rather than the more classic hourglass-shaped base. It is topped with a flat cap, and, like the popular Century model, features pinhole cutouts around its base for a âstarlightâ effect.
The silhouette of the Carlisle would have two descendents in the Lava Lite line: the 1998 Wizard, which shared its silhouette but switched its flat cap for a pointed one, and the 2000 Blip, a low-cost lamp closely resembling the Carlisle which did not carry the Lava Lite name.
In 1974, the Carlisle retailed for $19.99. Today, Carlisle models can be found on second hand sites, where they usually sell for $120 to $190.
MY REVIEW:
Iâll be honest â the Carlisle is not one of my favorites. Itâs certainly not offensive to the eye, and there are plenty of lava lamps designs far more gaudy or off-putting. Yet, I find some of those designs of more questionable taste to at least be more daring than the Carlisle, and it doesnât make up for this with very attractive features. To be entirely fair, though, the Carlisle suffers in my view from comparison with its descendant, the Wizard, which I find to be a much superior model in multiple ways. I also seem to be in the minority on this â many lava lamp enthusiasts online compliment the Carlisleâs stylishness and its âsophisticated simplicityâ, as one Lava Lite catalog puts it.
SILHOUETTE: 6/10
You could certainly do worse than the Carlisle as far as lava lamp silhouettes go â but you could also do much better. Its conical shape suffers from how much the globe protrudes over the base, giving it a sort of âmuffin topâ effect which breaks what I feel could have been much smoother lines in its design. I also find the width of the base to be awkward and lacking in finesse. I think a more tapered, thinner conical lamp would have made for a much more elegant silhouette.
DETAILS: 8/10
There isnât much to criticize here, as the Carlisle does without much in terms of adornments, which I think was a good choice. The pinhole cutouts in its base are a classic carry-over from the Century model and add some visual interest to the lamp. However, the flat cap doesnât compliment the silhouette, breaking it abruptly at the top, where a pointed or rounded cap would have been more attractive.
COLORWAYS: 5/10
At the risk of piling more and more criticism upon the Carlisle, Iâm afraid I must say its color variety is severely lacking. The Carlisle only offered a brass base/cap color; as for its globe, only three colorways were available: yellow-fluid/orange-wax, blue-fluid/green-wax, and clear-fluid/red-wax. Now, none of these are bad choices, but theyâre few choices, and none of them are particularly unique, nor do I feel they compliment the design well. I think the Carlisle would have much benefitted from a greater variety of colors, especially elegant choices such as a black base/cap, or purple wax and fluid options, which would have given it a certain edgy flair and sleekness. Itâs notable that such color options were available with the later Wizard model.
Zachary on OozingGoo.com created this custom Carlisle by stripping the brass lacquer from its base/cap and replacing the globe with a pink-wax/purple-fluid combination. I feel this Carlisle's custom colorway looks significantly better than the ones officially offered.
POWER: 8/10
I may not love the Carlisle, but itâs hard to deny that its silhouette does stand out and look rather more imposing than more classic, thinner models. It definitely makes an impression, and I can see why one would be drawn to it â itâs just not my personal cup of tea. Still, itâs definitely a rather powerful lava lamp.
MY FINAL LAVA SCORE: 6.75/10
Is my information wrong? Did I miss a detail? Do you have a better picture of this model? Is there another model youâd like me to look into? Please send me an ask or submit relevant pictures!
The Astro Lamp MK1 model was one of the very first lava lamps commercialized, sold by Crestworth (later renamed Mathmos) â only preceeded by the very first Astro Lamp, unofficially referred to as the MK0, which is rare enough to render information and pictures quite hard to dig up. I wanted to start off these reviews with as early a lamp as I could, so the MK1 seemed the best pick.
The Astro model has known many iterations since its 1963 introduction, and a modern Astro model is still sold today by Mathmos. However, for the purposes of cataloguing and reviewing, I will consider each generation of the Astro as a separate model, while acknowledging that the differences between generations may be so specific as to appear nonexistent (and Iâm not good enough at recognizing them myself to be sure which generation Iâm looking at!).
The Astro MK1 is the platonic ideal of the lava lamp; itâs probably more or less what you picture when you think of the words âlava lampâ, and I expect it always will be.
It features the traditional hourglass-shaped base, though in these early models the base is actually made up of two parts: two copper-colored cones which slide into one another, with the top cone containing the light bulb, and the power cable under it running through the bottom cone (see patent diagram below). In later lava lamps, the base would become a single piece.
The Astro is topped by a matching copper cap, which is notably shorter than what is seen in later lava lamp models. As with other lava lamps, the cap serves to hide the unsightly closure at the top of the glass globe.
Though the original Astro Lamp only offered a copper base/cap, it did come in a variety of wax and fluid colors.
A number of early Astro Lamps and other models of the same era can be found second-hand, usually selling for $150 to $300. The modern Astro Lamp, sold by Mathmos, retails for $130.
It was pretty difficult to figure out how much the Astro Lamp originally cost - I consulted ads and catalogs in English, French and Japanese as well as searched lava lamp websites and forums and found no mention of its price anywhere. I did find early on a catalog that listed under the Astro "ÂŁ7-19-6", but was dumbfounded: what did the different numbers mean? Was it suggested price, highest retail price and lowest? Was it different international prices? It took me a while to figure out that the answer was much simpler (UK readers probably would've seen it immediately): before 1971, British prices were written in pounds, shillings and pence. The original Astro Lamp therefore sold for 7 pounds, 19 shillings and 6 pence, or ÂŁ7.98 in decimal.
MY REVIEW:
How to review the Astro? Itâs the first of its kind (excepting Donald Dunnetâs prototypes), so it would seem unfair to compare it to later lamps. At the same time, the Astro is so ubiquitous that it eclipses all competition in the collective imagination of the lava lamp. From Mathmos and Lava Liteâs popular models to the cheap, off-brand lava lamps you may find online or sold in supermarkets, the shape of the Astro remains ever-present â the details of size, make, proportions and colors may change, but the soul of the original Astro lives on in them nonetheless. I may have my opinions on it â but ultimately, in the minds of generations, the Astro will always be a ten out of ten.
SILHOUETTE: 10/10
As a result of the above, I find it impossible to give the Astro less than a perfect score on its silhouette. In another world, another timeline, where the Astro is of a different shape, so too would the entire world of lava lamps be changed in its image. Itâs not my favorite silhouette â Iâm not sure itâs even in my top three â but it is the silhouette.
DETAILS: 8/10
Hereâs where I find some room for nitpicking. Thereâs a reason modern reimaginings of the Astro, official or off-brand, arenât identical to the original. The two-part base is a major minus: the two separate cones make for an impractical and less portable object. I also find the shorter, stout cap less pleasant to the eye than its taller successors. Still, thereâs little to pick apart here: the Astro is a simple, sleek, effective design. Though it is iconic to the 60s and 70s, I find its silhouette to be timeless.
COLORWAYS: 9/10
Modern lava lamp models come with such a variety of colorways that, in comparison, the Astroâs single base/cap color, its five fluid colors, and four wax colors seem limited. Still, these options are enough to create a number of pleasant colorways. Advertisement for the Astro describes it as âperfect anywhereâ and âdesigned to suit any mood, any decorâ. Iâm tempted to agree: though I appreciate the breadth of color choices now available, the Astroâs offerings are quite satisfying. It helps that most of my favorite colors are included.
POWER: 10/10
What more can I say on the topic of the Astroâs longevity and icon status? This isnât just a powerful lava lamp, itâs the powerful lava lamp. It only remains at a ten out of ten because Iâm opposed to grading higher than the scale.
MY FINAL LAVA SCORE: 9.25/10
Is my information wrong? Did I miss a detail? Do you have a better picture of this model? Is there another model youâd like me to look into? Please send me an ask or submit relevant pictures!
The history of the lava lamp can be quite muddled and confusing to approach. From its original invention to its manufacturing and sale, who exactly âdid it firstâ is often unclear. Two lava lamp companies, Lava Lite and Mathmos, are said to be the originators of the lava lamp, and both draw their histories back to inventor Edward Craven Walker⊠Who himself is disputed as the true inventor of the lava lamp.
So, whatâs the real story?
Well, it starts sometime in the 1940s with a Scot by the name of Donald Dunnet, a motor engineer living in South East England. Little information is available on Dunnet, and the most helpful source on him and his inventions is his great-grandson Charlie Leverett, who along with his father and aunt have tried to piece together accurate information on Dunnet and his invention.
According to an old (unfortunately dateless) newspaper article, which the family uses as a source, the original invention came about when Felicity, Dunnetâs youngest daughter and Charlie Leverettâs grandmother, broke the familyâs egg-timer, coincidentally while there was a wartime shortage of egg-timers in the UK. Dunnet, who was described as a part-time inventor, set out to build a replacement â imagining, instead of sand falling down to measure time, a controlled rising of oil to the surface of water. This âinverted egg-timerâ would therefore be the very first lava lamp prototype.
It would not, however, be the last prototype created by Donald Dunnet. In December 1950, Dunnet applied for a patent granted in 1954 for âa display device using liquid bubbles in another liquidâ â making no reference to time measurement, it can be assumed that at this point the invention no longer had anything to do with egg-timers and was instead meant to be an aesthetically pleasing display.
The abstract further describes the invention as âa display device [which] comprises an upper layer of liquid 2 and a lower layer of liquid 3 in a transparent container 1, the two liquids being non-miscible and the upper layer being of lower specific gravity than the lower layer and means 9 for heating the lower layer so that it rises through the upper layer in the form of liquid bubbles [âŠ], the bubbles being cooled by the upper layer so that they return to the lower layer.â
Further technical detail is added, but with this initial description, you may already have recognized the basic workings of a lava lamp: wax or oil heated by a light bulb at the bottom of the lamp bubbles up through the fluid filling the container (typically water); the bubbles cool down as they reach the top of the lamp and fall back to the bottom, creating a continuous flow of 'lava'.
While there are no other patents I could find for further iterations on this invention, Dunnet continued to improve on his design. The family was able to find one picture of various models created by Dunnet: one resembles a large glass jug, one a long-necked, bulbous bottle, and three resemble lanterns (interestingly, lantern designs would later be sold by both Lava Lite and Crestworth). The picture is dated "Easter 1960".
Dunnet was even featured on âThe BBC Inventors Clubâ (date of broadcast unknown) for another of his inventions, seemingly his âcleaner for flat surfacesâ patented in 1955, pictured here:
According to Dunnetâs grandson, in the 1960s, the family still owned and used one of Dunnetâs lamps, which he says âworked really well and was well developed, quite far removed from his original âegg timerâ based designâ. He further describes this lamp as using âa Grantâs whiskey bottle with Red lavaâ. He also declared his intention to create a replica of this prototype based on his memories of it, but it seems pictures of such a replica never materialized.
Sadly, Donald Dunnet passed away sometime between 1960 and 1964, and would never market his invention himself. According to his grandson, his widow had his workshop completely cleared after his death, and no surviving prototypes remain. Still â thanks to newspaper articles, family testimony, the 1950s patent, and the surviving photographs of Donald Dunnet and his inventions, it seems clear that he was the true original inventor of the lava lamp, though not the one who would come to market it to the public.
Unfortunately, Dunnet seems to have been widely forgotten from lava lamp history, with many sources not mentioning him at all, and only his initial egg-timer prototype being briefly credited as inspiring Edward Craven Walker in other sources. It seems Dunnetâs family passed on his story through generations and often spoke of his invention as being stolen, though his granddaughter Linda Leverett is ânot sure what really happenedâ, and the family primarily expresses wishing that he was better known and recognized for his creations. You can take a look at various other patents held by Dunnet here.
So then, who is this Edward Craven Walker we keep hearing about?
Edward Craven Walker (1918-2000) was a British inventor, now known as the creator of the lava lamp. In 1963, Craven Walker found himself at the Queenâs Head pub in Dorset, England. There, he spotted a âblob lightâ on the bar, described as âa glass cocktail shaker full of oil and water with a light bulb beneathâ. This was one iteration of Dunnetâs invention â already no longer an egg-timer as is often claimed, but instead a decorative item.
Craven Walker, learning that Dunnet had died, decided to take on the further development of the lamp himself. He hired British inventor David George Smith to further develop the device. In 1964, Smith applied for a patent assigned to Craven Walkerâs company âCrestworth Limitedâ and granted in 1968, for âa display device comprising a container having two substances therein, with one of the substances being of a heavier specific gravity and immiscible with the other substance [âŠ] and when heat is applied to the container, the first substance will become flowable and move about in the other substanceâ.
Craven Walker named this lamp the âAstro Lampâ, and this model was sold by Crestworth starting in 1963, making it the first commercial lava lamp.
The Crestworth Astro and its variations (such as the Astro Mini) have defined the classic look of lava lamps ever since. They were greatly successful throughout the 1960s and 1970s and are now icons of the era. Crestworth would be renamed Mathmos in 1992, and Mathmos is still one of the two best-known lava lamp companies in the world.
So, whatâs with Lava Lite and its claim of being âthe original lava lamp companyâ?
In the end, itâs simply a case of international manufacturing rights. In 1965, Craven Walker sold the US manufacturing rights of his Astro Lamp to two American entrepreneurs, Adolph Wertheimer and Hy Spector, who saw the lamp at a novelty convention in Hamburg, West Germany. Wertheimer and Spector founded the Lava Manufacturing Corporation in Chicago, Illinois, and the Astro Lamp was renamed the Lava Lite and brought to the US market. In the 1970s, the rights to the Lava Lite were sold to Haggerty Enterprises, and it would be distributed by a subsidiary called Lava World International. Lava World International was later renamed Lava Lite LLC. Finally, the Lava Lamp brand was acquired by toy manufacturer Schylling in 2018. This brand, often referred to as âLava Liteâ, is the other big player in the lava lamp world. Because both Mathmos and Lava Lite originate from Craven Walkerâs initial Astro Lamp, both brands still lay claim to âthe original lava lampâ.
So thatâs the story of the lava lamp, as best as Iâve been able to piece it together! An original invention by Donald Dunnet, developed by Edward Craven Walker, and sold in the US by Lava Lite and internationally by Mathmos. A simple but ingenious device, originally only meant as an egg-timer, which would become an icon of the 60s and the 70s, and remains popular to this day.
Did I get something wrong? Am I missing details? Do you have more information on lava lamp history? Feel free to reach out with an ask or submission!
Sources:
The History of the Astro Lamp - Designs by Donald Dunnet - FlowOfLava
The History of the Lava Lamp - Smithsonian Magazine
Donald Dunnet - Original Lava Lamps Inventor by Charlie Leverett on OozingGoo
