That would be amazing, but somewhat overkill. I’d do it if I was wealthy, or owned my own house which I was decorating in a particular style, or something like that. But I’m just renting a tiny place that has a dark corner I’d like lit up a bit.
Oh, okay, I understand. Well, if you procure one, you must post a pic! 
I have argued that it wasn’t Jules Verne per se that was the biggest influence on steampunk. It was Harper Goff’s interpretation of the Nautilus for the 1954 Walt Disney/Richard Fleischer version of Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. (Goff was the designer for visual elements in the film) Goff deliberately changed the submarine as it had been described by Verne (and interpreted by illustrators and previous filmmakers) and gussied it up with lots of very visible bolts and rivets and mechanical ornamentation. His reason was that Verne’s image – a properly-streamlined craft that looked much like a weaver’s shuttle – was not visually interesting "You look at it once and you’ve seen it Goff’s design had to be contemplated over a period of time to fully comprehend it. It had all those cutlicues that were meant to be structures for ramming and cutting through the ships it attacked, and meant to fit in with Verne’s descriptions of the surface as like scales or an alligator’s hide.
Here’s the Nautilus from the 1916 film:
Here it is in Disney’s
Modellers who came up with Vernean craft later on were drawn to Goff’s style rather than to a literal interpretation of Verne. I saw it in models produced in the 1970s and 1980s.
If you look at illustrations of Verne’s stuff from contemporary illustrations, or of H.G. wells’ stuff, it looks interesting and strange, but not always in our modern “steampunk” aesthetic. “Steampunk” is an exaggeration of design trends from the late 19th/early20th century rather than a faithful duplication of them.
I love “inside-out” architecture with actual steam pipes but, e.g., the Centre Pompidou opened in 1977, and is considered “high-tech”. Not sure if there was an equivalent Victorian style.
The closest I can think of is the Crystal Palace type of wrought iron architecture, with exposed structural components. But that’s not piping.
Of course, due to necessity, there would be exposed gas piping leading to light fixtures, but these wouldn’t be clunky, industrial iron with chunky connections, they’d be slim brass tubing with ample decorations that in no way would be mistaken for plumbing fixtures.
Agreed with that. It does seem, just browsing etsy and the like, that there may have been a shift in the “center” of the aesthetic toward stuff that’s a bit more like grungy iron pipework, and less polished brass gears and levers. It’s not antithetical to the Industrial Revolution, if we’re including that in the whole category. Steam train engines are a mess of pretty grungy pipework, after all, even if we imagine the passenger cars to be more luxurious looking. Both sides of the aesthetic spectrum were always there, but perhaps it’s moving toward more grunge.
And the Dwemer ruins in the Elder Scrolls games. Though that’s veering into “magical steampunk” territory, which is arguably distinct.
That’s quite fair. It’s hard to tease apart, now–even going back to read Verne, how much of our imagery was influenced by the Disney movie? IIRC, I did actually see read the book before seeing the movie, but it’s still hard to separate.
Likely, as you hint, it’s similar for The Time Machine and its 1960 movie. I’ll have to dig up the book and see how much of it really describes what we think of as steampunk today.
Definitely.
The Anubis Gates is one of the genre’s foundational works, I think there’s no need to carve out “magical steampunk” as distinct from the other stuff.
That one is pretty cool! I imagine one could get some kind of light bulb that is orange-ish in color, to meet with what the OP wants.
You can get “low-wattage” incandescent bulbs with squirrel-cage-looking filament inside, which should have a pretty low, hence orange-ish, colour temperature.
You can also get the same thing with LED bulbs:
The “filaments” are actually LED strips with 50 or so tiny LEDs embedded.
You can, but that would be absolutely not steampunk When I think of LEDs, the first thing that comes to mind is the 2006 Millennium Prize. Maybe save the LEDs and electroluminescent tubing for a cyberpunk lamp.
I’m ok with fake steampunk, as long as it’s faked in a way that could be real. The LED filament bulbs could have been incandescent. The LEDs are just more efficient.
The Galvanick Lucipher mentioned above would have a glass jar of acid, electrodes to form a battery, asbestos-insulated wires, and an arc lamp. It would have almost worked in real life. A fake version would have colored water for acid, maybe a smoke generator, fabric-woven wires, and a high-powered LED instead of an arc light. Oh, and a lithium ion battery buried somewhere inside. It would look the part, and that look is of something almost real. You just wouldn’t have to carry around a glass jar of aqua regia.
Yeah, a lot of the Williston Forge items fit the bill, but for some reason, I can’t seem to link directly to them here.
Hubbardton Forge (hand-made wrought iron; I have a number of their items) has one or two things that you might consider steampunk-y. A bit expensive, but very good quality. Their factory isn’t far from where my daughter lives; I keep hoping to visit it some time.
https://www.hubbardtonforge.com/products/277810
https://www.hubbardtonforge.com/products/272840
I think that lamp at Wayfair or wherever it was fits the bill better though.
(I just noticed in the description for the Ehrlenmeyer lamp that it specifically mentions steampunk).
I’m a Ham operator and bought one of those years ago. Neat little drive.
Trying to understand the concept. Isn’t most steampunk “fake”? (This seem to be your point with the Galvanick Lucipher.)
I was gathering that the concept was to have something meeting the functionalities we currently achieve with electricity and where that direction has led us, using gas and steam and chemical reactions instead? Where things would have gone if we did not go the electricity path? Mostly that’s not going to actually use gas and steam, but instead create a fantasy object that looks like it actually does or could. Even the Galvanick Lucipher seems to be very slightly off. While it may have been realistic for the period it was the stream of development that led in our path, using a battery, rather than evolving technology without using electricity. Using LEDs in a design that looked as if it was a tube burning gas or gases interacting or chemical luminescence, preferably in a function NOT done in the era but done now, seems the ideal.
I mean bonus points if it actually functions using only gas and steam and chemical reactions, but that seems very hardcore.
So, you are suggesting, instead of a fake incandescent filament using LEDs, to fake a flame? I have seen fake candles that look sort of OK from a distance, so it is conceivable you could make a fake Argand or gas lamp with the right color and brightness.
Strictly speaking, yes. But consider Babbage’s Difference Engine. Babbage only designed it; he never built it. However, it was ultimately built in 1991:
It’s a gorgeous machine and works perfectly. The builders believe it could have been made in Babbage’s time as well, given funding.
The machine obviously fits within the Steampunk aesthetic. It is not literally Steampunk, since it’s not part of a genre of fiction… and yet it does represent a divergence point for an alternate history where computers were available in the 19th century. And a plausible one, too, since the machine was functional.
We can take it a step further. This machine was possible, but what about further refinements? Surely, with more effort, they could have built far more sophisticated machines, ones with parts that are 1/10 the size and in a unit that is 10x the size (for a million times the capability). Perhaps the Victorians weren’t capable of that level of sophistication, but it’s hard to say it’s impossible.
As for the Galvanick Lucipher, all of the basic components were known in the 19th century–reflectors, arc lamps, chemical batteries, etc. It’s plausible in a very handwavey sense, though I’m fairly sure there is no chemistry they could have stumbled on that would have powered it quite like it was described. Stephenson describes it as using aqua regia, undoubtedly because he knew it’s a strong acid and because it has a very Victorian name, but not because it actually makes a good electrolyte in a battery. Maybe it does–I don’t know–but he picked it because it sounded good.
So while it’s clearly fictional, it’s nevertheless close to something that could be real. Using modern tech to bridge that gap while retaining the aesthetic is perfectly fine by me.
This seems like it might be more of a statement about poorly made things. A thing with gears and whatnot glued to it might be trying to be steampunk, but failing not because of definition, but rather quality and artistry. Like gluing electronic components to a thing as an attempt to make it ‘cyberpunk’, but failing because just gluing things to an object is kitsch, pretty much regardless of the attempted style.
I agree with the dread Consumer Of All. Steampunk covers a lot of area. I’ve seen a lot of badly made crap, and some beautiful and ingenious things.