Talk:Rawley Point Light

Major disagreement on this one
As noted, the LighthouseFriends story of this light's origins disagrees substantially with that of the other sources. A photograph of the light in situ at the Columbian Exhibition would probably rectify the matter, but thus far I have not come upon any such image. I do note that Anderson provides a photograph supposedly depicting the light before it was moved. I'm also a bit wary of the dates for predecessors to the 1873 light, as they differ from source to source and show signs of confusion with the nearby Two Rivers Light. Mangoe (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that the Chicago Harbor Light article states: "Also at the close of the Exhibition, the skeletal tower was disassembled and shipped to and reassembled as Rawley Point Light just north of Two Rivers, Wisconsin."


 * The source page also states "Their display featured the engineering marvel of Spectacle Reef Light, a one hundred and eleven foot tall skeletal cast iron lighthouse tower, and a number of lenses..." This is interesting. It seems unlikely (at best) that the exhibition featured the actual Spectacle Reef Light. A photo there appears to show a scale model of it. It would stand to reason that the 111-foot skeletal tower was also a display. The fact that the Rawley Point tower matches this description completely, is likely the source of the rumor that it came directly from the exhibition. But if it were the actual 111-foot tower at the exhibition, then why would everyone agree that the tower was heightened? -Freekee (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Aha, found it. Terry Pepper took down his page on this light; the Wayback copy looks like this, and he does have a picture of the light at the exhibit here. And while the photo is pretty small, it looks to me as though the tower shown is a square pyramid like the Waackaack Rear Range Light, not octagonal like Rawley Point. Also, Anderson has a LHS drawing of the modifications made, and this drawing matches Rawley Point's current configuration exactly. USCG's section on Chicago Light states that at least the topmost part of that light was used at Rawley Point. So I'm inclined to use Anderson's version. I'm going to drop a line to Terry Pepper and ask him why he took down his page and which version of the history he prefers. Mangoe (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. This picture sure does look like that one from the Exposition. And the shape of the roof of the lantern doesn't match. Nor does the entire top of the tower, but you stated in the article, that part of that was added on. But now, upon rereading the Chicago Harbor Light article, it doesn't really make sense to me. -Freekee (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've also found a couple of primary sources and  which flatly state that the tower was intended to go to Waackaack and not to Rawley POint. Mangoe (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've found more sources agreeing with the harbor light as the original location, so I've preferred that in the text and relegated the exposition light claim to the notes. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Tallest Light on the Great Lakes?
There is a cited claim in this article that Rawley Point Light, at 111 feet "is the tallest lighthouse on the Great Lakes" Yet, I arrived on this page from the Michigan Island Light, a similar style of lighthouse. It is listed at 118 feet. Looking elsewhere on the List_of_lighthouses_in_the_United_States, Grosse Point light, also on Lake Michigan, is 113 feet. White Shoal Light is 121 feet.

Unless there is some other qualifier that is missing, this claim seems to be in error.

Radon360 (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)