View Full Version : Cone Centralisateur--Who copied whom:-)
My first serious post here, although I have been lurking for the past two years. Let me pay some respect to the brass gurus such as Jim, Dan, Garrett, Mark, Hugo, Tran, Eddie, Louis…to name just a few. You guys have dumped a lot of knowledge on this forum:-)
I acquired these two lenses and they are both Cone Centralisateur. We all know and Jamin and Darlot were the legitimate owners of that brand, but the two lenses you are looking at are of two brands: the shining one is Darlot and the other one is Gasc & Charconnet. They are identical and I have actually switched elements around and they all work. The Gasc has a slightly larger hood, a larger nob and slightly thicker rim around the flanger area, everything else is the same, all the way down to threads.
After a few glasses wine, I came up with a few theories:
1. Alphonse Charconnet's business was not doing well while Darlot's had a long line of buyers for the popular cone lens. Alphonse picked up a nice bottle of wine and walked from 7 Rue Chapon to 14 Rue Chapon and said to Darlot: "Look, since we both have the same first name Alphonse and since we have been nice neighbors for so long, why don't you let me in on your cone lens? I will certainly pay you some royalty. How's that?"
2. Alphonse Darlot's only son was madly in love with Charconnet's beautiful daughter. That got old Charconnet thinking and after some tricky work, Darlot let Charconnet in on some of the cone lenses.
3. Darlot's cone lens was so popular that Darlot had to farm out to satisfy his long list of customers. Since Gasc and Charconnet was next door, the licensed copy was granted.
Since Gasc made slight changes to the hood and the flanger area, I am wondering about the licensed copy theory. Exactly how Gasc & Charconnet were able to put its well respected trade mark on to a Darlot Cone lens is still a mystery to me. It is like someone copied Hummer and also started selling in US side by side. I am interested to see who can shed some further light on this. I can attest to the quality of elements on both. They are the best petzval type lenses you can get!
Tuant
I have a different group of elements on the rear of Darlot and that's why the Darlot looks a little "high" on the rear. The sizes of elements on both are exactly the same.
Here is how the cone lens looks like on my 16x20.
Mark Woods
19-Jan-2011, 17:55
Sweet. Thank you for your kind words.
goamules
19-Jan-2011, 19:04
Tuant, Thanks for the kind words also. Wow, hold everything! I have never seen a Gasc & Charconnet cone. You are breaking new ground here, at least with me. I like your theories, and bet you are right to some extent, since they were so close!
Now Jamin did have the Cone Centralizer patent, but more research may reveal a connection with G&C. I know there was a Lerebours connection.
Do this: Look on the rear glass face (not edge) very close to the edge. If you are lucky, the Jamin/Darlot one will have tiny "rice writing" I call it in another post (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=63733). If the G&C also has the tiny "rice writing" we would be extremely interested to see if it reads "Jamin" or something else. Lerebours also worked with Darlot, and he must have thought the tiny writing was a good idea, though my two Lerebours have the serial number, not a name.
From my Jamin Cone:
http://www.collodion.com/uploads/688/SIGNED2.JPG
Jim Galli
19-Jan-2011, 19:12
I'll bet the two old girls talk at night when you're not around. It'd sure be fun to listen in.
goamules
19-Jan-2011, 19:18
I'll bet the two old girls talk at night when you're not around. It'd sure be fun to listen in.
My gosh Jim, I'm with you. Can you imagine what Paris was like in 1851, with Daguerreotype studios everywhere taking plates of pretty Parisians? The cafes were there, then as now, but the dress, occupations, dreams, are all gone. Man, that's why I love these old lenses!
Do this: Look on the rear glass face (not edge) very close to the edge. If you are lucky, the Jamin/Darlot one will have tiny "rice writing" I call it in
From my Jamin Cone:
http://www.collodion.com/uploads/688/SIGNED2.JPG
Hi Garret,
Your finding is fasinating! I just looked, but there is no such writing I can see. Maybe I should get a loupe and try again tomorrow. On another thought, maybe this kind of counterfeiting proof number is not important since they both belong to the Alphonses:-) Just 7 house numbers apart, this Alphonse is turning out carbon copies of someone else's patent, there is got to be some kind of agreement between the two. I know you guys have argued over Jamin and Darlot's serial numbers in the past, I just want further muddy the water here:-) Eddie usually has some theory about this kind of matter, let's wait and hear from him after he finishes his beer:-)
Tuant
Steven Tribe
20-Jan-2011, 03:40
I think your notions of Paris at this time are little too influenced late 19th C romantic fiction!
Although my VM is unviewable to-day to check, most Parisienne "names" had comporate (and Sales) addresses in the more exclusive parts of Paris and they "bunched up" to mutual marketing advantage in certain areas. This used to be the case in London, for example, telescope makers (High Holborn) and still is for exclusive tailoring and better shoes(St. James/Saville Row).
Now the interesting point is whether Jamin tried to maximise his sales through an association with an organisation that was probably more prestigious than his own at that time. There is no doubt that the design is from Jamin and he must had been party to an understanding. His design was a great success and he may have used others' brass/glass workshops to keep up production. Much later, the newly started Zeiss had little workshop capacity for their Protar designs and were delighted to find more capacity with Ross and others. Jamin was also just starting and may have been dependent on others (G&C?). For all we know, lens production at this time may have been made by anonymous independent workshops for the probably under-capitalised new lens designers and sellers! Perhaps the later stamping of brass parts with the AD initials is a sign of a transition from a "commissioning" lens maker to a producing lens maker? And the extensive side marking/rice marking of Jamin and Jamin Darlot optics is a sign that these were mounted in brass at another establishment?
CCHarrison
20-Jan-2011, 04:30
Now Jamin did have the Cone Centralizer patent, but more research may reveal a connection with G&C. I know there was a Lerebours connection.
For those that may not know, Darlot apprenticed with Lerebours and Secretans before joining Jamin.
While I have no specifics on the Jamin-Darlot/Gasc connection, it doesnt surprise me given Gasc was a licensed maker/seller of the Harrison Globe design and perhaps had a similiar arrangement.
Nice find.
Dan
This used to be the case in London, for example, telescope makers (High Holborn) and still is for exclusive tailoring and better shoes(St. James/Saville Row).
Just about every relevant camera maker had an address in the Strand, too - obviously luxury items vendors tend to centralize where their potential customers flock. Still, an optician can hardly have dared to clone the patent on another catering to the same audience (as evidenced by being on the same street) and within the same legislation, even less so a patent we know was defended in other cases. So there must have been some sort of agreement.
I do think it should be a licensed copy version, although Gasc did make some minor changes such as the size of the hood, the knob and the rear rim. Gasc's hood is bigger and taller, my Darlot lens cap is too small for Gasc. I like it being a little taller and bigger. You have better grip when removing the front element since you will need to do that to convert it into a Paysage lens. Since G&Ch stopped around 1877, we are only talking about maybe 15 years of G&CH lens production. That should explain why G&CH are hard to find in comparison to other well known brands.
goamules
20-Jan-2011, 07:25
Whatever occurred, you have a couple of uncommon lenses. One more thing I'd like to ask; do either of the lenses have letter designations on each part? Many, but not all Jamin's are marked: A - Flange, E - Hood, F - Cone, C - Inner Barrel, etc. Are either of yours? I ask for a reason, I have a mystery lens that is marked so, is convertible, has matching brasswork with a real Cone Centl, but is not marked by any maker. The plot thickens!
Some one added the G&C Sleeve to a original cone lens.
What I know for sure is there are many many slight differences in the cone lenses from engraving to focus knobs to the jam knob that allows you to slide the barrels apart ( like these with the The knobs) and a whole bunch more.
It is a darlot or jamin with a G & C sleeve. Being that they are interchangeable make it more definate in my mind. I have tried to interchange things on lenses from the same manufacturer and they did not go. No standardization internally so I would wager that this was the same builder WAY before I would say that two different manufacturers had EXACTLY the same build charateristics through and through.
My experience with trying to swap parts that did not fit include, hermagis, G&C and derogy to name three.
Some one added the G&C Sleeve to a original cone lens.
My experience with trying to swap parts that did not fit include, hermagis, G&C and derogy to name three.
I know Eddie can always come up with something interesting:-) Whether or not it is a G$CH sleeve on a Darlot cone, I am not sure. Maybe you are right but for what reason would G&Ch do that?
To answer Garrett's question: yes, this lens has all the letters for each part all the way down to G (on the rear rim). That is a little different from the Darlot lens. The letter G is finely engraved, doesn't look like some after thought work.
The more I thought about Eddie's theory, the more doubts I have; it is a lot more than just a sleeve, the engraving on the front rim is different (see: paysage picture) as well as how the hood is screwed on. The pill box is a little different (I will try to see if that thread will cross fit after I get home this afternoon). The overall patina looks uniform. Nothing seems to be modified or switched later on. If this is the only known G&Ch Cone, it should probably go to a meusum:-)
Louis Pacilla
20-Jan-2011, 08:38
Hi Tuant
Nice find my friend. I was wondering what focal length's your cones are? This will help give me an idea of the size of your 16x20 camera.:)
I have no theory on J&D & C&Ch who copied who.
BTW- What the serial # on your J&D cone? I own a 20" J&D cone serial #6863 signed by both J & D .
Everything is original EXCEPT the engravings of G&C sleeve.
G&C did not add the sleeve.... Some photographer on the last 100 years did it. The manufacturer did not do it....hell! I bet ocean-image or cameo-need-ham or Carla-8-schoolgirl did it!
Wanna bet?
cdholden
20-Jan-2011, 08:50
My gosh Jim, I'm with you. Can you imagine what Paris was like in 1851, with Daguerreotype studios everywhere taking plates of pretty Parisians? The cafes were there, then as now, but the dress, occupations, dreams, are all gone. Man, that's why I love these old lenses!
Garrett,
A bit off topic from the lenses, but I wanted to follow up on your comment anyway. I recently got an afternoon of peeking into the past. Not through the lens of old optics, but through the eyes of painters in that era. A local museum currently has an exhibit with many of the prominent Impressionists' paintings from the mid to late 1800s:
http://www.fristcenter.org/site/exhibitions/exhibitiondetail.aspx?cid=796
You see their view on the times; everything from war, politics, portrait settings, social gatherings (yes, including the cafes!), and even private places/events. Being a bit of a history buff, it was quite an afternoon for me to look through the eyes of someone living in that period. If you get a chance, I highly recommend viewing/visiting similar exhibits that you may have access to now or in the future.
Chris
Steven Tribe
20-Jan-2011, 08:53
I remember that Westlicht (?) had an auction of a big set of Jamin, Jamin/Darlot, Darlot CC objectives and there were quite a lot of differences in style - quite distinct from the size/focal length differences.
I think Eddie may have something. Engraving details are dependent on the person given that specific job that day.
I remember that Westlicht (?) had an auction of a big set of Jamin, Jamin/Darlot, Darlot CC objectives and there were quite a lot of differences in style - quite distinct from the size/focal length differences.
I think Eddie may have something. Engraving details are dependent on the person given that specific job that day.
Let me go home and check both out in detail before I put down my bet with Eddie. I don't want to lose:D
To Louis: Mine is about 19" and the serial on Darlot is about twice yours, so it is a Darlot instead of J&D. I have drooled over your beautiful J&D, love the lens cap especially :D
Mine has some edge blur on my 16x20 and that's why I have a different rear elements on sometimes for larger coverage. This one can show you why. There is only 2" of depth of field after I put this on and I love it:)
Louis Pacilla
20-Jan-2011, 09:53
Let me go home and check both out in detail before I put down my bet with Eddie. I don't want to lose:D
To Louis: Mine is about 19" and the serial on Darlot is about twice yours, so it is a Darlot instead of J&D. I have drooled over your beautiful J&D, love the lens cap especially :D
Mine has some edge blur on my 16x20 and that's why I have a different rear elements on sometimes for larger coverage. This one can show you why. There is only 2" of depth of field after I put this on and I love it:)
Hi Tuant
Love the plate you made . Great still life & best of all it's one of a kind.
Man that's a big front board on the 16x20. Is that 11" board? I remember when you ordered the camera. Now look at you. You go my friend.
I would love to see a full shot of the 16x20 camera. Did you post a sample photo of the camera in an earlier thread? you know, I'll check your post in your profile to see if you posted shoots of the big girl.
Well I checked & could not find any photos of the 16x20 posted here. Maybe you could add some shoots of the camera for your friend in Western PA.
Hi Tuant
I would love to see a full shot of the 16x20 camera. Did you post a sample photo of the camera in an earlier thread? you know, I'll check your post in your profile to see if you posted shoots of the big girl.
Well I checked & could not find any photos of the 16x20 posted here. Maybe you could add some shoots of the camera for your friend in Western PA.
Not a problem, Louis! I have posted some else where but here you go: the lens board is about 10". I will show off this 9LB Collinear lens mounted on the board as well as a landscape that I took with this lens. Please let me know which side you are on when I put down my bet with Eddie:D
Louis Pacilla
20-Jan-2011, 11:49
Not a problem, Louis! I have posted some else where but here you go: the lens board is about 10". I will show off this 9LB Collinear lens mounted on the board as well as a landscape that I took with this lens. Please let me know which side you are on when I put down my bet with Eddie:D
Thanks for posting shots of the camera, lens & most of all image taken with both.The camera is a thing of beauty but the image is fantastic. It gives me the feel of actually standing by the water side gazing on the old mill.
BTW-Whats the focal length of the 9lb Collinear?
As far as the bet goes, I,m not a betting man but lets just say I am. I would go with brother Eddie on this one. No Facts just a gut feeling.
goamules
20-Jan-2011, 12:43
I hear what Eddie is saying; that someone lost or broke that original Jamin part, and replaced it with a Gasc & Char that "happened to fit." But if you look, the sleeve part on both your lenses are unusually short. I've not seen many conventional petzvals where the sleave stops right above the focus knob. Tuant can see if it has been cut down....continue the research.
Hi Louis, it is the Collinear Series II No. 10. It should be around 640mm. Too bad you are not with me on this one:D
After some examination, I am ready to dig down and fight this out with Eddie. Here is the bet: every May I bring a barrel of German beer to his house. If more than half of the judges here say Eddie is right, I will bring two this May. Otherwise, I bring none and what's more, Eddie will have to serve me wine with a free dinner :D
Anyway, here is what I found out:
My Darlot serial no is around 13000. If you look on the front element writing, it actually says 1860 77.01 degree and signed by Darlot together with quite a few more words which I couldn't figure out. This is probably further proof that Darlot started around 1860 or even before that.
1. The G&CH sleeve has not been modified in any way. It looks perfectly made just for this lens. The pill box won't fit perfectly, nor does the water house.
2. The height of the rear cone is different. In every way G&CH is slightly larger except the sleeve which is about the same height as Darlot.
3. The front element with the hood has differnt height as you can see. I don't believe someone would go to such length as to manufacture both the sleeve as well as the hood.
4. On the Pill Box, there are markings of "VI" on the inner as well as the outer rim edges. I don't know what those are for. There are none on the Darlot. Darlot's pill box is heavier and better built which needs to be screwed on, while G&Ch is lighter and just needs to be pushed in.
5. I was unable to take apart both front and rear of the G&Ch elements. If successful, I can look at the edge of the element to see who signed them. If someone can tell me a secure way to take off the elements, please let me know. They look like they have never been messed with in the past 150 years.
I believe G&Ch made this lens and it should be a licensed copy. I accept Eddie's challenge :D
More here, one of them shows the Darlot in Paysage mode. i can't stop admiring how smart this design is! When in this mode, it covers 16x20 completely with just the largest water house on.
All right, the bet is off now :D Tried the cone lens today. Found a little model who was willing to sit for 20 seconds but he almost started to yawn at just 12 seconds so I had to put on the lens cap right there. I know it is a little too dark to many of you here :D
Hello, I don't know if this could help you.
I recently bought this Jamin Darlot" CC
It's engraved an early number 3543
and the signed lens is also dated 1860
It's a aprox 20" FL witch cover 11x14"
The cone is bare brass; I think that a previous owner prefered this more decorative look.
The flange and the pilbox also fit to a more recent version n°18010 wich is exactly the same but with no cone (it's not missing because there's a rear group lens)
The radial knob was missing on the early cone version and I could swap it from the other lens in order to have it complete for sale.
goamules
23-Jan-2011, 11:55
It always helps when you can match a serial number to a date, as written on your glass. Thanks!
Hello, I don't know if this could help you.
I recently bought this Jamin Darlot" CC
It's engraved an early number 3543
and the signed lens is also dated 1860
It's a aprox 20" FL witch cover 11x14"
The cone is bare brass; I think that a previous owner prefered this more decorative look.
The flange and the pilbox also fit to a more recent version n°18010 wich is exactly the same but with no cone (it's not missing because there's a rear group lens)
The radial knob was missing on the early cone version and I could swap it from the other lens in order to have it complete for sale.
Wow, Luphot, this is first time I see a cone lens with a brass cone. This is very interesting! I can see why many have argued over the serial number. Mine is a lot later and it is not even a Jamin anymore but on the elements, it still says 1860. One possibility is that Jamin made many of those elements before he handed over the business and that's why Darlot could continue to use them even though the serial number is much later. Interesting find and thanks for the post!
Tuant
Jim Galli
23-Jan-2011, 19:47
This forum is like first generation Saturday night live. We sit around and talk about our cones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD-vAWecEus&feature=related
"this is first time I see a cone lens with a brass cone."
Isn't it brass under your black paint cone?
I thought mine had been black before the black paint was remove by a previous owner.
Steven Tribe
24-Jan-2011, 02:57
1860 is the date which is usually given for the change over from Jamin & Darlot (various varieties!) to Darlot alone. It is quite possible for stocks of pre-made brass sleeves or lenses to have been around to create "mixes" of names during this period. Although not an CC owner, I have always assumed that the cone is blackened by the usual nitric acid process to create a mat black finish.
The Jamin - Jamin/Darlot - Darlot transition was due to Jamin's ill health/retirement and Darlot was already in Jamin's organisation.
1860 is the date which is usually given for the change over from Jamin & Darlot (various varieties!) to Darlot alone. It is quite possible for stocks of pre-made brass sleeves or lenses to have been around to create "mixes" of names during this period. Although not an CC owner, I have always assumed that the cone is blackened by the usual nitric acid process to create a mat black finish.
The Jamin - Jamin/Darlot - Darlot transition was due to Jamin's ill health/retirement and Darlot was already in Jamin's organisation.
There must be a stock pile of that that Darlot inherited from Jamin. He didn't realize that it will become such a headache for us cone owners 150 years later:-)
Hi Luphot,
I thought it was iron but I think you are right, it should be brass because I remember the threads are brass looking. I can double check to make sure. It is interesting to see all black paint worn off like that. Some one might have tried to polish it in the past.
Hi Jim,
Your cone link is a great one. I had a good laugh. The whole idea behind the cone is to prevent light from being bounced around inside. You can bet when a bunch of cones gather together, the conversation will become more and more interesting, as what is going on right here :D
Asher Kelman
26-Aug-2011, 10:03
Great thread! Bump for all the wonderful info!
Joe Smigiel
26-Aug-2011, 10:30
It sounds like none of the lens gurus has ever seen another G&C cone. Is it possible this example is a one-off? Maybe G&C obtained a Darlot cone, and copied it for personal use or just to see if he could actually make one. If G&C didn't manufacture for market a similar lens, would that still break the patent law?
Another possibility is that one of those lenses is made out of something like antimatter and if they touch, instant annihilation to both. To avoid that possibility, I suggest you separate the pair by a great distance and send one of those lenses to me. Either one. Shouldn't matter (or antimatter).
goamules
26-Aug-2011, 11:49
I had an European collector of quite a few years tell me in the early days Jamin and Darlot lenses were cloned. I have a unmarked lens that is identical to a Jamin Convertible (the "Can Type" rear instead of the "Cone"), even down to the alphabetical letter marks on each part. So they're out there.
It sounds like none of the lens gurus has ever seen another G&C cone. Is it possible this example is a one-off? Maybe G&C obtained a Darlot cone, and copied it for personal use or just to see if he could actually make one. If G&C didn't manufacture for market a similar lens, would that still break the patent law?
Another possibility is that one of those lenses is made out of something like antimatter and if they touch, instant annihilation to both. To avoid that possibility, I suggest you separate the pair by a great distance and send one of those lenses to me. Either one. Shouldn't matter (or antimatter).
Hi Joe,
With 11 cones on hand from small to mammoth, I can see that it was a clone but with a G&S touch: first, with all Jamin or Darlot cone at that range, you can interchange all backs and fronts but G&S has different threads even though everything else are identical. 2. Both Jamin and Darlot signed their glasses although some are either worn or erased later but G&S has a unique 3+3 digit numbers which match on the front and back, It is typical for G&S. 3. The space between the back elements are a little wider on G&S vs J&D. For this 14" range, I like the G&S better. It is softer than J&D but just perfect. i would be curious to see if there are any other cones out there. The cones are some very unique lenses. The more I have, the more I want to know. I now declare myself as the expert on cones, not the cone expert, please :D
Tuant
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.