Knuckle-headed?

[dap]

>


Hmm. I disagree, I think users are driving these Cooke prices, not collectors - particularly the longer focal lengths. To me, these Cooke lenses arent that collectible because they were made for 50 years, plenty survive today and they are regularly found in the marketplace (ebay).. In my opinion, users are driving these lenses up in price.....

And, unlike most other antique lenses, with Cooke lenses, users tend to favor the newer versions (knuckles) and shun the earlier (pre WW1) versions.

Dan

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. One of the longest running threads on this forum is dedicated to exclusively values of old soft focus lenses. The data that mined from this thread ends up on your website which has become a defacto price guide for soft focus lenses. If you look at the names posting to the big lens thread you'll notice that the majority are repeat/regular posters to that thread. Dare I say that most of them would be considered collectors ( whether or not they use said lenses is irrelevant - accumulation is collection). Granted this thread just reports prices, but I do think that the bulk of data as a whole is being used as a tool for determining prices for lenses offered for sale (and is being used by bidders at auctions to establish personal bid limits). If the bulk of soft focus lens sales where being driven by one off "users" I don't think there would be enough organization or interest to establish any kind of price guide (no matter how casual).

Regarding scarcity of cookes - rarity is not the only factor that determines the prices of collectibles. In my mind, overall desirability trumps rarity in determining collector value - cooke knucklers are desirable hence the high values.

[Mark Sawyer]

The Cooke is simply the most elegant of lens designs; three single elements zero out all seven aberrations, and still lets one selectively put back in the one sometimes-desirable aberration, (spherical aberration).

I've used (and still use) several Knucklers and pre-Knuckler portrait lenses, and they give very similar results. The real difference in results comes with different maximum apertures. An f/3.5 goes noticeably softer than an f/4.5; I'd say the f/3.5 approaches a true Pictorial-style soft focus (though still not as soft as a Verito, Plasticca, or Imagon), while the f/4.5 is more a Portrait-style soft focus, softening the texture of the skin, but not screaming "Look, I'm soft!" An f/5.6 just kinda hints at a trace of softness, and doesn't stand with the faster versions as a (capital letter) Pictorial or Portrait lens, though its still a lovely (lower case) portrait lens. (Just my opinion, but it's an opinion drawn from experience.)

All this said, what surprises me is not so much that Knucklers go for more, but that maximum aperture size seems to count relatively little towards the price.

And for all the money often spent on cult lenses, Cooke's are one of the few that really deserve to go for a lot. They're pretty special...

[CCHarrison]

One of the longest running threads on this forum is dedicated to exclusively values of old soft focus lenses. .

I am aware, I started that thread.

I think defining what we mean by "collectors" vs. "users" is important.

How I define collectors (brief definition) are folks who primarily collect early lenses for their historical value and dont use them (other than to test drive or occasional use)...Lenses become shelf queens to be studied, researched and cared for. "Users" use lenses more regularly and do so for the look the lens produces (and they may also enjoy the historical aspect of the lenses). I feel that "users" of SF lenses have driven up prices, and much of that was started by Jim Galli (not a criticism)... This also coincided with alternative proceses taking off the last decade which further pushed prices worldwide (users)... 15-20 years ago, this wasnt the case. Most lenses, Petzval and SF, could be had for very short dollars, "back in the day." Collectors didnt increase but users sure have....

Many of the folks in this forum I would consider "users." Thats not to say that you cant be a user and a collector, but most folks shelling out these big bucks on SF these days arent putting these away in cabinets like I do

Take someone like G. Berliner. He has a huge and important lens collection, but I would consider him a user more than a collector, because he shoots with many of his items.... perhaps he considers himself to be both.

Further, much of the discussion on this and other threads are about the look these lenses produce - as a collector of early lenses - that matters little to me. In most case I could care less. Would I love a Dag era Chevalier lens? You bet. Do I care about the image it produces? Not one bit...... And I think I do a fair job representing collectors. And as a collector of early cameras, I dont care about the quality of image they can take, but I do care about their place in the history of photography.

How about we take a poll ? It could all come down to how "collectors" and "users" are defined and how folks see themselves.

Thanks
Dan

[dap]

When I think of "collector" I think of somebody who purposely accumulates a certain type of doodad in excess of any rational need. I don't think the motivation behind the collecting (or whether or not they actually use the stuff they collect) matters all that much...they are still collectors. How many soft focus lenses/cameras/etc. does one person really need (even if they are an active photographer)?

When I think of a strict "user", I think of somebody that uses a tool to perform a job - nothing more nothing less. They might very well prize the quality of the lens and take pride in owning/using it, but they aren't obsessive about it or interested in accumulating more of the same just for the sake of having more.

Just for the record - I am not passing any judgements (I have more lenses than I rationally need )

[Amedeus]

It's easy to go from a "user" to go to a "collector" ... I do both ... I also collect other objects, not just lenses ... we are after all hunters/gatherers ;-)

Not sure what defines "rational need" ... my best guess is that will be different for each person ... I shoot with my lenses. I also display them. And I'll take one of each ;-) I like the history and the technology behind them, sometimes I like the mystique and the stories ...

YMMV

[goamules]

I've thought about how and why some men (and women of course) collect for a long time. There is a deep-seated need to gather because of a desire for knowledge or just for the challenge of the hunt. I honestly feel some of the roots of this personality are based on our tens of thousands of years as hunter gatherers. We needed to find the best hunting ground, or the best berry patch, to survive and help our family unit.

Closely related is the desire to compete. The Indian with the most feathers on his coup stick was competing. So is the collector that posts in forums or goes to club show and tells with "this week's find." These people are hunting, and they want to show the proof that they are good hunters.

I have found that many, many men cannot be satisfied with just one. Of anything. If they discover the beauty and usefulness of Coleman Lanterns, after they buy one, soon, they buy another. Then another. They get a red one, then they want two red ones. Soon, it's a garage full and they are going to every garage sale every weekend. Same with antique guns, paintings, motorcycles, coins, stamps....on and on. The psychological high you get when you discover the first item, clean it, learn to use it, can happen over and over again. Examples:

http://www.colemancollectorsforum.co...ine-up-6790235
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...hreadid=133005
http://www.coltforum.com/forums/pyth...-complete.html

But you can go to any topic area and find people that buy, and buy, and buy...sometimes identical items. And it doesn't have to be just big spenders. I had an arrowhead collecting friend in NM. Every weekend, month after month, year after year, he went out for 8 hours each day hunting arrowheads. Or look at fishermen....or.....

[goamules]

What has changed in 10 or 15 years is the scope and magnitude of collectors. This does rise and fall with the tides of popularity. But to me the biggest contributor to increasing the number of collectors in all fields, the size of their collections, and the speed at which they grow is the Internet. In the past there were collectors, but only those that were so obsessed or dedicated that they joined clubs, went to shows, or just quietly collected for their own edification. Today, anyone can surf to a web forum, get stoked, and start shopping on Ebay that minute! Then they can post their bragging rights immediately on Forums. All from the comfort of their home. I've heard many old time collectors say that when the internet came, suddenly what took them a lifetime of searching could be acquired in just 1 year.