Kodak Frankenshutter - It's alive! Alive!

[Steve Feldman]

"Yes master. It's alive. But maybe it's a monster." Move aside Igor and let's see what we have here:

At a recent yard sale, the seller said, "Just take the box full for $5.00". So I did. Wrapped in wax paper at the bottom of the box was a No. 2 Kodak Supermatic shutter with a Kodak Anastigmat F6.3 170mm lens. My first observation is that the Graphic shutter goes from f4.7 to f32. The lens is a f6.3. Result = Frankenshutter.

The shutter works fairly well. A soaking in Ronsonal my help. The lens is uncoated and is not in bad shape either. So, what to do with it? Will it cover 4x5? How do I reconcile the differentce 'tween the shutter's max apature (f4.7) and the lens's (f6.3).

Igor says to put it out for my next yard sale.

What does he know?

Picture attached - Hope it shows up properly. I'm kinda new to digital uploads. New age technology with old age brain here.

~Steve

[Stephanie Brim]

I would most likely put it on a camera and shoot with it, but probably stick to wide open. Mmm...wide open...

[Dan Fromm]

The shutter is probably scaled for a 127/4.7 Ektar, has had cells from a 170/6.3 Kodak Anastigmat put in it.

Two options. Have the shutter rescaled for the 170/6.3 and use it. Find how many stops the scale is off for the 170, then use it.

The 170/6.3 is probably a dialyte type and was probably originally on a No. 3A or No. 4 Folding Pocket Kodak. These shot 3 1/4 x 5 1/2 and 4 x 5 respectively. So the 170/6.3 had better cover 4x5.

Moving cells from one shutter to another without rescaling the shutter doesn't, IMO, make anything like Frankenstein's monster.

[Glenn Thoreson]

That 170/6.3 Anastigmat is actually a fine lens. It would have originally been in a Kodamatic shutter. The 6.3 Anastigmats were the sharpest of the bunch, none of which were stinkers.

[Phil]

http://www.ladyofthecake.com/mel/frank/sounds/alive.wav

and...

http://www.ladyofthecake.com/mel/frank/sounds/abby.wav

[Steve Feldman]

For Phil -

http://www.jahozafat.com/php/sounds/...le=thebags.wav

[JOSEPH ANDERSON]

DAN, I think your correct. THE 170/6.3 IS DIALYT TYPE. I read that some where years
ago. I can't remember ever seeing one that was coated.

JOE A

[Dan Fromm]

That 170/6.3 Anastigmat is actually a fine lens. It would have originally been in a Kodamatic shutter. The 6.3 Anastigmats were the sharpest of the bunch, none of which were stinkers.

Glenn, I have a 170/6.3 KA in an Ilex Universal. If you look in the Kodak catalogs at http://mgroleau.com/catalogues_kodak/ I think you'll find that EKCo used Ilex shutters as well as ones from B&L and Wollensak and, eventually, their own.

Joe, in this case of course I'm right. I have one and I took it apart. Everything unscrews, the cells from the shutter and the biconcave inner elements from the cells. I laid out $10 for shutter and lens so that I could take it apart and see whether the lens was a dialyte or a triplet. Dialyte. That said, I continue to believe, with no solid information to support the belief, that some f/6.3 Kodak Anastigmats are triplets.

Cheers,

Dan