PDA

View Full Version : lusting over some lenses



jp
24-Jun-2014, 14:25
I'm not trying to sell these; don't take that the wrong way and PM me asking for them. I don't even own them. If I'm a good boy I might get to borrow them. They are interesting.

First up is a Pinkham and Smith No 2b series IV.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-JTTovV5bwws/U6nnPRZmOcI/AAAAAAAAAlQ/C6yR5LuurmQ/w1141-h856-no/IMG_20140624_152821.jpg

It has handwritten 15" on it, but I'm guessing that's not quite right. Perhaps the owner estimated it to be that?

Jim Galli says there are two. Does this mean there are two variants or only a couple made?
http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-93931.html

Sales records indicate one changing hands in 2012.
http://antiquecameras.net/softfocuslenssales.html

Does it have a predictable value? I know I could list it on ebay, but an educated guess would make this interesting.

2nd up is a strange thing... It's a beastly lens with "Jamin Darlot Paris" in an unusual font. Is it for real or a fake?

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-10LCUTNVNOE/U6nRwpYgvQI/AAAAAAAAAjg/dELnQe__FLY/w1141-h856-no/IMG_20140624_152955.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-leUY_9zVhTU/U6nR69wK-rI/AAAAAAAAAjs/4336LzJOXnM/w1141-h856-no/IMG_20140624_153036.jpg

It does not have any model numbers or importer description or serial numbers, or maybe I was not thorough looking. I did not remove a lens element to see if the glass is signed on the edge.

Found a few other cool old things too.

Steven Tribe
24-Jun-2014, 15:44
I can't see anything wrong with the brasswork and construction - it does show features of several varieties of convertable Petzvals from them.

There are number of versions of the Jamin/Darlot text and serial numbers are not always present. The address is most often present. I can't find an exact match for the Jamin Darlot as engraved (D'Agostini book) - but the general "double thickness" engraving with a "shadow effect" is a feature of similar engravings from the same period at the start of the 1860's.

I don't think B. F. of Boston was active as early as this and other importers did not find it necessary to add their own names.

I can also see no reason why the "forgers" should have chosen this short period of joint names - and why make a short run of extremely complex brass parts which would have cost a lot of skilled hours?

Jim Galli
24-Jun-2014, 16:10
Quite the stash. Please make sure Amedeus has the serial no. on the Pinkham. The more data we put in a reliable data base, the less internet guessing has to supply the only data we even have. A Series IV #3 is 14" so the 2B is less than. I figure mine is 13 1/4" focus or thereabouts. Superb lenses both.

OK, so what is the backstory. You've got our attention.

Steven Tribe
24-Jun-2014, 16:14
Lens lust is a dangerous thing!

I have my own example.

This was ebay 131210985645 which was not the usual Petzval it appeared to be.

The lister read the engraving as:

Photograph(X)
two unreadable words!
Paris

Then there was a six figure number with a M in front.


My reading ( and a few others, I think) was:

Photographe
Verres CombinÚs
Paris

This is the gold winning construction by Chevalier in 1840 - but couldn't compete with Petzvals design in the period that followed.
I certainly didn't think this is a Chevalier lens, unless Chevalier used a very different engraving style occasionally and forgot his address.

The M six figure number could well be a museum accessions number.

goamules
24-Jun-2014, 18:15
Me too! I'm calling into an auction the next couple of hours, hoping to win some pretty rare things! It must be the season for that!

On your brass Jamin, I'm sure it's real. They made many, many varieties of lenses, and their markings varied quite a bit. With Jamin on the outside, it's fairly early, I'm not sure the exact date, but pre 1870. It does seem strange 'Rue Chapon' or whatever it is isn't on it, being early, but I'm sure they sometimes left it off, as they did later. There is a small chance it was made by someone else, and engraved to mimic the well known company. But even if so, it's still an interesting lens that would probably shoot well. I had a fake Darlot or two, but they're not common.

jp
24-Jun-2014, 19:15
Thanks Steven; I don't have that book, but your pointers have helped show other lenses with similar typeface, including the terrible kerning of Paris. Still don't know why it doesn't have any other markings. I also did not know the time period of the B F Boston importer

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ogEZjF7vmXY/U6nSEyExnTI/AAAAAAAAAkE/ImeFmOxEb44/w625-h833-no/IMG_20140624_153112.jpg
Here's a flash powder holder (I think) There's a bigger flash powder device too which is about 16" wide at the top.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ZMoKmX-LmcU/U6nPgl4FNAI/AAAAAAAAAfM/y-ESP7rDdIc/w625-h833-no/IMG_20140624_151951.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-n8j-0cCN40o/U6nPbrKYZXI/AAAAAAAAAe0/oudW-wCcFXg/w625-h833-no/IMG_20140624_151931.jpg

A Darlot wide angle lens

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-a_yVmrErwZM/U6nQEiY49uI/AAAAAAAAAgU/oLaXfO1LwKE/w625-h833-no/IMG_20140624_152236.jpg
really nice ICA film holders (and ica Minimum Palmos like here: http://camarasclassicas.blogspot.com/2011/07/27-ica-minimum-palmos.html )

Several cameras, enlargers, lots of books/catalogs from a hundred years ago, etc... more cameras... Items donated to a local organization I help from time to time.

jp
24-Jun-2014, 19:24
Thanks Garrett!

Here's a plasmatlinse 16" appearing to have something missing? I assume there is more than one group as the clean threads indicate something got unscrewed and grew legs. I thought it was odd a german lens would be marked in inches rather than metric.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-JXvyKC-SUnU/U6nShnAODJI/AAAAAAAAAlA/nSegmHzEUdM/w1111-h833-no/IMG_20140624_153311.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-C4gXMCRVA0w/U6nSd0_U_sI/AAAAAAAAAk0/GjiUABx5XqM/w1111-h833-no/IMG_20140624_153247.jpg

A wray london whole plate lens...
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-H-0rAv2WgJc/U6nPQAQmU6I/AAAAAAAAAec/oQa5NqLdV_4/w625-h833-no/IMG_20140624_151912.jpg

Amedeus
24-Jun-2014, 21:29
Do I read the serial number right here as #2553 on the P&S ?

This would be the fourth 2b I know about. The first three have serial numbers 2513, 2516 and 2518 ... within 5 consecutive numbers which made for speculation that there would only be 5 made as the 2b never made it into any catalog or published listing as far as I know.

I bought the one in 2012 ... focal length is as Jim said a little over 13".


I'm not trying to sell these; don't take that the wrong way and PM me asking for them. I don't even own them. If I'm a good boy I might get to borrow them. They are interesting.

First up is a Pinkham and Smith No 2b series IV.

It has handwritten 15" on it, but I'm guessing that's not quite right. Perhaps the owner estimated it to be that?

Jim Galli says there are two. Does this mean there are two variants or only a couple made?
http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-93931.html

Sales records indicate one changing hands in 2012.
http://antiquecameras.net/softfocuslenssales.html

Does it have a predictable value? I know I could list it on ebay, but an educated guess would make this interesting.

John Kasaian
24-Jun-2014, 22:03
You realize that after 100 years or so of use, it is quite likely that by now all the "really good" pictures have been extracted from those lenses and only the mediocre pictures would have been left in.:rolleyes:

Steven Tribe
25-Jun-2014, 00:02
I like your ethics!

Here is a table of some of the "commonly found" styles of engraving in the period between Jamin and Darlot. I am sure Corrado will appreciate the mention. His dating is probably quite near.

jp
25-Jun-2014, 03:37
Do I read the serial number right here as #2553 on the P&S ?

This would be the fourth 2b I know about. The first three have serial numbers 2513, 2516 and 2518 ... within 5 consecutive numbers which made for speculation that there would only be 5 made as the 2b never made it into any catalog or published listing as far as I know.

I bought the one in 2012 ... focal length is as Jim said a little over 13".

2553 is correct; Thanks Rudi

Peter Gomena
25-Jun-2014, 10:16
You realize that after 100 years or so of use, it is quite likely that by now all the "really good" pictures have been extracted from those lenses and only the mediocre pictures would have been left in.:rolleyes:

Hmm, I take the opposite stance on this idea. It usually takes me many exposures to work the mistakes out of any photographic gear that is new to me. Nice try, though, John!

I'm personally running out of patience for the moment when I run across a stash of ignored, unwanted and forgotten glass like this one.

Jim Galli
25-Jun-2014, 10:28
Well, the Model T confirms that this lot (including the car) is meant to come to Tonopah!

greenbank
29-Jun-2014, 13:26
You realize that after 100 years or so of use, it is quite likely that by now all the "really good" pictures have been extracted from those lenses and only the mediocre pictures would have been left in.:rolleyes:

Not necessarily. If the lens has been properly stored, well away from darkroom chemicals, there could be a fair bit of the good stuff left. Alternatively, it may have been pickled in vintage brandy - in which case, you can get some amazing images out of it (don't use it on a camera: just shut your eyes and sniff the fumes).

These uncoated optics are sometimes known as "philosophers' lenses" because of all the internal reflections; think pure thoughts when using them, and you could get lucky.