Buy a museum quality camera or not

[Pawlowski6132]

So, I have an opportunity to buy a pretty remarkable camera. It's a 5x7 camera from around 1900. It is in the original leather box with 10 original wooden film holders. There's a pneumatic Wollensak lens. The whole thing looks like it's brand new. It's really eerie.

Anywho, I won't buy it unless I can get it for what I want. But, I would only buy it if I can use it. Or, should I buy it and just sit on it? I'm not really a collector but, this seems like a collectors item because of it's age and condition. It's at least 100 years old.

If I buy it, I want to use it.

What would you do???

[richardman]

Cameras are for using, and I would think that unless the camera has some significance, the fact that it's in great conditions might not mean too much since I do not thin there is a big community of large format camera collectors (vs. say Leica collectors)?

[Tin Can]

Buy it and use it.

There are still many more in hiding, it won't be the last mint one, I can nearly guarantee that.

Have fun and don't worry. Jay Leno drives all his very fancy cars, I watched a video of him doing just that tonight. He was having fun, not bragging and not worrying about value.

Some collect for use and feel very lucky they can do it. Imagine the future when self driven cars are banned. Then film and all chems are banned. These are the good old days.

You sure can't take it with you. While, I also wait for an eBay treasure, a mint camera, that nobody else wanted and I am glad nobody does. All for me...

[analoguey]

Use and it probably maintain it well, so that it looks new? Best of both worlds, maybe?

[Regular Rod]

So, I have an opportunity to buy a pretty remarkable camera. It's a 5x7 camera from around 1900. It is in the original leather box with 10 original wooden film holders. There's a pneumatic Wollensak lens. The whole thing looks like it's brand new. It's really eerie.

Anywho, I won't buy it unless I can get it for what I want. But, I would only buy it if I can use it. Or, should I buy it and just sit on it? I'm not really a collector but, this seems like a collectors item because of it's age and condition. It's at least 100 years old.

If I buy it, I want to use it.

What would you do???

I have done almost the same thing. I bought a beautiful whole plate camera made in 1907 and completely unused. It had not a mark on it... Until I used it! I misaligned the screw from the tripod to the brass bush and caught the unmarked wooden underside of the camera base making a rub mark. It was a sickening moment. Now what to do? Do I carry on "damaging" it in day-to-day use or do I find a museum that wants it? It's sturdy, rock solid on the tripod, heavy, which is an advantage in the wind. I want to use it but my favourite hunting grounds for photographs are the rivers and woods on the Peak District in Derbyshire. My cameras are exposed to rain, mud, snow and so on, after all they are tools, but they are replaceable tools. I know I'll spoil its pristine condition just about each time I use it.

I ended up getting another whole plate camera that is already beaten up so can be used with impunity...

You have a quandary and as someone almost in the same shoes as you, I don't know what is the best course of action. It's alright for fellows who have not had the same puzzle to say "Use it!" but they don't really understand as it hasn't happened to them - yet!

:D

RR

[Andrew Plume]

it's very likely that the holders are the old US Dry plate style ones, if so and assuming that you're going to use film, you may have to line the holders with a glass sheet, having said that they may be pukka film ones

good luck anyhow and as Randy says, there's plenty more out there

rgds

andrew

[Regular Rod]

it's very likely that the holders are the old US Dry plate style ones, if so and assuming that you're going to use film, you may have to line the holders with a glass sheet, having said that they may be pukka film ones

good luck anyhow and as Randy says, there's plenty more out there

rgds

andrew

Where? Seriously I'd like to know and I bet I'm not alone...

RR

[Andrew Plume]

Where? Seriously I'd like to know and I bet I'm not alone...

RR

RR, Hi

well, leaving aside the typically high European prices for 'wood and brass' Cameras, you can't go wrong BY signing up with the Leica Shop in Vienna, they'll send you updates with details of their new stock. Here's a link to one of their pages:-

http://www.leicashop.com/vintage_en/various-cameras/wooden-cameras.html

rgds, andrew

[Andrew Plume]

said Store also have a very decent Dubroni 'wet plate starter kit' too

.............yep

rgds, andrew

[Drew Bedo]

Sure: Buy it and USE it.

However, I would say that I for one, look on the "ownership" of these old cameras more as stewardship. We are curators of these fine instruments. I feel that we are holding them on loan from the previous "owner" to be passed on, in turn, to someone else many years later.

Get and use it—but keep the kit intact.

[goamules]

by 1900 cameras were made during the industrial age. Neither one of you that are worried about use mention the brand. But most companies by then made thousands of cameras. Cameras were always expensive, so they were kept in good condition. Then, as now, photographers would buy one, use it for a year, then put it away never to be touched again. They are not "heavy use" items anyway, they aren't left out in the rain, they don't get damaged much at all, compared to other items, like say, horse buggies. The ones that are damaged are from improper storage, in wet basements, in brightly sun-lit display windows, etc. A camera kept in it's case usually looks about like it did when new.

On "museums" no museum wants old 1900s cameras. Why? Too many were made. They typically don't want mint condition early electric toasters, Victrolas, or early Telephones either. By the way, there are more collectors of those three things than of cameras, for some strange reason. And s scratch on a tripod plate is not really damning damage. Gun and Tiffany lamp collectors worry about scratches, wood camera collectors don't. I pay about $200 - $400 for mint condition early 1900s cameras. People ask the same price, or more, on Ebay for poor condition cameras. The rare ones are mid 1800s cameras, before the industrial age.

Using a camera should mean no wear. If you accidentally damage it with a smudge on the wood, a raindrop mark on the bellows, it doesn't impact it's value, unless you roll it down a cliff. Why not use it?

[Michael Roberts]

As it happens, I've got seven of these on my workbench at the moment, though I would not characterize any of them as necessarily museum quality or looking brand new. What you will find on ebay or in antique shops is that cameras in like-new condition are priced in the $250-400 range, while cameras with worn leather coverings go for more like $150-250. Without a lens and if the leather and/or bellows is really bad, they may sell for under $100.

I typically strip off the old leather and refinish the mahogany since it is nearly impossible to restore the leather and I like the look of the refinished wood much better.

In any event, I would encourage you to buy the camera and use it. Two caveats with these cameras: (1) they were made for 1/8th in plates, not film, so the T-distance is off from modern holders and (2) the channel for the film holder light trap rib is likely not the right distance from the end of the film holder to fit modern holders. So, if you want to use the camera with modern film holders, you will need to (1) remove the gg frame and add a 1/8th inch spacer to the inside of the gg frame, and (2) carve out (or route) a new channel for the film holder rib to fit into.

I think these cameras are great fun so I encourage you to buy, use it, and enjoy it!

[mdarnton]

I wouldn't do it. Just because you can mess up something nice, that isn't a good reason. Stuff like this becomes rarer and rarer as time goes by, because people think that one camera is just one camera. Pretty soon there aren't any.

[Liquid Artist]

I have a Calumet that was heavily used by the local university to teach photography.
Other than it missing the front tag and one or two scratches it still looks and works like new.
However, like others have said it was always stored in the proper case. Which does show heavy signs of use.
Oh, the Schneider lens has a Rodenstock shutter, so my guess is that they wore out the original.

[Richard Wasserman]

+1 Said as someone who owned an antique business.



I wouldn't do it. Just because you can mess up something nice, that isn't a good reason. Stuff like this becomes rarer and rarer as time goes by, because people think that one camera is just one camera. Pretty soon there aren't any.

[Regular Rod]

RR, Hi

well, leaving aside the typically high European prices for 'wood and brass' Cameras, you can't go wrong BY signing up with the Leica Shop in Vienna, they'll send you updates with details of their new stock. Here's a link to one of their pages:-

http://www.leicashop.com/vintage_en/various-cameras/wooden-cameras.html

rgds, andrew


Thanks Andrew. That's a very interesting site...

I've put it as a "favorite"!

RR

[Jac@stafford.net]

by 1900 cameras were made during the industrial age.

Like many here, I have some of those cameras. Utilitarian was the aesthetic. Wood and brass were simply the most economical materials. I find no good woodworking in any of them. Woods were mismatched, parts just thrown together, grain was generally irrelevant, wood was usually of the African mahogany family which was chosen because it had a relatively consistent constitution and enabled uncritical assembly.

An interesting aside - during one of Deardorff's several difficult times, one of which was during the USA's prohibition, he found caches of bar room tables and used them for some cameras; while durable, nonetheless there was little effort to match grain and woods. They were what I call military grade.
.

[goamules]

I strongly disagree, unless you are talking about the Kodak 2D, which was a rough, utilitarian camera. They bought out Century because of the competition from Century's high quality. Eastman bought them out, then slowly changed them to the lower "Kodak Brownie" quality to sell more of them. But they were from the 1920s and 30s. The cameras from a generation earlier, from the 1870s to the 1910s were the peak of American craftsmanship. Just like the Waltham and Elgin pocketwatches, the number of manhours, materials, and quality from that period has never been topped. Not from a Deardorff, not from a Wista....none of them compare to a 1898 Rochester, or a 1901 Century.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7087/6964692190_4680f0b735_c.jpg

Here is my Rochester Universal, I use it all the time. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?90081-Rochester-Universal-American-Beauty The mahogany is AAA grade, the woodworking fantastic. Later, Kodak and Deardorff bought what they could, and usually slapped dark stain over it because it was poor grade. Compare.

Did the OP ever state what KIND of camera he's looking at? There were a couple cheaper brands, but most of the cameras made in Rochester, NY in the early 1900s are fantastic. All the cameras made in England during that period are.

[goamules]

I wouldn't do it. Just because you can mess up something nice, that isn't a good reason. Stuff like this becomes rarer and rarer as time goes by, because people think that one camera is just one camera. Pretty soon there aren't any.

So, exactly what should be done instead? There is a nice Century sitting on a shelf collecting dust at an antique shop here. It's getting beat around by lookers, the owner has to high a price on it. One day, he dies, and the camera becomes another decorator item in someones basement, or gets thrown away. Camera users appreciate them, share the knowledge, and preserve them better than people that barely know what an old wooden camera is. Those people eventually destroy the camera from lack of caring or storing in a hot attic.

Antique collectors and users are the ones preserving their history. They know the items function, preservation, and use better than some money grubbing flipper on Antiques Road Show. People "use" 1700s Federalist tables, 1870s Waltham pocketwatches, 1870s Sharps rifles and don't worry about it. They preserve and protect while they used them.

Explain to me how looking at a camera's ground glass, and sliding a waxed film holder in, and gently focusing it, can "mess up something nice" or "damage" a camera? Most people LIKE to use "something nice." I sure won't be vacuum sealing mine in a clear polyurethane cube, for some "museum" in 300 years. By your reasoning anything of quality should never be touched again...for some future generation? Sheeze....

[Tin Can]

I have 2 hobbies. LF Photography is the second one. I have bought, collected and rode over 200 motorcycles. I Usually own from 3 to 10 at any one time. I have learned from experience to buy the best example, preferably unmolested and one owner. The additional cost of a 'mint' camera or motorcycle is cheaper than restoration or simple repairs. My latest bike is 18 years old, but most think it is new, and it was the cheapest one I found. I got lucky after a long 5 state search.

A great user camera is nearly 'mint' with light tight bellows, that are good for several more years. GG can be made. Cameras from the Industrial era, as Garrett points out, are often in great condition, because they were stored in a sacrificial case with all accessories. That's what you buy.

I am currently collecting an odd camera series, which right now nobody wants, but I like them, and no I won't share the era or make. But my most recent camera, which is not yet delivered, sold for 1/3 the original listing. 22 people were watching and when the thing went down to the 5th reduction of 'Buy it Now', I jumped on it as, anymore waiting was going to mean I would not get it.

A few more $$$ spent for a better anything is always the wisest choice.

[Regular Rod]

It depends on the conditions you are going to work in.

RR

[Tin Can]

Really, under what conditions do you want a device that is not 100%?


It depends on the conditions you are going to work in.

RR

[BrianShaw]

...
What would you do???

If it wasn't "stupid expensive" I'd just buy it.

[Michael Carter]

What you need is what you want. Stupid expansive or not I went and bought a 12x15inch 100 year old or so Vageeswari camera from India with accessories. They just do not come up for sale very often. The 10x12s do and I have two of them... And others of different sizes. I focused my collecting and use on Dry Plate Photography so the cameras get used for what they were made for. 10 plate holders would be really great to have. One is the usual if any are offered at all with the sale of an old camera.

[dsphotog]

Or.... Also buy a cheap beater camera, and use the hell out of it.

[goamules]

......

[neil poulsen]

If you want a user, I would say, buy a user. There are collectors who value old cameras in great condition.

Plus, it's my experience that really old cameras don't have the features, stability, or usability of more modern versions. Over the years, camera functionality has improved. So, the value of those older cameras are in their condition. "Use" one, and if you decide you need something better or different, it won't have the resale value of something that's more recent.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Be sure to look carefully at the bellows from the inside and test it for leaks if you can. I have a beautiful looking pre-WWI 7x17" that required a lot of bellows gluing and patching to make it useable. Over time, some can just delaminate. Really I should replace the bellows at some point.

If the bellows is trash, it may still be worth purchasing, but budget a few hundred dollars for a new bellows as part of the cost.

[Regular Rod]

Really, under what conditions do you want a device that is not 100%?
Oh don't misunderstand me. I want as near 100% optics, stability, shutter, light tightness as I can get. New cameras like my Shen Hao I can risk as it is easily replaceable. Beaters like my MPP and my Kodak Model B are functionally almost perfect and any future repairs don't need to be "restoration quality", but my 1907 Gundlach is original and as new (apart from the mark I made) and is, as far as I can tell, very difficult to replace and I'm unlikely to ever see one like it again. Methinks it is destined to be used indoors for its foreseeable future. It's been near a river once but luckily the rain started just after I'd used my last sheet and packed it all away...

RR

[Jac@stafford.net]

I strongly disagree, unless you are talking about the Kodak 2D, which was a rough, utilitarian camera. They bought out Century because of the competition from Century's high quality. Eastman bought them out, then slowly changed them to the lower "Kodak Brownie" quality to sell more of them. But they were from the 1920s and 30s. The cameras from a generation earlier, from the 1870s to the 1910s were the peak of American craftsmanship [...] compare to a 1898 Rochester, or a 1901 Century.

Thank you for that, Garrett. I have a Century No. 1 in good condition and never appreciated it. It will likely be the next camera I sell. (I have become fond of the Green Monster because of its very accurate ground glass and steadiness in a breeze.)

Perhaps you can help me. The No. 1's extension rail has a stamped number on the end which matches the number on the front rail. Do you know if that is typical?

[Leszek Vogt]

So, I have an opportunity to buy a pretty remarkable camera. It's a 5x7 camera from around 1900. It is in the original leather box with 10 original wooden film holders. There's a pneumatic Wollensak lens. The whole thing looks like it's brand new. It's really eerie.

Anywho, I won't buy it unless I can get it for what I want. But, I would only buy it if I can use it. Or, should I buy it and just sit on it? I'm not really a collector but, this seems like a collectors item because of it's age and condition. It's at least 100 years old.

If I buy it, I want to use it.

What would you do???

Sometimes the price isn't right, but a 5x7 tends to call for a different approach. I saw one on CL (v. similar *age too* to yours), except it showed quite a bit of use. The guy wanted $300....and I was hesitant. It was a rare opportunity and because of 5x7 film availability or lack thereof (particularly color). At that point I was thinking of refurbishing as best as possible and put it behind the glass. Although I knew that I could cut it down from 8x10 raw stock....I questioned the expense + effort. But, I finally decided on exclusive B&W use. I offered the buyer a price that I'd be comfy with...and left it at that. He got back to me in few days and agreed to it....the lack of 5x7 films played an enormous part in this transaction. Oh, and I got a real nice Voightlander 203mm F5.4, which was part of the package, but it felt as if it was at no charge.

Either way, I decided to refurb it and use it as long as the film and chemicals are available. I can always put this thing in glass, since I don't abuse equipment. New bellows for this rig cost me $260 - they had to be replaced. Most likely, your lens may need some CLA too...then again, maybe not.

Anyway, if the price is right (or you can negotiate one) if you feel squeamish about using such equipment, my advise is to buy it and put it behind the glass....or sell it to a collector. If you still want a 5x7 to use, get a beater without worrying of abusing it. That's just my mo.

Les

[invisibleflash]

if price is ok for shooting, I'd use it.

If I was a collector I'd fondle it.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Perhaps you can help me. The No. 1's extension rail has a stamped number on the end which matches the number on the front rail. Do you know if that is typical?

This seems to be true of many wooden cameras, that fitted parts would be numbered so they could be matched through the assembly process. It's also the case with lenses to keep front and rear cells together.

[Peter Gomena]

Collecting and using can be, but are not always, two different things.

Do you want to use the camera or do you want to put it in a display case? Both are legitimate uses for a "mint" camera, I suppose.

I've owned three antiques, none of them "mint," and I've enjoyed using all of them. I think the connection to their history is part of the joy. I feel privileged to use them, and I treat them with a little more respect for having survived. They reward me with images that look and feel a little different than pictures made with a new camera, even when I use them with modern lenses. I think they simply put me in a different frame of mind. I would buy any like-new antique camera I encounter if I have the funds available, just so I can use it. What a treat!

I've never owned a camera that I have not used. The new wooden 4x5 camera I bought in 1990 now has the patina, scratches, scars and dents of nearly a quarter-century of use. It does not detract from its utility or beauty in my opinion, though the resale price might be affected, should I ever decide to sell it. I see the same camera in truly mint condition showing up for sale on this forum for little more than the original price I paid for mine, so condition and value aren't always connected.

Buy it, use it, love it, enjoy it. Polish it up and put in in a display case when you don't use it any more. It will look beautiful for having been handled.

[ImSoNegative]

I just bought an imperial whole plate camera, with the old wolly lens and 5 plate holders with film sheaths for less than what the holders would sale for, this camera is beautiful as is the lens, the holders look like they have been barely used, I shot with it yesterday for the first time using 5x7 film, probably the first time it had been used in decades, i would get it

[Kevin Crisp]

I happened upon a NOS Deardorff 5X7 w/o front swings. With the exception of a couple finish checks in the lacquer, it looked like it was made last week. Original bellows (kind of black cardboard I've never seen on a Deardorff.) I bought it to use it, I don't see any reason not to. I take very good care of it on account of its condition and it still looks like new going on 5 years. If I am going into a very hot desert area, I'll take the Canham metal one. I never considered not using it, I was just pleased I'd found one in such nice shape.

[Michael Roberts]

A great user camera is nearly 'mint' with light tight bellows, that are good for several more years. GG can be made. Cameras from the Industrial era, as Garrett points out, are often in great condition, because they were stored in a sacrificial case with all accessories. That's what you buy.

A few more $$$ spent for a better anything is always the wisest choice.

Not necessarily, or not for everyone. Some of us enjoy restoring and using vintage cameras that are not in mint condition. One of my favorite cameras over the years is an original 1947 Crown Graphic I picked up on ebay for $15. It had no back, no rangefinder, copper oxide blisters that made the Moroccan leather look like ostrich, and holes in the bellows. I stripped the leather, refinished the mahogany, recovered the aluminum base, slapped on a Graphic spring back, patched the bellows and have put more film through that camera than any of my other 4x5s over the last 10 years. It goes anywhere, sets up fast, and I don't worry about damaging it.

I can understand the thrill of finding a vintage camera or motorcycle in mint condition to use and enjoy, but there is a different kind enjoyment in rescuing one of these cameras that is headed for the garbage dump, working on it, and bringing it back to life and usefulness.