Kodak Eastman View 2D: Serial Numbers?

[Drew Bedo]

Looking at Kodak 2D cameras on e-Bay this AM. Ran across a nice one, but it is offered at over 2Grand because it has a '"Low Number". . . .in the 90s I think.

I didn't know that serial numbers were a thing for these cameras.

Comments?

[Dugan]

Aim high... :)

[Vaidotas]

There is long Photrio thread on subject if anyone is curious. Funny.
But I refused to buy Dallmeyer 3D without serial, no fun.

[Two23]

Looking at Kodak 2D cameras on e-Bay this AM. Ran across a nice one, but it is offered at over 2Grand because it has a '"Low Number". . . .in the 90s I think.

I didn't know that serial numbers were a thing for these cameras.

Comments?


On some of the EARLY 19th C lenses a low serial number is a cool thing to have, but on a 20th C camera? I don't think so. I have a 2D and definitely would not pay more because of the serial. I would base it on condition.


Kent in SD

[woodlandSerenade]

I'd be more inclined to believe the serial number in question is an assembly sequence number.
I have two 7x11 Eastman No.2's and one is stamped 492 on the back side of the rear standard (directly on the mounting surface of the GG back). The same camera is stamped 23 on the rear face of the rail. My other camera is marked 809 on the body, and 7 on the rear of the rail.
Of the two, I'd be more willing to bet that the three-digit numbers on the rear standard are the serial numbers, assuming the No.2 cameras were serialized at all.
Given that the Kodak 2D cameras superseded the Eastman No.2 series and the seller of the camera in question is basing their claims off of the marking on the rear of the rail, they are sorely mistaken on the camera's historical importance and value. Also, they believe it to be "museum grade" with a missing handle... :p

[jim_jm]

Eastman made the 2D for almost 30 years, and there are plenty on the used market, both 5x7 and 8x10. There were a few design changes over that time, but not much of significance.
I would say that value should be tied to condition of the camera more than anything else. Also whether it includes the rail extension and any reduction backs. Barring any damage, they're easy to work on and restore to like-new condition.
Odd sizes like the 6.5x8.5 or 7x11 versions might be more rare, but not as practical in use.
I have both 5x7 and 8x10 and they're great to use, although a bit utilitarian as they lack front swing or tilt.
Now, if you get ahold of Stieglitz's 2D, that'd be worth something!

[Dugan]

But..but.. it's on Ebay....it's RARE! :)

[Mark Sawyer]

But..but.. it's on Ebay....it's RARE! :)

And a "must-have" for any collector...

[Ben Calwell]

Does anyone restore 2Ds? I have an 8x10 that needs work.

[Dugan]

You might try contacting Richard Ritter.

[Ben Calwell]

You might try contacting Richard Ritter.


Yes, thanks. I just remembered about Richard Ritter.

[Mark Sampson]

Alfred Stieglitz' 8x10 2-D is in the collection of the George Eastman Museum. You could ask Todd Gustavson, the technology curator there, for its serial number, just for fun.

[RichardRitter]

Looking at Kodak 2D cameras on e-Bay this AM. Ran across a nice one, but it is offered at over 2Grand because it has a '"Low Number". . . .in the 90s I think.

I didn't know that serial numbers were a thing for these cameras.

Comments?

That is a production number. It is used to match parts up after finishing. It is stamped on all 3 rail parts.
If it was a serial number there is more then two with the same number.

[Drew Bedo]

Right now there is a guy on The-Bay who is asking $2,900 for a 2D. Sure, it has all the extra parts and is in great cosmetic condition but . . . .

[jim_jm]

Unless the nameplate on this camera is not original, that's probably a good indication of it's true age.
Folmer Graflex Corp. was not organized until after 1926, so they could not have been listed as the manufacturer prior to that. Eastman introduced the 2D in 1921, so this is by no means an early model.
My 2D is from 1947, and by that time Graflex, Inc. is listed as the manufacturer.