Best Vintage LF Lens List

[Richard K.]

OK, a interesting recent post - Old lenses have turned me into an equipment geek... - has appealed to the pack-rat/collector/lover of vintage stuff in me and I'd like to acquire some of these older but good lenses (what did Timothy O'Sullivan use? Carleton Watkins?). Could those of you in the know post a list of such lenses (in barrel is fine) for a.)~ 8x10 format and b.) ~14x17/12x20 format ? From these lists I would hope that we could collate "The Top Ten" for each format, LF and ULF. That would be great and could be the basis for an interesting collection for those of us inclined to do so! Many thanks to you who will take the time and extend this kindness :)

If there's already such a best list published, please let mew know!

[Ole Tjugen]

What - you want to know the contents of my cupboard??? :p

[Dave Wooten]

Do some research on the Globe lens.

[Gordon Moat]

http://dioptrique.info/sommaire/sommaire.htm

Contains a great deal of information on numerous lenses. Definitely not complete, and arguably a few mistakes, though overall a nice resource.

Do a search on this forum for Petzval, and you will come up with links to a few more websites dedicated to this early lens type. You might also find a list I am compiling to be of some interest, though it only deals with one manufacturer:

http://hbh.gordonmoat.com for Holmes, Booth & Haydens New York.

You might also search for Verito, and some manufacturers like Suter, Krauss, and Hermagis. The appeal of old lenses is the unique look they can provide, unlike some more modern designs, though I think Petzval type lenses are the most unusual.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[jenn wilson]

here's another site i found invaluable in my research:
http://www.allenrumme.com/lensdb/DBIntro-1.html

[Mark Sawyer]

I'm not sure everybody could ever agree on such a list, but just for fun, here's my idea of ten lenses that would represent the first hundred years of photography pretty well, and give one a nice range to choose from when working today:

1.) Darlot Petzval, (sharp in the middle, swirly on the outside! And you gotta have a Petzval...)

2.) Dallmeyer Rapid Rectilinear, (surprisingly sharp over the whole field).

3.) Any wide angle rapid rectilinear (They're quite sharp and have remarkable covering power. I've got a Neuhring 125mm that covers 8x10, and there are others just a nice).

4.) Cooke Series XV triple convertible. (You know you want one!)

5.) Heliar

6.) A long-ish Artar

7.) A short-ish Cooke Series V process lens (or another good process lens) for close-up work

And in the soft focus category...

(Soft focus lenses are where it gets sticky. There are soooo many completely different designs, and each has its own look, which changes with the f/stop, or h/stop, or diffusion stop... It's hard to relate a soft-focus Dallmeyer petzval, an Imagon doublet, a Cooke Portric triplet, a Verito, and a Velostigmat with the dial-in diffusion, as they're all so different in design and effect. And what about the Port-Land, the Pinkham & Smith's, the Struss lenses, the Persheids, the Universal Heliar, Kodak Portraits, The Eastman Portraits, the Portrait Plastigmats, the Portrait Unar, the Vitax's, the Variums... Who could say which deserves to be included and which left out?)

8.) A Verito (Probably THE classic soft focus lens, and finally starting to get the respect it deserves.)

9.) A Pinkham & Smith Visual Quality (No explanation needed.)

10.) A Cooke Series IIa Portric Knuckler (because I got one recently, after lusting for one for years!) :)


And just to cheat, I'll add:

11.) Something put together by the photographer himself/herself, because there's just something about it you won't get from a standard manufactured lens.

But really, lenses that would make anybody's top ten can (and do) make some terrible photographs, and mud-sucking clunkers can do the most wonderful things, if only we'd give them a fair chance...

[Mark Sawyer]

And BTW, this list would be for any format, just changing the focal lengths to fit.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"Could those of you in the know post a list of such lenses (in barrel is fine) for a.)~ 8x10 format and b.) ~14x17/12x20 format ? From these lists I would hope that we could collate "The Top Ten" for each format, LF and ULF. That would be great and could be the basis for an interesting collection for those of us inclined to do so! Many thanks to you who will take the time and extend this kindness "

It's very, very simple, they all say Rodenstock or Schneider on them somewhere. Every other manufacturer built and tried to sell garbage which is why they are all out of business. :eek:

Have fun with the research.

[Richard K.]

Wow, thanks for the replies thus far people, especially Mark! THAT is one hell of a great list to start with and that's exactly what I intend to do! I have one of those lenses already, just 9 more to go. :) Mark, again, I appreciate your effort, especially the annotations!

As an aside, DOES anyone know what lens(es) O'Sullivan or Watkins used?

[Richard K.]

I've heard that they're stubborn and hard to keep focused...:D

[Richard K.]

Um...the above reply will make sense only to Mark who removed the post prior to mine above....something about mules....:)

[Mark Sawyer]

My pleasure! It's a fun little fantasy exercise. But ten isn't really enough...

In the 1860s, Watkins had a "new wide angle lens", almost certainly a wide angle rapid rectilinear, but he may well have had others.

[Mark Sawyer]

Um...the above reply will make sense only to Mark who removed the post prior to mine above....something about mules....:)

Yeah, I'm bad that way! :rolleyes:

[Richard K.]

My pleasure! It's a fun little fantasy exercise. But ten isn't really enough...



This is where spousal negotiation comes in! I recently bought my wife 10 (!) pairs of shoes online just for a contingency like the one unfolding...
Really, thanks for the list!

[Ole Tjugen]

...
It's very, very simple, they all say Rodenstock or Schneider on them somewhere. Every other manufacturer built and tried to sell garbage which is why they are all out of business. :eek:

Have fun with the research.

Well, no.

Schneider didn't start until 1913, and for the first decades they made cheap lenses - AKA "garbage". The first original Schneider design was the Angulon in 1932.

Rodenstock is a bit older, but was also not considered among the top makers early on. These two manufacturers were still in existence after WWII, unlike many others. They were also in what became West Germany - again unlike many others.

Before WWII Busch, Steinheil, Hugo Meyer, Staeble, and Laack were considered better. Not to mention Zeiss and Voigtländer...

[Jim Galli]

Ahh, but some of us think the worst is the best. I hate best lists. It drives prices batty.

Ultimately, a cupboard full of lenses is a cupboard full of lenses. It's what you put out in front of them that matters.

[Ole Tjugen]

List?

All right:

A Petzval; I would prefer a Voigtländer. Ones covering 8x10" (at least according to original spec's) are HUGE, and weigh more than most 8x10" moonorail cameras. :)

A "Landscape lens".

A "nameless Rectilinear": The precursor of the Rapid Rectilinear and Aplanat, these have the positive element on the outside instead of on the inside. They didn't last long when the RR/Aplanat was invented!

An Aplanat - Steinheil, Busch. Meyer or Suter if I could choose.

A WA Aplanat - same makers. My Busch 150mm is a wonderful little lens.

A Heliar.

A Zeiss Doppel-Amatar. These were made for a very short period and are quite rare, but IMO are far more interesting than most other double anastigmats.

Also Zeiss: A Doppel-Protar VIIa.

Zeiss again: No lens collection is complete without a Tessar.

A Goertz Hypergon. Possibly the best little WA lens ever made, and certainly the widest.

An Aplanat casket set. One with seven cells of focal lengths from 150 to 750mm covers all formats. Some samples at www.casket-set.com (http://www.casket-set.com).

[Mark Sawyer]

Ahh, but some of us think the worst is the best. I hate best lists. It drives prices batty.

Ultimately, a cupboard full of lenses is a cupboard full of lenses. It's what you put out in front of them that matters.

Well, the prices are already batty... the question is, will they get even battier?

I agree about the cupboard full of lenses. I've made a few "big" purchases of lenses I really wanted, but most of mine are just lenses that wandered across my path, and did so cheaply enough that I couldn't say no.

But if only I could live up to the full potential of the worst lens I have...

[Jim Galli]

Well, the prices are already batty... the question is, will they get even battier?

I agree about the cupboard full of lenses. I've made a few "big" purchases of lenses I really wanted, but most of mine are just lenses that wandered across my path, and did so cheaply enough that I couldn't say no.

But if only I could live up to the full potential of the worst lens I have...

Well said. Yes, most of mine were bought when $400 seemed like a LOT of $$ for an old lens. Turned out to be a good investment though and I'm really glad I got what I did when I did.

Prices are slipping some in this edgy / uncertain economy. A lovely 16" Wollensak Vitax in #5 Studio shutter ended the other night for only $256. Now that was a bargain for some lucky person.

[Toyon]

here's another site i found invaluable in my research:
http://www.allenrumme.com/lensdb/DBIntro-1.html

That's an interesting site, but I found many errors.

[Natasa Stojsic]

I have one of those lenses already, just 9 more to go. :)

Richard it's not fair, come on which one is it?:D

[Ernest Purdum]

Nobody's yet mentioned the Dagor, or if they did I missed it, but it surely ranks as an important early lens.

In addition to the already mentioned Zeiss Protar Ser. VIIa, The Series V was a remarkable lens used for many purposes one wouldn't have expected. It didn't have the amazing angle ability of the Hypergon, but it was a lot easier to use.

Many Cooke's were iinteresting examples of how good a carefully manufactured and assembled a three element lens can be.

[8x10 user]

The universal heliar might be one of the best soft focus lenses. I believe this lens allows you to control the amount of spherical aberrations with this lens independently of aperture. Although, I'm not sure if the soft focus effect has a sharp inner core like the Pinkham and smith or not. If it does, then it is probably the best soft focus lens ever made (at least in my opinion).

[Mark Sawyer]

I thought about putting the Universal Heliar on my list, but as I've never used one or seen a print identified as being from one, it missed out. I've always heard good things about them, though... I think the concept of "best" sort focus lens is pretty personal and subjective; I really like the Imagon, though many others dislike it.

Quite a few sf lenses had an adjustable soft focus mechanism, from the early Dallmeyers to the Portrait Unars, Velostigmats, Vitaxes, Variums, Cooke Portrics, Portrellics and Portronics... The Imagon and Fujinon sf lenses used h/stops to allow a similar control, and all soft focus lenses will vary the effect with the f/stop.

[Ken Lee]

How about sample images to illustrate the look of these lenses ?

If I say I prefer the look of a Tessar to that of a Heliar, a real photo may help make the point. Without it, how much good is my opinion to anyone else ?

[Richard K.]

Richard it's not fair, come on which one is it?:D

This will disappoint you with its mundanity but I have only a sample of a RDA albeit the 35" variety. I'm keen on acquring some historically significant lenses and actually using them!

[Pete Watkins]

For Mr. Fitzgeralds information Taylor, Taylor & Hobson (Cooke) are still in buisness. The factory is located just off the Leicester ring road. O.K. they havn't made a lot of L.F. lenses recently but those that they have made became instant legends and highly collectable.
Pete

[Uli Mayer]

Schneider didn't start until 1913, and for the first decades they made cheap lenses - AKA "garbage". The first original Schneider design was the Angulon in 1932.

...

Schneider's first original design was certainly not the Angulon (which btw was patented two years earlier, in 1930, and was based on the Dasykar, also an original Schneider WA design (1920).

Earlier original Schneider lenses include the Claron 1 :6.8, a predecessor of the plasmat-type designed by Ernst Arbeit and patented 1912; the early Symmar versions (manufactured from 1913 onwards); Tronnier's Tele-Xenar (1925), and one shouldn't forget the Xenon, also designed by Tronnier for Schneider in 1927. No matter how well or bad those lenses were actually - or supposedly - manufactured, to say Schneider produced cheapo lenses or "garbage" before 1930 is completely out of place.

[CCHarrison]

The 1840-1910 period list of types would be something like:

Petzval ( my Petzval article here; http://members.aol.com/summaron7/petzval.htm )
Globe Wide Angle
Dallmeyer Rapid Rectilinear or Steinheil
Cooke Triplet
Tessar
Protar
Dagor
Heliar ( my article here; http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/heliar.htm )
Planar
( could also add pinhole, meniscus and a soft focus )

Dan

[kilimanjaro1996]

All these discussions are really interesting and exciting for a newbie like me. I was thinking would it be possible to get a vintage lenses library and newbies can borrow or rent with a system similar to:

http://www.borrowlenses.com/

I'm not associated with this company, but find the concept very good. So instead of trying by buying and selling, both users can have a chance to try out the classics while owner has some insurance that their collection will be well handled and maintain value. I guess some of the LFF members are already doing something similar in more intimate circles.

Just some thoughts on a lazy Saturday. :)

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"For Mr. Fitzgeralds information Taylor, Taylor & Hobson (Cooke) are still in buisness."

Actually Baush & Lomb and Kodak are still in business and Wollensak is back in business, I guess you didn't get the joke.

"OK, a interesting recent post - Old lenses have turned me into an equipment geek... - has appealed to the pack-rat/collector/lover of vintage stuff in me and I'd like to acquire some of these older but good lenses (what did Timothy O'Sullivan use? Carleton Watkins?). Could those of you in the know post a list of such lenses (in barrel is fine) for a.)~ 8x10 format and b.) ~14x17/12x20 format ?"

What was the original point to this thread?

1) to turn a nice selection of fine lenses into Chinese dust collectors?

2) build a list of what gets sold at eBay and drive the prices up?

3) to make anything that does not make the list worth half of it's price this morning?

More than a few people here have spent years, if not decades, doing the research, hunting down and buying samples of these lenses, paying for shipping, service, cleaning and mounting to use them and find out which are trash, horse feathers or home runs. Now they should give away this hard earned knowledge free to the world for the asking, not because they are nice, friendly people but because they are truly worthless and work for free. Brilliant.

Sorry, but LF photography is a rather expensive and time consuming hobby, if you can't be bothered working at it, why bother?

[Richard K.]

"For Mr. Fitzgeralds information Taylor, Taylor & Hobson (Cooke) are still in buisness."

Actually Baush & Lomb and Kodak are still in business and Wollensak is back in business, I guess you didn't get the joke.

"OK, a interesting recent post - Old lenses have turned me into an equipment geek... - has appealed to the pack-rat/collector/lover of vintage stuff in me and I'd like to acquire some of these older but good lenses (what did Timothy O'Sullivan use? Carleton Watkins?). Could those of you in the know post a list of such lenses (in barrel is fine) for a.)~ 8x10 format and b.) ~14x17/12x20 format ?"

What was the original point to this thread?

1) to turn a nice selection of fine lenses into Chinese dust collectors?

2) build a list of what gets sold at eBay and drive the prices up?

3) to make anything that does not make the list worth half of it's price this morning?

More than a few people here have spent years, if not decades, doing the research, hunting down and buying samples of these lenses, paying for shipping, service, cleaning and mounting to use them and find out which are trash, horse feathers or home runs. Now they should give away this hard earned knowledge free to the world for the asking, not because they are nice, friendly people but because they are truly worthless and work for free. Brilliant.

Sorry, but LF photography is a rather expensive and time consuming hobby, if you can't be bothered working at it, why bother?

WOW!!! :eek: I guess I should answer, since the (second) quote is my post. Well...none of the 3 reasons stated above were MY reasons for posting and I also don't think that this thread will have any such effect on the marketplace and, lastly, my intention was not to cynically exploit other forumers years of effort for selfish, possibly nefarious purposes! I was just looking for information on what people think are some of the more interesting classic lenses. That's all. Honest. I have always felt at home in this forum and valued the free and friendly exchange of information. To manipulate the marketplace or to undeservedly glean difficult arcane knowledge was not my intention! To ask for a short list of possible lenses to look at is, IMO, not diminishing the efforts or undervaluing the work of those that have built up a fine collection, but rather is just another instance of understanding and accepting the comraderie among LF photographers (who generally are nice, friendly people, not truly worthless and working for free). I'm sorry you feel that it could be anything but that. And, BTW, I DO bother working at it, pretty well 24/7/365!

[Ernest Purdum]

I didn't think of it earlier because it's hard for me to think of anything twelve years younger than I am as "vintage", but the 203mm f7.7 Ektar is a fine lens. Maybe its results are too much like those of "modern" lenses, though, to belong here.

[Mark Sawyer]

Now they should give away this hard earned knowledge free to the world for the asking, not because they are nice, friendly people but because they are truly worthless and work for free. Brilliant.


Yeah, pretty much. I'm a public high school teacher...

[goamules]

I think before asking a question like this, one should answer, "what do you want to do?" Lenses and the work photographer's do with them are subjective. One well-known photographer uses low-end, older lenses wide open, and makes amazing soft shots. Another takes the same lens, stopped down, for amazing sharp shots. One type works best for action, one for portraits, and someone uses a portrait lens for landscapes. Lens types have come and gone out of fashion, then returned to popularity. Etc, etc.

It's easy to become focused on collecting, more difficult to think about what lens types fit your vision. (Maybe a vision is to have "one of each", but that sounds like collecting) I think developing a "shopping list" is working towards the former mentality, and not helping a photographer determine what he wants to do.

[BarryS]

A Petzval; I would prefer a Voigtländer. Ones covering 8x10" (at least according to original spec's) are HUGE, and weigh more than most 8x10" moonorail cameras. :)


Ole, can you elaborate on this? I recently bought a magic lantern lens that easily covers 8x10 and from my rough measurements--more like 11x14. The rear cell is labeled 24" and the the focal length of the lens seems close to that. The lens isn't small at 2.75" X 7.5", but it's no cannon. A rough estimate of the aperture is f/11. The front cell is a cemented doublet and the rear is an air-spaced doublet, so it seems like a Petzval.

[Jim Galli]

Ole, can you elaborate on this? I recently bought a magic lantern lens that easily covers 8x10 and from my rough measurements--more like 11x14. The rear cell is labeled 24" and the the focal length of the lens seems close to that. The lens isn't small at 2.75" X 7.5", but it's no cannon. A rough estimate of the aperture is f/11. The front cell is a cemented doublet and the rear is an air-spaced doublet, so it seems like a Petzval.

Not Ole, but,these f8-f11 24" lantern lenses are the exception, not the rule. They were special application lenses, relatively uncommon now. The math as Ole states it is simple. 4X=focal length on the normal f4 petzval portrait lens. So a 16" lens will have a 4" glass and plenty of brass surrounding it which equates to huge. And a 16" f4 lens was only suggested for full plate, it took an 18" for 10X8 according to mfr specs. Really huge. Enjoy your lantern petzval. I've one just like it that is superb on my 7X11 format. Very portable.

[BarryS]

Thanks Jim. I thought this lens seemed a little different than what I've been seeing on my hunt for a couple of petzvals. It looked a sharper than I expected on my Deardorff's ground glass, but I still have to figure out a mounting solution before seeing what it can do on some negs. So with the long focal length and smaller aperture, should I expect a fairly sharp lens corner to corner on 8x10? Or will there be some swirlitude?

[Jim Galli]

Thanks Jim. I thought this lens seemed a little different than what I've been seeing on my hunt for a couple of petzvals. It looked a sharper than I expected on my Deardorff's ground glass, but I still have to figure out a mounting solution before seeing what it can do on some negs. So with the long focal length and smaller aperture, should I expect a fairly sharp lens corner to corner on 8x10? Or will there be some swirlitude?

You won't see much in the way of swirls with that one. But it won't be sharp in the corners either. It still has the petzval signature of a sharp center core giving way to softer features as it moves out. More subtle than some of the swirly kings.

[timparkin]

More than a few people here have spent years, if not decades, doing the research, hunting down and buying samples of these lenses, paying for shipping, service, cleaning and mounting to use them and find out which are trash, horse feathers or home runs. Now they should give away this hard earned knowledge free to the world for the asking, not because they are nice, friendly people but because they are truly worthless and work for free. Brilliant.

Stranglely this foul action you describe is known as 'culture' and is a defining one for the human species. So was Ansel Adams a dupe in your eyes?

Tim

[Dan Fromm]

More than a few people here have spent years, if not decades, doing the research, hunting down and buying samples of these lenses, paying for shipping, service, cleaning and mounting to use them and find out which are trash, horse feathers or home runs. Now they should give away this hard earned knowledge free to the world for the asking, not because they are nice, friendly people but because they are truly worthless and work for free. Brilliant.

Paul, on the one hand I somewhat agree with you, the more so since for the most part I've done my own research and look down on people who ask before searching.

On the other, there's no keeping secrets. Information will get out. As I've learned in other contexts, sharing information builds, um, good karma. One never knows what will come back.

After all, we're not struggling assistant professors desperately trying to settle out of the academic plankton before we die of old age.

Cheers,

Dan

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Apologies all around, just me being pissy. Share and share alike but I'll have to make some adapter boards to test them all. Starting at WWI and working backwards. With used lenses condition, condition, condition and this far back there are sample by sample differences. Seth's site (www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info.html) has lots of catalogs to view, thank you.

Goerz Dogmar= more expensive than Dagor when new this was Goerz answer to the Heliar. Fully color corrected and sharp with decent coverage. Triple convertible with a very nice soft focus look adjustable by f/stop. Surprisingly high contrast for a 4 element, air-spaced lens thanks to the factory 'blooming' so I guess they are 'semi-coated'. 240/4.5 will cover 8x10 to the corners by f/22, 300/4.5 by f/9 and will just cover 11x14 by f/50 but not recommended. 480/5.5 should cover 16x20 stopped down. 500/4.5 should just cover 20x24 stopped down.

Zeiss Tessar = needs no explanation, it's the must copied lens design for a few reasons. The IIb/6.3 series seems to be a bit sharper with more coverage but less of the smooth/sharp look of the Ic/4.5s. 300mm is standard for 8x10, 500mm was rated for 14x17 maybe 16x20 stopped down.

Voigtlander Heliar = the "Master Objective", one really fine portrait lens and seriously sharp stopped down. 300/4.5 does not cover 8x10 to the corners at inf, the 360/4.5 will cover 8x10 by f/32. Voigtlander did recommend the 420/4.5 for 8x10 and did make a 480 and 600, have fun finding them. Yes, the Universal Heliar is fun to play with.:D

Zeiss Unar = a nice normal lens with an 'old' look to it, same coverage as Tessars. When the front cell is removed, it converts to a pictorially soft focus lens adjustable by f/stop. The only lens I have found that keeps the soft focus look down to f/32. Converted it does have a focus shift so use panchro film. B&L did make an adjustable Portrait Unar.

Voigtlander Collinears = their version of the Dagor but nicer, fully corrected and convertible.

Goerz Lynkeioskop = Extra Rapid series C, the best of the best RR / Aplants, higher contrast than most uncoated lenses and SHARP, nice color rendition.

B&L Universal Portrait = re badged to 100 names, a very nice petzval lens with a difference, they used all the same size threads so it can be reversed, putting the adjustable soft focus outside the camera OR converted to a portrait / landscape meniscus. Very nice look and about 1.5 X FL, the barrel is a effective lens shade.

Spenser Portland meniscus

Voigtlander Portrait Euryscop

Voigtlander Petzval

[Jim Galli]

Apologies all around, just me being pissy. Share and share alike but I'll have to make some adapter boards to test them all.


Actually Paul, I silently agreed with you. I'm probably hovering well over the 5 digit mark for lenses because I wanted to find the answer to the OP's rather naive question. I haven't been stingy about trying to share the answers free of charge as I post results at my website. But I have seen the prices on the better lenses go up 5X++. There are still some sizes and types I'd love to have but may never get to enjoy now. Some were total sleepers a few years ago. Like the Eidoscop. Who ever heard of it 5 years back. But I had to pay $960 for a 150mm example a few months ago. Ouch!

So the best and rarest is a Messerschmitten Helwinkel f4.3 377mm. Put it in your search engine folks.

[Gordon Moat]

I ran across a few interesting notes about rarity while researching HB&H lenses. Seems that quite a few Petzval type lenses ended up in observatories for telescope usage, many of them modified to better show what the astronomers wanted. The main reason I found in my readings was that these were the fastest lenses of the time. If I were to speculate a bit, I would think a number of the larger Petzval type lenses ended up being modified for other uses, hence the somewhat rare nature.

I did not intend to influence prices of HB&H lenses when I started that listing. I have no intention of selling my No. 1875 HB&H, and having one example is enough for me. Sometimes it is good to share or give back to the photo community. I had a great deal of difficulty finding the information that I uncovered, so what better way to give back than to create that listing:

http://hbh.gordonmoat.com

I hope others find it useful, and I hope to fill it up with more examples and information. While it is only a record of one company, it is a (partial) record of early photographic history.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[venchka]

...

Voigtlander Collinears = their version of the Dagor but nicer, fully corrected and convertible.



"Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn."

My Collinear was in a box along with some film holders and flash handle that came with my Pacemaker Speed Graphic. It was mounted on the correct lens board. The good folks on this forum provided information about the lens. A few sheets Ilford HP5+ confirmed the quality of my "find".

Sometimes you get lucky.