When is a "Cooke" not a Cooke? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Mark Sawyer

3-Sep-2009, 21:23

Or, "Too many Cooke's spoil the broth..."

From the thread "Please...":

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=52592

good luck to you mark!

BUT check the lens carefully to be sure it is what it says it is. the seller bought a bunch of lenses recently that were B&J reworker....not bad all by them selves but may not be exactly what they say they will be. my cooke lens has very very differnet writing and "fonts" on it.....makes me believe this is a B&J rework....so what did they do to it? if nothing you win! if not....well.......

i hope you won....i really do.

Eddie called it. A very authoritative source has confirmed this is definitely not a genuine TT&H Cooke lens, and probably a B&J rework. The glass "is probably" Cooke, but the barrel definitely is not. I'm obviously very fond of what the lens can do, but a large amount of the purchase price is based on its pedigree. The seller, after trying rather aggressively to persuade me that it was an incredibly rare and spectacular bargain even if it wasn't a real Cooke (which he doesn't dispute), has offered a refund.

So, my questions to the board:

Is a B&J Cooke worth as much as a "real" Cooke? Was I scammed? Since I like what the lens can do, should I keep it? It's a great lens, though when held in hand, the build is not up to Cooke standards. And great lenses sell every day for much less because they don't have the heritage of a Cooke or similarly respected lens.

I honestly (and obviously) like the lens. But I also like being able to say an image was "taken with a Cooke 16 inch Portrait Lens" without biting my tongue. Then again, if the lenses themselves are probably Cooke, should I just say, "it's a Cooke", keep it and not worry about it?

Up in the air and taking opinions...

Paul Fitzgerald

3-Sep-2009, 22:18

Now that you're seriously suffering from buyer's remorse, I'll buy it for $375 and you can suffer from seller's remorse FOREVER, it will all balance out in the end. :eek:

Mike1234

3-Sep-2009, 22:19

I believe you were scammed, Mark. I'm sorry that happened to you. At the very least the seller should send you a substantial refund.

George Kara

3-Sep-2009, 23:21

The provenance is wrong Mark. The lens is not what it says. The lens includes the glass and barrel. There is no way to find out what the glass is. I would not trust the seller. Its to much money for a no name in my opinion. You'll never be able to sell it as a Cooke in good conscience.

This was a fraudulent transaction and should be voided. If you can buy for say $ 300 fine.

Jim Galli

3-Sep-2009, 23:34

I respectfully dis-agree and have some experience I can share. I also have a Burke & James 'refinished' Cooke Portrait lens. Mine is an 18" Series VI f5.6. I am lucky enough to also have a 15" Series VI that is un-tampered with. They are identical in every way except that Burke and James during the late 1960's was in the re-finish mode and clearly stripped the original finish, re-did it in black and re-lettered it in white. They also single coated the glass. The barrel and machine work is all TTH Cooke.

Now Burke and James did re-set some other antique lenses in their own house made barrels. I have a Steinheil lens that is clearly in a barrel that B&J created in their shops. The threads are loosey goosey and it looks exactly like Carl Meyer quality. Not so the Cooke. I believe all they did was re-paint these and coat them.

If you look carefully at the 1920's Cooke catalog at Seth Broder's site (http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/cooke_1.html) you can see that the earliest series II Portrait lenses looked just like Marks. If you go to the Series II f4.5 description page you'll see that catalog no. 263 is Mark's lens. 16" 10X12.

I don't think there's a thing wrong with Mark's lens and certainly the photos he's already done would support me in my belief. The proof is in the puddin'.

Mark Sawyer

3-Sep-2009, 23:47

Jim could be quite right. I'm going to have a long sit-down with the lens at school tomorrow, and try to figure it out. I have a few more clues to go on now. As he said, "the proof is in the puddin'", and this thing gives beautiful negatives regardless. I just want it to be what it says it is, a Cooke Portrait Lens.

Other lens collectors have shelf-queens. I get drama-queens. (*sigh...*)

eddie

4-Sep-2009, 04:33

mark,

the lens shoots nice....errr! you shoot the lens nice..:)

IMO it has been reworked. it may be just fine (as jim has indicated and it may actually be "correct) but B&J clearly had their hands on it right of wrong, good or bad. i feel that in this case it diminishes the value, this is only MY opinion. i look at it this way, any "original collectible" that has been reworked has less value in most all cases (shelby being one that actually increases the value of a ford but he is seen in an opposite light than B&J is seen in this example) if you change something then it looses its value.

A very authoritative source has confirmed this is definitely not a genuine TT&H Cooke lens, and probably a B&J rework. The glass "is probably" Cooke, but the barrel definitely is not. I'm obviously very fond of what the lens can do, but a large amount of the purchase price is based on its pedigree. The seller, after trying rather aggressively to persuade me that it was an incredibly rare and spectacular bargain even if it wasn't a real Cooke (which he doesn't dispute), has offered a refund.

that says it to me. if the authority says it is not original then it is not. this will affect the value of it later down the road. will it affect the photos you can/have got with it? no. could it have cooke glass? maybe. but this distinction affects the value. it is similar to my example a while back of a car that has been "totaled". yes, the car is repaired correctly and is working fine (total is just a dollar amount and is no indication of the real damage. it could have lost all the glass and had the airbags go off creating a big repair price tag for example) but having a salvage title to a car will always result in less revenue from a sale..

the long and short of it. the seller has accepted a return. take it (unless some one right here right now wants to buy it from you for what you paid for it including the shipping to you , as the seller will do.....anyone willing to buy it under these terms?....i doubt it. but lets see.) if some one here will pay you and they want it sell it to them. there are many many of these lenses out there. there are very few one of a kind (anyone got a voigtlander 7B? i have one and have not seen or heard of another....yet). you will feel better with your money back and an original lens down the road.

good luck.

eddie

jnantz

4-Sep-2009, 05:27

hi mark, sorry for your troubles ..

in the end of it all, were you planning on selling it in a few years to double or triple your $$ / investment ?
if i had th $$ i would buy it for exactly what you paid for it --->>without hesitation.
in the end it isn't really the lens that makes the photographs but you...

if you feel badly about buying something that was misrepresented i would send it back to the seller,
demand a full refund, and make sure that ebay knows what sort of thing he does ...

George Kara

4-Sep-2009, 06:50

Repainting and refinishing is most certainly not a re manufacture of the lens. Even the lettering, while not accurate would not be a big thing. The single coating is even OK. It is my understanding that the only original parts of the lens are the glass - maybe. If B&J gussied it up its still a cooke. Any way to contact cooke directly and send a few photos?

wfwhitaker

4-Sep-2009, 07:02

What does Barbara Lowry say about it? She had expressed an interest in it during the auction.

Do I understand correctly that Burke & James made the mechanicals, but Cooke made the glass? How well do the mechanicals work? Are they rough and sloppy? Cooke mechanicals tend to be as smooth as the finish on their glass. My guess is that if this had been a "real" Cooke with the typical Cooke lacquered brass finish, it would have gone for more money than you paid. But that's just a guess.

I saw the title of this thread and said to myself, "uh,oh...". You bought this lens from a seller whose notoriety seems to grow constantly. But if your example shots are any example, it's a fine lens. Do you punish the devil and throw out the baby with the bath water? You have a dilemma on your hands, lad.

goamules

4-Sep-2009, 07:22

So it depends on how long you want to keep it, and if you think the pictures it takes are worth the price you paid. The samples of the girl with the shawl sure looked good to me, but you can tell more, compared to your other soft focus lenses.

I don't think you "have" to sell it for what you paid to be "ok." And you don't have to return it. Perhaps a partial refund is what is needed. I think these are sometimes demanded by picky buyers, but in this case, why not? How much would a refinished Cooke be worth to you as a user lens? Maybe $350? It is a long focal length, seems to shoot well, maybe you can ask for a partial. Because if you return it he's just going to sell it, with the caveats we've all determined, for about that.

I once bought what I thought was a very nice antique colt. I was pretty hot to get this model, so I bought it for the high price, even though it looked just a tad fishy. Later, in correct lighting, I saw it was an excellent reblue. But you know, I love that gun still, and use it more because I'm not worried that it was a 98% finish as originally thought. Now, 10 years later, it's risen to about the price I paid. And I've enjoyed it.

Garrett

Paul Fitzgerald

4-Sep-2009, 07:25

Just a thought,

B&J would never have been stupid enough to stamp "Taylor, Taylor & Hobson Ltd." on the barrel, that would be a registered trade name. It's been refinished, retro-coated and is in fine shape, exactly HOW does that diminish the value?

Goerz would retro-coat Artars and Dogmars at the factory, never diminished their value.

the offer still stands and I'll pay for shipping and insurance. :D

Mike1234

4-Sep-2009, 07:47

Mark... I'm ignorant about old classic lenses. What I thought you meant was that the SELLER did the remounting and rebadging. What's described here is a different story, of course. I retract my statement as I have no idea what's appropriate here.

BarryS

4-Sep-2009, 08:03

I think you got a great deal. The price reflects the disinterest of hardcore Cooke collectors, but the images reflect the refined characteristics of a Cooke soft focus lens. How many other lenses can produce a signature like that?

Jim Galli

4-Sep-2009, 09:02

Here are some photos of my 18" f5.6 Series VI with B&J paint job.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/CookeOptics/18Cookeiv_0.jpg

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/CookeOptics/18Cookeiv_1.jpg

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/CookeOptics/18Cookeiv_2.jpg

I knew exactly what I was buying and I felt it was likely worth perhaps 33 - 40% less than an identical lens with original finish which is approximately what I paid.

I will say this about "wideangleman". I watched his sales and noticed that at one point he was peeling the Burke & James stickers off the lenses he was selling. On one of his photos you could still see the darkened area where it had been 5 minutes previous. So I feel there was indeed some purposeful deception in that.

I'll also add that Burke & James did not have the talent to make a passable TTH barrel or anything close. I have some of their barrels and it's like comparing a Yugo to a Rolls Royce.

The reason Marks does not have the "knuckler" handle that Cooke became famous for is because his is teens or early 1920's while this example is 1940's.

Mark Sawyer

4-Sep-2009, 09:40

Hi, all, with thanks for the feedback I have two offers to buy the lens for what I paid, so nobody needs to be worried about me. At this point its at worst an interesting history lesson I can drop at any time.

I was up late last night emailing with Jim Galli and another interested party, and have been in contact with with Barabara Lowry at Cooke, who's been very helpful. I also poked through old catalogs, googled images of the lens, and gave the lens itself a long going-over this morning.

At this point, I'm 99% sure Jim is right. It's a Cooke underneath, and the tolerances show it is very well made. The barrel is brass underneath, and a couple of minor pieces of hardware matches my other Cookes. Burke and James' later black finish and white relettering are of passable quality. The single coating is in very nice shape and adds contrast compared to my other Cookes, which is something I can take or leave. The optics perform on par with any Cooke lens I've ever used, and that's saying a lot. And it has the "personality" of a Cooke; very distinct but subtle, not at all overstated. It just seems more sophisticated, like Audrey Hepburn, compared to a Verito's Marilyn Monroe. (And you gotta love 'em both...)

I wish it were all original, but then, as was pointed out by several people, I probably wouldn't have gotten it for the same price. I do suspect the seller knew full well it was refinished and didn't mention it. Kinda like buying a Ferrari, then finding out it might be a kit car with some Ferrari parts, but in the end finding out it's a real Ferrari with an Earl Scheib paint job and Crager mags.

At this point I'll pretty sure I'll keep the lens. It has less collector value, but it's still a Cooke. I tend not to sell lenses, just accumulate them, because I know how much potential even the doggiest of them have. You'll see more images from this one...

Again, thanks all, and apologies for the drama!

~ Mark

Mike1234

4-Sep-2009, 10:04

"Apologies for the drama".. the heck you say, mark?? You know we all love it it hitting the fan here... makes very interesting splashes on the forum walls. The cleanup can be a drag though. :D

wfwhitaker

5-Sep-2009, 08:18

...I also have a Burke & James 'refinished' Cooke Portrait lens. Mine is an 18" Series VI f5.6. I am lucky enough to also have a 15" Series VI that is un-tampered with. They are identical in every way except that Burke and James during the late 1960's was in the re-finish mode and clearly stripped the original finish, re-did it in black and re-lettered it in white... The barrel and machine work is all TTH Cooke.

Jim,

Is the engraving the same or did B&J simply fill the original engraving to contrast with the black "stealth" finish? It would be interesting to show photos of the barrels side-by-side to better see the differences and the similarities.

Jim Graves

5-Sep-2009, 17:07

Let me see ... for $735 ... you got a newer, single coated Cooke 16" portrait lens with the soft focus feature in absolutely beautiful condition and it made the gorgeous picture you posted earlier ... and the only downside is that B&J put a really nice paint job on the barrel for you ... .

The lens you've got is probably rarer than the original ... and, in better shape than 99% of the originals available ... is shooting great ... and fits right into a slot between the Petzvals, Veritos, P&S, and Velostigmats that you've already got ... I guess I don't see the problem.

I say forget the yahoo that thought he was putting it over on everybody and smile, shoot it, and ... never, ever look back. ;>)

Struan Gray

7-Sep-2009, 02:44

FWIW, the engraving on the side of the barrel is exactly what I think of as typical TTH style. The only oddity is that it gives more towns than Leicester, perhaps because the lens was intended for export to the USA.

I agree with the others who say keep it. Unless your kids are eating dust....

Mark Sawyer

7-Sep-2009, 10:11

Yes, it's being kept. My regrets were based on information from Cooke Optics that it was probably not a Cooke mount, which would make it not a Cooke lens. Now that I'm fairly sure that it is a Cooke mount, and therefore a Cooke lens, I'm happy with it. That's the bottom line. It's still a Cooke. :)

Dan Fromm

7-Sep-2009, 10:41

Um, pardon my ignorance, but what does the mount have to do with it?

I ask because if I apply your logic my 38/4.5 Biogon that Zeiss supplied to AGI as cells which AGI mounted in an F.135 shutter, Steve Grimes extracted from the F.135 shutter and remounted in a Copal #0 isn't a real Zeiss lens. I know you're a hypochondriac. Are you crazy as well?

For that matter, except for lunatic collectors, why does a lens' maker matter as long as the lens performs as desires? This discussion brings to mind art collectors' insanity, in which who painted a painting is more important that what it looks like.

goamules

7-Sep-2009, 10:48

Um, I think I'd rather have a 427 engine in the 67 Galaxy it was originally in, than having the 427 wedged into a Maverick. Though the latter would probably "perform" just as good. And if I DID want to just use the engine, I wouldn't pay what an original 67 Galaxy costs for the Maverick.

Mark Sawyer

7-Sep-2009, 11:11

The mount has a great deal of importance as the spacing and collimation have a great deal to do with a lens' signature. This is especially so when there are moving elements involved, as there are here. So yes, from a user's point of view, it is important.

There's also a collector's value to these things. Some appreciate the lens as an artifact of the time, some as a tool to keep using. I have interests in both.

If someone painted an Ebony, Lotus, or Gandolfi camera in the old Burke & James battle-ship grey, would it still be worth as much?

Um, pardon my ignorance, but what does the mount have to do with it?

I ask because if I apply your logic my 38/4.5 Biogon that Zeiss supplied to AGI as cells which AGI mounted in an F.135 shutter, Steve Grimes extracted from the F.135 shutter and remounted in a Copal #0 isn't a real Zeiss lens. I know you're a hypochondriac. Are you crazy as well?

For that matter, except for lunatic collectors, why does a lens' maker matter as long as the lens performs as desires? This discussion brings to mind art collectors' insanity, in which who painted a painting is more important that what it looks like.

csant

7-Sep-2009, 13:45

If someone painted an Ebony, Lotus, or Gandolfi camera in the old Burke & James battle-ship grey, would it still be worth as much?

Ouch… that image really hurts… :D

Dan Fromm

7-Sep-2009, 14:20

The mount has a great deal of importance as the spacing and collimation have a great deal to do with a lens' signature. This is especially so when there are moving elements involved, as there are here. So yes, from a user's point of view, it is important.

There's also a collector's value to these things. Some appreciate the lens as an artifact of the time, some as a tool to keep using. I have interests in both.

If someone painted an Ebony, Lotus, or Gandolfi camera in the old Burke & James battle-ship grey, would it still be worth as much?

Are you telling me that the late Steve Grimes didn't know how to remount a lens properly? What evidence do you have to support this position?

And are you telling me that I should value a camera for the paint on it, not for what it can do? I said the paint on it, not build quality, so don't tell me that an Ebony is better made than, say, a B&J. That's not in dispute.

About lenses that were resold by B&J. Charlie Barringer tells me that many of the lenses in the fabled Zeiss collection passed through B&J and were resold with B&J stickers on them. He' confident that all of these passed CZJ's QC. He recently bought a 150 Sonnar ex-B&J that he insists is a magnificent lens in good condition.

One good thing that's come out of this discussion is the revelation that your prize's barrel is original TTH and that all B&J did to it was repaint it. Its undamaged. At this point you should cherish it and rejoice that you have it.

Cheers,

Dan

Mark Sawyer

7-Sep-2009, 17:27

Are you telling me that the late Steve Grimes didn't know how to remount a lens properly? What evidence do you have to support this position?

No, I'm afraid I was unclear. The lens in question in this thread had nothing to do with Steve Grimes, whose work I've always heard was excellent. The question about my lens was whether it was remounted by B&J, as for a time, I hade good reason to believe. And as Jim Galli noted earlier in this thread:

I'll also add that Burke & James did not have the talent to make a passable TTH barrel or anything close. I have some of their barrels and it's like comparing a Yugo to a Rolls Royce.

And are you telling me that I should value a camera for the paint on it, not for what it can do? I said the paint on it, not build quality, so don't tell me that an Ebony is better made than, say, a B&J. That's not in dispute.

No, but I'm saying the wrong paint can detract from a camera's value. If you painted an Ebony camera battleship grey, it would still have the same build quality and would function as well in every way. It would not, I believe, have the same resale value, or the same "collector's value" to someone who appreciated it as an object in its own right as much as a tool.

The lens in question was advertised as being "MINTY Condition, Late Flat Black Version", which to me suggests the lens is in original condition. In fact, the lens is different looking enough that the Cooke historian did not recognize it as a Cooke lens.

About lenses that were resold by B&J. Charlie Barringer tells me that many of the lenses in the fabled Zeiss collection passed through B&J and were resold with B&J stickers on them. He' confident that all of these passed CZJ's QC. He recently bought a 150 Sonnar ex-B&J that he insists is a magnificent lens in good condition.

Is there some evidence that B&J sent the remanufactured lenses back to the original manufacturers for quality control inspection?

I agree that on my lens, the TT&H configuration, quality of build and image rendition is still there beneath the B&J paint, but as mentioned in Jim's quote above, not all B&J work was so high a quality. There are also accounts of the B&J Carl Meyer lenses and B&J-assembled Berlin Dagors often not being up to "magnificient" standards.

One good thing that's come out of this discussion is the revelation that your prize's barrel is original TTH and that all B&J did to it was repaint it. Its undamaged. At this point you should cherish it and rejoice that you have it.

Cheers,

Dan

Agreed! Two things I wanted from this lens were the image rendition, which I knew it had from the start, and being able to say without qualification that "this image was made with a Cooke Portrait Lens." That was in question, but now is resolved. I'd rather the lens had its original factory finish, but I can live with it happily, just as it is.

Most of us have heard the old Ansel Adams quote, "a Cooke, of couse!" I didn't want to have to say, "a Cooke, well, sort of..." But underneath, it's a Cooke, and prints from its negatives show it.

And to that, I can say "Cheers, Dan!" :)

Dan Fromm

8-Sep-2009, 02:52

Mark,

Charlie says that all B&J did to his Sonnar was put a B&J sticker on it.

We -- including me -- are having trouble telling the difference between B&J's Carl Meyer confections, B&J's reassembled Dagors, and good lenses that have B&J stickers on them. It seems that the B&J sticker doesn't always indicate low quality. It would be nice to have a simple decision rule, but I don't see one.

Cheers,

Dan

Jim Galli

8-Sep-2009, 10:15

Jim,

Is the engraving the same or did B&J simply fill the original engraving to contrast with the black "stealth" finish? It would be interesting to show photos of the barrels side-by-side to better see the differences and the similarities.

Hi Will. I thought about that and should have followed through when I had a minute to call my own. Labor day was just the first of at least 2 lost weekends where time is not my own at all. In a couple of weeks I'll get this done when no one cares any more. I'm thinking the lettering is all Cooke but a new color. Pics will definitely help.

Barbara Lowry

9-Sep-2009, 13:58

Hi All, I thought I would step up and offer some information to help you identify your vintage Cooke lenses. I will make this as short as possible. I'm the archivist (among other things) at Cooke Optics Limited. As such, I have the benefit of lots of documentation and other 'stuff' but until recently, I had never run into Cooke lenses popping up on the market that I couldn't easily identify. Only days ago, I thought that the Cooke lens purchased by Mark Sawyer could have Cooke glass. Now I'm not convinced of that:

Why would someone take the glass out of an old lens, rehouse it and take great care to engrave new metalwork to look like it came from the original factory? To my mind, it had to be a larger operation than a one-off for personal use. The Taylors of TT&H and H. Dennis Taylor of T. Cooke & Sons (Cooke Triplet Patent fame), were very proprietary about their lens design recipes. Other than a request from Voightlander in 1896 to make Cooke lenses, to my knowledge, no one did, including Voightlander. (Cooke cine lenses, however, have been retro-fitted for various film formats over the years by reputable companies.)

One way to help you confirm you own a real Cooke lens: Look for an engraved arrow at the screw thread end of the lens, pointing to a notched, abrupt start/stop. On some there will also be a 'TH' engraved in a circle near the thread as well. William Taylor invented this screw thread design to prevent photographers from dropping the lens due to not knowing when the unscrewing process would stop. From owners of Cookes, I have learned that the patented screw thread (William Taylor, GB/1916, France/1917, US/1926) graces all Cooke still lenses made after the patent. If your Cooke lens doesn't have this feature and engraving, then you don't have a still lens made in Leicester.

I am not a photographer and don't plan to be a regular contributor here, but thought I might be able to help a bit. I'm also keen on protecting our Cooke legacy, of course. That being said, I have seen a photo taken by Mark Sawyer with his new lens and it looks gorgeous regardless of the lens' pedigree!

eddie

9-Sep-2009, 14:09

thanks barbara.

this info is most helpful.

eddie

edit: still looking for the little arrow.....

Pete Roody

9-Sep-2009, 14:44

Why would someone take the glass out of an old lens, rehouse it and take great care to engrave new metalwork to look like it came from the original factory? To my mind, it had to be a larger operation than a one-off for personal use.

Hi Barbara,

Burke & James did this on a regular basis. They re-sold many lenses and did work to make them better in their opinion. Or maybe they felt the re-work made the lenses easier to sell. They added cold coatings to many lenses. This involved separating cemented elements, adding the coating and re-cementing them. They often painted the barrels also. If a barrel had a broken iris, the would remount the lens in a different barrel.

Maybe Mark's lens started with Cooke glass and was re-worked? The glass was what they could not make themselves.

Pete

Mark Sawyer

9-Sep-2009, 17:59

My best guess is still that it's a Cooke lens refinished in black by Burke & James. The black finish is "okay", but the quality of the barrel underneath is very high and comparable to my other Cookes. It's rather heavy, made of brass, and all movements are very smooth with no play in them, all these things being consistent with the other Cookes I've owned and seen. There are some strong similarities in some of the engravings, such as the little dot under the "o" in the serial number's "No XXXX". There are also some differences, but then there are differences between the engravings in my known Cooke lenses. I'll also note that, sitting here with the lens in my lap and studying it closely, the barrel construction appears quite identical to the Cooke Portrait Lens in the Cooke catalog at Seth's cameraeccentric site:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g139/Owen21k/cooke_1_06.jpg

I also notice the mounting flange was labeled "TT&H", (and I doubt B&J would counterfeit the TT&H markings on a mounting flange):

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g139/Owen21k/P1020007.jpg

And the mounting flange is identical in size to my Cooke 12.5" f/3.5 mounting flange. (Both flanges fit both lenses.)

There are many examples of B&J refinishing lenses, but I haven't yet heard of them outright counterfitting a lens. The refinish of this lens also looks quite similar to the refinish on Jim Galli's lens (post 15 in this thread).

So I'm still pretty well convinced it's a Cooke, and will call it that if no one (including Barbara) minds. I have no plans to sell it, (certainly not before using it a while!), but if I ever do, I'll point any potential buyer to this thread.

Thanks again, all!

goamules

10-Sep-2009, 07:49

I think you are right, it's a refurbished Cooke. From what I've read, B&J was in the business of refurbishing, not manufacturing from scratch. From what I know, painting and engraving is easy to do, manufacturing brass to tight tolerances and grinding lenses isn't. I'm sure they just tried to "pretty up" and "modernize" lenses on hand. They had a large "lens bank" as they called it, and brass was very old fashioned looking after the 1920s. The logic says it's a Cooke, refinished. Enjoy it some more.

wfwhitaker

10-Sep-2009, 09:29

Everybody knows pros use black-finish lenses and cameras. ;)

Ernest Purdum

10-Sep-2009, 10:16

The TT&H flange is interesting. Cooke flanges had threads unique to TT&H products. While I suppose B&J could have made up a new barrel to match the flange, I very much doubt that they would have. I think, therefore, that the lens barrel is almost surely original.

Cooke mounting threads are quite easy to distinguish. They are coarser than others and the first thread starts abruptly rather than tapering in. Chance of cross-threading is vastly reduced.

goamules

10-Sep-2009, 11:07

The threads would be an excellent way to confirm it's made by TTH/Cooke. I was thinking that all along, but couldn't think of a way to describe their unique threads. But besides the course thread, with the lead thread beginning abruptly mentioned above, one 1915 reference says "...exactly three complete turns will bring the lens home, and vice versa..." Try that test Mark (though I don't know for certain if the later ones did that - how about EVERYONE with a TTH/Cooke try that!)

Garrett

Mark Sawyer

10-Sep-2009, 11:52

Garrett[/QUOTE]

The TT&H flange is interesting. Cooke flanges had threads unique to TT&H products. While I suppose B&J could have made up a new barrel to match the flange, I very much doubt that they would have. I think, therefore, that the lens barrel is almost surely original.

Cooke mounting threads are quite easy to distinguish. They are coarser than others and the first thread starts abruptly rather than tapering in. Chance of cross-threading is vastly reduced.

The threads would be an excellent way to confirm it's made by TTH/Cooke. I was thinking that all along, but couldn't think of a way to describe their unique threads. But besides the course thread, with the lead thread beginning abruptly mentioned above, one 1915 reference says "...exactly three complete turns will bring the lens home, and vice versa..." Try that test Mark (though I don't know for certain if the later ones did that - how about EVERYONE with a TTH/Cooke try that!)

This describes the mounting threads on my Cooke 12.5" and the 16" lens in question very accurately. As they interchange quite nicely, and both are off in three turns, I'm taking this as more strong evidence that it's a Cooke! Thank you, Ernest and Garrett! :)

cowanw

27-Oct-2009, 17:16

I just got a new series II Anastigmat Cooke lens and thought I would share a bit about it here and see what folks might say.
Executive Summary
I am putting this in here because my googleing on the topic suggests that non diffussion Series II are Aviar lenses and not Triplets but this is most certainly a triplet.
I am hoping it is a 0 diffussion Portrait lens;) We will see when I get it mounted.

It looks somewhat like between this lens that Eddie had
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=34033&highlight=cooke
but is bigger black laquered and ? older with a serial number 22960.
and this older lens
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7493297@N07/445428756/

It is Equvalent to (Fo)cus 10.4 inches and f4.5 for whole plate 6 1/2 X 8 1/2.
It has no diffussion mechanism but is a triplet with 4 strong reflections in the front and 2 in the back, not an Aviar Dialyt
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=50624&highlight=cooke+series
post 8
The side of the barrell has Leicester London and New York as well as Taylor Taylor and Hobson and 6 1/2 X 8 1/2 inches engraved.
The retaining ring has a kind of c and tth logo, with the c surrounding the tt which make an H as well as England engraved on it.
Regards
Bill