What sort of Pinkham & Smith is this?

[benrains]

I just noticed this on eBay (no connection with the seller). It's a Pinkham & Smith f/5 15.5" focal length lens, which looks to have some sort of rotating diffusion device near the front of the lens barrel. I checked the specs against the 1920s era P&S catalogs I could find, but none of them have a lens that matches:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=400113691097

I'm sure it's value will go way beyond what I can afford, but I'm still curious what exactly it is.

[Jim Galli]

Glad you asked. That lens is nothing more than a Bausch & Lomb petzval that was marked and sold by P&S. It's put together backwards. The double lens was to be at the back for diffusion. Very common, but the Pinkham Script adds $2250 to the value.

I've had that same Petzval marked as SeRoCo, Eastman Kodak, Hyatt, and some others I can't even think of right now. Pinkham & Smith also sold rebranded Wollensak petzvals. I think the Petzvals predate the soft focus lenses.

[benrains]

Ok. I was gonna say it looked an awful lot like some of the Kodak branded Petzval portrait lenses I'd seen. I'll be curious to see how high the price on it goes.

[goamules]

Glad you asked. That lens is nothing more than a Bausch & Lomb petzval that was marked and sold by P&S. It's put together backwards. The double lens was to be at the back for diffusion. Very common, but the Pinkham Script adds $2250 to the value...

Wait, you've got it all wrong. Our F-5 Bausch and Lombs are, "The Same as the Pinkham and Smith Model that recently sold for....." (fill in here after auction).

[Jim Galli]

Wait, you've got it all wrong. Our F-5 Bausch and Lombs are, "The Same as the Pinkham and Smith Model that recently sold for....." (fill in here after auction).


Ha ha ha ha, don't I wish. Nothing wrong with the B&L petzval's either, they're superb.

[SR95RACER]

I met a guy in Waltham a few years back at the local photographica show ,he had one just like that and he refused $3000.00 for it .He told me that the Smith Co. tried many different set up for their lenses and many different combinations ,many of the lenses ended up on the trash can until they got their formula right .One thing i tell you, there's no cheap Pinkham,and if someone has one of those that was discarded and got saved somehow, it will be the most expensive of them all , just like the 1943 penny ,maybe not for us ,but for collectors .It is a fact that Pinkham & Smith produced many different lenses and the ones we see online is just a handful of them .The prices they are going for these days will flush some of them out .Wait and see .If the prices hold up ,we can end up having a new lens every week or month .Now , i just can't bring myself to think that the Smith co .would market a B&L lens or whatever other availliable at the time ,and built their company name as a lens manufacture on top of that .It's almost like saying that a cheap Chinese copy is better than the original American , and that the Chinese copy will one day sell for thousands and the original American will just fade in the background ,not to mention the patents .

[seven]

i had exactly the same lens branded as Eastman Kodak.

[Jim Galli]

I met a guy in Waltham a few years back at the local photographica show ,he had one just like that and he refused $3000.00 for it .He told me that the Smith Co. tried many different set up for their lenses and many different combinations ,many of the lenses ended up on the trash can until they got their formula right .One thing i tell you, there's no cheap Pinkham,and if someone has one of those that was discarded and got saved somehow, it will be the most expensive of them all , just like the 1943 penny ,maybe not for us ,but for collectors .It is a fact that Pinkham & Smith produced many different lenses and the ones we see online is just a handful of them .The prices they are going for these days will flush some of them out .Wait and see .If the prices hold up ,we can end up having a new lens every week or month .Now , i just can't bring myself to think that the Smith co .would market a B&L lens or whatever other availliable at the time ,and built their company name as a lens manufacture on top of that .It's almost like saying that a cheap Chinese copy is better than the original American , and that the Chinese copy will one day sell for thousands and the original American will just fade in the background ,not to mention the patents .

Pinkham & Smith of Boston was a supply house. They had suppliers for their wares. They sold eye glasses, (I have an original box) theatre glasses, all kinds of optical paraphanalia. Like Woolworths. The soft focus thing came later. Trust me or not, that is a Bausch and Lomb product you're looking at in the ebay add. A few months ago a similar one sold that was a Wollensak.

[SR95RACER]

Pinkham & Smith of Boston was a supply house. They had suppliers for their wares. They sold eye glasses, (I have an original box) theatre glasses, all kinds of optical paraphanalia. Like Woolworths. The soft focus thing came later. Trust me or not, that is a Bausch and Lomb product you're looking at in the ebay add. A few months ago a similar one sold that was a Wollensak.

So you are saying that the Bi Quality is just another Wollensak and so is the Gundlach Portrait series A ?Now, is Bausch and Lomb a Wollensak or is a Wollensak a Bausch and Lomb ?That Pinkham looks like a Wollensak Series A and the Bi Quality looks like a Wollensak Verito on a barrel .
Wow ,that makes me appreciate my Verito even more .Maybe i'll buy a dozen of them while they are still cheap !:D

[Jim Galli]

So you are saying that the Bi Quality is just another Wollensak and so is the Gundlach Portrait series A ?Now, is Bausch and Lomb a Wollensak or is a Wollensak a Bausch and Lomb ?That Pinkham looks like a Wollensak Series A and the Bi Quality looks like a Wollensak Verito on a barrel .
Wow ,that makes me appreciate my Verito even more .Maybe i'll buy a dozen of them while they are still cheap !:D

Around 1905, both Bausch and Lomb and Wollensak did a large business supplying lenses to supply houses like Hyatt in St. Louis, Northern in Minn. Sears Roebuck, Montgomery Wards, etc. Both of them supplied lenses that the "houses" would then engrave their names on and sell.

Later on, around 1912 or 1913 I think, Pinkham & Smith began manufacturing their own line of soft focus lenses. They are catalogued. For instance, the $12,500 one that recently showed up on EBAY is the real deal. Catalogued and made by P&S. Yes, they did borrow some barrel components later on from Wollensak, but the lenses were there own. The earliest soft focus lenses, the Semi Achromats were in barrels quite different from any B&L or Wollensak and are unique. Any of the catalogued soft focus lenses are beyond special and priced accordingly.

Where ignorance happens is when folks think these early 1905-ish ordinary rebranded petzval's are one and the same with the later catalogued soft focus lenses and pay idiotic prices for a Bausch and Lomb petzval.

Believe whatever you wish about me or what I am claiming, this is all I'm going to say about this.

[SR95RACER]

Around 1905, both Bausch and Lomb and Wollensak did a large business supplying lenses to supply houses like Hyatt in St. Louis, Northern in Minn. Sears Roebuck, Montgomery Wards, etc. Both of them supplied lenses that the "houses" would then engrave their names on and sell.

Later on, around 1912 or 1913 I think, Pinkham & Smith began manufacturing their own line of soft focus lenses. They are catalogued. For instance, the $12,500 one that recently showed up on EBAY is the real deal. Catalogued and made by P&S. Yes, they did borrow some barrel components later on from Wollensak, but the lenses were there own. The earliest soft focus lenses, the Semi Achromats were in barrels quite different from any B&L or Wollensak and are unique. Any of the catalogued soft focus lenses are beyond special and priced accordingly.

Where ignorance happens is when folks think these early 1905-ish ordinary rebranded petzval's are one and the same with the later catalogued soft focus lenses and pay idiotic prices for a Bausch and Lomb petzval.

Believe whatever you wish about me or what I am claiming, this is all I'm going to say about this.

I prefer to think that it is a Wollensak barrel and not a Bausch and Lomb one,there is history to support the Wollensak claim and no history behind a Bausch and Lomb and Pinkham & Smith association.When we make a statement , we also have to provide some context or solid proof of our claims .For exemple ,the synthetic version of Pinkham and Smith uses a Studio shutter from Wollensak and the Bi Quality uses the barrel and iris of a Wollensak Verito,there's your context and solid proof .Until someone post some pictures of a original Pinkham with a Volute or Compound shutter,or mounted on a Bausch and Lomb barrel and yet cataloged ,i'll stick to my claim . But since you claim it is a Bausch and Lomb lens,to which Bausch and Lomb lens should i compare it to ?Let's not trash a piece of history with claims but with context and solid proof . I have no relationship with that seller or even know him ,until proven otherwise with real facts and solid evidence ,that lens is a legit Pinkham & Smith and a rare one .

[Jim Galli]

I prefer to think that it is a Wollensak barrel and not a Bausch and Lomb one,there is history to support the Wollensak claim and no history behind a Bausch and Lomb and Pinkham & Smith association.When we make a statement , we also have to provide some context or solid proof of our claims .For exemple ,the synthetic version of Pinkham and Smith uses a Studio shutter from Wollensak and the Bi Quality uses the barrel and iris of a Wollensak Verito,there's your context and solid proof .Until someone post some pictures of a original Pinkham with a Volute or Compound shutter,or mounted on a Bausch and Lomb barrel and yet cataloged ,i'll stick to my claim . But since you claim it is a Bausch and Lomb lens,to which Bausch and Lomb lens should i compare it to ?Let's not trash a piece of history with claims but with context and solid proof . I have no relationship with that seller or even know him ,until proven otherwise with real facts and solid evidence ,that lens is a legit Pinkham & Smith and a rare one .

You're absolutely spot on correct and I think you ought to bid it to the moon. I'd like to see you pay about $4800 for that lens. Brilliant.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Based on the typeface alone, I would agree with Jim, this is a B&L made lens. Anyhow, much of the "collectors" value (as opposed to users value) of the lens has been thrown out by polishing the brass.

[SR95RACER]

You didn't answer to what Bausch and Lomb lens i should compare it to ...

[BarryS]

You didn't answer to what Bausch and Lomb lens i should compare it to ...

Which Wollensak are you comparing the lens to---the Vesta? I ask because I've never seen a 15.5" Vesta and they were marketed under many names. The Vesta 8x10 was a 14" lens. My own whole plate version of the Vesta is a Seneca Series A Portrait lens. The hood is certainly similar to the P&S lens in the auction, but beyond that--the barrel style is different.

From what I've seen, Wollensak lenses are very well documented in the catalogs that survive, but either B&L wasn't very good at cataloging their products, or many of the catalogs aren't readily available. Jim owns (and has owned) a lot of lenses and I know he's familiar with the B&L Petzvals--so I'd think hard before dismissing his identification.

[benrains]

You didn't answer to what Bausch and Lomb lens i should compare it to ...

The lens I'd compare it to is the Eastman Portrait Series B f/5 lens, as found here in this vintage catalog advertistment--

http://books.google.com/books?id=r_HNAAAAMAAJ&dq=Eastman%20portrait%20lens&pg=PA26#v=onepage&q=Eastman%20portrait%20lens&f=false

I don't know whether these were made by Bausch & Lomb and resold by Eastman Kodak and others, or whether Eastman made them themselves, but everything thing about the P&S in question in terms of its look and design, including the engraving font, matches up with the examples of the Eastman Portrait Series lenses I've seen.

[SR95RACER]

I'm comparing the the one on Ebay to this one on page 19 http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensak_10.html .My point is , wollensak has a history with Pinkham but not with Bausch and Lomb .Here is my proof .But i'll be happy to to change my statement if someone can provide provide a similar looking lens made by Bausch and Lomb .We can say that Wollensak had been supplying P&S with barrels since at least 1906 .There is the context and proof of their relationship .

[seven]

here's a picture of my Kodak lens, as you can see it's the same as the P&S for sell.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2710/4503253948_e02f3d0eb9_b.jpg

[goamules]

...Now , i just can't bring myself to think that the Smith co .would market a B&L lens or whatever other availliable at the time ,and built their company name as a lens manufacture on top of that ...


...My point is , wollensak has a history with Pinkham but not with Bausch and Lomb .Here is my proof .But i'll be happy to to change my statement if someone can provide provide a similar looking lens made by Bausch and Lomb .We can say that Wollensak had been supplying P&S with barrels since at least 1906 .There is the context and proof of their relationship .

It seems your statements are changing on their own anyway. What, are you researching as you write these posts? Buy the "pinkham and smith" for $4500, it's all yours.

[Jim Galli]

Here's one with the Hyatt name. Note that they claimed exclusive. They didn't know those rascals up on Boylston street were selling them too. Probably exlusive in St. Louie.

[benrains]

I'm comparing the the one on Ebay to this one on page 19 http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensak_10.html .My point is , wollensak has a history with Pinkham but not with Bausch and Lomb .Here is my proof .But i'll be happy to to change my statement if someone can provide provide a similar looking lens made by Bausch and Lomb .We can say that Wollensak had been supplying P&S with barrels since at least 1906 .There is the context and proof of their relationship .

The lens on page 19, the Wollensak Portrait Lens Series A, was shortly afterwards renamed the Vesta (see page 16 of this later catalog- http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensak_9.html ).

I have two of these lenses. One is a Wollensak Vesta, and another is a rebranded one identified as a Seroco Portrait Lens Series II, but the engraving is identical to that on Wollensak's lenses. These Wollensak lenses have noticeable differences in their physical attributes from the P&S listed in the auction. The P&S looks a whole heck of a lot more like the Eastman Portrait Series B (with the exception Jim earlier pointed out about the diffusion device being mounted at the front of the lens, instead of the back... but I think this could just be a matter of it having been assembled incorrectly by the seller.)

[Paul Metcalf]

Here's one with the Hyatt name. Note that they claimed exclusive. They didn't know those rascals up on Boylston street were selling them too. Probably exlusive in St. Louie.$60 for 8x10, I'll take two, please.

[SR95RACER]

The kodak Lens has a different barrel .Pay close attention to the hard to miss ring next to the f stop ring on the Kodak .It's not present on the P&S .What you see there is a refection of the iris .Now the Series A Wollensak is more like it in every aspect .Those who don't like it don't bid on it ,that simple .Now it is a P&S Portrait lens ,and what people think it looks like or who made it ,will not change that .

[benrains]

The kodak Lens has a different barrel .Pay close attention to the hard to miss ring next to the f stop ring on the Kodak .It's not present on the P&S .What you see there is a refection of the iris .

If you look at the text engraved on the P&S barrel, you'll see it's assembled backwards (and maybe the aperture ring is flipped too). This would also go some way to explain why the diffusion device is on the front. I'd say the lens is about 80% incorrectly assembled. :-)

[BarryS]

I'm comparing the the one on Ebay to this one on page 19 http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensak_10.html

The Series A line was later renamed as Vesta. Wollensak distributed these lenses to be rebranded as Seroco, Seneca, etc and they all used the same barrels. You see the exact same line of lenses show up with different branding. One interesting note, the branding is identified by the engraving on the inside of the lens hood in white on black. It looks to me like Wollensak did the engraving with the name of the ultimate distributor. The barrels also have a black lacquered ring--my Seneca Series A even has the Wollensak name engraved on the barrel ring. They're easy to recognize--have you ever seen one in person? Once you've seen a couple of these, you'd never mistake it for the P&S/Kodak lenses.

[benrains]

Closer inspection of the P&S photos has some clues about the assembly problems. Here's what I see--

1) Look at the back end of the lens. The brass band around the tail end seems to be just that, a removable brass band with no function. This doesn't make sense.

2) The main barrel of the lens is reversed (as indicated by the engraved text.)

3) The diffusion device (presently located at the front of the lens) is in the wrong place.

To properly assemble the lens, the brass band at the rear should be removed. The front lens&shade assembly should be removed, the diffusion device should be removed, and the main barrel should be removed. The diffusion device should be placed at the back of the lens. The plain brass band should be placed at the front of the aperture. The brass barrel should be turned around the right way and screwed into the brass band in front of the aperture. The front lens&shade assembly should be screwed into the front end of the barrel.

The lens will now be correctly assembled.

I'd wager that if 'seven' was inclined to do so with his Eastman Portrait Series B, he could come up with the same misconfigured arrangement as the P&S currently is in.

[SR95RACER]

Yes, i have . Seen and used some of these lenses some 40 years ago .I'm old but my brains are still doing some of his job .

[BarryS]

Yes, i have . Seen and used some of these lenses some 40 years ago .I'm old but my brains are still doing some of his job .

Welcome to the forum, sir. I'm glad you came in with your guns blazin', even if your shooting was wide, because I learned a bit on this thread today. :)

[benrains]

I have to correct my observations on the P&S assembly problems. I had been relying on seven's lens as a correct example of the Eastman Portrait lens. However, if I use the Eastman Kodak advertisement as the authoritative source--

http://books.google.com/books?id=r_HNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA26#v=onepage&q&f=false

then I actually believe there are problems with both the P&S lens and with seven's lens. In the case of the P&S, the engraving orientation does match with that of the Eastman lens as pictured in the advertisement, and it's seven's lens that has it oriented the wrong way.

In light of that, I'd say that all that needs to be done with the P&S is to have the diffusion device removed from the front and placed on the back of the lens (this is in line with Jim's original observation.)



Closer inspection of the P&S photos has some clues about the assembly problems. Here's what I see--

1) Look at the back end of the lens. The brass band around the tail end seems to be just that, a removable brass band with no function. This doesn't make sense.

2) The main barrel of the lens is reversed (as indicated by the engraved text.)

3) The diffusion device (presently located at the front of the lens) is in the wrong place.

To properly assemble the lens, the brass band at the rear should be removed. The front lens&shade assembly should be removed, the diffusion device should be removed, and the main barrel should be removed. The diffusion device should be placed at the back of the lens. The plain brass band should be placed at the front of the aperture. The brass barrel should be turned around the right way and screwed into the brass band in front of the aperture. The front lens&shade assembly should be screwed into the front end of the barrel.

The lens will now be correctly assembled.

I'd wager that if 'seven' was inclined to do so with his Eastman Portrait Series B, he could come up with the same misconfigured arrangement as the P&S currently is in.

[Petzval Paul]

"Until someone post some pictures of a original Pinkham with a Volute or Compound shutter,or mounted on a Bausch and Lomb barrel and yet cataloged ,i'll stick to my claim ."

I have one.

Unfortunately, I am in India right now and my lens is in the States, so I can't post a pic just yet. My lens is a No. 2 (i.e. 9") Synthetic Series VI in a B&L (marked) Volute shutter. It's a real-deal P&S with a late serial number (I'd place it to the late 20's). The barrel looks quite like a B&L, too. The glass, of course, is a different animal altogether...


"Later on, around 1912 or 1913 I think, Pinkham & Smith began manufacturing their own line of soft focus lenses"

Don't mind my asking, but from where has this information come?

[Jim Galli]

Here is a picture of my Bausch & Lomb 15X12 Series D. Note the style of the aperture control mechanism. This is a family characteristic that is quite recognizable on other large Bausch and Lomb lenses either side of the turn of the last century. Make whatever you wish of it.


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/01032008/BL15X12_1.jpg

Pinkham soft focus lenses all have a Series, and are catalogued. At least we have that much. Other "re-branded" lenses sold by P&S of Boston are just that. I've noted several of these petzvals by both B&L and Wollensak, and at least one curious 11X14 wide angle lens a couple of years ago. NOT catalogued with their later line of soft focus lenses.

[goamules]

And here is an 11x14, 23" F6 Portrait I've always subscribed to be a B&L. It reads (Bxxxsomething on the glass edge) Same black band, same adjustment. But I don't know...it could have been made by Robert Dempster...!

[CCHarrison]

Garett,

The Robert Dempster Co. was a large, photographic wholesaler which Kodak bought out in October 1903, although the name Dempster was kept in use at least through the early 1920's.

Dan

[goamules]

Yeah, and weren't they originally Hyatt, but Dempster bought them out? I was trying to remember who the first company was, but couldn't find my reference when I posted this pic this morning.

[CCHarrison]

Hyatt was out of St Louis and when the founder Henry Hyatt died in 1906, it ended up combining with St Louis Photo Supply Company in 1908. I dont believe there is a Dempster-Hyatt connection.

Best,
Dan

[Mark Sawyer]

What sort of Pinkham & Smith is this?

This is the expensive sort of Pinkham & Smith.

Always glad to help...

[benrains]

This is the expensive sort of Pinkham & Smith.

Always glad to help...

But so far it's not the extremely expensive sort. There are still a good 11 hrs left on the auction, but I'd have expected it to have gone up more than it has by now (if only for the sake of the collectible value it holds with the Pinkham & Smith name on it.)

[goamules]

Pinkham & Smith made binoculars too....

[Mark Sawyer]

Right now on ebay, you can bid on a Pinkham & Smith thermometer, or a Pinkham & Smith barometer. I've got a pair of Pinkham & Smith binoculars, (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=35482), but Pinkham and Smith's main business was prescription eyeglasses.

Pinkham & Smith was a sizeable optical firm well before it made lenses, and distributed other manufacturers' lenses before they started making their own lenes at the prompting of Alvin Langdon Coburn and F. Holland Day. Those earliest P&S pictorial lenses were based on the Dallmeyer-Bergheim, which from the ouside had a similar layout (long-ish Petzval-looking barrel) to the lens in question. So it could be that, which would make it very historical and valuable indeed.

There were rumors at the time that P&S were buying other manufacturers' "normal" lenses and modifying them into pictorial lenses. It could be one of those.

Or it could be just a run-of-the-mill lens made by someone else with Pinkham & Smith's name engraved on it.

Who knows what optics are lurking in that shiney brass barrel. The seller does mention it has a soft look on the ground glass. And of course, ebay sellers would never embellish such a thing...

[benrains]

If P&S made soft-focus eyeglasses, I'd definitely want a pair of those.

[Mark Sawyer]

If P&S made soft-focus eyeglasses, I'd definitely want a pair of those.

My glasses are generic, but I notice they get a little more soft-focus every year...

[SAShruby]

SO, who is the lucky winner? :) $1,385? Anyone here?

[SAShruby]

It's back!

Pinkham Semiachromatic Series III, No.3 (http://cgi.ebay.com/Pinkham-Smith-SemiAchromatic-Doublet-Ser-III-No-III-/330427681063?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item4cef064927)

Anyone know next week 649 numbers? I really need it!!!
I bet $2 that this time it will go...Any takers?

[Robert Hughes]

The only way this lens would be worth 1/10 the asking price would be if it were installed on one of those Littman Polaroid conversions.

But, as they say, an LF photog and his money ...

[Jim Galli]

The only way this lens would be worth 1/10 the asking price would be if it were installed on one of those Littman Polaroid conversions.

But, as they say, an LF photog and his money ...

I quite disagree.


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Pinkham-Smith/SAiiiJB/DeadRoses2s.jpg
done with that lens

If 2 'ordinary' Series IV's have sold for $4400+ in the last month, and this may be the only existing example of a Series III, how do you go about setting a value? I think it needs to come to Tonopah, but of course, it's out of reach for a humble man making wages.

Hey J, if you're reading this, I'll trade a Deardorff V11 11X14 field camera and $1500 cash for it.

[SAShruby]

'Ordinary' is such a inappropriate word if it comes to Pinkhams... Jim, you gotta be carefull ;)

[benrains]

It's back!

Pinkham Semiachromatic Series III, No.3 (http://cgi.ebay.com/Pinkham-Smith-SemiAchromatic-Doublet-Ser-III-No-III-/330427681063?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item4cef064927)

Anyone know next week 649 numbers? I really need it!!!
I bet $2 that this time it will go...Any takers?

Well, but that's not the lens this thread was originally about. That one is actually probably worth the $12K being asked because of its scarcity.

[Jim Galli]

'Ordinary' is such a inappropriate word if it comes to Pinkhams... Jim, you gotta be carefull ;)

Comparatively. I've seen perhaps a dozen Series IV lenses, and own 2, happily. Still very very rare, and very special indeed. I've only seen or heard of one Series III. Chances are there are some more. After all, it was catalogued for several years.


Well, but that's not the lens this thread was originally about. That one is actually probably worth the $12K being asked because of its scarcity.

Good thread title. I think we should just resurrect this thread when new Pinkham discussions are relelvant, and that way they can mostly stay in one place. Sort of like a 'sticky'. Yes, the lens we're talking about now is certainly not the one that the thread started about.

[SAShruby]

Jim,

Hm, dozen... Even there would be a hundred of those, still inappropriate. :D

B, I saw this one a month ago on Ebay as maybe everyone else, I talked to guy who owns it, btw great guy, talked to guy who had a chance to buy it too, great guy ;), I know history about this one and... let me say, it's rare!

I never seen Series III to be posted on sale last five years... How about that?
So you want to shoot with it, you gotta go deep into your pockets or wait another decade...

p.s. So far Pinkhams double in price every 3-5 years or so... If you put $100 per month on your saving account, when it pops out on the market again, you may not end up as a winner 10 years from now, but charge another $12,000 from your credit card....

[CCHarrison]

Jim et al,

I can confirm in my research on the Pinkham lenses ( http://antiquecameras.net/softfocuslenses.html ) that the Series III is clearly the rarest of the bunch...hit the market about 1911 and by 1915, the VQ basically replaced the III. The VQ was even cheaper than III, which also likely kept sales/production down as did the lack of advertising....I bet the III may have only had a few hundred made, if that...

Dan

[8x10 user]

Maybe cooke will be inspired by the auction and reproduce this Pinkham as well.

[SAShruby]

Maybe cooke will be inspired by the auction and reproduce this Pinkham as well.


If they have any...

[8x10 user]

Looks like someone bought it.

[SAShruby]

So, I got by two bucks back... Anyone here? Don't be shy!

[Steven Tribe]

And another P&S rebadged Petzval, described (without commitment, though) as a soft lens, has (re)surfaced on e**y.

[goamules]

That's a very fishy auction. The person who he references had some pictures "taken with" the Pinkham on Flickr, but quickly removed them. I looked at them, and they were very soft....and very fake looking. One even had the Flickr tag on it that said, "taken with a Nikon D7000". I could be wrong, P&S might have taken a Wollensak Vesta petzval (which the current one obviously is), and hand ground it to be soft. Or it could be someone was suckered into buying it too high, and it now trying to sell it even higher.

[SR95RACER]

I know the original owner of that lens .That was not a Petzval .That lens has the same design as a Verito lens with a cemented rear element and everything and also works in the same way .The reason the pictures were take down was because the seller on ebay instead of take his sample pictures to sell the lens , was just using his pictures by listing his flirck id .He didn't like that and took it down .The lens is indeed soft and none of the pictures you saw were fake ,that's how they look .I know that very lens and have used it myself.The picture bellow was take by me using that lens .The lens barrel has the old aperture system engraved and on that system this picture was taken at f/2 i don't remember the shutter speed .This lens has a very nice look .Unfortunately i only got to play with it on my lunch time and it was around noon .The worst time to photograph .That goes to show that even a brass Pinkham can be a soft focus lens .He did a long study of that lens with day and night pics , and different shutter speeds and f stops . ATTACH=CONFIG]77653[/ATTACH]

[Steven Tribe]

Thanks for your comments and background information!
It was just as enlightening as your contributions earlier in this thread.

[Hugo Zhang]

For those in the know, is this a real one?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pinkham-Smith-9-in-f5-5x8-Portrait-Lens-/221307534807?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item3386f4fdd7

Synthetic?

[goamules]

Looks like the same thing I believe this post was started about. It's when they made regular portrait petzval lenses. Probably not soft focus, and not worth spending that much to find out it's not.

[Jim Galli]

For those in the know, is this a real one?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pinkham-Smith-9-in-f5-5x8-Portrait-Lens-/221307534807?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item3386f4fdd7

Synthetic?

Bausch & Lomb petzval rebranded and sold by Pinkham Smith

[Amedeus]

Clearly Petzval.