Petzval lens from "COOKE" ???

[SAShruby]

I'm curious, what is so special about this lens? It seems price went too high.

Petzval Lens (http://cgi.ebay.com/COOKE-brass-Petzval-portrait-lens-c1865-23inch-f5-8-/330447902675?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_Photography_VintagePhotography_VintagePhotoAccessories&hash=item4cf03ad7d3)

[goamules]

I would say it's mostly the large size. It's very difficult to get Petzvals over about 18", and this one is a 23". The Cooke name is not the later one we all know that worked with Taylor Taylor and Hobson. I have a vague recollection of another Cooke from an earlier period. Some bidders may have confused that too. But if you have an 11x14 or so, and really want a petzval, there aren't many out there.

[Steven Tribe]

Cooke is fairly common surname in England, so apart from the old long established T.Cooke (later C.T.S) of York (who didn't make photographic objectives and whose designer, Taylor, licensed the triplet to Taylor, Taylor & Hobson) there have been a number of retailers with the name. This Cooke has appeared before in E**y. This is likely a retailer marked French Petzval, which I hope the winner was aware of.

[SAShruby]

There is a 18" Eidoscope on the market at slightly better price, in my opinion, it's far better lens than this Petzval.

[Ty G]

....because they used the MAGIC word, PETZVAL!!! Guys who find and sell crap now know that is the key word to put in the heading of any ebay lens that is brass, even RR's.

[Pete Watkins]

Taylor, Taylor & Hobson wern't even thought of in 1865 and the Cooke who was associated with the company didn't join them until after 1898.
Pete.

[SAShruby]

Taylor, Taylor & Hobson wern't even thought of in 1865 and the Cooke who was associated with the company didn't join them until after 1898.
Pete.

That is what I know as well. COOKE never made petzvals. I wasn't 100% sure about that, more like 95%. This looked little fishy to me since I put it on my watch list 6 days ago. Wanted to know the final price and then "wonder" why so much...

[goamules]

....because they used the MAGIC word, PETZVAL!!! Guys who find and sell crap now know that is the key word to put in the heading of any ebay lens that is brass, even RR's.

Again, the fact that it's an uncommonly long focal length Petzval is the reason it is worth more. I surely wouldn't say the lens is crap, it looks like it's quality, with original lacquer, flange and lenscap. Keep in mind the diameter of the glass is 4 inches. The diameter of my largest 16" Vitax petzval is only 3 1/4. I've bought from this seller before, and he knows his lenses and has quality stuff (I have no other tie).

Ty, you make mammoth cameras, how easy have you found 23" petzvals when a client wants one on his mammoth? For every 500 6-12" petzvals a company made back then, they probably made one this sized....

[CCHarrison]

An 1867 issue of the British Journal of Photography mentions a "Cooke of Hoxton" lens in an ad as does an 1881 BJP issue which mentions "J. Cooke" of Hoxton.

Other references from the 1870's mention John Cooke of Hoxton. So, clearly there was another seller of lenses named Cooke which had nothing to do with TT&H's "Cooke" line.

It appears that in the early 1860's he was at 63 Hoxton London and by 1868 at 126 Hoxton in London

The value is from the size of the lens.

The Vade Mecum (http://www.antiquecameras.net/lensvademecum.html) also mentions a Cooke of Hoxton reference.

Dan

[CCHarrison]

And here is an ad from 1878 BJP fro John Cooke of Hoxton Street London

Dan

[eddie]

just crazy....it is not a "cooke" as we know it. based on the crappy photo of the name we will never know if it is the company CC notes above. AND the seller states it was a French lens so maybe CC ad from above is not applicable.

and to think i was trying to sell some similar lenses for almost half....i guess i need ot ask for more money.

e

[CCHarrison]

Eddie

The ebay ad states the writing on the lens is "Cooke 63 Hoxton Old Town London "
so, I am certain the J Cooke referenced in my posts is the seller of the lens ( exact address match ). Cooke appears to have re-sold other peoples products - so the lens was likely made by Jamin/Darlot or some other maker and sold by Cooke which was common practice.

Dan

[Ty G]

Garrett, I didn't say that one was crap. Heck, I didn't even pay that much attention to it. I saw it was a large lens. But, I was just making a tongue-in-cheek response about how guys use the word Petzval, even for lenses that are not. I see them all the time on ebay.

Yes, all sought after lenses are hard to come by, especially the ones for large formats with long focal lengths.

I surely didn't intend to offend or break any hearts.

[Mark Sawyer]

....because they used the MAGIC word, PETZVAL!!! Guys who find and sell crap now know that is the key word to put in the heading of any ebay lens that is brass, even RR's.

And a quick reminder that back in the day, those RR's were considered a big improvement over the Petzvals. It's just a nerdy group of optical-luddites having fun with the optical defects that drives the price up!

[Ty G]

Very true Mark. So, everyone who can only afford RR's right now, hold on to them, and they may be worth gold once the Petzval craze gives out. But that Petzval craze has a lot of steam to it.

[Jim Galli]

I was not surprised by the price. Putting a Dallmeyer 6D next to it that looked smaller was a coup de gras. I watched it as I have the real McCoy (a 25" Voigtlander 7A) that I'm thinking of selling and the number in my brain was closer to $3000. And yes, the Eidoscop for less is great if you wanted apples instead of oranges. However, a comparable Eidoscop (24") has been hovering at :eek:bay at $15,000.

Once you leave the 18" 19" world the rarity goes up by magnitude because there were never that many to begin with. Folks that needed a 25" lens were about 1 per 1,000 that needed an 18" lens. Mammoth stuff is even worse.

And yes, RR's, the excellent ones like Voigtlander Euryscop Series IV have finally started to get some notoriety. I sold a #6 (21") for over $700 and offered my #7 (24.5") but not for less than $1300. Same reasoning. Magnitude of rarity skyrockets beyond 10X8 lens sizes.

[goamules]

I'm in agreement that the Rapid Rectilinears are sleepers, because any lens of this size is pretty uncommon, and should command decent prices. Basically, not many 25" lenses of any type were made, I would suspect. I have a 21" Cooke Anastigmat, and a 23" Portrait Rapid Rectilinear (F6) but nothing else that long that I can think of.