What actually makes a Darlot special?

[DanK]

What actually makes a Darlot lens special or command a higher price? (typically on the auction sites)

Were they made better?

Better glass? Better design?

Curious...

Thanks,
Dan

[Wimpler]

They had a lot of experience as they were one of the very early lens makers.

They innovated a lot, introducing new designs.

They advertised a lot, and well.

All of their products were made to high standards (they had no 'cheap' range as some other makers did)?


All of the above lead to a very well known and respected brand name, also they are an important company in lens history.

[eddie]

i tend to disagree with the above ideas. i see darlot as teh ford motor company of lenses. they are like escorts. well made affordable average stuff that allowed many many people to create images.

they made thousands of lenses. they were a huge manufacturer at the time.

they produce many lenses that were rebranded lenses.

darlot was not a real early lens manufacturer. the name/company emerged about 1860 or so. the company he took over (Jamin) was around longer. there were many other camera lens manufactures around from the late 30s....and many of them made optics way before that.

i find that darlots are super over rated and over priced lenses in the market today. there are many lenses of equal quality for a much less price....there are even better quality lenses available at the same or less money as well.

do not get me wrong, they produce wonderful results.....but so did the ford escort....nothing out of the ordinary except the prices....IMO

eddie

[CCHarrison]

When Darlot took over from Jamin, Darlot expanded in size to become a significant player in the lens market both in Europe and, via Benjamin French's import, the United States.

Darlot's were sold as lower priced alternatives to Voigtlander and (say) Harrison (and then Morrison lenses) in the US. In 1890, Voigtlander Quick-Workers Petzval covering 5x7 sold for $ 90.00 while the similiar Darlot Quick-Working lens cost $ 32.00.


Collecting-wise, Darlot's are actually a bit more common than most other lens makers/sellers of in the 19th century. Fairly large quantities were sold both home and abroad for many years. However, their values are generally not negatively impacted by this. More common doesn't really equate to lowest values. I think some of the reasons are:

1. Darlot's are fairly easy to identify, date and verify as being original. Most models are also well documented in old catalogues and/or advertisements. It makes buyers feel good knowing what they just paid $ 700 for.

2. Most Darlot's appear well built, look good, and can fit a camera of most any origin and it be a suitable lens.

3. Saying you own a fine "Darlot" Petzval is much cooler than saying you own a "Grubb" Petzval. Its no coincidence Darlot and Merlot sound alike :)

4. Darlot's still sell for much less than comparable 19th century Voigtlander's and less common US made lenses, so Darlot is still a popular alternative in the buyers market.

5. Who doesnt think the Darlot 3-Lever is cool the first time you see one in person ? The Cones are also very interesting. Popularity of these seems to carry over to their much less interesting Portrait and Landscape lenses. All cheap-ish knock-offs.


See an 1890 Benjamin French Catalogue (http://www.antiquecameras.net/1890lenscatalogue.html)featuring Darlot lenses of the day.


Dan

[Steven Tribe]

I agree with the comments of both Eddie and CC. Darlot must have been hated by the UK and US lens makers as they imported large quantities at discount prices. In addition, certainly in the UK, they supplied lots of blank objectives to camera makers and photographic outlets who could engrave their own names. Just as B&L and others did internally in the States.

I personally think that innovation halted with landscape/petzval convertible - the 3lever stop is just a variation on the wheel stop system on an aplanat/RR. All the later interesting objectives seem to have been introduced into Darlot by outside people.

[goamules]

What actually makes a Darlot lens special or command a higher price? (typically on the auction sites)...

Thanks,
Dan

Hype. Like mentioned above, when a Dallmeyer or Voigtlander cost almost $100 (keep in mind a few years later you could buy a brand new Model-T car for about that much), Darlots were the bottom of the heap, for "when you can't afford the best."

But for the last 5 years all the Internet sites have had people perpetuating the belief that Darlot was somehow the cream of the crop. I'm not saying they are bad. Just very, very common.

The early designs that were unique, like the Cone Centralizer, were actually invented by Jamin. Darlot kept making good Jamin designs (and made a few others) after he took the business. 30 years later magic lantern and projector companies looked for a cheap lens to put on their devices. They went to Darlot. You don't put an expensive Dallmeyer on a projector.... But Darlot did work with a few people to make some unique soft focus lenses.

For every decent brand that I see sell on OhBoy, I see about 20 Darlots go by. Makes you wonder why anyone would pay what they do, when there are probably 4 for sale right this moment on the auction site.

[Jim Galli]

None of the above. They were the cheap seats lenses of their time. But perhaps in some cases, particularly petzval's, that may translate into a less perfectly corrected lens than say a Voigtlaender or a Dallmeyer. And that's where we're at just now isn't it. I had a friend contact me and want the particular lens he had borrowed and used once because his Dallmeyer's were too good. It wasn't a Darlot though.

Actually, all of this is bosh. We pay more for them because who can say the name and not think of the little black haired girl on 'little rascals' that was always the heartthrob for AlfAlfa and the rich kid.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Julia Margaret Cameron called her Darlot "that awful French lens", or something of the sort, and eventually replaced it with a Dallmeyer.

[Richard Rankin]

I don't see that they get particularly higher prices than other petzvals in auctions in general. I don't keep a written record, but I'd be surprised if that were an accurate observation. The Dallmeyer and Ross lenses, at least the ones I've seen, go for much higher prices, no doubt because there are so many fewer available. But there are some sales results that defy explanation, and some involve Darlots.

Darlot might have sold cheaper because of huge economy of scale as well as a lower quality. Whatever they did, it gave them a large part of the market, and from what I've seen, their prices reflect that.

[goamules]

I don't see that they get particularly higher prices than other petzvals in auctions in general. I don't keep a written record, but I'd be surprised if that were an accurate observation. The Dallmeyer and Ross lenses, at least the ones I've seen, go for much higher prices, no doubt because there are so many fewer available. ....

Hi Richard. I've been involved with the lens culture for several years, and watch the prices very closely. I also keep records. Many a time a Darlot Magic Lantern lens will sell for above $500 (though certainly not always), while better, bigger, older, faster, rarer photographic lenses stagnate and eventually sell for about half that.

I do see the trend changing somewhat, where the "sleeper" lenses are creeping up too.

I agree most of the public recognizes the quality of Dallmeyer, those lenses go very high usually. But like Jim says, a lot of the appeal of a Petzval is it's unusual signature, and even a cheap one can give that. Which may have been the original appeal of Darlots, say 7 years ago, when they were the cheapest because they were the most common. There was a lot of internet chatter about the make. Demand got stronger, and the prices went up.