PDA

View Full Version : How could this have been made in the 1860's



Louis Pacilla
8-Feb-2011, 11:46
Just curious how this Darlot lens dates to 1860's w/ serial # 34.xxx ?

Also It;s not like he just kind of used the date. Read his description as he makes the claim of circa 1860 a few times & puts this lens in the wet plate days.

I would guess it was made around 1889-90 ish. It's a magic lantern lens & was post wet plate by quite a few years.



Hard to believe folks would pay this much for a magic lantern lens & no flange to boot. Go figure.


http://cgi.ebay.com/LARGE-DARLOT-PETZVAL-PORTRAIT-BRASS-LENS-8X10-5X7-4X5-/110643917034?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item19c2e430ea

goamules
8-Feb-2011, 11:55
You can fool some of the people some of the time. Some sellers strangely seem to have better odds than that.

You are spot on, it's a Magic Lantern or projector model, from probably the 1880s on. Darlots are impossible to date precisely. But it's certainly no Daguerreotype lens as claimed either. Jamin made the earliest lenses, then Darlot took over, and these say "Darlot, successors to Jamin" or such in french. Those were made up to about 1870 or so. After that they just read "Darlot Opticien", and finally just "Darlot, Paris" by 1900. This is a rough senquence. Here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=71296&highlight=impossible%20to%20date)is a Darlot Photographic Lens I sold a few weeks ago, for a much better price.

Louis Pacilla
8-Feb-2011, 12:05
Yep Garrett, I agree with you. Your lens was a MUCH better deal.

It's strange that he is rumored to be a lens expert. So it seems to me, hes either not much of a lens expert or not being honest.

Steven Tribe
8-Feb-2011, 12:44
It makes a nice change from his famous recent triplets. But 95% of the text is the same, though.

Mark Sawyer
8-Feb-2011, 16:12
"This lens was never cut for Waterhouse stops which indicates that it’s original use might have been for Daguerreotype photography."

My gosh, I've just discovered a dozen Daguerreotype lenses in my cabinet! And I thought they were just magic lantern lenses...

John Kasaian
9-Feb-2011, 00:06
"This lens was never cut for Waterhouse stops which indicates that itís original use might have been for Daguerreotype photography."

My gosh, I've just discovered a dozen Daguerreotype lenses in my cabinet! And I thought they were just magic lantern lenses...

Pull yer boots on boys cuz it's getting deep!

cdholden
9-Feb-2011, 08:01
"This lens was never cut for Waterhouse stops which indicates that itís original use might have been for Daguerreotype photography."

My gosh, I've just discovered a dozen Daguerreotype lenses in my cabinet! And I thought they were just magic lantern lenses...

I've got a Sinaron 210/5.6 in Copal 1. It doesn't have any waterhouse stops. By that logic, it must have been intended for Daguerrotypes.

cdholden
9-Feb-2011, 08:05
It's strange that he is rumored to be a lens expert. So it seems to me, hes either not much of a lens expert or not being honest.

Louis,
His integrity has come into question in recent times. You even commented on it. Are you losing your memory as you climb up there in dog years?
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=69442

Chris

eddie
9-Feb-2011, 09:29
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Why can't I get better money for my shit then? I got a perfectly good Dallmeyer 1a with an iris that i was trying to get less for and no one wanted it ...... I guess I need to raise the price. Maybe people think it is kit as good because it is too cheap. Ggggrrrrr

CP Goerz
9-Feb-2011, 10:31
He's also thrown in every key search word in the description there is......

Jon Wilson
9-Feb-2011, 20:24
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Why can't I get better money for my shit then? I got a perfectly good Dallmeyer 1a with an iris that i was trying to get less for and no one wanted it ...... I guess I need to raise the price. Maybe people think it is kit as good because it is too cheap. Ggggrrrrr

You don't have pretty aluminum 35mm film canister Eddie. Get a Kodak Yellow one :D

Richard Rankin
9-Feb-2011, 20:34
I think he gets more because he cleans them all up and makes 'em purty, AND all that babble makes it seem like he is an expert trying to spread his vast knowledge. It's all in the bidder's perception, and he seems to have it nailed down.

Add that he somehow has 100% positive in 3000 transactions, and people are going to pay top dollar. If you look at his feedback, a lot of his happy customers have under 100 feedback themselves, so might not even really know if the item they are getting is worth the money or not. Who knows? But face it, it's sour grapes and if we knew how to do it, we'd probably be doing it...

Richard

Two23
9-Feb-2011, 21:41
Thanks to what I've learned here, I was able to resist bidding on his items. I'm glad I listened. I traded some emails with him on a couple of items. I came away with the impression that the guy is all about getting as much money as he can, any way he can.


Kent in SD

goamules
10-Feb-2011, 07:12
If you look at his feedback, a lot of his happy customers have under 100 feedback themselves, so might not even really know if the item they are getting is worth the money or not...

Exactly. So someone bought a magic lantern lens for a laughable $1200, meanwhile a beautiful, no kidding 1860 Jamin (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180620630589) - Darlot Cone Centralizer goes for $550, under half what the projector lens did. The same week. The Jamin Cone was a revolutionary, unique portrait lens that was famous then, now, and in between. They were made during the daguerreotype era, and made for portrait and landscape photography. They were very expensive to make.

The projector lens was....well...

One Jamin Darlot buyer will be very happy this week. One will be very disappointed.

eddie
10-Feb-2011, 07:44
Yeah, but what would the cone lens have gotten if geoff sold it? I bet a couple three grand!

That e bay cone was hurt by the USA only bidder restriction.

May be the cone is missing and element and the buyer is NOT happy. Maybe the buyer of the lantern lens is super thrilled he is able to make the exact images he has been after.... Maybe he is laughing cause he did not pay for a Dallmeyer at $3000 and is laughing HIS ass off at those who spent 3 times his bid!

domaz
10-Feb-2011, 12:03
The projector lens was....well...

One Jamin Darlot buyer will be very happy this week. One will be very disappointed.

Maybe not- the projector lens will make swirlyesque images. If that's all the buyer wants he/she will be fine. Now if the buyer takes it to Antiques Roadshow it would be one of those classic "you paid too much for a fake moments".

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
10-Feb-2011, 12:10
...The Jamin Cone was a revolutionary, unique portrait lens that was famous then, now, and in between. They were made during the daguerreotype era, and made for portrait and landscape photography. They were very expensive to make...

If someone wants a crappy lens with all of those optical flaws they might as well buy one that is really poor, like a magic lantern lens, not a mediocre (but collectible) lens like the Jamin Cone.