Folmer & Schwing Graphic RB

[johnschlicher]

I just got a self casing 8 x 10 and I was wondering if any one knows what the original lens would have been. And what year it was made.

There's a round brass tag that is embedded on the inside that said's Folmer Schwing Graphic rb--( see picture)

It's basically an ugly box until you open it up, The lens on it is a Briggs 8 x 10 rapid convertible


Thanks,John
67050

67051

67052

[Drew Bedo]

Whatever it is, its a nice find!

[Drew Bedo]

John,

Ok: I'm looking in my McKeown's Guide from 2001-2002 on page 258 . . . .and finding descriptions of "Cycle Cameras" that approximate your description and photos. The "RB" may refer to "Reversing Back".

This guide is not exaustive or thurough with respect to Folmer & Schwing, but the company had so many reorgtanizations that it may be hard to really nail this one down. I read here that there were accessory focal plane shutters made in 8x10. I have even seen one at the old Houston Camera show in the mid 1990s.

Anyone have a more solid reference? Hope you get this restored to usable condition and shoot with it.

[E. von Hoegh]

Oooohh! That's nice! You might have the original lens. It's certainly a correct lens, if not original. It's a Rapid Rectilinear type, and it's capable of very nice results.

[Leonard Robertson]

John - Looking in the 1995-96 McKeown's, there is a list of various F&S company names and dates. The two that look closest to your tag are "Folmer & Schwing Mfg. (NYC), 1890." and "Folmer & Schwing Mfg. Co. of New York, 1903." In 1905 it became F&S Division of EKC. I'm reasonably sure your camera is from the pre-Eastman period.

In Richard Paine's "A Review of Graflex", page 16 is a description (but no picture) of the "Reversible Back Graphic" in film sizes 4X5, 5X7, and 6 1/2 X 8 1/2, described as "Dual-bellows view with front and back focus, almost quadruple extension, brilliant finder, polished brass and red bellows, top and side doors in body." Paine doesn't mention an 8X10 size, but he was probably working from old catalogs that may not have shown that size.

I think this is a somewhat rare camera due to age and size. I imagine a serious Graflex collector would love to trade you out of it. Please take good care of it. There can't be many like it left in the world. If you want to join http://graflex.org/ and post your camera, someone may be able to tell you a lot more.

Len

[johnschlicher]

Thanks for the reply's, I tried your link Len and I just get a blank page---most of the leather is off or falling off. I would like the out side to look like the inside--think I'm going to sand it down and refinish it---I tried to recover a Graflex before and it came out horrible ended up taking it all off

John

[Leonard Robertson]

John - I'm not sure what is going on with the link. Just Google graflex.org and you will find the site. I don't know if there any serious Graflex collectors there, but suspect there may be.
It is probably okay to strip and refinish, since it can always be recovered sometime in the future. To be proper, the right pattern of leather should be used which may be difficult to determine or find. It might be worth saving any leather you take off so someone else can tell what the original pattern was. As long as you don't make any structural mods to the camera, no real harm done. If you want to try shooting with it, I imagine it was designed for glass dry plate holders, so it may not be happy with modern 8X10 sheet film holders. It will take some measuring and thinking to figure this out. You may need to get a dry plate holder and make a spacer to get the film to the correct position. It looks like a fun project. I have a similar 8X10 from Rochester Optical, but the front of the bellows is torn, so I doubt I'll ever use it. I do want to try the RR lens from it on another camera to see how it performs. 25 years ago when I was rabidly buying view lenses, I passed up the soft focus lenses I saw. Back then no one wanted them. So the RR is one of the few "bad" or "soft" (maybe) lenses I own.

Len

[Leonard Robertson]

A follow-up thought to my previous post - Back when I watched "Antiques Roadshow" on TV, every few months someone would bring in a piece of furniture and be told "It would be worth four times the price if you hadn't refinished it!" or something to that effect. I have no idea if that applies to any rare cameras now, or might in the future, but it is something to think about. I've read of the same idea in collector cars. The hot trend now is original, unrestored cars, even if they don't look so nice. Obviously it is your camera to do what you wish, but it may be worth finding out from someone who knows more than I do if leaving it as-is would be a good idea.

Len

[johnschlicher]

Thanks for the advice, but the sanding has already begun. The wood underneath the leather is beautiful. ( I am hand sanding, and going with the grain ) My Lisco film holders fit the back so that"s a plus.

I have a Eastman Commercial 8 x 10, the swings on the back are practically the same design. They both have curved finger slots where you push the back around

John

[Leonard Robertson]

John - Shouldn't really be anything wrong with refinishing in natural wood. Much better than trying to recover in some synthetic leather or something that looks totally wrong. Years ago I saw a hapless 8X10 Deardorff someone had put a red replacement bellows in. It might not have been too bad, but this was bright red, plastic, maybe glow-in-the-dark material. I still think about it and shudder.

It is great a modern holder fits your camera. I have a couple of oldies, a full-plate Cycle Graphic and an 11X14 ROC, that don't work with most of the holders I have, but maybe that is my luck working.

Is your Eastman commercial the wooden version? Have you ever weighed it? Somewhere I got the idea it is a fair amount heavier than an 8X10 Eastman 2D, but I can't find a weight in any of my catalogs. When I got a 7X11 Eastman I was surprised how much larger and heavier it is compared to the 8X10. A 7X11 with an 8X10 reducing back sold on eBay within the last few weeks. I wonder if the buyer realizes his new 8X10 is big and heavy even for an 8X10? Or maybe the buyer knew what he was bidding on.

Len

[johnschlicher]

Len, Yes it's the wooden one and it weighs 14 pounds w/o a lens

Cheers John

[Johnny B.]

Hi John: This is first posting please foegive mistakes.http://http://flic.kr/ps/uTnxN
I can post instructions how to get these same results if you want me to. My wife and I did this together on the kitchen table. You only need a few things. I hope the image shows. Johnny B.

[Johnny B.]

The picture fell off in ciber land. Here is the link to flickr. Johnny B.
http://flic.kr/ps/uTnxN
I hope this worksjust cut and paste

[johnschlicher]

That's nice Johnny--where did you find the leather at?

John

[Johnny B.]

Hi John: It came from J. Hewit & Sons Ltd. Leather Manufactures.
The company is in england. They have a very nice website. I bought several sheets of leather off a former collector who got it from these people. The hide glue that is very important comes from a home center like Lowes or Home depot. Johnny B.

[dopocital]

I also have a camera Folmer and Schwing with 2 bellows. I need more information about it. I am from Czech republic.
117961
117962
117963