Brass Lens: to polish or not to polish?

I almost posted this question on Kent's message about the Derogy he has that was polished on the inside (!) as well as the outside, but I don't want to hijack his thread.

What do you think? I have this nice brass lens (a Wollensak Vitax No. 2 that I was asking about in another thread) that has a patina that is pretty even. My impulse is just to leave it alone. But I am also (as a former tall ship deckhand on the Exy Johnson) a sucker for polished brass, and a part of me really wants to break out the Brasso.

I know how long it takes for a new patina to form on a boat (not long). This is the first un-lacquered brass lens I've owned. How long for a patina to reform on a lens that will be used in the studio and the field? Does anyone want to weigh in with their own opinions about whether or not these old lenses should be polished?

I started to polish an old Petzval, but I had found the surface had MANY layers of old fingerprints etched into the brass as I polished, when I suddenly stopped, as I realized that these were from someone who had used this lens a great deal, and that these were part of the "character" and "soul" of this particular lens, so I felt it should stay on that lens...

Too much polish will just renew the old lens, removing it's history of age...

But some finishes in poor shape need to be renewed, so I think the decision should be made on a case by case basis...

Steve K

Dear God no, don't polish it. Over restoration is a crime.

I have, purely by luck, a Voightlander Euryscop #7 that appears to have never, or rarely been used. I simply wiped it with it a cleaner that our university uses for brass door handles. When I showed it here the first comment was from one of our esteemed contributors who said, "of course it has been polished" and to this day I don't know what he meant but it hangs in the air as being negative. It has not been polished.

So, there may be the rare brass lens that needs little attention. It is up to you.
.

Attachment 161211

This is the lens in question. As I said, my first instinct says leave it alone. So far none of you fellows seem to be contradicting that.

The flange is original, but it was definitely polished at some point in the past year or two, as it is free of patina and the lighter color of polished brass. Therefore, the lens will not match the color of the flange if I do not polish it, but I don't see that that really matters.

Most old brass lenses should show evidence of use, such as having fingerprints embedded in the brass, plus ordinary atmospheric dulling. It is reality. Another sign of use is scratches by the Waterhouse stop from inserting.

However, there were likely (and in my experience) some early photographers who were obsessive concerning the condition of their gear. Why should it not be true then when it is common today?

My Voigtlander Euroscop #7 was in a drawer, wrapped in linen, which to me was an indication that the photographer put it aside as special, and never used.
.

But on the plus side to polishing, brass will start to patina again a few months later if the polish is thin or removed, but YOUR fingerprints will start to remain, so consider that...

Light cleaning on yours shouldn't hurt it...

Steve K

Looks good, as-is I'd say.

Is this to use a lens as a prop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ic-racer

Is this to use a lens as a prop?

---

A prop? No. I shoot 5x7 and 8x10 portraits (a few of them are at www.analogportraiture.com). I am quite interested in the history of this equipment, but I wouldn't keep anything that I couldn't use to make photographs. I'm going to use this particular lens with a 7x11 Eastman View No. 2 as soon as I am finished fabricating a collar to support all the weight up front.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cameron Cornell

I almost posted this question on Kent's message about the Derogy he has that was polished on the inside (!) as well as the outside, but I don't want to hijack his thread.

What do you think? I have this nice brass lens (a Wollensak Vitax No. 2 that I was asking about in another thread) that has a patina that is pretty even. My impulse is just to leave it alone. But I am also (as a former tall ship deckhand on the Exy Johnson) a sucker for polished brass, and a part of me really wants to break out the Brasso.

I know how long it takes for a new patina to form on a boat (not long). This is the first un-lacquered brass lens I've owned. How long for a patina to reform on a lens that will be used in the studio and the field? Does anyone want to weigh in with their own opinions about whether or not these old lenses should be polished?

---

Never polish!

Let the patina build up then hand rub a thin coat of shellac, French Polish.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...4b35afd6d5.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...0aa6d1d5aa.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All brass lenses were originally lacquered, to preserve the shiny brass. There is no "patina" on an original varnished lens. Over the decades and generations, many have been polished to the extent that the varnish is gone. The earlier the lens, the less likely there is any original varnish. But to think a brown patina is from 1865 or is ancient is a misconception. Those lenses were varnished, and held no fingerprints and didn't turn brown, until the varnish wore off. Unfinished brass can turn brown in just a couple years. This Darlot was found still in it's shipping box, with 100% original lacquer, over 100 years old and still bright:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4128/5...04036e57_z.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4151/5...2743ec1a_b.jpg

Some varnish was very tough, like Dallmeyers. Some very thin, like Holmes Booth Haydens. Jumping forward 40 years to the OP's Wollensak, you can be certain it has been polished several times, after someone removed the varnish. That could have happened in 1940, or 1985. So polishing your Vitax will just be redoing what has been done already, perhaps several times.

On an older lens, say pre 1880, I would never polish the brass unless it is green with verdigris. Brown I leave alone, and any with partial lacquer remaining I leave alone. This old lens has half it's varnish remaining. That is history, and should not be touched.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3231/2...8ac4df87_o.jpg

Looking at yours, I'd actually polish - so that both flange and the barrel then can develop an even patina. Under most other circumstances I wouldn't however.

Thanks to all of you for your input. And thank you, Garrett, for helping to clarify the issue of varnish vs. polish, which upon reflection is self-evident, but I hadn't thought about it that way.

I was pretty firmly in the "don't polish" camp, but after considering the fact that all of the original varnish is long gone so that all a polish would be doing is restarting a cycle that the brass has been through (probably) multiple times, well, I'm wavering. I can't imagine ever getting rid of this lens, and as I'm planning to shoot for decades yet (My plan is to live a good long life!), why not start fresh and imprint my own history on the brass? The patina currently on the lens may well be from the "history" of just the past five years.

As Rick Denney would put it:

Cameron "as confused as ever" Cornell

In your case, polish it then wax it. Just use Brasso, no abrasives or steel wool. Wax will keep it shiny through careful handling.

Brass is one of those metals like sterling silver. No one lets their sterling tea set turn black with tarnish. No one lets their vintage trumpet turn brown with tarnish. Most metals that turn easily are varnished, but not things you eat out of or off of. So trumpets and lenses and brass clocks and many other antiques are polished once at the factory, then lacquered to preserve the shine. People think a brown, cruddy lens is somehow historic. But truly it's just deteriorated.

However, the original lacquer is a valuable finish, and should never be removed. Same as the finish on a tiffany lamp, or an original Chippendale dresser. You don't touch them. I have several 1860s lenses that have original lacquer and look like the day they were made. But once polished down to bare metal, the original finish is gone.

I used to work for an architectural sheet metal shop. We made custom copper gutters, valleys, standing seam roofs, etcetera and installed them on older expensive homes. We loved the shiny copper but homeowners preferred a patina.

On one job, two of our guys installed a copper standing seam roof on a small front porch. They rubbed it with some special chemical to age it. The owner wasn't happy with the results so the guys went back out to the job and peed into a 5 gallon bucket. They then swabbed their piss onto the copper to give it that "special" patina. The owner ended up thrilled with the "look" but of course wasn't told how it was achieved.

My advice to you is that if you like shiny brass, then polish it up. If you like a dull patina, then piss on it. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Gales

My advice to you is that if you like shiny brass, then polish it up. If you like a dull patina, then piss on it. ;)

---

Best advice yet! I love the image of a fellow's wife walking into the shop and there he is urinating on his old brass lens.

i believe it was the keno brothers who said " don't clean the desk, leave the dirt, we like the old dirt"

Alan, I hear you about customer interpretations of patina. I helped a guy's business that was making metal cutout artwork. You know, kokopelis and that kind of junk. He offered a couple different copper patina finishes. Many customers would commission a piece with that finish, knowing we stated it was variable, depending on the day it would come out more blue or green or brown. Many times some buyer would complain that she wanted more blues, or more greens than what it ended up as. They'd have to strip it off, and try again, sometimes several times. My advice was the customer is seldom right. They order it, they buy it. Rework for fickle wackos cost him his profit almost every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goamules

Alan, I hear you about customer interpretations of patina. I helped a guy's business that was making metal cutout artwork. You know, kokopelis and that kind of junk. He offered a couple different copper patina finishes. Many customers would commission a piece with that finish, knowing we stated it was variable, depending on the day it would come out more blue or green or brown. Many times some buyer would complain that she wanted more blues, or more greens than what it ended up as. They'd have to strip it off, and try again, sometimes several times. My advice was the customer is seldom right. They order it, they buy it. Rework for fickle wackos cost him his profit almost every time.

---

Garrett, we had a saying that the customer is always right just as long as they are willing to pay for it. ;)

So if you wanted to Brasso and then re-lacquer your lenses, what type of lacquer should you go for, and is it sprayed or painted on?

I voted don't polish. My brass lenses are pre-Civil War (1860), and I like the "old" look. Shiny 150 year old lenses look a little jarring to me.


Kent in SD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Kirsten

So if you wanted to Brasso and then re-lacquer your lenses, what type of lacquer should you go for, and is it sprayed or painted on?

---

In my modest experience Brasso is far to harsh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Two23

I voted don't polish. My brass lenses are pre-Civil War (1860), and I like the "old" look. Shiny 150 year old lenses look a little jarring to me.


Kent in SD

---

Indeed! I'm surprised how a weathered brass lens can still have very clear glass, and that is what matters.
.

Since you plan to use and handle it, don't polish. Once you polish the lens, any small finger print, dull spot, etc. will show up and drive you crazy. You'll be repeatedly going for the Brasso. Right? Leave it as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Lobato

Since you plan to use and handle it, don't polish. Once you polish the lens, any small finger print, dull spot, etc. will show up and drive you crazy. You'll be repeatedly going for the Brasso. Right? Leave it as it is.

---

I love the look of a polished brass lens on an old camera but you do bring up a very good point, David. When I was working the trade I never polished my sheet metal tools.

Keep oil on steel tools to preserve white metal. Wax on brass. Wax is not as robust as Lacquer, but it's easily reversible if someone wants to do the lacquer later. Lacquer was put on with the metal hot, in the old days. Probably a natural shellac or such...but I don't know.

As a former Sailor, I used Never Dull a lot on brass fittings on our ship. And sometimes Brasso. Neither are very abrasive at all. I've got thousands of nautical miles on both!

I've restored a few brass antiques too. Brasso is not harsh. Steel wool, acids (including Koolaid mix), valve grinding compound, and all the Internet techniques you hear about are.

Sometimes you have to restore. Here is one I did, before and after.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3698/3...a1b16b0d_z.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2622/3...95563804_b.jpg

On the other hand, here is a lens that was missing it's lacquer when I got it in 2007. I've never polished it. It's been handled and shot a lot, but the brass still looks the same way it did a decade ago. Why? Because I don't have dirty hands when I touch it, no silver nitrate or developer on my fingers, nor burger grease. A fingerprint won't get you running to the polishing rag, if you keep your brass indoors and dry.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3010/...545e356ca4.jpg

Here is a website with information for museum conservators: http://canada.pch.gc.ca/eng/1439925170362