Lerebours Serial Number - Rice Writing

[Amedeus]

Very interesting, because....

Within the last week I have had a PM from a very astute and experienced UK member about another 81mm front achromat - in non-Lerebours brass! - with the edge scratched number of 2964.

I have come to the conclusion that edge serial number scratching is not a "prevention of fraud", but more a method of keeping tabs of the glass he ( Lerebours OR Lerebours et Secretan) provided for (probably UK based) makers who made the brasswork.

Note that these 2000 serial numbers are around 1845/6.

We may be talking about the same lens, I'll take a closer look to check if my 0 is your 9 ... ;-)

There were a few manufacturers with 81mm diameter cells ...

[Steven Tribe]

Yes, I think so! My opinion was asked and it was given!
81mm and some other sizes were standard across the French makers in the late 40's 50's and 60's. Most of them had worked at another maker first and obviously copied Voigtlander's range early in the 40's.

[goamules]

...I have come to the conclusion that edge serial number scratching is not a "prevention of fraud", but more a method of keeping tabs of the glass he ( Lerebours OR Lerebours et Secretan) provided for (probably UK based) makers who made the brasswork....

I highly doubt 1840s and 50s French companies of the renoun of Lerebours et Secretan were using UK brass fitters. They, and other French optics makers, had been around a lot longer than most early British lens makers. And you can tell the french brass work from the British.

[Steven Tribe]

I highly doubt 1840s and 50s French companies of the renoun of Lerebours et Secretan were using UK brass fitters. They, and other French optics makers, had been around a lot longer than most early British lens makers. And you can tell the french brass work from the British.

We have no disagreements about this! All I am saying is that Lerebours glass has ended up in brass mounts which are quite different from the French traditions of the 1840's and 1850's. There were plenty of UK brass instruments in the UK who, perhaps, didn't have access to experienced glass lens grinders and polishers. It appears there are two periods when Lerebours was a supplier of glass to others. Just after 1845, with serial numbers above 2000. Then mid 1850's, with serial numbers above 6000. The 1840's makers have yet to be identified, but the 1850's group include Shew and Bland.

[goamules]

Where did you get the data about those two periods? Is it documented or published during the period, or just conjecture today? Why do you quote the 4000 and 6000 serial numbers? Is there documentation that Lerebours supplied glass lenses, and were those glass lenses for telescopes, microscopes, or actual photographic lenses?

your quote: "It appears there are two periods when Lerebours was a supplier of glass to others. Just after 1845, with serial numbers above 2000. Then mid 1850's, with serial numbers above 6000. The 1840's makers have yet to be identified, but the 1850's group include Shew and Bland."

I may not be understanding, but it sounds like you are saying "any Lerebours et Secretan above 2000 serial number (to what higher number?) was put into British brass fittings." But that can't be right, or I'd have to have proof. Do you mean, instead, "my hypothesis is some British lens makers used Lerebours brass"...? If so, why confuse the matter with serial numbers, which everyone will take to mean those on Lerebours. The internet becomes a big "reference library" for most people. If they read your post, they will start repeating that "any Lerebours above xxx is in British fittings..." which I don't believe there is any proof or reason to believe.

[goamules]

I'm rereading this thread. In your post 61 you mention another lens you found with a scratched serial number. But it's a mistake to assume that mark was only made by Lerebours. There are other possibilities:

1. Other makers could have done the tiny "rice writing" at times
2. A Lerebours glass element could have been inserted by some owner (not the Lerbours or any other factory) to replace a broken lens

I have a Jamin Cone Centralizer with some tiny scratched writing on it's lens also. That could mean either Jamin did it at times (he did learn lens making from Lerebours after all) Or that someone replaced the lens in my Jamin with a Lerebours. Or, I suppose, that Lerebours made lenses for Jamin... See what I mean? We can hypothesize any number of reasons for these cases.

[Steven Tribe]

In post #18 in this thread, you considered that J.F.Shew lenses from the mid 1850 did have Lerebours glass.

They have been included in the serial number list for some time. There is advertising copy that J.F.Shew sold Lerebours lenses.

The earlier orphan scratched lenses (starting from around serial number 2000 - 1845) look exactly like the "standard" lerebours system.
At this date, Lerebours did not have the status it had later in the century so it did not have a reputation to defend. All sales were important.
I doubt there will be any documentary evidence forecoming which will confirm these early use of Lerebours lenses by others.

[goamules]

OK, thanks. I'm getting old, and forgetting more than I ever knew. Wait...is that possible?

[anachromatic]

In post #18 in this thread, you considered that J.F.Shew lenses from the mid 1850 did have Lerebours glass.

They have been included in the serial number list for some time. There is advertising copy that J.F.Shew sold Lerebours lenses.

The earlier orphan scratched lenses (starting from around serial number 2000 - 1845) look exactly like the "standard" lerebours system.
At this date, Lerebours did not have the status it had later in the century so it did not have a reputation to defend. All sales were important.
I doubt there will be any documentary evidence forecoming which will confirm these early use of Lerebours lenses by others.

I think Lerebours had much more status and relative importance in 1839/1845.
Do not forget that was in the earliest team with Bianchi, Giroux, Chevalier y Gaudin as Daguerre's camera/lenses maker/provider, a really early manufacturer of some advanced cameras and lenses, an early Voigtlander's retailer in France and then the first french maker of Petzval lenses, "Excursions Daguerriennes", "Traite de Photographie et...",
In 1850/1860 he was very popular and massive, but comparatively less important; and similar to many other manufacturers in terms of the quality and innovation of its products...
Check at "Histoire de la Photographie" by Lecuyer, "Theorie und Geschichte des photographischen Objektives" by Von Rohr or "History of Photography" by Eder among others....

[goamules]

Exactly. Lerebours et Secretan was the most important early photographic lens maker. Before most or all of the others. They even optimized the Petzval formula to be more corrected for the color spectrum. And Darlot was an apprentice at Lerebours, where he learned lens making. Early on, Lerebours et Secretan had the best status: exclusivity. They also were instrumental in producing the Petzval lens type that led to their early competitor's loss in the market (Chevalier and his failed lens).