SEEM to be rarer than P&S VQ or Nicola Perscheid but are priced lower? I've been watching in this forum and on eBay for the past year or so and NEVER seen a Port-Land and only one Plasticca and its price was WAY below what the P&Ss are getting or what the Nicolas are listed for...
So I guess something can be rarer but also less sought after? Hmmmmm....
When I was 16 I thought my father the stupidest man in the world; when I reached 21, I was astounded by how much he had learned in just 5 years!
-appropriated from Mark Twain
i saw 4 in the last year....had i known i would have bought all 4....but i got one!
(devilish laughter haunting richard...LOL)
My YouTube Channel has many interesting videos on Soft Focus Lenses and Wood Cameras. Check it out.
My YouTube videos
oldstyleportraits.com
photo.net gallery
The strange thing about Oscar Zwierzina's Plasticca is that they were really cheap at the time - only a fraction of the price of Nicola Perscheid, Cooke and Heliar Universal.
It was almost that the seller was saying:
"So you want something different - try ours! It is garanteed to produce completely original images. It doesn't cost a fortune - so you can always pass it on or discard it."
I really don't think that the Plasticca was sold in the US and that the survival rate is quite low in Europe (basically Germany and Scandinavia, I think).
By contrast, I think there are quite a lot of Port-lands around.
Richard, I think you are right about things that are rare but not necessarily as valuable as more frequently encountered lenses. Speaking of the Plasticca - the objective is restricted to a one fixed "effect" for a specific composition. Many others, like the Graf Variable or Port-Land give a range of effects. So value is influenced by versatility.
I can HEAR you!!!!Originally Posted by eddie
When I was 16 I thought my father the stupidest man in the world; when I reached 21, I was astounded by how much he had learned in just 5 years!
-appropriated from Mark Twain
The Perscheids and Pinkham & Smith VQ's sell for more because people want them more and will pay more. They both have a certain historical pedigree and cult mystique. Each also has its own signature "look", but whether the look is better is subjective and the choice (or guess) of the individual photographer.
Rarity only accounts for so much. I have a few very rare lenses that are near worthless...
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
The P&S VQ was also not very expensive at the time it was produced, but INHO it is truly is one of - if not THE - greatest portrait lenses of all time. Obviously that opinion is shared by many others, too. It's look is just magic and so it's more desirable for users. It was also produced a portrait lens and not as a impressionist/pictorial lens (despite Cooke's advertising to the contrary) so it's less soft and fuzzy, as well as a bit more manageable than, say, the Plasticca, which can only be used wide open and is really pretty funky. The Port-land lens is really quite nice but the Plasticca may not be everybody's cup of tea. Personally, I wouldn't spend the money on one since I could probably just buy a meniscus lens from some surplus shop for $15.00 and slap it on the front of my camera to get the same effect. That's my take on it, anyway!
For collectors, the very name "Pinkham and Smith" is like gold-dust sprinkled on whatever lens upon which it happens to be printed. The fact that there are more P&S's around helps to makes the name more popular. I also have a few very rare lenses that I got at reasonable prices because few people knew of the name and significance of that particular piece. In fact, I just picked up a Palmer & Longking lens for a decent, but not great, price after 4 years of searching for one. In that time, I'd never even seen one for sale (not an verifiable/authentic one, anyway) and it still cost less than my P&S did several years ago when they weren't quite as dear as they are today.
Excellent! Can you post a picture of it?
Does it look like:
When I was 16 I thought my father the stupidest man in the world; when I reached 21, I was astounded by how much he had learned in just 5 years!
-appropriated from Mark Twain
There's some nice lenses pictured here:
http://www.cdags.org/?page_id=209
When I was 16 I thought my father the stupidest man in the world; when I reached 21, I was astounded by how much he had learned in just 5 years!
-appropriated from Mark Twain
The second part of the Supply & Demand equation is harder to understand, because it's the part that is based on fickle humans. I'm like Paul, I pick lenses based on what I determine is interesting. Most are low production, high quality, and historically interesting, but I might have trouble getting a fair value if I sold them.
Garrett
flickr galleries
Yeah, and one of mine not used with permission. I noticed a while back and didn't say anything.
Garrett
flickr galleries
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks