Need Grubb Lens Expertise

[pgk]

I have a teeny weeny problem with 552! Morley apparently engraved his name/address and reference number on both new and secondhand items sold from his establishment......So the Morley address doesn't always show the date of production!

Interesting because I suspect that J Solomon was Grubb's first representative (the 1859 advertisement refers to an earlier (April 9, No 82 of the Photographic Journal which I cannot find - most 'bound copies have had their adverts removed) advert by J Solomon in London) so this makes sense. That said, The Patent for the Aplanatic was filed on 8/10/57 and sealed on 6/4/58 so I'd be dubious of any lens engraved patent being made prior to October '57. The Science Museum hold 647 which they say was from 1857. I'm writing stuff up but my best guess is that most of the 'early' lenses were built between 1857 and 1865 because in 1865 Thomas Grubb took on the manufacture of the Great Melbourene Telescope (worth searching the web for - it was damaged in a severe bush fire and is, I think, being restored but with difficulty due to its exacting construction) which was an enormous undertaking and potentially meant that any lenses sold after this date were from stock.

That said, there are some fascinating vagaries which William and I are discussing.

[Steven Tribe]

The listed large aplanatic (15.5") with sn 160, reached £840. This must be a record for a aplanatic and rivals prices for early French pill box lenses and Taylor RV(P)s.

It is easy understand that Grubb decided to use his entrepreneur skills in other areas than ordinary photographic optics. There was plenty of price competition and most companies were happy to just survive until the mass market of the 1890's and beyond!

Have there been any "modern" analyses of the optical properties of the Aplanatic design compared with the Rapid Rectilinear and the Ross rapid symmetrical?

[pgk]

Considering it wasn't actually an Aplanatic it was a high price .....

Grubb's Great Melbourne Telescope probably shifted the business's emphasis significantly. Also competing with London makers from Dublin was probably not that easy.

I've tried the Doublet and intend to do a lot more testing idc. I will also have a chat with a friend who is a lens designer and see if there is anything we can sort out. One problem is aging and heavy use of Grubb lenses. Many seem to have had a long service life and it often shows. I'd really like to have mine refurbished but finding a company to realign using Balsam is proving tricky though I may have found one at last.

[Amedeus]

I followed this one closely and it was a desirable object for me, but not at this rate. Looked very similar to the two Ross landscape lenses I have from a construction perspective and even my Dallmeyer looks very similar but that shouldn't be a surprise based on the connections.

The listed large aplanatic (15.5") with sn 160, reached £840. This must be a record for a aplanatic and rivals prices for early French pill box lenses and Taylor RV(P)s.

It is easy understand that Grubb decided to use his entrepreneur skills in other areas than ordinary photographic optics. There was plenty of price competition and most companies were happy to just survive until the mass market of the 1890's and beyond!

Have there been any "modern" analyses of the optical properties of the Aplanatic design compared with the Rapid Rectilinear and the Ross rapid symmetrical?

[Willeica]

No 264 sold at auction for €1,000, probably at least €1200 with commission. That must be the record for a Grubb Aplanatic. I obtained 509, which is very similar to 264, for much less than this. As Paul says, No 160 does not appear to have been wholly original.

William

[peter brooks]

I've just acquired a Grubb lens - it is engraved:

B3
Grubb
Dublin
2680

It is missing the rack and pinion, and lenshood, and the flange and sliding sleeve have been soldered (with a huge amount of solder) to a large brass plate.

Slot for waterhouse stops, and it looks as though there was a guide or partial blanking piece mounted internally for these - there is a bolt hole on the opposite side of the lens to the slot.

It is fairly large - 6.25" (159mm) tall, 3.75" (95mm) in diameter, the glass being 3" (76mm) across - and quite heavy, weighing in at 3.6lbs (1.65kg). It might just go on a Sinar board.

[After fabphoto73's post below]

Eek! It appears to be missing one of the rear elements - it's going back...

[fabphoto73]

I have a B2 petzval No.1560. Focal length is 9" (back focus is 7"). It's pretty fast F3 approx. I looked at a B3 petzval a while back, I almost bought it but then noticed the focal length was around 6 1/2 inch which didn't sound right considering the diameter of the glass being 3", so opened it up and it was missing one of the rear elements. Hope it's not the same one but you say there are two elements in your rear group? Can't remember where but I read after that the B3 should be around 12" focal length.

[peter brooks]

Hmm. Looking again this could be the same lens that you looked at. Have sent you a PM.

[pgk]

I've just acquired a Grubb lens - it is engraved:

B3
Grubb
Dublin
2680

This is the only 'B3' lens I've come across and 'B3' is not shown in the adverts found to date. Oddly enough a few of Grubb's portrait lenses seem to have suffered loss of a rear element including another with a serial number close to this one.

[Steven Tribe]

Serial number 5277 Howard Grubb fullplate aplanatic doublet to be added to post #52!

Just confirms that Howard Grubb's UK relancing was not a great succes as all found serial numbers are very close to each other.