I have just posted photos in my album of a new acquisition, an "Ideal Field
Camera" by W. Allen of Maidenhead, Berkshire, made about 1902, I believe.
     Having reconstructed it from a collection of parts, with a line drawing in
Channing and Dunn's "British Camera Makers" as my only point of reference, I am
puzzled by the rebates cut out half way up the front forks, apparently to take
some kind of clip or "rubbing strake" for when the front struts are fully folded
up.
     It would be nice, not to mention miraculous, if anyone on this list could
let me have a picture, or failing that, some words of wisdom, as to what should
be put into these cut-outs. Anybody?
Thanks, Eric.

Anybody heard of, or have any information on this firm? Brass barreled RR lens,
came to me recently. Has "BESSUS London & Paris" engraved. It would be the
"London" bit I was interested in. Not mentioned in Channing & Dunn. Nothing that
I can find on Google.
Eric.

-----Original Message-----
From: woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com [mailto:woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rob McElroy
Sent: 10 July 2009 15:36
To: woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [woodandbrass] Lens by Bessus, London and Paris

Eric,

I hadn't heard of them either but a quick Google Book Search revealed several turn the century references including this informative tidbit from page three of the January 1904 monthly trade journal entitled, The Photographic Dealer and Optical and Scientific Apparatus Trades Journal.  Ok, now I want a complete run of this magazine.  Anyone want to sell it to me for $50.00?

An lmportant Business Purchase.

IT cannot be gainsaid that Messrs. W. Butcher and Sons are forging ahead by leaps and bounds. It is not very long since we had to record the removal of the wholesale branch of their business to the fine block of buildings at the corner of St. Bride Street and Farringdon Avenue, and which have very appropriately been christened, Camera House. Information now comes to hand that they Iiave purchased the old-established wholesale photographic business of Bessus and Co. The firm has carriea on business in Hatton Garden as manufacturers and wholesalers of photographic and lantern requisites, and for several years has been in the hands of Messrs. Bannister and Uunn, although the original title of the firm was maintained. Messrs. Butcher and Sons have taken over the whole of the stock, plant, tools, and materials, and although the wholesale section will be transferred to Camera -House, the works will remain, at least for th e! present, at Hatton Garden. A large portion of the stock will be dispo sed of at exceptionally low prices, a fact which should be noted by all dealers who are on the look-out for cheap yet satisfactory apparatus. Messrs. Butcher and Sons have also secured the services of Mr. Bannister, who will act as a special London representative of the firm.

Cheers,

Rob McElroy

Buffalo, NY

-----Original Message-----
From: woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com [mailto:woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rob McElroy
Sent: 10 July 2009 15:36
To: woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [woodandbrass] Lens by Bessus, London and Paris

Eric,

I hadn't heard of them either but a quick Google Book Search revealed several turn the century references including this informative tidbit from page three of the January 1904 monthly trade journal entitled, The Photographic Dealer and Optical and Scientific Apparatus Trades Journal.  Ok, now I want a complete run of this magazine.  Anyone want to sell it to me for $50.00?

An lmportant Business Purchase.

IT cannot be gainsaid that Messrs. W. Butcher and Sons are forging ahead by leaps and bounds. It is not very long since we had to record the removal of the wholesale branch of their business to the fine block of buildings at the corner of St. Bride Street and Farringdon Avenue, and which have very appropriately been christened, Camera House. Information now comes to hand that they Iiave purchased the old-established wholesale photographic business of Bessus and Co. The firm has carriea on business in Hatton Garden as manufacturers and wholesalers of photographic and lantern requisites, and for several years has been in the hands of Messrs. Bannister and Uunn, although the original title of the firm was maintained. Messrs. Butcher and Sons have taken over the whole of the stock, plant, tools, and materials, and although the wholesale section will be transferred to Camera -House, the works will remain, at least for th e! present, at Hatton Garden. A large portion of the stock will be dispo sed of at exceptionally low prices, a fact which should be noted by all dealers who are on the look-out for cheap yet satisfactory apparatus. Messrs. Butcher and Sons have also secured the services of Mr. Bannister, who will act as a special London representative of the firm.

Cheers,

Rob McElroy

Buffalo, NY

Fred, Rob, Michael,
                    Thank you all so much for taking the trouble to look this up
for me; I collect works of British Makers and I guess that what you have told me
makes them a British firm, so on to my web site they will go. (In due course
because I have to get someone to do that for me). I may even be able to convince
myself that the nameless camera the lens was attached to, when I got it, can be
catalogued as a Bessus camera, although I am well aware of the dangers of
attributing the name of a camera to the name on its lens.
     And just when I was beginning to think this group had all gone on
holiday..............
Thanks and regards,
Eric.
www.woodandbrass.co.uk

I am thinking of buying unseen a camera which my daughter saw and took the
seller's name and telephone number. She knows nothing about cameras, but she
says it had "on it"........"The Kamrex Patent, Rauber and Wollensak Opt. Co.,
Pat Feb 6 1900, Rochester NY, USA".
     The only "Kamrex" to which I can find any reference, is the Lancaster one,
p.593 in McKeown 12th Edn. The writing on it makes it sound unlikely to be any
Lancaster I have heard of, with American fittings, but hey, stranger things have
happened to me in thirty years of collecting. Janet says it is mahogany polished
internally, with black leather covering and black bellows; this is not McK's.
description. So, what is it? Anybody?
Thanks,
Eric.

If anybody's thinking I'm a sad old man with nothing better to do than keep
posting this group, well, they're probably right, but at 79 I still tend to get
excited about photographic "stuff". Here's one for the Photo Historians, who
have helped me often enough, goodness knows.
     I have acquired 17 (!) "Scott's Patent Dark Slides", which I have pictured
in my album. They are believed to have been a fit for his Patent Camera of, I
think, 1885. (The guy who sold me the slides thinks that the camera they belong
to is still in existence and he knows where it may be, but it is not for sale.).
The slides are of an unusual format, maybe stereo, of 3 1/4 x 6 1/2 in. and the
body is made of black lacquered wood, not metal as the pictures make them out to
be. The opening slide is made of something that may be Vulcanite.I checked to
see if they would fit my Chadwick stereo camera, but they don't.
     According to Channing and Dunn, C E Scott was a man making cameras for
retail by others in the tangled web of Manchester retailers in the 1880s; they
have found a mention of him in JT Chapman's 1888 catalogue, so we know he was
making for Chapman. But these slides I have just got are marked with trade
labels by WI Chadwick. So, was Scott making for Chadwick as well? Looks like it.
     Have I discovered something? Is this what Historians call a Primary Source?
Have I added a little bit to the sum total of human knowledge? Or should I just
go curl up in a corner and shut up..........:-)
Regards,
Eric.
www.woodandbrass.co.uk

So, the Kamrex camera is in my hands as I write (figuratively speaking, cos I
can't type one-handed). It is a quarter plate, with cross and rising front
movements, and labelled "Kamrex Patent", black leather covered, polished
mahogany interiored, and has the J.Lancaster "Shield" label prominently on it, a
lens marked "J.Lancaster Birmingham 1/4 pl Rectigraph" with apertures (get
this), F60, 40, 30, 20, in a brass Rauber & Wollensak Pneumatic shutter with
speeds 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, 100, B, T. Anything known about Rauber &
Wollensak Opt. Co., Rochester, NY, USA? I'm not good on Americana. And what
could have been the relationship?
    We all know Lancaster was a bit of an entrepreneur, but I for one never
realised that he went transatlantic; there must have been some kind of deal
struck. And so, who actually REALLY made it, and where?
     The Kamrex camera is not mentioned at all in Channing & Dunn, and the one in
McKeown is alleged to have a polished mahogany body and red bellows, so I guess
that would be the "Tropical" version and mine is bog-standard, but for 45 quid,
I'm happy as Larry.
     McK. says it is more common in the 1/2 plate size, and suggests a price
rather higher than twice what I paid, but again, that would be for the tropical.
I will put pictures in my album directly.
     Thanks to those who previously expressed an interest, and to those who would
have done had they been able.
Regards,
Eric.

Ralph,
          Thankyou for the valuable information. It seems to me that I have
fallen into a sloppy habit that has grown among English collectors lately, of
referring to a polished version as "Tropical" when a leather version of the same
camera exists; of course, that was not necessarily its original designation.
Clearly, the one outlined in McKeown is a different version from the one I have,
and you are right, it doesn't have to be Tropical.
     The Rauber and Wollensak information you give, somewhat authenticates my
dating of the camera to 1900; at least it must be between their foundation in
1899 and their demise in 1902. The patent date on the shutter is 1900; patent
dates are not always useful, but this one is, in the light of your other
information. I am now left wondering whether production of the Kamrex ceased
with the demise of Rauber and Wollensak, or whether it continued with a
differently named shutter under the new regime of "Wollensak Optical Company".
There are always more questions than answers in this game, but thanks for
providing some of the answers, anyway
Regards,
Eric.
www.woodandbrass.co.uk

--- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, Ralph & Bobbi London <London@...> wrote:
>
> I sold my Lancaster Kamrex Deluxe in early 2008 for US$300.  Here's
> what I can reconstruct about it: 1/4 plate, red bellows, 1/4 plate
> Rectigraph lens by Lancaster, 1 plate holder hinged.
>
> On Jul 14, 2009, at 4:07 AM, eric evans wrote:
>
> > So, the Kamrex camera is in my hands as I write (figuratively
> > speaking, cos I can't type one-handed). It is a quarter plate, with
> > cross and rising front movements, and labelled "Kamrex Patent",
> > black leather covered, polished mahogany interiored, and has the
> > J.Lancaster "Shield" label prominently on it, a lens marked
> > "J.Lancaster Birmingham 1/4 pl Rectigraph" with apertures (get
> > this), F60, 40, 30, 20, in a brass Rauber & Wollensak Pneumatic
> > shutter with speeds 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, 100, B, T. Anything
> > known about Rauber & Wollensak Opt. Co., Rochester, NY, USA? I'm not
> > good on Americana. And what could have been the relationship?
>
>  From Rudolf Kingslake, "The Photographic Manufacturing Companies of
> Rochester, New York," 1997, p. 47:
>
> "in 1899 the Wollensak brothers [Andrew and John C.] decided to
> establish Rauber and Wollensak, a company that made camera shutters in
> direct competition with Bausch & Lomb and Eastman Kodak Company.  They
> were assisted financially by Stephen Rauber, formerly president of the
> defunct Union Brewing Company.  Rauber was not really interested in
> technical matters, and in 1902 he left to become a coal merchant.  At
> that time the Wollensaks changed the name of their company from Rauber
> and Wollensak to Wollensak Optical Company."
>
> > The Kamrex camera is not mentioned at all in Channing & Dunn, and
> > the one in McKeown is alleged to have a polished mahogany body and
> > red bellows, so I guess that would be the "Tropical" version and
> > mine is bog-standard, but for 45 quid, I'm happy as Larry.
> > McK. says it is more common in the 1/2 plate size, and suggests a
> > price rather higher than twice what I paid, but again, that would be
> > for the tropical.
>
> McKeown, 12th edition, list the Kamrex as simply mahogany.  I don't
> recall my Kamrex being tropical, especially since I do not collect
> tropical cameras.  My selling price is consistent with McKeown's price
> of $200-300.
>
> Ralph
>

--- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, Fred /Maren Friedman <marenfred@...> wrote:
>
Hi Fred,
           Thanks for the support; you'll see from subsequent postings that I
decided not to curl up in a corner. Yet.
Regards,
Eric.


> Do not curl up. Keep hunting and sharing!
> Fred
> On Jul 13, 2009, at 9:16 AM, eric evans wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > If anybody's thinking I'm a sad old man with nothing better to do
> > than keep posting this group, well, they're probably right, but at
> > 79 I still tend to get excited about photographic "stuff". Here's
> > one for the Photo Historians, who have helped me often enough,
> > goodness knows.
> > I have acquired 17 (!) "Scott's Patent Dark Slides", which I have
> > pictured in my album. They are believed to have been a fit for his
> > Patent Camera of, I think, 1885. (The guy who sold me the slides
> > thinks that the camera they belong to is still in existence and he
> > knows where it may be, but it is not for sale.). The slides are of
> > an unusual format, maybe stereo, of 3 1/4 x 6 1/2 in. and the body
> > is made of black lacquered wood, not metal as the pictures make them
> > out to be. The opening slide is made of something that may be
> > Vulcanite.I checked to see if they would fit my Chadwick stereo
> > camera, but they don't.
> > According to Channing and Dunn, C E Scott was a man making cameras
> > for retail by others in the tangled web of Manchester retailers in
> > the 1880s; they have found a mention of him in JT Chapman's 1888
> > catalogue, so we know he was making for Chapman. But these slides I
> > have just got are marked with trade labels by WI Chadwick. So, was
> > Scott making for Chadwick as well? Looks like it.
> > Have I discovered something? Is this what Historians call a Primary
> > Source? Have I added a little bit to the sum total of human
> > knowledge? Or should I just go curl up in a corner and shut
> > up..........:-)
> > Regards,
> > Eric.
> > www.woodandbrass.co.uk
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi David,
          Thanks for your interest. I must get the Thomas book when my next
pension cheque comes in; I see that Peter has one in stock. I hadn't heard of it
previously, and despite Ralph's opinion of its accuracy, I think I'd like to own
it. One of the reasons I keep posting questions here is my deficiency in decent
reference material; I keep bidding for what might be called "Primary Source
Ephemera" but the prices it fetches are shocking. There must be some collectors,
somewhere.....
Regards,
Eric.
www.woodandbrass.co.uk


--- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, David Purcell <david.purcell@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Eric!
>
> What a nice find.  Interesting to see something from Lancaster that differs
from the conventional Instantograph pattern.
>
> I am still looking through some books for information, but so far the closest
I have come is a reference in the Thomas International Photo Directopry of
Antique Cameras, which lists two other folding plate cameras with names
beginning with "K", namely the Kamret Folding Plate Camera and the Kamarex Hand
& Stand (note the extra "A").  The latter is pictured and is very similar in
form, although the case is shallower and the poor quality picture suggests that
it has thumbscrews allowing the back to be clamped / released so that it can be
tilted.  It also seems to have a simple barrel lens and no shutter and might by
plain mahogany finish rather than leather covered - but I'm stretching my
interpolation from the poor picture at this point!
>
> I'll keep digging ...
>
> More anon,
>
> David
>
> _
>

Hello all you very quiet wood and brassers. I would appreciate some
help. I need a round brass knob approximately 9/16th of an inch in
diameter in order to complete a restoration. If anyone out there can
supply one, I will cheerfully pay for the knob plus shipping. It is
for the plate changer on my Fallowfield Facile.
Please contact me at marenfred@... if you can help.
Thanks,
Fred Friedman

Eric,
these may relate to T. Scott's patents - 5800 of 1891 and 8316 of 1892 both of
which are for dark slides, the descriptions though are not very helpful.
T. Scott and J. T. Chapman were the patentees of the "Scott patent" camera of
1884.

Regards
Rob
--- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, "eric evans" <ericevans@...> wrote:
>
> If anybody's thinking I'm a sad old man with nothing better to do than keep
posting this group, well, they're probably right, but at 79 I still tend to get
excited about photographic "stuff". Here's one for the Photo Historians, who
have helped me often enough, goodness knows.
>     I have acquired 17 (!) "Scott's Patent Dark Slides", which I have pictured
in my album. They are believed to have been a fit for his Patent Camera of, I
think, 1885. (The guy who sold me the slides thinks that the camera they belong
to is still in existence and he knows where it may be, but it is not for sale.).
The slides are of an unusual format, maybe stereo, of 3 1/4 x 6 1/2 in. and the
body is made of black lacquered wood, not metal as the pictures make them out to
be. The opening slide is made of something that may be Vulcanite.I checked to
see if they would fit my Chadwick stereo camera, but they don't.
>     According to Channing and Dunn, C E Scott was a man making cameras for
retail by others in the tangled web of Manchester retailers in the 1880s; they
have found a mention of him in JT Chapman's 1888 catalogue, so we know he was
making for Chapman. But these slides I have just got are marked with trade
labels by WI Chadwick. So, was Scott making for Chadwick as well? Looks like it.
>     Have I discovered something? Is this what Historians call a Primary
Source? Have I added a little bit to the sum total of human knowledge? Or should
I just go curl up in a corner and shut up..........:-)
> Regards,
> Eric.
> www.woodandbrass.co.uk
>

Hi Rob,
          I'm afraid I am getting a bit old for following all the intricacies of
the "Manchester Mafia", and my marked lack of source material doesn't help.
Channing and Dunn have Scott down as "C.E.Scott", and "his own" camera, Scott's
Patent or The New Camera, Pat. No. 12389. I am more of a Photographic Hoarder
than an academic collector, but this is a lovely group of people who seem to put
up with my continual questioning rather well, and thank you for your help.
     Congratulations on your collection; I thought mine was good until I saw
yours.
Regards,
Eric.
www.woodandbrass.co.uk



--- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, "rob_tooley" <robert_tooley@...> wrote:
>
> Eric,
> these may relate to T. Scott's patents - 5800 of 1891 and 8316 of 1892 both of
which are for dark slides, the descriptions though are not very helpful.
> T. Scott and J. T. Chapman were the patentees of the "Scott patent" camera of
1884.
>
> Regards
> Rob
> --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, "eric evans" <ericevans@> wrote:
> >
> > If anybody's thinking I'm a sad old man with nothing better to do than keep
posting this group, well, they're probably right, but at 79 I still tend to get
excited about photographic "stuff". Here's one for the Photo Historians, who
have helped me often enough, goodness knows.
> >     I have acquired 17 (!) "Scott's Patent Dark Slides", which I have
pictured in my album. They are believed to have been a fit for his Patent Camera
of, I think, 1885. (The guy who sold me the slides thinks that the camera they
belong to is still in existence and he knows where it may be, but it is not for
sale.). The slides are of an unusual format, maybe stereo, of 3 1/4 x 6 1/2 in.
and the body is made of black lacquered wood, not metal as the pictures make
them out to be. The opening slide is made of something that may be Vulcanite.I
checked to see if they would fit my Chadwick stereo camera, but they don't.
> >     According to Channing and Dunn, C E Scott was a man making cameras for
retail by others in the tangled web of Manchester retailers in the 1880s; they
have found a mention of him in JT Chapman's 1888 catalogue, so we know he was
making for Chapman. But these slides I have just got are marked with trade
labels by WI Chadwick. So, was Scott making for Chadwick as well? Looks like it.
> >     Have I discovered something? Is this what Historians call a Primary
Source? Have I added a little bit to the sum total of human knowledge? Or should
I just go curl up in a corner and shut up..........:-)
> > Regards,
> > Eric.
> > www.woodandbrass.co.uk
> >
>

Hi Fred,
           I'm afraid for reasons of age and health I don't go to Photographica
any more; I find London quite bewildering, but then I always did, I was reared
as a country boy. But it would be nice to see you if you were able to get to
Yorkshire, Fred, and I will look forward, as ever, to your latest article in PW.
     Did you have any success with that brass knob you were looking for? Is it a
male threaded one, a female stopped thread, or what? I may be able to help if I
knew precisely what it was; it certainly wouldn't be an original Facile part
though, because I have never had one of those.
Regards,
Eric.


--- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, Fred /Maren Friedman <marenfred@...> wrote:
>
> Nice to hear from you, Rob & Eric. Glad all is well. I am beginning to
> plan next year and (God willing) I may get a chance to see you both at
> Photographica in London in May. I expect to have an article in PW in
> November on Detective cameras. One of the cameras Rob, is the Talmer
> you saw when we met in Richmond.
> Cheers,
> Fred
> On Jul 16, 2009, at 4:22 PM, rob_tooley wrote:
>
> > Eric,
> > these may relate to T. Scott's patents - 5800 of 1891 and 8316 of
> > 1892 both of which are for dark slides, the descriptions though are
> > not very helpful.
> > T. Scott and J. T. Chapman were the patentees of the "Scott patent"
> > camera of 1884.
> >
> > Regards
> > Rob
> > --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, "eric evans" <ericevans@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > If anybody's thinking I'm a sad old man with nothing better to do
> > than keep posting this group, well, they're probably right, but at
> > 79 I still tend to get excited about photographic "stuff". Here's
> > one for the Photo Historians, who have helped me often enough,
> > goodness knows.
> > > I have acquired 17 (!) "Scott's Patent Dark Slides", which I have
> > pictured in my album. They are believed to have been a fit for his
> > Patent Camera of, I think, 1885. (The guy who sold me the slides
> > thinks that the camera they belong to is still in existence and he
> > knows where it may be, but it is not for sale.). The slides are of
> > an unusual format, maybe stereo, of 3 1/4 x 6 1/2 in. and the body
> > is made of black lacquered wood, not metal as the pictures make them
> > out to be. The opening slide is made of something that may be
> > Vulcanite.I checked to see if they would fit my Chadwick stereo
> > camera, but they don't.
> > > According to Channing and Dunn, C E Scott was a man making cameras
> > for retail by others in the tangled web of Manchester retailers in
> > the 1880s; they have found a mention of him in JT Chapman's 1888
> > catalogue, so we know he was making for Chapman. But these slides I
> > have just got are marked with trade labels by WI Chadwick. So, was
> > Scott making for Chadwick as well? Looks like it.
> > > Have I discovered something? Is this what Historians call a
> > Primary Source? Have I added a little bit to the sum total of human
> > knowledge? Or should I just go curl up in a corner and shut
> > up..........:-)
> > > Regards,
> > > Eric.
> > > www.woodandbrass.co.uk
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

Please see most recent pictures in my album. I know, (possibly better than most
people, as I am being asked to do it all the time), how very difficult it can be
to identify cameras without any name of any kind on them; I thought that this
one might have a better chance of someone knowing what it is, however, because
of the unusual "keyhole slots" system for supporting the front panel. I have
previously seen these, singly, on quarter plate cameras, but not double, and not
on a half-plate such as this. It also has a very much slimmer body than usual.
(Unlike me). Anybody seen one like this with a name on it? I don't normally
collect unnamed cameras, but this was a very kind gift from someone who liked my
website and wanted me to have it.
Thanks, Eric.
www.woodandbrass.co.uk

Hi Fred,
           I'm sorry, I gave out confusing signals. The one I am asking about is
not yet on my web site, I have to arrange with my web designer to do that when
she has time; so you will find it in my "album", on this current thread with
this group, "Photos" top left.
Regards,
Eric.


--- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, Fred /Maren Friedman <marenfred@...> wrote:
>
> Eric,
> I have a small keyhole slot camera in my collection. It is also
> unnamed. I tried your website, but can you give me a number or some
> defining way to find the camera without looking at every camera on the
> site?
> Cheers,
> Fred Friedman
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:14 AM, eric evans wrote:
>
> > Please see most recent pictures in my album. I know, (possibly
> > better than most people, as I am being asked to do it all the time),
> > how very difficult it can be to identify cameras without any name of
> > any kind on them; I thought that this one might have a better chance
> > of someone knowing what it is, however, because of the unusual
> > "keyhole slots" system for supporting the front panel. I have
> > previously seen these, singly, on quarter plate cameras, but not
> > double, and not on a half-plate such as this. It also has a very
> > much slimmer body than usual. (Unlike me). Anybody seen one like
> > this with a name on it? I don't normally collect unnamed cameras,
> > but this was a very kind gift from someone who liked my website and
> > wanted me to have it.
> > Thanks, Eric.
> > www.woodandbrass.co.uk
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi John,
         Sorry, I didn't make it clear that this camera is not yet on my site,
but is in my "album" on  this current site, top left>Photos.
Regards and thanks for your interest,
Eric.


--- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, "JCR Cameras" <jcr_cameras@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
>
>
> How do I find the most recent pictures in your excellent web site so that I
> can view this camera?
>
>
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> John
>
>
>
> From: woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com [mailto:woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of eric evans
> Sent: 22 July 2009 15:14
> To: woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [woodandbrass] Unnamed Field camera.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please see most recent pictures in my album. I know, (possibly better than
> most people, as I am being asked to do it all the time), how very difficult
> it can be to identify cameras without any name of any kind on them; I
> thought that this one might have a better chance of someone knowing what it
> is, however, because of the unusual "keyhole slots" system for supporting
> the front panel. I have previously seen these, singly, on quarter plate
> cameras, but not double, and not on a half-plate such as this. It also has a
> very much slimmer body than usual. (Unlike me). Anybody seen one like this
> with a name on it? I don't normally collect unnamed cameras, but this was a
> very kind gift from someone who liked my website and wanted me to have it.
> Thanks, Eric.
> www.woodandbrass.co.uk
>

Fred,
      Thanks for your cooperation and interest. This camera does use the two
keyhole slots as support for the lens panel, my pictures just don't adequately
show it. I will tentatively and provisionally  catalogue it as an "Unnamed
Stanley?", with a question mark, as it is definitely English and would therefore
have to conform to his patent, even if made by someone else. I have said before
that I believe camera collecting is a fine art, not an exact science, (to me it
is, anyway),so "Unnamed Stanley?" will be near enough for me, unless and until I
learn something else about the camera. I shan't be doing any scholarly research
on it, it's just that I don't like my cameras to be orphans without a name.
Thanks again.
Best regards,
Eric.


--- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, Fred /Maren Friedman <marenfred@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Eric,
> I am sorry that I can't help with ID on this one. It is nothing at all
> like the keyhole slot camera in my collection, which uses keyhole
> slots to anchor the front standard to the base. The W.F. Stanley
> patent of 26 February 1886 covers the keyhole slots in Britain. But
> keyhole slots were used by French and other Continental camera makers
> long before 1886.
> Best,
> Fred
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 11:10 AM, eric evans wrote:
>
> > Hi Fred,
> > I'm sorry, I gave out confusing signals. The one I am asking about
> > is not yet on my web site, I have to arrange with my web designer to
> > do that when she has time; so you will find it in my "album", on
> > this current thread with this group, "Photos" top left.
> > Regards,
> > Eric.
> >
> > --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, Fred /Maren Friedman
> > <marenfred@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eric,
> > > I have a small keyhole slot camera in my collection. It is also
> > > unnamed. I tried your website, but can you give me a number or some
> > > defining way to find the camera without looking at every camera on
> > the
> > > site?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Fred Friedman
> > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:14 AM, eric evans wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please see most recent pictures in my album. I know, (possibly
> > > > better than most people, as I am being asked to do it all the
> > time),
> > > > how very difficult it can be to identify cameras without any
> > name of
> > > > any kind on them; I thought that this one might have a better
> > chance
> > > > of someone knowing what it is, however, because of the unusual
> > > > "keyhole slots" system for supporting the front panel. I have
> > > > previously seen these, singly, on quarter plate cameras, but not
> > > > double, and not on a half-plate such as this. It also has a very
> > > > much slimmer body than usual. (Unlike me). Anybody seen one like
> > > > this with a name on it? I don't normally collect unnamed cameras,
> > > > but this was a very kind gift from someone who liked my website
> > and
> > > > wanted me to have it.
> > > > Thanks, Eric.
> > > > www.woodandbrass.co.uk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>