Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Unnamed Field camera.

Expand Messages
  • eric evans
    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
    Message 1 of 21 , Jul 23, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
    • Fred /Maren Friedman
      Oh Eric, I agree with you about not liking cameras to be orphans without a name. I have a few that I ve been trying for years to ID, without success. Just part
      Message 2 of 21 , Jul 23, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Oh Eric, I agree with you about not liking cameras to be orphans without a name. I have a few that I've been trying for years to ID, without success. Just part of collecting, I guess. I seem to remember that I did a PW article some years ago called "Orphans of History" on the theme. I had hoped for help in ID from readers, but no help ever arrived. But remember, orphans need our love even more!
        Fred
        On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:34 AM, eric evans wrote:

        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
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >


        =
      • rob_tooley
        Eric, I ve uploaded an advert (in your photo album) from the 1898 BJA which shows a camera from Sharp & Hitchmough, its a fair match to your unnamed camera.
        Message 3 of 21 , Jul 25, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Eric, I've uploaded an advert (in your photo album) from the 1898 BJA which shows a camera from Sharp & Hitchmough, its a fair match to your unnamed camera. The angled rear struts are the same as is the slotted plate to fix the front standard. They produced several models around this time all quite similar. I believe there is a connection between some of the models they sold and those sold by Tylar. So you may find adverts from other companies for the same model.

          Regards
          Rob


          --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, Fred /Maren Friedman <marenfred@...> wrote:
          >
          > Oh Eric, I agree with you about not liking cameras to be orphans
          > without a name. I have a few that I've been trying for years to ID,
          > without success. Just part of collecting, I guess. I seem to remember
          > that I did a PW article some years ago called "Orphans of History" on
          > the theme. I had hoped for help in ID from readers, but no help ever
          > arrived. But remember, orphans need our love even more!
          > Fred
          > On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:34 AM, eric evans wrote:
          >
          > > 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
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        • Fred /Maren Friedman
          Nice spotting, Rob, I remember our meeting in Richmond fondly. I hope to get to Photographica in 2010. Perhaps we can meet again. Fred
          Message 4 of 21 , Jul 25, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Nice spotting, Rob, 
            I remember our meeting in Richmond fondly. I hope to get to Photographica in 2010. Perhaps we can meet again.
            Fred
            On Jul 25, 2009, at 10:07 AM, rob_tooley wrote:

            Eric, I've uploaded an advert (in your photo album) from the 1898 BJA which shows a camera from Sharp & Hitchmough, its a fair match to your unnamed camera. The angled rear struts are the same as is the slotted plate to fix the front standard. They produced several models around this time all quite similar. I believe there is a connection between some of the models they sold and those sold by Tylar. So you may find adverts from other companies for the same model.

            Regards
            Rob

            --- In woodandbrass@ yahoogroups. com, Fred /Maren Friedman <marenfred@. ..> wrote:
            >
            > Oh Eric, I agree with you about not liking cameras to be orphans 
            > without a name. I have a few that I've been trying for years to ID, 
            > without success. Just part of collecting, I guess. I seem to remember 
            > that I did a PW article some years ago called "Orphans of History" on 
            > the theme. I had hoped for help in ID from readers, but no help ever 
            > arrived. But remember, orphans need our love even more!
            > Fred
            > On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:34 AM, eric evans wrote:
            > 
            > > 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
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >


            =
          • Marcel Safier
            Yes good detective work Rob! The base board is different, Eric s having a turntable style rather than a solid base and there is a brass plate for the
            Message 5 of 21 , Jul 25, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes good detective work Rob! The base board is different, Eric's having a turntable style rather than a solid base and there is a brass plate for the attachment of the support strut for the front standard which Eric's doesn't have. If they were the makers maybe they varied these features between models or across the years. I have seen this method of fixing the front before but that was also an unbranded camera.

              Unlike you Eric & Fred, if I see a nicely made unbranded camera, especially if it has unusual features and is priced OK I buy it. I might also buy it if it has interesting provenance, like belonging to a known photographer. Being in Australia I don't see anywhere near as many cameras as you would but I wonder what percentage of British W&B cameras you see are unbranded - I would guess around 25%. Also would our American W&B collecting friends hazard to guess what % of those cameras are unbranded?

              Cheers!

              Marcel

              --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, "rob_tooley" <robert_tooley@...> wrote:
              >
              > Eric, I've uploaded an advert (in your photo album) from the 1898 BJA which shows a camera from Sharp & Hitchmough, its a fair match to your unnamed camera. The angled rear struts are the same as is the slotted plate to fix the front standard. They produced several models around this time all quite similar. I believe there is a connection between some of the models they sold and those sold by Tylar. So you may find adverts from other companies for the same model.
              >
              > Regards
              > Rob
            • Fred /Maren Friedman
              Marcel, In terms of what I see of British cameras here in the U.S. and on the occasional trip to Europe, I would say 15% is nearer the mark. I don t see nearly
              Message 6 of 21 , Jul 25, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Marcel,
                In terms of what I see of British cameras here in the U.S. and on the occasional trip to Europe, I would say 15% is nearer the mark. I don't see nearly that many unmarked American cameras - less than 10% in my experience. But, I am only one pair of eyes.
                Fred
                On Jul 25, 2009, at 5:45 PM, Marcel Safier wrote:

                Yes good detective work Rob! The base board is different, Eric's having a turntable style rather than a solid base and there is a brass plate for the attachment of the support strut for the front standard which Eric's doesn't have. If they were the makers maybe they varied these features between models or across the years. I have seen this method of fixing the front before but that was also an unbranded camera.

                Unlike you Eric & Fred, if I see a nicely made unbranded camera, especially if it has unusual features and is priced OK I buy it. I might also buy it if it has interesting provenance, like belonging to a known photographer. Being in Australia I don't see anywhere near as many cameras as you would but I wonder what percentage of British W&B cameras you see are unbranded - I would guess around 25%. Also would our American W&B collecting friends hazard to guess what % of those cameras are unbranded?

                Cheers!

                Marcel

                --- In woodandbrass@ yahoogroups. com, "rob_tooley" <robert_tooley@ ...> wrote:
                >
                > Eric, I've uploaded an advert (in your photo album) from the 1898 BJA which shows a camera from Sharp & Hitchmough, its a fair match to your unnamed camera. The angled rear struts are the same as is the slotted plate to fix the front standard. They produced several models around this time all quite similar. I believe there is a connection between some of the models they sold and those sold by Tylar. So you may find adverts from other companies for the same model.
                > 
                > Regards
                > Rob


                =
              • eric evans
                Rob,Fred, Marcel, Thanks for your interest and Rob for taking the trouble to post a picture; it s appreciated. I early on set myself the impossible task of
                Message 7 of 21 , Jul 26, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Rob,Fred, Marcel,
                  Thanks for your interest and Rob for taking the trouble to post a picture; it's appreciated. I early on set myself the impossible task of trying to collect one example from every British maker I could, which is why I am so compulsive about getting names to my cameras. I sometimes say I am collecting nameplates with cameras attached; I didn't realise when I started, how difficult it would be to put names to some of the cameras that were turning up, and I then had no idea of the amount of wheeling, dealing and badge engineering that was going on in 19th century Britain.
                  Naturally, if someone offers me an unnamed one as a gift, I wouldn't dream of turning it down because of my collecting parameters, but I don't go out of my way to buy unnamed ones.
                  Sharp & Hitchmough appears to have been a big concern, with fingers in a lot of pies, and although I am not a researcher as such, I seem to find out something more about them every day, most recently that, as in Rob's advert., they appear to have been the originators of the "Royalty" series, attributed by Channing & Dunn to the London & Paris Optic and Clock Co. I would not be at all surprised if S&H had made the nameless wonder I'm enquiring about, it is very similar to the one in Rob's advert, though Marcel has picked up on some slight variations, but that could be accommodated in the normal design and development process, I suppose.
                  The number of nameless W&B cameras appearing on UK e bay, I would put higher than Fred's estimate, certainly for England, at about fifty percent, IMHO; a good proportion of these are advertised as Thornton-Pickards, because of that dratted shutter that T-P would sell, for anybody to stick on his camera, but as a bit of a T-P specialist, I can spot immediately that they are really unnamed cameras with a T-P badge on the shutter. Auction houses tend to fall for that one, too.
                  Thanks and regards,
                  Eric.
                  www.woodandbrass.co.uk

                  --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, "rob_tooley" <robert_tooley@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Eric, I've uploaded an advert (in your photo album) from the 1898 BJA which shows a camera from Sharp & Hitchmough, its a fair match to your unnamed camera. The angled rear struts are the same as is the slotted plate to fix the front standard. They produced several models around this time all quite similar. I believe there is a connection between some of the models they sold and those sold by Tylar. So you may find adverts from other companies for the same model.
                  >
                  > Regards
                  > Rob
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, Fred /Maren Friedman <marenfred@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Oh Eric, I agree with you about not liking cameras to be orphans
                  > > without a name. I have a few that I've been trying for years to ID,
                  > > without success. Just part of collecting, I guess. I seem to remember
                  > > that I did a PW article some years ago called "Orphans of History" on
                  > > the theme. I had hoped for help in ID from readers, but no help ever
                  > > arrived. But remember, orphans need our love even more!
                  > > Fred
                  > > On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:34 AM, eric evans wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > 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
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > > >
                  > > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • rob_tooley
                  Marcel, you are right about the difference in features, over a short period they included woodcuts having different features, if you included bits of each you
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jul 26, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Marcel, you are right about the difference in features, over a short period they included woodcuts having different features, if you included bits of each you would get Eric's camera. They seemed a bit open minded about their use of drawings.
                    One showed the rising front arrangement of Eric's camera but not the front standard clip. The closest was a stereo apart from having one too many lenses. The turntable was an optional extra.

                    On the subject of unnamed verses named I think the proportion here is pretty high once you take away the two big manufacturers of T-P and Lancaster which are normally named in some way.

                    Not only cameras at the cheaper end are unnamed, well made models from Hare etc turn up without badges. I can only think that they were sold by wholesalers, of which there were many, but why the wholesaler did not add their name I don't know.
                    Retailers over here sometimes have their name on the camera rather than the maker. So attribution can be difficult.

                    Rob

                    --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel Safier" <msafier@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Yes good detective work Rob! The base board is different, Eric's having a turntable style rather than a solid base and there is a brass plate for the attachment of the support strut for the front standard which Eric's doesn't have. If they were the makers maybe they varied these features between models or across the years. I have seen this method of fixing the front before but that was also an unbranded camera.
                    >
                    > Unlike you Eric & Fred, if I see a nicely made unbranded camera, especially if it has unusual features and is priced OK I buy it. I might also buy it if it has interesting provenance, like belonging to a known photographer. Being in Australia I don't see anywhere near as many cameras as you would but I wonder what percentage of British W&B cameras you see are unbranded - I would guess around 25%. Also would our American W&B collecting friends hazard to guess what % of those cameras are unbranded?
                    >
                    > Cheers!
                    >
                    > Marcel
                    >
                    > --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, "rob_tooley" <robert_tooley@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Eric, I've uploaded an advert (in your photo album) from the 1898 BJA which shows a camera from Sharp & Hitchmough, its a fair match to your unnamed camera. The angled rear struts are the same as is the slotted plate to fix the front standard. They produced several models around this time all quite similar. I believe there is a connection between some of the models they sold and those sold by Tylar. So you may find adverts from other companies for the same model.
                    > >
                    > > Regards
                    > > Rob
                    >
                  • eric evans
                    Rob, Your mention of the turntable as an optional extra prompts me to remember that in one case, and that is just one that I happen to know about, the
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jul 26, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Rob,
                      Your mention of the turntable as an optional extra prompts me to remember that in one case, and that is just one that I happen to know about, the Thornton-Pickard "Imperial Pocket Camera" was available in no less than 1,000 permutations of lens, shutter, fittings etc.some to special order only, which meant that anybody who could afford it could have practically a "one off" made for him/her personally.
                      In the entrepreneurial cut-throat atmosphere that prevailed at the time, I'm sure there were others doing the same......
                      Like you, I sometimes doubt the veracity of some of those old woodcut illustrations; plenty of artistic licence allowed, I feel.
                      Some of the retailers seem to have gone to great lengths to try to give the impression that the camera was their own product; I have one camera with the maker's own label laid on and screwed, at the rear of the camera, whereas the retailer's label (Sands-Hunter) has been carefully inlaid into the front of the camera.
                      Eric.

                      --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, "rob_tooley" <robert_tooley@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Marcel, you are right about the difference in features, over a short period they included woodcuts having different features, if you included bits of each you would get Eric's camera. They seemed a bit open minded about their use of drawings.
                      > One showed the rising front arrangement of Eric's camera but not the front standard clip. The closest was a stereo apart from having one too many lenses. The turntable was an optional extra.
                      >
                      > On the subject of unnamed verses named I think the proportion here is pretty high once you take away the two big manufacturers of T-P and Lancaster which are normally named in some way.
                      >
                      > Not only cameras at the cheaper end are unnamed, well made models from Hare etc turn up without badges. I can only think that they were sold by wholesalers, of which there were many, but why the wholesaler did not add their name I don't know.
                      > Retailers over here sometimes have their name on the camera rather than the maker. So attribution can be difficult.
                      >
                      > Rob
                      >
                      > --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel Safier" <msafier@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Yes good detective work Rob! The base board is different, Eric's having a turntable style rather than a solid base and there is a brass plate for the attachment of the support strut for the front standard which Eric's doesn't have. If they were the makers maybe they varied these features between models or across the years. I have seen this method of fixing the front before but that was also an unbranded camera.
                      > >
                      > > Unlike you Eric & Fred, if I see a nicely made unbranded camera, especially if it has unusual features and is priced OK I buy it. I might also buy it if it has interesting provenance, like belonging to a known photographer. Being in Australia I don't see anywhere near as many cameras as you would but I wonder what percentage of British W&B cameras you see are unbranded - I would guess around 25%. Also would our American W&B collecting friends hazard to guess what % of those cameras are unbranded?
                      > >
                      > > Cheers!
                      > >
                      > > Marcel
                      > >
                      > > --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, "rob_tooley" <robert_tooley@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > Eric, I've uploaded an advert (in your photo album) from the 1898 BJA which shows a camera from Sharp & Hitchmough, its a fair match to your unnamed camera. The angled rear struts are the same as is the slotted plate to fix the front standard. They produced several models around this time all quite similar. I believe there is a connection between some of the models they sold and those sold by Tylar. So you may find adverts from other companies for the same model.
                      > > >
                      > > > Regards
                      > > > Rob
                      > >
                      >
                    • eric evans
                      Rob, Your mention of the turntable as an optional extra prompts me to remember that in one case, and that is just one that I happen to know about, the
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jul 26, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Rob,
                        Your mention of the turntable as an optional extra prompts me to remember that in one case, and that is just one that I happen to know about, the Thornton-Pickard "Imperial Pocket Camera" was available in no less than 1,000 permutations of lens, shutter, fittings etc.some to special order only, which meant that anybody who could afford it could have practically a "one off" made for him/her personally.
                        In the entrepreneurial cut-throat atmosphere that prevailed at the time, I'm sure there were others doing the same......
                        Like you, I sometimes doubt the veracity of some of those old woodcut illustrations; plenty of artistic licence allowed, I feel.
                        Some of the retailers seem to have gone to great lengths to try to give the impression that the camera was their own product; I have one camera with the maker's own label laid on and screwed, at the rear of the camera, whereas the retailer's label (Sands-Hunter) has been carefully inlaid into the front of the camera.
                        Eric.

                        --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, "rob_tooley" <robert_tooley@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Marcel, you are right about the difference in features, over a short period they included woodcuts having different features, if you included bits of each you would get Eric's camera. They seemed a bit open minded about their use of drawings.
                        > One showed the rising front arrangement of Eric's camera but not the front standard clip. The closest was a stereo apart from having one too many lenses. The turntable was an optional extra.
                        >
                        > On the subject of unnamed verses named I think the proportion here is pretty high once you take away the two big manufacturers of T-P and Lancaster which are normally named in some way.
                        >
                        > Not only cameras at the cheaper end are unnamed, well made models from Hare etc turn up without badges. I can only think that they were sold by wholesalers, of which there were many, but why the wholesaler did not add their name I don't know.
                        > Retailers over here sometimes have their name on the camera rather than the maker. So attribution can be difficult.
                        >
                        > Rob
                        >
                        > --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel Safier" <msafier@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Yes good detective work Rob! The base board is different, Eric's having a turntable style rather than a solid base and there is a brass plate for the attachment of the support strut for the front standard which Eric's doesn't have. If they were the makers maybe they varied these features between models or across the years. I have seen this method of fixing the front before but that was also an unbranded camera.
                        > >
                        > > Unlike you Eric & Fred, if I see a nicely made unbranded camera, especially if it has unusual features and is priced OK I buy it. I might also buy it if it has interesting provenance, like belonging to a known photographer. Being in Australia I don't see anywhere near as many cameras as you would but I wonder what percentage of British W&B cameras you see are unbranded - I would guess around 25%. Also would our American W&B collecting friends hazard to guess what % of those cameras are unbranded?
                        > >
                        > > Cheers!
                        > >
                        > > Marcel
                        > >
                        > > --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, "rob_tooley" <robert_tooley@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > Eric, I've uploaded an advert (in your photo album) from the 1898 BJA which shows a camera from Sharp & Hitchmough, its a fair match to your unnamed camera. The angled rear struts are the same as is the slotted plate to fix the front standard. They produced several models around this time all quite similar. I believe there is a connection between some of the models they sold and those sold by Tylar. So you may find adverts from other companies for the same model.
                        > > >
                        > > > Regards
                        > > > Rob
                        > >
                        >
                      • Marcel Safier
                        Hello all Lock up your cameras! I will be visiting the USA on holidays for 3 weeks in October, taking in Photohistory XIV in Rochester on 17-18th and the PHSNE
                        Message 11 of 21 , Sep 22, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hello all

                          Lock up your cameras! I will be visiting the USA on holidays for 3 weeks
                          in October, taking in Photohistory XIV in Rochester on 17-18th and the
                          PHSNE fair in Wakefield the following weekend. I would be pleased to
                          catch up with any list members during my trip which takes in NYC,
                          Rochester, Buffalo, Toronto, Kingston, Boston then back to NYC (and
                          stops in between!). I expect some list members will be attending at
                          least one of the events mentioned. Please feel free to make contact on
                          or off list.

                          Cheers!

                          Marcel
                          --
                          Marcel Safier
                          PO Box 239
                          Holland Park 4121
                          Queensland Australia
                          http://members.ozemail.com.au/~msafier/index.html




                          E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.1.0.447)
                          Database version: 6.13260
                          http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
                        • Marcel Safier
                          Michael Pritchard s British photohistory blog gives details of an exhibition about J. T. Chapman of Manchester who of course made some very fine caeras:
                          Message 12 of 21 , Oct 6, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Michael Pritchard's British photohistory blog gives details of an exhibition about J. T. Chapman of Manchester who of course made some very fine caeras:

                            http://britishphotohistory.ning.com/profiles/blogs/manchester-and-j-t-chapman

                            You can check out a very nice Chapman camera on list member Eric Evans' site:

                            http://www.woodandbrass.co.uk/detail.php?cat_num=0020

                            Cheers!

                            Marcel, Brisbane, Australia
                            Wood and Brass list moderator




                            E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
                            Database version: 6.16020
                            http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
                          • Marcel Safier
                            Hi all I have long been fascinated by gem tintypes/ferrotypes. I am increasingly amazed at the attempt at global penetration conceived by Simon Wing. He sold
                            Message 13 of 21 , Nov 13, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi all

                              I have long been fascinated by gem tintypes/ferrotypes. I am increasingly amazed at the attempt at global penetration conceived by Simon Wing. He sold licenses for regions along with multiplying cameras and supplies for regions all over the USA. He took his business into Canada, then New Zealand and Australia and now it appears Africa and India in the 1880s.

                              These gem images were produced in Great Britain and the Continent but I wonder what cameras were used? Mike Kessler has just asked me if Wing cameras were used in France. I do not know. Does anyone know if they were sold in these countries and if not what cameras were used? I am aware of the Lancaster Gem cameras but were there others?

                              Cheers!

                              Marcel, Brisbane, Australia
                              http://members.ozemail.com.au/~msafier/photos/tintypes.html



                              E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
                              Database version: 6.16290
                              http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
                            • Bernard PLAZONNET
                              Bonsoir Marcel, To the best of my knowledge there are vey few Simon Wing New Gem cameras in France (have one and know another one) and I never heard of any
                              Message 14 of 21 , Nov 15, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment

                                Bonsoir Marcel,

                                To the best of my knowledge there are vey few Simon Wing New Gem cameras in France (have one and know another one) and I never heard of any Multiplying Wing camera in France.  I have a couple of multiple lens cameras, should you be interested in those, I can send you pics. All my best,
                                Bernard





                                > Message du 13/11/10 21:31
                                > De : "Marcel Safier"
                                > A : woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com
                                > Copie à :
                                > Objet : [woodandbrass] Multiplying Cameras in Great Britain and Europe
                                >
                                >Hi all
                                >
                                > I have long been fascinated by gem tintypes/ferrotypes. I am increasingly amazed at the attempt at global penetration conceived by Simon Wing. He sold licenses for regions along with multiplying cameras and supplies for regions all over the USA. He took his business into Canada, then New Zealand and Australia and now it appears Africa and India in the 1880s.
                                >
                                > These gem images were produced in Great Britain and the Continent but I wonder what cameras were used? Mike Kessler has just asked me if Wing cameras were used in France. I do not know. Does anyone know if they were sold in these countries and if not what cameras were used? I am aware of the Lancaster Gem cameras but were there others?
                                >
                                > Cheers!
                                >
                                > Marcel, Brisbane, Australia
                                > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~msafier/photos/tintypes.html


                                >
                                > E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
                                > Database version: 6.16290
                                > http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
                                >

                              • Marcel Safier
                                Bonjour Bernard Thanks for sharing what you know. I would be interested to see some pics of your cameras, whether French made or not. I don t own any (yet!).
                                Message 15 of 21 , Nov 15, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Bonjour Bernard

                                  Thanks for sharing what you know. I would be interested to see some pics of your cameras, whether French made or not. I don't own any (yet!).

                                  Cheers! Marcel -- Marcel Safier PO Box 239 Holland Park QLD 4121 Australia

                                  On 15/11/2010 8:20 PM, Bernard PLAZONNET wrote:  


                                  Bonsoir Marcel,

                                  To the best of my knowledge there are vey few Simon Wing New Gem cameras in France (have one and know another one) and I never heard of any Multiplying Wing camera in France.  I have a couple of multiple lens cameras, should you be interested in those, I can send you pics. All my best,
                                  Bernard

                                  > Message du 13/11/10 21:31

                                  > De : "Marcel Safier"
                                  > A : woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Copie à :
                                  > Objet : [woodandbrass] Multiplying Cameras in Great Britain and Europe
                                  >
                                  > Hi all
                                  >
                                  > I have long been fascinated by gem tintypes/ferrotypes. I am increasingly amazed at the attempt at global penetration conceived by Simon Wing. He sold licenses for regions along with multiplying cameras and supplies for regions all over the USA. He took his business into Canada, then New Zealand and Australia and now it appears Africa and India in the 1880s.
                                  >
                                  > These gem images were produced in Great Britain and the Continent but I wonder what cameras were used? Mike Kessler has just asked me if Wing cameras were used in France. I do not know. Does anyone know if they were sold in these countries and if not what cameras were used? I am aware of the Lancaster Gem cameras but were there others?
                                  >
                                  > Cheers!
                                  >
                                  > Marcel, Brisbane, Australia
                                  > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~msafier/photos/tintypes.html





                                  E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
                                  Database version: 6.16290
                                  http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.