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

Wood and brass camera frankensteins

Expand Messages
  • Marcel Safier
    Following the discussion about Leica modifications on IDCC, spare a thought also for the wood and brass camera collector. Wooden cameras are often dicked
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 26, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Following the discussion about Leica modifications on IDCC, spare a
      thought also for the wood and brass camera collector.

      Wooden cameras are often dicked around with, sometimes by people with
      skill but so often not. Parts get removed, wood gets gouged out, things
      get screwed on, lensboards are substituted, later lenses or shutters are
      added etc. etc. These modifications often mean a virgin example of a
      particular uncommon make are near impossible to come by. I still
      consider the modified cameras an historic artifact that certainly can be
      collected (especially when it has provenance such as having belonged to
      a photographer I am interested in) but some of the modifications are
      less than sympathetic, such as cardboard or ply lensboards, aluminium
      lens mounting rings, tripod mounts ripped out or ply nailed or screwed
      onto baseboards. Attempting to undo these mods often leaves scars, or at
      least screw/nail holes and then the original parts to return the item to
      its former state may not be sourcable anyway.

      I remember buying a nice Rouse tailboard camera but with a later lens. I
      managed to source a Rouse branded lens seperately so it seems
      appropriate to put that on the camera although just like today a number
      of lenses were often available for a camera outfit at time of purchase
      and probably not too many Rouse cameras have Rouse branded lenses on
      them. Rouse most likely bought these lenses in and had them engraved. I
      saw a lovely1/2 plate tailboard camera at Photographica in London last
      year but someone had removed about 8mm across the bottom of the large
      mahogany lens panel and done it slightly unevenly. It was impossible to
      repair and needed a whole new lensboard made but given the camera was
      fairly fully priced I let it go and then if I had bought it at say a
      reduced price, who would have made the new panel and I would always know
      it wasn't original. What is the right price to pay for any camera that
      isn't quite right or do you just leave it and keep looking for a better
      example? I've never understood people who buy chipped or cracked china
      (unless very, very old and/or rare) at a reduced price or cameras that
      are badly dented etc. presumably to save money. Better to buy one good
      camera at full price than two poor cameras at half price each I say. If
      anyone ever wants to resell these lesser examples they still have to
      find someone of similar mindset to sell them to.

      Cheers!

      Marcel, Brisbane, Australia
      (cross posted to the IDCC and Wood and Brass lists)




      =======
      Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
      (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16990)
      http://www.pctools.com/
      =======
    • marenfred@aol.com
      Right on, Marcel. Perfectly expressed! Cheers, Fred ... From: Marcel Safier To: woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, Feb 26,
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 26, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Right on, Marcel.
        Perfectly expressed! Cheers,
        Fred



        -----Original Message-----
        From: Marcel Safier <msafier@...>
        To: woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sat, Feb 26, 2011 5:39 pm
        Subject: [woodandbrass] Wood and brass camera frankensteins

         
        Following the discussion about Leica modifications on IDCC, spare a
        thought also for the wood and brass camera collector.

        Wooden cameras are often dicked around with, sometimes by people with
        skill but so often not. Parts get removed, wood gets gouged out, things
        get screwed on, lensboards are substituted, later lenses or shutters are
        added etc. etc. These modifications often mean a virgin example of a
        particular uncommon make are near impossible to come by. I still
        consider the modified cameras an historic artifact that certainly can be
        collected (especially when it has provenance such as having belonged to
        a photographer I am interested in) but some of the modifications are
        less than sympathetic, such as cardboard or ply lensboards, aluminium
        lens mounting rings, tripod mounts ripped out or ply nailed or screwed
        onto baseboards. Attempting to undo these mods often leaves scars, or at
        least screw/nail holes and then the original parts to return the item to
        its former state may not be sourcable anyway.

        I remember buying a nice Rouse tailboard camera but with a later lens. I
        managed to source a Rouse branded lens seperately so it seems
        appropriate to put that on the camera although just like today a number
        of lenses were often available for a camera outfit at time of purchase
        and probably not too many Rouse cameras have Rouse branded lenses on
        them. Rouse most likely bought these lenses in and had them engraved. I
        saw a lovely1/2 plate tailboard camera at Photographica in London last
        year but someone had removed about 8mm across the bottom of the large
        mahogany lens panel and done it slightly unevenly. It was impossible to
        repair and needed a whole new lensboard made but given the camera was
        fairly fully priced I let it go and then if I had bought it at say a
        reduced price, who would have made the new panel and I would always know
        it wasn't original. What is the right price to pay for any camera that
        isn't quite right or do you just leave it and keep looking for a better
        example? I've never understood people who buy chipped or cracked china
        (unless very, very old and/or rare) at a reduced price or cameras that
        are badly dented etc. presumably to save money. Better to buy one good
        camera at full price than two poor cameras at half price each I say. If
        anyone ever wants to resell these lesser examples they still have to
        find someone of similar mindset to sell them to.

        Cheers!

        Marcel, Brisbane, Australia
        (cross posted to the IDCC and Wood and Brass lists)

        =======
        Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
        (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16990)
        http://www.pctools.com/
        =======
      • Eric Evans
        Hi Marcel, This is an ongoing debate in which no one is right and no one is wrong. I think it comes down to how much a collector personally needs and values a
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 27, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Marcel,
                        This is an ongoing debate in which no one is right and no one is wrong. I think it comes down to how much a collector personally needs and values a given example of a given camera (or piece of china, etc.), and a collector's motivation in trying to preserve it. If when you are buying, you have in mind what you are going to be able to sell it for, OK that is one kind of motivation.
              Need-wise, it does go back to the collector's knowledge of what s/he is buying. To invent an extreme example: if you know that a certain Bulmer half-plate is the only one you have ever seen, and you research it and find it was one of only two that he ever made, what are you going to do if your theme is to collect and preserve the work of obscure makers? It would take a stronger will than mine to pass it up just because someone had given it to the kids to play with, at some stage in its life.
              And from a motivational viewpoint, what is going to happen to it if you don't buy it? Is it going to be safer in your hands than in someone else's? Is it headed for the tip, is it going to be bought by one of the "aluminium turntable and lens panel" brigade, or does a man know when he has the skills to do a sympathetic job of making the poor thing whole again? I think sentiment plays a part here; a future historian could make some better informed guesses from a restored camera than from one that doesn't exist any more. The historian's and the conservationist's viewpoints are not necessarily in opposition.
              In my view, it is a judgement call as to whether a given camera should be restored, conserved,  or left alone; cameras in my collection fall into all camps, and I have the arrogance to think it is better that the judgement call be made by someone with fifty years experience of W&B cameras, than by an amateur wood-butcher who is buying for the first time. So, if necessary, and if it fits my parameters, I will overbid to buy a total wreck that I think can be conserved.
              I am no holier than thou, but I never sell cameras, I collect them, so the money doesn't really matter to me, though it may matter to my kids when I go. But we are not talking in millions here, I buy what I can afford.
              All this is part of the perpetual debate on whether you should restore or not; I came to my own conclusions years ago, as no doubt did many on this list, but the debate still rumbles on, as there is no categoric answer that suits everyone. In my case the answer is provided for me; I have reached an age where I can't restore properly, so I shall not be doing it at all, in future. But if a wreck needs my help, I shall still buy it and look after it.
              No offence intended to any body, just expressing a point of view.
          Best regards,
          Eric.
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 10:39 PM
          Subject: [woodandbrass] Wood and brass camera frankensteins

           

          Following the discussion about Leica modifications on IDCC, spare a
          thought also for the wood and brass camera collector.

          Wooden cameras are often dicked around with, sometimes by people with
          skill but so often not. Parts get removed, wood gets gouged out, things
          get screwed on, lensboards are substituted, later lenses or shutters are
          added etc. etc. These modifications often mean a virgin example of a
          particular uncommon make are near impossible to come by. I still
          consider the modified cameras an historic artifact that certainly can be
          collected (especially when it has provenance such as having belonged to
          a photographer I am interested in) but some of the modifications are
          less than sympathetic, such as cardboard or ply lensboards, aluminium
          lens mounting rings, tripod mounts ripped out or ply nailed or screwed
          onto baseboards. Attempting to undo these mods often leaves scars, or at
          least screw/nail holes and then the original parts to return the item to
          its former state may not be sourcable anyway.

          I remember buying a nice Rouse tailboard camera but with a later lens. I
          managed to source a Rouse branded lens seperately so it seems
          appropriate to put that on the camera although just like today a number
          of lenses were often available for a camera outfit at time of purchase
          and probably not too many Rouse cameras have Rouse branded lenses on
          them. Rouse most likely bought these lenses in and had them engraved. I
          saw a lovely1/2 plate tailboard camera at Photographica in London last
          year but someone had removed about 8mm across the bottom of the large
          mahogany lens panel and done it slightly unevenly. It was impossible to
          repair and needed a whole new lensboard made but given the camera was
          fairly fully priced I let it go and then if I had bought it at say a
          reduced price, who would have made the new panel and I would always know
          it wasn't original. What is the right price to pay for any camera that
          isn't quite right or do you just leave it and keep looking for a better
          example? I've never understood people who buy chipped or cracked china
          (unless very, very old and/or rare) at a reduced price or cameras that
          are badly dented etc. presumably to save money. Better to buy one good
          camera at full price than two poor cameras at half price each I say. If
          anyone ever wants to resell these lesser examples they still have to
          find someone of similar mindset to sell them to.

          Cheers!

          Marcel, Brisbane, Australia
          (cross posted to the IDCC and Wood and Brass lists)

          =======
          Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
          (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16990)
          http://www.pctools.com/
          =======

        • Stephen Shohet
          (Colleagues, I tried to send something like this previously. My apologies if you get two copies) Hello Marcel et al., I completely concur with contempt for
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 28, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            (Colleagues, I tried to send something like this previously. My apologies if you get two copies)

            Hello Marcel et al., I completely concur with contempt for careless or destructive changes to our W&B legends. However, occasionally I find something impossible to resist. For example: a Queen overprint 5X7 Scoville view carrying a bisected Stereo Triplex shutter which some despirate former owner wanted for making stereo images. Or, a quite otherwise lovely, Wing Little Giant equipped with a preposterous 10 inch Daguerrian (!) lens, and with its baseboard repaired by a splint made from an egg company's give-away ruler! I'm not sure if these primarily represent vandalism or imagination, but I have kept them as is, in tribute to the former photographers who clearly wanted to take pictures above all else.

            Hope you are well and the Wrathfull Gods are finally leaving Australia alone. Steve

            --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Evans" <ericevans2@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi Marcel,
            > This is an ongoing debate in which no one is right and no one is wrong. I think it comes down to how much a collector personally needs and values a given example of a given camera (or piece of china, etc.), and a collector's motivation in trying to preserve it. If when you are buying, you have in mind what you are going to be able to sell it for, OK that is one kind of motivation.
            > Need-wise, it does go back to the collector's knowledge of what s/he is buying. To invent an extreme example: if you know that a certain Bulmer half-plate is the only one you have ever seen, and you research it and find it was one of only two that he ever made, what are you going to do if your theme is to collect and preserve the work of obscure makers? It would take a stronger will than mine to pass it up just because someone had given it to the kids to play with, at some stage in its life.
            > And from a motivational viewpoint, what is going to happen to it if you don't buy it? Is it going to be safer in your hands than in someone else's? Is it headed for the tip, is it going to be bought by one of the "aluminium turntable and lens panel" brigade, or does a man know when he has the skills to do a sympathetic job of making the poor thing whole again? I think sentiment plays a part here; a future historian could make some better informed guesses from a restored camera than from one that doesn't exist any more. The historian's and the conservationist's viewpoints are not necessarily in opposition.
            > In my view, it is a judgement call as to whether a given camera should be restored, conserved, or left alone; cameras in my collection fall into all camps, and I have the arrogance to think it is better that the judgement call be made by someone with fifty years experience of W&B cameras, than by an amateur wood-butcher who is buying for the first time. So, if necessary, and if it fits my parameters, I will overbid to buy a total wreck that I think can be conserved.
            > I am no holier than thou, but I never sell cameras, I collect them, so the money doesn't really matter to me, though it may matter to my kids when I go. But we are not talking in millions here, I buy what I can afford.
            > All this is part of the perpetual debate on whether you should restore or not; I came to my own conclusions years ago, as no doubt did many on this list, but the debate still rumbles on, as there is no categoric answer that suits everyone. In my case the answer is provided for me; I have reached an age where I can't restore properly, so I shall not be doing it at all, in future. But if a wreck needs my help, I shall still buy it and look after it.
            > No offence intended to any body, just expressing a point of view.
            > Best regards,
            > Eric.
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: Marcel Safier
            > To: woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 10:39 PM
            > Subject: [woodandbrass] Wood and brass camera frankensteins
            >
            >
            >
            > Following the discussion about Leica modifications on IDCC, spare a
            > thought also for the wood and brass camera collector.
            >
            > Wooden cameras are often dicked around with, sometimes by people with
            > skill but so often not. Parts get removed, wood gets gouged out, things
            > get screwed on, lensboards are substituted, later lenses or shutters are
            > added etc. etc. These modifications often mean a virgin example of a
            > particular uncommon make are near impossible to come by. I still
            > consider the modified cameras an historic artifact that certainly can be
            > collected (especially when it has provenance such as having belonged to
            > a photographer I am interested in) but some of the modifications are
            > less than sympathetic, such as cardboard or ply lensboards, aluminium
            > lens mounting rings, tripod mounts ripped out or ply nailed or screwed
            > onto baseboards. Attempting to undo these mods often leaves scars, or at
            > least screw/nail holes and then the original parts to return the item to
            > its former state may not be sourcable anyway.
            >
            > I remember buying a nice Rouse tailboard camera but with a later lens. I
            > managed to source a Rouse branded lens seperately so it seems
            > appropriate to put that on the camera although just like today a number
            > of lenses were often available for a camera outfit at time of purchase
            > and probably not too many Rouse cameras have Rouse branded lenses on
            > them. Rouse most likely bought these lenses in and had them engraved. I
            > saw a lovely1/2 plate tailboard camera at Photographica in London last
            > year but someone had removed about 8mm across the bottom of the large
            > mahogany lens panel and done it slightly unevenly. It was impossible to
            > repair and needed a whole new lensboard made but given the camera was
            > fairly fully priced I let it go and then if I had bought it at say a
            > reduced price, who would have made the new panel and I would always know
            > it wasn't original. What is the right price to pay for any camera that
            > isn't quite right or do you just leave it and keep looking for a better
            > example? I've never understood people who buy chipped or cracked china
            > (unless very, very old and/or rare) at a reduced price or cameras that
            > are badly dented etc. presumably to save money. Better to buy one good
            > camera at full price than two poor cameras at half price each I say. If
            > anyone ever wants to resell these lesser examples they still have to
            > find someone of similar mindset to sell them to.
            >
            > Cheers!
            >
            > Marcel, Brisbane, Australia
            > (cross posted to the IDCC and Wood and Brass lists)
            >
            > =======
            > Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
            > (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.16990)
            > http://www.pctools.com/
            > =======
            >
          • David Silver
            Does anybody know what serial number Kodak started their No. 4 and No. 5 Folding Kodak cameras (the satchel cameras) in 1890? If any members are in
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 16, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Does anybody know what serial number Kodak started their No. 4 and No. 5
              Folding Kodak cameras (the "satchel" cameras) in 1890? If any members are
              in possession of examples of these Kodak models, I would like to learn
              what serial numbers you have, and who here has the lowest number. I
              pulled an extremely early No. 5 Folding Kodak out of my collection the
              other day, and the serial number appears to be 103. So I'm curious to
              learn where Kodak actually started the numbering.

              Best wishes,

              David Silver - President
              International Photographic Historical Organization
              E-mail: silver@... Telephone: (415) 681-4356
              Web site: http://www.photographyhistory.com
            • David Silver
              A quick addendum to my prior inquiry...the serial number on the roll film holder inside these cameras does not always match the camera s actual serial number,
              Message 6 of 13 , Mar 16, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                A quick addendum to my prior inquiry...the serial number on the roll film
                holder inside these cameras does not always match the camera's actual
                serial number, which is located either right there next to the film holder
                or a bit deeper inside the camera body. So please make sure you find the
                correct number. For that matter, it would probably be further
                illuminating to know the camera AND the roll film holder serial numbers.
                In early examples, the numbers were occasionally a digit or two apart,
                then in slightly later models they mostly match perfectly, but sometimes
                the holders were replaced altogether and the numbers are no longer even
                close...

                Best wishes,

                David Silver - President
                International Photographic Historical Organization
                E-mail: silver@... Telephone: (415) 681-4356
                Web site: http://www.photographyhistory.com


                On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, David Silver wrote:

                >
                > Does anybody know what serial number Kodak started their No. 4 and No. 5
                > Folding Kodak cameras (the "satchel" cameras) in 1890? If any members are
                > in possession of examples of these Kodak models, I would like to learn
                > what serial numbers you have, and who here has the lowest number. I
                > pulled an extremely early No. 5 Folding Kodak out of my collection the
                > other day, and the serial number appears to be 103. So I'm curious to
                > learn where Kodak actually started the numbering.
                >
                > Best wishes,
                >
                > David Silver - President
                > International Photographic Historical Organization
                > E-mail: silver@... Telephone: (415) 681-4356
                > Web site: http://www.photographyhistory.com
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • David Silver
                Hi gang, I ve been looking for an appropriate 210mm (or roughly 8 ) focal length, ideally around 1920 s vintage, recessed (flush mount...sunken...) lens for a
                Message 7 of 13 , Mar 16, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi gang,

                  I've been looking for an appropriate 210mm (or roughly 8") focal length,
                  ideally around 1920's vintage, recessed (flush mount...sunken...) lens for
                  a half-plate Soho Reflex camera. There is a protective flap hinged above
                  the lens, and the lens mounts on a flange on the lens board sunk back into
                  the camera, allowing the flap to hinge down and over the lens. If you
                  don't know what I'm talking about (half the time *I* don't know what I'm
                  talking about), please take a look at this:

                  www.photographyhistory.com/sohoreflex.jpg

                  See how the entire bulk of the lens lies inside the camera. The lens
                  attaches to a flange at its front, instead of the back. THAT is what I
                  need, around 210mm focal length, ideally 1920's, German or English maker,
                  and ideally with its proper flange (but that's not necessarily a deal
                  breaker). If in doubt, just send me a small pic of what you have. Please
                  contact me directly at <silver@...>, thanks! If necessary, I'd be
                  perfectly willing to purchase an entire junky half-plate Soho Reflex just
                  to scavenge the correct sunken lens out of it. I'm flexible! Let me
                  know if you can help...


                  Best wishes,

                  David Silver - President
                  International Photographic Historical Organization
                  E-mail: silver@... Telephone: (415) 681-4356
                  Web site: http://www.photographyhistory.com
                • F West
                  David, and everybody else, I wanted to point out that 21cm is honestly the MINIMUM focal length you can put on that half-plate Soho Reflex!  In fact, 21cm may
                  Message 8 of 13 , Mar 16, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    David, and everybody else, I wanted to point out that 21cm is honestly the MINIMUM focal length you can put on that half-plate Soho Reflex!  In fact, 21cm may not focus at infinity unless it is very well recessed into the lens board, or the lens board itself provides a significant recess!  You really should be looking for something at least slightly longer, maybe 21.5cm, since the usual suggested normal lenses for the half-plate Soho Reflex are 8 1/2".  They did offer out of the factory a 210mm Dagor, but it came on a special black board with a very deep recess.  I think you're right to add that you would consider buying a "dead" half-plate Soho Reflex to scavenge the lens because I'm skeptical anybody here will have a lens alone, with or without the board.  Wish I could help.  Maybe our members in the UK have better access to something like this, and they can step up for you.  Good luck, Frank

                    --- On Thu, 3/17/11, David Silver <silver@...> wrote:

                    From: David Silver <silver@...>
                    Subject: [woodandbrass] I need a vintage English or German 210mm or 8" recessed lens...
                    To: woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Thursday, March 17, 2011, 2:51 AM

                     

                    Hi gang,

                    I've been looking for an appropriate 210mm (or roughly 8") focal length,
                    ideally around 1920's vintage, recessed (flush mount...sunken...) lens for
                    a half-plate Soho Reflex camera. There is a protective flap hinged above
                    the lens, and the lens mounts on a flange on the lens board sunk back into
                    the camera, allowing the flap to hinge down and over the lens. If you
                    don't know what I'm talking about (half the time *I* don't know what I'm
                    talking about), please take a look at this:

                    www.photographyhistory.com/sohoreflex.jpg

                    See how the entire bulk of the lens lies inside the camera. The lens
                    attaches to a flange at its front, instead of the back. THAT is what I
                    need, around 210mm focal length, ideally 1920's, German or English maker,
                    and ideally with its proper flange (but that's not necessarily a deal
                    breaker). If in doubt, just send me a small pic of what you have. Please
                    contact me directly at <silver@...>, thanks! If necessary, I'd be
                    perfectly willing to purchase an entire junky half-plate Soho Reflex just
                    to scavenge the correct sunken lens out of it. I'm flexible! Let me
                    know if you can help...

                    Best wishes,

                    David Silver - President
                    International Photographic Historical Organization
                    E-mail: silver@... Telephone: (415) 681-4356
                    Web site: http://www.photographyhistory.com


                  • kodaksefke
                    I have a very early No. 4 Folding Kodak with serial number 77 on the camera and on the roll holder. You can see it at
                    Message 9 of 13 , Mar 20, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I have a very early No. 4 Folding Kodak with serial number 77 on the camera and on the roll holder. You can see it at http://www.kodaksefke.nl/4-folding-kodak.html

                      Jos Erdkamp (Kodaksefke)

                      --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, David Silver <silver@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > A quick addendum to my prior inquiry...the serial number on the roll film
                      > holder inside these cameras does not always match the camera's actual
                      > serial number, which is located either right there next to the film holder
                      > or a bit deeper inside the camera body. So please make sure you find the
                      > correct number. For that matter, it would probably be further
                      > illuminating to know the camera AND the roll film holder serial numbers.
                      > In early examples, the numbers were occasionally a digit or two apart,
                      > then in slightly later models they mostly match perfectly, but sometimes
                      > the holders were replaced altogether and the numbers are no longer even
                      > close...
                      >
                      > Best wishes,
                      >
                      > David Silver - President
                      > International Photographic Historical Organization
                      > E-mail: silver@... Telephone: (415) 681-4356
                      > Web site: http://www.photographyhistory.com
                      >
                      >
                      > On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, David Silver wrote:
                      >
                      > >
                      > > Does anybody know what serial number Kodak started their No. 4 and No. 5
                      > > Folding Kodak cameras (the "satchel" cameras) in 1890? If any members are
                      > > in possession of examples of these Kodak models, I would like to learn
                      > > what serial numbers you have, and who here has the lowest number. I
                      > > pulled an extremely early No. 5 Folding Kodak out of my collection the
                      > > other day, and the serial number appears to be 103. So I'm curious to
                      > > learn where Kodak actually started the numbering.
                      > >
                      > > Best wishes,
                      > >
                      > > David Silver - President
                      > > International Photographic Historical Organization
                      > > E-mail: silver@... Telephone: (415) 681-4356
                      > > Web site: http://www.photographyhistory.com
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ------------------------------------
                      > >
                      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • F West
                      Hello Jos, I had expected that the No. 4 may have started at #1 and the No. 5 at #101, I told David Silver as much in some private e-mails, because in my own
                      Message 10 of 13 , Mar 20, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello Jos, I had expected that the No. 4 may have started at #1 and the No. 5 at #101, I told David Silver as much in some private e-mails, because in my own researches in these camera models.  I'm aware of at least two No. 4's with double digit serial numbers, yours makes three, but I have never seen a No. 5 with double digit, and in fact David's #103 is easily the lowest number I have experienced.  Regarding your No. 4, it definitely appears to have a replacement handle, but there is something about the external leather that doesn't seem correct.  Has it been restored?  The leather seems to be a newer type, not the distinctive material used on all satchel Kodaks.  And is there evidence that there was once an external knob or key to engage the roll film holder?  Good day, Frank West


                        --- On Sun, 3/20/11, kodaksefke <jerdkamp@...> wrote:

                        From: kodaksefke <jerdkamp@...>
                        Subject: [woodandbrass] Re: A question for the Kodak experts...addendum
                        To: woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Sunday, March 20, 2011, 8:54 AM

                         

                        I have a very early No. 4 Folding Kodak with serial number 77 on the camera and on the roll holder. You can see it at http://www.kodaksefke.nl/4-folding-kodak.html

                        Jos Erdkamp (Kodaksefke)

                        --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, David Silver <silver@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > A quick addendum to my prior inquiry...the serial number on the roll film
                        > holder inside these cameras does not always match the camera's actual
                        > serial number, which is located either right there next to the film holder
                        > or a bit deeper inside the camera body. So please make sure you find the
                        > correct number. For that matter, it would probably be further
                        > illuminating to know the camera AND the roll film holder serial numbers.
                        > In early examples, the numbers were occasionally a digit or two apart,
                        > then in slightly later models they mostly match perfectly, but sometimes
                        > the holders were replaced altogether and the numbers are no longer even
                        > close...
                        >
                        > Best wishes,
                        >
                        > David Silver - President
                        > International Photographic Historical Organization
                        > E-mail: silver@... Telephone: (415) 681-4356
                        > Web site: http://www.photographyhistory.com
                        >
                        >
                        > On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, David Silver wrote:
                        >
                        > >
                        > > Does anybody know what serial number Kodak started their No. 4 and No. 5
                        > > Folding Kodak cameras (the "satchel" cameras) in 1890? If any members are
                        > > in possession of examples of these Kodak models, I would like to learn
                        > > what serial numbers you have, and who here has the lowest number. I
                        > > pulled an extremely early No. 5 Folding Kodak out of my collection the
                        > > other day, and the serial number appears to be 103. So I'm curious to
                        > > learn where Kodak actually started the numbering.
                        > >
                        > > Best wishes,
                        > >
                        > > David Silver - President
                        > > International Photographic Historical Organization
                        > > E-mail: silver@... Telephone: (415) 681-4356
                        > > Web site: http://www.photographyhistory.com
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ------------------------------------
                        > >
                        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >


                      • kodaksefke
                        Hi Frank, I bought the camera about a year ago in the condition it is now. I only took away a bulb release contraption that was probably home made. The
                        Message 11 of 13 , Mar 21, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Hi Frank, I bought the camera about a year ago in the condition it is now. I only took away a bulb release contraption that was probably home made.  The leather is the same as the leather on my other No. 4 (with serial number in the 6 thousand) and my No. 5 and No. 6. If the camera was releathered once it was done superbly. I looked at the lid, inside and outside, but not a trace of a hole for a key or knob, not even a filled one beneath the leather. I can't  believe that a restorer who did such a magnificent job on the leather and reattachment of the lock at the back, would omit the knob on the top.
                          The strap is a strange thing. It is rotten and broken in two pieces. If the camera was restored once, the strap must be the only original leather part. But then again, why was it not replaced?
                          There is no 'foot' or catch to keep the lid in the upright position. I don't know if this 'foot' was a later improvement.
                          I'm very interested in the results of your researches. Do you want to share them? Also I'm very curious about the other two-digit No. 4 satchel Kodaks. What numbers do they have? And do they have the knob on top of the lid?

                          I try to embed a photosynth here, where you can see the camera from all angles and zoom in on every picture. I hope it works.

                          <iframe frameborder="0" src="http://photosynth.net/embed.aspx?cid=3e1c1f23-d327-4e41-88a8-ae45b96d4aaf&delayLoad=true&slideShowPlaying=false" width="500" height="300"></iframe>

                          Jos Erdkamp

                          --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, F West <gryku@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Hello Jos, I had expected that the No. 4 may have started at #1 and the No. 5 at #101, I told David Silver as much in some private e-mails, because in my own researches in these camera models.  I'm aware of at least two No. 4's with double digit serial numbers, yours makes three, but I have never seen a No. 5 with double digit, and in fact David's #103 is easily the lowest number I have experienced.  Regarding your No. 4, it definitely appears to have a replacement handle, but there is something about the external leather that doesn't seem correct.  Has it been restored?  The leather seems to be a newer type, not the distinctive material used on all satchel Kodaks.  And is there evidence that there was once an external knob or key to engage the roll film holder?  Good day, Frank West
                          >
                          >
                          > --- On Sun, 3/20/11, kodaksefke jerdkamp@... wrote:
                          >
                          > From: kodaksefke jerdkamp@...
                          > Subject: [woodandbrass] Re: A question for the Kodak experts...addendum
                          > To: woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com
                          > Date: Sunday, March 20, 2011, 8:54 AM
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >  
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > I have a very early No. 4 Folding Kodak with serial number 77 on the camera and on the roll holder. You can see it at http://www.kodaksefke.nl/4-folding-kodak.html
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Jos Erdkamp (Kodaksefke)
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, David Silver silver@ wrote:
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > > A quick addendum to my prior inquiry...the serial number on the roll film
                          >
                          > > holder inside these cameras does not always match the camera's actual
                          >
                          > > serial number, which is located either right there next to the film holder
                          >
                          > > or a bit deeper inside the camera body. So please make sure you find the
                          >
                          > > correct number. For that matter, it would probably be further
                          >
                          > > illuminating to know the camera AND the roll film holder serial numbers.
                          >
                          > > In early examples, the numbers were occasionally a digit or two apart,
                          >
                          > > then in slightly later models they mostly match perfectly, but sometimes
                          >
                          > > the holders were replaced altogether and the numbers are no longer even
                          >
                          > > close...
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > > Best wishes,
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > > David Silver - President
                          >
                          > > International Photographic Historical Organization
                          >
                          > > E-mail: silver@ Telephone: (415) 681-4356
                          >
                          > > Web site: http://www.photographyhistory.com
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, David Silver wrote:
                          >
                          > >
                          >
                          > > >
                          >
                          > > > Does anybody know what serial number Kodak started their No. 4 and No. 5
                          >
                          > > > Folding Kodak cameras (the "satchel" cameras) in 1890? If any members are
                          >
                          > > > in possession of examples of these Kodak models, I would like to learn
                          >
                          > > > what serial numbers you have, and who here has the lowest number. I
                          >
                          > > > pulled an extremely early No. 5 Folding Kodak out of my collection the
                          >
                          > > > other day, and the serial number appears to be 103. So I'm curious to
                          >
                          > > > learn where Kodak actually started the numbering.
                          >
                          > > >
                          >
                          > > > Best wishes,
                          >
                          > > >
                          >
                          > > > David Silver - President
                          >
                          > > > International Photographic Historical Organization
                          >
                          > > > E-mail: silver@ Telephone: (415) 681-4356
                          >
                          > > > Web site: http://www.photographyhistory.com
                          >
                          > > >
                          >
                          > > >
                          >
                          > > >
                          >
                          > > >
                          >
                          > > > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          > > >
                          >
                          > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          > > >
                          >
                          > > >
                          >
                          > > >
                          >
                          > > >
                          >
                          > >
                          >

                        • F West
                          Hello Jos, my research has never been systematic.  It is not something to eventually publish.  My own jottings and notes.  I believe you, that the leather
                          Message 12 of 13 , Mar 21, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hello Jos, my research has never been systematic.  It is not something to eventually publish.  My own jottings and notes.  I believe you, that the leather on your No. 4 is genuine.  The "photosynth" will not work on my computer, and in the single picture of the camera I can see, the leather did not look correct to me.  The computer image makes the grain of the leather look different.  It is only an effect of the image as I see it.  That's why I asked.  The lack of a knob is not consistent in the earlier No. 4's.  I finally found my other notes last night, passing on information to David Silver off line for his list if he continues to research.  I saw many years ago #68 and it had an external knob.  I owned #82 for some time, and it did not have the knob.  I am further aware of an example in the mid-100's with a knob, and then #18x (I can't read my own writing!  I don't know what the last digit is!) without the knob.  More examples are needed to see if there is a pattern.  Perhaps since Eastman openly promoted a service to upgrade these cameras, the early No. 4's (I cannot comment on the No. 5's, other than still no numbers under #100) did not originally come with knobs, and they were added later if you sent your camera back.  I have no evidence of this.  I am just thinking out loud.  Your #77 is a lovely example.  I would have bid on David Silver's early No. 5 on ebay last night, but I did not have the funds.  It sold rather cheaply I think.  I was surprised at only $1224.  For a complete original example and serial #103 I expected it to sell much higher.  No market today?  Fear and paralysis over current affairs around the world?  Certainly no problems with the seller.  It was a puzzle.  I regret now not bidding.  Perhaps others felt the same, it would go too high, and nobody took advantage.  I never understand ebay.  Good day, Frank West


                            --- On Mon, 3/21/11, kodaksefke <jerdkamp@...> wrote:

                            From: kodaksefke <jerdkamp@...>
                            Subject: [woodandbrass] Re: A question for the Kodak experts...addendum
                            To: woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Monday, March 21, 2011, 9:19 AM

                             

                            Hi Frank, I bought the camera about a year ago in the condition it is now. I only took away a bulb release contraption that was probably home made.  The leather is the same as the leather on my other No. 4 (with serial number in the 6 thousand) and my No. 5 and No. 6. If the camera was releathered once it was done superbly. I looked at the lid, inside and outside, but not a trace of a hole for a key or knob, not even a filled one beneath the leather. I can't  believe that a restorer who did such a magnificent job on the leather and reattachment of the lock at the back, would omit the knob on the top.
                            The strap is a strange thing. It is rotten and broken in two pieces. If the camera was restored once, the strap must be the only original leather part. But then again, why was it not replaced?
                            There is no 'foot' or catch to keep the lid in the upright position. I don't know if this 'foot' was a later improvement.
                            I'm very interested in the results of your researches. Do you want to share them? Also I'm very curious about the other two-digit No. 4 satchel Kodaks. What numbers do they have? And do they have the knob on top of the lid?

                            I try to embed a photosynth here, where you can see the camera from all angles and zoom in on every picture. I hope it works.

                            <iframe frameborder="0" src="http://photosynth.net/embed.aspx?cid=3e1c1f23-d327-4e41-88a8-ae45b96d4aaf&delayLoad=true&slideShowPlaying=false" width="500" height="300"></iframe>

                            Jos Erdkamp

                            --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, F West <gryku@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Hello Jos, I had expected that the No. 4 may have started at #1 and the No. 5 at #101, I told David Silver as much in some private e-mails, because in my own researches in these camera models.  I'm aware of at least two No. 4's with double digit serial numbers, yours makes three, but I have never seen a No. 5 with double digit, and in fact David's #103 is easily the lowest number I have experienced.  Regarding your No. 4, it definitely appears to have a replacement handle, but there is something about the external leather that doesn't seem correct.  Has it been restored?  The leather seems to be a newer type, not the distinctive material used on all satchel Kodaks.  And is there evidence that there was once an external knob or key to engage the roll film holder?  Good day, Frank West
                            >
                            >
                            > --- On Sun, 3/20/11, kodaksefke jerdkamp@... wrote:
                            >
                            > From: kodaksefke jerdkamp@...
                            > Subject: [woodandbrass] Re: A question for the Kodak experts...addendum
                            > To: woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com
                            > Date: Sunday, March 20, 2011, 8:54 AM
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >  
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > I have a very early No. 4 Folding Kodak with serial number 77 on the camera and on the roll holder. You can see it at http://www.kodaksefke.nl/4-folding-kodak.html
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Jos Erdkamp (Kodaksefke)
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, David Silver silver@ wrote:
                            >
                            > >
                            >
                            > >
                            >
                            > > A quick addendum to my prior inquiry...the serial number on the roll film
                            >
                            > > holder inside these cameras does not always match the camera's actual
                            >
                            > > serial number, which is located either right there next to the film holder
                            >
                            > > or a bit deeper inside the camera body. So please make sure you find the
                            >
                            > > correct number. For that matter, it would probably be further
                            >
                            > > illuminating to know the camera AND the roll film holder serial numbers.
                            >
                            > > In early examples, the numbers were occasionally a digit or two apart,
                            >
                            > > then in slightly later models they mostly match perfectly, but sometimes
                            >
                            > > the holders were replaced altogether and the numbers are no longer even
                            >
                            > > close...
                            >
                            > >
                            >
                            > > Best wishes,
                            >
                            > >
                            >
                            > > David Silver - President
                            >
                            > > International Photographic Historical Organization
                            >
                            > > E-mail: silver@ Telephone: (415) 681-4356
                            >
                            > > Web site: http://www.photographyhistory.com
                            >
                            > >
                            >
                            > >
                            >
                            > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, David Silver wrote:
                            >
                            > >
                            >
                            > > >
                            >
                            > > > Does anybody know what serial number Kodak started their No. 4 and No. 5
                            >
                            > > > Folding Kodak cameras (the "satchel" cameras) in 1890? If any members are
                            >
                            > > > in possession of examples of these Kodak models, I would like to learn
                            >
                            > > > what serial numbers you have, and who here has the lowest number. I
                            >
                            > > > pulled an extremely early No. 5 Folding Kodak out of my collection the
                            >
                            > > > other day, and the serial number appears to be 103. So I'm curious to
                            >
                            > > > learn where Kodak actually started the numbering.
                            >
                            > > >
                            >
                            > > > Best wishes,
                            >
                            > > >
                            >
                            > > > David Silver - President
                            >
                            > > > International Photographic Historical Organization
                            >
                            > > > E-mail: silver@ Telephone: (415) 681-4356
                            >
                            > > > Web site: http://www.photographyhistory.com
                            >
                            > > >
                            >
                            > > >
                            >
                            > > >
                            >
                            > > >
                            >
                            > > > ------------------------------------
                            >
                            > > >
                            >
                            > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            > > >
                            >
                            > > >
                            >
                            > > >
                            >
                            > > >
                            >
                            > >
                            >


                          • kodaksefke
                            Hi Frank, maybe the upgrading of cameras is a good explanation for the inconsistent pattern of wheel or no wheel on the early No. 4 Folding Kodaks. I added an
                            Message 13 of 13 , Mar 21, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Frank, maybe the upgrading of cameras is a good explanation for the inconsistent pattern of wheel or no wheel on the early No. 4 Folding Kodaks. I added an album with a couple of photos to the groups site. You can see the camera in detail there.
                              $ 1224 for such an early No. 5 is not much indeed. But I am collecting on a strict budget and prefer to wait for the six or so early Eastman Kodak models that I still don't have yet. That does not mean that I would not have liked to bid on the No. 5. Well, someone else can be happy with it now.
                              Jos

                              --- In woodandbrass@yahoogroups.com, F West <gryku@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Hello Jos, my research has never been systematic.  It is not something to eventually publish.  My own jottings and notes.  I believe you, that the leather on your No. 4 is genuine.  The "photosynth" will not work on my computer, and in the single picture of the camera I can see, the leather did not look correct to me.  The computer image makes the grain of the leather look different.  It is only an effect of the image as I see it.  That's why I asked.  The lack of a knob is not consistent in the earlier No. 4's.  I finally found my other notes last night, passing on information to David Silver off line for his list if he continues to research.  I saw many years ago #68 and it had an external knob.  I owned #82 for some time, and it did not have the knob.  I am further aware of an example in the mid-100's with a knob, and then #18x (I can't read my own writing!  I don't know what the last digit is!) without the knob.  More examples are
                              > needed to see if there is a pattern.  Perhaps since Eastman openly promoted a service to upgrade these cameras, the early No. 4's (I cannot comment on the No. 5's, other than still no numbers under #100) did not originally come with knobs, and they were added later if you sent your camera back.  I have no evidence of this.  I am just thinking out loud.  Your #77 is a lovely example.  I would have bid on David Silver's early No. 5 on ebay last night, but I did not have the funds.  It sold rather cheaply I think.  I was surprised at only $1224.  For a complete original example and serial #103 I expected it to sell much higher.  No market today?  Fear and paralysis over current affairs around the world?  Certainly no problems with the seller.  It was a puzzle.  I regret now not bidding.  Perhaps others felt the same, it would go too high, and nobody took advantage.  I never understand ebay.  Good day, Frank West
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.