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

A question for the Kodak experts...addendum

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.