Is this my great grandmother's camera?

Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,958
Location
Baltimore, MD
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #22
Another possibility, an 1903 Century Model 22, but I think the hump is more pronounced in Grandsally's camera and none of the available shutters for this year seem a better match. Has a reversible back and is the correct plate size.

1601575285971.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,958
Location
Baltimore, MD
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #23
I dunno, maybe I'm overthinking when I'm assuming the hump is rounded instead of just a blurry finder as in this 1903 Star Premo catalog item? As already noted, has the reversible back and correct plate size.

1601576012904.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,958
Location
Baltimore, MD
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #24
Could this be it? A 1904 Century Petite Century No. 3, The 1903 model didn't have a rotating or reversible back. Couldn't be any later than April 1904 because that's when one of her brothers who modeled for her died of Tetanus after being hurt playing on train tracks, but possibly as early as 1901, when the same photo showed a portrait on the mantle with a known taking date. Depends on whether you think this gentleman could have been 16 in this portrait.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,958
Location
Baltimore, MD
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #25
Could this be it? A 1904 Century Petite Century No. 3, The 1903 model didn't have a rotating or reversible back. Couldn't be any later than April 1904 because that's when one of her brothers who modeled for her died of Tetanus after being hurt playing on train tracks, but possibly as early as 1901, when the same photo showed a portrait on the mantle with a known taking date. Depends on whether you think this gentleman could have been 16 in this portrait.

View attachment 850262
Bah, just noticed the handle doesn't fit the outline of the reflected image. The Models 41 and 42, do and still match the required feature set.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,958
Location
Baltimore, MD
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #26
I'm surprised to learn, by reading these old catalogs, that glass plates were cheaper to shoot than film back in the day. I had always thought the advantages of film included the manufacturing costs. Also, it appears there were more choices in glass plate negatives than the early film, which was then only suited for a particular kind of light, whereas you could get plates designed for indoor use or outdoor use.
 

retiredfromlife

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
4,361
Location
Sydney, Australia
Thanks, as a thrift shop camera junkie I'm very familiar with the butkus resource, and went here today to see if I could find a match. no luck. After a couple more hours online I found this resource that explains my confusion, from http://www.piercevaubel.com/cam/catalogs/1901premopocolp514.htm

The Rochester Optical & Camera Co. was formed when the Rochester Optical Co. and Rochester Camera Co. merged along with other companies in 1899. Prior to the merger, the Rochester Optical Co. had developed an extensive line of leather-covered hand and stand-type cameras called Premo cameras. Likewise, rival Rochester Camera Co. (and their predecessor Rochester Camera Mfg. Co.) had developed and equally extensive line of similar cameras called Poco cameras. Apparently, the merger was financial or administrative only, as both the Premo and Poco lines continued to be made, despite the similarity of models. Separate Premo and Poco catalogs were issued in 1900, 1902 and 1903. The only catalog to show both lines is this one issued in 1901.

From the same link above I found this model, which more closely but not exactly matches the outline seen in the mirror reflection and matches all the features except for the plate size.

View attachment 850249
Thanks another site bookmarked
 

BDR-529

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
326
Second, judging by the camera's position in the frame as a mirror reflection, can it be the taking camera? In other words, can this be the camera that took the photo? The above are crops from the following two plates:
Here's a simple one: you can see both the ceiling lamp and it's reflection in the mirror. Ceiling lamp has a sharp tip hanging under some kind of a decorative ball in the center. If you draw a line through both the tip in the reflection and the tip of the lamp itself, it will go throught the center of the lens which you see in the mirror

Unfortunately mirror is too small to have similar reference points from other directions for proper triangulation but there can't be other cameras along this line because they would be visible

On a closer inspection there is this roundish bouquet which has some spiky things pointing out of it just in front of the mirror on the left side of the camera. If you really zoom in, both tips and their reflections are visible and these are in line with the camera lens in the mirror as well. As a rule of a thump reflection in the mirror should be in the line between optical axis of the lens and object itself.

Oh, and that round bulb with two vertical metal bars on both sides of the lens is automatic shutter mechanism. I'm not an expert in these but I believe that back in the day camera manufacturest bought such components as shutters from subcontractors who specialized in them and serviced the entire camera industry. Even if you can identify the shutter manufacturer it might not tell who made the camera itself. In Rochester NY there were plenty of manufacturers who are famous even today like Bausch & Lomb

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/B&L_Automatic_Shutter

When I look at the shiny parts my bet would be that the camera in the mirror has this B&L shutter
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/antique-bausch-lomb-unicum-camera-163332835
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
1,958
Location
Baltimore, MD
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #29
The fact that the vanishing point is off center on both the x and y axes suggests that your great grandmother used a camera that could do both shift and rise (and fall?). Not too many of the small folding cameras did shift. The possibility still exists that the image of the camera is hidden or obscured in the flowers.
Thanks, WhidbyLVR's analysis was pretty convincing to me about her camera being the one in the reflection, he also agrees that the camera shifted to preserve room geometry.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom