Sign in to follow this  
Shelbow

Old photo, any thoughts on who this maker is?

Recommended Posts

I dunno, my mother was using an inkwell and nib pen in grade school, and a fountain pen in high school; she graduated 1964.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see from the reflection in his eyeglasses that he’s using a Leica IIIf, which wasn’t introduced until 1950, so the photo can’t be earlier than that. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there is no evidence from the picture or the comment on the back that he is a violin-maker at all. 

Probably just a player/collector in his workshop/dark room with his "fiddles."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GeorgeH said:

Actually, there is no evidence from the picture or the comment on the back that he is a violin-maker at all. 

Probably just a player in his workshop/dark room with his "fiddles."

Yes his collection of Juzek fiddles! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlikely that a British man of his age in the 1950s would use a # as an abbreviation for "Number". It would be a bit unusual now, even.  The usual British abbreviation at the time was "No.", therefore more likely American or perhaps Canadian (or Australia/NZ/SA, though my assumption would be that they'd use British usage)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an archivist who has spent 34 years in higher education in Australia so my comments are based on this experience.  I enjoy this kind of challenge :-)

If I had to make an attribution I'd say the photo is from north America based on clothing.  The room and furniture has a very institutional feel to it, but I would be surprised if an educational institution allowed a staff member to indulge their hobbies (photography and violins) to such an extent on campus. Hard to reconcile these two things unless violins and photography were the area of research  - or just violins and photography was one of the research tools.  If this were the case I would expect someone from the brains trust here to recognise him.

I notice what appear to be an oil or gas lamp on the wall, right rear.  Odd.  Could happen in a forgotten/disused store room or workshop of an institution.

Wikipedia says that self timers were introduced on the Leica IIIf in 1954 and that date accords with my other impressions of the photo.  Ink pens were common in Australia until well into the 1960s, and of course are still used by some.  I'd like to examine the paper it is printed on as well for clues.

I'll think more about this.

Tim

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, TimRobinson said:

 

I notice what appear to be an oil or gas lamp on the wall, right rear.  Odd.  Could happen in a forgotten/disused store room or workshop of an institution.

 

Are you sure you're not looking at the belt / pulley guard on the drill press? I don't see any lamp, except the bare bulb above the drill press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are quite right about the Leica IIIf and only the later ones had self timers. Maybe more important is that the IIIf was the first Leica made with flash synchronization. The self timer model and the more advanced M3 both came out in 1954. Either would have been expensive just as they are today. A body and a lens would have been around $300.00 or so which would be about $2800, in 2020 dollars. 

On the other end of the scale it couldn’t be much before 1930 or so. 
 

Of course accessory self timers that could be attached just like a self timer where available years before.

In the 1950s in the UK there were very restrictive tariff laws that made it quite difficult to get German or other foreign cameras there so an up to date Leica would have been rare. There was even a quite good Leica copy made in England called the Reid. There were also quite a few other more or less unusual 35mm cameras made there.

DLB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how things are in Australia, but over here a tenured professor (or well-entrenched favored staff) could mostly do as they darned pleased with their assigned facilities.   IMHO, a great many have been "packrats".  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was kidding you when I mentioned a Leica IIIf, by the way. Now everyone’s talking about it like it’s a fact. ???? Did you see the winky winky at the end of my post? ;) That means “kidding.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, MarkBouquet said:

I was kidding you when I mentioned a Leica IIIf, by the way. Now everyone’s talking about it like it’s a fact. ???? Did you see the winky winky at the end of my post? ;)

I kind of figured but I collect cameras and I’m sort of a Leica geek. And the last version of the IIIf red dial that came out in 1954 did have a self timer as did the M3 which came out the same year. Folks don’t normally bother to take a self portrait without a self timer easily to hand and the guy did say he used a Leica.

(I have several and I’ve used one since I was a kid) I actually bought my first Leica, a used IIIf red dial at Central Camera in Chicago. It was very badly damaged in the unrest of late.


DLB
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How was your IIIf damaged? I had an M4 for a while. I used to shoot pictures having forgotten to take the lens cap off. Not all the time, of course, but it happened too many times. I was kind of glad to see that camera go, though there’s still nothing to compare with that silky feel of winding and releasing a Leica shutter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MarkBouquet said:

How was your IIIf damaged? I had an M4 for a while. I used to shoot pictures having forgotten to take the lens cap off. Not all the time, of course, but it happened too many times. I was kind of glad to see that camera go.

I'm sorry I did a lousy job of sentence structure!  My mother would flog me! (english teacher)  I sold the IIIf some years ago before I knew better.  What I meant was that Central Camera, the store where I bought it was destroyed in the recent unrest.  Central camera goes way back, they have been a family owned store on Wabash Ave in the shadow of the El for over 100 years.  At present I have an M4-P, a IIf red dial, and a digital M-E Type 240.  The fun part with M cameras is any lens with an M Mount or a screw mount with a simple adapter will work with the newest camera.  I think almost all of my lenses were made before there ever was a digital cmera of any kind.

I'm rather devoted to Leica for a number of reasons but one is the history of the son of the founder Ernst Leitz II who saved many of his Jewish employees using his own money leading up to WWII.  His daughter was certainly a hero too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Freedom_Train

 

DLB

 

Sorry for the wobbly syntax :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bill Yacey said:

Can you still purchase film for the cameras?

Not as many choices as the old days but most regular sizes are available.  I get 120 and 35mm Kodak Tri-X B&W from B&H photo.  Sadly Kodachrome slide film is gone.

DLB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a Sears "Dunlop" tilting-table table saw--the motor position and the user end of the fence look right. I had one--I bought it at a Minneapolis estate sale in about 1985. Good for really small work--wonderfully flat table. But the bearings were sintered bronze sleeves and worn out; replacing them was a real pain. The fence was okay for its time amd type, but the tilting mechanism, though cast iron. was a bit too wobbly to be dependable, at least by the time I bought it (for $25 USD as I recall). Half-inch shaft. Eventually it became very hard to find suitable reducing bushings for the more up-to-date 5/8" bores. Sears used a really beautiful deep blue lacquer for their Dunlop power tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m going with an American with a high paying professional job. His shoes aren’t ratty. Pretty sure that’s a  classic Dickies work shirt he’s wearing. Right down to the dark buttons on the double pocket front. Don’t think they were available internationally back then. The pants look like good quality, repurposed dress slacks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.