Graflex.org

[primus96]

Are they all really poor examples made with reject glass?
Just wondered why they are despised and whether it is possible to get an example that is optically good, (good enough for 4x5 anyway).

[t.r.sanford]

I'd not heard of a "B&J Dagor," but there is a brief and unflattering description of one somewhere on this site.

The thing to remember about Burke & James is that they probably were the largest U.S. distributor of photographic equipment to the commercial market for many years, so they had a lot of purchasing power. They could get things manufactured under their own brand name.

They also had a service called the "B&J Lens Bank," which apparently bought up odd lots of lenses and could modify them to meet specific requests -- 75mm. f:1.5 Zeiss "Biotars" originally made for "Exakta" 35mm. cameras might be modified for use with motion picture equipment, for example. Thus, B&J had some in-house lens capabilities.

It would not be surprising if, in the aftermath of WWII, someone stumbled upon a warehouse full of "Dagor" elements -- perhaps even Zeiss, which then was reestablishing itself in Oberkochen. The great need at the time was "hard" currency, and the U.S. dollar was as "hard" as it got. Thus, B&J might well have purchased this stuff and undertaken to fit the elements into shutters on its own account, at a time when the German optical industry (east and west) had not yet gotten back onto its feet.

I can think of no reason why this procedure necessarily would have resulted in an inferior product.

[glennfromwy]

As an ex-corporate officer of Burke & James once said, they had lots of pet names for the company, one of which was "Bunk & Junk". Does that give anyone a hint?

_________________
Glenn

"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo"

[Les]

It would not be surprising if, in the aftermath of WWII, someone stumbled upon a warehouse full of "Dagor" elements -- perhaps even Zeiss, which then was reestablishing itself in Oberkochen. The great need at the time was "hard" currency, and the U.S. dollar was as "hard" as it got. Thus, B&J might well have purchased this stuff and undertaken to fit the elements into shutters on its own account, at a time when the German optical industry (east and west) had not yet gotten back onto its feet.

I can think of no reason why this procedure necessarily would have resulted in an inferior product.


TR , you hit the nail on the head, then smashed your thumb.

B&J had tremendous buying power but loved a deal more than quality. They aquired a vast amount of lens elements, ones without any quality control and assembled lenses as best they could, as fast as they could sold them cheap and still made a profit.

Since most of this glass was rejected at one time I see no reason why you would find a GOOD lens, although it did happen from time to time.


They also bought most of the surplus camera equipment from the Government. During the 60s you could buy as many Combat Graphics as you wanted. Of course nobody liked the green color so they sprayed them black.....en masse....name plates, trim, everything got hit with black paint.



A friend of mine stumbled accross an old man trying to sell a lot of camera stuff. When my friend finally got into this guy's basement he found drawer after drawer of dagor elements, 1000s of them. A deal was struck for my friend to buy them, he took some samples home and discovered none of the elements were ground correctly, some wouldn't even focus.

He returned to this old man and the story came out that he worked for B&J and when the company folded he was given options on what assets he could take in lieu of a pension. He took these lenses. Unfortunately for him these were the rejects of the rejected. Great for a fine art sculpture, but useless for image making.

[RichS]

That's a sad story Les. I'm a born sucker and I probably would have bought some of the old man's stuff just so he would have gotten some money out of it. Sounds like like he got a raw deal with his "pension"...

Now, since this has turned into a B&J bashing thread, and as the owner of two B&J cameras, I feel like I have to say something here...

Just like Calumet or B&H of today, not everything B&J sold back then was 'junk'. They sold name brand stuff, and some of their branded items were very nice. They filled a niche of supplying items that the market could afford. My two B&J 8x10 Commercial View cameras may not be Sinars, but they have seen hard use through many years and are still up to the job. Quality could be argued, but they found a way to trade off stability with weight. The cameras weigh a ton, but they're stable, easy to set up and "good users". If I had bought one new (and back then these would have been closer to my spending limit), I would have been very happy as I am now with owning them. I have also heard good things about their press cameras.

Lets not kick a dead horse here. B&J supplied a valuable resource to people by offering items they could actually afford to buy. There was no ebay back then or huge used market to raid. Give them some credit... And for me, I wish they were still in business!

[Les]

Won't disagree a bit. We have to remember while the name stayed the same for decades, different people ran the company with different things in mind.

Overall I consider B&J to be the Sears Craftsman of photographic equiment. Early stuff was well built with an eye towards slightly under pricing, say Folmer and Schwing and Ansco.

Or if you prefer an automotive comparison... B&J were the Studebaker (old name, good workmanship, but not an innovative design.

to Kodak's Chevrolet, (bigger anme than Stude, better marketing, slightly better built.

Ansco's Buick, (better design, and finish)

Folmer & Schwing's Oldsmobile (better workmanship and design on certain models, some nearly identical to Kodak.

and Deardorf's Cadillac. (radically different design, better finish)

Gandolfi was a Buggatti. (superior fit and finish, much lighter than any US camera, which made for a very fussy and easily broken camera)

B&J certainly were good enough to be awarded several govermnent contracts for the C-1 camera (an 8x10 that was also supplied by Kodak and Korona)

Just my opinion, but I think B&J had to change ideas when photography went "miniature". They weren't in any position to make or even badge their own 35mm and while still robust, the large format market shrank. So they got creative.

If around today they'd be sellling Congo lenses and Russian military surplus.

[RichS]

Great analogy! Hey, I owned two Studebakers! Thought they were great cars

It's really a shame, but overall it looks like the 35mm invasion killed a lot of companies. And now that so many of us are 'going backwards', all those companies are gone. I still reference a 60-something Olden catalog. And I sure miss Spiratone (although that was for 35mm, DUH!). I only wish I had a prime B&J catalog here, but back then I wasn't into mail ordering...

If only we all knew what going 35mm would mean to photography in the long run...

[t.r.sanford]

Very well, I won't buy any B&J "Dagor" lenses! But it would be interesting to know who made the lens components in the first place, and where; and whether they were in fact rejected, or were simply awaiting assembly in a plant that got destroyed during the unpleasantness...

Once "Kodachrome" was perfected and millions of American servicemen returned from overseas duty, some with foreign-made 35mm. cameras and the rest with bright employment prospects and a good deal of cash, the result was inevitable.

There was a relative handful of large-format equipment manufacturers, and their market was inherently limited. That's why magazines called things like "Minicam" came along: there was potentially a huge market for 35mm. gear, just as there is for digital cameras today.

You could see the handwriting on the wall if you looked at the "Exakta" ads in the '50s: dapper young fellow with something like a 300mm. telephoto on his "Exakta" is getting the distant sports shot, while beefy old guys with surplus aerial camera lenses on their Graflex reflexes are manhandling their cameras into position.

As soon as the art directors decided that having 36 grab shots to look at gave the enterprise a freshness and spontaneity unattainable by carefully setting up the shot and producing a couple of excellent 4x5 "Ektachromes," large format began to recede steadily into a niche.

Even if we'd been able to foresee all of this, I can't imagine how we might have stopped it. I, for one, was delighted by the outpouring of nifty 35mm. equipment in the late '50s and '60s. I just took it for granted that serious photographers always would know that a good big negative beats a good little one every time, and so Graflex would always be there...

[Les]

Der Speigel, a sort of LIFE magazine of Germany, had a very different look to it because they used miniature cameras and was able to show the progression of the story while we were only interested in the descisive moment.

William Henry Jackson, the single person most recognized for showing the nation that the Yellowstone region needed to be protected as a park, did so by hauling a 20 x24 wet plate camera from cliff to cliff. In 1940 nearing his centennial birthday he claimed if he had it to do all over again, he would use a Leica and Kodachrome.

To mis use a quote from President Johnson, In the war between large and small format, when you lose Jackson, you've lost the war.

[t.r.sanford]

I remember seeing a picture of that camera, and of the mule train he used to carry the enormous glass plates, collodion, tent, etc. I still want a camera like that, but I have to admit the appeal of the "Leica" for field work in difficult terrain. (Wasn't Barnack an amateur climber who wanted something he could carry and use easily while clinging to the edge of a precipice?)

Different nations have had different approaches to photojournalism. I remember seeing a copy of "Paris-Match" published during the disturbances that marked the end of the Gaullist era in France. The photographer, interested neither in the decisive moment nor in the unfolding of the story but rather in the essence of the situation, took the very civilized approach of having a tank crew park their AMX vehicle at a suitable angle and distance in front of an attractive building, rotate the turret toward the lens to convey a certain menace, and then stand alertly beside it to have their picture taken -- a method perfected by the Matthew Brady bunch almost a century earlier.

Spontaneity and candor are very fine things, no doubt; but they aren't everything!

[RichS]

Lets not forget marketing either. Manufacturers have paid photographers to use their equipment. As I remember, even Adams was paid by Hasselblad to be seen with their cameras. Nikon & Canon have done the same. Good for their business, not necessarily good for us...

But now if Mamiya wanted to pay me to use an RB67Pro-SD, I wouldn't mind a bit They wouldn't even have to pay me... Just give me the camera!!! Since I'm not famous, I suppose I'll have to buy one someday...

And really hating to almost get back on topic... Didn't B&J have some trade names that we might be concerned about? I thought the "Carl Meyer" name was made up by them (and oddly enough listed in the book as a 90mm Dagor!)?


_________________
----------------------------------------
"Ya just can't have too many GVIIs"
----------------------------------------

[t.r.sanford]

I seem to remember "Orbit" and "Saturn" for view cameras, "Rembrandt" for portrait cameras, and (I think) "Solar" for enlargers.

BTW, I have an old tripod described as a "5x7 Burke & James View" that has a hinged wooden platform atop a heavy metal elevating section that looks like a length of two-inch pipe; the first leg sections are wooden pairs, with tubular aluminum second sections sliding between the pairs. I bought it used, four decades ago, for $10, and it has given me excellent service -- a bit awkward to adjust, but solidly and honestly built.

I hadn't heard the story about Carl Meyer.

[Nick]

Carl Meyer was an attempt to confuse people between

Carl Zeiss
and

Hugo Meyer lenses.

[t.r.sanford]

But who actually manufactured "Carl Meyer" lenses, and where?

[RichS]

Under B&J lenses, the book says "Made by Carl Meyer". The next lens is "Made by Carl Zeiss Jenna". This makes it sound like "Carl Meyer" was a real person/manufacturer? But info like that could have just come from B&J literature and be totally fabricated...

My bet would be that B&J assembled the parts and use the "Carl Meyer" name. Would be a bit of work to change the name on the elements though?

Okay, looked it up in the VadeMecum...

"Meyer, Carl
This was a trade name devised by George Drucker about 1927 and used by his firm on a series of lenses offered by Burke and James. Thus there was a set sold about 1961-1966 from a maker unknown, but described as "Made in the USA", custom built and top performance."

Ya got me...

And I'm not very happy about the VadeMecum being locked against copying text or printing! Don't care what the reasons are, it's just anoying as heck and really makes me want to 'crack' the damned thing... Just a little rant...