Graflex.org

[Jim23]

I've own a Century Graphic with the much-maligned Graftar triplet (with still excellent results @f8 and smaller) and recently bought a 23 Crown Graphic (Graflok) with an Optar. I may part with one or the other to a friend who wants to get into medium format. Should I keep the minty Century but move the Optar to the Century, putting the Graftar on the Crown. Or should I keep the Crown with the Optar and let go of the Century with the Graftar. Other than the body release, does the Crown offer any better precision, focusing range, or other advantage over the Century? Both have Kalart rangefinders that are still contrasty/clear.

[troublemaker]

Not a lot of difference, but I can tell you that Century cameras are more prone to break the little rivets holding the Graflok hook.
I'd suggest if these cameras probably have their original lenses to keep them as such.
The Wollensak 101 Optar is a wierd lens. I have a bunch and they are all over the place quality wise. The two best I have are as good as the best Ektar 101, and that's pretty darn good. A couple others are pretty OK, better than any Graftar 103. Others are not so hot.
The Graftars I've had have been pretty much, well I can't say that here. Both 85mm and 103 versions. The best use I have found for the Graftar is the Century shutter for repair or parts, and or sell the Graftar on its original camera, which I hung on to one and tried very hard to like it. Sold it a couple years ago and haven't missed it.
The Crown is was, at least when new or refurbished, just a cut above. It doesn't have a cheap bakelite body which suggests cheap, and has a few higher quality parts in the front standard and other places. This does not suggest it takes better images. That is entirely dependent on who is behind the camera, and how familiar they are with the lens, and what caliber of artist. I shoot a couple Century cameras and Crown and Speeds regularly. I grab the one that has the lens I want to use with it's rangefinder for around town stuff.
The Century has adjustment set screws built into the rear rail guides which makes re-alligning the rails a little more straight forward (not necessarily easy) than the Crown which requires shimming. But that is the only actual advantage an old Century has over a good condition Crown. Either one can be far out of whack fifty years down the road and require a lot of care in getting back to top performance. My opinion is that the Century, if well cared for, tends to hold its alignment and such better. But would you rather have a pristine bakelite entry level camera with a couple of vinyl patches glued on it, or a product manufactured with the professional photographer in mind? I have a couple near mint Crown 23's with their original lenses including lens caps etc. I have the same a couple times in the Century, with Trioptar, Optar, a couple others with Graflar 101 and 80 Xenotar, and a herd of Speeds and Minis, and I can't say any one is actually a better camera than another. The differences are minor except with the Miniature, which is a fine shooter, but still specific to lens choice.
If we are going to give me one of these two you suggest, I want the Crown with the Optar. (provided the glass is clean and clear on both lenses). I say that because I can probably fix the usual discrepancies. If I wasn't mechanically inclined and able to handle refurbishing the cameras, I'd want the one that works, is properly aligned, and produces good results in all situations.
How's that for not answering the question.

[Henry]

What troublemaker said. If I had your dilemma, I would keep both cameras. Use the Century/Graftar with the self-cocking Century shutter (and Kalart in adjustment) for hand-held work, and reserve the Crown w/Optar for critical work w/groundglass focussing and cable release on tripod. The Optar has enough coverage to take advantage of the (limited) movements on the Crown; I don't have knowledge of the Graftar (you DO mean GrafTAR, not GrafLAR, I assume; there is a difference), but if it's a triplet chances are the coverage is not great, and you wouldn't use movements for hand-held work in any case.

Wish I had your problem, but I have only a Century.

[Henry]

What troublemaker said. If I had your dilemma, I would keep both cameras. Use the Century/Graftar with the self-cocking Century shutter (and Kalart in adjustment) for hand-held work, and reserve the Crown w/Optar for critical work w/groundglass focussing and cable release on tripod. The Optar has enough coverage to take advantage of the (limited) movements on the Crown; I don't have knowledge of the Graftar (you DO mean GrafTAR, not GrafLAR, I assume; there is a difference), but if it's a triplet chances are the coverage is not great, and you wouldn't use movements for hand-held work in any case.

Wish I had your problem, but I have only a Century.

[1banjo]

hey all
I myself do have more then one ( crown / century / baby speed / busch / B&J)
but as for going out doors to shot I take my most beat up century with the best lens
for that job! this is because its hot & dry here and the wood of a crown / baby speed
dry out & brittle will crack or brake much easier . and for that reason it I only had 1
camera it would be a Centuey
1banjo