Graflex.org

[solrod]

I have what looks like a large cycle F & S Body and Door. But without the front standard and back, which makes identification difficult. It has always reminded me of my speed and crown models style - but with double bubble release catches for the door and superb mahagony bed instead of aluminium. Well, the serial number is in the right place - 157151 - suggesting 1927 and the back of the case is angled for tilt with recessed locking wing nuts high on the sides. External size of the case is 31cm sq, which is the standard 8x10 size - double extension with mahagony strips keeping it together. Every mahogany strip in the construction is stamped with #53 on the reverse side. I have searched for data on-line and have the 1927 catalogue but can't find either the 53 or the larger cycle double extensions. But yesterday I found a triple extension RB cycle 4x5 on exxy which has the number 49 stamped on the back. Is any one savvy with the model numbers?

[Les]

Those 2 digit numbers, I suspect are assembly numbers. Since wood and many times metal pieces were hand finished, they wanted to make sure that the mating pieces ended up on the same camera.
_________________
"In order to invent, you need a good imagination and a lot of junk" Thomas Edison

[solrod]

I never took the number 53 too seriously until I saw the number 49 on the current exxy 4x5 triple extension. My argument that may be an internal model designation is based on:
1. The full titles of the various cycle models are pretty complex and long. Can you image "please send me up three sets of RB triple extension 5x7 sled pieces".
2. Other manufacturers used this system. I have a Goltz and Breutmann
5x7 rotating back with the number 20 stamped all over the place in a similar manner. And this camera is also known as the 20 model.
3. The 3 items I can see on the cycle which are stamped - the two long fixing mahogany strips and the sled - are completed items. They are items which have to be mounted on the bed with chrome/nickel screws. Because of the nature of the mechanical drive/gear system adjustment in mounting and wood/wood friction it is impossible to make components that precise which would make numbering necessary.
4. If 49 is the 4x5 triple code than it seems quite likely that 53 is the code for an 8x10 double. If they started with low numbers!

Is anyone prepared to look under the strips of their cycle models - or check the backs?

[solrod]

Another point for saying that 53 is a model designation is the fact that the number is stamped rather than written in ink. Just think of the problem with changing the metal stamp and keeping track of the next number. Remember all the problems we used to have with ink date stamps! A bit of detective work on the three stamp impressions I have, suggests that there was a rotating single digit stamp ( or a set of them with 0 to 9) as the distance between the digits varies a little and they are never on the same line.

[Les]

I have a custom made 3x4 view camera. Graflex took special orders from time to time and this is one of the few. It's based on the Century View camera. For this camera there would be no reason to have a model number and yet mine is stamped with the number 2 in several places. Interestingly enough they made just 6 of these cameras in one batch and mine is the 2nd of those 6.

I also have a common 5x7 2D View camera, the rails are stamped with 114 or 1 14 depending on the location. It is not however the 114th of the batch of these cameras.

The rails (or sled) and its stationary counter parts had to be hand fitted and you surmise that because of this, there's no need for numbering. What if the hand fitting was done before the pieces went into the finishing department?
If that were true they would have to have them numbered because they are a matched set, and pencil or ink would be apt to be removed by the finishing process.

Graflex did not get on the catalog numbering bandwagon until World War II and Government contracts forced them too. In the late 50snd 60-s a Crown Special witha 135mm Xenar lens and a Graflite Jr. was a CF-905,

Like many companies before the war Folmer & Schwing used a telegraph code for it's cameras, but as for parts, it really was "send me up some 4x5 RB Cycle Graphic sled pieces"
_________________
"In order to invent, you need a good imagination and a lot of junk" Thomas Edison

[solrod]

The idea of numbers in a batch is interesting. It would certainly help keeping tabs on progress without endless counting of stacks! However, I doubt there was a batch of 53 large cycle models in 1927. Perhaps 2 was reserved for special orders and the 114 was really model 1 version 14?
I still can't see why the back should be numbered unless it was model number. We need more imput with stamped numbers and model descriptions!
Steven

[pv17vv]

Each worker his own stamp ?

[solrod]

Good idea about worker stamps - But my 3 53 impressions are different from each other - I would have supposed a personal 53 stamp would have been to hand. The variation suggest they were made by a single 5 stamp and a single 3 stamp. Is our mutual friend Hercule Poiriot (spelling?) still alive?
We need his little grey cells to spring to our assistance!
Steven

[glennfromwy]

The Kodak 2D numbers on the extension beds are indeed parts matching numbers. Stamped in the wood. Each piece was drilled on a certain jig and must have the other piece of the corresponding number, in order to fit properly. I have a 5X7 2D with a numerically mismatched extension. It will fit, but not well. The locating pins don't quite line up properly. A lot of camera parts, though hand made, were made using a jig. If more than one jig was in use, the parts were numbered to match the part from the matching jig of the same number. A common practice back when things weren't as precise as they are now.
_________________
Glenn

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

[solrod]

Thanks Glenn.
I am pretty convinced now that stamped numbers on wooden parts ARE an assembly-matching aid rather than an internal model number. But the main problem I have with my tilting back 8x10 self-casing cycle double extension is actually identifying the model and finding illustrative material. I have solved the missing front standard problem - the dimensions of the front rail are such that with a few thin distance pieces between the gear chrome track and the mahogany sled means that a crown/speed metal standard fits perfectly. 1 cogged drive gear had to be moved a few milimeters and the lens board assembly had to be mounted the other way up to reach up to the 8x10 position rather than 4x5 height. I have already made the tilting back and this gives real stability to the box frame.

[solrod]

Some very basic photos are on their way. I'll find a way of getting images viewable from the board as soon as possible. The new back and standard have been removed.
Steven

[Les]

and here they are, they run about 150K each but are large images, so I'm posting links rather than putting them inline.

http://home.twmi.rr.com/lnphoto/cyclegraphicbedweb.jpg

http://home.twmi.rr.com/lnphoto/cyclegraphicbodyweb.jpg

http://home.twmi.rr.com/lnphoto/cyclegraphicbodyleatherweb.jpg
_________________
"In order to invent, you need a good imagination and a lot of junk" Thomas Edison

[glennfromwy]

Well, I know this won't help you much, but it will be a pretty piece when you get it together. Very interesting camera. Have you checked the resources at the George Eastman House Museum? Because Eastman Kodak was involved with Graflex at one time, they may have something in their archives. Good luck.
_________________
Glenn

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

[solrod]

I think I have found the identity of my unknown 8x10 self casing camera/cycle camera. The serial number (157151) matches the last series of Graflex cycle models around 1927. But I found that the number also matches the typical numbers found on ROC (Rocester Optical Company and their successors) in the late 1890's. I found a telephoto cycle Poco with the serial number 158898. And some of their Poco models seem to have the use of mahogany strips as the sliding support rather than a brass rail system. A catalogue is on its way to me so I may have a definite answer in a few weeks!

[solrod]

Problem Solved! As I explained in my last posting, I was pretty sure that the camera was a Rochester Poco Telephoto model 8x10 rather than a F&S. It has taken time to confirm it, as good photos aren't available on the IN and catalogues from Rochester seem to be real collectors' items. A current listing on E++y with a substantial number of photos has been enough to confirm. Thanks for contributions. Steven