[W&B] Dallmeyer 3x3 - Dating 3x3 dry plates

[Milan Zahorcak]

Hi guys,

No mention of 3x3 in an 1896 catalog, but did find 3x3 (and smaller !!!)
Seeds Dry Plates in a 1909 Sweet, Wallach & Co. catalog.

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/milanpub/Misc%20pics/Seeds-Dry-Plate.jpg

Anyone have 3x3 somewhere in between?

mz





> -----Original Message-----
> From: woodandbrass-bounces at kjsl.com 
> [mailto:woodandbrass-bounces at kjsl.com] On Behalf Of Rob McElroy
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 4:26 PM
> To: Collectors of 19th Century Cameras &Photographica
> Subject: Re: [W&B] Dallmeyer 3x3 format camera.
> 
> 
> Eric,
> 
> Until someone comes up with some evidence to the contrary, I am in 
> agreement with Milan that your wonderful new little Dallmeyer 
> camera is 
> probably later rather than earlier.  I am unaware of any 3" x 
> 3" plates 
> in the dry plate era's early years, at least not that were 
> sold in the 
> US.  Even in later years when a plethora of small roll-film 
> cameras were 
> available, 3" x 3" is an unusual size. Are the plates in the holders 
> exactly 3" x 3"?  By 1900 you could buy 3¼" x3¼" and 3½"x3½" 
> plates as 
> well as 3" x 3".  I'm also curious if the holders can accommodate a 
> larger size plate, and if the 3x3's are being held in place 
> in any kind 
> of format-reducing frame.
> 
> Anyone have a Dallmeyer catalog with cameras as well as lenses?  I 
> don't, and I've never seen a Dallmeyer camera.  Eric, what is 
> the exact 
> text from the white label on top of the camera? Wayne, do you 
> have, or 
> have you seen, this camera?
> 
> All in all it looks quite charming.  Congrats on a nice find.
> 
> Regards,
> Rob McElroy
> Buffalo, NY
> 
> Milan Zahorcak wrote:
> > Bonjour all,
> >  
> > Odd, I never received Eric's post, but I did receive 
> Bernard's reply.
> >  
> > Dan, are we PO'd with me again?
> >  
> > But in response to Eric's post, I suspect that the tiny cameras and
> > small format plates were in response to the growing popularity of 
> > celluloid film, especially in roll-film formats.  I think 
> you'll find 
> > that most of the "smaller than 1/4-plate" cameras came on 
> the market 
> > in the late 1880s and early 1890s just as the Kodak and other small 
> > roll-film cameras were introduced.
> >  
> > The Anthony Lilliput (2-1/2" x 2-1/2") plate camera is roughly the
> > same size as the original Kodak film camera, but in just a 
> few years, 
> > it is obvious that film will eventually replace plates.
> >  
> > Perhaps the makers misread the market interest in roll film 
> cameras -
> > thinking that it was the small size of the camera, as 
> opposed to the 
> > convenience of film, that made these small formats popular.
> >  
> > Or perhaps, for many makers, the existing roll-film and roll-holder
> > patents precluded their introduction of directly competing 
> roll-film 
> > cameras until they could work around the legal issues.
> >  
> > Whatever the reason, there were a surprising number of small plate
> > cameras . . . but of course, Wayne now owns all of them.
> >  
> > The link is to an 1891 Carbutt's plate advertisement.
> >  
> > 
> http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/milanpub/Misc%20pics/Carbutts-plates.j
> > pg
> >  
> > The fact that 3x3 doesn't appear on the rather extensive 
> list makes me
> > wonder if it was earlier and obsolete, or later and newer.
> >  
> > Regardless, as we all know, silver-based film processes 
> will never be
> > replaced . . . it is the ultimate technology and cannot be 
> improved upon.
> >  
> > mz
> >  
>