Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 23, 2012 15:13:27 GMT -5
Restoration of an old Rangefinder, about 3.75 inches long, .7 inch dia, 1.75 inch rangefinder base length, unusual in a couple of ways, no mountings at all, and no maker is marked. It came from local junk shop find. It's scale on the knob, on the end, is marked in feet, it has a brass body with aluminium fittings, a bit corroded, but all able to be cleaned up. It is very well made with prisms, not mirrors, the main view is through a half guilded prism, (gold), not half silver. It is very accurate indeed. I suspect it is a British maker, as German makers usually marked the make. All cleaned, but still needs aluminium oxide removed, and then a re-spray in a satin black. I'll make a holder to fit a shoe to it, without drilling it, just a strap over the tube body. Any body got any idea of the maker, and period, (I would guess 1930's.)
|
|
lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on Dec 23, 2012 17:24:58 GMT -5
No idea of the maker, but could it have been for another purpose, I know golfers use rangefinders ? It's a very elegant piece though.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Dec 23, 2012 23:36:36 GMT -5
I was going to suggest it might have been used by a surveyor but I see the longest distance before infinity is only 20 feet.
I wonder if perhaps a portrait or wedding or group or animal photographer.
Mickey
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 24, 2012 7:52:24 GMT -5
I think it may be Ensign Brand, Houghton Butcher, perhaps meant for the Auto-Kinecam 16mm camera, one of which I happen to have, some illustrations have a clip on the body, aside from the one the crank handle fits into, which may have been for the rangefinder.
The finish and machining are quite like Ensign, the range marked is a typical photography range, the prism having gold finish is very movie oriented, Technicolor used them widely, and Mitchell and Arriflex have them.
I had wondered if the lower end would fit a hot shoe, making it work like a vertical Leitz type, but the diameter of the body is just a bit too big to fit between the rails of a standard accessory shoe. But I could machine up an adaptor to do just this way, and it would not damage the original in any way.
Thanks for any suggestions.
Happy Xmas
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 27, 2013 6:11:07 GMT -5
Finally got around to starting restoring the Vintage unknown make Rangefinder, but a minor problem, it will not open up to get apart for painting, so leaving it whole and masking around the aluminium parts is the only way. The is no need to open it to service it, it is working accurately. It is pleasant to use, as the windows are colour filtered, making the double image quite clear. I am also making, in milled aluminium, a suitable vintage type cradle clasp to hold it in a rangefinder shoe, for use on various rangefinder-less 35mm folding and compact 1930's cameras. I'll anodise the aluminium to harden the surface, (acid bath electrolysis), but no coloured finish, unless I can find a decent black dye. The shoe itself would have to remain aluminium finish to minimise marks from use. Stephen.
|
|
Dave
Lifetime Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by Dave on Aug 30, 2013 20:39:29 GMT -5
Stephen -- I admire your ability to restore items like this. I want to pose a question, with all respect due (and that is considerable). As a fan of "The Antique Roadshow," the experts often say to leave the "patina" and that removing it, shining an item, etc., reduces the value. The instant concern which I have involves a 1871 pocket watch which I just acquired. It has a coin silver case which could easily be shined. I am trying to decide whether to do that sort of minimal restoration or to leave it as is to preserve its patina. Any thoughts? Thanks,
Dave
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 31, 2013 5:08:59 GMT -5
Do not restore Antiques is the rule, unless an expert or guided by a restoration expert, but with cameras you can re-paint, but little else, unless a re-build with old parts or decent replacements. Shutters are another matter, they have to work, and will need service. With antique silver it can be cleaned by dipping in silver clean liquids, easier than polish, which wears the silver. Bronze should never be cleaned, it acquires a patina of oxide difficult to reproduce, as does brass and copper.
Paintings, leave it to an expert, the same with wood finishes, unless you want to learn French polishing.
However in most cameras they are not really antiques, unless older wood cameras, and a careful home mechanic and craftsman can work on them, the only major difficulty is worn plated metal, and usually brassing wear is acceptable.
The re-spraying I do is done with an airbrush, a fine art type, that mists paint on, it gives an excellent finish, and with cellulose car paint, a tough finish.
Now the watch, I have a collection as well, and I restore clocks, and the usual practice is to restore to very clean indeed, the case would be dipped clean, and all internal parts acid cleaned, polished and oiled. It is normal to leave the mechanism as perfect as practical, with suitable replacement parts or repairs.
Basic rule, is that the watch or clock should run, and be in the best condition to keep it in fully running order, as if in the hands of the original owner.
Only a painted or enamelled case would be left with wear, the metal parts polished clean.
Stephen.
|
|
Dave
Lifetime Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by Dave on Aug 31, 2013 19:05:31 GMT -5
Stephen-- Thank you. I appreciate the advice. Dave
|
|