View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
vitaly66
Joined: 08 Apr 2009 Posts: 44 Location: tirana
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:09 pm Post subject: pacemaker speed 23 curious |
|
|
I've seen several Pacemaker Speed Graphics pictured with two chrome-plated disks on the handle side of the body, presumably part of the bearing assembly for the focal plane shutter spindles.
My Pacemaker Speed 23 doesn't have any such chrome disks. The handle side of the body is smooth, original, uninterrupted leather covering. Serial number 704xxx, probably around 1947 if the lens is any indication, working well, including the shutter mechanisms.
Are the chrome disks a feature of later Pacemakers? Did the design of the focal plane shutter change at some point? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
C. Henry
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 Posts: 360 Location: North East Georgia, USA
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vitaly;
My 2x3 Pacemaker speed (Serial # 700xxx, 1947) like yours does not have the chrome disks on it either.
From Shutterfinger's list I think your camera is probably an 1949 model. The list shows 702540 as built in 1948 and 706289 as built in 1950.
Another possibility is that the chrome disks were part of some repair, update or rebuild after those cameras had been in use for some time.
C. Henry |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2147 Location: New Jersey
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm. My 2x3 Pacemaker Speed Graphic, s/n 414353, made in 1947 has the pretty chromed discs. I dunno why yours don't.
Perhaps Les knows. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
C. Henry
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 Posts: 360 Location: North East Georgia, USA
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dan;
I notice that the serial # of your Speed starts with "4" and has the disks while both Vitaly's and Mine have serial #s starting with "7" and no disks. It would be interesting to know if those two facts are related or just coincidence. If there is a connection between the serial #s and the occurrence of the discs it might provide a clue as to why they are on some 2 x 3 speeds and not others.
C. Henry |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2147 Location: New Jersey
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
C. Henry, I have no idea. I have a copy of the non-book at home, can check to see when the rationalization(?) of serial numbers happened.
I don't know why Graflex changed the part, but then I don't understand many of the things they did.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2147 Location: New Jersey
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
C. Henry, I revisited the book that isn't and the Shutterfinger list.
Shutterfinger's earliest 7xx,xxx 2x3 Pacemaker Speed serial numbers are "700583 – Speed -- 1949" and "700782 – 2x3 pacemaker speed – 1947". He's internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the book.
Per the book, serial numbers "700,000 thru 729,999" were reserved for 2x3 Speed Graphics. 730,000 - 749,999 were reserved for 2x3 Crowns. The book is somewhat tattered, pages are not always in chronological order. In any case, the page on which the new style assignment of serial numbers headed "Pacemaker Serial Nos" occurs comes after a page whose latest date, for a batch of 13 "8x10 Kd. View" is 3/18 and which clearly means 3/18/1948. The "Pacemaker Serial Nos" text is followed by a entry 4/9/48 for a batch of 2 "Fingerprint Camera."
The next entry for 2x3 Speeds says "700,000 - 706,000 2/47 - 2/50."
A few lines below it is an entry of 2/21/50 that assigns serial numbers 706,001 - 707.001 to, it says, a batch of 1,000 2x3 Pacemaker cameras. Slight arithmetic error there. Accompanying text says that serial numbers will be assigned to Speeds and Crowns.
The highest number assigned to a 2x3 Pacemaker in the book is 716,705 assigned 1/29/1954.
The book that isn't is, um, delphic. Some would say obscure and incomplete. So take all this with a healthy dose of salt.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
shutterfinger
Joined: 09 Mar 2007 Posts: 57
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dan, the list was/is direct copy of previously posted information. The original information is the source of the errors. I attribute it to how tired the Sacred Book Holder was at the time he posted or how many glasses of wine he had with dinner. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dan Fromm
Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2147 Location: New Jersey
|
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shutterfinger, I wasn't blaming you, just reporting. Perfection is unattainable.
Cheers,
Dan |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Henry
Joined: 09 May 2001 Posts: 1648 Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
|
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dan Fromm wrote: | Perfection is unattainable.
Dan |
Except in the performance of music. Take it from an old pro. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Sirius Glass
Joined: 06 Jun 2010 Posts: 162 Location: Southern California
|
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dan Fromm wrote: | Perfection is unattainable. |
For some.
Steve _________________ Nothing beats a good piece of glass. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|