Thank you. This link was posted at the begining of the thread. Is it the same 17 pages you offer? If so thank you. I found it very interesting.
I was not in a position to bid on such a prize, but the history and the discovery is very exciting.
Thank you John,
Originally Posted by jp80874
It's the right link, only difference, the Spanish version is not online.
I am sorry you were not in a position to bid, I think it could have been a good investment, if we discover in 2009 that the "new" letters from Niepce are mentioning this small "box" as Daguerre was calling the Niepce cameras!
Merci, Jean-Pierre, pour ton reponse .. for the benefit of this (mostly anglophone) forum, I'll answer you in English. Apologies to English-only readers for my previous post in French.
Originally Posted by Bickart
Thank you anyway for offering to send me your report on the camera in question, however, as I have already mentioned to you, this affair is not very important to me. I was just passing along some information.
I will reiterate however that there is nothing wrong with a prospective buyer of a very expensive antique wanting more than anecdotal information about its origins. In the absence of solid proof, I'm afraid that even a report of 1000 pages would still be just that: anecdotal!
The statement issued by Pierre-Yve Mahé and Jean-Louis Marignier (of the Niepce House project and www.niepce.com) raised an excellent point: since other photographic pioneers who dealt with the optician Vincent Chevalier were active in the Chalon-sur-Saône area and at the same period as Niepce —such as Joseph Fortuné Petiot-Groffier and Abel Niepce de Saint Victor— why the rush to judgement that the camera was that of Niepce and not someone else? Just to give it more value? I mean, perhaps the camera was Niepce's . . . and perhaps not. It's this second option which is at the heart of the polemic. Probably, it would have been more forthright to present the object thusly: "Perhaps the camera of Niepce". Then there might have been less howling, n'est-ce pas?
Sorry, nothing against you, but the question naturally comes to mind. Hope you'll still buy me that glass of wine!
Bien à toi,
PS: It certainly is unfortunate that you couldn't find your password for APUG —and respond to the comments about the authenticity of the camera—
until after the camera was auctioned-off. In the future you can have this sent to you by the forum software. It takes just a second!
. . . . .
Last edited by Christopher Nisperos; 10-21-2007 at 06:03 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I think it suffices to say that this is an item of unproven provenance. I don't know enough about antique camera values, particularly cameras of this vintage, to say if that was a fair price or not for an item of uncertain provenance, but I hope that the buyer factored that in to their bidding. I helped my parents buy a pencil sketch which was attributed to but not documented to be by John Singer Sargent. The price was more than fair, since the attribution was unproven, and stated to be as such. I think the issue here is the statements that were made regarding the marketing of this camera that were quite affirmative in their attribution of the camera to Niepce. Lacking serial numbers and/or sales receipts, the best we can hope for is a "period authentic camera LIKE one used by Niepce".
Right arm, Scott.
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
. . . .
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
and if we discover in 2009 that it was owned by his fifth-cousin Bernard?
Originally Posted by Bickart
Also, do you think the value would change if a letter was found stating that he tried the camera, but got rid of it because he didn't like the bokeh?
The Kiev 88: Mamiya's key to success in Ukraine.
Photography without film is like Macroeconomics without reading goat entrails, and look at the mess that got us into.
You can get a kodak brownie or just about any old box camera for a lot less than 50,000 euros. Probably works better.
Collectors are kind of ridiculous. The thing belongs in a museum, not the private shelf of some rich guy. The fact that whether or not it was ever owned by Niepce would have such a dramatic impact on the value just reiterates this fact. It was an old camera, it was from the same period, it was from the same region. Same difference.
The universe is a haunted house. -Coil
but would they have the godfather of photography, who got so little
Originally Posted by walter23
"respect" he photographed himself as a drowned man's signature dry-pointed
inside the camera? THAT is the question ...