'53 Chevy? What a dog. Never mind the shift lever that fell from 2nd into 3rd, if you used the clutch (which you did not need to--just get off the gas and shift slowly without it).
What I remember about it was it was the last of the Chevy's without an oil pump. Only splash cups to lubricate the bearings. Every time I drove it over 55 for any distance, I would have to spend another week-end underneath it replacing the bearings.
Yes, lots more. IIRC, Bristol cars embody the finest technology of the 1930s, taken from the BMWs thatthe 400 was copied from. Gandolfis embody late 19th century technology, materials sometimes excepted. They're much more old-fashioned.
Originally Posted by Lachlan Young
What Bristol and Gandolfi have in common is that continued production after the current proprietors die isn't assured. One hopes that Mr. Crook will live forever.
Last edited by Dan Fromm; 08-21-2006 at 05:06 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Originally Posted by MattCarey
The bad rap is not deserved. My 5X7 has served me well for 15 years. I bought it with an eye toward refinishing it (ala Patrick Alt's article in View Camera several years back) but function won out over form.
As in "Folmer and..."?
Originally Posted by Wayne Olson
Ah, secret messages about analogue photography hidden in Wayne's World!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
And Eddie at Gandolfi!
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
There's also some good 50s technology in Bristols, too -- American (based) V8s since they dropped the straight 6 about 50 years ago. And Superleggera bodies, unlike (as far as I remember) the BMWs.
'Classic' (Precision/Traditional) Gandolfis in their current form are more 20s/30s too, actually; the 1890s camera was the tailboard Universal. And Eddie has put in more and better movements.
Then of course there's the Variant, a 1990s view camera with interchangeable formats, arguably more modern than any other field-type camera except perhaps Canham and (pace Ole) Carbon Infiniti.
Ever compared the two side by side? For rigidity, finish and (as I recall) movements? Having heard what wonderful cameras they were for years before I first saw one some 20 years ago, I was quite surprised at how ordinary Deardorffs are.
Originally Posted by df cardwell
Yes, there are some 'rat' Gandolfis -- the ebonized models don't wear well, and everone (including me) tried to talk Brian Gould into switching from MDF to real tree for the Variant. When they finally did, the sales of the MDF model fell off a cliff face.
I've owned my Deardorff since 1970. My Gandofi, since the early 1990s.
Objectively, they are brilliant, dazzling, and wonderful cameras.
After I had used them both, and taken each on it's own terms, it became hard to find fault with either. But they have diffrerent personalities.
I'd rather use either than any metal camera, or any other wooden camera ( well, the Canham is really nice, too. and Ebony.... gosh it's nice having paid for the camera so long ago my pockets don't hurt anymore )
The Gandolfi looks like it was made in London ( well, Andover ), the Deardorff in Chicago. That's the difference.
Last edited by df cardwell; 08-23-2006 at 03:01 AM. Click to view previous post history.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
I'd rather use either than any metal camera, or any other wooden camera ( well, the Canham is really nice, too ).
I'd probably agree with that. Perhaps I overstated, as a result (as I explained) of having heard for years how Deardorffs were so wonderful: there's an inevitable sense of letdown. But I still think the Gandolfi (Precision/Traditional) is better finished and more rigid. I'd agree there's really not much in it.
But 'silly man' didn't give anyone much to go on.