dmr Registered Abuser Local time 7:35 PM Joined Feb 8, 2005 Messages 4,649 Location Somewhere in Middle America View My Gallery Dec 12, 2008 #1 Found this on a blog posting. 🙂
F feenej Well-known Local time 7:35 PM Joined Feb 4, 2006 Messages 661 View My Gallery Dec 12, 2008 #2 That is pretty darn funny.
bmattock Veteran Local time 8:35 PM Joined Jul 29, 2003 Messages 10,654 Location Detroit Area View My Gallery Dec 12, 2008 #3 The Brownie was a low-cost marque of Kodak for a period of time. Therefore, Kodak was comparing the Brownie to it's higher-cost brethren. It was only later that the Brownie, and indeed all remaining EK-made cameras, were folded under the 'Kodak' imprimatur. http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/eaa.K0058/pg.1/ http://ldtomei.googlepages.com/Ad-Kodak-1908-Brownie.jpg/Ad-Kodak-1908-Brownie-full.jpg
The Brownie was a low-cost marque of Kodak for a period of time. Therefore, Kodak was comparing the Brownie to it's higher-cost brethren. It was only later that the Brownie, and indeed all remaining EK-made cameras, were folded under the 'Kodak' imprimatur. http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/eaa.K0058/pg.1/ http://ldtomei.googlepages.com/Ad-Kodak-1908-Brownie.jpg/Ad-Kodak-1908-Brownie-full.jpg
A Al Kaplan Veteran Local time 12:35 AM Joined Dec 7, 2003 Messages 4,463 Location Miami, FL View My Gallery Dec 12, 2008 #4 $5.00 wasn't exactly cheap back then.
bmattock Veteran Local time 8:35 PM Joined Jul 29, 2003 Messages 10,654 Location Detroit Area View My Gallery Dec 12, 2008 #5 Al Kaplan said: $5.00 wasn't exactly cheap back then. Click to expand... Relative to the rest of the Kodak line, then.
Al Kaplan said: $5.00 wasn't exactly cheap back then. Click to expand... Relative to the rest of the Kodak line, then.