Kodak Vest Pocket Camera-Early 1900s

I do. Fantastic little camera, but nearly impossible to find with usable bellows, and 127 is a PITA and expensive to get.

3930696206_2d380ac0f5_o.jpg


Some day I'll make new bellows for mine.

As for worth, there are several variations. The most common with the achromatic lens, I wouldn't pay more than $30 or $40 for even with good bellows. There are also version with rapid rectilinear, and anastigmat (triplet) as well as tessar lenses. These are all considerable less common, particularly the tessar version. A nice one might be worth a lot, for the right person.
 
tunalegs said:
I do. Fantastic little camera, but nearly impossible to find with usable bellows, and 127 is a PITA and expensive to get.

Some day I'll make new bellows for mine.

As for worth, there are several variations. The most common with the achromatic lens, I wouldn't pay more than $30 or $40 for even with good bellows. There are also version with rapid rectilinear, and anastigmat (triplet) as well as Tessar lenses. These are all considerable less common, particularly the Tessar version. A nice one might be worth a lot, for the right person.
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for that! It is too cool and your photo is really good! Super!:)
 
A shame this format no longer widely available as the smallest 120 folders are more jacket pocket than vest pocket.

Dave you might find this site interesting.

There are some on eBay at the moment around $20, but most don't mention bellows condition.
 
They are a fun camera, I have one from late 1912 or early 1913 (non autographic) and it still works like a charm. Local prices I normally see are between 15 and 70 dollars. Bellows have generally been good. Usually a dab of liquid tape will take care of minor pinholes. 127 can indeed be pricey so I often just slit 120 and re-roll it on an old 127 spool.
 
Hi,

I think a lot of photo's taken during the Great War were taken with a VPK simply because you weren't allowed to take cameras into the front lines but many did and the VPK was the easiest to hide.

But could they really fit into a waistcoat pocket? I often wonder...

Regards, David
 
David Hughes said:
Hi,

I think a lot of photo's taken during the Great War were taken with a VPK simply because you weren't allowed to take cameras into the front lines but many did and the VPK was the easiest to hide.

But could they really fit into a waistcoat pocket? I often wonder...

Regards, David
Click to expand...

My grandfather took quite a number during The Great War, though all were taken at a camp in Virginia where he served as an instructor in the Engineering Corps. I can't get to most of the images right now (I'm at work), but this one is posted at Shorpy.com: http://www.shorpy.com/node/15365

He did all of his own processing, and this one roll was heavily reticulated, probably due to poor temperature control during the winter. Living in the barracks, he didn't have the greatest darkroom environment.
 
I think the "Soldier's Camera" schtick was mainly a Kodak invention.

I've shot a few rolls with one of my VPKs. either Rerapan 100 or cut and respooled 120 film.

OV120448.jpg


OV120451.jpg
 
goamules said:
I shoot a lot of antique cameras of all sizes and eras. I wouldn't mess with one of these, it's the bottom of the line. A 4A would be more the top of the line. http://www.kodaksefke.nl/4a-folding-kodak.html But remember Kodak was making amateur cameras. A 4x5 Pony Premo or Century sheet film camera is easier to use and get great results.
Click to expand...

Good luck finding film for a 4A kodak though.

The VPKs weren't top of the line on account of their negative size, which with the film, enlarger, and paper tech of the era meant one couldn't make very big prints with them. With current tech they're capable of quite fine results, particularly the anastigmat and tessar models. They also weren't bottom of the line either, even the base model VPK was relatively expensive compared to some of Kodak's 120 and 116 film cameras.

On the other hand, the huge folders which were top of the line then are mostly just a headache to use today.
 
This is mine...I've never shot with it...I bought it at an Antique Swap meet in Minnesota...
It uses 116 film...missing the Stylus...it came with the case...

15522358746_09189d1c17_c.jpg
 
In that time period, Kodak had a line of "Pocket Kodaks" which were offered with various lens options and in various film sizes. The "Vest Pocket Kodak" was a rather special variant in that it was all metal, rather than a leather covered mix of wood and metal.

The VPK was offerent only in 127 size. There were originally (c.1914) 3 variants. The least expensive had a simple meniscus lens and sold for $7CND in 1914. There was also version with a Kodak Anastigmat lens for $13.50CND ($16.50CND with leather case and silk lined box) and a "special" version with a Zeiss/Kodak Anastigmat lens for a wopping $22.50CND. There was a later offering of an Autographic version with the Kodak Anastigmat lens (the variant that my grandfather had). I don't know if the Autographic was offered with either of the other two lenses.

Kodak also offered a variant of the Brownie Enlarging Camera called the V. P. Kodak Enlarging Camera. This was a fixed focus enlarger that made 3-1/2x5" prints from the VPK's negs. The Enlarging Cameras didn't have their own light source and were completely enclosed so you would insert the neg, turn out the lights, insert the paper, and then turn on the lights to make the exposure. The VPK version sold for a modest $1.75cnd in 1914.

Based on a price comparison with the Pocket series, the VPKs with the Kodak Anastigmat lens were hardly "low end" models and the Zeiss/Kodak version was distinctly up market.

Check out this catalog: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33183
 
Dwig said:
In that time period, Kodak had a line of "Pocket Kodaks" which were offered with various lens options and in various film sizes. The "Vest Pocket Kodak" was a rather special variant in that it was all metal, rather than a leather covered mix of wood and metal.

The VPK was offerent only in 127 size. There were originally (c.1914) 3 variants. The least expensive had a simple meniscus lens and sold for $7CND in 1914. There was also version with a Kodak Anastigmat lens for $13.50CND ($16.50CND with leather case and silk lined box) and a "special" version with a Zeiss/Kodak Anastigmat lens for a wopping $22.50CND. There was a later offering of an Autographic version with the Kodak Anastigmat lens (the variant that my grandfather had). I don't know if the Autographic was offered with either of the other two lenses.

Kodak also offered a variant of the Brownie Enlarging Camera called the V. P. Kodak Enlarging Camera. This was a fixed focus enlarger that made 3-1/2x5" prints from the VPK's negs. The Enlarging Cameras didn't have their own light source and were completely enclosed so you would insert the neg, turn out the lights, insert the paper, and then turn on the lights to make the exposure. The VPK version sold for a modest $1.75cnd in 1914.

Based on a price comparison with the Pocket series, the VPKs with the Kodak Anastigmat lens were hardly "low end" models and the Zeiss/Kodak version was distinctly up market.

Check out this catalog: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33183
Click to expand...

Great reading, thanks, just saved it to iBooks!:)
 
My Kodak Vest Pocket, a non-autographic model from 1912-1914. It works, and I've taken pictures with Rerapan 100, but can't scan them at present time.

39826418394_76d6f0df5a_b.jpg



40592637382_6c775b386e_b.jpg

https://flic.kr/p/24R2SSj

In some websites they say this is the camera that Frank Hurley used in the desperate trip through the ice to Elephant Island with Shackleton, but in others that this was its bigger sister, the Kodak 3A Folding Pocket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom