Ross binoculars

[FROGSMILE]

Very interesting rundown Di. It seems there is still some way to go to track down H N Wilkinson. I suppose the binoculars could have been gifted to a close friend and we should not assume they could only have been given to a relative.

[johnboy]

A date of birth for HN would be handy. Could they have been a 21st present?

[Blackblue]

Born in 1877.

[johnboy]

Rules the 21st idea out.

Still no reply to emails.

Have just emailed Tyrrells asking for a direct email address for Bruce.

[Blackblue]

Nice one. Hopefully he is the man to speak to. Both Bruce and his father were honoured with AMs for services to the wine industry...same sort of thing as an OBE. I've done similar service over the past 25 years or so by drinking it...perhaps I'll be next!

[johnboy]

The email addresses given are sales@ , orders@, etc. so will have to wait and see.

[perejler]

My contact with the Ross specialist turned the table. I will paste his ansver, but in fact if this is true, it don't change things so much;

"Per,

Thank you for the extra photographs. I agree the number is 34887. I magnified the image of the top and came to the conclusion that it just repeats Fairfax Roberts Sydney. I then compared it to items in my collection. I have come to the conclusion that it is not a Ross product. The number and spacing of the screws is different and the 'butterfly' shape of the top/bottom plates is not quite the same. Several British makers ( Dollond, Negretti and Zambra and J.H.Barton to name three) also used similar styles where the top and bottom plates are extended to form the hinge. They are very alike and without their names they can be hard to identify . Some makers, especially the French, made a practice of of supplying unmarked binoculars so that the seller could put his own name on them.

I believe this is what you have.

Best wishes in your research.

Regards,

xxxxx"

[johnboy]

Possible they were made by Fairfax?

[perejler]

I don't think Fairfax had the capasity to make them, it is rather as our specialist say some other Uk. firm or a frensh firm, -- the construction point to both. As a rule german binoculars did not use the end plates as part of the hinge. But it also are true that the screws in the end plates are placed different compared Ross. There are a slight chance there can be informations inside the binoculars, but exactly that would be a problem, as at some point, someone have tried open it using a bad screwdriver, dameaging the screws. then nothing will fit and in vorse case, they have to be drilled out. Asking a repair shop with expertise.

Still the tale just changed so, that Fairfax must have bought blanks from a possible english firm ; from my knowleage, frensh binoculars had a different form, but they are very near (obviously) to the design of Ross and personaly I think it are a Uk. maker,

Did Fairfax buy blanks.... that proberly back then was kept a secret. And who would know today....

A frensh binocular that is often seen as Antike biboculars with writing of different makers;

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4930663142786&set=a.10200768073022562.1073741825.1184722724&type=3&theater

They came in both 7X and 8X magnification.

[johnboy]

The owner might still be found. As it seems that they might not be of historical value I think a] I would compare the screw positions with others in your collection. b] Soak the screws in oil and remove them to see if any clues are inside.

Were expensive binoculars fitted with steel screws? A lot of other scientific instruments of the time look like they used brass screws.

[perejler]

Now this is before my time collecting, but I read there were a serious problem about copying Zeiss binoculars, also canabalising defect bino's, restoring the parts or make new parts and put them together to sell them as new. people were convicted for fraud doing this. But this was mainly Zeiss that investigated this and filed in legal claims. Offcaurse it is fully undestandable becaurse a prism binocular could cost several months salery. --- But the funny thing are, that some of these copies are more worth as collectors item than the original binoculars.

- Now it is just something I read, finding it an interesting detail I did not look it up further, but other collectors know these trails. Reson they are more worth beside the story, is offcaurse that more are known about these by the trial, -- it was very few that realy was made, making the remains rare opposite the original, that could have been produced in many thousands.

What I find important are, when you see the foto of a typical Blank I put in in my last mail, then this design are seen again and again, but with different writing in different contries, --- making moulds and production equipment was expensive, so offcaurse they stayed with the designs they had equipment to manufactor, also brands were important and buying a binocular it had to resamble a proven design, But it was only very huge factories that produced all parts themself, many who did even got the prisms and lenses from particular factories that specilised in that.. But I wonder if it would be profitable to put together a replica of a 8X Ross without getting some parts from Ross. That mean having an agreament with Ross as Ross also had a lot of Patents concerning the design of their products like Zeiss had so they could punish everyone who tried replica their products.

I agrea there are as much guessing in this mail aswell, but along the lines you can get an image about what optics and binoculars manufactoring were about back then, I can't say if this Ross belong to the lots once made by illigal third parties but they were skilled craftsmen something I know were agreaed under the trials, and those are well documented even with what brands was recondisioned or produced from new and old parts., --- it will be something of a detour, finding out that they belonged that lot, --- still it would be an interesting develobment ) All I can say, are that it needed the world's best specialist to uncover that they proberly are not Ross.

[MikB]

Were expensive binoculars fitted with steel screws? A lot of other scientific instruments of the time look like they used brass screws.

When screwing into cast aluminium, it'll be the female thread in the alli that determines the strength of the joint. The only potential gain from not using brass screws would be to prevent the electro-galvanic corrosion that occurs when any copper alloy is in close contact with alli. But that would probably take long enough for steel screws to rust anyway...

Regards,

MikB

[johnboy]

The screws are going into copper or brass.

[MikB]

The screws are going into copper or brass.

There'd still be no strength advantage to using steel screws. Brass seems a surprisingly heavy material to be using for body castings. Apart from aluminium, magnesium alloys have also been used, but I don't know how early that started.

Regards,

MikB

[johnboy]

The bins in question are dated 1909

Were binocular bodies cast are formed from sheets? As 'scientific' instruments would you not expect brass screws that were flush , not protruding steel ones.

[MikB]

The bins in question are dated 1909

Were binocular bodies cast are formed from sheets? As 'scientific' instruments would you not expect brass screws that were flush , not protruding steel ones.

The Ross design that used extensions of the prism case end plates as hinge components placed a good deal of stress on the screws securing these to the body, so IIRC there were more screws, and bigger. Steel screws might have been cheaper and more easily available, and that would be a good enough reason for using them, but they wouldn't offer any quality advantage when screwing into a softer body material.

Main bodies, so far as I know, were much more usually castings.

Top quality scientific instruments often used brass screws that were both countersunk and slightly domed. When securing relatively highly-stressed endplates though, countersinking would reduce strength, so larger domehead screws would be better as they would engage the full thickness of the plates.

But looking back at the original pictures, they obviously are countersunk and slightly domed, and look like brass. I think I've seen other Rosses with larger domehead screws where the whole head was proud of the endplate.

Regards,

MikB

[johnboy]

Thanks for that.

[perejler]

The top Bino are the 8X Ross If. Even the small arrow pointing to angle of the two sides are on both.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/62811941@N00/20524586063/in/dateposted-public/

I said earlier that thes could not have been produced by Fairfax, proberly not, but they could have assembled from prisms and pieces they either made or ordered, it is very difficult to say but simular firms around the world selling glasses and optics, had sole rights or agreaments with various firms and most often put their name on the items.

I will try ansver the questions;

I offcaurse still hope the serious efford from members here, will one day uncover the history of these binoculars, but about the bolts or screws used, they would have been brass or bronce, as if steel were used, corrosion will quickly show, esp in damp or salty inviroment ; Iron and brass are sworn enemies. Very soon a steel screw will be locked tight. rust will occour and the Zink of the brass alloy will make it even vorse..Most often these screws are therefore crome plated or simular, maybe stainless if recondisioned. But if a binocular has marine use mixing of metals are avoided. The rule about brass and bronce are that brass are more yellow and bronce more reddish brass are copper and zink, bronce are copper and Tin --- back in those day's they were very aware where to use brass and where to use bronce and what metal to use in same item. The two binocular houses were most often cast in either Aluminium or a Zink alloy. Collectors often prefere the antike binoculars with brass ends, but the use of copper, brass and bronce in the war industrie, ment a shortage of these, so manufactores looked for alternative materials but Aluminium being both lighter and cheaper were in fact those day's Titanium. It was light and could be cast as rolled more resistant than cast so many Vintage and antike binoculars had Aluminium ends, -- but not this. Some manufactores even tried to use Bakelite ends . --- From our collection the 3 Goerz trieder binocle "Pagor" where the 6X to the right carry bakelite ends.;

https://www.flickr.com/photos/62811941@N00/21158817515/in/dateposted-public/

[johnboy]

It does not look like I will get a reply from Emails.

[perejler]

I didn't get any reply from the seller, but he proberly would not be able to give any reliable information. But I think there are a chance over time that someone seartching the names will end up with this tread and just maybe be able to add some small information or reconise the lead that the active members have not been able to crack, --- the date. The date is from my hope what could bring the solution. It must have a more important meaning than just the date they are bought, offcaurse it could be the firm producing them that like Ross did, added a particular date, is the case of Ross it often are the patent date, but on the other hand the text type indicate that both signature and date could be made by the same.

I can't thank the active members enough, and I exchouse my bad english, spell foults and often confusing sentenses. But atleast this great tread have uncovered important details of the lives of those before us. And who know, allready there are a solid foundation for the ones who can finish the seartch. Thank's ...

[perejler]

Hi.

I must exchouse, but I have been quite busy. Our collection grown with several Ross designs and this is the only relevant information I can add; several other manufactors was indeed providing "simular" designs, in particular one american who made an agreament with ross about copyright and Patent issues. But they were not alone, several other designs very near exist. I will be back with more about this issue. off-topic among the Vintage millitary bino's in our collection, this "Foldeng Minin" are most interesting.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/62811941@N00/20108562524/in/dateposted-public/

Text from our Facebook binocular collection folder;

"The Folding Minim" 5.5 x 16 by Negretti & Zambra London. Serial 3421.
The Company, which was formed in 1912, manufactured the Folding Minim binocular, designed by J.H.Barton. Only its very high purchase price stopped this binocular from becoming very popular.
World War 1 found Britain very short of quality binoculars and in June 1915 the War Office purchased 250 folding MINIMs from Negretti and Zambra for distribution to the Army, then posted to the Western Front.

Maybe a bit off-topic, but it tell something about how unprepared england was at the start of WW1.

[johnboy]

Thanks for the update.

[MikB]

Hi.

I must exchouse, but I have been quite busy. Our collection grown with several Ross designs and this is the only relevant information I can add; several other manufactors was indeed providing "simular" designs, in particular one american who made an agreament with ross about copyright and Patent issues. But they were not alone, several other designs very near exist. I will be back with more about this issue. off-topic among the Vintage millitary bino's in our collection, this "Foldeng Minin" are most interesting.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/62811941@N00/20108562524/in/dateposted-public/

Text from our Facebook binocular collection folder;

"The Folding Minim" 5.5 x 16 by Negretti & Zambra London. Serial 3421.

The Company, which was formed in 1912, manufactured the Folding Minim binocular, designed by J.H.Barton. Only its very high purchase price stopped this binocular from becoming very popular.

World War 1 found Britain very short of quality binoculars and in June 1915 the War Office purchased 250 folding MINIMs from Negretti and Zambra for distribution to the Army, then posted to the Western Front.

Maybe a bit off-topic, but it tell something about how unprepared england was at the start of WW1.

I'm guessing that WO purchased examples of 'Folding Minims' would carry the grading S.6 ("binoculars of unusual design"), along with the Broad Arrow and a registration no. separate from the manufacturer's serial no., as would examples donated, loaned or purchased from civilian sources to help meet the emergency.

But there probably would have been at least as many brought along by individuals as private purchases, which would carry only the normal maker's markings.

Regards,

MikB

[Blackblue]

I've heard back from some of the Wilkinson family on this. Nothing to confirm ownership, but I'll hopefully be able to add some more interesting information in the next few days.

Tim D

[johnboy]

Like Tim. I heard back from Australia late last week. The contents sound like the same. No positive ID of the ownership when they were lost.