Carl Meyer or Karl Mayer?

[MTGseattle]

I impulse purchased a lens today: Karl Mayer super anastigmat 12" f6.8 in an Alphax shutter (almost as big as a technika lensboard, 1-50 plus T and B) I'm pretty sure that makes it a #4 It has the M-X switch, and the bi-post sync pins.

I did some googling, and I was continually bounced back to the "Carl Meyer" spelling. I got on the Butkus site and sure enough, "Carl Meyer" is all over within the Burke and James catalogues. So, what gives with the alternate spelling?
It's a heavy little bugger.
If it's coated (I couldn't tell for sure) it's only single. The glass is in great shape, and the shutter seems to be in good order as well.

I'll dig around a bit more on the web but in the meantime, does anyone know anything about these?

 

[David Lindquist]

Can you post a photo of the bezel of the front cell so we can see just how it looks?

The story I've heard is that Burke & James contrived the name "Carl Meyer" from the "Carl" of Carl Zeiss and "Meyer" from Meyer of Goerlitz hoping invoke a sense of German origins.

Don't know where "Karl" would have come from in your example.

I also don't know why sometimes in German the first name is rendered as "Carl" and other times as "Karl". Maybe someone out there can tell us.

David

 

[blee1996]

That could be a Dagor type lens.

 

[MTGseattle]

Here’s a picture

 

[JPD]

Maybe they simply told the engraver to "use the made up name Carl Meyer/Karl Mayer for that batch", and the engraver spelled it as he or she heard it.

I also don't know why sometimes in German the first name is rendered as "Carl" and other times as "Karl". Maybe someone out there can tell us.

My great grandfather spelled his name "Carl", but it's spelled "Karl" in the censuses and official papers. Carl is also one of the names that got "translated" into other languages centuries ago. Carl, Carolus, Karel, Charles, Carlos, Kaarle. The names of old Swedish kings who spelled it with "C" have now been standardised to be spelled with a "K".

Names beginning with an "I" sometimes used a "J" instead, and vice versa. Agfa Jsolette/Isolette. Jgestar/Igestar.

IVLIVS = Julius in a very old spelling.

 

[MTGseattle]

There are a few brand names in the pantheon of photographic equipment that are as intertwined and convoluted as Stanley/ Black and Decker in the tool world. It can be frustrating at times to get down to just where a given item originated.

One bit of speculation I have is that the serial number is pretty low. Perhaps they started from zero along with a change in the spelling?

Meyer Optik
Meyer Gorlitz
Are these also subtle variations to get around a patent?

1967 Burke and James catalogue yielded zero information.

 

[blee1996]

From the reflection of light, did you figure out if it is a Tessar type or Dagor type?

I guess for Burke and James, a German sounding name might be good for selling a rebranded lens?

 

[JPD]

Meyer Optik
Meyer Gorlitz
Are these also subtle variations to get around a patent?

No, the Meyer company was reconstructed a couple of times, changing hands and names. If I remember correctly, the name Meyer was dropped for a while when the company was integrated into Pentacon back when it was owned by the East German state.

 

[MTGseattle]

With the lens sitting on my desk under fluorescent light, I see 1 subtle reflection that almost looks like it is floating above the lens, and 2 very distinct reflections further into the elements.. The biggest reflection is the "deepest" one, the middle reflection has a slight lavender hue, and the "floating" reflection simply shows a hint of the fluorescent tube.

Blue Moon camera and machine has a "Karl Mayer" 10" super anastigmat in a copal 3 that has "dagor type" in parentheses on the barrel face.

Other than the example at Blue Moon I am completely striking out on info. Does anyone know who/what absorbed Burke and James when they quit?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Maybe they simply told the engraver to "use the made up name Carl Meyer/Karl Mayer for that batch", and the engraver spelled it as he or she heard it.



My great grandfather spelled his name "Carl", but it's spelled "Karl" in the censuses and official papers. Carl is also one of the names that got "translated" into other languages centuries ago. Carl, Carolus, Karel, Charles, Carlos, Kaarle. The names of old Swedish kings who spelled it with "C" have now been standardised to be spelled with a "K".

Names beginning with an "I" sometimes used a "J" instead, and vice versa. Agfa Jsolette/Isolette. Jgestar/Igestar.

IVLIVS = Julius in a very old spelling.

When I was putting together the family genealogy I learned that in the US during the 19th and early 20th century it was common for a family to have multiple spelling for the family names and often on given names on legal records and censuses.

 

[reddesert]

Burke and James used a variety of names for their products for colorfulness or marketing purposes, like "Watson." It seems likely that they made up Carl Mayer/Meyer because it sounded good, and possibly they weren't too consistent about the spelling. For some historical reminiscences by Lynn Jones including the Carl Mayer name, see https://jolommencam.com/American/Burke/page2.html although note that some people on the LF forum say you have to take some of Lynn Jones's information with a large grain of salt.

Burke & James was I think eventually bought by Ilex and then Burleigh Brooks and then that went out of business in the 80s. Calumet was in the same area and similar business - but not the same company. Both Burke & James and Calumet made the 4x5 monorail view camera that looks derived from an earlier Kodak 4x5, a complicated story explained here: https://www.largeformatphotography....n-View-Cameras&p=463308&viewfull=1#post463308

 

[David Lindquist]

Thank you for the picture. I caught the "Karl" with a "K" in your post but missed the "Mayer" with an "a" (vs. "Meyer" with two "e's"). Maybe as JPD suggests, who ever was operating the pantograph engraver at B&J that day turned out a bunch of Karl Mayer instead of Carl Meyer lenses...

David

 

[Romanko]

Names beginning with an "I" sometimes used a "J" instead, and vice versa.

In old German fonts I (eeh) resembled J, while J (yot) had a horizontal stroke that distinguished it from I. So it has always been Ihagee, Icarette and Igestar, but they were rendered differently in the older fonts. Of course, this does not solve the mystery of Karl vs. Carl and Meyer vs. Mayer.
Interestingly, Carl Paul Goerz spelled his name like this (Carl with C and 'oe' instead of umlaut).

 

[JPD]

In old German fonts I (eeh) resembled J, while J (yot) had a horizontal stroke that distinguished it from I. So it has always been Ihagee, Icarette and Igestar, but they were rendered differently in the older fonts. Of course, this does not solve the mystery of Karl vs. Carl and Meyer vs. Mayer.
Interestingly, Carl Paul Goerz spelled his name like this (Carl with C and 'oe' instead of umlaut).

Some older german Fraktur fonts used capital "J" for both "J" and "I": https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Lesehilfe_Fraktur.svg and the tradition of using capital "J" as "I" continued for Antiqua and even modern sans serif fonts. The "J" in "Jsolette", "Jsconar", "Jgestar", is the letter "J", but pronounced as an "I". But it's also correct to spell these names with an "I". Beginning an "I" name with a "J" is still done sometimes.

1962 "NEUE JLLUSTRIERTE" magazine: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/KB4AAOSwXh1gxeYJ/s-l1200.webp

Sometimes it's the other way around, like with "ISCO", which stands for "Josef Schneider & Co".

 

[JPD]

Thank you for the picture. I caught the "Karl" with a "K" in your post but missed the "Mayer" with an "a" (vs. "Meyer" with two "e's"). Maybe as JPD suggests, who ever was operating the pantograph engraver at B&J that day turned out a bunch of Karl Mayer instead of Carl Meyer lenses...

David

Or maybe someome thought that it was too obvious that "Carl Meyer" was "stolen" from Carl Zeiss and Hugo Meyer...

It would be interesting to know if "Carl Meyer" was a registered trademark by Burke & James. The spelling would have been important if it was. If not, then "Carl Meyer" was nothing more than an ornament, free to use. Unless someone else trademarked it and was in a similar business, and B&J had to change the spelling because of that.

 

[reddesert]

Or maybe someome thought that it was too obvious that "Carl Meyer" was "stolen" from Carl Zeiss and Hugo Meyer...

It would be interesting to know if "Carl Meyer" was a registered trademark by Burke & James. The spelling would have been important if it was. If not, then "Carl Meyer" was nothing more than an ornament, free to use. Unless someone else trademarked it and was in a similar business, and B&J had to change the spelling because of that.

That's easy to find out: search at https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-information
Searching for "Carl Meyer" shows: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=72107175
Burke & James applied for the trademark related to photographic lenses in 1960, registered in 1962, but the application says first use 1932 (perhaps a re-registration?). It expired 1987. Also, "Carl Meyer is a fictitious name."

Searching for "Karl Mayer" reveals that there is a German manufacturer of weaving and textile machinery, which still exists. B&J doesn't seem to have had a trademark on "Karl Mayer."

 

[MTGseattle]

I did some closer looking through the web archive Burke and James 1967 catalogue. "Carl Meyer" lenses all over within the various format/focal length offerings.
There is a specific block for 12" (300mm) -coated- f6.8 "Imported and economy specials" 8x10 lenses for general purpose and commercial photography focal lengths rage from 11-1/2 to 12-1/2" but all give good film coverage. In barrel with iris or in self cocking shutter.

There's a block just above for various coated, imported anastigmats all "from the best optical ships" and tested in our labs. But at f4.5

There are a couple of interesting super-wide no-movement cameras (B&J Orbitar) listed too in 4x5 and 8x10. I am going to do some more research on those.

I too ran into a bunch of the current Karl Mayer textile equipment info.

 

[Romanko]

But it's also correct to spell these names with an "I". Beginning an "I" name with a "J" is still done sometimes.

Thank you for the clarification. Josef Schneider and ISCO did puzzle me.

 

[JPD]

That's easy to find out: search at https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-information
Searching for "Carl Meyer" shows: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=72107175
Burke & James applied for the trademark related to photographic lenses in 1960, registered in 1962, but the application says first use 1932 (perhaps a re-registration?). It expired 1987. Also, "Carl Meyer is a fictitious name."

Searching for "Karl Mayer" reveals that there is a German manufacturer of weaving and textile machinery, which still exists. B&J doesn't seem to have had a trademark on "Karl Mayer."

Thank you, then the spelling is important. Textile equipment has probably nothing to do with this weave of mysteries.

Could "Karl Mayer" be seconds? The manufacturers of high quality tobacco pipes sold their seconds under different names in "secret", so there are similar discussions and speculations on pipe forums.

 

[Arthurwg]

Could be some kind of forgery.

 

[David Lindquist]

What is the shutter called? That could give us a hint if it is west German or GDR. If it is German at all, that is.

From what I can see this looks like an Alphax shutter, US made by Wollensak.

David

 

[MTGseattle]

Yes. It's an Alphax shutter. I'm pretty sure it's a #4 size. (I haven't measured anything with calipers yet)

When trying to evaluate coverage (both actual and potential), should I keep applying rear movements until I can no longer see the aperture through the clipped corners? Or, focus at infinity, pull the back off of the camera, and see how large a circle is projected? (there must be a thread or 2 on this already)

 

[MTGseattle]

OK. I can't find published data for the lens. No angle of view, etc. Trigonometry is out. I can mount the thing in my front standard and essentially remove the rest of the camera. Would this help me figure out coverage? I've read that looking through the clipped corners only gets one a rough idea.
Get lens mounted 12" away from a wall (12" focal length), shine a light through it, measure the circle? Is that a valid methodology?

 

[Dan Fromm]

OK. I can't find published data for the lens. No angle of view, etc. Trigonometry is out. I can mount the thing in my front standard and essentially remove the rest of the camera. Would this help me figure out coverage? I've read that looking through the clipped corners only gets one a rough idea.
Get lens mounted 12" away from a wall (12" focal length), shine a light through it, measure the circle? Is that a valid methodology?

Hmm. IF you want the circle at infinity, the lens' diaphragm will have to be 2 focal lengths (24") from the wall. Your procedure may measure the circle illuminated. The usual definition of coverage is the circle of good definition, whatever good definition means.

It would be better to put the lens on a camera, set shift and rise to maximum and take a picture. The subject should have fine detail in the corners. Many of the photos posted here and elsewhere have nothing in the corners. Nothing in the corners = no information about how far off axis image quality is acceptable.

The lens may be a Dagor type. If so, a single cell (remove the cell from the barrel when counting reflections) will show 2 strong and 2 weak reflections. The weak reflections can be hard to see. If it is a dialyte type, 4 strong and 0 weak. Tessar type is unlikely, but if it is one the front cell will show 4 strong, 0 weak and the rear cell will show 2 strong and 1 weak.

If an f/6.8 Dagor type, the angle covered is usually claimed to be 85 degrees. If a dialyte, 45 degrees. If a slow Tessar type 60 degrees.

 

[MTGseattle]

Thanks Dan. I know you know a lot about this stuff. I scanned through a lot of older lens data and was trying to average out lens types that were 12" and f6.8 I know that doesn't really get me anywhere solid, but it seemed logical at the time. I was hoping to get a ballpark coverage without wasting film. maybe this testing can be done with paper negatives. I agree though that there is coverage(illumination only), and coverage(acceptibly sharp).

In my above post, I tried to count reflections with the shutter closed which I thought would be the same as looking at the individual groups. I call into question my light source though. I'll do some messing around with the lens tomorrow.

As a further thought regarding Burke & James in their heyday, would they have been buying up single glass elements and doing their own cementing and mounting, or buying whole cell groups already cemented and making their own barrels? Or both? Factory seconds that didn't quite make the cut in Germany? Or possibly seconds make by a US maker and then assembled as "German" glass? It all seems so shady looking back on it.