Pinkham & Smith Lens Question

Hello Everybody,

I'm hoping that someone out there (Jim Galli?) might have an answer for this question. I have a lens that I purchased a few years ago from a guy who had
both this lens and and Pinkham & Smith Visual Quality. So here's my question, my lens is NOT labeled P&S, instead it's a 'Pinkham 14" Bi-Quality" lens. So . . . what do I have here? A P&S lens, or something earlier or later?
I have placed on my 8x10 and the image on the ground glass looks beautiful
but I have yet to shoot film with it. Don't ask, long story. Anyhow, any help would be greatly appreciated.

One other question I have, anyone know how the Plaubel Anticomar 180/2.9 compares to the 150/2.8 Xenotar, the Cooke 165/2.5 Speedic and the Dallmeyer 200/2.9 Pentac in terms of image "look". Granted they're all different focal lengths but I'm curious.

Thanks

Robb

Your Pinkham is a slightly later model, built after Pinkham & Smith broke up. Same design, same quality. Enjoy it!

As for the speed lenses, I have used them all and they are all quite different. Of the four, I found the Speedic (178mm? Can't remember) I used to be the most prone to flare (making it difficult to use in sunlight), although the 165mm Anticomar could be problematic too. If you can find a Pentac in good shape, without the haze which seems to be omnipresent, they they nice lenses, although not terribly sharp wide open. My Anticomar was a tad sharper, and my speedic was pretty dull. The Xenotar is much sharper than any of the others. It is coated. Of the others others only the late model Pentacs were factory coated, and these tend to be as expensive as the Xenotars.

Coverage? the 180mm Anticomar, 150/2.8 Xenotar, and the 8" Pentac will all (just) cover 4x5 open wide. The 165mm Speedic is meant for 3x4.

Bokeh? My Pentac was nice. The Speedic, Anticomar, and Xenotar were less so. But be aware that the Anticomar came in two different designs, a Tessar design (like mine) and a triplet (like the Pentac). The triplet--from what I have heard--has nicer out-of-focus areas, but is VERY flare-prone. The Tessar is a bit uglier, but less flare. The Xenotar, IMHO, has a rather busy and ugly bokeh, but it is by far the sharpest. But then again, at f/2.8 sharpness doesn't really matter all that much, since your DOF is so small.

For what ever its worth, I now only own the Xenotar. I sold the others a few years ago, and have settled on using the Xenotar and an 11" f/3 Dallmeyer Petzval.