Graflex Variations: Facts and vs. Replica

Fusion · Jun 30, 2018

I picked up another Folmer New York bottom. And I put my two bottoms together (no pun intended) with the tube slots oriented identically, so you can see how the orientation of the end cap can change from one unit to the next:

It has a pretty big scratch right in the center. Which is normal, but it didn't come cheap. When I checked to see how it would look with a Kobold clamp covering the bottom in the same orientation it would be all put together with the top, I discovered it looked like this:

Halliwax · Jul 2, 2018

Beauitful!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jcb443 · Sep 1, 2018

Hey guys! I just joined the graflex club and am sourcing parts as I type. I got my hands on a well used top and a peculiar bottom I was wondering if I could get some info on. For reference, the clamp is roman's and is awaiting a V2. The parts have come from different sources but I noticed the bottom had an odd feel to it in comparison to the top. In direct light, it became apparent that it had a bizarre machining marks to it. Looks as if it was spun aluminum, like the early 1910 WWI canteens. I haven't seen this anywhere else and wondered if it may have been buffed at some point. However, I would find it odd as it was covered in grime, filth, and years of dirt when I got a hold of it so if it was it would have been long ago. I tried to get some photos showing what I'm describing. I don't question the bottom as being a fake due to the age of the inside and the end cap stampings. Here's some pictures.

THX1138 · Sep 1, 2018

Looks like someone has took scotchbrite to try and clean it up. That's usually the result you get.

- Jim

Halliwax · Sep 1, 2018

THX1138 said:
Looks like someone has took scotchbrite to try and clean it up. That's usually the result you get.

- Jim

Exactly what I see

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jcb443 · Sep 1, 2018

Thanks fellas that's what I was considering, which is unfortunate to say the least considering it's an original. No worries though, the hunt continues.

jcb443 · Sep 2, 2018

Thanks fellas that's what I was considering, which is unfortunate to say the least considering it's an original. No worries though, the hunt continues.

Halliwax · Sep 2, 2018

jcb443 said:
Thanks fellas that's what I was considering, which is unfortunate to say the least considering it's an original. No worries though, the hunt continues.

You could always try graining it back, lightly hit it with some sand paper, I would try 600 grit and very lightly and carefully wet sand a area that is under the clamp section

See if you could get it to come back

Only scary thing is penetrating the finish and exposing the brass...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fusion · Sep 2, 2018

They call this "whizzing" in the coin collecting community. It seems most apparent on the bottom where there was some corrosion and appears that some of the stamping has been reduced in depth compared to the rest. This was a very popular thing to do back in the 60-70's and millions of silver coins were - by today's tastes - considered ruined by this treatment. It will end up cleaning off whatever is on the surface, alright, but also moves around the top layer of metal and that cannot be undone. On a collectible coin this really matters. Later, after this look went out of fashion, people would allow the coin to retone (tarnish) in hopes this would obscure the harsh cleaning.

If this happens to a coin, it's done. On an artifact like this, maybe you could anti-whiz? I'd be extremely cautious. Your basically trying to move the top few molecule layer back to the original configuration they were in to begin with. Might be tough to get it right.

At any rate, to the extent that you have a genuine part that you would be covering with grips and clamps etc, etc. and actually use for something... You might consider using it as-is. Unless you are looking to build an original Graflex for display.. After all, the original propmakers may well have run into and used similarly conditioned parts. Or even done a little bit of cleaning themselves. Are our reseources from that era hi-res enough to be able to tell? Not sure. I'm sure one of the Masters here could tell us.

jcb443 · Sep 7, 2018

Thank you @halliwax for the suggestion and @Fusion for the detailed write up. This is really the first prop related thing I'm ever going to do. Most of my passions involve collecting original WWI & II firearms, uniforms, helmets, and equipment so I had a pretty good idea that somewhere the bottom part had been tampered with at sometime. I've spent years going after original militaria and have a good eye and experience telling what's real from what's not. I could feel the difference in texture before I noticed it the distinctive pattern in the sunlight. The ironic thing is it won't show in photos unless you hit it just right with a light source. That, coupled with little knowledge of Graflexes other than reading this thread is how I ended up with it. It's unfortunate but it's also the reality. I find it hilarious about "whizzing"--both the term and the goal. Also, the fact that it went on around the time SW was being made is more than a little ironic.

Although one may be able to attempt to undo it, with my experience with firearms I believe it would only make the issue worse. At this rate you'd have to replicate the effect going in the reverse direction it was initially applied ,with the same amount of pressure, and it's only hypothetical and unproven. When I initially undertook the idea of doing this, I was going to go with a couple replica bottoms so I could switch out between SW and ESB versions without feeling bad for messing up an original bottom. Now, I'm strongly leaning toward just using this one as my thought process has been directly correlated with Fusion's. When the production companies made the films they just used what they had. I doubt the prop department cared about cosmetic issues at all, and were glad to have parts on hand for use.

CHalcyon82 · Apr 25, 2019

I got this cheap a while back and I'd like you folks to take a look at this and see what's up. The buyer advertised it as a 'replica' but I cannot recall anytime a replica maker created a Graflex bottom with the 'Manufactured by Graflex INC' stamp at the bottom except for Larbel and they had the very noticeable 'PB' tell on it. It's not as thick as your average Graflex bottom from what I've noticed by comparisons.

And forgive the first photo, it does have the little battery spring in it.

newmagrathea · Apr 25, 2019

CHalcyon82 said:
I got this cheap a while back and I'd like you folks to take a look at this and see what's up. The buyer advertised it as a 'replica' but I cannot recall anytime a replica maker created a Graflex bottom with the 'Manufactured by Graflex INC' stamp at the bottom except for Larbel and they had the very noticeable 'PB' tell on it. It's not as thick as your average Graflex bottom from what I've noticed by comparisons.

And forgive the first photo, it does have the little battery spring in it.

Roman also had stamped the bottom but not like that, it definitely doesn't have Roman's tells. I'm not sure what that is.

CHalcyon82 · Apr 25, 2019

newmagrathea said:
Roman also had stamped the bottom but not like that, it definitely doesn't have Roman's tells. I'm not sure what that is.

From what I recall, most replica makers who stamp tend to use the 'Folmer' stamp and not the latter 'Graflex INC'. Roman uses the Folmer stamp unless I'm incorrectly remembering things. Larbel is the only one I know going with Graflex INC but theirs had that previously-stated obvious tell. I wanna chalk this off as a potential custom-made but I wanted to know in advance.

eethan · Apr 25, 2019

lets wait for the pros to weight in, but I would have bought this one thinking it was a real one...

CHalcyon82 · Apr 25, 2019

eethan said:
lets wait for the pros to weight in, but I would have bought this one thinking it was a real one...

Truthfully that was one of the reasons I got this in the first place. I thought the person didn't know what they were selling. Hell, I'd still be that thinking if it wasn't for the fact that it's 'thinner' than any of the Graflex bottoms I have in my position. Unless they started to cheap out near the end of production.

d_jedi1 · Apr 28, 2019

I wonder if it isn't one of these..
Graflex Bottom Tube

thd9791 · Apr 28, 2019

Omg it has the same raised area around the "3"

Very close id say

eethan · Apr 28, 2019

but the graflex shop replica has the folmer engraving, why are you wondering if it could be one of those?

Ridire Firean · Apr 28, 2019

What eethan said. He types faster than I do!

Ridire Firean · Apr 28, 2019

Hey CHalcyon82 ! What seems odd to me is that it appears to have age weathering where the clamp would have been. Maybe the previous owner had it under a REAL GRAFLEX CLAMP and the rust transfered to and ate this bottom tube a bit? Or went way out of their way to replicate that kind of weathering, but then why sell it as a replica?

The more I look at it, the more I think it's a real 3-CELL BOTTOM. I can't recall a GRAFLEX INC. replica either beyond Larbel. And the spacing between TRADE and MARK looks correct too.

Does the upper end of the tubing appear to have been sanded inside? Like it had a battery leak, and that it had to be sanded down to remove the corrosion or something.

It is a bit odd that it seems to have a bevel around the lip of the open end of the tubing, but beyond that, and the tubing perhaps being thinner, I think the seller may have been mistaken about its origins, or accidentally sent you the wrong bottom tube.

Graflex Variations: Facts and vs. Replica

Well-Known Member

Legendary Member

New Member

Sr Member

Legendary Member

New Member

New Member

Legendary Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Attachments

Sr Member

New Member

Master Member

New Member

Sr Member

Master Member

Master Member

Sr Member

Sr Member

Similar threads