Re: 19th century stereoviews

[P3D John Weiler <jweiler@xxxxxxx>]

I second Richard Wood's defense of 19th century stereoviews.  Many
early publishers obviously cared about the quality of their work,
judging from what has survived.  Many are quite sharp and detailed due
to the fact they were contact printed, often they were composed for
effective stereo effect, and have excellent tonal gradation with rich
prints.  Keep in mind that they generally didn't concern themselves
with the "stereo window", but other than that many images are wonderful
by modern standards.  This is all the more remarkable when you
consider the difficulty of wet-plate photography in the field.  I have
many fine views in my collection, and I appreciate and treasure them.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of really crummy views out there
- some photographers weren't skilled or caring enough to produce good
images and many have suffered from overuse.  These views tend to be
readily available, because the good ones quickly find their way into
collections (or into the stock of photographica dealers), while the
dreck remains a turnoff to potential collectors who don't realize that
great views were made and are worth collecting.  Other views are 
still quite desirable due to their historic content even if the
photographer had less success overcoming the limitations of 19th
century photographic technology than many of his colleagues.  Good
views can be found in the antiques marketplace, but usually you have to
paw through lots of poor views in hopes of finding better items.  I'm
sometimes almost embarrassed to admit to antique dealers that I collect
stereoviews, since they've usually only seen views that are what is
left after people have picked through them for years, and the dealers
will not think much of my tastes in antiques!  If they saw my
collection or the collection of many others, they would gain a
different perspective.  You can't judge all views by the mediocrity
that's most commonly seen.

The 20th century mass-produced curved-mount views (Keystones, U&U, H.C.
White and the like) often have a high level of quality and are usually
more reasonably priced.

I hate to say this as a buyer, but considering their often intrinsic
historic and aesthetic value and the relative scarcity of many
individual images, stereoviews are underpriced compared to the current
market values of many relics of days past, much in the same way that
well-made 50s stereo cameras are real bargains for $100-200, when you
consider what they cost new and how much new junk the same money
will buy today.  

John Weiler
Columbus OH
jweiler@xxxxxxx
 


------------------------------