# Vintage mystery camera



## snoogins (Jul 21, 2014)

Hi folks,
Trying to identify the camera this woman is holding - photo is circa 1963.
Apologies for the quality - the scan is from a contact sheet.







Cheers


----------



## timor (Jul 22, 2014)

She is holding a box. Are you sure it is a camera ? It appears that some light is coming out of that box, not very much camera like behavior in pre digital times.


----------



## limr (Jul 22, 2014)

^^^ This. The image quality is very poor. The only thing we can tell is that it is vaguely box-like, which pretty much limits your possibilities to something like an older Kodak 620 box camera or, well, a box.


----------



## TWright33 (Jul 22, 2014)

Oh that's no mystery

That is a d7100


----------



## snoogins (Jul 22, 2014)

Hi again,
Yes I'm sure it is a camera, as she can be seen using it in other photos.

This is, unfortunately, the only photo that comes close to showing any detail at all of the camera. Hopefully someone familiar with old box-type cameras will recognize it as one they've seen before.


----------



## limr (Jul 22, 2014)

snoogins said:


> Hi again,
> Yes I'm sure it is a camera, as she can be seen using it in other photos.
> 
> This is, unfortunately, the only photo that comes close to showing any detail at all of the camera. Hopefully someone familiar with old box-type cameras will recognize it as one they've seen before.



The thing about those old box cameras? You know why they were called "box" cameras? Yup, because they looked like a small box. Without seeing the detail on the front or the text or other features such as the viewfinder or straps more clearly, it's not clear that anyone would ever be able to identify it definitively. 

What I'll say is that if it IS a box camera, it's probably an older version. The cameras in the 1960s were starting to get smaller, so it's possible the camera was from the 50s or even earlier. Just look at these images:
https://www.google.com/search?q=195...iDcaOyAScg4DQBg&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=685

https://www.google.com/search?q=kod...biw=1280&bih=685#q=1940s+box+cameras&tbm=isch


----------



## limr (Jul 22, 2014)

If you have other pictures of the woman using the camera, perhaps you could post those as well. It might help to narrow things down a bit as not every camera is used the same way.


----------



## compur (Jul 22, 2014)

It's an Ansco-Matic Whoopie-Snapper Model 2 Special Edition with snakeskin covering.  Only one example was ever made and it was last seen in Dallas on a certain November day near the grassy knoll in 1963.




snoogins said:


> ... photo is circa 1963.



_Circa_ 1963? How coy.


----------



## limr (Jul 22, 2014)

compur said:


> It's an Ansco-Matic Whoopie-Snapper Model 2 Special Edition with snakeskin covering.  Only one example was ever made and it was last seen in Dallas on a certain November day near the grassy knoll in 1963.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you saying this is the Babushka Lady? Babushka Lady - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## compur (Jul 22, 2014)

^ You have correctly guessed the _event _that I alluded to in my post. However, the identity of the person in the photo is a matter I will leave to the OP to discuss as he/she is the one who brought it here for discussion.


----------



## snoogins (Jul 22, 2014)

compur said:


> ^ You have correctly guessed the _event _that I alluded to in my post. However, the identity of the person in the photo is a matter I will leave to the OP to discuss as he/she is the one who brought it here for discussion.


Indeed you have guessed it (I wondered how long it would take).

There are other photos of her appearing to hold it directly in front of her face with both hands, so it would seem that it is a type with the viewfinder in the back, not on top.


----------



## compur (Jul 22, 2014)

I was, of course, joking about the identity of the camera. The photo above is too indistinct to ID it. I don't think anyone could from that photo.

Film camera viewfinders are normally on top of the camera. Placing a VF on the back would mean that the film would be in the way. An exception would be view cameras with bellows and removable single sheet film holders but it doesn't appear that the woman in the photo is holding such a camera. It looks more like a simple box camera to me. Such cameras do have a window in the back so the photographer can read the frame number printed on the back of the film inside and they are usually dark red or green requiring peering into it at close range to read the number.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 22, 2014)

Darn, and here I wanted to go get one of those Whoopie Snappers! now I find out they exist only in Compur's imagination!

I agree it looks like a black box camera. I think she's actually holding the camera facing her, and what we're seeing is the lens (that appears as a grayish/whitish circle) reflecting the sunlight. That may have occurred to me because I often carry a camera with the lens facing and somewhat tucked against me especially if I'm walking in a crowd.

If I look close (take my glasses off) I see a lighter mark that might be the window that would be on the front of the camera where the image is projected onto the mirror. If it has a lens then it probably wouldn't be a real early box camera, I have more than one that doesn't have a lens, just a - hole (opening, whatever). But it doesn't look like an art deco style that had a metal design on the front; it doesn't look like a midcentury bakelite or vest pocket that often had a viewfinder on top of the camera. So I'm guessing it's from early 20th century. 

I wonder if what appears top left (that is probably actually the top right side of the camera) isn't a viewfinder but is actually the strap or handle. Those usually go front to back or diagonally across the top of the box camera but they seem to often be broken - I've gotten cameras with the leather(ette) handle missing, or torn partly off. Maybe it's only attached to the front top of the camera, it seems to be at a somewhat odd angle - and that could explain why she's carrying it underneath. 

I would guess the woman is not all that young, because the scarf and raincoat don't seem to be a style that would be worn by someone younger in the '60s; and by '63 there would be much more modern cameras but it wasn't unusual for people to keep cameras and still use them for years. So maybe she's the original owner of the box camera? 

As far as the grassy knoll or gravely road, hmm, seems like Kramer and Newman were involved in an incident there... (but more likely in '93!).


----------



## snoogins (Jul 22, 2014)

Here is a page with a bunch of photos where you can see how she is holding the camera
The Babushka Lady

With the viewfinder I meant it doesn't appear that she is looking down into the top of the camera.

Excellent observation about holding it lens-inward.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 22, 2014)

I don't see how you could tell much of anything from those pictures. Usually box cameras didn't have a viewfinder on the top... but yeah I see how she's holding it up. If it's not a box camera it doesn't look like something more modern in that size and shape but I can't think what camera looked like a box with a viewfinder on top. There are some in bakelite that have a finder that goes front to back on the top and are like a teeny tiny tunnel to look thru but it doesn't look like one of those. Viewfinders on many vest pockets etc. were rigid or fold down and in metal not black so would probably have reflected some light.

I just can't think what had a black viewfinder on top that had this appearance. 

Is it a still camera? I don't think it looks like a movie camera either but then I don't know as much about those.


----------



## limr (Jul 22, 2014)

So, why are we suddenly interested in the type of camera the Babushka Lady shot?


----------



## snoogins (Jul 23, 2014)

limr said:


> So, why are we suddenly interested in the type of camera the Babushka Lady shot?


To determine whether it was a movie or still camera - there was a woman who came forward and claimed to be her, and to have had her film confiscated, but her story is full of holes. If it can be shown that it is a still camera, that would basically end it once and for all.


----------



## limr (Jul 23, 2014)

snoogins said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > So, why are we suddenly interested in the type of camera the Babushka Lady shot?
> ...



I understand that, but it doesn't explain _the interest_ in proving or disproving what she said. That woman came out in 1970 and it seems generally accepted that her story had too many holes. (One of the holes, of course, was about the camera. She claimed to be shooting a camera that didn't even exist yet.) So why is it suddenly a topic again after 44 years?

Is it just an ongoing curiosity for you? Was interest stirred up by the recent 60th anniversary or something? That's what I was asking. I was curious.

Well, regardless of why, I don't think there is anything definitive that can be said about the camera from that shot.


----------



## compur (Jul 23, 2014)

snoogins said:


> ...but her story is full of holes.



Is there someone's story about that event that isn't full of holes?


----------



## sm4him (Jul 23, 2014)

Actually, I'm pretty sure that isn't a camera at all. It's a box, cleverly designed to LOOK like a box camera and inside was a tiny, but very powerful weapon. the "shutter" was actually the trigger. Based on this evidence, I believe the Babushka lady to be the second shooter.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jul 23, 2014)

compur said:


> snoogins said:
> 
> 
> > ...but her story is full of holes.
> ...



Jesus christ I'm going to hell for laughing at this...


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 23, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> compur said:
> 
> 
> > snoogins said:
> ...


True, but when you get to hell, not to worry, check out the lobby, you'll see several pictures of me there and it will make you feel right at home.

Employee of the month, 6 times now... lol


----------



## petrochemist (Jul 23, 2014)

Many early cameras could be fitted with Sports finders - basically a couple of wire frames -that allowed framing of the shot over the top of the camera. I don't think they're common on box cameras, but it adds another possibility.


----------



## mdontiknowyou (Jul 23, 2014)

TWright33 said:


> Oh that's no mystery
> 
> That is a d7100
> 
> View attachment 80071



lol ! That made me giggle =P


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 23, 2014)

Gee I never knew all this... What occurred to me is that there's probably a simple and rather unexciting explanation to why no other photos surfaced that appeared to have been taken from her vantage point - maybe none of the pictures turned out. I've done sports and events and you have to get good at being able to capture what's going on as things happen fast and unexpectedly - all of her photos may have had shutter blur, movement blur, were badly exposed, etc. Or the drugstore lost the film! or who knows what. 

You could try looking up movie cameras, but it seems like those were usually more rectangular than boxy, and some older ones had turret lenses that would probably be pretty obvious in a photo. I thought maybe an old Bolex? but anything I think of and look up doesn't quite look like a possibility. No movie film ever showed up either did it from that time period that could have been shot from there?  

Maybe someday some relative or other will find some negatives in a shoebox, otherwise I don't know that you can get anything conclusive from the existing photos of the scene.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 23, 2014)

submitted for Ridiculous thread of the month award ..


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 23, 2014)

There could be a lot of contenders for that award. I enjoy a good mystery but this seems to be somewhat reinventing the wheel. 

If nothing else I enjoyed getting out one of the books I have, '500 Cameras' from the George Eastman House, and enjoyed looking at all the pretty cameras (and forgetting about why I got it out in the first place).


----------



## snoogins (Jul 23, 2014)

vintagesnaps said:


> Gee I never knew all this... What occurred to me is that there's probably a simple and rather unexciting explanation to why no other photos surfaced that appeared to have been taken from her vantage point - maybe none of the pictures turned out. I've done sports and events and you have to get good at being able to capture what's going on as things happen fast and unexpectedly - all of her photos may have had shutter blur, movement blur, were badly exposed, etc. Or the drugstore lost the film! or who knows what.



That is part of the reason I asked initially - there is an alternate story from a Kodak technician about a woman bringing in at least one photo from the assassination scene that was far out of focus. Nailing the type of camera down would kill one sorry and send the search (however futile) in a different direction.

From the responses in this thread I've begun looking at it from a different perspective - I think she is holding it on its side, lens facing her. Hoping to get a copy from the negative so I can confirm a model and change the direction the story has been going for 40 years.


----------

