BOXED BRASS MICROSCOPE ANTIQUE 1880's? | ||
| Microscopes18 of 28 |  |  |
USDA loves this.
trunkman loves this.
shareurpassion loves this.
tom61375 loves this.
Vrgdc loves this.
SEAN68 loves this.
racer4four loves this.
vetraio50 loves this.
blunderbuss2 loves this.
Jewels loves this.
fortapache loves this.
aghcollect loves this.
geo26e loves this.
walksoftly loves this.Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate
Posted 10 years ago
Phatbuddha
(220 items)
This is a nice find a BOXED BRASS MICROSCOPE
I don't know where it was made or the age,1880's is a guestament
It's in great condition and has three old slides with Indian Beatle n some fly and a dangerous playmate, not sure what that is ? Some bug I'm guessing.
This Microscope has no marks or makers name.
If anyone could fill me in with any information that would be great.
Help us close this case. Add your knowledge below.
Create an account or login in order to post a comment.
Great microscope and slides.
Enock was a well known naturalist and slide maker who made and SOLD slides for scientific study:
http://enockfamilyhistory.co.uk/Frederick_Enock_-_1845-1916.htm
IN NO WAY, does a label suggest that the slides were from his personal collection or that the microscope was his.
scott
Have you looked at the specimens with the microscope?
Nothing in my cited information contradicts your source-- just providing a LINK to information about the man who created and sold the slides.
Please provide a quote which explains that the address labeled slides are most likely from his personal collection.
Just because the slides are "uncommon" or not ordinarly encountered, I wouldn't equate that to being his personal items (NOR DOES YOUR SOURCE).
Apparently address labels are found in enough numbers to establish when he made the slides:
http://www.microscope-antiques.com/fairybeetle.html
Common sense also dictates that slides he was selling would have BUSINESS address labels (good for future sales). Why would Enock waste a business label on a slide made for his personal use?
scott
scott
Here is a link to 16 Enock slides that recently sold on ebay:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=enoch+slide&_ipg=50&_sadis=10&_adv=1&_sop=12&LH_SALE_CURRENCY=0&_osacat=0&_from=R40%7CR40&_dmd=1&LH_Complete=1&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xenock+slide&_nkw=enock+slide&_sacat=0
Of note, ONLY 4 of the slides have the additional address labels. In this way, I would call the address labels "uncommon" as they are not ordinarly encountered on ebay sales of Enock slides.
I don't know if this sample is a good representation of Enock slides in general.
Attributing the ebay slides (and THIS posting of slides and microscope) to Enock's personal collection is pure speculation and without documentation.
scott
Your notion that the address label signifies a personal item and that the microscope somehow belonged to Enock is UNFOUNDED.
I am simply providing PROOF of what I stated, so the owner doesn't believe the erroneous attribution (and waste time going in the wrong direction).
I would expect someone with 30 years in law to be able understand the difference in FACTS and SPECULATION.
Rather than attack me, why not provide some documentation to support your speculation?
scott
It is beneficial to understand the antiques field before "drawing presumptions" about ownership of an object.
Most antique collectors, dealers, and appraiser do NOT suggest provenance or attributions without evidence of the same.
Did I say that you were wrong? NO-- I said that the facts don't support ownership by Enock and that Enock's ownership is UNFOUNDED (NOT established, NOT based in FACT).
Could this microscope have belonged to Enock?
Of course, and it COULD have also belonged to President Roosevelt (or ANYONE else who lived after it was made). However, there is NOT a shred of evidence to suggest ownership by Enock (or Roosevelt).
Can I prove the negative: that it was NOT owned by Enock (or Roosevelt)?
Of course not-- that is the reason why it is important to establish the facts to support any suggestion of ownership (provenance).
Here is a posting on the dangers of "drawing presumptions" with antiques:
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/111805-rare-unpublished-cdv-of-general-us-grant
scott
Thanks for your info guys,it was really helpful
It got alittle heated in here so I tho I would wait to thank you.
Hiya Walksoftly, I did try but couldn't focuses properly, maybe it needs a clean ?
Hope your doing well
I'm doing well, thanks for asking.
The interesting specimen is the the dangerous playmate. What does R. A. stand for after a name?