TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Artifact Analysis => Topic started by: Matt Revington on December 08, 2016, 02:14:44 PM

Title: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Matt Revington on December 08, 2016, 02:14:44 PM
I may regret bringing up this topic but I was looking at photos labeled AE arriving in Darwin (see below) and noticed something in her hand.  In her hand is a box with what looks like the image of a small jar on the front, somewhat recalling the notorious freckle cream jar.  The design on the box itself does not the match the one box of Dr Berry's that was found in the earlier round of research this topic but the product was offered over a 30 or 40 period so there may have been different designs.  Someone with good image processing software might be able to get a bit more out of this.
The article that this came from ( https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/28-june-1937/) .
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on December 08, 2016, 07:11:18 PM
Hi Matt,
Ricker Jones discovered that photo a few years back. Several TIGHAR members, including Tom King and I, have studied it. We think it may show a rectangular "carry-all style" fold-out compact, an example (http://www.ebay.com/itm/EVANS-Gold-Tone-Carry-All-Clutch-Evening-Purse-Two-Sided-Compact-Comb-Mirror-/262754717294?hash=item3d2d66ce6e:g:cncAAOSwpDdVLyJm) of which is now selling on eBay.

Tom King has written a reflective :D blog article (http://ameliaearhartarchaeology.blogspot.com/2012/09/artifacts-of-seven-site-compact.html) concerning the photo and other research on the two thin pieces of beveled glass found at the Seven Site.

I could go into more detail on the history of the research of this should there be any interest.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Matt Revington on December 08, 2016, 08:15:55 PM
Thanks Joe, this was much more likely a case of me seeing what I wanted to see in a low resolution image than anything else.
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 09, 2016, 07:32:16 AM
We think it may show a rectangular "carry-all style" fold-out compact, an example (http://www.ebay.com/itm/EVANS-Gold-Tone-Carry-All-Clutch-Evening-Purse-Two-Sided-Compact-Comb-Mirror-/262754717294?hash=item3d2d66ce6e:g:cncAAOSwpDdVLyJm) of which is now selling on eBay.

I don't think so.  That looks like a small cardboard box with some kind of label on it.
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on December 09, 2016, 08:14:23 AM
I don't think so.  That looks like a small cardboard box with some kind of label on it.

Well, it could be a box.

One important question is whether or not Earhart carried a compact on the world flight.

There is some evidence from a newspaper account she did.

Ricker wrote on June 20, 2012:

"A quote below is from Melbourne's The Argus newspaper's article describing Earhart's arrival in Darwin, remarking that she powdered her nose before she exited the Electra. Interestingly, there was also a photo taken in Darwin at that time which captured AE on the wing of the Electra with an item in her hand which looks like it could be a compact. The photo was published in the Adelaide The Mail in a story following the failed flight.

'Her navigator, Captain Fred J. Noonan, began to move from
the cockpit of the machine-"the flying laboratory"-as
the engines were shut off. But Mrs. Putnam pulled him
back. Then, nonchalantly producing a puff, she powdered
her nose before stepping out of the cockpit to wave
cheerily to the crowd. Her slide down the wing to the
ground followed.'

From The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848-1954), Tuesday 29 June 1937, page 9
"

Ricker, Tom and I have no basis to know whether or not any of these compact tales are true, but it's easy to understand why we think they may be true.

The photo and the story of AE "producing a puff" before deplaning could well have been referring to the same place and time, the Darwin arrival while on the wing of the aircraft, and therefore could well refer to the object AE is holding in the photo.

It's not unassailable. It's simply a reasonable possibility, probably to be no more than that, but it's the kind of thing I always find intriguing.


Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 09, 2016, 08:28:34 AM
I think it's entirely reasonable to think that Earhart had a compact with her on the world flight and I think that the glass and makeup found at the Seven Site are strong evidence for the presence of a compact, but I also think that "stretches" like saying that box may be a compact are counterproductive.
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on December 09, 2016, 08:58:31 AM
I think Ricker did a good job of defending his proposition, to the extent he was able. He didn't prove it; he merely tried to support it. Many a piece of good evidence starts out as a piece of weak evidence. To only share what one considers good evidence is to withhold the hard work in making it so and the opportunities for further research. Maybe there is another news article sitting in an Australian archive such as the one Ricker visited with an even better photo.

My only role here was to try to call up the research that had transpired and the discussions as they occurred and which are largely already available for public consumption. Assignments of "value" to that research will be left to others each according to his or her wits.

That may not be the last word on the subject, but it's really about all I can say.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078

Edit: There is one last word, however. In the interest of thorough citation, here are links to the article describing Earhart powdering her nose before deplaning in Darwin, and the photo showing a box in the shape of a folding compact, headlined "at Darwin":
Photo From The Mail (Adelaide, SA: 1912-1954, Saturday 3 July 1937, page 1) (http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/55929774?browse=ndp%3Abrowse%2Ftitle%2FM%2Ftitle%2F75%2F1937%2F07%2F03%2Fpage%2F4628134%2Farticle%2F55929774)

Article From The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.: 1848-1954, Tuesday 29 June 1937, page 9) (http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/11075420?browse=ndp%3Abrowse%2Ftitle%2FA%2Ftitle%2F13%2F1937%2F06%2F29%2Fpage%2F581941%2Farticle%2F11075420)
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Matt Revington on December 09, 2016, 10:18:07 AM
I don't know if the image of AE on the wing coincides with time of the powder puff use.  The page I took the image from includes a quote from AE which I assume came from the "Last Flight" book
"The country of this northern coast of Australia is very different from that surrounding Koepang. There jagged mountains rose against the dawn, while here, as far as one could see, were endless trees on an endless plain. The airport is good and very easy to find. We were pounced upon by a doctor as we rolled to a stop, and thereupon were examined thoroughly for tropical diseases. No one could approach us or the airplane until we had passed muster. If this work is done at all it should be thorough, and I approved the methods, although the formalities delayed refueling operations. The customs officials had to clear the Electra as if she were an ocean-going vessel, but that was done with much dispatch. Inasmuch as we had little in the plane but spare parts, fuel and oil, the process was simplified. At Darwin, by the way, we left the parachutes we had carried that far, to be shipped home. A parachute would not help over the Pacific.” —Amelia Earhart

There is someone behind AE on the wing of the plane in the photo who is looking into the cockpit . To my eyes he looks like an official (medical or customs), my guess would be the photo more likely coincides more with that moment.
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Ric Gillespie on December 09, 2016, 10:54:11 AM
I don't know if the image of AE on the wing coincides with time of the powder puff use.  The page I took the image from includes a quote from AE which I assume came from the "Last Flight" book
"The country of this northern coast of Australia is very different from that surrounding Koepang. There jagged mountains rose against the dawn, while here, as far as one could see, were endless trees on an endless plain. The airport is good and very easy to find. We were pounced upon by a doctor as we rolled to a stop, and thereupon were examined thoroughly for tropical diseases. No one could approach us or the airplane until we had passed muster. If this work is done at all it should be thorough, and I approved the methods, although the formalities delayed refueling operations. The customs officials had to clear the Electra as if she were an ocean-going vessel, but that was done with much dispatch. Inasmuch as we had little in the plane but spare parts, fuel and oil, the process was simplified.

They were actually impounded for ten hours.  Their smallpox vaccination certificates had been signed by a private physician and Australian regulations required that they be signed by a government health official.  They had to get a specia waiver from Canberra.

At Darwin, by the way, we left the parachutes we had carried that far, to be shipped home. A parachute would not help over the Pacific.” —Amelia Earhart

And yet, a newspaper account from Darwin specifically describes Earhart picking up two parachutes that had been sent to her in Darwin.  The parachutes can be seen in a stack of gear beside the cabin door.  Also in the stack is a bottle of nitrogen for servicing the landing gear struts, a spare tail wheel, and a control yoke.  it's not knownwhether thios stuff was being loaded aboard or off-loaded.

There is someone behind AE on the wing of the plane in the photo who is looking into the cockpit . To my eyes he looks like an official (medical or customs), my guess would be the photo more likely coincides more with that moment.

He's wearing short sleeves.  Definitely not Fred.

Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Krystal McGinty-Carter on December 29, 2016, 11:56:43 PM
Can I weigh in on what she might have in her hand?

Loose face powders were very popular in 1930's. Unlike a compact, loose powders went on with a fluffy, squishy "puff" rather than a thin pad like you would find in a flat compact. These powders were usually packaged in pasteboard or tin boxes, rather than compacts. They were designed to give full coverage and were meant to be used on the whole face to create a flawless "canvas" for the rest of the makeup, just like modern foundation.  The compacts were generally designed for touch ups, rather than doing the whole face....you'd run out of powder in 3 days.  Many of the American brand loose powders were packaged in round containers...however, many foreign brands, particularly European and Asian brands were packaged in square boxes and tins. She very well could be carrying a powder box. She wouldn't have powdered up her face for a long flight with no one to impress but Fred. It might make sense that she used loose powder...its faster and covers better. And it has a conspicuous "puff" to go with it.

-Krystal "Doesn't even wear makeup most of the time" McGinty
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Krystal McGinty-Carter on December 30, 2016, 12:00:56 AM
Here are a few.
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Jerry Stalheim on January 16, 2020, 02:21:33 PM
I found this photo doing research where she is wearing the exact same clothes and clearly holding something in her hands that looks like a camera, so could the Darwin arrival photo item be a small cameras, or maybe some part of her camera like film or lenses? Any input on this?  Realize nothing has been posted here in quite a while but just maybe something new.
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Don White on January 17, 2020, 04:42:23 PM
Is there documentation of AE having a camera and if so, anything about what kind?

I do not think the small box in the other photo is anything photographic. The distinctive markings on the box may help to identify it. Face powder does seem a plausible guess.

I have been studying the photo and I have some observations about the type of camera it may be, if this is not already known.

LTM,
Don

Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Matt Revington on January 18, 2020, 06:15:45 AM
The Luke field inventory listed Kodak film and an empty Kodak camera case and included a note that it was assumed that AE had taken the camera with her after the crash.  There have been posts in the forum suggesting that she carried a Brownie Model camera but I have not seen the original source for this.
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Don White on January 21, 2020, 04:21:54 PM
Here are my thoughts concerning the camera.

Matt said: "The Luke field inventory listed Kodak film and an empty Kodak camera case and included a note that it was assumed that AE had taken the camera with her after the crash.  There have been posts in the forum suggesting that she carried a Brownie Model camera but I have not seen the original source for this."

Kodak made nearly 100 different models called Brownie, but none of them looked like this camera. However, there are other Kodak cameras to which it has some resemblance.

Let's start with what can be seen in the picture. It is seen from almost perfectly straight down on the top. We can't see how tall it is, but the position of AE's hands holding it suggests to me that it is 3-4 inches tall. It also appears rather narrow, suggesting a small film size. It is mostly black (in the B&W photo) with some bright spots that might be shiny metal. At the right end (all directions from the point of view of someone holding the camera) is a large bright disc, with a smaller dot next to it. Near the middle of the back edge is a rectangular bright area, and at the left end is another bright area. There are some faint lines discernable on the top as well. There is what appears to be a lens protruding from the front, with a black area close to the camera body and some bright areas at the end. The end portion appears to be larger than the section connecting it to the camera.

The most common non-professional cameras at that time used roll film with a light-proof paper backing. It was made in many different widths, of which 120 is the sole survivor today. It was possible to have different image proportions on any given film size, though not usually in the same camera. An oblong shape, with the long side along the length of the film, seems to have been the most popular. Other shapes were square (as are most 120 film cameras today) or rectangular with the long side across the width of the film. I have two of the oblong shape cameras sitting here while I write. This camera appears to be too narrow for the large oblong sizes, and those usually have a long bellows between the lens and body, so I think this is a smaller film size. The shape of the lens suggests to me a small bellows with a standard leaf shutter and lens assembly on the end of it, which is bigger than the bellows itself. Some shading that might be the bellows is faintly visible. There were many cameras like this. The bright areas on the end of the lens are consistent with a typical lens which was partially or entirely brightly plated (in nickel or chrome), with the non-bright areas painted with black enamel. This is all consistent with the 127 or 828 roll film sizes, or 135 (35mm) which was just starting to become popular at that time. In 1934, Kodak introduced the daylight-loading 35mm cassette with which many of us are familiar. Before that, 35mm cameras all used proprietary cassettes that had to be loaded in a darkroom. Kodak also introduced the first of its Retina line of 35mm cameras in 1934, and other companies soon followed.

The large disc on the right end could be a film advance knob. The smaller dot next to it could be a shutter release, but is more likely to be a release button for the film advance. Most roll-film cameras with horizontal film travel advance the film from right to left, and have their advance knob on the left. Most 35mm cameras advance it from left to right (there are exceptions) and have the film advance knob or lever on the right.

There are other things that the bright disc could be. Some cameras had an exposure guide or film reminder in that location. Light meters were not  yet found on cameras, and indeed few people owned even a hand-held one -- they estimated exposure, which was good enough for slowish black and white film outdoors. The bright area on the left end could include another knob for rewinding film after it had all been exposed, if this is a 35mm camera. Roll-film cameras do not have rewind knobs. So we could be looking at an advance knob and rewind knob (35mm), or an exposure guide and advance knob (roll film).

The bellows assembly was supported by a track on a plate that folded up to be a cover when the lens was fully retracted and the camera not in use. This cover was either below the bellows or to one side of it. In this picture it is not below or on the left side, because it would show in the picture if it were. The only place for it to be is, if it is present, on the right, where it blends in with AE's trousers. Retina cameras had the cover on the right side. This seems to be an uncommon location based on my review of camera types.

The camera does look much like an early Retina, although I have not yet found an exact match for it among pictures of the Retinas that were available at that time. It looks more like some that were introduced after 1937. It may be I have not found the right pictures to match up with it. So while I won't say for certain that it is a Retina, it has some resemblance to one. I have been studying pictures of cameras looking for one that matches. I have not limited my search to Kodaks but indeed looked for anything that could match, that was available in 1937 or earlier.

Here are some of the places I've looked:

https://retinarescue.com/retinalist.html
http://www.brownie-camera.com/kodakcam.shtml
http://kodak.3106.net/index.php?p=216
http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Main_Page (and many sub-pages)

LTM,
Don


Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Jerry Stalheim on February 27, 2020, 01:27:43 PM
I found this online saying that a camera supposedly owned by AE was up for sale sometime ago and it is a Leica brand camera that looks very similar to the camera in the picture that I posted.

https://petapixel.com/2018/03/14/amelia-earharts-leica-camera-may-sale-ebay-70000/
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Don White on February 28, 2020, 06:23:07 PM
I'm glad somebody read my post. I thought I had bored everyone to sleep or they thought it not worth noticing.

It could be a Leica, and I did consider Leica when I wrote that. Obviously it's not the one for sale. I find the provenance interesting and not entirely credible. That's a very expensive gift to bestow  on the man who collects your laundry. Still, it has the card and the story and probably no one can disprove it now.

The one for sale is an early Leica, having no rangefinder (focus had to be estimated or measured), a simple viewfinder, and a non-detachable lens. These are retroactively designated Model I. Leica called it a Model A at the time. I have handled one of these -- a customer in the camera store where I worked in the late 1970s had bought one new in Germany in 1927 and still used it. One day he brought in the original receipt and box to show me. These early ones are black on brass (plus leather) like this one, except for the control knobs and lens, which are nickel plated.

The current model in 1937 was the IIIa, also known as G. It was made from 1935 to 1938. I owned one of these and I'm very familiar with it. By that time they had a coupled rangefinder on top. These days you can buy them for about $250, so I'm not surprised that the reserve on Amelia's wasn't met, even though a very early Leica such as the one for sale is worth more, and there's the celebrity provenance, if true.

Ken Rockwell has a nice writeup on the IIIa here: https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/screw-mount/iiia.htm

There is a top view for comparison in Ken's article.

I ruled out Leica for several reasons in my analysis of the photo. The camera in the photo appears to be a bit shorter (width) than a Leica, with more squared-off or "stop sign" ends rather than the Leica's round ends, and the pattern of black and bright areas didn't look right. Bright plated was much more popular than black, once it became available. Even if it was a black body, it has black showing where there would be plating. The mystery camera does look like it could have a rangefinder, but again it didn't seem to match exactly. Also the lend barrel (or bellows) appears to be black, while a Leica's lens was always bright plated, and it appears to be wider than the Leica lenses. The end which is bright looks more to me like the shutter assembly of a bellows-mounted lens than the end of a Leitz Elmar or Summar (the two normal lenses; they were sold with one or the other, usually the Elmar).

There was also the report that the Luke Field inventory included a case for a "Kodak Brownie" although we do not know on what basis that identification was made. It's "woman's size 11 shoe" all over again -- we have the conclusion but not the details on which it was based. But while someone might see a case marked Kodak and infer that it was a Brownie, they wouldn't misread Leica as Kodak.

However -- and this is all just an exercise for fun -- just like sextant boxes, the contents don't have to match the labeling, and like sextants, there's no hard evidence that any Kodak was on the second flight. I did a lot of looking through camera collector web sites looking for a match of any brand, and I never did find one with which I was totally happy.

So thanks for reading, and for finding the camera for sale, and for playing detective with me. Maybe we will solve this mini-mystery, and maybe we'll just enjoy trying.

LTM,
Don
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Matt Revington on February 28, 2020, 06:45:32 PM
Just to be clear the Luke field inventory listed an empty Kodak carrying case and did not specify any model it just noted that “it is believed that Mrs Putnam has the Kodak in her possession “.

When I went back to look again I noticed an entry just above that
 “ Kodak Duo Six-20, lens No. 865715 with carrying case, shutter housing No. 5116031, Film loaded”.  I apologize that I missed this the first time, she apparently carried two cameras and the duo six-20 might be candidate for the camera in the photo
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Don White on February 28, 2020, 07:48:16 PM
Yes, it could be. I thought it might be a Kodak Retina 35mm based on what looks like a film winding knob on the right side (a roll-film camera such as the 620 would usually have it on the left) but the basic proportions are close. I go into more detail in the original post including whether the bellows folds down or to the side, and how big the bellows would be.

I also looked again at the Leica for sale ad and found this:

"From memory over 40 years ago my Father told me that she found it fiddly to load, Miss Earhart may have studied photography, my Grandfather had said as much and described her as a keen photographer , she preferred a Kodak folding camera as I recall being told..." Which is in fact what she is said to have brought in the Electra.

I can attest that early Leicas are very fiddly to load. It was Kodak's introduction of the daylight-loading 35mm cassette pre-loaded with film that made 35mm still photography popular. In the picture of Amelia's Leica, the black cylinder next to the camera is the Leica film cassette, which had to be loaded in a darkroom (they can accept the standard Kodak cassette too, which I always used). You were supposed to buy a bulk roll of 35mm movie film and load them yourself. With care it was possible to fit in enough for 50 frames. Bear in mind that the original Leica was designed by an engineer for his own use. It reminds me of certain other examples of brilliant but uncompromising German technology. I'll never forget changing the generator on a 1969 VW Beetle on the side of the road during a snowstorm. Right after that I sold it and bought my third Model A Ford.

And that said, I wish I still had my Leica IIIa...

LTM,
Don
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Ross Devitt on February 29, 2020, 02:47:19 AM
Quote
Matt said: "The Luke field inventory listed Kodak film and an empty Kodak camera case and included a note that it was assumed that AE had taken the camera with her after the crash.  There have been posts in the forum suggesting that she carried a Brownie Model camera but I have not seen the original source for this."

I know this is not an Amelia's Cameras thread, but..
The Luke Field Inventory says Amelia had 2  Kodak cameras, but only one type (620 SS Panchromatic) film.  That would suggest both cameras were 620 format, which makes sense on a world trip.  But there is no clue as to what the second camera might be.

As Matt posted, Amelia had one of these Kodak Duo 620 cameras - and it is listed on the inventory 'WITH' its carrying case.
In addition there's another Kodak carrying case, 'Empty'.  And it has a key.  Why?  Was it a more expensive Kodak? 

Somewhere on the forum I was sure I saw a reference to Amelia having a 'Box Brownie'.  I still have one here, and I also have some 620 film 'somewhere safe'.
Both of my Box Brownies had leather cases, but I can't remember either having a 'key'.
I'd sort of associate a key with something a lot more expensive ( in terms of the time) than a Box Brownie.
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Matt Revington on March 02, 2020, 12:09:01 PM
I did a  non-exhaustive search of vintage Kodak cases online, the only cases I saw from that period with locks were movie cameras , 16 mm and 8 mm.  I do not know of any evidence that she carried a movie camera but a publicity savvy person like AE might have.  I have attached a picture of a case for a 1930s Kodak movie camera as an example ( Cine Kodak Model E 16 mm, the ad I took this from said it was bought to film at the 1939 World's Fair)
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: James Champion on March 02, 2020, 06:18:52 PM
Something I'm wondering about. If the Luke field inventory listed an empty Kodak case how did the officer doing the inventory know it was a Kodak? Were most Kodak camera cases stamped "Kodak". Or was the term "Kodak" sometimes used back in the 30's to indicate "camera".
Title: Re: Darwin arrival Photo
Post by: Matt Revington on March 02, 2020, 07:00:55 PM
If not labeled on the case there could be instruction cards inside with the camera make on it,