![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Magnifiers: a closer look (XVIII) |
![]() |
Fig. 1: The so-called Nimrud-Linse in the British Museum.
It was found in an ancient city called Nimrud (today in Iraq), excavated by Austen Henry Layard in 1850.
|
(2) The scholarly opinion, pointed out e.g. by Wolfgang Gloede [Gloede 1986]
is delivering a contradictory account, based on practical craftmanship: |
Source: Richard Greef, 1921, quoted by [Gloede 1986] |
It appears that even in much more modern times magnifiers were absent in workshow environments. Let's have a flashback look into a renaissance workshop (below), run by Étienne Delaune, a famous french goldsmith and engraver. The apparently older master is bearing spectacles which were quite usual at this time but there are no traces of classical magnifying devices whatsoever. |
![]() |
Fig, 2: Scenery in a goldsmith's workshop
run by Étienne Delaune. Reproduction of a historical engraving stored
in the Louvre collections, dating back to 1576.
|
![]() |
Fig. 3: Detail of fig. 2. Though it appears that fine engraving work is performed in this scenario, the younger workers are apparently managing without any magnifying device. Only one of the men, presumedly the eldest is bearing spectacles. This type of spectacles, fixed to the head by strings ist typical for the period. Besides, those slim strings are not visible on this picture - but without them the master would have lost his spectacles! |
When jumping to the 18th century folding magnifiers appear to have been abundant, probably used as a kind of bargain spectacles as well. We are going to show two examples of this type below: |
![]() |
Fig. 4: A very old folding magnifier,
made of horn, with a rather low magnification, possibly used liked spectacles.
Length of housing (closed) 9.5 cm, weight 38,1 g.
The handle shells are markedly convex. Rivets made of iron.
Colorless glass, but with hefty bubble inclusions, visible by means of the bare eye.
The lens edges appear to be ground in a very rough manner.
5.7 diopters (a value which translates to a very weak, ca. 1.5x magnification).
|
![]() |
Fig. 5: A further, very old oval folding magnifier,
made of horn as well. Length of housing (when closed) 7.9 cm, weight 78.0 g.
Again with markedly convex handle shells. Rivets in brass with central iron pins.
The lens holder ring bears traces of a vivid dark green colour, probably original!
The glass is colorless, with bubbles similar to the ones in the glass of the magnifier shown in fig. 4.
We measured the 3.7 diopters (translating to an extremely low magnification of ca. 1.25).
|
![]() |
Abb. 6: detail - a rivet of the oval magnifier. Diameter ca. 5 mm. |
Funny enough the air bubbles within those old lenses typically are not spherical but kind of oval, thus revealing a very dynamic production process: |
![]() |
Fig. 7: typical distorted bubbles in the lens of the instrument shown in fig. 5. The height of this bubble is ca. 0.2 mm - not visible with the bare eye. |
The 18th century is marking a kind of type explosion in
magnifier making, with myriads of product variations. It must be assumed that in this period
a broad variety of professional uses was building up (in textile trade, engraving, jewelry assessment etc.).
|
In the upcoming issue of the journal (in May) we will present and discuss an early model of a so-called "Nuremberg type" handle magnifier. The June issue will illustrate how ancient engravers might have enhanced their vision capabilities without the use of glass lenses! |
Literature
|
© Text, images and video clips by
Martin Mach (webmaster@baertierchen.de). |