MicrobeHunter.com Microscopy Forum

I haven’t seen a side by side comparison of microscopes from different manufacturers like this, so I thought I’d do one. My dates are from the ‘How old is that microscope in the window’ document in multiple places on this forum.

The Spencer 13 MLH S/N 217958. 1944 on the left, and a Bausch & Lomb S/N TB9909 1946 on the right.









Interesting how the controls are in so similar positions. An operator could move from one to the other without fumbling.

These were each $50 USD from the bay. When you purchase a $50 microscope, you need to expect to spend some time cleaning it, but these were exceptionally scrotty.

I found the B&L first, and was saying to myself as I cleaned 70 year old fossilized finger oil from between the knurling with a dissecting needle that I would probably never see one this dirty again.

Well...

Then the Spencer arrived. The seller said this microscope was used in his father’s medical practice for 40 years and used daily for urinalysis.
I will in future have a new appreciation for that sentence.
This stand was covered in dry urine. The condenser was covered in the stuff.
The 44x objective looks to have been dipped in it and put away wet. It is pitted by corrosion and the brass collar around the lens is partially rotted away. The mechanical slide clip was not in much better shape. The iron base is rusted and will need paint for the final restoration.

But as you see, an afternoon of elbow grease applied to each and they look pretty nice.
Both work about as well as any 70 year old microscope. Both are a little yellow. Probably mouldy prisms.

Hope someone finds this interesting.
Enjoy
Jim

Very nice. You should do an article for the magazine. We need articles!!!

Do I guess correctly that these microscopes can be tilted, so the the mirror is raised, and the eyepieces slope at an angle of about the same slope as on younger microscopes?
That might explain why it was covered with dry urine, perhaps. It would have been tilted when used, so specimens could drip on the tilted stage, from there to the condenser and mirror etc.
Anyway, such a restoration job as you did must have been motivated by deep love and appreciation of microscopes.
Impressive!

I’ve been thinking of writing an article on B&L control positions across the late 1940s compared to one from 1959. Mostly would revolve around the position of the fine focus. But that is embryonic at this point.

I would probably put it together in Word and would need to know if Oliver can work with that or if a pdf would be better.

Hobbyst46 wrote:Do I guess correctly that these microscopes can be tilted, so the the mirror is raised, and the eyepieces slope at an angle of about the same slope as on younger microscopes?
That might explain why it was covered with dry urine, perhaps. It would have been tilted when used, so specimens could drip on the tilted stage, from there to the condenser and mirror etc.
Anyway, such a restoration job as you did must have been motivated by deep love and appreciation of microscopes.
Impressive!

Yes they pivot. More used with a monocular tube, I think. Both have interchangeable head systems. I only have one for the B&L scopes.
Not so sure that I, as an operator would want that dribbling into my lap, but each to his own pleasure.

Yes, very interesting post, thanks for taking the time and trouble!

What's the lens fixture (what it looks like) on the #735 lamp in the background in the last photo?

But as you see, an afternoon of elbow grease applied to each and they look pretty nice.

They certainly do. Very nice. Back in the day when we were doing dozens of these scopes every week we decided to purchase an ultrasonic cleaner. After a few minutes of cooking in a suitable solvent the knurled knobs sparkled.

I'm looking forward to your comparisons.

lorez

KurtM wrote:Yes, very interesting post, thanks for taking the time and trouble!

What's the lens fixture (what it looks like) on the #735 lamp in the background in the last photo?

That’s a polarizing snoot. An analyzer sandwiched in an eyepiece crosses when I twist it.

Very interesting - thanks! What does it do for you?

All cleaned, detailed and waxed.

Radazz wrote:I’ve been thinking of writing an article on B&L control positions across the late 1940s compared to one from 1959. Mostly would revolve around the position of the fine focus. But that is embryonic at this point.

I would probably put it together in Word and would need to know if Oliver can work with that or if a pdf would be better.

He can work with Word. That is how I have submitted my articles.

Cool, I thought I’d do it in word with post image calls and copy and dump it th the forum. Unless we are talking about the magazine, In which case I need guidelines

Beautiful acquisitions to your..err..family of stands,Jim. Thanks for sharing these stands, terrific you know the work life of one of them. I always found, with my eBay approx. $50 purchased vintage stands...the shipping cost was another approx. $49 due items weight. I love these black enamel instruments you share with us, Jim. Charlie guevara

Thank you all. I’m in the process of photographing the stands to illustrate the comparison.