Take That You Goretex Wearing Wussies

Real men wear gabardine.
What Mallory Wore

Follow the bread crumbs (links) from the BBC story to the stories on Outdoors Magic to the This Is Cheshire site and use their search engine to search the archive for "Bonington" for a couple of interesting stories about Mallory and Bonington's opinions of Mallory, who was from that part of Britain.

I had read about this before... interesting to see if this stuff starts disappearing from the thrift stores and starts showing up on the trail...

And I thought they did find the camera, but I Googled for it and it still looks 'missing'. Rats. Would be cool if he did summit. From what I've read it seems plausible.

What's interesting is that in 2003, Chris Bonington was quoted as saying that they couldn't have made it because of their primitive gear. Now after the recreations, Bonington believes they may have. No, no camera yet. Bonington said even then, the pics might not be conclusive due to clouds, fog, etc.

So, it looks like one of the great mountaineering mysteries will remain so.

the guys at Kodak thought that if they found the camera and film, and kept it intact and frozen until it reached a lab, there was only a 50-50 chance of getting anything off of it due to UV exposure.

As to the clothing, let's wait till somebody actually climbs Everest in it. To be perfectly fair, Fritz Weissner, a German emigre to New York and incredibly visionary climber, basically climbed K2 in 1939 in pretty similar clothing. It's not the clothing, it's the person inside...

"To be perfectly fair, Fritz Weissner, a German emigre to New York and incredibly visionary climber, basically climbed K2 in 1939 in pretty similar clothing. It's not the clothing, it's the person inside... "

That is correct. Clothing and equipment would not have been the deciding factor for Mallory and Irving. They got close enough to the summit that the lack of modern gear would not have been the issue. Maybe some day they find the camera and hopefully the pictures are able to be developed.

I was wondering where the lost camera/film thing was headed.
Back in those days, fast film was ASA 100, and in bright snow conditions, opted for slow film....25 ASA maybe. I know in amateur astronomy, we use to "hyper" film by exposing it to liquid CO2 or nitrogen to push film speeds and resolution.
I have to wonder about film left at sub-freezing temps for decades, boosting it's sight sensitivity, while being bombarded by cosmic rays unfiltered by the atmosphere. The camera box was likely wood or thin sheet metal. However, the folks at Kodak are very savy with restoring old films. That would be quite a find if they could salvage an image and digitally enhance it.

Not likely to be 35mm film, either. The Leica Model A is generally acknowledged as the first 35mm camera, it didn't begin production until 1925. Prior to that, there were maybe a couple dozen prototypes in existence.

So it's likely a larger format, maybe 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 Graflex or larger. The size of the image may actually improve the chances of salvaging something if they can find the camera. If it's been encased in snow and ice, there's a chance that it's well enough preserved. The hard part would be finding it in such an environment.

Good points....wonder if 120 roll fill was available back then? It's got a light tight black paper roll sandwiched in there.....which improves the chances. I remember stripping rolls of tri-x and having to gather up the stinky paper after tanking the film....back in the day. Interestingly, I've pulled rolls of old film out of garage sale cameras (and my own stuff) that might have been 30-40 years old and found it developed out like it was shot that day. Encouraging......now, someone find that camera!

Dryer et all,
Yo,
Though from a theoretical point of view if the picture was taken and the film kept cold, it should contain the information in it chemically, however from experience I can tell you that if film isn't developed in a couple of years that the image will suffer. After so long, the original chemical info wouldn't be there anyway. If there was any image at all it could be processed, but it wouldn't prove whether or not they summitted. How many chemicals can you think of that remain stable over half a century?
Jim

I wouldn't be too worried about the physical quality of the emulsion or the celluloid. Exposure to heat and oxygen is what causes them to breakdown in normal use. On Mt Everest, it will have been stored in a very nearly ideal environment for preservation.

What's likely to be a problem is high levels of x-ray and other forms of EM radiation. At those altitudes, there is almost no shielding from the atmosphere. What could save it is a metal camera body along with a thick layer of snow or ice. It's also possible that the process of recovering it and transporting it off the mountain will cause irreparable damage. Difficult to say until you actually have the film in your possession.

Knowing what equipment they may have been carrying would help.

incidentally, "they" know exactly what kind of camera, what kind of film and even what the serial number of the camera was...anyway, talk about your needle in the haystack experience.

It was a Kodak Vest Pocket Model B.

Nothing to add - just wanted to name drop. A couple of years ago I had the honor to escort/guide Jake Norton when he spoke to my Rotary Club. His presentation was awesome. I cried like a baby during the audio of Mallory's interment ceremony.

Crackers-here's some info on the camera from a Nova show-as of 2000, they were still looking for it. My guess is it's with Irvine, whom they didn't find, if I remember right.
Nova

The Kodak Vest Pocket Model B, if folded, would probably protect the film pretty well. The metal box would have provided good shielding as would the paper backed film. Not sure about the chronology, though. The expedition was in June of 1924, the Model B started production in 1925. Perhaps they were given an early model. I found the following through google (I think my father has one of these, I know he has two old folding Kodaks. I'll have to look next time I'm visiting):

The Vest Pocket Kodak was a bestselling folding camera, of which 1.8 million were made and sold by Eastman Kodak (Rochester), from 1912 to 1926. It had a 1:6.8/72mm single meniscus lens.

The Vest Pocket Autographic Kodak was a version advertised as "Soldier's camera" during WWI It was manufactured from 1915 to 1926. The camera back had an area through which notes could be written onto the paper backing of the 127 film, a feature invented by Henry J. Gaisman. It had a Kodak Anastigmatic f/7.7 lens.

The Vest Pocket Kodak Model B was a later model, designed to make 4.5×6cm exposures on 127 film. Its lens was a doublet in a rotary shutter, or a Kodak Periscopic lens in a Kodak shutter. It was produced from 1925 to 1934 and cost $7.50. In the version Vest Pocket Autographic Kodak Model B it too had the "autographic" feature.

Tom, I just surfed all over the place reading stuff about Mallory. Great suggestion, Thanks

Thanks, I like reading that kind of stuff. I have an old camera similar to Mallory's, not sure what model, Got it at a swap meet years ago. I think it's in a box somewhere and haven't seen it in a while, but pretty sure it used some now unavailable roll film.

latest news about mallory at a site called everest news.com

This week, I found my father's old cameras. Sure enough, one of them is a Kodak Vest Pocket Model B.

Here are some pics of the Model B, a Model 2A, and a Brownie that was also made by Eastman Kodak.

Hey Paddy...that's a heck of a find. A 4.5x6 would be considered a medium format camera yet that looks fairly small in the photo. What does it weigh and what are its dimensions?

Unfortunately, my digital scale went on the fritz so I only have my three beam scale. The Brownie and the big Kodak both weigh more than 600 grams, which is the limit of what I can weigh. The vest pocket weighs a little less than a pound. I can post the dimensions later on...

OK, the Brownie is the largest at 8.5" X 3.7" X 2", then the Model 2A at 7.9" X 3.3" X 1.5", and finally the Vest Pocket Model at 4.8" X 2.5" X 1". These dimensions are all in the folded state.

I'm suprised at how small that is. I did professional photography for years with roll film and the equipment we used was much larger and heavier than that. I did an E-bay search and was shocked at the low prices that model brings today. Wish I had one from my father to pass to my grandsons though.

Thanks Paddy...interesting pics.