There's been quite a discussion on the forums regarding Jim Galli's comparisons of classic lenses such as the Pinkham & Smith.   I have 2 of these lenses now, the P&S Visual Quality in a 12" focal length, and a P&S Semi-Achromatic Doublet SeriesIII, NoIII(NoIII means a 16").  I had a Cooke PS945 which I had gotten after pursuing the elusive Pinkham & Smith lenses for approx. 4-5 years and giving up all hope of ever getting one of these lenses, and then as luck would have it, as soon as I purchased the Cooke, I found out about the Visual Quality, and then the S.A. Doublet.  Having acquired the Visual Quality, which the Cooke was based on, and considering the fact that the VQ was a 12" focal length as opposed to the Cooke's 9", and considering the fact that in addition to being able to use the VQ on both 4x5 and 810, the Cooke then became expendable.

   I had Adam Dau of SK Grimes convert my VQ from a barrel lens to 'in shutter', so I could I use the lens for strobe-portrait photography by matching the 'in shutter' conversion to an Ilex #5 shutter.   The Art-Deco look of the conversion looks so right to me, I couldn't imagine my 'in shutter' version not being close to an interation of what the VQ would look like if the lens were being produced today.

   The P&S Semi Achromatic Doublet, SeriesIII, NoIII, is the most amazing lens I've ever laid eyes on.............even when I first saw the lens after I purchased it when it was in the most terrible of shape.  It had approx. a solid 1/8" thich coating of dried mud/grease/grime/dirt/corrosion/whatever, and was totally encrusted to where you couldn't see the glass very clearly except to make out that there was a prominent separation in the rear group that needed to be repaired.

   Physically, the lens is humongous, and reminds me of a small beer keg, and I'll point out in reference to the image I've uploaded, that the lensboard the SA Doublet is mounted on is a 158mmx158mm Toyo lensboard.  The lens comes w/an equally humongous #6 Studio shutter, which I didn't even know existed until I got this lens.  The shutter is bigger than it looks in my pic, and is wider that the 158mm lensboard!!!!

   There were several points in the restoring of this lens where the very attempt to restore the lens, could've destroyed the lens.  Corrosion was eating holes into whatever metal alloy Pinkham had used to make this lens, and the barrel needed to be dunked in a chemical bath according to Adam of SK Grimes to get rid of/stop the corrosion process, before Adam could repair the holes.  Adam was very concerned about the type of alloy used in this barrel which was not a modern alloy, and how it would react to the chemical bath.  

    John Van Skelton was going to clean off the encrusted grease/grime/dirt off the front and back groups, and then heat and separate the rear group to repair the basalm sep and reglue the rear group w/moder UV cement.  There was the very real possibility which John made clear to me, of destroying the glass while it was being heated to get the elements apart. 

     The #6 shutter was inoperable, and the piston used ot actuate the shutter was froze solid, from the lens being left to rot outside in horrible conditions, and the repair of this shutter seemed hopeless.

      This story had a happy ending, because of the miracles worked by these consumate technicians,  John Van Skelton cleaned off the glass, got the rear group apart w/out cracking either element, and the glass looks beautiful.  Adam was able to repair strip off all the corrosion, repair all holes, machine a custom flange, and paint the barrel.   Caro Flutot worked the supreme miracle, she unfroze this shutter, got the piston to working, and this humongous shutter works like a charm, every time.

      The restoration of this lens took quite a while, and while it was being restored, I read everything I could get my hands on, regarding all of the lenses in the P&S line.   I even contacted the musuem curator in charge of the Alvin Langdon Coburn P&S collection regarding his lenses.   I'll state here that the curator mentioned that the one lens they don't have is the SA Doublet SerIII.

     I've also talked with an individaul that has just about every lens Pinkham ever produced, and to Barbara Lowry at Cooke Optics. 

     I was also able to correspond fellow photographer w/Jim Galli, who has owned several Petzval lenses, and who spotted the fact that some of the original P&S lenses Series I lenses were 'dead ringers' for the same Petzval lenses that Jim has/has owned, even to the extent that the parts were interchangeable between lenses. 

     I've read everything on the 'Cameraeccentric' website regarding the P&S, several times.

    So I'll voice my thoughts and what I think I've learned about these lenses, and if I'm wrong about a point, by all means, please show me where, and I'll be greatful for the correction and increase in knowledge.

    My understanding of the fabrication of Pinkham & Smith line of lenses and particularly at the beginning, was that these lenses were handmade, to where no one lens was the same, the softness could vary, also, these lenses were made to specification, and, depending on the materials Pinkham had at hand, the materials that went into the making of a lens could vary from the last lens fabricated and/or the next.   The engraving was also different from lens to lens.

    I'm aware of a P&S SA Doublet SerIII that doens't look ANYTHING like mine, and yet they are basically the same lens.  I was tipped off by John Van Skelton in my corresponding w/him about the time period in which the earlier Pinkhams were made, that in terms of 'period correctness', and particularly in light of the fact that some of these lenses were built to specification, that a Seris III like mine had started life out w/its barrel 'blacked off'.  He also explained what 'blacked off' meant, that in those days when the earlier P&S lenses were fabricated, that they weren't 'painted' as we understand the process today, but that the barrels of some lenses were 'blacked off' in another type of coating process.

    From what I believe I now know, and from what I've read, my understanding of what P&S produced early on has changed.  Jim Galli, a devotee of soft focus/portrait lenses, and who has owned quite a few Petzvals has spotted a P&S Series I which was bought and sold over ebay, which was essentially a Petzval design w/P&S engravings.  I wouldn't dare to presume to know if selling a Petzval design under the P&S name was a common practice for P&A, or something that seldom occured, I only bring this up because I found out about it, and I thought that it needed to be added to the discussion.

    I would invite those interested in hard data on the various P&S designs to peruse cameraeccentric.com and their catalog pages and spec sheets on the P&S lenses, for specifics.

     In terms of the time period in which these lenses were produced, and how an individual lens could vary from what you saw in a catalog, I can bring up the example of my acquisition of a Gundlach Achromatic Meniscus lens where the Gundlach catalog displayed on the 'Cameraeccentric' website, shows the glass clearly behind the iris diaphragm, whereas the glass on my lens was positioned in front of the iris.

    Also, and I don't have any hard evidence for this, but I believe that at some point time there had to have been some use of the SA Double SerIII by Alvin Langdon Coburn, since he was the one who instigated the creation of the SA Doublet Series III.  They formulated this lens for him, and I find it hard to believe that he never used it.

      Alvin Langdon Coburn and others loaned out their P&S lenses at their whim and whimsy,  now considering  the individuality and possible variation of each interation, and the passage of so much time, I don't think we'll ever get an exact picture of who used what.

     I'll close with this, I believe that the individual differences between these lenses were on occasion, as great as the differences between the various types of lenses created over the years, and I don't know if you can say that the 'look' any particular lens represents what other lenses of that same 'make' will do.  The look of a VQ will vary from from VQ to VQ, the look of a Synthetic will vary from Synthetic to Synthetic, and I believe that on occasion, the difference will be as much as the difference between the VQ and a Synthetic. 

     Other may disagree with the above and I may in fact be wrong with making some of these assumptions, but I base these assumptions on the my personal experience with my P&S S.A. Doublet SerIII, NoIII as opposed to what's been said about the SerII and SerIII lenses.  Looking through this lenses is incredible, and it has the absolute softest pallette that I've ever seen through a groundglass.  I can't imagine ANY lens being softer, or any of the earlier P&S interations being softer that my example.  Don't forget, these were handmade and handrubbed lenses. 

     I don't know if I can accurately describe the difference between what I see through the groundglass w/my S.A. Doublet, and my other lenses, including the P&S VQ IV, but I'll try.   With most of the images you see in Jim Galli's above mentioned article, the glow is most prominent around the highlights, w/some of the glow depending upon the lens, looking 'kind of greasy', w/the SerIII, the glow from the highlights extends from the highlights throughout the whole frame, and it is 'wet looking', it extends a kind of a 'moist veil' over everything, it's most pleasurable to look at. 
 

     Below are the 'before and after' images of my Series III, although I don't think the images give you a true impression of how much glass has gone into this lens, this is one HUGE hunk of glass!!!!. 
 

I'll ad a little flavor, I found this ad in the bottom corner of this newspaper........Here's the caption w/the name of the paper.....

.......The Tech. Boston; Mass., March 16, 1912'

.Here's the ad.......................