Talk:Houghton and Ensign
|This is the discussion page for Houghton and Ensign.
This is a mess; there is a lot of overlap between the Sanderson, Houghton, Barnet Ensign, Ross, Barnet Ensign Ross and Ross-Ensign. We are also missing pages for a vast range of cameras under the Ensign and related names, many of which would fit into several of the makers categories.
If anyone has any more models, please add them; some rationalisation of the pages and links between them possibly needs to wait on getting a more comprehensive list of cameras and their origins. Overall, this is a very significant group of makers and ought to have better coverage. I will look for more stuff.
--Awcam 21:28, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
- You're right. My approach would be to decide of group Houghton(s), Houghton-Butcher, Barnet-Ensign, Barnet Ensign Ross and Ross-Ensign together in one page called "Houghton". We would have to merge the current contents of Houghton, Houghton-Butcher and Ross-Ensign. We can keep a separate page for Ross, describing the pre-1948 Ross cameras, and perhaps all of Ross lenses. We can also keep a page for the Sanderson cameras before the merge, and we probably need a separate page for the early Butcher. Once the scope of the pages is settled, we can complete the camera list, and make it categorized rather than alphabetical. --Rebollo fr 05:36, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
- No. First we need a page "Butcher". Don't put everything into the Houghton-pot. Its an idea like Awcam's Instamatic page to make a list of all Ensign brand cameras separately. Thus the structure Houghton, Houghton-Butcher, and Ross-Ensign can stay was worked out. It's just the list of Ensign cameras which fills the Houghton-Butcher page inappropriately. U. Kulick 14:59, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
- I disagree. When Ross was merged into Barnet-Ensign, it was a lens maker exclusively, and the merge did not change anything to the camera line. I see no point to separate Houghton-Butcher from Ross-Ensign, no more than to separate Houghton-Butcher from Barnet-Ensign only because it was absorbed by the film maker Barnet. Would you want to list the Ensign Selfix 420 under Houghton-Butcher and the Ensign Selfix 820 under Ross-Ensign? and list the Ensign Commando (made before and after 1948) under two different manufacturers?
- I might see the point of separating Houghton, Butcher and Houghton-Butcher, because the two separate camera lines were merged into a single one. Yet I prefer having Houghton and Houghton-Butcher in the same page.
- This is also the choice made by McKeown and by Channing and Dunn in their book on British manufacturers. Quoting Channing and Dunn: "To avoid split-references all cameras marketed by the companies listed in the heading [namely Barnet Ensign, Barnet Ensign Ross and Ross Ensign] have been included in the Houghtons entry. Ross Ltd have an entry in their own right of course [for prewar Ross cameras]." --Rebollo fr 15:25, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
- Let's make another choice. It's a paradigm change when a lens maker becomes merged with a camera maker. Let's see it from the lens maker's side, it was definitely a new era for Ross. And the camera line changed after the merger with Ross, not as fast as nowadays after a merger, but the Ful-Vue was changed soon, and the Snapper was added soon to product portfolio, and the Commando was abandoned soon. Thus the fresh air that Barnet brought into the Ensign line was driven out after the merger. Ross-Ensign ( or Barnet Ensign Ross ) represents definitely another era of the Ensign history.U. Kulick 15:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Merge finally done
After I dug in the sources (Channing and Dunn and McKeown), I realized that the premise of the page on Houghton-Butcher was wrong: Houghton and Butcher did not merge in 1915. The two trading companies organized a joint venture to manage common production facilities, and remained distinct until 1926. I saw no way to save the current structure, and I merged all the pages together into this new one. --Rebollo fr 12:50, 28 June 2008 (EDT)