>But please, could we have some more wisdom about kallitype archivality?
Without claiming to be wise, I feel I owe the List a response on this,
because when looking for any evidence that kallitypes can survive more than
a few years, I posted, on this List and on PhotoHist List, an appeal for
any experience on this topic, as follows:
>Date: 18 Sept 1995
>Does anyone know of well-authenticated specimens of 'Historic' Kallitypes
>(i.e. greater than fifty years old, say) - in collections, private or
>public?
>
>I appreciate that the identification of Kallitypes can be a problem and
>that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". However, even a
>single 90 year old Kallitype would be an interesting (and, I suspect,
>extremely rare) object.
To summarise the only positive replies that I received to this appeal:
1) One photohistorian in the US had seen a set of 20 prints dating from
1906-1910 that fitted the descriptive criteria for Kallitypes. Independent
expert opinion inclined to agree with her identification. All the prints
were described as "very faded".
2) An archivist, also in the US, believes she has identified 2 or 3
kallitypes from 1899, their condition was not described, but there was
additional documentary evidence that they may be kallitypes.
3) The only major UK collection having kallitypes seems to be the RPS: the
curator tells me they have *one*!
While accepting that the readership of the Alt Proc plus Photohst Lists may
not quite constitute the totality of photographic experience (8~} - that
ain't a whole lot of kallitypes, worldwide, for a process that was
reputedly popular and inexpensive. Perhaps some of our newer members can
contribute more historical examples?
My feeling is that the evidence of history is against the Kallitype, but
until someone with the facilities does some Arrhenius testing by
accelerated ageing on known kallitypes, we can't be absolutely sure. Or,
contrarywise, until someone comes up with some pristine ninety year old
counter-examples that are demonstrably iron-based silver images. There is
just a remote possibility that all the successful, unfaded examples of
kallitype have been erroneously identified as platinotypes! Until then, I
incline to the identification criterion - 'if it looks like a platinotype
but is faded, then it's probably a kallitype'.
Mike