Dear Mr. Editor:

He rose to the hook, didn't he?

The editor of the Anti-Organ has tried to fog the question. Unfortunately for him, however, he lost his temper, and is now wandering in the fog of his own creation.

In the article which I quoted in my letter, published in your March issue, he said: "The stand-dard price of cabinets for some years past has been $2.00 per gross less a small cash discount. The price was originally lower, but was boosted when the company thought it had control of the paper situation."

In my letter I said: "The price of Aristo Platino cabinets has never been less than $2.00 per gross."

He now says, "I said nothing about the list price."

Pray tell me, if the list price isn't the standard price, what is? Next he tries to create an impression that in the old days the photographers, mind you, he says "all professional photographers," had discounts on Aristo, and dares me to deny it. Most emphatically I do.

The facts are that the Aristo Company received exactly the same price for Aristo Platino then that its successor the Eastman Kodak Company receives for it now. The list price was the same, and the discount to the dealer was the same. It is by no means true that "all professional photographers," nor for that matter any considerable percentage of them received discounts. It was the policy of the Aristo Company to discourage price cutting between dealers, but it is admitted that that same policy has been more successfully carried out by the Eastman Kodak Company than by its predecessors. It costs the dealer on the average about twenty per cent, to do business. Surely he is then entitled to the twenty-five per cent, discount which he receives, leaving him five per cent. net.

The square issue was and is: The Anti-Organ stated that your publishers had "boosted" prices, and inferred that it was for the sake of fattening the dividends. The facts are that you did nothing of the kind, and that you do not receive one iota more for the product than did your predecessors.

I suggest that before making so many easily controvertible statements that the editor of the Anti-Organ study up the history of the photographic business in this, the land of his adoption. Yours truly, Stereoscope.

P. S. - Please, Mr. Editor, do you know of any manufacturer that has, within the last decade, recommended a hot hypo alum bath for sepia toning? My guess is, that hot hypo went out about ten years ago, being succeeded by the better actor, cold alum, which was in turn succeeded several years ago by your re-development process. I am prompted to these remarks and questions by an advertisement I saw the other day. which had a paragraph in it that read like this: "No uncertain, tedious, slow and unsafe hot hypo alum bath need be considered."

If you can find out who wrote that ad you had better invite him to come up to Rochester and see what's really doing in the photographic world. Only be sure to let him know there's a railroad - he may not have heard of it yet, and it would be too bad to have him waste his valuable time coming up by canal.

Who was it that said, "Every whale has its barnacles, every success its imitators"? Whoever it was, I'll bet my studio against a pound of hypo that he didn't travel by canal ten years after the railroad opened.