I have already spoken of the great ease and facility with which an argentic enlargement may be made as compared with a collodion transfer, for instance; but there is another and more important point to be considered between the two, and that is, their durability and permanence. Now with regard to a collodion transfer, unless most particular care be taken in the washing of it (and those who have made them will well know what a delicate, not to say difficult, job it is to get them thoroughly freed from the hypo, and at the same time preserve the film intact), there is no permanence in a collodion transfer, and that practically in nine cases out of ten they have the elements of decay in them from the first day of their existence. I know, at least in Glasgow, where an enormous business has been done within the last few years by certain firms in the club picture trade (the club picture being a collodion transfer tinted in oil or varnish colors), there are literally thousands of pictures for which thirty shillings or more has been paid, and of which the bare frame is all that remains at the present day; the gilt of the frames has vanished, and the picture in disgust, perhaps, has followed it. In short, I believe a collodion transfer cannot be made even comparatively permanent, unless an amount of care be taken in the making of it which is neither compatible nor consistent with the popular price and extensive output. How now stands the case with an argentic enlargement? Of course it may be said that there is scarcely time yet to make a fair comparison--that the argentic enlargements are still only on their trial.