Pix of Leica I Model A Anastigmat recently acquired

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Planning to use it asap ... wind-on is stiffer than on later models as is the early ratchet type. Lens logo is different to those in other published Anastigmat photographs but I'm assured by knowledeable authority that variations occurred. S/No. suggests this is the 54th Leica IA produced ... and according to one of my reference books would have been made in late 1924 and not in 1925. Expect some of you who are "vintage Leica aware" may recognize the camera. But I prefer not to state its recent travels. Will post some more pix later to show the three alignment lines on the lens draw tube which are peculiar just to the Anastigmat lens.

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[dkCambridgeshire]

When the camera was being photographed I used a compact camera and natural window light for the first picture. A friend took the close-up pictures of the lens and the S/N using a DSLR. Initially, for the S/N photo we used my Schott fibre optic cold light illuminator but after over 20 years of use it suddenly ceased to function .. so we swiitched to ring flash for the lens pictures. Note the ring flash reflections in each of the lens elements ... there could be 5 reflections. Now plan to try some more photographs with ring flash to maybe try and clarify the number of lens elements because authorities differ in their opinions re same ie I have seen published data stating both 4 elements and also 5 elements.

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[luigi bertolotti]

Compliments !!! Super desirable item for a collector !!! I know I'll never buy one... ... just to ask... do you plan to have (or already have) the poker of my dreams ? I mean Anastigmat - Elmax - Elmar - Hektor (better if the last two in short distance version... )

[earleygallery]

Lovely camera and patina of use, but unfortunately the lens appears to be quite marked through use/cleaning. Probably still capable of good results as long as you shoot away from the light source. Look forward to seeing some images from it.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Lovely camera and patina of use, but unfortunately the lens appears to be quite marked through use/cleaning. Probably still capable of good results as long as you shoot away from the light source. Look forward to seeing some images from it.

 

Hi James, Any lens this old photographed with ring flash, head-on is going to show every tiny mark in the glass with "high definition" . I can assure you that in normal light the front element looks surprisingly unscathed. The close-up pictures of the lens were taken to accentuate the engraving which one Leica commentator described in a PM to me as follows "The engraving on the lens is extremely beautiful. .... " I agree with him.

 

My friend who took the close-up photos was rather shocked to find that when he took similar photographs of his pristine Elmar lens all the "invisible" faults in his lens' glass also showed up.

 

Hope to use the camera soon and see exactly what the lens is capable of. I do not expect it to perform like a modern lens but it should give an adequate result. This was the first lens Max Berek designed and was originally used in the "O" series. It is unlikely to perform as well as his subsequent Elmax and Elmar designs.

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[dkCambridgeshire]

Compliments !!! Super desirable item for a collector !!! I know I'll never buy one... ... just to ask... do you plan to have (or already have) the poker of my dreams ? I mean Anastigmat - Elmax - Elmar - Hektor (better if the last two in short distance version... )

 

In my dreams too Luigi but I never rule anything out. I also have a Leica I Model A Elmar with a XXXX S/N. Acquiring a Hektor and an Elmax is beyond me at the moment.

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[echorec]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Dunk,

 

Thanks for sharing, I love looking at and reading about these oldies.

 

Best,

[jc_braconi]

Thanks for sharing Dunk, it is a good collector item.

[elkinon]

Dear Dunk

I have seen this camera in the bonhams catalog. I am sorry, but (IMHO) I think the camera is not an original Anastigmat camera. Why:

I think, the Anastigmat - engraving has been done on a nickeled brass ring and then glued or soldered on top of the Elmar engraving. You can even see the joint in the outer region of the knurled ring on pic. #3. The vulcanite is of a later model (above ca. # 12100). The A-R lever should be shorter, flat and all black and mounted with a flat head screw. The front element of the finder should have no mask inside. The tiny knobs on the counter wheel should be about 2mm high. The scaling of the counterwheel in those days was done with a small circular saw (0.2mm thick). So originaly the slots are rectangular. Here we can see engraved slots. The bottom side of original counterwheels is turned flat (nearly knife - sharp), which is not the case at this camera. The camera has a (wrong) dimpled mushroom release. The knurling of all knobs should be much finer.

I wonder, how the camera looks inside? Can you take some close up pics. without bottom plate which show the body shell from inside (especially the 2 srews which hold the shutter crade to the shell at the cassette side)? These srews should be about 1.5mm far right than on later models. Please check the filter thread of the lens, which should be 88TPI instead of the later 55TPI pitch.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Dear Dunk

I have seen this camera in the bonhams catalog. I am sorry, but (IMHO) I think the camera is not an original Anastigmat camera. Why:

I think, the Anastigmat - engraving has been done on a nickeled brass ring and then glued or soldered on top of the Elmar engraving. You can even see the joint in the outer region of the knurled ring on pic. #3. The vulcanite is of a later model (above ca. # 12100). The A-R lever should be shorter, flat and all black and mounted with a flat head screw. The front element of the finder should have no mask inside. The tiny knobs on the counter wheel should be about 2mm high. The scaling of the counterwheel in those days was done with a small circular saw (0.2mm thick). So originaly the slots are rectangular. Here we can see engraved slots. The bottom side of original counterwheels is turned flat (nearly knife - sharp), which is not the case at this camera. The camera has a (wrong) dimpled mushroom release. The knurling of all knobs should be much finer.

I wonder, how the camera looks inside? Can you take some close up pics. without bottom plate which show the body shell from inside (especially the 2 srews which hold the shutter crade to the shell at the cassette side)? These srews should be about 1.5mm far right than on later models. Please check the filter thread of the lens, which should be 88TPI instead of the later 55TPI pitch.

 

You and one other person are insisting this camera is not authentic. I am aware it was dismantled in 1995 in the presence of experts and declared to be genuine . I am interested to know why you decide to join this forum and make your first post to denigrate this camera with such dogmatic statements. There are bound to be variations in the first months of production of a new revolutionary camera in 1924/25. One attribute that cannot be disputed is that it has the ratchet type wind-on mechanism fitted only to the first 501 cameras from No 126 to 626. Seems highly unlikely to me that anyone would want to fake an Anastigmat from an Elmax ie only the Elmax and the Anastigmat would have the ratchet wind-on.

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[jc_braconi]

I am interested to know why you decide to join this forum and make your first post to denigrate this camera with such dogmatic statements.

 

Personaly I am interested to know who You are, Elkinon, ( apart a Leitz f/1.3 8mm. lens for 8mm. Cinovid projector ) because your description for controversy looks like You are an expert, and this forum needs people with great knowledge.

[elkinon]

Dear Dunk

I beg your pardon, it was not my intention, to denigrate the camera. I just wanted to point out, what is visible, which of the well known variations are not present. May well be, that I am wrong, but please make a careful inspection of this camera. And If I am right with my opinion, i hope it is not to late to give the camera back. I am examinating vintage Leicas since many years for all the leading Camera Auction houses and collectors. Anastigmat, Elmax, Hektor, Compur, 72 are among the most risky items.

regards

Ottmar Michaely

[dkCambridgeshire]

Thank you Ottmar Michaely for the courtesy of introducing yourself. I have already undertaken research about this camera and consulted experts who are very knowledgeable regarding variations of the early Leica 1 Model A cameras and I have documentary evidence from one of them that in his opinion the camera is authentic. I again contacted him twice last week particularly regarding its S/N format (the way the S/N has been applied) and the variation in the style of engraving around the front of the lens. I received positive replies and I am happy that the camera is authentic. I will be doing some more investigation regarding the points you have raised. However, one thing that I am very aware of, is that with this serial number, we are discussing a very early production camera i.e. the 59th example made in postwar Germany when actual production had hardly commenced and when variations would have been likely ... including minor differences in the texture of the vulcanite. The vulcanite on this one looks to me to be of the same texture as the example shown in van Hasbroeck's "Leica - A History illustrating ..." ie page 211 photo 21b. I refer you again to my previous post regarding the 'ratchet type wind-on' and the numbers of cameras known to be fitted with same and ask you to consider the likelihood of a Frankestein model being fitted with it. Furthermore, the camera is fitted with the early 1/25 shutter speed dial. And regarding your statement "I think, the Anastigmat - engraving has been done on a nickeled brass ring and then glued or soldered on top of the Elmar engraving. You can even see the joint in the outer region of the knurled ring on pic. #3." ... this is definitely not the case and the annulus part of the front of the lens which has the engraving is totally integral with the bezel part and machined form the same piece of metal. Additionally the lens draw tube has the three fine lines enabling "collapse" alignment - peculiar only to the Anastigmat in the first year of production.

 

Regards

 

dunk

[dkCambridgeshire]

Hello again Ottmar. (and Erik!! :-) ) I think I am going to have an interesting time proving the authenticity of Anastigmat camera S/N 184. I have again looked at the front of the lens using a loupe and am 100% certain that there is no "ring" glued or soldered into place. I am a skilled close-up photographer and have the means of photographing subjects at several times life-size. I see some interesting photographic challenges to show a comparison between the very inner and outer edges of the engraved "rings" on both the Anastigmat and on a fixed (non-interchangeable) nickel Elmar - the latter being on Leica I Model A camera S/N 7925. And please consider the fact that if a "ring" was soldered or stuck into place the inner edge would become twice as thick as that on the Elmar and it would compromise the tiny gap between it and the sliding aperture tab. I can assure you the gap underneath the aperture tab on both lenses is the same. Quite honestly your assertion that a ring has been attached is without substance and I do not why you found it necessary to even suggest it.

 

Unfortunately my Schott cold light illuminator which I use for high magnification photography is away being serviced and I cannot take the necessary photographs of the lens without it. It might not be back for a fortnight or so. But I assure you that the pictures will be taken and posted here as soon as it is back and I have time to do them.

 

Regards

 

dunk

[Guest Bernd Banken]

Mr. Michaely is well known for his knowledge and capability for the restauration of old Leicas.

In August 28. this year the "Hessen TV" brought a small TV documentary about him. It's possible to watch this by following the link up to "The Leica Doctor.."

 

Video-Archiv - Hessenschau | Fernsehen | hr

[M. Valdemar]

It's interesting how people who have spent a lot of money on a fake react with anger and denial when their error has been pointed out to them.

 

It sort of reminds me of all the various "proofs" of the Shroud of Turin.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Mr. Michaely is well known for his knowledge and capability for the restauration of old Leicas.

In August 28. this year the "Hessen TV" brought a small TV documentary about him. It's possible to watch this by following the link up to "The Leica Doctor.."

 

Video-Archiv - Hessenschau | Fernsehen | hr

 

Thank you for the video link which is very interesting. But Mr Michaely has not to the best of my knowledge handled my camera and to suggest that the lens has been faked with an engraved "Anastigmat" annulus stuck on top of an Elmar lens is speculative. I have again looked at the outer part of the "ring" where it meets the side of the bezel and it is all the same metal with no indication of a join. It may look like a join in the photo because of accumulated dirt and the shadow cast by the ring flash . I have now cleaned the dirt out of the circumference using a piece of "white-tac" . When I photograph the lens again as outlined above there will be no dirt or shadow to suggest that a "join" exists. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge: there is no mask in the finder; the film frame counter is definitely an early type numbered up to "40" with an additional '0" indicator underneath the "40" as in van Hasbroeck's book page 211 illustration 21d. The mushroom release has a dimple but may have been modified from the original non-dimple type. Let's bear in mind that at several times in its early life the camera may have gone back to Leitz for service and any exterior parts could have been replaced or modified. The chance of it not still having all exterior fittings the same as when it was new has to be taken into account ... especially the A-R lever.

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[dkCambridgeshire]

It's interesting how people who have spent a lot of money on a fake react with anger and denial when their error has been pointed out to them.

 

It sort of reminds me of all the various "proofs" of the Shroud of Turin.

 

I am not exhibiting any anger and I have every right to state the facts about the camera to try and clarify any disputed areas of aurhenticity. Especially when the actual areas of authenticity appear to have been ignored by those professing it to be a fake e.g the ratchet wind-on and the early "40" with "0" film counter and the 1/25th sec. speed dial . We are discussing a well used camera which may have had a replacement non-all black "A-R" lever fitted and maybe also a modified dimple mushroom release ... the latter being a known Leitz upgrade and well documented as such. But that does not make it a fake. This is not a "concours d'elegance" and it is unreasonable to expect every exterior part to be fiitted as when the camera left the factory. And variations in original manufacture are to be expected too. I have other Leica cameras of recent vintage which have been modified because better parts became available eg just because my black L'flex SL no longer has its original plastic lens release button (it broke and plastic replacements are no longer available) it does not mean that it is no longer an original camera.

 

And Ottmar Michaely asks" I wonder, how the camera looks inside? Can you take some close up pics. without bottom plate which show the body shell from inside (especially the 2 srews which hold the shutter crade to the shell at the cassette side)? These srews should be about 1.5mm far right than on later models. "

 

I am very happy to say I just checked the screws and compared them to the later Elmar model with S/N 7925 ... and YES the screws are approximately 1.5mm more to the RHS in 184 compared to those in 7925. I will definitely post photographs to prove this ... just as I will post pictures to prove categorically that there is no annulus stuck over the lens front

 

I should be able to post the interior photographs within the next couple of days so please be patient ... I have rather too many other priorities to attend to today including college homework. As stated ealier, the lens front pictures will take a bit longer because I prefer to use the cold light illuminator to show that the "join??" does not exist. And the illuminator is away being serviced.

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[dcoombs]

I think it looks quite special. And I'd love to see some pix from it. It would be nice to see the camera functioning after 80 plus years, most of which were probably spent sitting on a collector's shelf.

 

Ignore the doubters... You've got enough provenance.

 

Doug

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[dkCambridgeshire]

I think it looks quite special. And I'd love to see some pix from it. It would be nice to see the camera functioning after 80 plus years, most of which were probably spent sitting on a collector's shelf.

 

Ignore the doubters... You've got enough provenance.

 

Doug

 

Thank you Doug for your encouraging reply. It has probably only been sitting on a shelf for the last few years as it is showing ample WABI. I do have provenance which I prefer not to publish here. I think that others are being totally and unnecessarily pedantic if they will only accept its authenticity if it displays every original part eg the A-R lever and the original mushroom release as distinct from the possible replacement A-R lever and the possible replacement dimple release. Am bound to say also I have heard stories last week about a similar camera being sent for service/repair to a well known Leica "shop" in UK and on return the camera had lost its original mushroom release and a dimple version had been substituted. But such a 'shop" cannot attempt to replace the shutter crate ... and in this camera I am very sure the shutter crate ... and the lens ... are original. And I know for a fact that internal S/N on my camera was checked in 1995 to make sure it agreed with the top plate S/N.

 

At the end of the day there will be more documented evidence which I feel sure will disprove some of the doubts raised herein.

 

And it is a functioning camera as will be proved when I put a film through it.

 

Cheers

 

dunk