M3's twin

[jc_braconi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Great story there :

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268537-seeing-double-the-curious-case-of-identical-twin-leica-m3s/

[wlaidlaw]

The Japanese collectors would go ape for this pair. Top plate engraver with amnesia? I thought the serial number was always engraved on the top plate under the rangefinder or is that only on earlier cameras - see my model III top plate. This was to prevent cameras being assembled from various different bits. 

 

Wilson

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

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

[Michael Hiles]

Interesting story.

 

Not only there are two M3s with identical numbers (with no satisfactory explanation) - the chances that they both end up in the hands of the same individual must be very very small.

[luigi bertolotti]

Interesting story.

 

Not only there are two M3s with identical numbers (with no satisfactory explanation) - the chances that they both end up in the hands of the same individual must be very very small.

Indeed... is a very good proof of the statistical paradox under which "anyone, in his/her life, happens to observe at least one event with VERY VERY little (not zero) chance"

[wlaidlaw]

To quote Terry Pratchett: million to one events occur every day

[willeica]

There are a few older Leicas which were put together 'unofficially' from genuine parts. One can only surmise as to how such parts became available to the fabricators. This pair, however, have some sort of 'blessing' from Leica AG now that the letter has been sent. Usually when two identical SNs were issued, an asterisk was placed after the SN of one of the items. I have a couple of lenses with an asterisk after the SN.

 

My understanding is that the top plate SN is repeated again somewhere on the main body. Wilson's photo is an example of this. I also have a recollection of seeing such numbers inside the plate revealed when the bottom plate is removed as well as inside the top cover. Interestingly, these cameras have some apparent construction differences and the SN does not appear in the Leica 'withdrawal register'. Also the Leica letter indicates that there is no engraving of the number inside the top cover. Most of the real expertise on older Leicas lies outside of the company at this stage. I would like to see an independent outside expert report on these cameras. If these are genuine, then they could be worth quite a bit as a pair.

 

William

Edited January 22, 2017 by willeica

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It would certainly add to their value if one of the recognised Leica historians were also to add a nod of approval. I don't know if Paul-Henry Van Hasbroeck is still with us or indeed how to contact him - anyone know the answer to both questions. Otherwise I would probably suggest Peter Coeln at Westlicht.

 

I agree with William, Leica's level of knowledge of LTM and early M cameras it about on a par with their spares supply - close to zero. Sadly they haven't even put together a list of alternative suppliers and repairers as a service to customers, given their own lack of expertise and parts. For example I called them and asked if they could suggest anyone who could replace the selenium cell on a Leicameter 2. No idea was their answer. Apparently one can use the solar cell out of a Casio calculator but it needs someone with some expertise to do it and recalibrate the meter using a tiny potentiometer in parallel with the new cell. 

 

Wilson

[luigi bertolotti]

Van Hasbroeck is no more with us... it's 4 or 5 years around, if I remember well...t ime to time some item of his collection do appear at auctions.

 

I think that the story of those twin M3s will remain a mistery... spare M3 tops were (and still are) available with no great difficulty, but seems to me an oddity that some 3rd party lab had engraved onto it (very finely) a s/n "just to write a legitimate M3 number" : which sense would have had ? Was it for a repair, they knew surely the original s/n...

I think more at a factory error, which obviously is impossible to verify... anyway such errors did occur : I remember a Leitz lens which had TWO consecutive s/n engraved on the front rim...

Edited January 22, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[jc_braconi]

Van Hasbroeck is no more with us... it's 4 or 5 years around, if I remember well...t ime to time some item of his collection do appear at auctions.

 

 

Luigi,

fortunately Paul Henry is always alive ...and a friend of mine  in common we have Andreas Kaufman, Erwin Puts, Dirk Daniel Man and Luigi Crescenzi

 

 

[luigi bertolotti]

Luigi,

fortunately Paul Henry is always alive ...and a friend of mine  in common we have Andreas Kaufman, Erwin Puts, Dirk Daniel Man and Luigi Crescenzi

Hug... thanks, JC... I don't remember when and how I got my erroneus news...

[willeica]

Hug... thanks, JC... I don't remember when and how I got my erroneus news...

 

A friend of mine met Pul Henry in London last year. I regularly consult his book and, while it is not perfect, he is one of the few people to have tried to classify the multitude of variations in old screwmount and M lenses. When I mentioned outside expertise, I was thinking of people in Germany like Lars Netopil and Ottmar Michaely. Both of those gentlemen seem to really know their way around vintage Leicas.

 

William

[LorenzoLandini]

It's certainly a great story.

 

However, it begs the question of whether this is just a made up story. Pictures are no longer supporting a fact as the serial number can be easily cloned in photoshop and as long as Leica doesn't officially and independently confirms the originality there is no true fact. Reporting in the article that Leica has confirmed by email the originality can be just part of the made up story and I'd like to see something official released by Leica or, as rightly suggested above, confirmed by any of the above mentioned experts in Leicas. 

 

Maybe I am too skeptical, but the story appears to be too good to be true and too unusual and unprecedented to be a random coincidence. 

[jerzy]

 the story appears to be too good to be true and too unusual ....

agree, however according to the article both cameras were at Leitz. Leica did not find any record in their shipping register for this SN. in addition to the top plate, SN was additionaly engraved on the main body (at least until 935xxx, the highest M3 I have). None of these two cameras have it there, according to the translated letter from Leica. There are small differences between the cameras, as mentioned by William. Was one (or both) of them assemblied from spare parts? No certainity at this stage. I notified both gentlemen mentioned by William, maybe they can shed some light