Serial number with an asterix

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've just come across a Canadian 90 f/2 Summicron that has an asterix right after its serial number on the front ring. Does anyone know what the asterix means please?

 

Pete.

[ho_co]

Pete, I think I heard somewhere that the asterisk means it's a duplicate serial number.

 

If so, I don't know how the number might have arisen. Two ideas come to mind: Possibly just an engraving error. Possibly a lens issued as replacement for another that couldn't be repaired.

 

I'm sure the Collectibles and Historica staff will issue a correction.

[menos I M6]

I have read an explanation about the * in an article of Erwin Puts some time ago.

 

I can't remember at the moment, where it was - I think whether his new pocket Leica listing or his lens compendium, somewhere along a serial no. explanation (pocket listing pdf, very likely).

[lars_bergquist]

The standard, accepted explanation is that serial numbers with an asterisk are duplicate. Why a replacement lens or body could not be issued an individual serial number is, frankly, beyond my understanding -- I know of no other photo manufacturer who did that sort of thing.

 

One possible source of misunderstanding is that some items were engraved, not with an asterisk (six points) but a slightly larger star (five points) when they were for the use of Leica's own education program, a predecessor of the present Leica Akademie.

 

If, on the other hand, you find a 5cm lens engraved 'Summitar' but with an asterisk following the name (not with the number), and with a serial number beginning with 812 ... then you have a rarity. This is the 'Summitar Star' lens which was a camouflaged pre-series collapsible Summicron. These lenses were made in very small numbers in 1950, and it is presumed that nearly all of them were destroyed later. As you know, car manufacturers sometimes camouflage their test models in order to keep them secret.

 

The old man from the Age of the Screw Thread(s)

[farnz]

Thanks, All, for your explanations, and especially to the Kind Gentleman from the Age of the Screw Thread(s).

 

It was a 90 mm f/2 APO-Summicron Asph rather than the Summitar Star so it must be a duplicate.

 

Pete.

[UliWer]

The standard, accepted explanation is that serial numbers with an asterisk are duplicate. Why a replacement lens or body could not be issued an individual serial number is, frankly, beyond my understanding -- I know of no other photo manufacturer who did that sort of thing.

...

 

I understood the asterix marked a duplicate number, not a lens or body which was a replacement for one already sold. My theory - no practical experience - was that there might occur mistakes engraving the numbers, so a few numbers were used two times. They could have dumped the whole body or lens or try to work around the engraving - both not very subtle ways to deal with it. So adding the asterix was the most elegant solution.

[3rdtrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So! Just like a double strike coin or a misprinted bill, the asterisk should add collector value to a lens or camera body???. I will look at all my serial numbers...

Pete

[sandro]

i never knew of an asterisk on a lens. I have read about and seen pictures of camera bodies with and asterisk followed by the serial number, but for me the asterisk on a lens is new. Van Hasbroeck mentions the asterisk as "indicating a possible duplicate number".

[farnz]

Okay, here's a picture of the lens in question (click on the photo to enlarge) and the asterisk doesn't appear to have affected the price of the lens.

 

Pete.

[adan]

Pete, if I'm following you right - that pictured lens in your link is NOT an APO-Summicron ASPH. It is a pre-1980 Summicron (no APO, no ASPH).

 

HOWEVER, it is a rather interesting lens, because it has modern-style lightly-knurled focusing and aperture rings. Every pre-1980 90 'cron I've ever seen has the heavier knurling. So it is probably very late production and possibly the numbers overlapped with the 1980 redesign (more compact lens), which might explain a duplicate number.

 

It is definitely the old-style optics in a long barrel, so it isn't a test "mule" like the starred Summitars or the M9s-dressed-as-M8s

 

The serial numbers around that transition period for the 90 f/2 are a little screwy. I had a very early version of the redesigned lens, and the serial number "dated" from 1977 even though the lens was not introduced until 1980.

[farnz]

Andy,

 

You're absolutely right it's pre-asph as I'd described in an earlier post, my bad. Senility is setting in sooner than expected <sigh>. Thanks for your interesting observation on it's unusualness.

 

Pete.

[luigi bertolotti]

I think that UliWer speculation on the asterisks on lenses is the most reasonable.

And Andy is right... it's an interesting variant, probably not so common between the many versions that this lens had; Andy I do have a 1977 lens with "1980" design... it's 2.814.779 (number on barrel, not on front ring) : isn't by chance the one you had ? Would be lot of funny...

 

P.s. gosh ! # 5000 post... I hoped to make a more memorable post with this number...

[UliWer]

 

P.s. gosh ! # 5000 post... I hoped to make a more memorable post with this number...

 

You can try again, and give your new posting a 5000*.

[lars_bergquist]

It seems that the 'pre-dated' serial numbers occur because numbers are pre-assigned in batches. If some numbers are not used (in an extreme case, because that batch was never manufactured) the unused numbers may be 'recycled' later. This sort of thing happened quite frequently during WWII.

 

The old man from the Age of Screw Threads (39 and 42mm)