corkscrew Posted November 29, 2011 Share #1 Posted November 29, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi I was just sorting out a few cameras for an upcoming trip to New York and settled on my trusty Leica II which produces great images. I wasn't 100% sure of it's age and as it's the sort of thing I get asked when it comes out I thought I would check in my book. It is S/No.99583 which dates it to 1932. Now taking a closer look at it there is a serial number on the lens so I thought I would check that to see if it was a matching lens. The number reads 151552 which is somewhat confusing as the numbering is recorded as starting at156000. Does anyone have any idea why mine would have a serial number outside the recorded sequence? For information it is a 50mm 3.5 Elmar. Any thoughts appreciated. Thank you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Hi corkscrew, Take a look here Early 50mm Elmar lens query. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
luigi bertolotti Posted November 29, 2011 Share #2 Posted November 29, 2011 Serial numbers of lenses began indeed much before : I have a Hektor 7,3 129.006 and this lens (and some of the others, too) is sometime found even with "5 digits" s/n (98.xxx, for example. apart the rare "5 digits" lenses matched to non standard Leicas) ; I think there's nothing bad nor strange in your Elmar : anyway, always a pleasure to see someone who regularly makes use of such oldies... The well known Puts' list starts indeed at 156.000, but probably for is the first number from which a consistent documentation has been found. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerzy Posted November 29, 2011 Share #3 Posted November 29, 2011 156000 is not correct. Various experts are quoting different numbers. I have Elmar SN 73808 (see picture) and another SN123952 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/167490-early-50mm-elmar-lens-query/?do=findComment&comment=1857645'>More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted November 29, 2011 Share #4 Posted November 29, 2011 That's fine Jerzy !!! 73.xxx !!! I don't remember to have seen many so lower numbered Elmars of the "standard" type !!! (but let's wait for JC and Pecole to enter the thread.... ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerzy Posted November 29, 2011 Share #5 Posted November 29, 2011 ...well, I have as well 3 digits Elmar 5cm and 135mm, but this is a quite different story;) . Some time ago I published this foto on German thread asking for lowest known Elmar, response was not ovewhelming. English thread seem to be more active Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted November 30, 2011 Share #6 Posted November 30, 2011 ...well, I have as well 3 digits Elmar 5cm and 135mm, but this is a quite different story;) . Some time ago I published this foto on German thread asking for lowest known Elmar, response was not ovewhelming. English thread seem to be more active Keeping in mind the auctions made in your town... ... I'm 99% sure not to have seen for sale Elmars < 9x.xxx... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pecole Posted November 30, 2011 Share #7 Posted November 30, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...well, I have as well 3 digits Elmar 5cm and 135mm, but this is a quite different story;) . Some time ago I published this foto on German thread asking for lowest known Elmar, response was not ovewhelming. English thread seem to be more active Here am I ! and here are the "low numbered lenses" recorded in the Fontenelle collection : - 93133 . nickel, 11 o'clock Elmar 50 MM - 93367 : nickel, 11 o'clock Elmar 50 MM - 93624 : nickel VAROB 5 cm - 94086 : nickel Hektor f=5 CM 1:2,5 - 96423 : nickel Hektor f=5 CM 1:2,5 - 96833 : black and nickel "fat" Elmar f=9 CM 1:4 - 99886 : nickel, 7 o'clock Elmar f=5 CM 1:3,5 All were scaled in mtr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted November 30, 2011 Share #8 Posted November 30, 2011 I have some Elmar's without s/n Luigi you have already, time ago, saw a pict of this one with 5 digit 93 198 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/167490-early-50mm-elmar-lens-query/?do=findComment&comment=1858588'>More sharing options...
Pecole Posted December 1, 2011 Share #9 Posted December 1, 2011 I have some Elmar's without s/n Luigi you have already, time ago, saw a pict of this one with 5 digit 93 198 I also have records of various "numberless" lenses in the Fontenelle Collection, Jean-Claude. - six Elmar F=50 MM, all nickel and coupled ("O" engraved), but 4 of them with the early, cylindrical infinity locker, and 2 with the classical "bell" type; - more interesting, two "fat" 9 cm Elmars, both black and nickel and NOT STANDERDISED (no "O" or arrow), one scaled in mtr, the other in feet; - one chrome Summar scaled in mtr; - two Elmar 1:4,5 F=135 MM, both black and nickel and with "European" (large) tripod bush, one coupled, the other not. My guess, at least for the Elmars 50 MM, is that they all come from upgraded Leica I (A). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted December 1, 2011 Share #10 Posted December 1, 2011 My guess, at least for the Elmars 50 MM, is that they all come from upgraded Leica I (A). May be, one without s/n does not the O and it is on a Leica I non standardized (ubviously) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerzy Posted December 1, 2011 Share #11 Posted December 1, 2011 I believe as well that w/o number are from conversions. I have one coated, red scale on upgraded 42xxx. Upgrade with DBP, so early fifties. It looks like my Elmar 73803 is the lowest number known to the community here, thus most probably worldwide? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerzy Posted December 1, 2011 Share #12 Posted December 1, 2011 ...small quiz - there is one thing that disturbes me on my Elmar 73xxx. Any guess what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted December 1, 2011 Share #13 Posted December 1, 2011 ...small quiz - there is one thing that disturbes me on my Elmar 73xxx. Any guess what? Is it something visible in the pic you posted ? The focus knob could indeed be of another shape (see JC pic) ... nothing bad.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerzy Posted December 2, 2011 Share #14 Posted December 2, 2011 yes Luigi, this is knob. Shall be of earlier type. I purchased the lens few years ago from German seller who did not know the history of this lens.Lens did not have flange (with distanace scale) and has focusing depth scale together with "0". It does not have focusing length that is usually stamped on reverse of infinity lock. So while I do not have any doubts re SN stamped the lens itself must have been "upgraded" in a later time and unfortunately taken off from the camera by an ignorant (lost flange). Shall be visible on the picture, nickel not chrom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted December 2, 2011 Share #15 Posted December 2, 2011 Maybe "bastard", but intriguing item... can you post a pair of full-body pics of this Elmar ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerzy Posted December 3, 2011 Share #16 Posted December 3, 2011 Luigi, this will have to wait some time, Elmar is being CLA-ed now. Photo I posted was from archive Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.