gvaliquette Posted February 23, 2012 Share #1 Posted February 23, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Seen on eBay: leica KE-7A military w/ELCAN 50mm f2 | eBay What makes an M4-2 with a Summicron 50mm f2.0 so valuable to collectors??? Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 23, 2012 Posted February 23, 2012 Hi gvaliquette, Take a look here Really worth $29,500.00???. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
diser Posted February 23, 2012 Share #2 Posted February 23, 2012 Nope, not really. Also I would not consider this item as a "new", which is stated in the description. Item #280784166398 not really worth $39,999 either Here is the list of recent auction sales for this model Leitz: Leica KE-7A Price Guide: estimate a camera value Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 24, 2012 Share #3 Posted February 24, 2012 It is a bit high, but in this condition it is an interesting collectable. But it really would have been better wth packaging and provenance. If i were in the habit of paying out such sums for collectable cameras I might consider making an offer that would not be dramatically lower. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 24, 2012 Share #4 Posted February 24, 2012 It could be indeed "new"... many KE-7A were de facto never used by US Army... ; price is not obscene... if I'd own this item and would like to sell it, I suppose I'd try to ask a not so lower price than this : anyway, it seems not to be a fake, so the seller is simply trying to make a legitimate good sale. The US$ 39.999 item seems to be exceptionally complete... but I agree that is a very high price... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_schertel Posted February 24, 2012 Share #5 Posted February 24, 2012 For a collector maybe. But I would not pay so much for a camera. You could get a new M 7 ode MP or M9 with more lenses, as you ever need. Yours sincerely Thomas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 24, 2012 Share #6 Posted February 24, 2012 Yes... of course not the right price if one wants a Leica for use... btw, a KE7-A in those fine conditions is better to be kept in that shape... 10 shots a year at home just to flex the shutter... loading the film is an option... even if, if I'd have it, would be curios to see how the Elcan 50 does perform... it is reported that Leitz Canada designed those "cheap" 4 elements lens because the already available Summicron 50 did exceed US Army specifications... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 24, 2012 Share #7 Posted February 24, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Looks in superb condition. Looks like the aperture ring on the lens rotates in the opposite to the normal Leica direction - any idea why that might be? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckrider Posted February 24, 2012 Share #8 Posted February 24, 2012 What makes an M4-2 with a Summicron 50mm f2.0 so valuable to collectors??? KE-7A is M4 based, not M4-2! As far I can remeber the Elcan 50mm is an own optical calculation (4 lens-based), not similar to Summicron 50mm. Here a bit cheaper, but Hongkong locatet offer: eBay: Neue und gebrauchte Elektronikartikel, Autos, Kleidung, Sammlerst�cke, Sportartikel und mehr � alles zu g�nstigen Preisen with lots of Elcan pics! some more Elcan-pis, a Elcan-M 90mm f/1.0: http://overgaard.dk/leica-history-page-2.html regs Thomas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share #9 Posted February 24, 2012 Isn't there a screw missing above the focus sensor lever? Dokument2.pdf And what about the performance of the Elcan 2.0-50mm? "This lens is nothing more than a simplified version of a Summicron which retains the same focusing system." (Ghester Sartorius, Identifying Leica Lenses, Rome 1999). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckrider Posted February 24, 2012 Share #10 Posted February 24, 2012 Isn't there a screw missing above the focus sensor lever? Are You kiddin' ? That's the beloved "LEICA SEAL", indication, that the cam was never opend yet! http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/m3/buyers-guide.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share #11 Posted February 24, 2012 Are You kiddin' ?That's the beloved "LEICA SEAL", indication, that the cam was never opend yet! LEICA M3 Buyer's Guide You're right - but for about 30T$ they should present better detailed photos - or spend me a new screen that differentiats a seal from a black hole.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckrider Posted February 24, 2012 Share #12 Posted February 24, 2012 Just seein' that the manual is enclosed! In the service manual ist a chapter how to destroy the Camera most effective, so that enemy will not be able to use it any more. Great idea for a 29k$ Cam, aint it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Share #13 Posted February 24, 2012 That might be the main reason for the price: Too many soldiers followed the destruction manual. Will ask some next time I'm visiting Walter Reed... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SideB Posted February 24, 2012 Share #14 Posted February 24, 2012 The moral of this tale is that if you have something unique or at least very rare you can ask pretty much what you want. What baffles me is why a commercial high-volume dealer in photographic gear thinks a well used 5cm Elmar, red scale or otherwise, is worth £527. That to me is just nuts. You could buy a camera and lens in better condition for much less than this and get the hood and filters thrown in for free. I don't think it is either ignorance or laziness (ie failure to research), I suspect there are other motives behind this. This is not a small time seller, it is someone who has tens of thousands of pounds worth of photographic equipment on eBay under a variety of different names. Have a look: eBay item 190601663270 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted February 24, 2012 Share #15 Posted February 24, 2012 I'm not sure where to put this but I just saw some Leica on auction 26 Feb in Stockholm Stadsauktion Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabears Posted February 24, 2012 Share #16 Posted February 24, 2012 A lot more here, thanks even to our member "Pecole". http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/196993-fontenelle-archives-87-leica-ke-7a.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pecole Posted February 24, 2012 Share #17 Posted February 24, 2012 A lot more here, thanks even to our member "Pecole". http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/196993-fontenelle-archives-87-leica-ke-7a.html And since values are discussed, let me give an information on the prices paid for both KE-7A/ELCAN sets I had in the Fontenelle Collection : - nº 1294910 (the one in the thread "Fontenelle archives 87" quoted by Sabears) in September, 1982 : 6,900 euros (equivalent to DM 13,800); - nº 1294776 (with hood for the ELCAN) in May. 1990 : 7,500 euros. This confirms a tendency I observed in the course of my "collecting life" : prices for collectibles remained relatively low (related to the standard of life) in 1970-80, reasonably surged - especially for rare items - in 1980-90 and started "exploding" from the early 90s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 25, 2012 Share #18 Posted February 25, 2012 According to orthodox political economy ("marginalism"), the question is a naive piece of superstition. There is no such thing as 'value'. There are only prices. The price is determined during the actual transaction, so if anybody does pay $29,500, well that is the right price because the buyer accepted it. All prices are right by definition, as long as anybody pays. Sounds crazy? It is. Supply and demand? That is generally speaking incorrect, because demand directs supply over time. If the demand for x-widgets is greater than the supply, then rising prices are an incentive to producing more x-widgets and the prices come down again. The rock bottom is the cost of production, which can ultimately be resolved into labour costs (including those for materials extraction and refinement, machinery, buildings, capital costs etc.) so you can say that this 'rock bottom' is a kind of 'general value'. Obviously, this theory does not apply to Leica lenses. One other obvious exception is collectibles, because the supply of ancient U.S. Army cameras, Rembrandt paintings, Fabergé eggs et cetera ... is given and cannot be increased. Attempts to increase the supply is called faking and are not well regarded. So here, the academic types are approximately right, for once: If the asked price of 29,000 U.S. bucks is accepted, then it was right for both the seller and the buyer, and the question of 'value' is a theological one. But food (most of it) and clothes (most of them) and homes (most of them) are not produced and marketed as if they were Rembrandt paintings. Now some kinds of objects are seen as speculative investments, however. Look at the price of gold, or of some kinds of collectibles, like Fabergé easter eggs. Western economies today, and some non-Western too, are drowning in surplus money that cannot be profitably invested because overall demand is curtailed by deficient purchasing power. The causes of this have to do with drastically increasing inequality: An ever larger share of total wealth is going to people who already have all the swimming pools they want, so the alternative to investment is not consumption but speculation. This has driven all the financial bubbles, and panics, since the 1980's. So the very rich, who are tired of parking their surplus money with the U.S. Treasury or the Swedish National Debt Office at what is in practice negative interest, buy gold, or art, or ancient U.S. Army cameras or whatever on speculation. For if the surfeit of money continues, these prices will not fall in the long run. Sorry, but this IS a long-winded subject. LB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 26, 2012 Share #19 Posted February 26, 2012 [ ... ]This confirms a tendency I observed in the course of my "collecting life" : prices for collectibles remained relatively low (related to the standard of life) in 1970-80, reasonably surged - especially for rare items - in 1980-90 and started "exploding" from the early 90s. Pecole, that observation fits in very well with my explanation in the last paragraph of my previous post: A glut of idle money, caused by the Neocon Revolution and used for speculation. LB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.