sabears Posted July 20, 2012 Share #1 Posted July 20, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) LEICA M3 ORIGINAL BLACK PAINT 1964 "A+" IN BOX | eBay cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 Hi sabears, Take a look here A genuine example of a rebuilt camera. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
M9reno Posted July 20, 2012 Share #2 Posted July 20, 2012 The flash sync symbols look like the skinny ones (M4 era) on the chrome M3 I bought last year, which you probably remember, but mine was sold as a factory rebuild. Mine has turned out great, by the way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 21, 2012 Share #3 Posted July 21, 2012 A bit overpriced, to put it mildly. It is a restored/rebuilt camera it seems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted July 21, 2012 Share #4 Posted July 21, 2012 The base plate is unengraved, like that on my rebuilt M3. The price was, thankfully, a bit less for mine. Then again, this seller (a camera dealer) seems not to know/wish to say that he is dealing with a rebuild, but thinks/claims it is a mint black M3, never used, "mai usata". The identity of the previous owner is revealed on the Leica documentation in the background: a certain architect from Gernsbach, Germany. This too is rather reassuring on the matter of the "genuineness" of the rebuild, although I would like to know but cannot tell when the rebuild took place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted July 21, 2012 Share #5 Posted July 21, 2012 Postscript: the seller is promptly communicative. He replied to my request for the documentation quickly. The papers confirm that Solms regards the camera as genuine. I have just put it to the seller that the camera is restored, but he has not yet replied. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabears Posted July 21, 2012 Author Share #6 Posted July 21, 2012 Postscript: the seller is promptly communicative. He replied to my request for the documentation quickly. The papers confirm that Solms regards the camera as genuine. I have just put it to the seller that the camera is restored, but he has not yet replied. A new concept of authenticity = done at different times with different parts from Leitz. cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted July 21, 2012 Share #7 Posted July 21, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Overpriced by quite a bit. His M6TTL BP is much overpriced as is the M4, methinks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted July 21, 2012 Share #8 Posted July 21, 2012 If it is real, I think that for such a lovely camera to remain unused for nearly 50 years is very sad Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabears Posted July 21, 2012 Author Share #9 Posted July 21, 2012 If it is real, I think that for such a lovely camera to remain unused for nearly 50 years is very sad Gerry Be happy !!! It's not possible! cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted July 21, 2012 Share #10 Posted July 21, 2012 A new concept of authenticity = done at different times with different parts from Leitz. cheers Well, yes. The camera as palimpsest, or even as a living organism. And after all, why not? Refurbishment is a fine Leitz tradition, from the Model A to the M9 > M9P, and long may it continue! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted July 21, 2012 Share #11 Posted July 21, 2012 By the way, the seller did respond to my point that the camera was restored: "no problem, I'm sorry but, respectfully, disagree about what you wrote. I have another M3 chrome of 1961, fully original. The flash sync simbol are the same, but I know that before the 60's were different, less stylized. On the base of my M3 chrome there is engraved open-close as you wrote, but over time the factory produced the M3 without the engrave. My black paint is of '64, one of the last model. If my M3 black paint were restored, the technicians of Solms were noted this on the document, but this has not been done. These documents were requested by my friend Kurt, great German collector, before buying the camera, just to be sure it was original, because the original warranty document was not present in the package. I am very sincere and convinced for originality of this item and I have no intention of creating problems for anyone. Thanks for your interest. Best regards." I have no problem with this response. There is a matter of difference of opinion, and the seller is courteous. PS: Kurt Denny, the architect from Gernsbach, is the former owner named here. Has any member heard of him before? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabears Posted July 21, 2012 Author Share #12 Posted July 21, 2012 "...I have another M3 chrome of 1961, fully original...." My comment: Yes, it's original in the same way of the M3 black paint. (By the way this matter is simply not true). "... If my M3 black paint were restored, the technicians of Solms were noted this on the document, but this has not been done..." My comment: Actually nowadays the so-called technicians of Solms know almost nothing regarding vintage cameras. I speak from my experience: I asked to them about an Elmax camera that was previously declared a total fake by O. Michaely: well they declared it was original and well preserved! (telling the true: I had other similar experiences. The only thing that is very useful are Leitz registers in order to know the deliveries, even if in the last years it's very hard to have a response). However the paint is without question of the M4BP era, I had many spares as these over the years, top and bottom, you see the very different paint, look at one original M3 BP, also the L seal is missing. Moreover, ALL the baseplate of leica M3 BP have the Open-Close engraved, no matter of the age. Only the spares of M4 BP era don't . Do you want a nice spare set, even a lot better of the spares of this camera? See here: leica_m3_bl_paint_set_1 (the seller, honestly, declares that are not original but...seem even better of the parts on the "original" we are talking about) You need less parts? See here: LEICA PARTS FOR THE M3 MODEL, BLACK PAINT FINISH # 5 | eBay LEICA PARTS FOR THE M3 MODEL, BLACK PAINT FINISH # 6 | eBay LEICA PARTS FOR THE M3 MODEL, BLACK PAINT FINISH # 10 | eBay LEICA PARTS FOR THE M3 MODEL, BLACK PAINT FINISH # 7 | eBay Cheers:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted July 21, 2012 Share #13 Posted July 21, 2012 Thanks, but let's make sure to distinguish on the one hand the fake Leica assembled to deceive wealthy collectors, as in the case of the Elmax, and on the other hand the factory refurb. I think it is safe to say that a camera costing $5,000 or less is not going to be worth the trouble of faking by collecting odd parts off websites. The present seller is of course asking for much more than that, but I think from the documents the camera is still a genuine refurb (i.e. done at some point by Leica), being erroneously sold as if never used. A genuinely malicious fake-job would likely not overlook such glaring details as the difference in paint, sync symbols, or unengraved baseplate. Ironically it is these non-authentic details that best demonstrate the item's authenticity as a Leica refurb. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted July 21, 2012 Share #14 Posted July 21, 2012 Note this other example. An M2 on eBay last year: Leica M2 Black Paint. | eBay ... And still for sale (now for less), now that the seller clarifies that the camera used to be silver: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Leica-M2-Black-Paint-/271017567531?pt=DE_Foto_Camcorder_Analogkameras&hash=item3f19e7e52b Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabears Posted July 21, 2012 Author Share #15 Posted July 21, 2012 I agree, it seems a rebuilt camera as they made about in the second half of '70 ( but if the work was done by Leitz and the camera was never used, as the seller declares, must have the L recessed seal from the factory, as in other samples: this bring us to think to a skilled private technician ). Also if Leitz made the work it is for sure in the Leitz registers (at that time the restore was always registered), and they can supply a copy of it, if it was so. To my opinion the camera was probably not restored in order to make a lot of money, this explain why there are a lot of non-authentic details, may be that money is only the dream of actual seller: in this condition the value is by far less than half of half of requested... best wishes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 22, 2012 Share #16 Posted July 22, 2012 Imho, the seller is not much to blame, after all... he has a camera with good proofs of authenticy, and tries to cash in the highest from it... some details of the descrption can be someway misleading ("never used"....) but isn't trying to sell a fake, declares his identity very clearly, does accept return : the real problem is that maybe he is not well aware that (expecially in this forum... ), ANY black M3 would be scrutinized with LOT of attention from a knowledged collector... for obvious reasons, is one of the Ms that is more prone to disguising/semi-faking/partial rebuilding with spares etc... ; if he finds a rich collector which is satisfied with all is said and displayed, so good for him... I agree that the request is undoubtly in the very high side. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabears Posted July 22, 2012 Author Share #17 Posted July 22, 2012 ...I'd be interested to know what is written in the letter from the factory... cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 22, 2012 Share #18 Posted July 22, 2012 ...I'd be interested to know what is written in the letter from the factory... cheers Me too... but M9Reno seems has read it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted July 22, 2012 Share #19 Posted July 22, 2012 I fully agree with Luigi in Post #16. I will try to post the file of the document shortly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted July 22, 2012 Share #20 Posted July 22, 2012 Here is the document. IMG.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.