sabears Posted July 22, 2012 Author Share #21 Posted July 22, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you, Al. Well, I'm sorry but the seller declares to have the proof that the camera is original an that this is certified by Leitz. I don't see anything of this in the letter (this is more a receipt rather than a declaration of genuinity). I see that Leitz declares only that the camera is in good working condition, no mention regarding the "untouched condition". If you see an expertise, is a total different matter, and it is not made by the Customer Service. Moreover... even the box is wrong...but this is another story;) Best wishes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 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 22, 2012 Share #22 Posted July 22, 2012 Agreed. The document is simply evidence that Solms have handled the camera. From this fact one can infer only that... the camera in question is really a Leica M3, i.e. "genuine" if one construes that term broadly, and this is not without value. The additional questions of when and in what ways the camera was restored are unanswered by the document, but one would expect Solms to decline servicing a Frankencamera assembled by third parties, so again this is indirect proof that the restoration was "genuine", i.e. carried out by Leica. On the final point claimed by the seller, i.e. "newness" / "mai usata" I agree there is absolutely no proof from the document. One can generously interpret it as true by accepting that the camera has never been used... since its restoration. (The fact that it is a restored camera makes it completely certain that it was used before the restoration). Again, I am in broad agreement with Luigi. There is no indication that the seller is acting dishonestly, and his willingness to release this document is actually to his credit. One can only fault him, at most, with believing (even after discussion with me) that the camera has never been used and is not restored, but one can see how this position can be adopted in good faith, even if a little too stubbornly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabears Posted July 22, 2012 Author Share #23 Posted July 22, 2012 I don't mean that the seller is acting dishonestly, absolutely not, at least that he doesn't know anything about a black paint M3: his willingness may be even more dangerous from a buyer point of view. Regarding Solms service (of very high quality, no question): my friend had a CLA of a Frankencamera "updated" by a famous "GB-artist" (now passed away - he reworked the camera back in the early '70). Nothing bad in this, it's their work. cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 22, 2012 Share #24 Posted July 22, 2012 The document, indeed, says no more than it's really a M3... I hoped to see at least something about the paint... but CS people clearly can't give directly any detail about a painting process of almost 50 years ago... . The problem is indeed the price asked... i surfed quickly former auctions, and found this one (2008) : WestLicht Photographica Auction With one that has the M4 sync (but a black Summilux with it) and another which is (probably) more "original" and belongs to the same batch. Lot 111 of 2010 auction (http://www.westlicht-auction.com/index.php?id=185055&acat=185055&_ssl=off) can be, imho, closely compared to the item we are speaking of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 23, 2012 Share #25 Posted July 23, 2012 BTW... I did notice just now that the advance lever of the ebayed item is, I'd say, not the original one... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted July 23, 2012 Share #26 Posted July 23, 2012 Yes, that's not the original lever. It seems to me also that the tripod hole is too small. Plus I'm not sure about its placement on the plate. EDIT: I saw on the Westlicht auction that Luigi linked to that lot 109 (no. 959xxx) has a large hole. Lot 110 (no. 1078xxx) has a small. Lot 111 (no. 1097xxx) has a large hole. All have auf-zu engraved. Perhaps I'm missing something but why does the document say "Leica M3 schwarz verchromt" and then "schwarz-lackiert"? There's something about the shine which makes me think it is not painted (though I admit it is very difficult to make a conclusive assessment based on photos on the internet). The paint definitely looks different from my M4BP (12xx xxx). I tried Google translate but got a rather funny translation (incl that the "nuts are soft"). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted July 23, 2012 Share #27 Posted July 23, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) The document says no more than that the function of the camera is fully ok. Nothing was charged, as nothing was replaced or serviced. At the bottom, it is mentioned that the camera is a "Sammlerstück", i.e. a collector's item. No information is given on whether the camera has been rebuilt at an earlier point in time (which may well be the case). Even then, the camera would be fully original according to Leica standards. Cheers, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 23, 2012 Share #28 Posted July 23, 2012 Yes, that's not the original lever. It seems to me also that the tripod hole is too small. Plus I'm not sure about its placement on the plate. . At the times of M3, the tripod attachment was 1/4" or 3/8" as one liked (usually there were different codes to identify the 2 versions) : anyway, the bottom plate is surely "part of the rebuilt"... can be a later spare part (maybe original, of course), born black or repainted.... as Sabears said, is not a problem to find one. About translation... the seller writes "The Leica lacquering has neither scratches nor defects and is still the original one" : a strong and very questionable assertion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 23, 2012 Share #29 Posted July 23, 2012 Non-original parts like the lever are a strong indicator for a Leica-rebuild, as they have a habit of "upgrading" cameras whilst they are at it. I think it is virtually certain that this a restored camera without provenance.. It may have been cobbled together from spare parts, if it were done correctly Leica CS would not have any reason to reject the camera as non-genuine. This was a common practice around Solms by ex-Leica employees, especially after the large spare-parts clearance. I think the seller is overasking by a factor ten or thereabouts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 23, 2012 Share #30 Posted July 23, 2012 I think the seller is overasking by a factor ten or thereabouts. Right...but just because is an Italian (and we are poor ), I concede that 1/8th or 1/7th could stand well... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted July 24, 2012 Share #31 Posted July 24, 2012 . Moreover... even the box is wrong...but this is another story;) What is wrong with the box, by the way? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted July 24, 2012 Share #32 Posted July 24, 2012 Yes, that's not the original lever. For the life of me, I can't tell the difference. What is it? EDIT: the only thing I notice is perhaps the length - it seems short / does not reach close enough to the hot-shoe. Anything else? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 24, 2012 Share #33 Posted July 24, 2012 For the life of me, I can't tell the difference. What is it? EDIT: the only thing I notice is perhaps the length - it seems short / does not reach close enough to the hot-shoe. Anything else? That's IT... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted July 24, 2012 Share #34 Posted July 24, 2012 the only thing I notice is perhaps the length - it seems short / does not reach close enough to the hot-shoe. Yes exactly. The end goes all the way to the flash shoe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabears Posted July 24, 2012 Author Share #35 Posted July 24, 2012 What is wrong with the box, by the way? The box is older than the camera, we have spoken even here, times ago, of the different variants. cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted July 24, 2012 Share #36 Posted July 24, 2012 ^^ Ah,yes. I remember now the infamous thread about boxes, where the questions were found (on another thread) to be not exactly disinterested... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/202662-leica-m3-boxes.html Butt checking against JC's site, the box for this camera does seem to be the later (s.n. 1,000,000+) M3 variety (basically cream-coloured, with a stylized eye around the label M3). Anyway, who knows whether the s.n. numbers match, etc., but if you re-check this does seem the right *type* of box, no? Or where am I wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabears Posted July 24, 2012 Author Share #37 Posted July 24, 2012 ^^ Ah,yes. I remember now the infamous thread about boxes, where the questions were found (on another thread) to be not exactly disinterested... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-collectors-historica/202662-leica-m3-boxes.html Butt checking against JC's site, the box for this camera does seem to be the later (s.n. 1,000,000+) M3 variety (basically cream-coloured, with a stylized eye around the label M3). Anyway, who knows whether the s.n. numbers match, etc., but if you re-check this does seem the right *type* of box, no? Or where am I wrong? Here a Black paint M3 of the same batch (I know this camera, was sold in the USA, matching box, original warranty, etc.): Leica M3 Black paint | Flickr - Photo Sharing! cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted July 24, 2012 Share #38 Posted July 24, 2012 Aaaargh! Don't tell me that my rebuilt M3 has the wrong box: M3 LEICA 1079171 M-3 M LEITZ TOP ORIGINAL BOX OVP! | eBay If it does, I will manage to survive , but it will mean the serial number at the back of my box to be a forgery. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabears Posted July 24, 2012 Author Share #39 Posted July 24, 2012 Your case seems to be earlier. After your box there was another variant which was adopted around this serial n., it was the second-last, see here: @Collectible@ Leica M3 + Summilux 50mm f/1.4 Chrome Super Clean @Boxed@ #006961 403163110911 | eBay cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 24, 2012 Share #40 Posted July 24, 2012 Aaaargh! Don't tell me that my rebuilt M3 has the wrong box: M3 LEICA 1079171 M-3 M LEITZ TOP ORIGINAL BOX OVP! | eBay If it does, I will manage to survive , but it will mean the serial number at the back of my box to be a forgery. If it easy, could you post a pic of the label on box, with s/n ? Nothing important, but I'd be curios to see how is a "possibly faked" label... it's even funny that someone thinks even to fake boxes... (to be true, it's years and years that sellers do specify when an item is complete with "box with matching s/n" , is indeed a plus.... ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.