Jump to content

Identifying a Camera


Andysnap

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm sure this has been asked thousands of times but once more pays for all. :)

 

I have just received my first Leica, a II with a 50mm Elmar f3.5 lens but when I have tried to find its date of manufacture the serial number seems to point to it being a I which it most definitely is not.

 

8199762087_fe6d6c3427_b.jpg

Leica-II by andysnapper1, on Flickr

 

Here's the number

 

8200854082_366ce78a29_b.jpg

Serial-Number by andysnapper1, on Flickr

 

So, has anyone any ideas? Am I just looking in the wrong lists? Have I been conned?

 

Thanks in advance for any help or advice.

 

Andy

 

Oh, I bought the camera from a reputable dealer/shop so if it is a phoney it should be ok to get my money back, but I really want it to be ok because its bloody lovely. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

x

So, that's a roller cam, which is right for a Leica (the Russians have a solid cam). I suspect you may have one like mine - a I from 1929 which was factory-upgraded in 1934 to II specification by having a rangefinder added.

 

I can't get at the exact link at the moment but if you go to my Flickr stream from my signature and go to the set called "Equipment" you will find a picture of mine.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Sent from another Galaxy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy,

 

I didn't mean to alarm you. The round rangefinder cam is usually a good indicator, as most Russian cameras have a pointed cam, although some were round apparently so it's not conclusive.

 

I still find the quality of the engraving and shutter dial a little suspect, but JC is far more knowledgeable on vintage Leica equipment than me so I will accept his opinion.

 

I would also point out that some 'fakes' can be worth more than the originals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

For me it looks like was originally I to II Upgrade in black, than, probably not at Leitz black paint removed and chrom plating applied. Very shallow engraving on top is indication for my assumption. Engravings on black Leicas from that time were filled with alloy (Woods metal?), therefore engraving was Not so deep as on later black, where ist was filled with white paint. Speed dial was originally nickeled, if nickel plating not properly removed than this Couleur possibly explain slightly different engravings. But deffinitevly genuine Leica, russian fakes Never had the viewing windowsl of such shape

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Engravings on black Leicas from that time were filled with alloy (Woods metal?), therefore engraving was Not so deep as on later black, where ist was filled with white paint.

 

Bismuth (inletted in the engraving when liquid (by low temp fusion), next black (cellusosic) painted and after drying and strenght, polished (cellulosic is mat and need to be be polished )untill the bismuth re appears

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the number it seems Andy's is originally a I from 1931 (Puts's Leica List).

 

Speaking of the white paint on the black paint Barnack's, here's a close-up of my Leica II. It has serial no. 62742 and is, thus, from the same batch of Leica I as Andy's. Mine was upgraded to a II in 1950.

 

Edit: For some reason I am unable to link directly to the image. Here it is:

 

http://philipus.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Leica%20II_2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismuth (inletted in the engraving when liquid (by low temp fusion), next black (cellusosic) painted and after drying and strenght, polished (cellulosic is mat and need to be be polished )untill the bismuth re appears

 

JC, I've heard once from a person who seem to know how Leica did it:

1. black paint with thermo-resistant paint, 2.engraving, 3.inlaying with Bismuth alloy, not pure Bismuth. This is why I put "?" at Woods alloy, I do not know if this was really Woods or another combination of Bismuth, Zink and Lead. Bismuth alone is rather hard and is not good adhesive, thus not easily filling the whole engraving. Important was as well that inlaying should have been done almost immediately after engraving to avoid oxidation of brass.

This is what I've herad and honestly it makes sense to me.

On later black leicas, fillied with white paint engravings were deeper to have more white paint and clear letters/numbers.

jerzy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...