Leica Hood Experts? Ollux/ 12522 (H)???

[Obskura]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all, long time lurker, first time poster.

 

I just recently picked up a lot of Leicas from a nice lady in the mid west, and was extremely happy to find an early 12522 hood for the first version 35mm summilux steel rim. The inscription on it is 12522 H 1:1.4/35. I've only seen the variations inscribed OLLUX and 12522 part numbers, but never one with an H at the end. It looks like the OLLUX and regular 12522s with the oval sides and flat top and bottom. The hood part is a slightly lighter gray color than the black mounting rim.

 

Any one have any info on this? I can;t seem to find any anywhere.

 

Thanks so much!

[giordano]

Welcome to the forum! It's worth posting this question in the Leica Collectors & Historica section, where the real experts are more likely to see it.

[luigi bertolotti]

Nothing strange : there has been a period (1960 around) in which the Leitz product codes were made by 5 digits PLUS one letter (you can see them in several Leitz catalogs of the era) : it was the coding system which superseded the old famous five letters code (which initiated with very "speaking" codes like LEICA and ELMAR... ).

Later on, they probably found that the letter was superfluous (*) and kept only the 5 digits (for photo... for microscropes they used 6 digits) and this can be also verified in their catalogs. Items' engravings followed this decision, see hereunder a quick example, two hoods of different age :

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!

 

 

(*) It would be interesting to know WHY they did added the letter... apparently, there have never been codes with same number and different letter... neither, I think, letter had been introduced to use it as a "version" identifier... they seem to be assigned "randomly".... I wonder if it could be something like a "control character" designed to avoid errors in the orders' management in sight of the communication systems used at those times (telex etc...)

Edited May 10, 2013 by luigi bertolotti

[Obskura]

Thank you, I'll try there, but it looks like luigi bertolotti has given some very good info... but I'm thirsty for more! Thanks to both of you!

[Obskura]

Hi all, I was told to direct my question to this sub. I recently came across a 122522 H hood for the first version 35mm summilux. Can anyone enlighten me to the use of the extra letter at the end of the product number? I know they did it on other hoods, but I've never seen examples on this particular hood. Also any word on an increase or decrease of value this might make to the hood?

 

Thanks in advance!

[luigi bertolotti]

Just a matter of time to find the right examples...... welcome to the historical section !!! If you'll become a frequent surfer of our forum, you'll soon realize that this section is really a "treasure box" for Leica passionates...

 

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!

 

 

 

... and I do NOT exclude that some minor variants do exist (the arrows ?)... in its golden years, Leitz pursued a continuos improvement, even even slight, on their products, and given that the Summilux 35 (and, consequently, its hood) has always been a "small batches" item, and a "prestige" one, too, they made many modifications... the lens in itself had, roughly, more than 10 variants/versions during its long life... And, as you probably know, there is also a completely different hood (12504), divisible in two parts to accomodate series VII filters... and it in turn has variants... (my one is engraved "1:1,4/35", others are engraved also "1:2/35")

Edited May 11, 2013 by luigi bertolotti

[Ivar B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here is mine - identical to one posted by Luigi.

 

You can count yourself luckly having found one - eBay prices are in the region $1000 - 1500.

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!

[luigi bertolotti]

Here is mine - identical to one posted by Luigi.

 

You can count yourself luckly having found one - eBay prices are in the region $1000 - 1500.

 

AHA !! Thanks, Ivar !!!... and not at all identical... my one has the OLLUX writing... and NOT the arrows... ... the "some other variant" I speculated about in my post...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Obskura]

Just a matter of time to find the right examples...... welcome to the historical section !!! If you'll become a frequent surfer of our forum, you'll soon realize that this section is really a "treasure box" for Leica passionates...

 

 

 

... and I do NOT exclude that some minor variants do exist (the arrows ?)... in its golden years, Leitz pursued a continuos improvement, even even slight, on their products, and given that the Summilux 35 (and, consequently, its hood) has always been a "small batches" item, and a "prestige" one, too, they made many modifications... the lens in itself had, roughly, more than 10 variants/versions during its long life... And, as you probably know, there is also a completely different hood (12504), divisible in two parts to accomodate series VII filters... and it in turn has variants... (my one is engraved "1:1,4/35", others are engraved also "1:2/35")

 

Yes, well I feel a chronic case coming on! Can I ask where you got the second picture? I couldn't find one anywhere. I guess it might be time to pick up some kind of reference book...

 

Thanks for all you're help guys, I'm excited to have this piece. If only I could track down the lens this guy attached to.......

[jc_braconi]

An exemple here :

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!

[luigi bertolotti]

Yes, well I feel a chronic case coming on! Can I ask where you got the second picture? I couldn't find one anywhere. I guess it might be time to pick up some kind of reference book...

 

Thanks for all you're help guys, I'm excited to have this piece. If only I could track down the lens this guy attached to.......

 

The only sure answer is "in my PC"... ... I keep an archive of pics of gear that (apart MY own gear... ) can come from the most different sources which, usually, I don't keep record of... can be taken from ebay sales, auctions' catalog, scanning of old ads and or books... some are also from OUR Wiki section.

 

If you haven't yet any reference book... start from the top : James Lager.

[grahamc]

 

On 5/11/2013 at 6:44 PM, luigi bertolotti said:

Just a matter of time to find the right examples...

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!

... welcome to the historical section !!! If you'll become a frequent surfer of our forum, you'll soon realize that this section is really a "treasure box" for Leica passionates...

 

 

 

 

... and I do NOT exclude that some minor variants do exist (the arrows ?)... in its golden years, Leitz pursued a continuos improvement, even even slight, on their products, and given that the Summilux 35 (and, consequently, its hood) has always been a "small batches" item, and a "prestige" one, too, they made many modifications... the lens in itself had, roughly, more than 10 variants/versions during its long life... And, as you probably know, there is also a completely different hood (12504), divisible in two parts to accomodate series VII filters... and it in turn has variants... (my one is engraved "1:1,4/35", others are engraved also "1:2/35")

10 Years later ......  I have the 'OLLUX' in the first pic (with no arrows).  In addition to the other 2 variations pictured I also see a variant with 'OLLUX' with arrows either side.

Just for fun, is there any knowledge here around what approximate time periods each of these different variants were sold with the lens, through the 1960-67 version 1 lifespan ?  

Edited January 12 by grahamc

[luigi bertolotti]

14 hours ago, grahamc said:

 

10 Years later ......  I have the 'OLLUX' in the first pic (with no arrows).  In addition to the other 2 variations pictured I also see a variant with 'OLLUX' with arrows either side.

Just for fun, is there any knowledge here around what approximate time periods each of these different variants were sold with the lens, through the 1960-67 version 1 lifespan ?  

Eh... well. I suppose that basically it followed the evolution of codes ... 5 letters - then 5 digits+letter - then 5 digits only.. the years of those transitions ought not to be difficult to assess (looking at catalogs and in some cases at s/n of lenses, too...) ; I think that "OLLUX with arrows" is the 2nd variant... and for this is very hard to assess a date of intro.... 🙄

[grahamc]

2 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

Eh... well. I suppose that basically it followed the evolution of codes ... 5 letters - then 5 digits+letter - then 5 digits only.. the years of those transitions ought not to be difficult to assess (looking at catalogs and in some cases at s/n of lenses, too...) ; I think that "OLLUX with arrows" is the 2nd variant... and for this is very hard to assess a date of intro.... 🙄

Thanks Luiji ah yes that makes sense that way !

[kaspart]

Mine is as well an "OLLUX with arrows" and it came with a lens made in 1960.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[grahamc]

14 hours ago, kaspart said:

Mine is as well an "OLLUX with arrows" and it came with a lens made in 1960.

Thanks@kaspart Do you mind me asking whether your OLLUX with arrows came with a lens from 1960 batch 173 xxx or 1960 batch 176 xxx ?

This photo (just a stock image from the web) shows a 1960 first batch set without arrows.    

If yours is 176 xxx serial we 'may' infer that arrows were introduced sometime in second batch and then retained for the progression order that Luiji mentioned .

If yours is 173 xxx then perhaps a mixed bag from the start    Such big questions in life to keep us occupied 
 

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!

Edited January 13 by grahamc

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[luigi bertolotti]

9 hours ago, grahamc said:

---

If yours is 176 xxx serial we 'may' infer that arrows were introduced sometime in second batch and then retained for the progression order that Luiji mentioned .

 

 

Hum...my 1765xxx hasn't arrows...

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!

[grahamc]

1 hour ago, luigi bertolotti said:

Hum...my 1765xxx hasn't arrows...

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!

Then I would guess that the very earliest ones had no arrows (“maybe” the first batch in full , plus some 176 as we now know), after which arrows retained for all later versions.  

But we must remember these 2 initial batches are attributed to the same year 1960, so it’s also not unfeasible that both first and second batch contained both arrows and non-arrows from the start.

It’s too hard to say for sure isn’t it, unless of course we find an arrowed OLLUX and 173 xxxxx pairing that we are confident was sold together at the time . 

Edited January 13 by grahamc

[kaspart]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb grahamc:

Thanks@kaspart Do you mind me asking whether your OLLUX with arrows came with a lens from 1960 batch 173 xxx or 1960 batch 176 xxx ?

This photo (just a stock image from the web) shows a 1960 first batch set without arrows.    

If yours is 176 xxx serial we 'may' infer that arrows were introduced sometime in second batch and then retained for the progression order that Luiji mentioned .

If yours is 173 xxx then perhaps a mixed bag from the start    Such big questions in life to keep us occupied 
 

 

Mine is 177 xxx which is the third batch if I'm not mistaken.

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!

[grahamc]

Hello, just for fun I put together a sample of lens + hood type combinations that I could find pictured together, to see if there were any trends.  I stopped at 30 pairs. 

Initially, the results were completely inconclusive, since all of the 4 hood types appeared with lenses from all of the batches.  The notable exception was type 12522 (without 'H'), which only appeared once (with a lens from the very last batch, a 216 xxxx lens in 1966).  

Since we don't know if all of these 30 lens/hood pairs were actually produced and sold together (and we can presume they were not), I then narrowed down to look at only lens/hood pairings that were likely to be original pairings.  For example looking at pairs where both lens & hood were in particularly well-preserved condition and offered with original caps and/or box.

Looking at only these 'well cared for / presumed original' pairs, it seems that:

• Both 'OLLUX no arrows' and 'OLLUX with arrows' were both probably offered from the very start (batch 173 xxxx), and continued together through batch 176 xxxx and 177 xxxx.  This makes sense as all these batches were of the same year 1960.
• At batch 206 xxxx in 1964, it seems there was a change to only 'OLLUX Arrowed' being offered (not OLLUX no arrows), as well as 12522 H being introduced. 
• In the final (1966) batch 216 xxxx, hood 12522 (no H) was introduced, but it's hard to tell if it was exclusively.

This timeline works with Luiji's order and makes sense because there was several years between changes.

Personally I was only interested in the oddity of the 'OLLUX no arrows' version (which I own) so I have settled my curiosity.  Interestingly, it was as common as the 'OLLUX arrowed' type though, so perhaps not an oddity at all (other than being different to the other 3 )

Best 

Graham 

Edited January 14 by grahamc