M4 Black Paint

[jcraf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting, This Japanese dealer is also quoting the 1181501 to 1182000 BP batch for the camera he's selling:

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/740-2-Exc-LEICA-M4-Black-Paint-Leica-M4-1181501-1182000-EMS-/331744129359?hash=item4d3d7db14f:g:dCkAAOSwT5tWQvSn

 

Regards

[pico]

I owe you a better picture. This will have to do for now. My M4.

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Bill Livingston]

"Whatever happens, it's a nice camera and of all of the many Ms I have owned, it feels and shoots the best"..

 

 

And that's the bit that matters..!

[pico]

"Whatever happens, it's a nice camera and of all of the many Ms I have owned, it feels and shoots the best"..

And that's the bit that matters..!

 

That describes my M2 cameras. The lot in which all the mechanics were hand fitted.

Those days are gone.

.

Edited January 2, 2016 by pico

[alan mcfall]

In response to Pico's post #15:  I certainly am not in a position to verify anything, this might be done by Wetzlar or by an "expert".

I do collect serial numbers for all things Leitz, and have for nearly 40 years.  This information comes from texts on the Leica, auction catalogs such as Tamarkin or Westlicht, ebay and occasionally from items at trade shows, or my own collection.  I can be moderately certain that the M4 serials I have shown are for cameras that are black.  If they were painted black at Wetzlar, originally or upon later request, or painted by someone skilled in this practice, I could never be 100% certain.  That is why my post used words such as, probably, likely and chance.

Statistics can help to determine probability but not complete certainty.  There are many errors in lists such as Band 1, and it is possible that errors even exist in factory records ( especially under difficult times, such as near the end of the war).  But we use the best we can find and sometimes supplement it with "observations". It is also unfortunate that as prices go higher, the demand for reproductions or recreations increases.  The fair number of fake MP's has been previously reported.

Now, if we believe the M4's produced between 1181501 and 1181999 were all originally chrome, and we have 10 that are now by whatever method black; then the question is, are these repaints or original. 2% (10/500) would be a high percentage, in my experience. Repaints were or are expensive.  If 2% was applied to all the chrome M4's, we would have thousands of repaints in existence. That said, the existence of just a few chrome observations in this lot of 500, would enormously detract from the hypothesis that this lot was black originally. Conversion of black paint to chrome is almost unheard of.

Note that 1181687 is currently on ebay.  It is black, but it is also from Japan where the painting art seems relatively advanced. 1181968 is black and only 46 units above the one in question here. I guess we can wait for Wetzlar to respond, I just hope the historian has the knowledge needed. If this were the "Shroud of Turin" we could use spectrographic methods to compare the paint chemistry to that of an original 1968 camera.

Sorry for the long post. With Leica, exceptions can be frequent.  I guess that is one reason it is so interesting.

[jcraf]

The plot thickens.

 

Using good old Google, inserting my M4's serial number shows that it turned up at Christie's auction house  in London in 1996 where it was sold as part of a lot belonging to a 'European collector'. (Are you out there?!). It was sold with a period 50 Summicron and was boxed.

 

The price reached was a scarcely believable £4025. 

 

Now that's a lot for a chrome camera which has been repainted, and remember that this was 20 years ago. And I would expect an organisation as reputable as Christie's to have verified what they were selling. Similarly the buyer.

 

But here's the thing. In what little information remains in the catalogue, the camera is described as black paint (repainted). Note that it is not described as chrome repainted to BP. 

 

This information, along with the sale price and the mysterious 1181501-1999 alleged black paint batch, and the clear existence of examples in thus range  (including a couple currently on eBay, and the van Hasebroeck example) perhaps confirm that this was a BP batch, tying in with the Cameraquest information.

 

At the moment, given the Christie's information, I'm working on the theory that this was an original BP camera, imported by Cattaneo Italy, and at some time had the BP restored. By whom, we shall never know, but again look at that sale price!!

 

I'll inform Wetzlar of the Christies information too. Perhaps they were asked to verify at that time. Unless they had a bonfire when they moved from Solms.

 

Regards

[jcraf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In response to Pico's post #15:  I certainly am not in a position to verify anything, this might be done by Wetzlar or by an "expert".

I do collect serial numbers for all things Leitz, and have for nearly 40 years.  This information comes from texts on the Leica, auction catalogs such as Tamarkin or Westlicht, ebay and occasionally from items at trade shows, or my own collection.  I can be moderately certain that the M4 serials I have shown are for cameras that are black.  If they were painted black at Wetzlar, originally or upon later request, or painted by someone skilled in this practice, I could never be 100% certain.  That is why my post used words such as, probably, likely and chance.

Statistics can help to determine probability but not complete certainty.  There are many errors in lists such as Band 1, and it is possible that errors even exist in factory records ( especially under difficult times, such as near the end of the war).  But we use the best we can find and sometimes supplement it with "observations". It is also unfortunate that as prices go higher, the demand for reproductions or recreations increases.  The fair number of fake MP's has been previously reported.

Now, if we believe the M4's produced between 1181501 and 1181999 were all originally chrome, and we have 10 that are now by whatever method black; then the question is, are these repaints or original. 2% (10/500) would be a high percentage, in my experience. Repaints were or are expensive.  If 2% was applied to all the chrome M4's, we would have thousands of repaints in existence. That said, the existence of just a few chrome observations in this lot of 500, would enormously detract from the hypothesis that this lot was black originally. Conversion of black paint to chrome is almost unheard of.

Note that 1181687 is currently on ebay.  It is black, but it is also from Japan where the painting art seems relatively advanced. 1181968 is black and only 46 units above the one in question here. I guess we can wait for Wetzlar to respond, I just hope the historian has the knowledge needed. If this were the "Shroud of Turin" we could use spectrographic methods to compare the paint chemistry to that of an original 1968 camera.

Sorry for the long post. With Leica, exceptions can be frequent.  I guess that is one reason it is so interesting.

 

1181561 is also verified BP, sold at a WestLicht auction in 2007 (image copyright, WestLicht auction).

 

1181658 BP was sold by WestLicht in 2010. So that's another 2 from this early batch of 500 verified.  Both have the black hotshoe screws also seen on 1181922 but not on later BP M4s

 

What's also odd, is that perusing online catalogues and sites I have yet to see a chrome M4 camera with a serial number in the 118 1501-1999 range.

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 3, 2016 by jcraf

[Bill Livingston]

Hmmm.. 'curiouser and curiouser' indeed...

 

To my eyes, it certainly looks repainted, for the reasons I stated before, although I also thought it may have been repainted from chrome at one point, but the evidence doesn't suggest that... Now I am looking at this thread from my MacBook I can see much better and judging from a small iPhone or iPad screen isn't the best way to come to any conclusions anyway...!

 

 

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!

 

The camera above, 1561, looks very much what I would think an original BP M4 would look like. Very sharp and clean and it appears to have a smooth and consistent finish. The wear round the rewind looks even and again, what I would expect to see.

 

 

This camera, 1922, has a much less 'refined' finish. The paint looks overly thick and has a different sheen, or reflectivity and the camera simply doesn't look as 'sharp' as the previous one in terms of overall appearance. I think this is a repainted camera. Its seems from the subsequent evidence you have uncovered that it IS in fact an original BP Leica M4 which has been repainted at some point.

 

It is fairly safe to say that if this was an original BP Leica M4, possibly repainted, then the vulcanite would need to have been replaced at the same time. If you look at this link  http://www.nemeng.com/leica/032b.shtml it suggested that the only way you can re-vulcanise a camera would be complete disassembly and then re-baking the empty shell under heat and pressure... it also goes on to say that Leica had not offered this service in decades.

 

The vulcanite on M4 - 1922 doesn't look like there is any deterioration at all from the photos seen so far. Normally you would expect some sign of wear or deterioration due to sweat, salts, moisture etc over a period of time, yet this vulcanite looks almost mint. I cannot see how a camera that hasn't been fully painted from body shell upwards, rebuilt and re-vulcanised could ever have the vulcanite in the condition this one appears to be in.

 

So, either the camera is an original BP M4 and has been used very sporadically during its life and boxed when not in use and is entirely original. Or, far more likely, it has been repainted by Leica (and re-vulcanised at the same time...), which, according to the link I posted, suggests it was done decades ago. If this is in fact the case, then the 'repaint' would have been done by Leica long before the Christies auction and the camera may have been repainted and re-vulcanised, via Cattaneo, and then resold to a new owner, possibly the 'European collector' who wanted an original BP Leica M4, but wanted one in prime condition and therefore would accept an original, repainted by Leica.

 

Obviously, that collector then sold part or all of his collection at Christies and I know a little about auctions (although in the vintage fishing tackle arena, not cameras!). If a known collector with a solid reputation was selling off all, or part of, a collection, those 'in the know' would be very interested, that seller is strong providence and adds to future values. Plus, you only have to have two buyers with the buying power to compete with one another to push a price up to well above the expected selling price... and over £4000, although an awful lot, particularly 20 years ago, isn't unreasonable. It was at a time in London when people were speculating on all sorts of items and Leica cameras would certainly fall into the category of worthy of speculation... so the bidders wouldn't necessarily have full knowledge of the M4 and its detailed history.

 

Obviously, this is all speculation on my part, but it seems to fit the facts as they are presented.

 

I still feel the 'repainting' appears to be of a lower standard that I would have expected from Leica themselves, but that doesn't mean it isn't the case. That's assuming it IS repainted. The Christies catalogue appears to suggest it was and if it was an original BP M4, repainted by Leica long before it went for sale at Christies. At that time, I would think a number of people wouldn't have been overly concerned at the 'authenticity' or 'originality' of the finish.

 

I think current collectors are more sophisticated because they would be looking for something totally original and a repaint is a little like a re-spray in the car arena. It would attract a lower figure than a mint original. Certainly in todays market. In fact a brassed, worn M4 would probably fetch a considerably higher value than even the best 're-paint', especially if it had compelling providence with a known and venerated photographer as a prior owner.

 

Anyway, an interesting way to spend a Sunday afternoon...!

 

​I am looking forward to hearing the outcome of your investigation... 

Edited January 3, 2016 by Bill Livingston

[jcraf]

Thanks Bill. The quality of the finish is not as I would expect, but oddly looks much worse in the photos than in real life.  But then it seems certain that someone has refinished the camera at some point.

 

I suppose the object of the exercise was to verify whether this was originally a BP camera, which I believe it is, along with its siblings in the 1181501-1999 batch.

 

It has been a fascinating exercise, and I'll never sell it anyway. I'll report back if Wetzlar come back to me!

 

Regards  

[Bill Livingston]

 

I suppose the object of the exercise was to verify whether this was originally a BP camera, which I believe it is, along with its siblings in the 1181501-1999 batch.

 

It has been a fascinating exercise, and I'll never sell it anyway. I'll report back if Wetzlar come back to me!

 

Regards  

 

I believe it is too... and I would love to hear the final conclusion (assuming there is one!) when you hear back from Wetzlar!

Edited January 3, 2016 by Bill Livingston

[pico]

In my modest experience, the film rewind latch is the first part to show wear on a BP Leica.

(jcraf's image)

 

Edited January 3, 2016 by pico

[jcraf]

In my modest experience, the film rewind latch is the first part to show wear on a BP Leica.

(jcraf's image)

 

 

It's showing some very minor brassing, but like the rest of the camera, not much (except the rw crank). Fits in with the BP being refinished and then the camera  possibly not being used too much (Including by me!)

 

Regards

[philipus]

Hi John

 

It's a great looking camera. I also noticed the paint thickness around the script and had a look at my M4. Fwiw here are two iPhone shots in case it is of any assistance at all. 

 

Incidentally, I compared black paint finishes over at RFF once (this was before I had a technician remove the many bumps my camera had on the top plate, esp around the engraving). 

 

br

Philip

 

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!

 

[jcraf]

Thanks Philip

 

Very interesting indeed and most helpful.  I attach another pic of mine, in which the BP finish looks more 'respectable', if you see what I mean.....!!

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!

[250swb]

My memory may be faulty, but wasn't this, or a very similar camera for sale at Aperture a year or so ago? I remember seeing an advert and being interested in the 'Cattaneo' dealer logo.

 

 

Steve

[jcraf]

My memory may be faulty, but wasn't this, or a very similar camera for sale at Aperture a year or so ago? I remember seeing an advert and being interested in the 'Cattaneo' dealer logo.

 

 

Steve

 

Steve

Not sure, but I bought it in Dec 2014 privately. I usually comb Aperture's site daily but don't recall seeing it, or anything similar. But I might be mistaken, or may have missed it.

Regards

[250swb]

It was in an advert by Aperture in the back of B&W Photography magazine.

 

 

 

Steve

[jcraf]

Thanks Steve. My back copies of B&W Mag go back to March 2013 but nothing seen in The Aperture ads. Aperture had a brassy 1207xxx series one a while back, but mine must have been in an edition predating 3/13.

 

Regards

[Raippa]

I have read with interest about these posts and I do have some answers. I just found this forum.

 

Leica did not differentiate chrome and black paint versions of early M4s very well. I think they called M4 serials 118xxxx chrome or black paint. Anyway, about 400-500 were BP with serial numbers between 1181500 and 1182000. These are the earliest original black painted M4s manufactured. Year was 1967.

 

I have actually some real proof about this. I happen to own one of these cameras. It was bought new from Hamburg, Germany and has been with me ever since. I have used it only occasionally during the years and it looks and feels almost like new. And you guessed, the serial number is within the others (1181883).

 

The camera is very beautiful and works like a dream, so I cannot keep it only as a museum peace but I take it out and use it as it was meant to be. I was very lucky to use mainly SLRs from 1970's until the era of digital cameras, so this M4 is now real treat.

 

Regards

 

Raimo

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pico]

Just curious - does your M2 have a black painted collar around the rewind button?