Black Leica iii's with Chrome

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

William, as per factory records there were 5 black paint IIIb, produced for US market. SNs 295301-295305.Sartorius is showinga photo of one, I did not check Hasbroek nor Lager for the pictures.

With only 5 samples produced the black IIIb belongs to the rarest Leicas.

 

They will come back on the market when the elderly owners turn up their toes. There is quite a lot of Leica collector equipment coming out of Japan at present for exactly this reason. I have bought a fair amount over the last 12 months from Japan but both Peter Coeln and Tamarkin will now have their agents sniffing around, so you have to be quick. I have a Japanese friend who watches estate auctions in Japan for me and bids if I want something. 

 

Wilson

[mickjazz]

Alan

 

Were there any leica it's in black chrome with an <10000. was offered a ii body black with what looks like chrome hardware. 1st year 1932. maybe retrofit.

[alan mcfall]

I have never observed a Black Paint with Chrome hardware camera made before 1936. Only 1300 black paint model II cameras were made in the year 1936, and a high percentage of those were Black/Chrome. Leitz first offered all chrome cameras in 1933, so most of the hardware was available then, but about 3 years elapsed before the Paint with Chrome cameras were available.

Conversions are easily possible with the basic top and bottom plate hardware, but I usually check for the baseplate locating pin on the body shell and the stop pin for the A---R lever as they are often not changed.  The shutter release button is also not as quickly changed.  A 1932 model II with claimed originally chrome hardware would be have to be viewed cautiously.  There exist all chrome model I cameras, but it is assumed they are not original, and were at some time rechromed.

[mickjazz]

good point re the plate pin on the body. will check

 

i have btw a black iiic clearly a repaint probably Japan. has the black shutter dial with white markings. very elegant.

[willeica]

Black lacquer with chrome furniture models appeared around 1936. My one is from 1937. Interestingly, I have never seen any black with chrome models in a Leica catalogue, so I believe that they may have been available on 'special order'.  I have one II Model D from 1932 with a chrome wind on knob, but this is obviously a replacement/repair, as it still has some nickel furniture. My other 3 II Model Ds with 1932 SNs have a complete set of nickel furniture. The point about the base plate pin, made by Alan, is a good one. Another one is to look for the yellow rangefinder window. My II Model D with the chrome wind on knob has that. Your black IIIc in black is clearly a repaint. Its value will depend upon how well the job was done, but such repaints from Japan and elsewhere do not  add a huge amount of value.

 

William

[LEitzRon]

Just reading this with interest. I bought a Leica III s/n 146186 (1934) recently - it is bl/chr. It has brassing on leading edges top and bottom. Is there a way to tell if it’s a repaint or indeed not genuine?

A friend suggested that both were possibilities but gave no reasons beyond saying that he didn’t think III models came in black. That at least seems to be wrong per posts above.

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would suspect there were far more black Model III (type F) made than chrome ones. My 1934 model III (originally the property of my great uncle) serial 148178, was originally black/nickel but with the paint in a very poor state having suffered "home" repairs with what looked like domestic black gloss paint, applied with a trowel. This had corroded the top plate screws badly. The vulcanite was also in very poor state, with large bits missing and looked like it had been chewed by a dog at some point. I had Alan Starkie repaint it and put on a Hugo Studio embossed black leather cover (looks just like the original vulcanite but much more pleasant to the touch and ages better as well - with modern acid free leather, there is no longer a reason not to use it). Of course, I have now spent far more than the camera is worth but I can now look at it and use it with pleasure, rather than leaving it sitting in a drawer, as it has been for the last 50 years. Here is a picture of it with a 1932-33 (depending on whose lens serial # charts you look at) Chrome Hektor 50/2.5, FISON hood and a quite rare black ORAKO rangefinder orange filter. 

Wilson

 

 

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!

[LEitzRon]

I’ve done some more reading and there’s nothing that suggests there were no, or very few, black III cameras made. Your photo bears that out Wilson.

I’m very happy with mine. I don’t think it’s a repaint but I suspect it has been recovered as the leather(ette)feels better than what’s on my IIIc. No shame there after 84 years! It was out yesterday performing flawlessly on the mechanical front. I hope my guessed exposures were  close enough.

Regards,

Gordon

 

[wlaidlaw]

BTW if anyone has a Leica Model II or III, whose shutter release surround ring has managed to hide itself, NobbySparrow on eBay from Japan sells these at a reasonable cost. He was selling nickel or chrome at one point but I have a feeling it may be chrome only now. He also sells all sorts of useful Leica bits like the long stop screws for Elmars. https://www.ebay.co.uk/str/nobbysparrow 

Wilson

[willeica]

13 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

I would suspect there were far more black Model III (type F) made than chrome ones.

The actual numbers were 27,366 black and 49,091 chrome. Originally, the chrome models were sold for a premium, but, of course, the black models are much more highly prized today and fetch higher prices. Black and nickel models were produced up to about 1936, but black models were being outsold by the chrome models (M3 black paint aficionados please note) and they ceased to be manufactured on a regular basis. It seems that, thereafter, black III cameras could still be obtained by special order and that they came with chrome furniture - see my example from 1937 above. I would like to see a photo of the OP's camera. Certainly when it was produced the normal feature for black cameras was nickel furniture. It is more likely that chrome furniture was put on at a later date than that it is a repaint. It is always possible that chrome furniture was put on at the beginning as, certainly, chrome cameras were being produced in 1934.

Some of the black and nickel items from my collection are below. These can be compared with the photo of the black and chrome III which I posted above. The IIs are from 1932 and the III is from 1935. The eagle eyed will spot that the Hektor on the camera on the left has the rare flat infinity knob. I also got one of those black rimmed orange filters with the camera on the right, but I seem to have removed it for the 'class photo'.

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!

William

Edited January 2, 2019 by willeica

[LEitzRon]

29 minutes ago, willeica said:

The actual numbers were 27,366 black and 49,091 chrome. Originally, the chrome models were sold for a premium, but, of course, the black models are much more highly prized today and fetch higher prices. Black and nickel models were produced up to about 1936, but black models were being outsold by the chrome models (M3 black paint aficionados please note) and they ceased to be manufactured on a regular basis. It seems that, thereafter, black III cameras could still be obtained by special order and that they came with chrome furniture - see my example from 1937 above. I would like to see a photo of the OP's camera. Certainly when it was produced the normal feature for black cameras was nickel furniture. It is more likely that chrome furniture was put on at a later date than that it is a repaint. It is always possible that chrome furniture was put on at the beginning as, certainly, chrome cameras were being produced in 1934.

Some of the black and nickel items from my collection are below. These can be compared with the photo of the black and chrome III which I posted above. The IIs are from 1932 and the III is from 1935. The eagle eyed will spot that the Hektor on the camera on the left has the rare flat infinity knob. I also got one of those black rimmed orange filters with the camera on the right, but I seem to have removed it for the 'class photo'.

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!

William

I think maybe I’m not understanding the difference between chrome and nickel in this context. The tops of the “furniture” are very shiny so I thought perhaps they were chrome but correct me if I’m wrong!

[LEitzRon]

The lens did not come with the camera. Separate purchase a while back.

[wlaidlaw]

Ron, 

I think you were correct the first time round and they are chrome not nickel fittings. Nickel as on William's and my Model III, have gone much yellower with age. It is not uncommon for these fittings to be swapped or re-plated. Until recently it was quite difficult to get things satin/soft finish nickel re-plated to match old fittings and some modern nickel plating can look almost indistinguishable from chrome. I had a 1940's James Neill Eclipse Red Ring razor re-plated in nickel and it looks just like chrome. My Leica 250FF with nickel fittings and a nickel Summar lens, has had its wind on knob replaced at some time with a chrome one from a later GG model. To my eyes, it looks just wrong and I hope that Malcolm Taylor, who is currently rebuilding the camera, will either be able to remove the chrome, hopefully leaving the nickel under-plating (dilute hydrochloric acid) or replace the chrome knob with a nickel one, from his extensive stock of spare parts. 

Wilson

PS I was surprised at the relative production numbers of black and chrome model III cameras, as today, there seem to be far more black Model III's around. I wonder if the black cameras got left unmolested and the chrome ones got updated to IIIa specification at a service. 

Edited January 3, 2019 by wlaidlaw

[LEitzRon]

So my situation is that the camera is a genuine 1934 III in black with fittings that have either been replaced or at worst re-plated, but they can’t be unmolested fittings from 1934?

My end position is that the details don’t matter that much to me but it is interesting to know about a camera. It feels right, it functions properly and I think it will be my everyday user camera. So it may replace my M3 in that respect.

I’m grateful for replies so far received- I’m also on a large format forum as I have a 5x4 Camera too. It is a completely different world where things can rapidly turn from innocent enquiry to outright war in the space of a few posts! This is more like the Shire whereas it is closer to Mordor (apologies to Tolkien).

My user name was a play on words. As in toysRus. Leitz (lights) are on. But I’m Gordon Christie from the west coast of Scotland. A big hello and Happy New Year to anyone who is reading this. And thank you for taking the time with my post.

Gordon

[willeica]

33 minutes ago, LEitzRon said:

So my situation is that the camera is a genuine 1934 III in black with fittings that have either been replaced or at worst re-plated, but they can’t be unmolested fittings from 1934?

 

That was my original thought. I have a II Model D from 1932 with some chrome furniture, but the other five from 1932 (two with Hektor, one with body engraving, and three with Elmar, one with wind knob engraving) in my collection have complete nickel furniture and a nickel lens. Nickel often turns yellowish with age, but some nickel can only be detected by the fact that it is flatter in tone than chrome. There appears to be at least one person (possibly more) out there doing nickel re-plating and some nickel items I have received look like they were just made yesterday in what looks almost like shiny gold plating. Personally, I don't really like this, as I prefer the look of aged nickel in original condition. I know that there are others who would disagree with this, but that is my taste. I have had CLAs done on my cameras, but I have never had anything cosmetic done.

Finally, if you want a good example of the difference between nickel and chrome. In the photo posted by Wilson above, the camera has nickel furniture and a chrome lens. Wilson please correct me if I am wrong, but that is how it appears in the photo.

William

 

[wlaidlaw]

William, 

Correct (as usual). This must have been a very early chrome Hektor, dating from late 32 or early 33. I suspect when my great uncle bought the lens new with the model III from Lizars in Aberdeen,  his local Leica dealer in 1934, the chrome on the lens might have been almost indistinguishable from the new bright and shiny nickel on the body but they have aged differently. I have always suspected that the yellowish colour of old nickel plating, may be due to the brass showing through the worn plating or copper from the underlying brass alloying with the nickel. Unlike with steel items, it is not a requirement to use a copper interlayer between the nickel and base metal. 

Copper and nickel are next door to each other in the periodic table and alloy with or diffuse into each other very easily. Many copper ores have a fair proportion of nickel in them. Most older copper made before modern electrolytic methods, contains a proportion of nickel. This was then further alloyed with tin to make cupro-nickel bronze, which can be far harder and more wear resistant than modern bronze with no nickel, hence its use to make swords and daggers before the iron age. A sword made from modern pure cupro-tin bronze with no nickel, would a chocolate teapot of a weapon. 

Wilson

Edited January 3, 2019 by wlaidlaw

[willeica]

I have two nickel Hektors and a chrome one. I was disappointed when I got the chrome one last year as, according to the book by Hartmut Thiele, it belonged to a nickel batch. I asked Jim Lager about this and he said that he had pictures of two other chrome ones from the same batch in his Leica Lens book. I checked and, yes, they were there. I should have checked before asking Jim. The other thing that made me suspicious was that the lens was in very good condition, but, on this occasion, that was just a  coincidence.

Thanks Wilson for your explanation about the possible reasons for the different colours to be seen on old nickel, which can range from dull silver to almost bright yellow or gold. This makes sense as it is unlikely that the nickel plating process was absolutely consistent on all occasions and storage conditions over time would also have varied.

William

 

[wlaidlaw]

William, 

My chrome Hektor is 140871. How does that compare with the S/N of your chrome Hektor? 

Wilson

[willeica]

5 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

William, 

My chrome Hektor is 140871. How does that compare with the S/N of your chrome Hektor? 

 Wilson

My chrome Hektor is 168283. It comes from the batch 168001 to 169000 which Thiele assigns an 'ni' symbol to. Lager shows two chrome Hektors with SNs 168063 and 168096 at pages 34 and 36 of his lens book, so there were other chrome Hektors in the batch. Your lens comes from the batch 140001 to 141000 to which Thiele also assigns an 'ni' symbol, but given my experience and the authority of Lager I would not worry about this. My two nickel Hektors are 96290 and 121464. The first is from a batch marked 'ni' but the second one (with the flat infinity knob) is from an 'unmarked' batch. I have another lens, an Elmar, with a flat infinity knob and this has no SN. Lager agreed that this was correct and also agreed with my view that a lot of variations exist for lenses from this period. It is very difficult to make definitive statements about any lens from this period without examining it first, particularly as a lot of 11 O'Clock lenses were  'upgraded ' to 7 O'Clock around that time.

William

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tranquilo67]

11 hours ago, willeica said:

My chrome Hektor is 168283. It comes from the batch 168001 to 169000 which Thiele assigns an 'ni' symbol to. Lager shows two chrome Hektors with SNs 168063 and 168096 at pages 34 and 36 of his lens book, so there were other chrome Hektors in the batch. Your lens comes from the batch 140001 to 141000 to which Thiele also assigns an 'ni' symbol, but given my experience and the authority of Lager I would not worry about this. My two nickel Hektors are 96290 and 121464. The first is from a batch marked 'ni' but the second one (with the flat infinity knob) is from an 'unmarked' batch. I have another lens, an Elmar, with a flat infinity knob and this has no SN. Lager agreed that this was correct and also agreed with my view that a lot of variations exist for lenses from this period. It is very difficult to make definitive statements about any lens from this period without examining it first, particularly as a lot of 11 O'Clock lenses were  'upgraded ' to 7 O'Clock around that time.

William

Sorry for stepping into the conversation, but it looks like there are unmatching Hektors both ways. I've just bought one serial number 156003 which in the lists usually appears as Chrom and apparently (pending to get it from Germany), it's a Nickel one.

Best regards