Leica Reporter 250 … extract from Leitz Delivery Ledger query

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A Leica Forum member friend owns a 1939 vintage Leica 250 ‘Reporter’ camera … See Leica Pocket Book 8th Edition page 25 for description and illustration.

 

See also Leica WIKI https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Leica_250_(models_DD,_FF_and_GG)

 

The camera’s provenance is not in doubt .

 

An LHSA colleague kindly obtained a copy of the camera’s relevant ‘extract from the Leitz Delivery Ledger’ which shows the camera’s serial number and delivery destination:

 

 

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 SN is confidential thus I’m not mentioning same. 

 

We are endeavouring to ‘translate’ part of the delivery record i.e. the abbreviation ‘vo’  … which is a mystery to the LHSA member. 

 

The abbreviation ‘vo’ appears in column 2 for 12 of the entries and has a number of possible translations:

 

1) von oben (from above) 

 

2) Verbindungsoffizier' ('liaison officer’) … abbreviated to VO by the German military (a number of Leica 250 Reporter models were likely delivered to the German Wehrmacht but with one exception, none have military engravings / markings)  However, unlikely that Wehrmacht cameras would be delivered to e.g. Cape Town or Sydney or Bombay. 

 

3) Verordnung (regulation, standard ?) i.e. a ‘regular' model as distinct from ‘special issue’ … which could be abbreviated to ‘vo’ ? 

 

4) The cameras were sold with optional accessories e.g. ever-ready case, spare film cassette, and a ‘film trimming template’  https://www.l39sm.co.uk/about_leica.php#10   … scroll down to the accessory list and codes.   The trimming template code Anzoo might not have been used by whoever annotated camera details in the ledger. Maybe they  just called it a ‘template’ which translates to‘ vorlage’ … and might be abbreviated to ‘vo’  … rather than writing ‘Anzoo’ ?   Note entries in the ledger show additional details such as colour, lens supplied (Xenon) … so why not include the template if ordered? 

 

All above are more speculative than ‘likely’ … but maybe a forum member might be able to provide other interpretations of the mystery ‘vo’  abbreviation? 

 

All suggestions gratefully received and considered.

 

Thank you.

 

Best wishes

 

dunk

Edited February 18, 2018 by dkCambridgeshire

[willeica]

 A lot of the 'vo' models went to Berlin (Bln) which is where military Leicas went, but one of them went to Cape Town. None of these SNs is in the book of military Leica SNs by Dr Luigi Cane which was published by Leica Historica in Germany. Lars Netopil worked with Dr Cane on the project and is familiar with Leica factory records as well as being a German speaker. I suggest that you contact him. Fellow forum member Jerzy is also a German speaker and knows a lot about Leicas from the relevant period.

 

That is as much as I can suggest.

 

William

[Advertisement]

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

[sandro]

Fascinating question. Note that it says "v.o.", which most likely rules out your possibility 2 and 3. "Vorlage" would be shortened to "V" I would say, or perhaps "Vo", but not like this. How about "Version ohne", to indicate the camera with nothing else?

Lex

[dkCambridgeshire]

Thank you William. i have both Dr Luigi Cane's 'Screwmont cameras with military engravings (WWII)' … and James Lager's 'Wehrmacht Leica' books.  This is not a Luftwaffe camera and Lager's book only mentions one known 250 camera issued to the Wehrmacht. Unlikely that 'wo' abbreviation annotated in the ledger has any military connection - especially when 'wo' cameras were delivered to destinations other than Berlin. The suggestions listed in my original post are just those put forward so far. 

 

Regards

 

dunk 

Edited February 19, 2018 by dkCambridgeshire

[dkCambridgeshire]

Fascinating question. Note that it says "v.o.", which most likely rules out your possibility 2 and 3. "Vorlage" would be shortened to "V" I would say, or perhaps "Vo", but not like this. How about "Version ohne", to indicate the camera with nothing else?

Lex

 

Thank you Lex. The camera owner will read your 'Vorlage' opinion and 'Version ohne' suggestion.  

 

The 'v.o.' abbreviation might not be a 'standard'abbreviation'

 

Maybe it could be the clerk's 'personal shorthand'? … But for what? 

 

dunk 

Edited February 19, 2018 by dkCambridgeshire

[alan mcfall]

Probably not a good guess, but the 1939 New York catalog shows the reporter to be available without a lens, or with the 50mm Elmar. Different code words, LOOMY and LOOYE.  If a customer wanted another lens such as a Hektor or Xenon, they ordered the camera with out lens and then added the code word for the lens as an extension to LOOMY. 

Interestingly, all cameras including the reporter were supplied with a 10 inch shutter release, included in the code word. Other accessories such as case and film templete were ordered seperately, I think. It would have made sense to include the 250 film  template with the camera, but I have not seen evidence that actually ever occurred.

Could v. o. be without objective or missing objective, such as verfehlen objective or vermissen objective. It doesn't seem like a proper abbreviation, but I have no other idea.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Probably not a good guess, but the 1939 New York catalog shows the reporter to be available without a lens, or with the 50mm Elmar. Different code words, LOOMY and LOOYE.  If a customer wanted another lens such as a Hektor or Xenon, they ordered the camera with out lens and then added the code word for the lens as an extension to LOOMY. 

Interestingly, all cameras including the reporter were supplied with a 10 inch shutter release, included in the code word. Other accessories such as case and film templete were ordered seperately, I think. It would have made sense to include the 250 film  template with the camera, but I have not seen evidence that actually ever occurred.

Could v. o. be without objective or missing objective, such as verfehlen objective or vermissen objective. It doesn't seem like a proper abbreviation, but I have no other idea.

 

 

That's a reasonable assumption Alan and more likely than 'vorlage'… thank you. 

 

dunk 

Edited February 19, 2018 by dkCambridgeshire

[wizard]

Gentlemen,

 

I am a German native speaker (and still live in Germany). Unfortunately, none of the suggestions brought up so far seems to be plausible. If the aim was to indicate a camera body without lens, the most likely abbreviation would have been "o. O." for "ohne Objektiv". "verfehlen" or "vermissen" would definitely not be used in this connection ("vermissen" actually means something was there originally, but is now missing, whereas "verfehlen" means miss the target).

 

Note that both letters appear to be lowercase and, further, that there is a dot also after the first letter. If the "o" should have meant "Objektiv" (lens), then the second letter would most likely have been a capital letter, such that "ohne Objektiv" would have been abbreviated with "o. O.". The same is true if the first letter was meant to be an abbreviation for "Version", as then the first letter should have been a capital letter, which is why "Version ohne" is unlikely to be the correct meaning as well.

 

I have thought for quite a while what "v.o." could mean, and the best idea that I can up with is "vorstehend oben" which basically means "as above". It serves to save some writing efforts by simply referring to an above, more detailed entry. Even that possible solution, however, does not explain why there are several lines without any indication at all, some of them between a detailed entry and a "v.o." entry. So it remains somewhat of a mystery to me, too.

 

Cheers, Andy

[dkCambridgeshire]

Gentlemen,

 

I am a German native speaker (and still live in Germany). Unfortunately, none of the suggestions brought up so far seems to be plausible. If the aim was to indicate a camera body without lens, the most likely abbreviation would have been "o. O." for "ohne Objektiv". "verfehlen" or "vermissen" would definitely not be used in this connection ("vermissen" actually means something was there originally, but is now missing, whereas "verfehlen" means miss the target).

 

Note that both letters appear to be lowercase and, further, that there is a dot also after the first letter. If the "o" should have meant "Objektiv" (lens), then the second letter would most likely have been a capital letter, such that "ohne Objektiv" would have been abbreviated with "o. O.". The same is true if the first letter was meant to be an abbreviation for "Version", as then the first letter should have been a capital letter, which is why "Version ohne" is unlikely to be the correct meaning as well.

 

I have thought for quite a while what "v.o." could mean, and the best idea that I can up with is "vorstehend oben" which basically means "as above". It serves to save some writing efforts by simply referring to an above, more detailed entry. Even that possible solution, however, does not explain why there are several lines without any indication at all, some of them between a detailed entry and a "v.o." entry. So it remains somewhat of a mystery to me, too.

 

Cheers, Andy

 

 

 

Thank you Andy. Your suggestion seems the most plausible … but agree with you that if correct, its use is inconsistent. Maybe the writer / scribe / clerk was not very enthusiastic about his/her job and had other more interesting tasks to attend to? 

 

dunk 

[jaapv]

According to this site, v.o. has only one meaning, i.e. "von oben"  which would indicate that the translation "as above" is correct.

 

 

http://abkuerzungen.woxikon.de/abkuerzung/vo.php

[jerzy]

usually a sign " (or " ") is used to denotate the same content as above, I have seen it as well on copies of Leitz delivery record from 1926 but as well from 1955.

According to dictionary (Duden) abbreviation v.o. means "von oben" which could be translated "fom above", "as above". Why 2 different markings are being used here is not clear to me

P.S. timing concidence with reply from jaapv

Edited February 19, 2018 by jerzy

[willeica]

Now that we have resolved what 'vo' means, has anyone figured out what the various inscriptions are under 'Modell' on the document posted by Dunk? One of them looks like '+ Hegra'. HEGRA was the code word for the  73mm Hektor which was still in production at that time, but it hardly seems likely that so many of them would be ordered with the 250. According to the UK catalogue for September 1938 (which is the closest I have to this sheet) the 250 on its own was, as already mentioned by Alan above,  a 'LOOMY' and a 'LOOYE' was the camera plus 50mm Elmar. The trimming template was an 'ANZOO' and an extra spool chamber (probably essential) was a 'KOOBF'. The case for the 250 was the 'ESFOO' and the motor was designated as 'N5'. I cannot see any of these terms in the column under 'Modell'. I am just curious about this. Maybe someone else has already figured these out.

 

William

[dkCambridgeshire]

William, the annotation is 'Negra' …not 'Hegra'; compare the 'New York' (N. York) entry and the similar 'N'.  

 

dunk 

Edited February 19, 2018 by dkCambridgeshire

[willeica]

William, the annotation is 'Negra' …not 'Hegra'; compare the 'New York' (N. York) entry and the similar 'N'.  

 

dunk 

 

I was fairly certain it was not HEGRA. Any idea about what the other entries signify?

 

William

[dkCambridgeshire]

I was fairly certain it was not HEGRA. Any idea about what the other entries signify?

 

William

 

 

I can decipher most of the delivery destinations e.g. Berlin (Bln), London, Cape Town, Bombay, Nürnberg, New York , Brüssel , Wien … but not so sure about Cattana? The numbers annotated next to the destinations are likely the 1939 year, shipment or delivery references. In the Modell column, the first camera SN 324001 is annotated as 'Reporter'.  All the cameras shown as '+ Negra' (black paint finish) are destined for New York. However, the scarce chrome finish Reporter 250 cameras were specifically manufactured for the USA market … so maybe these 'New York bound' 'back bodies' reflect the possibility that none of the scarcer chrome bodies were available on the above  'export to USA' shipment dates?  Xenon must refer to the supplied 50/1.5 lens. Column 3 is the shipping date.  

 

The foregoing include deductions on my part after studying other published Leitz delivery records (Dott. Luigi Caine / Lars Netopil and James Lager books)  … and The Leica Pocket Book ; if I'm incorrect in any assumptions please advise. 

 

dunk 

Edited February 19, 2018 by dkCambridgeshire

[UliWer]

I agree with Wizard - though perhaps the explanation for "v.o." is even simpler: it meens "s.o" ("siehe oben" - "look above" or "as above"). The person who wrote the columns used a mixture between old German handwriting and Latin writing - this  mixture was very frequent at this time (both my parents born at 1918 and 1926 used some sort of mixtures of both writing styles).

 

If you look at the "official writings" in old German handwriting ("Deutsche Schreibschrift") you'll see that an "s" had a lot of similarities to a Latin "v" in some versions: 

Deutsche Schreibschrift

 

But Wizard's interpretation "vorstehend oben" also seems right to me: the person wanted to indicate that the item was the same as in the first line of the column.

 

From number 02 to 05 he used the usual " i.e "same as in the line above". But in line 06 another item came in: I read it as "+ Xemoo" (Xenon). From No. 07 onwards he could not just use the " since the next items weren't delivered "+ Xemoo" - but the same as in the first line.

 

So the meaning of the first line is the clue to the "v.o." or "s.o.". I decipher "Reporter bes. Auf." The only interpretation I can think of is "Reporter besonderer Auftrag" (special assignment).

 

It is true that the lower lines are not consistent. Sometimes there is no entry sometimes the ", and sometimes the "v.o"/"s.o.". My explanation would be that the person (or persons?) who made the entries in the list were not too painstaking. They knew what they meant, and did not think of anybody almost 80 years later.

 

The same is true for the "Hegra"/"Negra". Yes, the first capital letter looks like the "N" in New York - though you see a difference: The "N" starts with a diagonal line from lower left to uper right. The first capital in "Hegra" starts from the upper left in a bow going down not very deep to the right. There was no "Negra" in the Leitz catalogue - but most certainly there was a "Hegra" (Hektor 7.3 cm). Please compare the "N" and "H" in "Deutsche Schreibschrift" - they were different but one could mix them up...

 

My advise would be to ask Lars Netopil  http://www.lars-netopil.com , or Ottmar Michaely - both members of "Leica Historica e.V." They have a lot of experience with these lists and perhaps can tell you more about the "Reporter" in question. 

 

[alan mcfall]

I have often wondered how the orders arrived at Leitz from the distributors. Code word by telegraph or hard copy or eventually by phone.  Then, what was the process for translating orders into production, or using already produced product to fill the order? It has been described that a specific document office prepared allocations or batches for the production department.  And, as we know, often these allocations were not completely fulfilled.  By the mid to late 1930's, "economical order quanitiy" would have been a possible consideration. Although, Leitz was well known for meeting any customer special request.

The above factory rercord suggests that a block of serial was "allocated" for production. I believe the actual lot here is 324001 to 324100, although we have only the first 50 on this sheet. The serial numbers were printed on the left and the rest of the form remains nearly blank. After the availability of the cameras, the delivery date and the lot and often the destination were filled in by hand. In the first collumn with the serial is an ink stamped date that may be the date the camera was available, and the third collumn the actual ship date followed often with a shipping lot number and a destination. The shiping date can be months later, as can be seen.

I enjoy camera 324021 as the date from the stamp is entered upside down, which would be easy to do.  All this reminds us that the factory records are not perfect and we get to conjur up intrepretations.

[dkCambridgeshire]

I agree with Wizard - though perhaps td  ….  

 

…   The same is true for the "Hegra"/"Negra". Yes, the first capital letter looks like the "N" in New York - though you see a difference: The "N" starts with a diagonal line from lower left to uper right. The first capital in "Hegra" starts from the upper left in a bow going down not very deep to the right. There was no "Negra" in the Leitz catalogue - but most certainly there was a "Hegra" (Hektor 7.3 cm). Please compare the "N" and "H" in "Deutsche Schreibschrift" - they were different but one could mix them up...

 

My advise would be to ask Lars Netopil  http://www.lars-netopil.com , or Ottmar Michaely - both members of "Leica Historica e.V." They have a lot of experience with these lists and perhaps can tell you more about the "Reporter" in question. 

 

 

On closer examination of Hegra / Negra / N York : You are correct … there is a difference in the H and N which differentiates sufficiently to show that the New York cameras were supplied with the 'Hegra' i.e. Hektor 73mm lens … so my previous 'black paint New York cameras' argument is flawed and can be ignored .  Perhaps a 73mm lens would be more useful for American photographers'  250 exposure camera applications? I tried to find a 250 Reporter camera in the same SN sequence within all the published WestLicht Auction results - hoping to see a 'chrome' 250 N York camera - which would categorically disprove my 'Negra' assumption.  Unfortunately none are listed in the SN range. 

 

Thanks for your contribution.

 

dunk 

Edited February 19, 2018 by dkCambridgeshire

[UliWer]

The entry in the first line still puzzles me.

 

Normally the codewords were used - so why did they write "Reporter" in this case? I think - though this is just guessing - the entry for No. 44 is "Looye" - Leica 250 with 5cm Elmar. Than we have one entry for No. 06 about which I am rather sure that it means "Xemoo" for Xenon. We have the "Hegra" entries and Nos 42, 43 an 45 with "Soore" - Summitar.  For No. 48 I can't guess what it means.

 

So what was the speciality of the many other entries? If it was a camera without lens one would exspect just "Loomy".

 

If I am right and the addenda to "Reporter" in the first line mean "besonderer Auftrag" there must have been a difference to the normal "Reporter" cameras.

 

Any suggestions?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[dkCambridgeshire]

The entry in the first line still puzzles me.

 

Normally the codewords were used - so why did they write "Reporter" in this case? I think - though this is just guessing - the entry for No. 44 is "Looye" - Leica 250 with 5cm Elmar. Than we have one entry for No. 06 about which I am rather sure that it means "Xemoo" for Xenon. We have the "Hegra" entries and Nos 42, 43 an 45 with "Soore" - Summitar.  For No. 48 I can't guess what it means.

 

So what was the speciality of the many other entries? If it was a camera without lens one would exspect just "Loomy".

 

If I am right and the addenda to "Reporter" in the first line mean "besonderer Auftrag" there must have been a difference to the normal "Reporter" cameras.

 

Any suggestions?

 

 

 

'Special order' for Leitz London? In 1939 Leitz had a sales office in Mayfair London.

 

British seaside photography companies used the Leica 250 Reporter cameras in relatively large numbers. Their photographers worked on the promenades and piers e.g. at Gt Yarmouth, Margate,  Southend, Scarborough, Blackpool  …  photographing holidaymakers as they 'strolled along the prom.' … or 'on the piers' … whence they would pass a 'ticket' to the holidaymakers advising them that they could 'view / collect your photos tomorrow'  from the nearby shop which sold seaside postcards and novelties … and also developed and processed the 250 exposure rolls of film on the premises.  I have seen Reporter 250 cameras listed by a well known UK classic camera dealer which included spare 250 cassettes engraved with the seaside photography company's name.  

 

A few years ago i asked a question via the 'Our Great Yarmouth' website about use of Leica 250 Reporter cameras by the local seaside photography company, Barkers. This was the reply I received:  

 

Duncan, I believe Barkers had about 6 Leica 250s. Most were in the black finish but one of them was chrome. As you say these cameras used special cassettes containing 10 metres of film to give 250 exposures. These are very rare and valuable cameras these days. I also believe Barkers used Olympus Pen half frame cameras for the keyring viewers. The film used was Kodak Ektachrome and was processed in a small shop in Drakes Buildings near “the factory” at 22 St Peter’s Plain. To supplement the Leica 250s in the early 1950s Barkers used Agfa Silettes and the unusual British made Ilford Advocate. In later times various Japanese rangefinder cameras were used such as those made by Yashica. Barkers started in Lowestoft in the early 1920s but moved on to Great Yarmouth by the 1930s. They originally took walkie photographs with wooden cine cameras and printed them in strips of three. Before WW2 I believe they traded as “Cinesnaps” and had their processing facility at 63 Rodney Road, Great Yarmouth. Paul Godfrey.

 

By Paul Godfrey

On 06/12/2010

 

 

The Leica 250 cameras lasted well and were still in use during the 1960s. They must have taken many thousands of photos.

 

dunk 

Edited February 19, 2018 by dkCambridgeshire