Wetzlar Camera Auctions

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 minutes ago, willeica said:

The other item you mentioned is interesting because of the motor drive synchronisation cable. It is very difficult to value unusual accessory items at auction as getting a 'track record' for such items is usually impossible.

William

That is why for my motor drive Barnack cameras, I prefer the Visoflex 1, where it is easier to get them to work with a MOOLY firing with one cable (which in turn fires the shutter with the MOOLY arm) and the Visoflex mirror with the other cable. My UR replica is also due to arrive on Wednesday. I hope I have more luck than with the last Leica item I purchased from Vienna, which disappeared for over three weeks in the post. 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

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

[zeitz]

Concerning Lot 203, the auction catalog dates this Visoflex III as 1959.  Even the most neophyte Leica collector knows this is impossible because the Visoflex III didn't appear until 1963.  A little more research finds that the motor drive with a phone plug connection is probably not before 1968.  Finally the conversion does not match the Leitz NY unit shown in Lager's Volume III.  The listing does not say it is a Leitz NY conversion, but it says nothing at all about the provenance, which is now lost through the auction process.  This is what I mean by "slightly sleazy".  The Olive M3 in a different post on this subforum is another example where the auction house surely knew more than it published.

I also have my reservations about the Astro Berlin Prototype focusing stage.

I'm sitting by the window waiting for the UPS man.  And yes, Westlicht shipped very quickly this year.  And I think Andreas is a very good person to deal with.

[willeica]

42 minutes ago, zeitz said:

Concerning Lot 203, the auction catalog dates this Visoflex III as 1959.  Even the most neophyte Leica collector knows this is impossible because the Visoflex III didn't appear until 1963.  A little more research finds that the motor drive with a phone plug connection is probably not before 1968.  Finally the conversion does not match the Leitz NY unit shown in Lager's Volume III.  The listing does not say it is a Leitz NY conversion, but it says nothing at all about the provenance, which is now lost through the auction process.  This is what I mean by "slightly sleazy".  The Olive M3 in a different post on this subforum is another example where the auction house surely knew more than it published.

I also have my reservations about the Astro Berlin Prototype focusing stage.

I'm sitting by the window waiting for the UPS man.  And yes, Westlicht shipped very quickly this year.  And I think Andreas is a very good person to deal with.

Sounds like you are going to have some fun detective work with your wins. I never assume that the auction house has done a lot of detective work, but I do expect items sold at auction to be described with the best knowledge available to the auctioneer. The Astro Berlin prototype sounds very interesting and could be a real 'find'. I just have one Visoflex myself, a II with LTM mount which I obtained with a IIIf. I don't use it often as, even on a tripod, it overwhelms the camera with its size and weight, which has not encouraged me to go further with other Visoflex models. If the date issue bothers you, you should raise it with the auctioneer.

William

[zeitz]

My package arrived and on time.

First, the Visoflex III Mot.  It is either of original manufacture or it was very skillfully modified.  It is a thing of beauty.  The circuit closes properly when the mirror is up.  It clearly connects to the external tripper input on the back of the second and third versions of the Leitz New York motor, looking at Lager's photos.  What I didn't notice in the auction catalog is that the usual screw/adjuster at the tip of the Visoflex III arm is cut off so that the camera cannot be triggered by means of the normal shutter release.  (Now I have to buy the camera and motor.  There is a very nice one on E-bay right now, but I have to save some money to afford a piece like that.)  Westlicht must have tried to date the set by the lens serial number.  No. 1690252 135mm f4.5 Hektor is from 1959.

Second, I don't know what Lot #196 is.  There is no engraving of any kind to indicate that Astro-Berlin made it.  I don't know how you would use it as a focusing stage.  I'm not even sure the two major pieces (the body and the base) were originally meant to be together because the paint is substantially different.  It does have an LTM lens mount.  It does have a ground glass that is 28.8mm from the front flange.  It does have a magnifier, not made by Leitz, to help focus on the ground glass. The body casting has casting flaws that might lead one to believe it is a prototype.  Because of the length of the attachment screw, neither of my LTMs with a 3/8" tripod screw will mount properly.  The paint color is unknown to me to be from Astro-Berlin.  My first impression is that it is a piece of test equipment or perhaps for use in planning movie shots.  I will have to write Westlicht to see if they have any more information, especially why they think it is made by Astro-Berlin.  It is a weird enough piece of equipment to keep.

 

[wlaidlaw]

8 hours ago, zeitz said:

 

Second, I don't know what Lot #196 is.  There is no engraving of any kind to indicate that Astro-Berlin made it.  I don't know how you would use it as a focusing stage.  I'm not even sure the two major pieces (the body and the base) were originally meant to be together because the paint is substantially different.  It does have an LTM lens mount.  It does have a ground glass that is 28.8mm from the front flange.  It does have a magnifier, not made by Leitz, to help focus on the ground glass. The body casting has casting flaws that might lead one to believe it is a prototype.  Because of the length of the attachment screw, neither of my LTMs with a 3/8" tripod screw will mount properly.  The paint color is unknown to me to be from Astro-Berlin.  My first impression is that it is a piece of test equipment or perhaps for use in planning movie shots.  I will have to write Westlicht to see if they have any more information, especially why they think it is made by Astro-Berlin.  It is a weird enough piece of equipment to keep.

 

Zeitz,

Could the "Astro Berlin" device be for focusing an LTM camera on a Reprovit I? 

Wilson

[willeica]

The status of my delivery has now become 'Severe Weather Delay'. I believe that this is due to a meteorological storm rather than the storm happening at Westminster right now. This is one of the occupational hazards of living on an island off an island off a continent. It doesn't bother me as this item, being exactly the same age as myself, has already taken a lifetime to reach me.

I am glad that Zeitz has found potential uses for the Visoflex apparatus. As for the Astro Berlin device, it is, of course, a prototype and there will be no user manual. I would be surprised if Westlicht had more information. Astro Berlin made a lot of cine equipment and it might potentially be related to that eg close up examination of film frames. They also produced lenses in reflex mounts for Leica and other makes. Perhaps this project was abandoned when they produced the reflex mount. The other possibility is that it was produced for another make of camera with an LTM mount, hence the difficulty with mounting it on a Leica LTM camera. These are just some thoughts to add to the one from Wilson above..

All manufacturers produce development prototypes from time to time. The book 'Museum Leica' by Lars Netopil has plenty of examples of prototype items produced by Leitz/Leica some of which will eventually appear in the Leica Museum when it opens. He also produced a book earlier specifically about Leica Prototypes. I would expect that many of these items would not work straight away as they may be missing some vital parts which are no longer available. I hope that Zeitz eventually finds some use for the Astro Berlin device.

William

[zeitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

William, I think you are spot on about the Astro Berlin device as an abandoned effort to make a focusing stage.  I have attached two photos below.  Starting with the photo on the right, the first viewfinder is from Astro Berlin Identoskop reflex housing sn 23179; the second viewfinder is from the unidentified device; the third viewfinder is from Astro Berlin Identoskop sn 51136.  The diopter adjustment rings are identical machining.  The first ring is nickel, the second ring is likely aluminum, the third ring is black paint.  It is hard to see because the Identoskop viewfinders have an additional eyecup (or eyecup remnants) attached, but the viewfinder glass and retainer is also the same.  SN 23179 is close to the first Identoskop serial number; I would date it as 1935 or 1936.  SN 51136 is early post-war; I would date it around 1950.  (Some say the first two digits of Astro Berlin serial numbers are year of production.  I not convinced yet.)  Conclusion - this device was made by Astro Berlin

The second photo is a comparison of the Leitz VEHIG focusing stage with the Astro Berlin device.  VEHIG was unique because it used a clip that matched a land on the arm of the Leitz stands to mount it.  The Astro Berlin device uses a standard 3/8" tripod mount.  Using Laney's dates, VEHIG focusing stage was introduced in 1933; OORES rotating stage was introduced in 1934; and PLOOT reflex housing was introduced in 1935.  If Astro Berlin's prototype were to match VEHIG, its date would indeed be about 1933.  The accepted date for the introduction of the Identoskop is 1934.  It must have taken the patience of a saint to use these focusing stages because the device, camera and lens combination would have to be disassembled and reassembled every time re-framing had to occur.   The Leitz NY FULDY sliding stage was introduced in 1930 which may explain why they are so much more common that VEHIG.  Conclusion - it is a focusing stage in the spirit of VEHIG.

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!

[wlaidlaw]

The UPS man has just been and brought my UR-Replica from Westlicht. I know they were built by apprentices but they are slung together. On mine, the shutter tapes have not even been connected, the diaphragm is jammed half open and the front section of the two draw extending lens, opens and shuts with gravity. With just a little more effort, they could have made this a working replica like the Null series replicas (which I also have).  On the original, what was the purpose of the butterfly knob on the top, which on the replica is not connected to anything - to re-cock the shutter? It might have been more accurate to have called it Ur-Leica Attrape rather than Nachbildung. (a Dummy not a Replica). If my replica Morgan Three Wheeler could only be polished and admired instead of being driven (after three years pain, it now finally works properly, after being totally rebuilt from the ground up by Morgan, FOC), I would not be a happy owner. 

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!

Edited December 5, 2018 by wlaidlaw

[sabears]

38 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

The UPS man has just been and brought my UR-Replica from Westlicht. I know they were built by apprentices but they are slung together. On mine, the shutter tapes have not even been connected, the diaphragm is jammed half open and the front section of the two draw extending lens, opens and shuts with gravity. With just a little more effort, they could have made this a working replica like the Null series replicas (which I also have).  On the original, what was the purpose of the butterfly knob on the top, which on the replica is not connected to anything - to re-cock the shutter? It might have been more accurate to have called it Ur-Leica Attrape rather than Nachbildung. (a Dummy not a Replica). If my replica Morgan Three Wheeler could only be polished and admired instead of being driven (after three years pain, it now finally works properly, after being totally rebuilt from the ground up by Morgan, FOC), I would not be a happy owner. 

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!

May it was a misspelling for... Ur-replicrap?🕵️‍♂️

[dkCambridgeshire]

51 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

The UPS man has just been and brought my UR-Replica from Westlicht. I know they were built by apprentices but they are slung together. On mine, the shutter tapes have not even been connected, the diaphragm is jammed half open and the front section of the two draw extending lens, opens and shuts with gravity. With just a little more effort, they could have made this a working replica like the Null series replicas (which I also have).  On the original, what was the purpose of the butterfly knob on the top, which on the replica is not connected to anything - to re-cock the shutter? It might have been more accurate to have called it Ur-Leica Attrape rather than Nachbildung. (a Dummy not a Replica). If my replica Morgan Three Wheeler could only be polished and admired instead of being driven (after three years pain, it now finally works properly, after being totally rebuilt from the ground up by Morgan, FOC), I would not be a happy owner. 

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!

… see paragraph 2 post #31in above link 

dunk 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by dkCambridgeshire

[willeica]

Wilson, that is an exposure time dial. 

See photo here with arrows pointing at the parts:

http://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2018/04/ur-leica-most-influential-photographic.html

George Furst used some working parts from later Leica models to create some of the parts he needed, but he kept the camera as close as possible to the original, including the 42mm Mikro Summar lens. A technician called Mr Kim in Korea did a lot of the assembly work for George. When we were in Wetzlar in October George showed the camera to experts such as Jim Lager and Lars Netopil and all were hugely impressed. We then brought the camera to Barnack's grave for Oskar 'to see'.

My own item from Westlicht is still in transit. I am still not sure about that 'severe weather' warning that came from UPS. There was no meteorological evidence of such an event.

William

[wlaidlaw]

3 hours ago, dkCambridgeshire said:

… see paragraph 2 post #31in above link 

dunk 

 

 

Dunk, 

I really, really don't need yet another film Leica, I currently have 15 of them, albeit that 3 of them are at Alan Starkie and Malcolm Taylor. I am just a bit disappointed that the UR-replica is quite so crudely made and in my case, the shutter not even completed. 

Wilson

[dkCambridgeshire]

3 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

Dunk, 

I really, really don't need yet another film Leica, I currently have 15 of them, albeit that 3 of them are at Alan Starkie and Malcolm Taylor. I am just a bit disappointed that the UR-replica is quite so crudely made and in my case, the shutter not even completed. 

Wilson

Wilson, Do you plan to have the UR modified /completed into a working camera? 

dunk 

[zeitz]

Just to close the book on the Westlicht Auction and the Astro-Berlin focusing stage, I received a prompt and very nice reply from Michal at Westlicht.  He says that the manufacturer and approximate date were determined the same way I did it, from machining details.  He also said that the seller had no information on this piece of equipment.

[Ambro51]

What is the construction number of your UR.   It’s located upper inside the middle of the top and also on the baseplate.  Unless you’re unwrapping a NOS camera expect a Lot of playing around with the shutter and lens.  The thing is a half century old! BTW the lenses used are a senseless hodgepodge of correct sized units either with a too long or way too short fl.  It’s for show only.  The shutter curtain is for show too.  Barnack himself had troubles with the dropping loose barrel.  I solved mine with a thin smear of solder at the base of the barrels.  Now a nice smooth and certain fit.  •••••• If you want your UR as a shelf display, don’t worry about your issues.  If you want it to work, all this stuff gets removed/replaced anyway.  If you’re totally unhappy with it and feel it’s junk I’ll take it off your hands at a junk camera price.   I understand it.  And Yes, in general I too have too many film cameras and film Leicas, but after building up UR #9 with the aged look and proper Zeiss Kino Tessar I really don’t want to even    Load film into anything else.  These might be lousy replicas in some eyes but they are an Awesome and Historic user!

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 December 6, 2018 by Ambro51

[wlaidlaw]

10 hours ago, dkCambridgeshire said:

Wilson, Do you plan to have the UR modified /completed into a working camera? 

dunk 

Dunk, 

No it would probably cost £2 to £3000 and you would then have a camera of dubious performance and considerable inconvenience. I already have a Null replica if I want that sort of camera. 

Wilson

PS My construction number is either 08 or 80 (number reads either way up). 

Edited December 6, 2018 by wlaidlaw

[willeica]

My IIIc sharkskin with Summitar finally arrived today. The UPS man said that the pre-Christmas rush was as much responsible for the delay as the weather. The item is in superb condition including the later case (probably for a IIIg) in which it came and I am very pleased with my purchase. The lens focus and aperture rings are very slightly stiff, but that should go with use. Wilson will be glad to know that the Summitar is one of the ones which still had a round aperture rather than the later hexagonal version. It has, however, a minimum aperture of f18 rather than the f12.5 on my wartime version of the same lens.

I will post a photo of the camera next week, when the Ic with sharkskin which I won at the recent Rahn auction arrives, together with my other sharkskin models. All of these cameras (5 in all) are different in one way or another and, in addition to the interesting and hard wearing sharkskin vulcanite, they point to the changes that Leica was making in the period from 1948 to 1951 as it recovered from WWII. I will start a new thread on this as there are quite a few points to cover.

William