Value of fakes

[levegh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What am I missing? Special Auction Services in UK have a FED in their next auction. The estimate is £40 to £60.  Auction Team Breker also have a FED in their next auction. It is faked as a Leica with Luftwaffe markings. The estimate is 500 to 700 Euros and there is already a bid for 280. I would have thought that a FED is a FED is a FED and worth only the estimate that SAS put on it. Are people collecting the fakes? It is difficult to think what to compare to a fake Leica, but how about the awful pretend Bugatti type 35 that I saw recently with MGB engine, suspension and other mechanical parts? Or perhaps the "vintage" Frazer Nash built on the remains of a Volkswagen 'Beetle'? Am I out of step or is it everyone else? Please tell me that none of you will be bidding on the Breker one.

Stuart

[willeica]

1 hour ago, levegh said:

What am I missing? Special Auction Services in UK have a FED in their next auction. The estimate is £40 to £60.  Auction Team Breker also have a FED in their next auction. It is faked as a Leica with Luftwaffe markings. The estimate is 500 to 700 Euros and there is already a bid for 280. I would have thought that a FED is a FED is a FED and worth only the estimate that SAS put on it. Are people collecting the fakes? It is difficult to think what to compare to a fake Leica, but how about the awful pretend Bugatti type 35 that I saw recently with MGB engine, suspension and other mechanical parts? Or perhaps the "vintage" Frazer Nash built on the remains of a Volkswagen 'Beetle'? Am I out of step or is it everyone else? Please tell me that none of you will be bidding on the Breker one.

Stuart

It may surprise you to know that Leica has fakes on display in the lobby of its HQ in Wetzlar and these will be on display in the Leica Museum when it opens next year. Dr Kaufmann is happy to have them there as a sign of the influence of the design and brand. It is also important to distinguish between 'copies' and 'fakes'. A FED is a Leica copy, as are the expensive British made Reids, which are much sought after by collectors, often fetching 4 figure sums, and there many other types of copy such as Canon and Leotax etc. A FED or other make which is marked 'Leica'  is, of course, a 'fake'. What people pay for cameras, of whatever description, at auction is entirely a matter for their own discretion. Let the market decide etc.

I will be doing an article soon for the the Leica Society UK magazine, aimed at clarifying the various aspects of Leica 'copies' and 'fakes'. John Wade had a recent article in Amateur Photographer which covered similar ground, but I intend to go into a broader amount of detail for a more specialised Leica collector audience.

William

 

[levegh]

I do understand the difference between copy and fake. Having owned Canon and Leotax, I regard them as very good copies with some desirable features of their own on some models. I have used FEDs belonging to friends and was not very impressed although I understand that they can be quite good if the very wide manufacturing tolerances happen to add up to the advantage of the camera user. I know that the Reid is as good as a Leica; how could it not be given its background? However, a fake Leica is a fake and decorating it with phony Third Reich legends must surely be intended to appeal to rather childish minds.

"Let the market decide, etc." I would have thought that the estimate is intended to kid purchasers that the fake is desirable. Breker, incidentally, do not publish past prices thus preventing anyone who has not followed all their auctions from finding out what price fakes have made there in the past. Perhaps one of you could astonish me further by telling me how much fakes have fetched at Breker.

I compared the difference by comparing with fake cars. One of the contributors to this forum mentioned having owned a Frazer Nash Le Mans; Crosthwaite and Gardiner built some copies which were as good as the originals. They are currently making XKSS cars for Jaguar to "replace" those lost in the Browns Lane fire sixty years ago. They are the Reids of the car world. The fake Third Reich FED/Leicas are the fibre glass wedding cars of the camera world or perhaps a Trabant dressed up to resemble a SAAB 96 rally car.

Stuart

[willeica]

I was not able to find the listings you referred to, but a fake or copy should be described as such by the auctioneer. As for the Reid being as good as a Leica they are fine if they don't go wrong, but they are more difficult to repair and parts are hard to fine. I would not recommend them (I have 2 Reids, a IIIa and an RAF I) as a 'shooter' for someone that just wants an LTM model to use. 

The whole picture is complicated and some people actually like collecting 'fakes'. There is a also a large contingent of collectors and users of FSU cameras and lenses. I had quite an education on this last year when I visited Lubitel Photo in St Petersburg where I purchased a Jupiter 3 from 1954, a Zeiss Sonnar copy which is very collectible and usable in its own right.

Finally, I meant what I said about it being the market that should decide prices, but, of course, articles being sold at auction should be accurately and fully described. As for inexperienced collectors, in addition to being protected by such disclosures they should seek expert advice if they are in any doubt before making expensive purchases. There is a much more serious and expensive side to 'faking' in areas such as military models and black paint Ms which are not original. In those cases the financial stakes can be much, much higher.

William

PS You might like to ask Dr Kaufmann to remove those 'Trabants' from the hallway of the HQ of Leica AG

Edited April 30, 2019 by willeica

[zeitz]

I have bid stupid-high for items I really wanted at auction.  I often wondered how anyone who bid against me could be that stupid.

[luigi bertolotti]

I can only say that I have seen horrid Leica fakes (expecially "gold") :  badly/roughly finished and with "leather" that was terrible to touch… and I have seen also fakes with fantasy military engravings that were really WELL MADE… I was even tempted to have one (black with red writings, a really well finished "Elmar"..., an exquisite deep green leather…) : IaAlways ended up thinking that if I have to throw away 2-300 Euros,... there is surely some original item at the same price that fits better my collection ; just to say that there can be a sense in asking certain amount for a fake : it can have an appeal.   

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Anyone spending significant money on some old camera really ought to do their homework.

I remember the guy on BBC Antiques Roadshow who proudly brought along his gold plated Berlin Olympics Nazi badged ‘Leica’ to be valued. He was quite smug saying he’d bought it a few weeks earlier at a little antique shop for £400 but knew it was probably worth much more! 

His expression when he was told what he’d actually bought was quite funny although the expert was very kind about it saying it was worth whatever someone was willing to pay for it! 

It did look like a very pristine example though. I wonder what he did with it. 

[willeica]

9 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

Anyone spending significant money on some old camera really ought to do their homework

This is in essence what I was saying. Do your homework or ask an expert. However, do not discount the possibility that some people might actually want to collect fakes, knowing what they are. Others might also say that if they are good enough for the Leica Museum in Wetzlar they are good enough for their collections. There are more serious fakes out there, from a financial perspective, such as actual real Leicas with fake Luftwaffen Eigentum, WH and Kriegsmarine markings and also black paint M3s that are not real black paint M3s. There are lists where some of these can be checked and there are also the Leica Archives and experts like Lars Netopil and Jim Lager and the people on this forum. The OP's concerns were values and lack of disclosure on auction sites. Education can only go so far in dealing with lack of full disclosure, but short of reporting such lack to consumer protection there is not much that can be done from a legal perspective. Sometimes 'fakes' or 'doubtful' models are reported here on this forum, particularly in respect of Ebay listings eg the IIg issue.

William

[M9reno]

My fake of the day:

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F264304859725

[UliWer]

Fair enough if a seller who seems to be specialized in mint items tells you that the camera was repaint. And he even avoids the usual lure of any german military or otherwise nazi engravings.

[willeica]

A repaint is worth a fraction of what an original BP M3 is worth. The disclosure is quite important. As for the military items, there are lists drawn up by Dr Luigi Cane and others. Lars Netopil, who assisted Dr Cane, told me that if a camera is in Cane’s list it is a genuine military camera, but others that were not on the list might also be military. I was told recently by the Leica Archives that a grey IIIc in my possession had been sent to the Luftwaffe. I did not believe it was military ( I had not bought it as such) and I discussed the matter with Jim Lager. We both agreed that the camera was not military and that what the Archives had told me was incorrect. I have high standards and I would never sell it as a military Leica, but others might not be so honest.

William

[kangaroo2012]

Hi William,

I have one of the Fed labelled Leica cameras from WW2.

In "The Authentic guide to Russian and Soviet Cameras" by Jean Loup Princelle on page 100

there is an article by  Oscar Fricke (not Rolf).He suggests that the cameras were engraved Leica for the use of the French Resistance

to avoid harsh penalties that would have been meted out if the cameras were labelled Fed. I have owned my copy since long before 

the fad for faking became widespread.

Cheers

Philip

 

[willeica]

3 minutes ago, kangaroo2012 said:

Hi William,

I have one of the Fed labelled Leica cameras from WW2.

In "The Authentic guide to Russian and Soviet Cameras" by Jean Loup Princelle on page 100

there is an article by  Oscar Fricke (not Rolf).He suggests that the cameras were engraved Leica for the use of the French Resistance

to avoid harsh penalties that would have been meted out if the cameras were labelled Fed. I have owned my copy since long before 

the fad for faking became widespread.

Cheers

Philip

 

An interesting story which I had not heard before. The are many visual signs that an FSU Camera marked Leica is not a Leica. The one I usually recommend is to look at the rangefinder cam which will be round on a Leica and triangular on an FSU camera. I called this the 'banjo v balalaika test'. Here is a link to an excellent site about Soviet Cameras http://www.sovietcams.com/index.php?358713866  . It is rather a large site and a bit of navigation is needed.

As I have mentioned them so often, here is a photo of the FSU fakes on display in the hallway of Leica AG HQ in Wetzlar. I expect that they will be transferred across the road to the new Leica Museum when it opens next year.

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

[UliWer]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb willeica:

A repaint is worth a fraction of what an original BP M3 is worth. The disclosure is quite important. ...

Well, the lack of disclosure that the item shown is no "LEICA LEITZ DⅡ D Ⅱ D.R.P. ERNST" - whatever that may be, but a russian fake, and the serial number  an attempt to conceal this, seems to be more important. 

[willeica]

23 minutes ago, UliWer said:

Well, the lack of disclosure that the item shown is no "LEICA LEITZ DⅡ D Ⅱ D.R.P. ERNST" - whatever that may be, but a russian fake, and the serial number  an attempt to conceal this, seems to be more important. 

And you can see the ‘Balalaika’ in the top photo. I don’t follow up on these listings on EBay, which I see all the time, but maybe someone who feels strongly enough might like to contact Ebay or the seller. I generally buy from auctions where items are properly and fully described.

William

[earleygallery]

18 hours ago, willeica said:

This is in essence what I was saying. Do your homework or ask an expert. However, do not discount the possibility that some people might actually want to collect fakes, knowing what they are. Others might also say that if they are good enough for the Leica Museum in Wetzlar they are good enough for their collections. There are more serious fakes out there, from a financial perspective, such as actual real Leicas with fake Luftwaffen Eigentum, WH and Kriegsmarine markings and also black paint M3s that are not real black paint M3s. There are lists where some of these can be checked and there are also the Leica Archives and experts like Lars Netopil and Jim Lager and the people on this forum. The OP's concerns were values and lack of disclosure on auction sites. Education can only go so far in dealing with lack of full disclosure, but short of reporting such lack to consumer protection there is not much that can be done from a legal perspective. Sometimes 'fakes' or 'doubtful' models are reported here on this forum, particularly in respect of Ebay listings eg the IIg issue.

William

 

Of course, I can see the fun in collecting some of the fakes, good and bad ones! Not to mention that they should still also be useable cameras if in working order.

There was a guy who used to post on here showing his latest Leica finds - they were all poor Russian fakes, luxus and the like, but despite all the information offered to him he point blankly refused to accept that they weren't genuine Leica's. I rather think he was fully aware of what he had and was trying to hoodwink others by putting photos of his cameras on the forum to point would-be buyers to, but hadn't expected the kind of detailed information many here can share about fake Leicas! Or maybe I'm too cynical! 

[ph.]

A borderline fake issue concerns the fairly rare Swiss Alpa camera. After Pignons in Ballaguies closed shop and during the years before Capaul&Weber revived its first class reputation, some cameras were assembled from parts. They were not identical to the cameras & serial numbers transcribed from factory records by mr. Thewes.  Were they fakes, "genuine fakes" or simply genuine? 

I declined an offer of an extremely rare microfilm version which seemed to stem from this batch of zombie products.  Genuine, no.

On the other hand, the US Alpa-importer. Karl Heitz, sold Angenieux and Kinoptik lenses for the Alpa that did not occur in the official Alpa price list. Genuine, yes, because mr. Burgeouise, Pignons, knew this and sanctioned it.

I  have a green-leather Alpa that I bought from Heitz which is not listed as green by Thewes. genuine, yes. I have a set of numbered dealer exhibit body castings bought from an official importer that fitted with the right parts could have passed as a finished camera. If so, not genuine, in the sense of not being asssembled in Ballaguies.

Ages ago I had the Hauser Torwerk in Wetzlar fit my IIIc (?) with a self-timer. Did not bother to keep the papers, and have long since traded it for something else. Still genuine? Yes because it was done by  Ernst Leitz GmbH.

I occasionally use my R-mount Minolta 800mm and regard it as belonging to the Leitz family since it was listed in the catalogue even if made by another company. The first version 90mm CL belongs in the Leitz\Leica fold, the second  Minolta version does not.

Conclusion: design, innards, additions, assembly & modifications not sanctioned by the original maker (while existing) should be classified as fakes as far as that maker is concerned. Other companies producing for use on -say Leica , should have their credentials assed on their own terms. Hence I regard my R-mount Angenieux 35-70 as a genuine Angenieux, but not as a genuine Leitz R lens. Exept for the 800 and the 500 I do not have any other of the Minolta designed R lenses, but they are every bit as genuine as the Midland, Wetzlar and Solms (and Portugal) products.

p.

 

 

[UliWer]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb ph.:

...

Conclusion: design, innards, additions, assembly & modifications not sanctioned by the original maker (while existing) should be classified as fakes as far as that maker is concerned. ....

 

My proposal would be to distinguish between a fake, a copy and a third party modification.

I‘d only call something a fake, when it pretends to be something, which it is not. A FED or Zorki with Leica engravings is a fake, same for a „normal“ Leica which has engravings for some military usage which has been added after the war. 

A FED or Zorki  which show the real brand, same as a Reid or an early Canon are no fakes but copies - may be legitimate ones, when the producer had the right to build a camera with a very similar design, or in many cases illegitimate though legal ones when they were only produced because Leitz couldn‘t prevent this to happen.

Modifications which were done by third parties without knowledge of the original producer are a totally different case. The most frequent modifications for the screw-mount Leicas were flash synchronisations. Many did this, sometimes good but often very sloppy. Another not so obvious example are lens coatings, perhaps by Oude Delft or some British factories. Nobody could call them a fake because the owner was entitled to modify his item. Third party synchronisations - if they are obvious - generally decrease the market value considerably; for coatings it may be different.

[zeitz]

After World War II manufacturers could copy any German design legally because the German patents were nullified by the Allies.  Leitz had no legal basis to challenge the copies.  The copies are absolutely legitimate.

The issue of wartime Leicas is interesting because Luigi Cane's book does seem to be flawed.  I have a grey IIIcK that I bought from one of Netopil's associates that I have been assured is a US Army Signal Corps camera even though it is not listed as such by Cane.  I don't know how to represent it if I were ever to sell it because I have no provenance.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[willeica]

1 hour ago, UliWer said:

My proposal would be to distinguish between a fake, a copy and a third party modification.

I‘d only call something a fake, when it pretends to be something, which it is not. A FED or Zorki with Leica engravings is a fake, same for a „normal“ Leica which has engravings for some military usage which has been added after the war. 

A FED or Zorki  which show the real brand, same as a Reid or an early Canon are no fakes but copies - may be legitimate ones, when the producer had the right to build a camera with a very similar design, or in many cases illegitimate though legal ones when they were only produced because Leitz couldn‘t prevent this to happen.

Modifications which were done by third parties without knowledge of the original producer are a totally different case. The most frequent modifications for the screw-mount Leicas were flash synchronisations. Many did this, sometimes good but often very sloppy. Another not so obvious example are lens coatings, perhaps by Oude Delft or some British factories. Nobody could call them a fake because the owner was entitled to modify his item. Third party synchronisations - if they are obvious - generally decrease the market value considerably; for coatings it may be different.

Once you get into modifications a whole new vista opens up. First there are cameras modified mechnically by Leica in its works or authorised workshops. Sometimes these were done as part of organised programs which appeared in dealers' catalogues and sometimes these were just one off requests. These are often called 'upgrades', but it should be noted that in most cases such 'upgrades' would reduce the current value of the cameras and lenses among collectors, who value original condition more than extra features. Non collectors often find this difficult to comprehend. Moving on to mechanical modifications outside of Leica's workshops these can vary from very good to spectacularly awful. For vintage collectors these nearly always greatly reduce the value of such cameras, but some users might like extra features. Finally, there are cosmetic modifications such as repaints. These are often valued by the non collector market, but most collectors that I know do not like them. I would never buy a repainted camera myself. I have seen I Model As from the 1920s that have been repainted and I would nearly always avoid them. To me they look terrible. The only cosmetically modified one that I have acquired is a camera that has been completely nickel plated, because it appealed to me.

I have listed these to show that there are a wide range of modifications both by Leica itself and also by non Leica sources. There are equally a wide range of views about the value and desirability of such modifications. My attitude is each to his/her own taste. My only real concern is where modifications have been made with a view to deception and enhancement of the value of a camera and/or lens. In such cases we are back into the area of 'faking' again.

William