What does IGEMO mean?

[Pyrogallol]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Presumably they just ran out of letter combinations and started on numbers. In which case why not go to 6 figure numbers rather than 5 to give plenty of numbers to use in the future.

[UliWer]

Am 7.2.2024 um 05:11 schrieb Studienkamera:

...when we already know that the numerical order codes were used as early as 1955...

Do we know?

The usage of (mostly) five letters codewords and five digits numbers may have differed between the U.S. and Germany.

The German "Leitz Gesamtkatalog für den Fachhandel" (my translation: Leitz complete catalogue for specialist retailers") which was the official source for any dealer in Germany to place an order for Leitz items from May 1959 only lists the codewords.  The next edition of this catalogue I own from September 1961 only lists the numbers. So in Germany numbers seem to have been used not earlier than 1960.

The original ratio for using codewords instead of numbers was to make the placement of orders by telegram easier. Since you could not use numbers in telegrams but had to write out every cipher in letters the five letter words  like IGEMO were much shorter than "one-zero-six-five-zero" (i.e. Leica M3 without lens with 3/8" tripod mount, the same camera with international 1/4" tripod mount was "one-zero-one-five-zero").

I do not know what were the exact reasons for abolishing the old five letter words codes and introducing the numbers. Perhaps cable telegrams were less used for placing orders. Perhaps it was also the need for better differentiation between the items. E.g "IGEMO" is used for the M3 with 1/4" tripod mount as well as for the version with 3/8" mount. With numbers it's easier to show the differences. The many words for the M3 without lens ("IGEMO") and with different lenses ("IMARO", IMOLO", "ISOUN", "ISMON" and "IMOOT") don't give you an idea that this is all about the same camera. 10150, 10157, 10180, 10185 and 10167 let you guess at least that they belong to a common "body" even if you don't know what the different last two digits stand for. Then there is again the difference between tripod mounts: the whole sequel with 3/8" tripod mount reads: 10650, 10657, 10680, 10685, 10667. And there was even a black paint version of the M3 - though only without lens: 10151 (1/4" tripod mount) and 10651 (3/8" tripod mount). Try to reveal all these differences with five letters,

In the beginning they even added a letter behind the five digits. You may see this if you own different 12585 hoods: When the numbering started it was "12585 H" some years later the "H" was dropped. The IGEMO became "10650 P" or "10150 A" in 1961 but in 1968 you could only order a "10150" without the letter (and as they only had one tripod 1/4" mount everything became easier). 

Perhaps the introduction of the numbering system was also a symptom that the Leitz catalogue had become much too complex in the early sixties. Economic ratio reduced it to much simpler standards for which the five letter codewords might have been sufficient. Though the economic world prefers numbers to words. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2024 by UliWer

[Guest]

1 hour ago, UliWer said:

Do we know?

Well, yes. See the document attached in #12. Obviously, numerical codes were used as early as 1955, but very likely not yet universally within the company.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

Presumably they just ran out of letter combinations and started on numbers. In which case why not go to 6 figure numbers rather than 5 to give plenty of numbers to use in the future.

Good point. There are 10^5 = 100,000 possible five-digit numbers (if we include numbers like 00001), but 10^6 = 1,000,000 six-digit numbers. From memory, I recall that Thiele mentions in his books that some order codes were used twice for different items. 

[UliWer]

 

vor 52 Minuten schrieb Studienkamera:

Well, yes. See the document attached in #12. Obviously, numerical codes were used as early as 1955, but very likely not yet universally within the company.

We would know more, if we knew for what purpose this index from 1955 served. Were the numbers published, if so for whom? Dealers only or also for customers? Do you know any published catalogue from the U.S. from this time with numbers?

 

[willeica]

From April 1958. In English and referencing Leitz Wetzlar, ELC, Midland, Ontario and Leitz NY. Printed in Germany, but with prices in dollars. Has code words and catalogue numbers. No sign of IGEMO. M3 starts with IMARO and goes through ISUMO etc.

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!

Based on my own experience of business and administration a gradual move from Code Words to Catalogue Numbers makes absolute sense. It may be that it started in North America and travelled back to Europe and the evidence so far points that way, but there may not be 100% evidence of that without internal company documentation.

William 

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In the U.S. numbers were used in published catalogues already in the 30s: https://pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00469/00469.pdf . Here you find e.g. a LYKUP (Leica II in black paint) with No. 65,030, and the LYKUP-CHROM with 65,032 - numbers which were never used or known in German publications from this time.  

So it seems that the numerical system "migrated" from the U.S. to Europe and it took until 1960 or even 1961 when it was generally adopted.  

P.S.: Though the U.S. numbering system was altered significantly between the 30s and 50s: e.g. the 5cm ELMAR was 50,320 in 1938 and 11,010 in 1955. Only the later version seems to have been the base of the "universal" numbering system. 

Edited February 8, 2024 by UliWer

[UliWer]

When I thought about which Leica item might have been the last to bear a code word it took me some time to remember the obvious:

The 35mm Summilux was introduced in 1961. As far as I know it never had a code word, but only catalogue numbers. There is a reproduction of the first brochure about this lens dated 1960 in an article by Lars Nepotil in Vidom 111 (6/2016, p. 74). This brochure in English only mentions the numbers 11870 Z and 11871 Z - with goggles - later changed to 11871 N for the lens, no code word. It doesn't mention the hood.

The catalogue from Sept. 1961 mentions the hood only with 12522 H.

Though we all know that this hood had the code word "OLLUX", don't we. So was the "OLLUX" really ever listed as "OLLUX"? Has anybody seen this codeword in any list or catalogue?

There is a German "Gesamtkatalog für den Fotofachhandel" from 1960 which I don't own. Though I am rather sure that the catalogue from 1960 neither has the lens nor its famous hood - though I may be wrong ...

Or is there even a very early OLLUX which bears this engraving (other hoods have their codeword and later their number engraved)?

P.S:: Yes there is an early "OLLUX" engraved with his codeword:  https://wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.de/index.php/Gegenlichtblenden#OLLUX_/_12522 Rests the question wether this name was really ever listed. 

Edited February 9, 2024 by UliWer

[willeica]

11 hours ago, UliWer said:

In the U.S. numbers were used in published catalogues already in the 30s: https://pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00469/00469.pdf . Here you find e.g. a LYKUP (Leica II in black paint) with No. 65,030, and the LYKUP-CHROM with 65,032 - numbers which were never used or known in German publications from this time.  

So it seems that the numerical system "migrated" from the U.S. to Europe and it took until 1960 or even 1961 when it was generally adopted.  

P.S.: Though the U.S. numbering system was altered significantly between the 30s and 50s: e.g. the 5cm ELMAR was 50,320 in 1938 and 11,010 in 1955. Only the later version seems to have been the base of the "universal" numbering system. 

I have the London version of that booklet from August 1938.. Here some extracts from it which show that it included Code Words, but no Catalogue Numbers.

 

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!

Given that the content of the US booklet from later that year includes catalogue numbers, this might point to the practice of catalogue numbers having originated in the US. I wonder if the production in Midlands, Ontario from the 1950s onwards was the spur for the introduction of those numbers across the Leitz organisation? ELC fans might like to comment.

William 

[UliWer]

As the codewords or numbers are used in commucation between dealers and distributors  I should not look to Midland but Leica NY. Obviously they started their own numbering system already when nobody could think of Midland. The U.S. market being so important at this time and the numbering system having many advantages they were able to set the standards for the whole company in this regard.

In the meantime I found postings in the German forum from 2007 which confirm my suspicion that OLLUX was never used in the Leitz catalogue but only as an engraving on the hood itself. The „Gesamtkatalog für den Fotofachhandel“ from September 1960 established the numbering system universally in the company and does not list neither the Summilux nor the hood. The lens was first published in an English brochure from November 1960 which already uses only the number for the lens and when the hood was for sale separately some months later it was only numbered as 12522 H. 

So the five letter codes for camera equipment by Leitz started with „LEICA“ and ended with „OLLUX“.

Edited February 9, 2024 by UliWer

[willeica]

4 hours ago, UliWer said:

As the codewords or numbers are used in commucation between dealers and distributors  I should not look to Midland but Leica NY. Obviously they started their own numbering system already when nobody could think of Midland. The U.S. market being so important at this time and the numbering system having many advantages they were able to set the standards for the whole company in this regard.

 

I am aware of that, but what was the incentive to spread the system across the whole company? In the 1950s, Leitz move some of its manufacturing to Canada and if ELC used the catalogue numbers then there might have been an incentive to use them company-wide. 

William