# 165 Leica i

[pedaes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, wizard said:

That's what William said above in one of his posts.

I took it he is talking about who owns the Auction House. No doubt he will tell us!

[willeica]

7 hours ago, wizard said:

Not even that is clear. It is clear that the camera was modified several times, but it is not clear that it was Ernst Leitz II, who had it modified (and the seller does not claim that it was him, i.e. Ernst Leitz II). So the only thing that would appear to be clear here is that Ernst Leitz II was given this camera at a certain point in time*. Whether he actually liked it, used it or just gave it to someone else after he had received it is unclear, as is the further fate of this camera from thereon. So most of today's attributed value is based on pure imagination. But I am sure there will be someone out there spending a more or less insane amount of money on this camera just to be able to tell people that "this was the camera Ernst Leitz II used for taking his photos". If it were a truly important piece of Leitz history, why are the 'House of Leitz' selling it, rather than trying to make it part of the Leica museum?

Andy

* On reading the auction details a little closer, it is stated that "The Leica I is thought to have been presented to Ernst Leitz II in December 1924, possibly as a Christmas present.", which means that the seller is not even sure of whether the camera was actually presented to Ernst Leitz II. So even more imagination here ..

I might as well say that my early M3 (which I no longer own) "is thought to have been tested by Ernst Leitz II" before being officially sold.

 

6 hours ago, wizard said:

That's what William said above in one of his posts.

There is some vivid imagination at work here, but it does not derive from the auction listing which is quite straightforward. There is evidence that the camera was presented to Enrst Leitz II in December 1924. What happened to it thereafter seems unclear. The modifications which happened to it afterwards eg shutter button, top plate screws etc, would appear to have been done by Leica. The lens is from a later period. I'm not sure how often I have to repeat it, but the value here is in the provenance of the December 1924 delivery. The 'House of Leitz'  (note in parentheses) is, of course, a euphemism which I have used for the current Leica AG. Dr Kaufmann announced some time ago that the name had been 'recovered' from a legal perspective and that it was intended to use the Leitz name again more broadly than just for the auction house. So we may see some Leitz products again sooner rather than later. But that is neither here nor there. As for who the actual seller (see the bit in brackets in my original post above) is here I have no idea, but it may not be Leica AG. Jerzy mentioned being approached by someone who was from the UK about the camera last September..

On 5/23/2021 at 8:41 AM, jerzy said:

funny.... last September a Gentleman from UK send me photos of this camera asking for remote expertise. Camera was heavily converted, possibly nothing from original camera left. And seeing a copy of delivery record it is very probable that is was December 1924....

As for whether Ernst Leitz II used the camera or whether someone else did so or as regards who requested the changes, none of these are relevant in this auction. All of the points that are being made here are obvious from the listing and I had noted them on first sight. Collectors are a funny bunch, but for any collector the first item ever delivered would have a value and the fact that it was delivered to the famous owner of the business would add to that. The market will determine a value at the auction, of course.

One final point for those who doubt this item or cannot perceive where the value lies here, it might be an idea to step outside of your own prejudices and to try to perceive it as others might. There is a tendency here for people to assume that if they don't like an item no one else will. Tastes and interests vary in this world and that is one of things that makes life so interesting.

William

Edited May 28, 2021 by willeica

[wlaidlaw]

I am sorry if I am upsetting anyone's sensibilities and this is purely my personal opinion. Someone earlier quoted a comparison to a Rembrandt painting. To me this is like offering the frame that used to surround a Rembrandt painting when first exhibited and saying: "Well you have to envisage the Rembrandt painting that used to be there - and of course pay accordingly". I accept that others will feel differently and given the trend to pay huge prices for Leicas, little different to run of the mill models but that have been owned and used by a photographer of significance, I am sure it will fetch a high price.

There was a scandal in France a few years ago when a distant member of the Renoir family, was found to be doing a roaring trade, selling Renoir's paint brushes for considerable prices. It was just possible that the occasional brush might have been used by Renoir, maybe when he was repainting his bathroom but in non-drip paint? The newspapers were very unsympathetic to the buyers, saying that as long as they thought they were getting a Renoir paintbrush, they should be happy, because it was the idea they were buying not a physical object. Ditto Ernst Leitz II's Model A, I suppose. 

Wilson

[willeica]

46 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

I am sorry if I am upsetting anyone's sensibilities and this is purely my personal opinion. Someone earlier quoted a comparison to a Rembrandt painting. To me this is like offering the frame that used to surround a Rembrandt painting when first exhibited and saying: "Well you have to envisage the Rembrandt painting that used to be there - and of course pay accordingly". I accept that others will feel differently and given the trend to pay huge prices for Leicas, little different to run of the mill models but that have been owned and used by a photographer of significance, I am sure it will fetch a high price.

There was a scandal in France a few years ago when a distant member of the Renoir family, was found to be doing a roaring trade, selling Renoir's paint brushes for considerable prices. It was just possible that the occasional brush might have been used by Renoir, maybe when he was repainting his bathroom but in non-drip paint? The newspapers were very unsympathetic to the buyers, saying that as long as they thought they were getting a Renoir paintbrush, they should be happy, because it was the idea they were buying not a physical object. Ditto Ernst Leitz II's Model A, I suppose. 

Wilson

The wider view? The big picture? What is important here has already been described. This one is obviously not for you. It is not being sold as a 'good camera'  or as a 'good original example of a I Model A' , but as the very first production Leica camera ever delivered, in this case to the owner of the business. No more, no less. There is a wider aspect to this than the mere 'mechanicals'. This is about history. 

William 

[Michael Geschlecht]

55 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

I am sorry if I am upsetting anyone's sensibilities and this is purely my personal opinion. Someone earlier quoted a comparison to a Rembrandt painting. To me this is like offering the frame that used to surround a Rembrandt painting when first exhibited and saying: "Well you have to envisage the Rembrandt painting that used to be there - and of course pay accordingly". I accept that others will feel differently and given the trend to pay huge prices for Leicas, little different to run of the mill models but that have been owned and used by a photographer of significance, I am sure it will fetch a high price.

There was a scandal in France a few years ago when a distant member of the Renoir family, was found to be doing a roaring trade, selling Renoir's paint brushes for considerable prices. It was just possible that the occasional brush might have been used by Renoir, maybe when he was repainting his bathroom but in non-drip paint? The newspapers were very unsympathetic to the buyers, saying that as long as they thought they were getting a Renoir paintbrush, they should be happy, because it was the idea they were buying not a physical object. Ditto Ernst Leitz II's Model A, I suppose. 

Wilson

Hello Wilson,

A comparison of the camera at issue with a frame around a Rembrandt Painting is not analogically accurate. Painters, for the most part, and I don't know about Rembrandt specifically, did not have much to do with making the frames around their paintings beyond going to the shop where they were made or where they were bought and saying something to the effect of: "I'll take the 1 on the top left. Please deliver it tomorrow." 

Brushes, like "Renoir's brushes" are more in line with cameras. They are the physical mechanism that helps the viewer of something produce that something on a surface. Which, I guess, puts Alfred Eisenstadt's M3 number 1 000 001 in pretty much the same place as Renoir's brushes.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

[Pyrogallol]

EL2 may not have received the camera as a Christmas present, who would have given it to him, apart from Barnack? But then the factory record would show it issued to Barnack and it would be a bit cheeky to give him one of his own products as a Christmas present. The whole business was Leitz’s so it would be a bit odd to give yourself a present of something your own factory was making. More likely he took the camera from stock to give to someone else as a present, to show the latest product the factory was making, in a time of world and particularly German depression. Which would mean that it was not actually his camera, any more than all the others in the factory were his.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Pyrogallol

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Pyrogallol said:

EL2 may not have received the camera as a Christmas present, who would have given it to him, apart from Barnack? But then the factory record would show it issued to Barnack and it would be a bit cheeky to give him one of his own products as a Christmas present. The whole business was Leitz’s so it would be a bit odd to give yourself a present of something your own factory was making. More likely he took the camera from stock to give to someone else as a present, to show the latest product the factory was making, in a time of world and particularly German depression. Which would mean that it was not actually his camera, any more than all the others in the factory were his.

The whole thing is based on the record of the delivery and the fact that the serial number indicates that this was the first production camera delivered. Anything beyond that is mere speculation.

William

[luigi bertolotti]

1 hour ago, willeica said:

The whole thing is based on the record of the delivery and the fact that the serial number indicates that this was the first production camera delivered. Anything beyond that is mere speculation.

William

Yes... and indeed auctioneers say "We can only speculate that it may have been a Christmas gift...". The only little residual doubt is that , apparently, they do not accompany the kit with a copy of the delivery page... I don't want to discuss the reliability of Leitz Photo Auction... but they plan to get high bids for this item... and they add a delivery document related to the Rolleiflex of Walker Evans... given that we are speaking of an Auction House controlled by Leica, I suppose it wouldn't be a problem for them to add some factory docs, in copy...  would I whish to bid, I kindly should ask them about... (and maybe someone did)

Edited May 29, 2021 by luigi bertolotti

[nitroplait]

3 hours ago, willeica said:

The whole thing is based on the record of the delivery and the fact that the serial number indicates that this was the first production camera delivered. Anything beyond that is mere speculation.

William

I think that the facts themselves as presented may be merely wishful thinking. At least the claims are not sufficiently documented in the auction catalogue to draw the conclusions presented, just as the depicted record page opens up for more questions that it answers.

The seller and the auction house has a very obvious interest in the interpretation of the record, and I hope an interested bidder will perform due diligence. This lot has all the warning signs of a fluff auction item.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by nitroplait

[willeica]

5 minutes ago, nitroplait said:

I think that the facts themselves as presented may be merely wishful thinking. At least the claims are not sufficiently documented in the auction catalogue to draw the conclusions presented, just as the depicted record page opens up for more questions that it answers.

The seller and the auction house has a very obvious interest in the interpretation of the record, and I hope an interested bidder will perform due diligence. This lot has all the warning signs of a fluff auction item.

 

 

 

 

It is for every bidder on any item of whatever value to do their own due diligence. I am sure that for a valuable item like this the required details would be produced. If you know of a production Leica I Model A with a lower serial number you should post the details here. It would seem that the rarer or more valuable an item is, the more doubters there are. Auction houses have to be prepared for this type of thing. 

[luigi bertolotti]

4 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

Yes... and indeed auctioneers say "We can only speculate that it may have been a Christmas gift...". The only little residual doubt is that , apparently, they do not accompany the kit with a copy of the delivery page... I don't want to discuss the reliability of Leitz Photo Auction... but they plan to get high bids for this item... and they add a delivery document related to the Rolleiflex of Walker Evans... given that we are speaking of an Auction House controlled by Leica, I suppose it wouldn't be a problem for them to add some factory docs, in copy...  would I whish to bid, I kindly should ask them about... (and maybe someone did)

Sorry...🤥 didn't see the full pictures on auction' site... the delivery is indeed exhibited... 

[nitroplait]

4 hours ago, willeica said:

It is for every bidder on any item of whatever value to do their own due diligence. I am sure that for a valuable item like this the required details would be produced. If you know of a production Leica I Model A with a lower serial number you should post the details here. It would seem that the rarer or more valuable an item is, the more doubters there are. Auction houses have to be prepared for this type of thing. 

luckily any claim is not on my shoulders to provide evidence for, but on the auction house. The rarer the item the higher the value, the higher demand should be on the evidence - obviously more scrutiny is to be expected.

If the buyer only bid based on its serial number rarity, I see no issue - I don't know if 40,000+ is reasonable for a highly modified #165, and I don't really care.
But that is not how the value of this lot is presented.

If the bidder expect this to be the first Leica I model A delivered, one may question why it is written on a page headed with the year 1925. Why it is the only camera with a December (12) date in the middle of a page full of January (1) dates. Looking at the entries, one may ask if there has been any opportunity to add a 2 after the 1 at some point. Same can be asked about the "junior" after the Leitz if the person delivered-to has any importance for the bid.

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!

We have to assume that the research on this object is done by people biased with an interest in that this lot will achieve the highest possible bid.

As I noted in another thread on the same subject, I do have some experience from the art world and the number of times where questionable or weak evidence have been presented in argument for high stake sales is not insignificant, sadly.

If things later has gone sour, all parties on the selling end shield themselves behind ignorance and good faith, thus the buyer has to ask the critical questions before the hammer hits the table, even if the questions are uncomfortable and may indirectly suggest foul play.

Why should I care about a collector paying silly money for hot air?

I care mainly because these significant transactions based on storytelling tends to validate historical events real or invented, and as soon as such a transaction has happened, the monetary stake involved becomes a prohibitive factor for later revision of facts, since both the owner and the parties earlier in the value chain will work against such revisions because it will devaluate their assets or reputation.

[willeica]

21 minutes ago, nitroplait said:

luckily any claim is not on my shoulders to provide evidence for, but on the auction house. The rarer the item the higher the value, the higher demand should be on the evidence - obviously more scrutiny is to be expected.

If the buyer only bid based on its serial number rarity, I see no issue - I don't know if 40,000+ is reasonable for a highly modified #165, and I don't really care.
But that is not how the value of this lot is presented.

If the bidder expect this to be the first Leica I model A delivered, one may question why it is written on a page headed with the year 1925. Why it is the only camera with a December (12) date in the middle of a page full of January (1) dates. Looking at the entries, one may ask if there has been any opportunity to add a 2 after the 1 at some point. Same can be asked about the "junior" after the Leitz if the person delivered-to has any importance for the bid.

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!

We have to assume that the research on this object is done by people biased with an interest in that this lot will achieve the highest possible bid.

As I noted in another thread on the same subject, I do have some experience from the art world and the number of times where questionable or weak evidence have been presented in argument for high stake sales is not insignificant, sadly.

If things later has gone sour, all parties on the selling end shield themselves behind ignorance and good faith, thus the buyer has to ask the critical questions before the hammer hits the table, even if the questions are uncomfortable and may indirectly suggest foul play.

Why should I care about a collector paying silly money for hot air?

I care mainly because these significant transactions based on storytelling tends to validate historical events real or invented, and as soon as such a transaction has happened, the monetary stake involved becomes a prohibitive factor for later revision of facts, since both the owner and the parties earlier in the value chain will work against such revisions because it will devaluate their assets or reputation.

If you are concerned about this you should raise it with the auctioneer. It is possible that potential bidders might do likewise. A camera with SN 164 is noted here as having been delivered on 31.1. 1925. 165 is indicated as having been delivered on 24.12 which is said to be December 1924. Note that the listing says that this ‘may’ indicate that this was the first I Model A delivered, at the end of 1924. I used the same words in my article. Anyone concerned should, as I have said already, check the matter with the auctioneer. Jim Lager gives 131 as the first SN for a I Model A. I showed him my article a few days ago and he made no comment on the piece about No 165.

William

[alan mcfall]

Over 50 years of collecting 3 digit serials has only produced 10 entries in my database, between 132 and 163. Most have been "upgraded" with later features, 2 are reported as fakes, and 3 or so appear to be original and are currently in major collections. Some of these are shown in Lager, Laney and Van Hasbroeck, a couple from auction houses. I have camera 226 and it has been significantly upgraded, to model D standards. From real non-prototype production starting at 131, this would be the 95th camera made. I haven't seen any factory records of the upgrades.