Highlights of the 38th Leitz Photographic Auction

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here is my article published today on some of the highlights of the forthcoming Leitz Auction to be held in Vienna on 12th June 2021. I have chosen these 5 cameras because of the interesting provenance and stories attached to them. 

https://www.macfilos.com/2021/05/27/all-that-glitters-the-38th-leitz-photographic-auction/

I have indulged in some speculation about how the market might react to the items. Do members agree with what I have said? Trying to predict hammer values is, of course, very difficult.

William

[zeitz]

It still amazes me how Westlicht / Leitz Photographic adjusts the items and descriptions of the items it auctions.

Lot 169 is that recurring Sabre gun stock.  I have written to Peter before that these gun stocks were made well beyond 1957.  There was not a Leica specific model.  Model 103 was for Leica, Canon, Contax and Nikon.  There were other Sabre models for SLRs, Hassleblad and movie cameras.  Yet the incorrect description persists.  Also why is a 1949/50 Leica put on this set when the first Sabre was about 1956?  One can check any Modern Photography or Popular Photography magazine issue from this period and find the Sabre advertisements. 

Lot 248 is for a Dallmeyer Reflex Housing and lens.  The same piece was sold previously in Auction 11, May 2007, Lot 364.  At there time it did not have a camera with it.  Why is a Leica IIIb now sold with the unit?  It clearly has no association with the reflex housing and lens.

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[willeica]

1 hour ago, zeitz said:

It still amazes me how Westlicht / Leitz Photographic adjusts the items and descriptions of the items it auctions.

Lot 169 is that recurring Sabre gun stock.  I have written to Peter before that these gun stocks were made well beyond 1957.  There was not a Leica specific model.  Model 103 was for Leica, Canon, Contax and Nikon.  There were other Sabre models for SLRs, Hassleblad and movie cameras.  Yet the incorrect description persists.  Also why is a 1949/50 Leica put on this set when the first Sabre was about 1956?  One can check any Modern Photography or Popular Photography magazine issue from this period and find the Sabre advertisements. 

Lot 248 is for a Dallmeyer Reflex Housing and lens.  The same piece was sold previously in Auction 11, May 2007, Lot 364.  At there time it did not have a camera with it.  Why is a Leica IIIb now sold with the unit?  It clearly has no association with the reflex housing and lens.

 

 

I cannot really answer all of your questions, but a number of points occur to me.

The listing makes it clear that the rifle stock was not made by Leitz, but rather by the other company that is mentioned. It is true that the stock was available for other makes, but I'm not sure how relevant that is to the listing. I don't know about the period of manufacture, but I know that some US members of the forum are familiar with this item. As for your point about a 1949/50 camera being on a stock from 1956, the relevance of this escapes me. It would seem that in 1956, the stock could be fitted to a number of camera types which had already been made, such as this one. We are not talking about 'this year's car model' here. I note that there is a bid of €6,500 already in on this item, so it is already at 65% of the bottom of the expected range. 

Moving on to the Dallmeyer set, it is not surprising to see items arising at the auction again and again. You cannot assume that the item is the property of the auction house and it may be a different owner that is selling the item through the auction house every time it appears. Again, unless you can tell me that the Dallmeyer item cannot be used with the IIIb, I cannot see anything wrong with it being sold with the reflex housing and lens which it predates. Finally, it may well be the case that the auction house was asked to sell the Dallmeyer set and the camera together by a client.

I'll leave it at that.

William

[zeitz]

16 minutes ago, willeica said:

Again, unless you can tell me that the Dallmeyer item cannot be used with the IIIb, I cannot see anything wrong with it being sold with the reflex housing and lens which it predates

Significant provenance of a unique item is being confused by selling the unit with a totally unassociated camera.

18 minutes ago, willeica said:

I don't know about the period of manufacture

I advised Peter of the period of manufacture previously.  He continues to use information from Lager's book that he has been advised is incorrect.

[willeica]

9 minutes ago, zeitz said:

a totally unassociated camera

I don't see any inference that the camera is 'associated'. I assume that you are thinking about an item that might have been sold with the stock many years ago when it was new. A seller who is looking for such an item would be advised to make enquiries with the auctioneer. Some bidders might just be happy to have the stock with a camera that works with it. As I said, I know some US members who have had this item and I would leave it to them to comment on the period of manufacture.

William

[nitroplait]

I own far to many cameras to claim that I am not a collector, but I have decided only to collect cameras that I intend to use even if just a little - that puts a certain cap on how much I would consider paying as I would only devaluate my investment with wear and tear. 

The only instance I can imagine owning a camera that I would leave to stand unused on a shelf (if only I could afford it), would be a camera from a photographer I admirer, therefore the W. Evans is by far them most interesting lot. For the same reason I find the valuation of the Ernst Leitz II camera to stand in stark contrast when looking at estimates - it is completely beyond me that a executive's camera would be worth more than the cameras of an iconic photographer such as Evans.

Another observation: With a past in fine arts sales, I know that many stories of provenance become bloated with time, speculations becomes facts when voiced by figures of perceived authority. Unless all the statements related to Lot 6 is accompanied with documentation from original sources, I will expect them to be speculations and not facts. The omission of detail regarding the 3 service visits would also be a source of suspicion - unless documented from primary sources I will assume that the updates were NOT done for Ernst Leitz II but perhaps a subsequent owner, which would make the obviously altered current state much less interesting.

In fact maybe Ernst Leitz II just had it delivered to give it as a gift to somebody and never used it himself? Actually, If looking only at the photograph of the log document, I would even go as far as saying that concluding that this camera was delivered to Ernst Leitz II or Leitz "junior" would need further verification and supporting evidence to be taken as a fact.

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by nitroplait

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, willeica said:

..... it is not surprising to see items arising at the auction again and again. You cannot assume that the item is the property of the auction house and it may be a different owner that is selling the item through the auction house every time it appears.

It is quite possible to 'track' some items via web searches and see them reappear at auctions and watch the prices shift. I have done this with some items. The auctions are anything but anonymous whilst ownership tends to remain so to a large extent. It can be an interesting exercise.

[willeica]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

It is quite possible to 'track' some items via web searches and see them reappear at auctions and watch the prices shift. I have done this with some items. The auctions are anything but anonymous whilst ownership tends to remain so to a large extent. It can be an interesting exercise.

I have seen items come up again and sell for lower prices. Looking for items coming up again and again might drive you mad. There is no law here other than the market, once items are properly described. One could never approve of deliberate misdescription. The real difficulty is that some people have a notion of a 'correct price',  but in an auction any price is possible. We may not like it, but that is the way that the market works.

William 

Edited May 28, 2021 by willeica

[alan mcfall]

On 5/27/2021 at 3:00 PM, zeitz said:

 

Lot 169 is that recurring Sabre gun stock.  I have written to Peter before that these gun stocks were made well beyond 1957.  There was not a Leica specific model.  Model 103 was for Leica, Canon, Contax and Nikon.  There were other Sabre models for SLRs, Hassleblad and movie cameras.  Yet the incorrect description persists.  Also why is a 1949/50 Leica put on this set when the first Sabre was about 1956?  One can check any Modern Photography or Popular Photography magazine issue from this period and find the Sabre advertisements. .....................

Here is my Sabre, I like to keep an early version Telyt 400 on it.  Version 2 of the 400 was available in the mid 50's, the visoflex had been out a couple of years, replacing the PLOOT, and the IIIf also seems to be fairly correct for the period.

There are no markings to indicate the manufacture or the model.  This one fits the leica well, but has 1.5 inches adjustment on the fixing screw for the lens tripod mount, so maybe it fits other cameras systems as well. 

Critical observers may see that it seems I have the PAMOO on backwards for the photo, and the interesting serial number of the lens.

 

 

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!

 

 

[zeitz]

8 hours ago, alan mcfall said:

There are no markings to indicate the manufacture or the model.

Attached is a sample of the Sabre advertisements.

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!

[sandro]

I am surprised that no. 6 comes up for auction. Shouldn't that be in the Leitz museum? It has historical value, I'd say.

Lex

[willeica]

1 hour ago, sandro said:

I am surprised that no. 6 comes up for auction. Shouldn't that be in the Leitz museum? It has historical value, I'd say.

Lex

There are some implications that this one may have been 'in the wild' and may have been put up for sale for a private client. 'The house' could always buy it, of course. It has now fetched a bid of €40,000. The Luxus is at €180,000 and the Martin Hartley MP is at €3,600. The much debated Sabre has gone as high as €7,500. The Moment camera (my choice if I had one) has not attracted any bids nor have the 3 Rolleis belonging to Walker Evans, but I am sure that those items will sell.

William

[luigi bertolotti]

I am stunned by the base price (not to speak of evaluation....) for the MP2 ... true that is super rare, but no battery pack (a device that i think simply impossible to find - original). The black motorized M2 is more than ten times lower as base price... not rare as the MP2 but complete and really appealing.

 

Edited June 5, 2021 by luigi bertolotti

[willeica]

9 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

I am stunned by the base price (not to speak of evaluation....) for the MP2 ... true that is super rare, but no battery pack (a device that i think simply impossible to find - original). The black motorized M2 is more than ten times lower as base price... not rare as the MP2 but complete and really appealing.

 

There is a bid of €150,000 in for the item. Another one destined for a glass case, probably.

William

[wlaidlaw]

My father used to recount a story about his London sales agents, who like many on the sales side of the textile industry, were Jewish (very!). Around 1946-47 the food supply situation in the UK was becoming even worse than it had been during the war and finding in particular kosher food, was becoming close to impossible. Myra, the agents wife, had been unable one day to find any kosher food for their supper but then had a brainwave. They lived in an apartment above their showrooms in St Johns Wood and she had seen in a corner there, a few cartons of tins of preserved pilchards. Although not perfect, she thought she could take a couple of the tins from a carton and serve them on toast. She duly did this but the pilchards were absolutely disgusting and Milo, her husband asked where on earth she had got them. She explained where they had come from, at which point Milo exploded with the following immortal phrase: "For god's sake Myra, those are buying and selling Pilchards, not eating Pilchards." 

Similarly some Leica cameras and lenses at auction sales are "buying and selling Leicas, not using or displaying Leicas" 

Wilson

[willeica]

23 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

My father used to recount a story about his London sales agents, who like many on the sales side of the textile industry, were Jewish (very!). Around 1946-47 the food supply situation in the UK was becoming even worse than it had been during the war and finding in particular kosher food, was becoming close to impossible. Myra, the agents wife, had been unable one day to find any kosher food for their supper but then had a brainwave. They lived in an apartment above their showrooms in St Johns Wood and she had seen in a corner there, a few cartons of tins of preserved pilchards. Although not perfect, she thought she could take a couple of the tins from a carton and serve them on toast. She duly did this but the pilchards were absolutely disgusting and Milo, her husband asked where on earth she had got them. She explained where they had come from, at which point Milo exploded with the following immortal phrase: "For god's sake Myra, those are buying and selling Pilchards, not eating Pilchards." 

Similarly some Leica cameras and lenses at auction sales are "buying and selling Leicas, not using or displaying Leicas" 

Wilson

Wilson, you are getting there. Whoever owns a thing can do whatever they want with it. You must have been at a few car auctions in your time and seen some ‘buying and selling ‘ cars on the block.

William 

[tranquilo67]

Hi,

I've already commented some of this to you William, but my humble observations:

- I can see multiple estimations quite (if not extremely) conservative. As an example the Luxus that I'd say it will go closer to half a million or, in other order of magnitude the Stapo camera that estimation went for 1000 - 1200 and it's already in 1900 Euros.

- It's interesting to see how the "historical value" is much more valuable than originality like in the Ernst Leitz II camera, that seems upgraded one or more times but ... who cares?

- I'm absolutely unable to understand how the first M6 is estimated 6000 - 7000 and several limited edition M6's (Royal Wedding, Jaguar, Al-Thani etc.) are estimated more than twice that price. I understand the "desirability" factor, but the first M6 is simply unique and the limited editions are just that, limited (100, 200 etc.) and, for me, the "pre-cooked" collectibles miss some flavour. You can have many opportunities to get one of those. There is no other first M6. But of course that's my opinion and it seems it's not shared by many collectors.

- It's interesting to see the 25 years Leica Historica book estimated 400-500. I know it's 700 samples limited edition but not sure if it will go for that. If so, what would be the Wilhem Albert's "Geburtstage der Leitz-Foto-Konstruktionen ab 1927" that is limited to 333 samples?

Anyway, very interesting indeed. Let's see how it goes.

Best wishes,

Augusto

[pedaes]

7 minutes ago, tranquilo67 said:

but my humble observations:

We can all make logical guesses made on past sales etc.etc., and then wonder 'why'.  No one will know until the day. All it takes is two very wealthy collectors to go head to head over an item and feathers fly.

[wlaidlaw]

Auctions are never logical. When my parents sold the big old family house in the north of Scotland in 1971, they sold off at an auction in the house, a lot of the very large furniture, which was not going to fit into the bungalow, where they had to move to, as my father could no longer manage stairs. Amongst the items to be sold was some heavy and thick black watch tartan fitted carpet, which had been woven at the family textile mills. The first lot had been on the floor for at least 10 to 15 years. My parents were amazed to see this bid up to £100, against its estimate of £5. The next item was a roll of the same carpet but which had never been used or laid and about double the area of the first piece. It only went for around £30 - huh??

On cameras last year I was on a German photo auction site (not Leica/Westlicht), where I wanted to buy a boxed 50 Jarhe black M5. It went for around €3800 + 22.5% commission, which was about €2000 more than I was prepared to pay. Disappointed and with money to burn sitting in my hands, a few items later, a Rolleiflex 3003 35mm system camera with the following QBM lenses: 50mm/1.4 Zeiss, 35/2.8 Rolleinar and 28-105/3.3 Rolleinar, 2 film backs and one rechargeable NiCad battery pack (re-celled) and charger was for sale with a reserve of €400. I put in the minimum bid, never expecting to get this package of items but obviously, nobody else bid and I got the lot. I knew I would have to pay the commission of 22.5% and VAT on that but when the bill arrived, it came with a very apologetic note, saying that one of the film backs seemed to become lost, so they were going to waive their commission. As the film backs are readily available, that was a happy outcome and I later bought a package of a spare NiMH battery pack and two film backs on eBay at less than half the commission cost. Win-Win. 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[willeica]

1 hour ago, tranquilo67 said:

Hi,

I've already commented some of this to you William, but my humble observations:

- I can see multiple estimations quite (if not extremely) conservative. As an example the Luxus that I'd say it will go closer to half a million or, in other order of magnitude the Stapo camera that estimation went for 1000 - 1200 and it's already in 1900 Euros.

- It's interesting to see how the "historical value" is much more valuable than originality like in the Ernst Leitz II camera, that seems upgraded one or more times but ... who cares?

- I'm absolutely unable to understand how the first M6 is estimated 6000 - 7000 and several limited edition M6's (Royal Wedding, Jaguar, Al-Thani etc.) are estimated more than twice that price. I understand the "desirability" factor, but the first M6 is simply unique and the limited editions are just that, limited (100, 200 etc.) and, for me, the "pre-cooked" collectibles miss some flavour. You can have many opportunities to get one of those. There is no other first M6. But of course that's my opinion and it seems it's not shared by many collectors.

- It's interesting to see the 25 years Leica Historica book estimated 400-500. I know it's 700 samples limited edition but not sure if it will go for that. If so, what would be the Wilhem Albert's "Geburtstage der Leitz-Foto-Konstruktionen ab 1927" that is limited to 333 samples?

Anyway, very interesting indeed. Let's see how it goes.

Best wishes,

Augusto

Thanks Augusto

You know my view that it is the market which values items. Auctioneers can get caught with too high a start price and no traction. The M6 is a wooden dummy produced before real manufacture started. These are difficult to price as there is no 'defined market'. Next Saturday will tell. I have bought the new edition of the Wilhelm Albert book and I will be reviewing it for the UK Leica Society. I will need some help from Lars as a lot of what is in it is handwritten in German in Albert's diaries. There are some astonishing items in the book, including a monstrous 2000mm (200cm) f4 lens produced by Leitz in the 1930s. Will post a picture of that here some day. 

 

1 hour ago, wlaidlaw said:

Auctions are never logical. When my parents sold the big old family house in the north of Scotland in 1971, they sold off at an auction in the house, a lot of the very large furniture, which was not going to fit into the bungalow, where they had to move to, as my father could no longer manage stairs. Amongst the items to be sold was some heavy and thick black watch tartan fitted carpet, which had been woven at the family textile mills. The first lot had been on the floor for at least 10 to 15 years. My parents were amazed to see this bid up to £100, against its estimate of £5. The next item was a roll of the same carpet but which had never been used or laid and about double the area of the first piece. It only went for around £30 - huh??

On cameras last year I was on a German photo auction site (not Leica/Westlicht), where I wanted to buy a boxed 50 Jarhe black M5. It went for around €3800 + 22.5% commission, which was about €2000 more than I was prepared to pay. Disappointed and with money to burn sitting in my hands, a few items later, a Rolleiflex 3003 35mm system camera with the following QBM lenses: 50mm/1.4 Zeiss, 35/2.8 Rolleinar and 28-105/3.3 Rolleinar, 2 film backs and one rechargeable NiCad battery pack (re-celled) and charger was for sale with a reserve of €400. I put in the minimum bid, never expecting to get this package of items but obviously, nobody else bid and I got the lot. I knew I would have to pay the commission of 22.5% and VAT on that but when the bill arrived, it came with a very apologetic note, saying that one of the film backs seemed to become lost, so they were going to waive their commission. As the film backs are readily available, that was a happy outcome and I later bought a package of a spare NiMH battery pack and two film backs on eBay at less than half the commission cost. Win-Win. 

Wilson

Wilson, there is an old expression that goes ' if you're not in, you can't win' . The first thing you have to abandon going into an auction is the notion of a 'correct price'. The only 'correct price' is your own limit and your second story shows that admirably. You need to have your own limit where you will pull out as you have no idea how far others are prepared to go.

William