Oscar Barnack's very own Leica 0-Series no.105 from the Leitz Museum in Wetzlar is being auctioned

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 3 Minuten schrieb willeica:

Looking at missing paint on an almost 100  year old camera could, indeed, harm one’s mental health. 

I don't have a problem with you having the last word on this, William, but I DO have a problem when you are turning my words into something I never said. My point was not missing paint in general, it was about deliberately scratching off original paint to better reveal original engravings. And even that does not harm my mental health at all, but one may question the mental health of the person who did that or had this done.

Andy

[Advertisement]

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

[willeica]

3 hours ago, wizard said:

I don't have a problem with you having the last word on this, William, but I DO have a problem when you are turning my words into something I never said. My point was not missing paint in general, it was about deliberately scratching off original paint to better reveal original engravings. And even that does not harm my mental health at all, but one may question the mental health of the person who did that or had this done.

Andy

My point was actually a 'note to self' and did not relate to you at all, if that makes sense.

I'm about to publish another article which features 7 'less exalted items' in the upcoming auction, including the Leica Snapshot. Apart from one charity item, they were chosen for their historical interest rather than their potential value in the auction. The article will include details and commentary not found in the auction catalogue. I will post a link when it comes out. 

William 

[pippy]

I suspect that I will be in 'the minority' in that I see ALL this camera's modifications - every one of them! - through the many decades as simply contributing layer upon layer to its unique history.

Some modifications might have been made to repair damage and return it to being a 'User'; some modfications might have been made to make it more of a 'User'; some to mark it out as having been, at one time, the camera used by Oscar Barnack. To me all of this is a physical embodiment of the living history of this very special camera and these changes should all be valued as such.

What would be the alternative? That it 'survived' somehow in the same condition as it was when last used by Oskar? Ridiculous idea.

Anyhow; YMMV.

Philip.

Edited May 18, 2022 by pippy

[willeica]

28 minutes ago, pippy said:

I suspect that I will be in 'the minority' in that I see ALL this camera's modifications - every one of them! - through the many decades as simply contributing layer upon layer to its unique history.

Some modifications might have been made to repair damage and return it to being a 'User'; some modfications might have been made to make it more of a 'User'; some to mark it out as having been, at one time, the camera used by Oscar Barnack. To me all of this is a physical embodiment of the living history of this very special camera and these changes should all be valued as such.

What would be the alternative? That it 'survived' somehow in the same condition as it was when last used by Oskar? Ridiculous idea.

Anyhow; YMMV.

Philip.

I think you are right, Philip, but opinions and tastes vary about such matters. A camera like this comes on the market with all of its unique history there to see. If someone wants a camera exactly as it was in the early 1920s, then a much cheaper modern replica should do them for that purpose. Or they could make one themselves with the blueprints for the 0 series (and the I Model A Series) which are item No 3 in the forthcoming Leitz auction:

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!

The 0 Series were prototypes and all of the ones still surviving have had some changes made to them. None, that I have seen photos of, are exactly the same as another one. This equally applies to early I Model As and none of the ones in my collection are exactly the same, even ones which fall into the same 'von Einem Variants'. Which reminds me, that speaking of association with Barnack, the following is what I got from the Leica Archives some years ago about one of the cameras in my collection.

Modell:  Leica I Model A

Seriennummer: 1783

Ausgeliefert am: 06.08.1926

Ausgeliefert an :Rühn nach Bingen, 09.09.1927 back to Oskar Barnack

Should I be putting this one on the market with a claim that Oskar once 'had' it? 😀

On second thoughts, I think Herr Barnack saw practically every Leica at that time. It was his Department that made and repaired and tested and modified all early Leicas. Ulf Richter's book about Barnack  ' From the Idea to The Leica' shows documentary proof that he believed in constant testing and retesting and improvement of products that were already on the market. 

William 

 

 

 

 

[pgk]

8 hours ago, willeica said:

On second thoughts, I think Herr Barnack saw practically every Leica at that time. It was his Department that made and repaired and tested and modified all early Leicas. Ulf Richter's book about Barnack  ' From the Idea to The Leica' shows documentary proof that he believed in constant testing and retesting and improvement of products that were already on the market.

If only manufacturers would adopt such concepts today! But as soon as a new camera appears there is clamour for the next. So the idea of 'testing, retesting and improvement' is usurped by the demand for 'newer' rather than 'better'. How far have we really progressed in the last hundred years?

[LocalHero1953]

10 hours ago, pippy said:

I suspect that I will be in 'the minority' in that I see ALL this camera's modifications - every one of them! - through the many decades as simply contributing layer upon layer to its unique history.

Some modifications might have been made to repair damage and return it to being a 'User'; some modfications might have been made to make it more of a 'User'; some to mark it out as having been, at one time, the camera used by Oscar Barnack. To me all of this is a physical embodiment of the living history of this very special camera and these changes should all be valued as such.

What would be the alternative? That it 'survived' somehow in the same condition as it was when last used by Oskar? Ridiculous idea.

Anyhow; YMMV.

Philip.

So if, by some stretch of the imagination, you or I bought this camera, would you be OK with making further modifications? Repainting, new leather? Would you be happy just adding to its history?

 

Edit. This is a serious question - I'm interested in how different people view such things, not trying to impose my own opinion.

Edited May 19, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[nitroplait]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

So if, by some stretch of the imagination, you or I bought this camera, would you be OK with making further modifications? Repainting, new leather? Would you be happy just adding to its history?

First thing I will do after I buy that camera, is to epoxy a Barnack decal onto the back. If any camera deserves that, it is this one.

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!

[willeica]

40 minutes ago, pgk said:

If only manufacturers would adopt such concepts today! But as soon as a new camera appears there is clamour for the next. So the idea of 'testing, retesting and improvement' is usurped by the demand for 'newer' rather than 'better'. How far have we really progressed in the last hundred years?

The product cycle periods are getting longer for the 'digi-wonders', as the technology becomes 'normal'. We have long since reached the era of mass production and the main post-introduction improvements today are by way of firmware upgrades. A question to ponder is what a digital camera produced in  2022 might be worth in 2122 and also whether it will still work. So far as cameras are concerned, 2022 is a different world to 1922. Leicas (Ms and Qs) still have the same overall body shape, though. 

William 

[pippy]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

So if, by some stretch of the imagination, you or I bought this camera, would you be OK with making further modifications? Repainting, new leather? Would you be happy just adding to its history?

Interesting question, Paul.

Speaking for myself I wouldn't modify it were it to be in working condition. If it wasn't functioning then I might very well be tempted to return it to that situation depending on what was required.

Obviously 'To Use or Not To Use? That Is The Question.' is a matter for serious consideration. As the camera has, by now, acquired a certain status as an important historical artefact I agree wholeheartedly that it must be regarded and cared-for as such. This does not, however, preclude the item being used as originally intended. If, for instance, through use the body were to brass-up a tad more then I wouldn't have any complaints.

My own viewpoint would be that to repaint the camera or have it reskinned nowadays would be going a stretch too far and would be unacceptable.

I suppose my own views are in line with those I have towards the realms of Classic Cars or Vintage Musical Instruments. They should be cared for but, at the same time, also be able to function if at all possible. Take the ex-Peter Green '59 Gibson Les Paul as an example. P.G. used it throughout his time with both John Mayall and Fleetwood Mac. After Green sold it to Gary Moore it was used - and used hard - for the next 25 years - and suffered two neck-breaks in the process. It went in to the 'collector market' for a few years but is now owned and being played - on stage as well as on recordings - by Kirk Hammet of Metallica.

So, if I may, a question for you - and anyone else; at what period of time should 'Greeny' have been (or be) put into a museum case never to be played again because of the fear of possibly damaging the guitar?

Philip.

Edited May 19, 2022 by pippy

[LocalHero1953]

7 minutes ago, pippy said:

So, if I may, a question for you - and anyone else; at what period of time should 'Greeny' have been (or be) put into a museum case never to be played again because of the fear of possibly damaging the guitar?

I'm in the camp of: use it if possible, repair it to the pre-breakage state if necessary* but, once it has been recognised as valuable object because of its history, make no further changes.

* Unless the occasion of breakage was a part of the history that made it of historical interest!

 

[pippy]

38 minutes ago, nitroplait said:

First thing I will do after I buy that camera, is to epoxy a Barnack decal onto the back. If any camera deserves that, it is this one...

Cool! "Pics or it didn't happen"!!!

I didn't realise that Oskar lived until the ripe old age of 125!

Philip.

[pgk]

14 minutes ago, pippy said:

So, if I may, a question for you in return; at what period of time should 'Greeny' have been (or be) put into a museum case never to be played again because of the fear of possibly damaging the guitar?

Some objects historical interest and or value are obviously down to their association with a particular person or an event. At what point this association becomes the reason for their continued importance depends on many factors. At some point the importance of this association must overide the usability of the item I would guess.

So as an example, the Calypsophot camera was developed for Jacques Cousteau. It is now a collectable and as it was never terribly reliable and used to flood quite regularly apparently, it is unlikely that anyone would use one again. If one which was documented as having been owned and used by Cousteau himself came onto the market then no doubt it would have a premium. Would this be a important camera (owned and used by its instigator)? And how can anyone determine that premium other than by putting such a camera up for auction?

Is the guitar you refer to inherently valuable in itself (no association)? Does it have a unique sound making it very usable?

In the bookworld I remember reading about an author who was given a copy of his book by a publisher and promptly removed and threw away the dust wrapper because he didn't like them. His own copy has an assciation but would not have the collectible dust wrapper. Complicated isn't it.

I'm glad that I don't collect things that I would fear using.

[pippy]

2 minutes ago, pgk said:

Some objects historical interest and or value are obviously down to their association with a particular person or an event...

Is the guitar you refer to inherently valuable in itself (no association)? Does it have a unique sound making it very usable?...

Again; good question.

Firstly on the subject of the Calypsophot; if there is a reasonable expectation that the camera could be ruined due to being flooded if used then my opinion would be that to subject it to this possibility would be unwise (to put it mildly!). I don't think it to be in any way acceptable for an historical artefact to be put, deliberately, into an environment which might easily bring about its destruction.

"Association with a particular person......valuable in itself?" : The Les Paul now known as 'Greeny' was 'just' another 1959 Les Paul when PG acquired the instrument. Nowadays whilst all Les Pauls from the 1950s are highly collectable and valuable it is the 1959 guitars specifically which are most sought-after and which, it follows, command the highest prices. For those guitars with 'significant provenance' these values are considerable; it is reckoned that the LP in question would fetch around £2 - £2.5 million (c. $2.5 - £3.1 m.) were it to come on to the open market which is around 10x the going-rate for a 'non-famous' example - although 'pricing' of these particular Les Pauls is a very convoluted minefield...

Had it only belonged to PG would its provenance be greater or be reduced? How important were the 'Moore Years'? The still-current 'Hammett Years'?...

I'd love to chat about the 'Tone' aspect, too, but we're drifting off-topic a bit too far (perhaps) already!....

Philip.

[roydonian]

21 hours ago, willeica said:

We asked local people where his grave was and they said that they had never heard of him. They knew where the Leitz family plot was, though. Make of that what you wish. 

William 

 

I faced the same problem in 1999. After realising how large the site was, I remember saying "Oskar - you're going to have to help me. I'm just going to walk around. OK?" I meant it as a joke, but to my surprise within a few minutes found myself at the right spot...

I took Jim Lager there during a later visit by the LHSA, and was due to take an LHSA group there during their last Wetzlar trip, but a family illness prevented me from going.

[Pyrogallol]

9 hours ago, nitroplait said:

First thing I will do after I buy that camera, is to epoxy a Barnack decal onto the back. If any camera deserves that, it is this one.

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!

That dreadful picture puts me off buying one of those replica cameras.

[zeitz]

9 hours ago, pgk said:

Some objects historical interest and or value are obviously down to their association with a particular person or an event.

Steve McQueen's 1970 Chevrolet Blazer is up at auction this week, expected to sell for $350,000 to $357,000.  That is about 3x what a collector quality Chevy Blazer would be.

https://www.mecum.com/lots/SC0522-502962/1970-chevrolet-k5-blazer/

[nitroplait]

43 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

That dreadful picture puts me off buying one of those replica cameras.

They ruined an otherwise interesting object.

[willeica]

11 hours ago, pgk said:

So as an example, the Calypsophot camera was developed for Jacques Cousteau. It is now a collectable and as it was never terribly reliable and used to flood quite regularly apparently, it is unlikely that anyone would use one again. If one which was documented as having been owned and used by Cousteau himself came onto the market then no doubt it would have a premium. Would this be a important camera (owned and used by its instigator)? And how can anyone determine that premium other than by putting such a camera up for auction?

I will ask our mutual friend, Tony Hurst, as he has a Calypsophot, not sure if he has traced it back to Cousteau. If I recall correctly, the thing is locked solid, so your reliability story is probably correct. He has some working examples of the Nikonos , of course.

 

9 hours ago, roydonian said:

I took Jim Lager there during a later visit by the LHSA, and was due to take an LHSA group there during their last Wetzlar trip, but a family illness prevented me from going.

We could have done with you on the last visit. I showed the picture of George Furst beside Oskar's grave. Here are some of the group that made it to the grave with me. From the left are the late Philip Ramsden, a former Leitz employee, from Australia, Dan Tamarkin from Chicago , USA, Alejandro Blacquier from Argentina, Forum Member George Furst, holding his replica Barnack 'Exposure Test' camera, from Korea (born USA) and Raymond Piganiol from France. Along with myself from Ireland and a few others that meant there were 5 continents represented at Oskar's/Oscar's grave that day. 

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!

Philip, who passed away late last year, was looking forward to coming to our Annual Conference here in Dublin next October, so we will remember him there. We managed to have an article about his career with Leitz published on Macfilos, just 3 weeks before he passed away. He was a true gentlemen and a pleasure to be with.

On that day, LHSA - The International Leica Society truly lived up to its name 

William 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Michael Geschlecht]

17 hours ago, pgk said:

If only manufacturers would adopt such concepts today! But as soon as a new camera appears there is clamour for the next. So the idea of 'testing, retesting and improvement' is usurped by the demand for 'newer' rather than 'better'. How far have we really progressed in the last hundred years?

Hello Paul,

Automotively speaking only 99 years. It was with the model year of 1923 that the car company "General Motors" decided, during a year when it had no significant improvements to make on their then current model, to copy what had been prevalent in the Women's Fashion Industry for a number of years, & to do exactly that. It worked. Sales went up. General Motors went on to become the largest automobile manufacturer in the USofA for a number of years.

Best Regards,

Michael

[Michael Geschlecht]

18 hours ago, willeica said:

The product cycle periods are getting longer for the 'digi-wonders', as the technology becomes 'normal'. We have long since reached the era of mass production and the main post-introduction improvements today are by way of firmware upgrades. A question to ponder is what a digital camera produced in  2022 might be worth in 2122 and also whether it will still work. So far as cameras are concerned, 2022 is a different world to 1922. Leicas (Ms and Qs) still have the same overall body shape, though. 

William 

Hello William,

I don't see a very different World.

I would think that from a user's point of view the changes from the Leica I (Model A) to the M would be some changes in operating & viewing mechanisms. And the changes between M film & M digital would be changes to the image capture surface & the image storage system. I think that the majority of the changes between film & digital from a user's point of view would be in terms of image processing & image printing. 

Best Regards,

Michael