Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

Well. none had the idea of making a trip to the German Forum ? 😉

Thanks Luigi. As I always do, I had thanked Wizard for his response. This translation business was started by my editor who is a former journalist. In best newspaper terms I think that ‘the correspondence is now closed’. 
 

William 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

1 of the reasons for not having admission charges at the Smithsonian Museums is that it is the Museum Of The United States. Which makes it everybody's Museum. The people's museum. Paid for with everybody's tax dollars.

Then why do the US National Parks charge admission?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zeitz said:

Then why do the US National Parks charge admission?

I'm not certain why, but they are a great value!  I have been behind the scenes in US National Parks and they are trying very hard to stay solvent and fulfill their mission.  An awful lot of visitors!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

1 reason for free admission to Museums, etc. in general is also so that people who do not fit the criteria that you listed above, because of a lack of disposable income, can also go to Museums & benefit from what is there for them to learn from. And sometimes just to enjoy.

 

As a child of of poorly-paid working class parents, I was able to visit the local museums as often as I wanted. I suspect that they did more for my education than school ever did once I'd learned to read. But if the museums had had an admission fee, my visits would have been as rare as my visits to the cinema - a couple of times a year rather than once a week.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

That is a very good question.

The answer is simple.  Washington-based politicians look after themselves.  The Smithsonian is entirely in the Washington DC metroplex.  The national parks are mostly in other people's states.

Want to take Metro to the Smithsonian?  US taxpayers funded 67% of the construction to begin with.  A one-way ticket costs the rider $2 to $6 depending on time of day and where you get on/off.  But the US taxpayer funds 65% of what it really costs to ride the Metro.  I don't know of any free or subsidized transportation to the National Parks.  (Want to ride the buses INSIDE Glacier National Park?  That can cost you up to $110 per person for the full loop.)

Somehow the Washington-based politicians let one fee get passed to the the visitor.  It costs $15 to park at the Air and Space Museum Annex near Dulles Airport, and the only way to get there is by car.  The parking facility under the Air and Space Museum on the Mall has meters on all the spaces.

19 hours ago, roydonian said:

I was able to visit the local museums as often as I wanted

Unfortunately an economically disadvantaged child in Missoula Montana does not have the opportunity to visit the Smithsonian museums for free because ALL the museums are placed in one location, even though nationwide parents are annually contributing to the Smithsonian.  I would also like to have free museums as public policy.  But free means there is little money to expand or do anything new.

So many treasured and interesting pieces remain on a shelf in some basement for no one to see.

What will be the fate of Leica no. 105?  Hopefully the Leitz Museum will buy it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Zeitz,

Hopefully Free Public Museums in general, Worldwide, will be funded more & expanded, as per your suggestions. Museums are an important aspect of Public Education that deserves a bigger input in funding.

And, it would be nice if 105 ended up in the Leica Museum.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited by Michael Geschlecht
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Am 1.5.2022 um 17:12 schrieb Michael Geschlecht:

And, it would be nice if 105 ended up in the Leica Museum.

It sure would, but I don't think it will.

Meanwhile, I have made some enquiries with regard to the origin of 105, and how it looked like originally, or at least back in the thirties. This particular camera was exhibited at the 'Deutsches Museum' in Munich twice. The first time was from 1939 to 1945, and the second time was from 1954 to 1960. On those two occasions, Conrad Barnack (Oskar Barnack's son) had loaned the camera to the Deutsches Museum.

I have obtained a photograph from the Deutsches Museum today, showing 105 next to a later screw mount Leica (from 1939, with a Summar lens). It is not clear whether that photograph was taken by the museum in 1939 or 1954, but since the screw mount Leica also shown on the photograph dates from 1939, I assume that it is more likely that the photograph was taken already in 1939. From the photographed item, 105 that is, it is obvious that at least some parts must have been changed between now and then. The most obvious item is the viewfinder. The original viewfinder was black and had no engraving. It would thus appear that someone (I am almost tempted to say some idiot) got hold of another viewfinder, and with a view to 'prove' the legacy of that camera dilettantishly engraved 'Oscar Barnack' onto the top of the viewfinder. The film rewind knob must also have been changed, as it was black back then (just like it is on the 116 and 122 cameras), but is chrome now. Moreover, the stop pin on the 105's lens wasn't there originally. Instead, there was just a relatively flat screw, again just like 122 has it.

And what annoys me most is that the top cover was originally nicely painted black, almost covering the engravings 'No. 105' and 'Ernst Leitz Wetzlar' as well as the letters around the exposure speed setting knob, whereas today the black paint has been scraped off at those locations, obviously to better reveal those engravings and leave no doubt. What a pity that is.

The vulanite covering on the upper right (as seen from the front) was still intact back then, and some of it is missing there now, but that must be attributed to age related wear.

So while there is no doubt that the camera being auctioned soon is 105, things have happened to 105 that should not have happened, and that I feel have happened to 105 in an ill-advised attempt to increase its value. "Can't read that 105 number? Wait a minute, I'll scratch off the paint a little bit, here you go, now it's clearly legible."

I am sure all those things won't matter to some overly rich guy buying the camera soon, who will then boast to his friends "Look, this is Oskar Barnack's Leica, it even says so on the viewfinder". Well not quite, because the spelling is incorrect, but what the heck.

Andy

 

Edited by wizard
correction
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, wizard said:

It sure would, but I don't think it will.

Meanwhile, I have made some enquiries with regard to the origin of 105, and how it looked like originally, or at least back in the thirties. This particular camera was exhibited at the 'Deutsches Museum' in Munich twice. The first time was from 1939 to 1945, and the second time was from 1954 to 1960. On those two occasions, Conrad Barnack (Oskar Barnack's son) had loaned the camera to the Deutsches Museum.

I have obtained a photograph from the Deutsches Museum today, showing 105 next to a later screw mount Leica (from 1939, with a Summar lens). It is not clear whether that photograph was taken by the museum in 1939 or 1954, but since the screw mount Leica also shown on the photograph dates from 1939, I assume that it is more likely that the photograph was taken already in 1939. From the photographed item, 105 that is, it is obvious that at least some parts must have been changed between now and then. The most obvious item is the viewfinder. The original viewfinder was black and had no engraving. It would thus appear that someone (I am almost tempted to say some idiot) got hold of another viewfinder, and with a view to 'prove' the legacy of that camera dilettantishly engraved 'Oscar Barnack' onto the top of the viewfinder. The film rewind knob must also have been changed, as it was black back then (just like it is on the 116 and 122 cameras), but is chrome now. Moreover, the stop pin on the 105's lens wasn't there originally. Instead, there was just a relatively flat screw, again just like 122 has it.

And what annoys me most is that the top cover was originally nicely painted black, almost covering the engravings 'No. 105' and 'Ernst Leitz Wetzlar' as well as the letters around the exposure speed setting knob, whereas today the black paint has been scraped off at those locations, obviously to better reveal those engravings and leave no doubt. What a pity that is.

The vulanite covering on the upper right (as seen from the front) was still intact back then, and some of it is missing there now, but that must be attributed to age related wear.

So while there is no doubt that the camera being auctioned soon is 105, things have happened to 105 that should not have happened, and that I feel have happened to 105 in an ill-advised attempt to increase its value. "Can't read that 105 number? Wait a minute, I'll scratch off the paint a little bit, here you go, now it's clearly legible."

I am sure all those things won't matter to some overly rich guy buying the camera soon, who will then boast to his friends "Look, this is Oskar Barnack's Leica, it even says so on the viewfinder". Well not quite, because the spelling is incorrect, but what the heck.

Andy

 

I have just seen this. It would be useful if you could show the photograph which you have seen. The cameras were, of course, originally painted black and they would have originally had the folding black finder seen on no 122, which would have been replaced in many cases with a tubular type finder now seen on this camera. This has been well known for many years. Jim Lager photographed this camera many years ago and it appears on page 14 of his Leica Camera Book  which was published about 30 years ago. It looked then more or less as it does today, except that his black and white film photo does not show the 'brassing' as well as the more recent digital colour photographs.

Below is a letter which Conrad Barnack (son of Oskar) wrote to Jim Forsyth (the first of a series of US based owners) about the camera in October 1960. I can crop this further if people have difficulty reading it. The camera comes with a full set of paper work which I am sure that the auctioneer can show to any serious bidders. 

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!

Another document is a letter written by Manfred Neul, who had once serviced the camera, in which he said that the camera had been sent to him at Leitz Rockleigh USA with strict instructions to make it operational, but not to replace any parts.

Andy, I assume that you won't be on the list of bidders for the reasons you have given 😀, but, if I am wrong about this, you really should ask to see the documentation before you bid.

William 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 3 Stunden schrieb willeica:

It would be useful if you could show the photograph which you have seen. The cameras were, of course, originally painted black and they would have originally had the folding black finder seen on no 122, which would have been replaced in many cases with a tubular type finder now seen on this camera.

William, I will try to attach what I have been given from the Deutsches Museum here in Munich.  Reproduction is allowed, but it must be stated that the photograph is courtesy of the Deutsches Museum in Munich/Germany. The letter to Jim Forsyth which you have shown above confirms that the camera was on loan with the Deutsches Museum.

As one may gather from the photograph, 105 did not have - at least not at the time - a folding finder, but rather a black tubular finder, which does not appear to be the tubular finder which is on 105 now. And, as already explained above, the film rewind knob is not the same as on the photograph either. 

vor 3 Stunden schrieb willeica:

Andy, I assume that you won't be on the list of bidders for the reasons you have given 😀,

You are quite correct. I must say I am appalled by the fact that 105 has undergone certain 'modifications' which were absolutely unnecessary and which in my view were done to pimp up 105 for the auction. Which is really sad, given that this is such a rare piece of photographic culture.

Here comes the photo (courtesy by Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany):

 

Leica Kleinbildkameras.pdf

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wizard said:

William, I will try to attach what I have been given from the Deutsches Museum here in Munich.  Reproduction is allowed, but it must be stated that the photograph is courtesy of the Deutsches Museum in Munich/Germany. The letter to Jim Forsyth which you have shown above confirms that the camera was on loan with the Deutsches Museum.

As one may gather from the photograph, 105 did not have - at least not at the time - a folding finder, but rather a black tubular finder, which does not appear to be the tubular finder which is on 105 now. And, as already explained above, the film rewind knob is not the same as on the photograph either. 

You are quite correct. I must say I am appalled by the fact that 105 has undergone certain 'modifications' which were absolutely unnecessary and which in my view were done to pimp up 105 for the auction. Which is really sad, given that this is such a rare piece of photographic culture.

Here comes the photo (courtesy by Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany):

 

Leica Kleinbildkameras.pdf 293.23 kB · 10 downloads

I'm not sure why you are appalled that changes were made to this camera. Changes were made from the very start to this camera which was originally not owned by anyone in particular, but , in essence,  belonged to the factory i.e. Barnack and his team. 

I can quote below from comments made by Lars Netopil to me concerning my article. Lars has handled 12 out of the 17 known existing 0 Series cameras and, along with Jim Lager, is acknowledged as one of the leading experts on early Leicas. 

"All 1923 0-series cameras I have inspected (12 of the 17 pieces known to exist) show clear traces of a (previous) installation of a folding finder. Types number 2 and 3 you describe are all conversions, on which the original finder was replaced by an optical finder, whether with crosslines or without." 

"It seems that only No. 122 which went to U.S.A. in 1923 was the only one which was ever kept by the person originally shown in the list. "

"All other cameras seem to have been returned to the workshop after an initial testing, probable for some changes / adjustments, and given out again. As the cameras were not originally sold, but just given out on a loan basis, it makes sense that for the second (non-documented) delivery each of the addressees received a different one than he previously had. " ( the context of this comment was the fact that the camera was originally described as going to Henri Dumur). 
 
"Rewind knob as well as the inner counter part of the rewind mechanism on No. 105 have been replaced by parts from a later Leica model A. Same the bottom plate. This has the sense of making the camera suitable for the use of (the later) FILCA standard Leica cassettes. Originally the 0-series cameras required the special 0-series type cassettes of 1923, a standard FILCA won´t fit. "
 
It is to be noted that 122 which did not come back to the factory is the one which still had the folding finder.  Of course, the tubular finder was originally black. If you read my article you will see that there were 2 types of tubular finder, one with cross hairs and one without. 
 
All of the above is acknowledged in some form or other in my article which makes it clear that this camera was modified during its lifetime and this is acknowledged by leading experts and factory documentation. The only mystery is who added 'Oscar Barnack ' and why they did that. 
 
Given the above information, are you still appalled that this camera was modified? Its designer, Oskar Barnack, intended that this prototype would be modified and had his team make several modifications to the camera. If anything, that adds to rather than detracts from the provenance of this camera.
 
William 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, willeica said:
All of the above is acknowledged in some form or other in my article which makes it clear that this camera was modified during its lifetime and this is acknowledged by leading experts and factory documentation. The only mystery is who added 'Oscar Barnack ' and why they did that. 
 
Given the above information, are you still appalled that this camera was modified? Its designer, Oskar Barnack, intended that this prototype would be modified and had his team make several modifications to the camera. If anything, that adds to rather than detracts from the provenance of this camera.

There's a distinction, I think, between modifications made in Barnack's lifetime during the development process and things that were done to it afterwards, perhaps outside the factory, perhaps decades later. If this camera was already being treated as a museum exhibit by 1939, it's odd to think that someone apparently thought it was a good idea to gild the lily at some point after 1945. But maybe this happened at a time when nobody cared much about 'original condition', long before such cameras started to be treated as Holy Relics, and the thinking was - it had been Barnack's camera, so why not engrave it to commemorate this?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, willeica said:

The only mystery is who added 'Oscar Barnack ' and why they did that. 

It is clear in the Lager photo that was referenced earlier, and his book was  published in 1993 which was probably before values 'took off', so could well be no more sinister than @Anbaricsuggests. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Anbaric said:

There's a distinction, I think, between modifications made in Barnack's lifetime during the development process and things that were done to it afterwards, perhaps outside the factory, perhaps decades later. If this camera was already being treated as a museum exhibit by 1939, it's odd to think that someone apparently thought it was a good idea to gild the lily at some point after 1945. But maybe this happened at a time when nobody cared much about 'original condition', long before such cameras started to be treated as Holy Relics, and the thinking was - it had been Barnack's camera, so why not engrave it to commemorate this?

Anything about this is pure supposition as there is no evidence about who did this and why. What I was addressing was the obvious fact that this was a working prototype which remained for sometime within the works and was altered there. It is also obvious that the camera was altered after the photo supplied by Wizard, particularly in respect of the wind knob. Lars Netopil has explained this. I politely suggest that instead of speculating, people should stick to the known facts and, if they are thinking of buying the camera, they should seek to see the available documentation. The fact that a camera that is almost 100 years old was altered several times during its lifetime is not remarkable. It should also be noted that Barnack's son effectively had 'ownership' of the camera and could and did take it out of the museum, possibly on more than one occasion. The top experts in the world concur on the Barnack provenance for this camera.

2 hours ago, pedaes said:

It is clear in the Lager photo that was referenced earlier, and his book was  published in 1993 which was probably before values 'took off', so could well be no more sinister than @Anbaricsuggests. 

Values took off, Keith, but Jim Lager has told me that the fact that this item, which he once had in his hands, has reached such huge values in his lifetime is truly astonishing to him. This is not something which he could have envisaged when he photographed the camera and wrote his book. Much as I hate quoting it, the British PM, Mrs Margaret Thatcher, once said that ' you can't buck the markets'. It is the markets which will determine the value of this camera.

William 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, willeica said:

Anything about this is pure supposition as there is no evidence about who did this and why. What I was addressing was the obvious fact that this was a working prototype which remained for sometime within the works and was altered there. It is also obvious that the camera was altered after the photo supplied by Wizard, particularly in respect of the wind knob. Lars Netopil has explained this. I politely suggest that instead of speculating, people should stick to the known facts and, if they are thinking of buying the camera, they should seek to see the available documentation. The fact that a camera that is almost 100 years old was altered several times during its lifetime is not remarkable. It should also be noted that Barnack's son effectively had 'ownership' of the camera and could and did take it out of the museum, possibly on more than one occasion. The top experts in the world concur on the Barnack provenance for this camera.

I think, though, that the photo uncovered by Wizard is an important document that provides some significant facts about the early history of this camera. We don't know who engraved the finder or swapped out the rewind knob, but we can now say that these changes had nothing to do with Oskar Barnack or with the camera's original role as a development prototype, since they could not have happened before 1939 and presumably not before 1945. Since much of the value of this camera comes from its association with Barnack, the provenance of later modifications may not be insignificant to a collector. Unless they have read this thread or made their own enquiries at the museum, someone thinking of bidding on it could still imagine that Barnack may have looked through a finder with his name engraved on it, or rewound his film with that retrofitted knob (which was of course in production in Barnack's lifetime). We now know that this can't be the case, and that this camera is perhaps best described as 'mostly Oscar Barnack's own Leica'. I don't pretend to understand how people who are prepared to spend millions on a Leica think, but I suspect that a camera once used by Barnack (what happened to #112?) that was still in the condition he left it in (whether modified from the original Null-series specification or not) would be even more desirable and perhaps valuable than one that had been altered in a later decade. But of course History does not allow us to choose, and this unique camera will find its own value.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...