100 years Null-Serie

[Oscar F]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 6/20/2023 at 11:26 PM, Pyrogallol said:

Is 107 still in the NY Patent Office stores and do they know what it is worth?

No. 107 was last sold at Westlicht (now Leitz Photographica) Auction 19 (lot no. 1) on 5/28/11. Hammer price including buyer’s premium was €1,300,000.
https://www.leitz-auction.com/auction/en/auctions/auction19

[Advertisement]

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

[Roland Zwiers]

9 hours ago, willeica said:

 

I mentioned before that the numbered cameras were not issued in strict numeric sequence. That is obvious from the delivery registers. This may also be true as regards manufacture. Jumps in numbering sequence are also quite a common occurrence in the history of Leica cameras.  Following from that, as regards whether No 132 was the seventh camera actually issued, any statement about that should be qualified as being 'by number'. 

According to what was written on the document I saw in the Leica Archives, No 132 and a number of the others mentioned were delivered in January 1925.

The point about which cameras were 0 Series and which were I Model As (whether for test or retail) is an important one. Leitz must have been doing a lot of testing and development throughout 1924 to achieve the I Model A by end 1924/early 1925. There are not that many serial numbers between 122 and 126. Unnumbered cameras or would that go against the German engineering mindset?

William 

Hello William,

No 132 is part of order number (Auftragsnummer) 416.

From page 3 of the delivery book 'Kamera' we can infer that this batch (the cameras included in Auftragsnummer 416) was delivered on 16 January 1925.

No. 130, 132 and 143 are part of the same order number, so one may infer that these cameras were finished at about the same time.

But from page 3 I get the impression that Auftragnummer 416 may have included more cameras;

a candidate mentioned in Leica literature is Nr. 305 that was presented to Prof Muesman. 

 

In my stock-and-flow scenario I show how the 512 camera that were engraved in November - December 1924 travelled through time as they were assembled up to September 1925.

This concerns the cameras Nr. 126-637. So Ideally I would have to page through the delivery register 'Kamera' to see when the last of these 512 cameras was delivered.

When I combine this scenario with information on the name issue Elmax-Elmar (the name change occured around 7 October 1925), then it it seems that the last cameras of these 512 must have been assembled in October 1925.

So I fully agree that the sequence of engraved camera numbers does not equal the chronological order in which the cameras were finished/ produced. 

 

As to the Null-Serie concept:

In my analyses (you have my manuscript) it is better to speak of one flow of test cameras between January 1923 and December 1924. 

The test cameras must have been produced (hand-made!) at a rate of 1-2-3 cameras a month.

So in March 1923 Oskar Barnack only had a few test cameras available.

In March 1923 one burning question was the quality and reliability of the new 5-element Leitz Anastigmat.

From the empirical research by Ottmar Michaely I infer that the earlier 4-element Leitz Anastigmat must have disappointed.

And so Max Berek had to redesign the lens.

[This subject clearly deserves separate treatment.]

 

In the course of 1923 Oskar Barnack must have received positive feed-back on the new lens, but negative feed-back on the shutter design.

Leica literature states that it was Anton Baumann who urged Oskar Barnack to design a self-capping shutter.

So at some time during 1923 Oskar Barnack must have started to experiment with a new shutter design.

His work notes on page 115 (Werkstattbuch) point at September 1923, just after Nr. 122 Sauppe.

The delivery book 'Kamera' suggests Nr. 117, as this model remained at Leitz as a test model for construction purposes.

So at this stage the purpose of the 1923-1924 test cameras changed from testing the new 5-element lens to testing the new shutter.

Then we arrive at June 1924 where Ernst Leitz II makes his go/no-go decision.

He decides to take the Leica in production.

In my analysis this doesn't mean that further test cameras are not necessary anymore.

But the purpose for new test cameras changes again, as the decision to take the Leica inproduction has already been made!

 

So what is the new purpose to keep producing test cameras after june 1924?

In a situation that the camera is considered technologically ready for production.

In my opinion the need to train employees for assembly work.

Ernst Leitz must have aimed at market introduction in 1925, possibly during the March 1925 fair in Leipzig.

From the stock-and-flow scenario it follows that by December 1924 some 500 cameras were in an intermediate state of production.

This means that the assembly stage was a serious bottleneck for early Leica production.

What would an entrepeneur, anticipating this bottleneck, do to reduce this bottleneck?

He would continue the production of test cameras so that in the period June-December 1924 as many employees as possible could be trained for assembly work.

In this situation it it not surprising that these cameras would be technologically identical to the later series produced cameras.

[An observation made by Ottmar Michaely.]

What to do with these hand-made test cameras between June and December 1924?

I don't exclude the possibility that one of these was presented to Curt Emmermann 'zur Begutachtung'. 

[The alternative possibility is that Curt Emmermann received one of the cameras of Auftragsnummer 416.

But by then the manual was already available.

And Curt Emmermann (1931) makes clear that he received his camera without a manual.]

 

Roland

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

2 hours ago, Oscar F said:

No. 107 was last sold at Westlicht (now Leitz Photographica) Auction 19 (lot no. 1) on 5/28/11. Hammer price including buyer’s premium was €1,300,000.
https://www.leitz-auction.com/auction/en/auctions/auction19

Hello Oscar,

Thank you again!

The information that you have collected in these past decades has been very important for the empirical part of my research!

 

Roland

 

[willeica]

1 hour ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Hello William,

No 132 is part of order number (Auftragsnummer) 416.

From page 3 of the delivery book 'Kamera' we can infer that this batch (the cameras included in Auftragsnummer 416) was delivered on 16 January 1925.

No. 130, 132 and 143 are part of the same order number, so one may infer that these cameras were finished at about the same time.

But from page 3 I get the impression that Auftragnummer 416 may have included more cameras;

a candidate mentioned in Leica literature is Nr. 305 that was presented to Prof Muesman. 

 

In my stock-and-flow scenario I show how the 512 camera that were engraved in November - December 1924 travelled through time as they were assembled up to September 1925.

This concerns the cameras Nr. 126-637. So Ideally I would have to page through the delivery register 'Kamera' to see when the last of these 512 cameras was delivered.

When I combine this scenario with information on the name issue Elmax-Elmar (the name change occured around 7 October 1925), then it it seems that the last cameras of these 512 must have been assembled in October 1925.

So I fully agree that the sequence of engraved camera numbers does not equal the chronological order in which the cameras were finished/ produced. 

 

As to the Null-Serie concept:

In my analyses (you have my manuscript) it is better to speak of one flow of test cameras between January 1923 and December 1924. 

The test cameras must have been produced (hand-made!) at a rate of 1-2-3 cameras a month.

So in March 1923 Oskar Barnack only had a few test cameras available.

In March 1923 one burning question was the quality and reliability of the new 5-element Leitz Anastigmat.

From the empirical research by Ottmar Michaely I infer that the earlier 4-element Leitz Anastigmat must have disappointed.

And so Max Berek had to redesign the lens.

[This subject clearly deserves separate treatment.]

 

In the course of 1923 Oskar Barnack must have received positive feed-back on the new lens, but negative feed-back on the shutter design.

Leica literature states that it was Anton Baumann who urged Oskar Barnack to design a self-capping shutter.

So at some time during 1923 Oskar Barnack must have started to experiment with a new shutter design.

His work notes on page 115 (Werkstattbuch) point at September 1923, just after Nr. 122 Sauppe.

The delivery book 'Kamera' suggests Nr. 117, as this model remained at Leitz as a test model for construction purposes.

So at this stage the purpose of the 1923-1924 test cameras changed from testing the new 5-element lens to testing the new shutter.

Then we arrive at June 1924 where Ernst Leitz II makes his go/no-go decision.

He decides to take the Leica in production.

In my analysis this doesn't mean that further test cameras are not necessary anymore.

But the purpose for new test cameras changes again, as the decision to take the Leica inproduction has already been made!

 

So what is the new purpose to keep producing test cameras after june 1924?

In a situation that the camera is considered technologically ready for production.

In my opinion the need to train employees for assembly work.

Ernst Leitz must have aimed at market introduction in 1925, possibly during the March 1925 fair in Leipzig.

From the stock-and-flow scenario it follows that by December 1924 some 500 cameras were in an intermediate state of production.

This means that the assembly stage was a serious bottleneck for early Leica production.

What would an entrepeneur, anticipating this bottleneck, do to reduce this bottleneck?

He would continue the production of test cameras so that in the period June-December 1924 as many employees as possible could be trained for assembly work.

In this situation it it not surprising that these cameras would be technologically identical to the later series produced cameras.

[An observation made by Ottmar Michaely.]

What to do with these hand-made test cameras between June and December 1924?

I don't exclude the possibility that one of these was presented to Curt Emmermann 'zur Begutachtung'. 

[The alternative possibility is that Curt Emmermann received one of the cameras of Auftragsnummer 416.

But by then the manual was already available.

And Curt Emmermann (1931) makes clear that he received his camera without a manual.]

 

Roland

 

 

The point I have been trying to make is that you need to determine where the 0 Series ends (122 or some other?)  and where the I Model A series begins (126 or some other?). Also were interim test cameras produced in 1923/4 with no serial numbers? It is likely that any testing of the new self-capping with speed dial shutter was substantially done by June 1924 when the decision to go to series production was taken, so cameras would have been fitted with the new shutter set up by then. Yes, it would seem that there was preproduction of body parts with serial numbers, but this is not surprising. This happened again after WWII and the serial numbers between 1946 and 1950 were all over the place, only getting back to 'normality' by 1951/52. 

I am glad that Oscar has pointed out the final destination of No 107. The most interesting point is the work which Ottmar Michaely did on the camera including mounting the original lens and replacing the vulcanite which had been missing. It is not clear when and by whom the folding finder was replaced by the Galilean type. If it is relevant to what you are doing, you should talk to Ottmar about this.

William 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

16 minutes ago, willeica said:

The point I have been trying to make is that you need to determine where the 0 Series ends (122 or some other?)  and where the I Model A series begins (126 or some other?). Also were interim test cameras produced in 1923/4 with no serial numbers? It is likely that any testing of the new self-capping with speed dial shutter was substantially done by June 1924 when the decision to go to series production was taken, so cameras would have been fitted with the new shutter set up by then. Yes, it would seem that there was preproduction of body parts with serial numbers, but this is not surprising. This happened again after WWII and the serial numbers between 1946 and 1950 were all over the place, only getting back to 'normality' by 1951/52. 

I am glad that Oscar has pointed out the final destination of No 107. The most interesting point is the work which Ottmar Michaely did on the camera including mounting the original lens and replacing the vulcanite which had been missing. It is not clear when and by whom the folding finder was replaced by the Galilean type. If it is relevant to what you are doing, you should talk to Ottmar about this.

William 

 

William, it seems that we mean the same thing but do not speak the same language 🙂

In my analysis (again, you have my manuscript!) the Null-Serie ends at Nr. 122 Sauppe New York.

After that Oskar Barnack cancelled Nr. 123-125.

 

Now the material for Nr. 123-125 had already been reserved and so Nr. 123-125 were still registered in the delivery book 'Kamera'.

But at the time of writing the scribe of the delivery book didn't know anymore what exactly had happened to Nr. 123-125.

And so he left open the fields on the right. 

 

Below Nr. 125 he drew a line. 

In my analysis this line indicates that the scribe drew a line under a period of chaotic bookkeeping (based on memories and incomplete accounts) and began a new more regular period.

In this new period the register also introduced order numbers (Aufragsnummer).

 

Why would Oskar Barnack have cancelled nr. 123-125?

This is the mirror image of another question:

What use for producing more non-self-capping test cameras when he could better use the reserved material for new test cameras with the new shutter?

 

In this analysis the first test cameras with the new shutter used the material that was reserved for Nr. 117, 123-125. 

I can imagine that Oskar Barnack did not engrave these new test cameras so as to avoid confusion.

One surviving test camera, without engravings but with the new shutter, is described by Ottmar Michaely.

He infers that this is the camera used by Herr Schäfer as a reference for his design drawings for the Leica I.

 

Roland

[beoon]

Hello Roland,

The list photo no 2208 from May 1926 consists of 4 pages, I would be happy to email you better quality pictures of it if you wish. If so, send me a message via this forum with your email address.

I do have complete volumes 1 and 2 Amateur Photographer from 1925. 

Whilst speaking of the drawings produced in 1923 & 24 by Schafer, I also have attached photos of the reproductions issued in 1980 by the renowned Leica historian Gianni Rogliatti. A limited edition set of 3 drawings, hand signed and numbered (my set is 009).

I have placed a camera to give a sense of scale.

 

 

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!

[beoon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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!

[Roland Zwiers]

Hello Alan,

 

Thank you so much!

I replied to your Perutz question in the other thread.

Yes I very much like to exchange information. 

I did this before with Leica researchers Ed Schwartzreich, Bill Rosauer, James Lager, Oscar Fricke, Ottmar Michaely, Ulf Richter, and William Fagan.

By sharing information we can find and combine pieces of the puzzle in an efficient way.

I would not have been able to make such fast progress without their help.

 

Where can I see the '0' in the drawing of June 23, 1923?

 

Roland

 

[beoon]

55 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Hello Alan,

 

Thank you so much!

I replied to your Perutz question in the other thread.

Yes I very much like to exchange information. 

I did this before with Leica researchers Ed Schwartzreich, Bill Rosauer, James Lager, Oscar Fricke, Ottmar Michaely, Ulf Richter, and William Fagan.

By sharing information we can find and combine pieces of the puzzle in an efficient way.

I would not have been able to make such fast progress without their help.

 

Where can I see the '0' in the drawing of June 23, 1923?

 

Roland

 

I cannot see reference to “0” on this drawing.

incidentally did anyone notice that today is 23rd June 2023. Exactly 100 years ago that Schafer produced this drawing 👏

[Oscar F]

On 6/21/2023 at 7:26 AM, PG Black nickel said:

The #149 has been found, but perhaps you knew it was there and who gave it to you...

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!

Link for no. 149:

https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1145745

Link for no. 148:

https://fotohennyhoogeveen.com/producten/315/leica-anastigmat

[Roland Zwiers]

12 minutes ago, beoon said:

I cannot see reference to “0” on this drawing.

incidentally did anyone notice that today is 23rd June 2023. Exactly 100 years ago that Schafer produced this drawing 👏

This is indeed worthy of a celebration!

we are discussing events that took place exactly 100 years ago!!

[Oscar F]

On 6/22/2023 at 5:14 AM, beoon said:

Null series number 114 which is part of the Charles Messer collection is housed in the University of Miami

Null series cameras owned by institutions:

109: George Eastman Museum, Rochester, NY - with original folding viewfinder. Not usually on display.

110: JCII Camera Museum, Tokyo, Japan. [JCII = Japan Camera Industry Institute]. On public display.

114: Miami University, Oxford, Ohio (part of the Messer Leica Camera Collection). On public display.

119: Leica Camera AG, Wetzlar, Germany - with original folding viewfinder. Possibly on display?

No. 109. According to museum records, no. 109 was purchased from a Mr. Walsh via Kodak Limited (UK) for $100.00 on September 4, 1951. Good catch by Kodak. Hard to imagine, but at that time the camera was only 28 years old, and camera collecting wasn’t a thing. One of only three surviving cameras with the original folding frame viewfinder (the other two being 119 and 122).

https://collections.eastman.org/objects/50526/oseries-leica-pilot-model?ctx=3ff09533-6146-42e8-9abd-27f415a9c85a&idx=4

No. 110. Donated to the museum more than 50 years ago by Kawahara Shashinki-Ten (Shashinki=Camera, Ten=Store), an old camera store in Osaka. Leitz awarded Eiichi Kawahara Leica no. 230,000 in 1935.

https://muuseo.com/jcii-cameramuseum/items/8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VCQLmat-M8 (at 2:18)

No. 114. Leica collector (and early LHSA member) Charles M. Messer (1908-1980) donated his Leica Collection to Miami University in sections beginning in 1970. He had acquired no. 114  in 1969. Note that Miami University is in Oxford, Ohio, not in Florida!

https://www.miamioh.edu/cca/art-museum/collections/leica-camera-collection/index.html

 

A bit more about Charles Messer:

As noted, Charles Messer (of Cincinnati, Ohio) donated no. 114 along with the rest of his collection to Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. There it is now part of the Charles M. Messer Leica Camera Collection within the Miami University Art Museum. According to the Miami University website, "He donated the entire collection to Miami University in 1970, with additions in 1978.  . . .  Selections, approximately 130 pieces, from the Charles M. Messer Leica Camera Collection are now on permanent display at the entryway to gallery 4. The selected pieces are from the most complete privately assembled collection of Leica cameras in the country, and one of the largest in the world." Actually, after his first donation in 1970, he made donations every six months thereafter, according to an interview and profile in The Enquirer Magazine of 28 Oct 1979 (supplement to the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper) only shortly before he died. There are reportedly about 1200 items in the collection altogether, including bodies, lenses and accessories. Messer was a prominent citizen in Cincinnati, where for many years he headed the Frank Messer & Sons construction company founded by his father (who had died in 1937). The company built many major buildings in the Midwest, including about 30 on the Miami University campus (thus his decision to donate the collection to them). He was active in both Jewish and non-Jewish community and philanthropic affairs. Newspaper accounts describe him as "a tireless and effective worker in an imposing number of causes, civic, religious, philanthropic and cultural."

A short excerpt from the 1979 article:

“It all began when Messer fell ill in 1949, after working what he now calls ‘too many 20-hour days, too many eight-day weeks.’ One day his doctor asked in a pointedly forceful way, ‘What is your hobby?’ Messer, whose only interest in those days was work, turned to his brother Lou to ask what his hobby was. ‘Photography,’ replied Lou. ‘Photography,’ Messer told the doctor. That was a long time ago, but it led to a vast and unusual collection. And because of that snap decision so many years ago, Miami University now has what may well be the world’s largest collection of Leica cameras and lenses. . . . Why Leicas? Messer, with the air of a man who is accustomed to quality, replies, ‘because they are the best.’”

[Roland Zwiers]

6 minutes ago, Oscar F said:

Null series cameras owned by institutions:

109: George Eastman Museum, Rochester, NY - with original folding viewfinder. Not usually on display.

110: JCII Camera Museum, Tokyo, Japan. [JCII = Japan Camera Industry Institute]. On public display.

114: Miami University, Oxford, Ohio (part of the Messer Leica Camera Collection). On public display.

119: Leica Camera AG, Wetzlar, Germany - with original folding viewfinder. Possibly on display?

No. 109. According to museum records, no. 109 was purchased from a Mr. Walsh via Kodak Limited (UK) for $100.00 on September 4, 1951. Good catch by Kodak. Hard to imagine, but at that time the camera was only 28 years old, and camera collecting wasn’t a thing. One of only three surviving cameras with the original folding frame viewfinder (the other two being 119 and 122).

https://collections.eastman.org/objects/50526/oseries-leica-pilot-model?ctx=3ff09533-6146-42e8-9abd-27f415a9c85a&idx=4

No. 110. Donated to the museum more than 50 years ago by Kawahara Shashinki-Ten (Shashinki=Camera, Ten=Store), an old camera store in Osaka. Leitz awarded Eiichi Kawahara Leica no. 230,000 in 1935.

https://muuseo.com/jcii-cameramuseum/items/8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VCQLmat-M8 (at 2:18)

No. 114. Leica collector (and early LHSA member) Charles M. Messer (1908-1980) donated his Leica Collection to Miami University in sections beginning in 1970. He had acquired no. 114  in 1969. Note that Miami University is in Oxford, Ohio, not in Florida!

https://www.miamioh.edu/cca/art-museum/collections/leica-camera-collection/index.html

 

A bit more about Charles Messer:

As noted, Charles Messer (of Cincinnati, Ohio) donated no. 114 along with the rest of his collection to Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. There it is now part of the Charles M. Messer Leica Camera Collection within the Miami University Art Museum. According to the Miami University website, "He donated the entire collection to Miami University in 1970, with additions in 1978.  . . .  Selections, approximately 130 pieces, from the Charles M. Messer Leica Camera Collection are now on permanent display at the entryway to gallery 4. The selected pieces are from the most complete privately assembled collection of Leica cameras in the country, and one of the largest in the world." Actually, after his first donation in 1970, he made donations every six months thereafter, according to an interview and profile in The Enquirer Magazine of 28 Oct 1979 (supplement to the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper) only shortly before he died. There are reportedly about 1200 items in the collection altogether, including bodies, lenses and accessories. Messer was a prominent citizen in Cincinnati, where for many years he headed the Frank Messer & Sons construction company founded by his father (who had died in 1937). The company built many major buildings in the Midwest, including about 30 on the Miami University campus (thus his decision to donate the collection to them). He was active in both Jewish and non-Jewish community and philanthropic affairs. Newspaper accounts describe him as "a tireless and effective worker in an imposing number of causes, civic, religious, philanthropic and cultural."

A short excerpt from the 1979 article:

“It all began when Messer fell ill in 1949, after working what he now calls ‘too many 20-hour days, too many eight-day weeks.’ One day his doctor asked in a pointedly forceful way, ‘What is your hobby?’ Messer, whose only interest in those days was work, turned to his brother Lou to ask what his hobby was. ‘Photography,’ replied Lou. ‘Photography,’ Messer told the doctor. That was a long time ago, but it led to a vast and unusual collection. And because of that snap decision so many years ago, Miami University now has what may well be the world’s largest collection of Leica cameras and lenses. . . . Why Leicas? Messer, with the air of a man who is accustomed to quality, replies, ‘because they are the best.’”

Hello Oscar,

Thank you for this interestinfg contribution!

It is really important to know where all these cameras are located.

Although the title of this subject is '100 years Null-Serie' I prefer to speak in terms of a flow of test cameras between January 1923 and December 1924.

'Null-Serie' and 'second test serie' are confusing post-war concepts. 

Roland

[LocalHero1953]

A total ignoramus about such matters here, but who is nevertheless enjoying this fascinating thread!

When was 'Null-Serie' first used as a description or classification? Were the subsequent ones known as 'Leica I' from the beginning?

And when was a serial number assigned to or engraved on a camera? When it was just a body shell? A part-assembled camera?

Edited June 23, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[Roland Zwiers]

Hello Paul,

One year ago I was looking at the Null-Serie as an outsider as well.

My interest was in the transition from dry plates to films on celluloid, and from black-and-white emulsions to orthochromatic ones.

This led to articles  on the technological state of affairs in 1914.

In this context I also encountered the 1915-1918 Agfa Fliegerfilm, that was used for the new generation of German aerial reconnaissance cameras.

To my surprise a Perutz-Leica-legend claims that this 1915-1918 Fliegerfilm was produced by Perutz.

This legend must be based on a wrong interpretation of a quote by Prof Max Berek (1948).

I will need another posting to eplain this more clearly.

 

I do not know who was the first one to introduce the concept 'Null-Serie'.

But it must have been a post-war concept.

And it led to a complementary post-war concept, namely 'the second test serie' of 1924.

In my observation it is better to speak of one flow of test cameras between January 1923 and December 1924.

I am about to make an additional contribution on 'Null-Serie dynamics' where I want to discuss this with page 115 of the Werkstattbuch as an illustration.

 

A very difficult question is at what production stage the cameras were engraved.

Originally I assumed that engraving would be the very last step; only after quality control!

But Leica Literature (Ulf Richter and others) points out that engraving took place at an intermediary stage.

E.g. most of the 512-600 cameras that were engraved in November-December 1924 were assembled in the course of 1925.

This information is an important building block for my stock-and-flow scenario for the production of the Leica I in 1925.   

That will require a separate posting as well.

 

Against this background it is interesting that two cameras that were engraved at the end of 1924, may have been assembled on the very same day.

E.g. Ottmar Michaely (2011) relates that Nr. 126 was presented to Michael Becker on 7 November 1924.

But according to a Leitz engravings list Nr. 126 was engraved on 7 November 1924 as well.

If so, then this camera received a special treatment (the rest had to wait up to nine months!).

Special treatment implies that this camera was made to special order. And in German this could have been abbriviated to SA = Sonder Auftrag. 

 

Roland

 

 

 

[LocalHero1953]

45 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Hello Paul,

One year ago I was looking at the Null-Serie as an outsider as well.

My interest was in the transition from dry plates to films on celluloid, and from black-and-white emulsions to orthochromatic ones.

.......

Thank you, Roland! I very much appreciate how you have placed the development of the Leica miniature camera in the context of so much else that is going on around the same time: the post-WW1 trade and reparation duties issues, the development of the US cinematographic industry etc. Yet only eight years after this time, my own 1932 II(Model D) looks and behaves like a stable, mature design and construction (and still is 91 years later!)

Edited June 23, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[Roland Zwiers]

Hello Paul,

Thank you. In Chinese I should say na3li4, na3li4 🙂

In my opinion post-war Leica literature underestimates the significance of the bottlenecks with 35mm film.

And to make matters worse, both Perutz and Dr Paul Wolff have launched legends about their pre-war achievements.  

These legends are very hard to unwind as many serious researchers have come to see them as received wisdom.

 

I am very grateful to have found a platform where I can discuss these things in a neutral way.

It is not my aim to offend.

I just want to show how pre-war primary sources can be combined so as to arrive at a more convincing story line.

And yes, economics, finance, geo-politics, trade policies, corporate social responsibility, hyperinflation, war-and-peace, advertisements, photo magazines, Hollywood, patent law,  and supply chains can be used to fill in the gaps as well.

After all, the Leica was not created in a vacuum!

 

Roland

 

 

[willeica]

11 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

William, it seems that we mean the same thing but do not speak the same language 🙂

In my analysis (again, you have my manuscript!) the Null-Serie ends at Nr. 122 Sauppe New York.

After that Oskar Barnack cancelled Nr. 123-125.

 

Now the material for Nr. 123-125 had already been reserved and so Nr. 123-125 were still registered in the delivery book 'Kamera'.

But at the time of writing the scribe of the delivery book didn't know anymore what exactly had happened to Nr. 123-125.

And so he left open the fields on the right. 

 

Below Nr. 125 he drew a line. 

In my analysis this line indicates that the scribe drew a line under a period of chaotic bookkeeping (based on memories and incomplete accounts) and began a new more regular period.

In this new period the register also introduced order numbers (Aufragsnummer).

 

Why would Oskar Barnack have cancelled nr. 123-125?

This is the mirror image of another question:

What use for producing more non-self-capping test cameras when he could better use the reserved material for new test cameras with the new shutter?

 

In this analysis the first test cameras with the new shutter used the material that was reserved for Nr. 117, 123-125. 

I can imagine that Oskar Barnack did not engrave these new test cameras so as to avoid confusion.

One surviving test camera, without engravings but with the new shutter, is described by Ottmar Michaely.

He infers that this is the camera used by Herr Schäfer as a reference for his design drawings for the Leica I.

 

Roland

Yes, we are saying the same thing, but relying on records turning up from 100 years ago can be frustrating as a lot of contextual material can be missing. Relying on the extant or surviving cameras is possibly more reliable, provided they can be traced.

Here from Dennis Laney's Leica Collector's Guide  is what is said to be No 128. Described as a Null Series, but it looks like a I Model A to me. It also seems to be repainted, something I don't like, it always makes me suspicious about a camera. The feathered arrows are from a later camera or they have been added (e.g. the wind on knob is early low profile).

 

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!

From Ulf Richter's book, as translated by Oscar F's father, Rolf Fricke, come these sentences which claim that No 130 and 131 were the first 2 production Leicas that were sold ('offered for regular sale').

I'm only just showing these here to add to the mix. I don't immediately grant credence to anything which I read or even see in a photograph. Corroboration is always necessary for me.  

 

4 hours ago, Oscar F said:

As noted, Charles Messer (of Cincinnati, Ohio) donated no. 114 along with the rest of his collection to Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. There it is now part of the Charles M. Messer Leica Camera Collection within the Miami University Art Museum. According to the Miami University website, "He donated the entire collection to Miami University in 1970, with additions in 1978.  . . .  Selections, approximately 130 pieces, from the Charles M. Messer Leica Camera Collection are now on permanent display at the entryway to gallery 4. The selected pieces are from the most complete privately assembled collection of Leica cameras in the country, and one of the largest in the world." Actually, after his first donation in 1970, he made donations every six months thereafter, according to an interview and profile in The Enquirer Magazine of 28 Oct 1979 (supplement to the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper) only shortly before he died. There are reportedly about 1200 items in the collection altogether, including bodies, lenses and accessories. Messer was a prominent citizen in Cincinnati, where for many years he headed the Frank Messer & Sons construction company founded by his father (who had died in 1937). The company built many major buildings in the Midwest, including about 30 on the Miami University campus (thus his decision to donate the collection to them). He was active in both Jewish and non-Jewish community and philanthropic affairs. Newspaper accounts describe him as "a tireless and effective worker in an imposing number of causes, civic, religious, philanthropic and cultural."

A short excerpt from the 1979 article:

“It all began when Messer fell ill in 1949, after working what he now calls ‘too many 20-hour days, too many eight-day weeks.’ One day his doctor asked in a pointedly forceful way, ‘What is your hobby?’ Messer, whose only interest in those days was work, turned to his brother Lou to ask what his hobby was. ‘Photography,’ replied Lou. ‘Photography,’ Messer told the doctor. That was a long time ago, but it led to a vast and unusual collection. And because of that snap decision so many years ago, Miami University now has what may well be the world’s largest collection of Leica cameras and lenses. . . . Why Leicas? Messer, with the air of a man who is accustomed to quality, replies, ‘because they are the best.’”

Thanks Oscar. Bill Rosauer and others had quite a bit of discussion going on about this collection at our LSI AGM in Dublin last October. Can I assume that American colleagues, such as Jim Lager, have had access to this collection? My fear about museums and universities is always that items will go into them and never be seen again.

Richter's book also states that the Schafer drawings of June 1924 were used for the US Patent application which was not granted until 1926, I think.

William 

Edited June 23, 2023 by willeica

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Roland Zwiers]

William,

Your quotes from Ulf Richter (2009) show how confusing the situation around December 1924 - January 1925 must have been.

Your quote begins with:

The Leica was introduced to the public and offered for sale in the spring of 1925.

This implies introduction at the March 1925 Leipzig spring fair.  

 

The next sentence states that the numbers 130 and 131 were the first two cameras of the series that were offered for regular sale.

Now the delivery book 'Kamera' shows that Nr. 131 was delivered on 23 January 1925.

Nr. 132 was part of Autragsnummer 416 (together with nr. 130 and 143) and was delivered on 16 January 1925. 

Clearly January 1925 is not the same as Spring 1925.

This confusion is probably unavoidable, as we are looking back 100 years and have to deal with incomplete information.

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!

 

In my analysis Ernst Leitz II aimed at market introduction at the March 1925 Leipzig fair.

He was taking a very big financial gamble as at the end of 1924 some 500 cameras must have been in an intermediary state of production.

This implies that Ernst Leitz was doing his best to have as many cameras ready for the March 1925 spring fair as possible.

But there were serious bottlenecks with the assembly of this first oversized batch;
my stock-and-flow scenario suggests that the last camera of this batch may only have been finished in September 1925.
Combined with information on the namechange Elmax => Elmar (7 October 1925) it is even plausible that the last camera of this first 500-batch was finished in October 1925.

Now there are a few very difficult questions:

• how many cameras were finished at the end of 1924?
• how many cameras were finished before the March 1925 spring fair?
• how many finished cameras were sold before the beginning of the March 1925 spring fair?

In my stock-and-flow scenario I must make some (arbitrary) assumptions.

That will be explained in another posting, hopefully this weekend.

 

Going back to the numbers 130 and 131.

Nr 130 was sent to Leitz Berlin on 16 January 1925.

Leitz Berlin was a well-stocked branch office/ retail outlet / ['Zweiggeschäft Berlin'] managed by Franz Bergmann.

What instructions did Ernst Leitz II give to Franz Bergmann for the cameras of Autragnummer 416 (Nr. 130, 132, 143, maybe more)?

• Please send one of these to Curt Emmermann
• Please keep them in store until the March 1925 Leipzig fair; I will send you more shortly
• Please sell them as soon as you can; I need the money urgently as I am financially overstreched

I have no idea; all these instructions seem plausible to me.

 

Nr. 131 was delivered to Hilgers in Bonn on 23 January 1925.

Here one has to chose between two possibilities:

• Hilgers bought Nr. 131, so must be regarded as an early regular buyer, maybe even the first regular buyer of a Leica I.
• Hilbers received nr. 131 as a gift [zur Begutachtung],  similar to Curt Emmermann.

Again, with current knowledge I have no idea which possibility is the most plausible.

It is possible that Ernst Leitz II wanted to sell Leicas before the March 1925 spring fair.

It is also possible that he still wanted to send Leicas to people that had been waiting for a test camera in 1923 and 1924.

In my posting on 'Null-serie dynamics' (hopefully this weekend as well) I will show that page 115 of Oscar Barnacks worknotes have many more names
than are registered under the first 129 names in the delivery book 'Kamera'. 
These people either had a test camera on loan (and would like to own one),
or they had been on a waiting list for test series Leica and were impatient to receive one.  

To be continued.

Roland

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

[willeica]

35 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

William,

Your quotes from Ulf Richter (2009) show how confusing the situation around December 1924 - January 1925 must have been.

Your quote begins with:

The Leica was introduced to the public and offered for sale in the spring of 1925.

This implies introduction at the March 1925 Leipzig spring fair.  

 

The next sentence states that the numbers 130 and 131 were the first two cameras of the series that were offered for regular sale.

Now the delivery book 'Kamera' shows that Nr. 131 was delivered on 23 January 1925.

Nr. 132 was part of Autragsnummer 416 (together with nr. 130 and 143) and was delivered on 16 January 1925. 

Clearly January 1925 is not the same as Spring 1925.

This confusion is probably unavoidable, as we are looking back 100 years and have to deal with incomplete information.

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!

 

In my analysis Ernst Leitz II aimed at market introduction at the March 1925 Leipzig fair.

He was taking a very big financial gamble as at the end of 1924 some 500 cameras must have been in an intermediary state of production.

This implies that Ernst Leitz was doing his best to have as many cameras ready for the March 1925 spring fair as possible.

But there were serious bottlenecks with the assembly of this first oversized batch;
my stock-and-flow scenario suggests that the last camera of this batch may only have been finished in September 1925.
Combined with information on the namechange Elmax => Elmar (7 October 1925) it is even plausible that the last camera of this first 500-batch was finished in October 1925.

Now there are a few very difficult questions:

• how many cameras were finished at the end of 1924?
• how many cameras were finished before the March 1925 spring fair?
• how many finished cameras were sold before the beginning of the March 1925 spring fair?

In my stock-and-flow scenario I must make some (arbitrary) assumptions.

That will be explained in another posting, hopefully this weekend.

 

Going back to the numbers 130 and 131.

Nr 130 was sent to Leitz Berlin on 16 January 1925.

Leitz Berlin was a well-stocked branch office/ retail outlet / ['Zweiggeschäft Berlin'] managed by Franz Bergmann.

What instructions did Ernst Leitz II give to Franz Bergmann for the cameras of Autragnummer 416 (Nr. 130, 132, 143, maybe more)?

• Please send one of these to Curt Emmermann
• Please keep them in store until the March 1925 Leipzig fair; I will send you more shortly
• Please sell them as soon as you can; I need the money urgently as I am financially overstreched

I have no idea; all these instructions seem plausible to me.

 

Nr. 131 was delivered to Hilgers in Bonn on 23 January 1925.

Here one has to chose between two possibilities:

• Hilgers bought Nr. 131, so must be regarded as an early regular buyer, maybe even the first regular buyer of a Leica I.
• Hilbers received nr. 131 as a gift [zur Begutachtung],  similar to Curt Emmermann.

Again, with current knowledge I have no idea which possibility is the most plausible.

It is possible that Ernst Leitz II wanted to sell Leicas before the March 1925 spring fair.

It is also possible that he still wanted to send Leicas to people that had been waiting for a test camera in 1923 and 1924.

In my posting on 'Null-serie dynamics' (hopefully this weekend as well) I will show that page 115 of Oscar Barnacks worknotes have many more names
than are registered under the first 129 names in the delivery book 'Kamera'. 
These people either had a test camera on loan (and would like to own one),
or they had been on a waiting list for test series Leica and were impatient to receive one.  

To be continued.

Roland

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

I am, of course, just quoting Richter/Fricke. It is difficult to make any conclusions in the absence of knowing the context of those deliveries. I suspect that the delivery of Leicas just evolved with a full commercial launch at the Leipzig show, but, obviously, some people had the cameras before the show. The exact same thing happens today with new Leica launches. The more important thing, to my mind, is when did the 0 Series end and the I Series begin? The two types are quite distinct in respect of significant features, but there may have been some ‘interim models’. However, it is likely that some of those were subsequently ‘upgraded’ to use a term much beloved by Leica enthusiasts.

William