100 years Null-Serie

[beoon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Roland,

I had a look through some of my original Leitz pre war literature and in Liste photo No 2275, dated May 1927,  Curt Emmerman has an entry on page 25 (dated 1st February 1927)

I cannot speak or understand German without the help of an iPhone translator app!!!!!!!!

But this quote by him would indicate he received his Leica in early February 1925.

This brochure is listing early Leica users & magazine reviewers praising the versatility of the Leica, users listed include 

Willy Frerk (Photofreund magazine) - 20th March 1925

Could someone translate the Curt Emmerman review (pages 25 & 26).

 

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!

Edited June 24, 2023 by beoon

[beoon]

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]

53 minutes ago, willeica said:

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

William; 'The more important thing, to my mind, is when did the 0 Series end and the I Series begin?'

If my analysis is right, then your Null-Serie [again, wrong post-war concept] ends at Nr. 122 Sauppe New York.

Up to Nr. 122 the function of the hand-made test series was also to test the new 5-element Leitz Anastigmat.

After Nr. 122 Oskar Barnack cancelled Nr. 123-125.

he used the reserved material for new test cameras with a new self-capping shutter.

These cameras must have been in-between the previous test cameras (Nr. 101 up to Nr. 122) and the later test cameras (Nr. 126-129) that were equipped with the new shutter.

[I cannot exclude that the cameras Nr. 130 and Nr. 131 were test cameras as well; Curt Emmermann and Hilgers, Bonn may have received Nr. 130 and Nr. 132 'zur Begutachtung'.]

Indeed the Schäfer camera as described by Ottmar Michaely (2011) is an example of such an intermediary test camera.

 

In my analysis the purpose of the additional test cameras, beginning with Nr. 126, was to train Leitz employees for assembly work.

If so, then there cannot have been big differences between these early test/assembly cameras and the later series produced Leica I.

Again, Ottmar Michaely (2011) makes clear that he can not see any differences whatsoever between Nr. 126 and a regular Leica I.

At the same time: all these early cameras were basically hand-made.

The same applied to early Leitz Anastigmats.

With hand-made cameras and lenses it will always be possible to see small differences between individual items from the same period.

 

Roland

 

 

Now in my analysis  

[Roland Zwiers]

18 minutes ago, beoon said:

Roland,

I had a look through some of my original Leitz pre war literature and in Liste photo No 2275, dated May 1927,  Curt Emmerman has an entry on page 25 (dated 1st February 1927)

I cannot speak or understand German without the help of an iPhone translator app!!!!!!!!

But this quote by him would indicate he received his Leica in early February 1925.

This brochure is listing early Leica users & magazine reviewers praising the versatility of the Leica, users listed include 

Willy Frerk (Photofreund magazine) - 20th March 1925

Could someone translate the Curt Emmerman review (pages 25 & 26).

 

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!

Alan,

This is fundamental new information!

Thank you so much!

I have been looking for this primary source, but could not get my hands on it.

 

Curt Emmermann (1931) states that he received a Leica on trial [zur Begutachtung] from Ernst Leitz. 

[So in february 1925 Ernst Leitz was still presenting test cameras!]

Curt Emmermann states that at that time the Leica was not yet for sale.

[This points to market introduction/ Leicas for sale at the March 1925 Leipzig fair!]

And from his account it is clear that he had not yet received the manual.

[So the manual was not ready or availble in early February 1925?]

 

When Curt Emmermann received his camera in early February 1925, then it must be possible to trace his camera number in the delivery register 'Kamera'.

Possibly not under his own name, but under 'Leitz Berlin'.

 

When Curt Emmermann received his camera in early February 1925, then it is strange that he did not receive the manual with it.

Ulf Richter (2009) states that the manual was finished in January 1925.

 

To be continued.

 

Roland

 

 

 

 

 

must be found  

 

 

[beoon]

The manual of January 1925 listed photo no 2049 did indeed exist.

But was withdrawn to change the name from LECA to LEICA.

The camera shown in this manual looks like number 135 if my eyesight is correct.

 

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]

35 minutes ago, beoon said:

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!

Hello Alan,

This review is again fascinating.

Who is the author of page 26?

Curt Emmermann recieved his test camera with an Elmax lens.

This author already makes a comparison between the 5-element Elmax and the 4-element Elmar.

The name change occured around 7 October 1925, but at that time the Elmax-name was still being used for the new 4-element design.

The design change from a 5- to a 4-element lens did not immediately lead to the name change Elmax => Elmar.   

This is also a subject for a separate posting.

To be continued.

 

Roland

 

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, beoon said:

The manual of January 1925 listed photo no 2049 did indeed exist.

But was withdrawn to change the name from LECA to LEICA.

The camera shown in this manual looks like number 135 if my eyesight is correct.

 

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!

Hello Alan,

That would explain the misunderstanding in post-war Leica literature.

in January 1925 the manual was ready, but still carried the wrong name.

Ans so in early February 1925 Curt Emmermann could still not be given a manual in addition to his test camera.

 

To be continued.

 

Roland

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

17 minutes ago, beoon said:

The manual of January 1925 listed photo no 2049 did indeed exist.

But was withdrawn to change the name from LECA to LEICA.

The camera shown in this manual looks like number 135 if my eyesight is correct.

 

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!

I would say Nr. 135 as well.

Again, this is fascinating information.

In the delivery book 'Kamera' Nr. 135 was delivered to Hartstein on [hard to read] 12 January 1925.

The order number {Auftragsnummer] is 429.

 

[beoon]

6 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

I would say Nr. 135 as well.

Again, this is fascinating information.

In the delivery book 'Kamera' Nr. 135 was delivered to Hartstein on [hard to read] 12 January 1925.

The order number {Auftragsnummer] is 429.

 

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!

Yes, number 135 is confirmed and this is still used in original manuals at February 1929.

The bottom of page 25 is the start of the Emmerman review, continues onto the full page 26 and continues to the top of page 27 (see below)

 

[pedaes]

57 minutes ago, Roland Zwiers said:

To be continued.

Roland - I am very much enjoying this thread. It seems to me you are doing a piece of serious forensic research which probably exceeds anything that has been done hitherto in this area. 

I look forward to following it to conclusion, which looks like being the definitive statement of what can be achieved from 100 year old work records that those involved would have known what they meant at the time and were not written for analysis in 2023. 

[UliWer]

Emmermann‘s report reproduced in #61, 62 and 69 (p. 25-27 of the brochure „So urteilt man über Leitz „Leica“-Kamera“  sums up his experience with the Leica from Feb. 1925 to Feb. 1927. As he compares the results from the newer 4-element Elmar to the previous Elmax he must have used at least two cameras with the different lenses, if we rule out as improbable that the Elmax was replaced in factory by the Elmar for the same camera.

Btw.:I don‘t find any statement in the text where he says he had no manual. 

Edited June 24, 2023 by UliWer

[Roland Zwiers]

24 minutes ago, pedaes said:

Roland - I am very much enjoying this thread. It seems to me you are doing a piece of serious forensic research which probably exceeds anything that has been done hitherto in this area. 

I look forward to following it to conclusion, which looks like being the definitive statement of what can be achieved from 100 year old work records that those involved would have known what they meant at the time and were not written for analysis in 2023. 

Thank you so much.

You must not forget that I am standing on the shoulders of researchers like Ulf Richter, who have done intensive research in this field before.

My main addition is to add information from primary sources (especially photo magazines) from the 1910s, 1920s and 1930s in several languages (German, English, Dutch, Swedish).

This has not been done before.

And so I try to create a plausible story line that is a synthesis of pre-war and post-war (Leica) literature.

But even this is work in progress. 

When Alan gives me new information from a primary source, it may or may not confirm my current thinking.

No problem, in photographic research I do not have fixed opinions.

Like my great example John Maynard Keynes I change my mind when new facts show that my previous thinking has been wrong.

 

Roland

[Roland Zwiers]

24 minutes ago, UliWer said:

Emmermann‘s report reproduced in #61, 62 and 69 (p. 25-27 of the brochure „So urteilt man über Leitz „Leica“-Kamera“  sums up his experience with the Leica from Feb. 1925 to Feb. 1927. As he compares the results from the newer 4-element Elmar to the previous Elmax he must have used at least two cameras with the different lenses, if we rule out as improbable that the Elmax was replaced in factory by the Elmar for the same camera.

Btw.:I don‘t find any statement in the text where he says he had no manual. 

Hello UliWer,

Indeed, Curt Emmermann does not state explicitely that he received no manual.

But look at how describes his testing the Leica:

• he doesn't know where the shutter is.
• after firing the shutter he notices that one knob is turning as well.
• so he infers that there is a film inside.
• after firing the shutter may times he finds out that he cannot tension the shutter anymore.
• and he is happy that he infers that the film inside has come to an end.
• after that he doesn't know how to remove the film.
• he implicely admits that he destroyed the first film trying to get it out of the camera.

Would he have followed this procedure when he had the manual at hand?

 

Roland

  

[Roland Zwiers]

Null-Serie Dynamics

Because of all these interesting comments, thank you!, I have delayed my posting on Null-Serie Dynamics.
This is a big subject!

Given the dire economic situation in 1923 Germany with ever increasing (hyper) inflation, Ernst Leitz II clearly had to play as safe as possible.
So a small batch of test cameras was presented to a select group of photographers whose feed-back was considered of crucial importance.
From Oskar Barnack work notes and the Leitz delivery register ‘Kamera’ one can infer that the selected photographers must have had very close links to Ernst Leitz.

·         Colleagues: Ernst Leitz II, Barnack, Bauer, Dumur, Dr Berek, Zak, Baumann, Becker

·         Leitz representative offices: Berlin (Bergmann), Frankfurt (Kraft), Vienna (Kitterle), New York (Zieler), St Petersburg (…ovitch), foreign offices in general (Becker, Reisemuster SA)

·         Professors and doctors of science: Prof. Klute, Prof. Eicken, Dr. Bergmann

·         Photoshop: Winterhoff (Giessen)

·         Other names: Lehr, Kipper (Oberhausen), Sauppe (New York), Freund (Berlin)

·         Hard-to-read/ crossed out: Prof. M…, Neumann/Naumann, 2 for New York

·         Impossible to read, mostly crossed out names: G…, S…, T…, V…, B…, T…, T…, F…

This narrow selection had the advantage that confidentiality was assured.
On the other hand, feedback from an inner circle may not have been representative for the public at large.
Obviously, Ernst Leitz traded one risk for another.

 

 

The status of Nr. 100?

The first issue that has to be settled is the status of Nr. 100.
Is it part of the Null-Serie? Has this camera existed at all?
In Leica literature I have found two opposing views.
Ottmar Michaely (2011) observes that Nr. 100 has no matching beneficiary.
Instead it is marked with the punctuation marks “./.   ./.”
Ottmar Michaely infers that Nr. 100 has not been produced at all and that the numbering of the Null-Serie starts with 101.

"When you look closely at the two pages from the ledger mentioned, you first notice that the first line with the number 100 is not empty, but that two cancellation marks are entered here (./. ./.). This makes it obvious that the number 100 has not been assigned, but that the numbering begins with 101.”

 The second view can be found in Dr. Boris Kutscherenko (1998).
He is of the opinion that Nr. 100 does represent a real camera.
In order to avoid cherry picking I have translated the full quote:

"The line for camera #100 has only two './.' characters. This is an ellipsis. It means that an entry was intentionally omitted in that column. This may be because it was known to whom the camera had been handed over and that an entry was not necessary, since it was a matter of course. And really, who could have been given the first copy of the Null-Serie? Very likely the owner of the company, Ernst Leitz II, who made the decisive call to take the camera in production (Ernst Leitz I had died in 1920).”

Dr Kutscherenko infers that Nr. 100 has no explicit dedication because it was obviously not necessary to do so.
In his interpretation this could mean that this camera had been dedicated to Ernst Leitz II.
I would suggest another possibility.
The Handmuster camera stood model for the first test series of 1923.
Wouldn’t it be logical, then, to honour this camera with the implied production number 100?
For the same reason I would not include Nr. 100 in the Null-Serie itself.

Who received a Null-Serie camera?

A serious complication for defining the Null-Serie (or rather the number of photographers that may have used one of these cameras)
is the chaotic nature, incompleteness, and readability of Oskar Barnacks work notes.
The central column of this page gives an account of ‘Kameras geliefert’ (position [A], cameras delivered).
Most cameras in this column link a production number (Nr. 101-122) to a recipient.
But the range Nr. 101-122 is not complete, the numbers 123-125 are not mentioned,
and there are several recipients (Kraft, Freund, Prof. Eicken, two cameras for New York) that are not linked to a numbered camera.
Did these people receive a camera at all?

Overlap between Oskar Barnack’s work notes and the delivery register ‘Kamera’?

Oskar Barnack mentions 14 numbered cameras, including loaner camera Nr. 116.
All these cameras have matching beneficiaries in the delivery register, with the exception of Nr. 116.
In the delivery register Nr. 116 has no entry whereas Barnack links this camera to Lehr.
Several photographers that have no camera number in the work notes still appear in the delivery register.
This applies to Zak (Nr. 108 and 128), Kraft (Nr. 115), Prof. Eicken (Nr. 118), Becker (Nr. 126) and two cameras for New York (Nr. 107 and Nr. 111).
How to explain this disconnect?
Were these people, at the time of writing, still on Oskar Barnack’s waiting list?
Or didn’t Barnack bother anymore to match these names with camera numbers?

Anton Baumann is a special case.
He does not seem to appear in Oskar Barnack’s work notes, but is still mentioned twice in the delivery register (Nr. 127 and 133).
This is a bit of a paradox; Leica literature suggests that feed-back by Anton Baumann prompted Oskar Barnack to redesign the shutter of the Null-Serie Leicas.
All in all three cameras (123, 124, 125) are missing in both lists.
Have these been produced at all?
Different opinions on this yes/no question may explain why the Null-Serie is both defined as Nr. 101-122 and as Nr. 101-125.

 

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!

 

How to interpret the cameras on loan?

In Oskar Barnack’s work notes there is a second column with ‘2 Leihkameras’ (2 cameras on loan, position [D]
Most names are crossed out.
With difficulty a few names can be read: Freund, Lehr, Prof. M., Becker, Zak, Naumann/Neumann.
Did these photographers return the camera after use?
One hard-to-read crossed out name is linked to ‘verkauft’ (= ‘sold’) in the column on the right.
This suggests that this borrower subsequently bought his loaner camera. May this be one of the missing numbered cameras?
In the column ‘2 cameras on loan’ five names are still complete (not crossed out, between [E] and [G]), including Zak, Becker, Lehr and Naumann/Neumann.

There is a third column on the left with four names that also occur in the column ‘2 cameras on loan’,
including Zak, Becker and Lehr (position [H]).
Are these now waiting for a regular Null-Serie camera?

 

What is going on here?

Now suppose that in early 1923 Oskar Barnack only had a few Null-Serie cameras at his disposal.
In the course of 1923 additional cameras must have been produced at a rate of about two or three cameras a month.
For the sake of argument I assume that at the end of September 22 cameras had been produced.

One can see that Oskar Barnack presented these cameras to two groups of photographers.
The first group presumably received the camera as a gift, the second group on loan.
From the two columns one can see that the two groups have been about the same size (17 names each, including crossed out names).
At first it looks like there is a lot of activity in the two groups.
In the column ‘cameras on loan’ many names have been crossed out.
Did these photographers return their loaner camera?
In the central column several recipients have a ‘V’ behind their names.
Does this mean that they have provided feedback?

At one stage the names in the column ‘cameras on loan’ are not crossed out anymore.
Are the remaining names still using their loaner cameras or are they waiting for a new one?

In the central column the numbers stop at ‘122 Sauppe New York’,
but the names continue for a while without being linked to camera numbers (Kraft Wiesbaden, Freund, 1 camera for Prof. Eicken, 2 cameras for New York).
As indicated before, some of these numbers appear in the delivery register: Nr. 107 and Nr. 111 for New York, Nr. 115 for Kraft, Nr. 118 for Prof. Eicken.
Had these cameras no engravings at the time that Oskar Barnack wrote these recipients in his work notes?
Or didn’t he bother anymore?

And why have Zak, Becker and Baumann no place in the central column when the delivery register links them to the camera numbers 108, 126, 127, 128 and 133?
There is one plausible explanation that complements the coming discussion on the second test series (see later).
The explanation consists of two parts.
The disruptive effect of hyperinflation in the second half of 1923, and the possibility that additional feedback had no added value anymore.

Around September 1923 feedback from Null-Serie recipients must have been sufficient.
Oskar Barnack knew what to do and the main challenge was to design a new shutter.
From then on he was not so interested in these 1923 cameras anymore.
He had to concentrate on the new design.

In this situation he may very well have cancelled production of the ‘Null-Serie’ cameras 123-125.
These camera numbers must already have been registered in internal Leitz documents that have subsequently gone lost.
The scribe of the 1923 delivery register ‘Kamera’ must have known about this registration, but had no additional information.
So the best thing to do was to enter the numbers without further comments.

Oskar Barnack could cancel production of the numbers 123-125, but the material for these cameras had already been reserved.
And so he could use this precious material for other test cameras.
This may have led to the production of three test cameras in the spring of 1924 with the new shutter design.
These new test cameras may not have received a production number.

The meaning of the line below Nr. 125?

A closely related issue is how to interpret the line below Nr. 125 in the Leitz delivery register ‘Kamera’.
At the end of 1923 Oskar Barnack had to operate in an environment of hyper-inflation.
Normal procedures at home and at work must have been breaking down.
This was so threatening for the continuity of work flows that Ernst Leitz decided to issue emergency money.
In this way he made sure that his employees could buy food again.

I owe the image to Ulf Richter (2009)

In the all disrupting environment of hyperinflation bookkeeping may not have been high on Oskar Barnack’s to-do list.
This must have complicated the work of the scribe of the 1923 delivery register ‘Kamera’.
The information for the first two pages may have been incomplete and/ or based on memories.

Sometime in 1924 normal procedures must have been re-established.
The scribe of the delivery register could again base his entries on standardised, complete and reliable information.
A good way to mark this transition was to draw a line under Nr. 125.
An additional clue for this interpretation is that order numbers (Auftragsnummer) are used for the first time for the camera numbers 128 and 129.
It may even apply to Nr. 126 if the abbreviation ‘SA’ can be interpreted as ‘Sonder Auftrag’ (special order).

 

25 enlarger lenses

Oskar Barnack’ work notes offer one additional clue as to the number of test cameras that was foreseen for 1923.
It concerns the phrase ’25 enlarger lenses ordered’ (‘25 Vergrösserungsobjektiven bestellt’, position [F]).
From the handwriting in the next line one can infer that the specifications of the enlarger lens were 1:7 F=64mm.
This is very interesting information.
Recipients of a Leica would soon face the problem of how to enlarge the tiny negatives.
Leitz may therefore have provided a simple complementary enlarger unit for 6x9cm or postcard size enlargements.
These units would require enlarger lenses.

To be continued.

Roland

 

 

 

[Pyrogallol]

Are there any records of the enlarger lenses? I want one !

This thread is what makes the forum worthwhile, forget digital, we want more of this.

Edited June 24, 2023 by Pyrogallol

[UliWer]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Roland Zwiers:

But look at how describes his testing the Leica:

I think you refer to another text by Emmermann, not the one from 1927 reproduced on p. 25-27 of the brochure

[willeica]

6 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

William; 'The more important thing, to my mind, is when did the 0 Series end and the I Series begin?'

If my analysis is right, then your Null-Serie [again, wrong post-war concept] ends at Nr. 122 Sauppe New York.

Up to Nr. 122 the function of the hand-made test series was also to test the new 5-element Leitz Anastigmat.

After Nr. 122 Oskar Barnack cancelled Nr. 123-125.

he used the reserved material for new test cameras with a new self-capping shutter.

These cameras must have been in-between the previous test cameras (Nr. 101 up to Nr. 122) and the later test cameras (Nr. 126-129) that were equipped with the new shutter.

[I cannot exclude that the cameras Nr. 130 and Nr. 131 were test cameras as well; Curt Emmermann and Hilgers, Bonn may have received Nr. 130 and Nr. 132 'zur Begutachtung'.]

Indeed the Schäfer camera as described by Ottmar Michaely (2011) is an example of such an intermediary test camera.

 

In my analysis the purpose of the additional test cameras, beginning with Nr. 126, was to train Leitz employees for assembly work.

If so, then there cannot have been big differences between these early test/assembly cameras and the later series produced Leica I.

Again, Ottmar Michaely (2011) makes clear that he can not see any differences whatsoever between Nr. 126 and a regular Leica I.

At the same time: all these early cameras were basically hand-made.

The same applied to early Leitz Anastigmats.

With hand-made cameras and lenses it will always be possible to see small differences between individual items from the same period.

 

Roland

 

 

Now in my analysis  

Thanks Roland. That fits with my thinking. From No 126 on you basically had the Leica I and No 132 is the seventh Leica I by serial number, but others may have been made or distributed earlier. There may have been some other cameras which were unnumbered and were used for testing the changes between the 0 and I Series cameras. The number of serial numbered cameras seems very small for wide scale testing. In addition it would seem that the new shutter/wind/etc concepts were pretty well done and dusted and tested by June 1924.

I enclose a photo of the cover of the first instruction manual in English for the Leica I which was issued in March 1925. It has 7 pages of instructions in English and is probably a translation of the German 'Leca' manual from January 1925.  The illustrations on the German copy shown above are exactly the same as on my English 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!

The UK Leica Catalogue of 1931 contains testimonials in English, similar to the ones shown in German above with the earliest being from 1927 (someone in Nuremberg). Some of those were from German clients and may have translated. One of persons quoted was the official photographer of the US Greenland Expedition and he says he had obtained a Leica before April 1927.

2 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Null-Serie Dynamics

Because of all these interesting comments, thank you!, I have delayed my posting on Null-Serie Dynamics.
This is a big subject!

Given the dire economic situation in 1923 Germany with ever increasing (hyper) inflation, Ernst Leitz II clearly had to play as safe as possible.
So a small batch of test cameras was presented to a select group of photographers whose feed-back was considered of crucial importance.
From Oskar Barnack work notes and the Leitz delivery register ‘Kamera’ one can infer that the selected photographers must have had very close links to Ernst Leitz.

·         Colleagues: Ernst Leitz II, Barnack, Bauer, Dumur, Dr Berek, Zak, Baumann, Becker

·         Leitz representative offices: Berlin (Bergmann), Frankfurt (Kraft), Vienna (Kitterle), New York (Zieler), St Petersburg (…ovitch), foreign offices in general (Becker, Reisemuster SA)

·         Professors and doctors of science: Prof. Klute, Prof. Eicken, Dr. Bergmann

·         Photoshop: Winterhoff (Giessen)

·         Other names: Lehr, Kipper (Oberhausen), Sauppe (New York), Freund (Berlin)

·         Hard-to-read/ crossed out: Prof. M…, Neumann/Naumann, 2 for New York

·         Impossible to read, mostly crossed out names: G…, S…, T…, V…, B…, T…, T…, F…

This narrow selection had the advantage that confidentiality was assured.
On the other hand, feedback from an inner circle may not have been representative for the public at large.
Obviously, Ernst Leitz traded one risk for another.

 

 

The status of Nr. 100?

The first issue that has to be settled is the status of Nr. 100.
Is it part of the Null-Serie? Has this camera existed at all?
In Leica literature I have found two opposing views.
Ottmar Michaely (2011) observes that Nr. 100 has no matching beneficiary.
Instead it is marked with the punctuation marks “./.   ./.”
Ottmar Michaely infers that Nr. 100 has not been produced at all and that the numbering of the Null-Serie starts with 101.

"When you look closely at the two pages from the ledger mentioned, you first notice that the first line with the number 100 is not empty, but that two cancellation marks are entered here (./. ./.). This makes it obvious that the number 100 has not been assigned, but that the numbering begins with 101.”

 The second view can be found in Dr. Boris Kutscherenko (1998).
He is of the opinion that Nr. 100 does represent a real camera.
In order to avoid cherry picking I have translated the full quote:

"The line for camera #100 has only two './.' characters. This is an ellipsis. It means that an entry was intentionally omitted in that column. This may be because it was known to whom the camera had been handed over and that an entry was not necessary, since it was a matter of course. And really, who could have been given the first copy of the Null-Serie? Very likely the owner of the company, Ernst Leitz II, who made the decisive call to take the camera in production (Ernst Leitz I had died in 1920).”

Dr Kutscherenko infers that Nr. 100 has no explicit dedication because it was obviously not necessary to do so.
In his interpretation this could mean that this camera had been dedicated to Ernst Leitz II.
I would suggest another possibility.
The Handmuster camera stood model for the first test series of 1923.
Wouldn’t it be logical, then, to honour this camera with the implied production number 100?
For the same reason I would not include Nr. 100 in the Null-Serie itself.

Who received a Null-Serie camera?

A serious complication for defining the Null-Serie (or rather the number of photographers that may have used one of these cameras)
is the chaotic nature, incompleteness, and readability of Oskar Barnacks work notes.
The central column of this page gives an account of ‘Kameras geliefert’ (position [A], cameras delivered).
Most cameras in this column link a production number (Nr. 101-122) to a recipient.
But the range Nr. 101-122 is not complete, the numbers 123-125 are not mentioned,
and there are several recipients (Kraft, Freund, Prof. Eicken, two cameras for New York) that are not linked to a numbered camera.
Did these people receive a camera at all?

Overlap between Oskar Barnack’s work notes and the delivery register ‘Kamera’?

Oskar Barnack mentions 14 numbered cameras, including loaner camera Nr. 116.
All these cameras have matching beneficiaries in the delivery register, with the exception of Nr. 116.
In the delivery register Nr. 116 has no entry whereas Barnack links this camera to Lehr.
Several photographers that have no camera number in the work notes still appear in the delivery register.
This applies to Zak (Nr. 108 and 128), Kraft (Nr. 115), Prof. Eicken (Nr. 118), Becker (Nr. 126) and two cameras for New York (Nr. 107 and Nr. 111).
How to explain this disconnect?
Were these people, at the time of writing, still on Oskar Barnack’s waiting list?
Or didn’t Barnack bother anymore to match these names with camera numbers?

Anton Baumann is a special case.
He does not seem to appear in Oskar Barnack’s work notes, but is still mentioned twice in the delivery register (Nr. 127 and 133).
This is a bit of a paradox; Leica literature suggests that feed-back by Anton Baumann prompted Oskar Barnack to redesign the shutter of the Null-Serie Leicas.
All in all three cameras (123, 124, 125) are missing in both lists.
Have these been produced at all?
Different opinions on this yes/no question may explain why the Null-Serie is both defined as Nr. 101-122 and as Nr. 101-125.

 

 

How to interpret the cameras on loan?

In Oskar Barnack’s work notes there is a second column with ‘2 Leihkameras’ (2 cameras on loan, position [D]
Most names are crossed out.
With difficulty a few names can be read: Freund, Lehr, Prof. M., Becker, Zak, Naumann/Neumann.
Did these photographers return the camera after use?
One hard-to-read crossed out name is linked to ‘verkauft’ (= ‘sold’) in the column on the right.
This suggests that this borrower subsequently bought his loaner camera. May this be one of the missing numbered cameras?
In the column ‘2 cameras on loan’ five names are still complete (not crossed out, between [E] and [G]), including Zak, Becker, Lehr and Naumann/Neumann.

There is a third column on the left with four names that also occur in the column ‘2 cameras on loan’,
including Zak, Becker and Lehr (position [H]).
Are these now waiting for a regular Null-Serie camera?

 

What is going on here?

Now suppose that in early 1923 Oskar Barnack only had a few Null-Serie cameras at his disposal.
In the course of 1923 additional cameras must have been produced at a rate of about two or three cameras a month.
For the sake of argument I assume that at the end of September 22 cameras had been produced.

One can see that Oskar Barnack presented these cameras to two groups of photographers.
The first group presumably received the camera as a gift, the second group on loan.
From the two columns one can see that the two groups have been about the same size (17 names each, including crossed out names).
At first it looks like there is a lot of activity in the two groups.
In the column ‘cameras on loan’ many names have been crossed out.
Did these photographers return their loaner camera?
In the central column several recipients have a ‘V’ behind their names.
Does this mean that they have provided feedback?

At one stage the names in the column ‘cameras on loan’ are not crossed out anymore.
Are the remaining names still using their loaner cameras or are they waiting for a new one?

In the central column the numbers stop at ‘122 Sauppe New York’,
but the names continue for a while without being linked to camera numbers (Kraft Wiesbaden, Freund, 1 camera for Prof. Eicken, 2 cameras for New York).
As indicated before, some of these numbers appear in the delivery register: Nr. 107 and Nr. 111 for New York, Nr. 115 for Kraft, Nr. 118 for Prof. Eicken.
Had these cameras no engravings at the time that Oskar Barnack wrote these recipients in his work notes?
Or didn’t he bother anymore?

And why have Zak, Becker and Baumann no place in the central column when the delivery register links them to the camera numbers 108, 126, 127, 128 and 133?
There is one plausible explanation that complements the coming discussion on the second test series (see later).
The explanation consists of two parts.
The disruptive effect of hyperinflation in the second half of 1923, and the possibility that additional feedback had no added value anymore.

Around September 1923 feedback from Null-Serie recipients must have been sufficient.
Oskar Barnack knew what to do and the main challenge was to design a new shutter.
From then on he was not so interested in these 1923 cameras anymore.
He had to concentrate on the new design.

In this situation he may very well have cancelled production of the ‘Null-Serie’ cameras 123-125.
These camera numbers must already have been registered in internal Leitz documents that have subsequently gone lost.
The scribe of the 1923 delivery register ‘Kamera’ must have known about this registration, but had no additional information.
So the best thing to do was to enter the numbers without further comments.

Oskar Barnack could cancel production of the numbers 123-125, but the material for these cameras had already been reserved.
And so he could use this precious material for other test cameras.
This may have led to the production of three test cameras in the spring of 1924 with the new shutter design.
These new test cameras may not have received a production number.

The meaning of the line below Nr. 125?

A closely related issue is how to interpret the line below Nr. 125 in the Leitz delivery register ‘Kamera’.
At the end of 1923 Oskar Barnack had to operate in an environment of hyper-inflation.
Normal procedures at home and at work must have been breaking down.
This was so threatening for the continuity of work flows that Ernst Leitz decided to issue emergency money.
In this way he made sure that his employees could buy food again.

I owe the image to Ulf Richter (2009)

In the all disrupting environment of hyperinflation bookkeeping may not have been high on Oskar Barnack’s to-do list.
This must have complicated the work of the scribe of the 1923 delivery register ‘Kamera’.
The information for the first two pages may have been incomplete and/ or based on memories.

Sometime in 1924 normal procedures must have been re-established.
The scribe of the delivery register could again base his entries on standardised, complete and reliable information.
A good way to mark this transition was to draw a line under Nr. 125.
An additional clue for this interpretation is that order numbers (Auftragsnummer) are used for the first time for the camera numbers 128 and 129.
It may even apply to Nr. 126 if the abbreviation ‘SA’ can be interpreted as ‘Sonder Auftrag’ (special order).

 

25 enlarger lenses

Oskar Barnack’ work notes offer one additional clue as to the number of test cameras that was foreseen for 1923.
It concerns the phrase ’25 enlarger lenses ordered’ (‘25 Vergrösserungsobjektiven bestellt’, position [F]).
From the handwriting in the next line one can infer that the specifications of the enlarger lens were 1:7 F=64mm.
This is very interesting information.
Recipients of a Leica would soon face the problem of how to enlarge the tiny negatives.
Leitz may therefore have provided a simple complementary enlarger unit for 6x9cm or postcard size enlargements.
These units would require enlarger lenses.

To be continued.

Roland

 

 

 

I would tend towards the idea that Barnack developed the shutter crate concept so that the parts could easily be changed around and worked on, even put into different bodies. If they went in the direction of un-numbered test cameras, then some of them might have survived, but I have not seen any reference to these. A shutter crate could easily have been interchanged between bodies with different serial numbers as well, of course.

 

William 

[Roland Zwiers]

1 hour ago, UliWer said:

I think you refer to another text by Emmermann, not the one from 1927 reproduced on p. 25-27 of the brochure

Yes indeed. I refer to Curt Emmermann (1931). It concerns his self-introduction 'Wie ich zu der Leica kam' ('How the Leica came my way') in the first issue of his periodical Die Leica. Ulf Richter (2009) quotes the full procedure. As far as I know Ulf Richter (2009) has also been translated in English. 

Roland

 

7 minutes ago, willeica said:

Thanks Roland. That fits with my thinking. From No 126 on you basically had the Leica I and No 132 is the seventh Leica I by serial number, but others may have been made or distributed earlier. There may have been some other cameras which were unnumbered and were used for testing the changes between the 0 and I Series cameras. The number of serial numbered cameras seems very small for wide scale testing. In addition it would seem that the new shutter/wind/etc concepts were pretty well done and dusted and tested by June 1924.

I enclose a photo of the cover of the first instruction manual in English for the Leica I which was issued in March 1925. It has 7 pages of instructions in English and is probably a translation of the German 'Leca' manual from January 1925.  The illustrations on the German copy shown above are exactly the same as on my English 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!

The UK Leica Catalogue of 1931 contains testimonials in English, similar to the ones shown in German above with the earliest being from 1927 (someone in Nuremberg). Some of those were from German clients and may have translated. One of persons quoted was the official photographer of the US Greenland Expedition and he says he had obtained a Leica before April 1927.

I would tend towards the idea that Barnack developed the shutter crate concept so that the parts could easily be changed around and worked on, even put into different bodies. If they went in the direction of un-numbered test cameras, then some of them might have survived, but I have not seen any reference to these. A shutter crate could easily have been interchanged between bodies with different serial numbers as well, of course.

 

William 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

2 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

Are there any records of the enlarger lenses? I want one !

This thread is what makes the forum worthwhile, forget digital, we want more of this.

 

Hello Pyrogallol,

I was afraid my posting was already much too long.
So I left out the following:

In Oskar Barnack’s work notes of 1927 there is a sketch of a 6x9cm enlarger that makes use of a 64mm enlarger lens as well.
This must have been a follow-up model.
I owe the image to Ulf Richter (2009).
This unit for 6x9cm enlargements makes use of an F=64mm lens as well.

[Text: Vergrösserungs Kasten 6x9 mit Objektiv 64mm ohne Griff mit Klappdeckel 3/11/ 27 Barnack]

[Translation: Enlarger box 6x9 with folding cover with objective 64mm without handle]

 

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!

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Roland Zwiers]

37 minutes ago, willeica said:

Thanks Roland. That fits with my thinking. From No 126 on you basically had the Leica I and No 132 is the seventh Leica I by serial number, but others may have been made or distributed earlier. There may have been some other cameras which were unnumbered and were used for testing the changes between the 0 and I Series cameras. The number of serial numbered cameras seems very small for wide scale testing. In addition it would seem that the new shutter/wind/etc concepts were pretty well done and dusted and tested by June 1924.

I enclose a photo of the cover of the first instruction manual in English for the Leica I which was issued in March 1925. It has 7 pages of instructions in English and is probably a translation of the German 'Leca' manual from January 1925.  The illustrations on the German copy shown above are exactly the same as on my English 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!

The UK Leica Catalogue of 1931 contains testimonials in English, similar to the ones shown in German above with the earliest being from 1927 (someone in Nuremberg). Some of those were from German clients and may have translated. One of persons quoted was the official photographer of the US Greenland Expedition and he says he had obtained a Leica before April 1927.

I would tend towards the idea that Barnack developed the shutter crate concept so that the parts could easily be changed around and worked on, even put into different bodies. If they went in the direction of un-numbered test cameras, then some of them might have survived, but I have not seen any reference to these. A shutter crate could easily have been interchanged between bodies with different serial numbers as well, of course.

 

William 

William: (...) un-numbered test cameras, then some of them might have survived, but I have not seen any reference to these.

 

You keep forgetting my references to the Schäfer camera as described by Ottmar Michaely (2011).
This concerns an un-numbered test camera with the new self-capping shutter.

A test camera in between Nr. 101-122 ('Null-Serie') and nr. 126-129 ('second test series').
As stated before, I don't like these confusing post-war concepts, but otherwise you may not understand what I mean. 

Roland