100 years Null-Serie

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The stock-and-flow model

As promised I will now explain my stock-and-flow model for the production of the Leica I in the period 1924-1926.
My basic assumption is that the available (primary) sources provide suitable building blocks.
For maximum transparency the sources on which the scenario is based are reproduced below.

The start of production.
For this I have no direct primary source (apart from the June 1924 go/no-go decision).
So I have to assume that production started some time before the intermediary stage.

An intermediary production stage.
For this I use the Leitz engravings register for the period 1924-1926. 
This register mentions the engravings of camera numbers Nr. 126 – Nr. 637 in the period 17 November – 19 December 1924
and the subsequent engravings of Nr. 638 – Nr. 1582 in the period 27 June to 20 November 1925.
Ulf Richter (2014) mentions that the first batch (Nr. 126-Nr. 637) was assembled in the course of 1925.
If so, then the moment of engraving signifies an intermediary production stage.

The moment that cameras are finished.
The two available sources are Oskar Barnack (for 1925) and Van Hasbroeck (1987) for the year 1926 (1447x).
Page 27 of the work notes by Oskar Barnack mentions that 224 new cameras have been delivered by 23 April 1925;
853 cameras up to 15 December 1925, and an additional 50 up to 29 December 1925.
With Ulf Richter (2009) I assume that the new cameras begin with Nr. 126.
Even in that case one can interpret Oskar Barnack’ s notes in three ways:

• A production of 224 + 853 + 50 = 1127 cameras (scenario 1).
• A production of 853 + 50 = 903 cameras (scenario 2).
• A production of 853 cameras (scenario 3).

With current information it is hard to choose between the scenarios 1 and 2.
Scenario 3 seems too tight in view of other sources

The moment of sale.
This is the most difficult building block for the early period 1925-1926.
Early registers may not distinguish between cameras delivered (e.g. to a retailer) and cameras sold (to the customer).
This may not be a serious problem for the stock-and-flow model as long as the register indicates the moment that a camera leaves the Leitz factory.
In that case it still possible to make use of the so-called Hahne list of 1978, which is based on the delivery dates.
In this way the Hahne list specifies 857 cameras sold in 1925 and 1524 Leica I cameras sold in 1926.

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!

 

 

 

A bigger problem has to do with the number of Leica I cameras produced and sold in 1926.
The Hahne list mentions a total of 1524 cameras sold.
For the same year Van Hasbroeck mentions a number of 1447 cameras produced.
Both numbers refer to the Leica I.
How to explain that in 1926 more cameras have been sold than produced?

The biggest problem is how to interpret Oskar Barnack’s work notes.
I hesitate between the scenario’s 1 and 2.
Scenario 1 assumes that the 853 cameras up to 15 December 1925 have to be added to the 224 new cameras that were delivered up to 23 April 1925.
Scenario 2 assumes that the 224 cameras delivered up to 23 April are included in the 853 cameras up to 15 December 1925.
The difference, therefore, amounts to 224 cameras.

When one compares the cameras produced with the cameras sold, then scenario 2 is problematic.
It assumes for 1925 that almost all produced cameras have been sold in the same year.
For 1926 it even implies that more cameras have been sold (Hahne: 1524) than produced (Van Hasbroeck: 1447).

On the other hand, scenario 1 assumes a rather high number of unsold cameras by 31 December 1925 (1123 produced -/- 857 sold = 266 in store).
This would have placed an additional financial burden on Leitz.
Of course, the 224 additional cameras would avoid the scenario 2 paradox, as these additional cameras would have been for sale in 1926.

 

The choice of scenario also has implications for the estimate of the number of Leica lenses produced.
This will be discussed in greater detail in another posting on Leica lenses in the period 1913-1926.
On the one hand the scenarios may be helpful for estimating the number of the several versions of the Leica lenses in this period
(Anastigmat, Elmax, Elmar; these with 4 and/or 5 lens elements).
On the other hand additional information on the production of Leica lenses would be helpful for choosing between the scenarios 1 and 2.
If, for example, it can be shown that in 1925 much more than 900 lenses have been produced, then scenario 1 may still be the more plausible scenario.

 

Presentation of the stock-and-flow model

The table is based on scenario 2, that is a production of 899 Leica I cameras in 1925.
How to interpret this table?

A good starting point is to follow the first batch of 512 cameras (Nr. 126 – Nr. 637) that was engraved between 7 November and 19 December 1924.
Note that the subtotals for this batch add up to 510 (1 + 108 + 1 + 400).
I have as yet no explanation for the difference.
Leitz Objektiv (1957) states that at the end of 1924 600 cameras were taken in production.
As I have found no further information on this it seems better to stick to the 512 engraved cameras.
In the same column I assume that 4 of these 512 cameras were assembled and finished before the end of 1924.

The third, fourth and fifth column follow the remaining 512 minus 4 cameras between January and September 1925.
From Oskar Barnack’s work notes we know that up to 23 April 1925 224 new cameras had been delivered.
When we start counting at Nr. 126 then we have to divide these 224 cameras over three periods.
The first four were finished at the end of 1924.
This means that the remaining 220 cameras have to be divided between January-February and March-April 1925.

Note that the first batch of 512 cameras is much larger than the 224 new cameras finished up to 23 April 1925.
This implies that the remaining 288 cameras have been finished later in the year (the fifth column, May-September 1925).
It is not impossible that a few cameras were finished in October 1925.
This may explain the presence of an Elmar lens on Leica Nr. 625. 

To be continued.

Roland

 

[Advertisement]

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

[willeica]

1 hour ago, Roland Zwiers said:

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.

No, I haven't forgotten about this, but surely there was more than one prototype being tested in the factory between the 0 Series and the Model I?

As for 'post war concepts' I have not used the term 'second test series' for a camera that is substantially a I Model A. Of course there would have been pre-production items ( still the practice today), but the number of serial numbers used seems to be very small. Overlap between testing and delivery is not unknown, but absent full paper work about this, it is difficult to be definitive 100 years later.

We are getting down to a very small number of cameras, but it seems the 0 Series ended at No 122 and what we have thereafter as regards numbered cameras are pre-production or full production I Model As. I am still wondering about interim unnumbered cameras.

As is my wont, I am trying to see the 'big picture' coming from all of the detail or to put it another way I am trying to see the woods despite the trees.

William 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

You are right that the number of in-between models may be very small.

That is to say: in-between the numbered cameras 101-122 and 126.

These in-between cameras have likely been un-numbered and already had the new shutter design.

How many of these may have been made?

My guess would be at least four: the cameras that used the material that was reserved for Nrs. 117, 123, 124 and 125.

I don't exclude the possibility that the un-numbered camera that used the material of Nr. 117 was unsuccesful and was thrown away.

But if one of the three others was preserved in the shape of the Schäfer camera, that would seem reasonable to me.

 

Roland

  

[beoon]

Roland,

Now that you are moving into crunching numbers for 1926 production I show my camera as a reference point.

Serial number 2284 delivered to Leitz Berlin on 25th November 1926.

Apart from the advance knob being changed to the higher one it is as per delivery from the factory and has never been back according to the factory records.

This camera is borderline from 1st production cameras to 2nd production with feathered arrows as you can see on rewind knob 

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]

Do you have the engraving & delivery records for this serial number?

Edited June 24, 2023 by beoon

[Roland Zwiers]

22 minutes ago, beoon said:

Do you have the engraving & delivery records for this serial number?

Hello Alan,

This is interesting information again!
In fact I am planning to include the year 1927 in my manuscript as well.
But the stock-and-flow model for 1926 and 1927 will not be so detailed as for 1925 as I don't have the necessary information.

So if anyone has information for 1926 and 1927 in terms of:

• start production of a camera/ batch of cameras,
• intermediary production of a camera/ batch of cameras
• moment that a camera/ batch of cameras is finished
• moment that a camera/ batch of cameras is sold/delivered

that would be helpful for extending the stock-and-flow scenario to 1926 and 1927.

Roland

 

 

 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

Hello Alan,

This is interesting information again!
In fact I am planning to include the year 1927 in my manuscript as well.
But the stock-and-flow model for 1926 and 1927 will not be so detailed as for 1925 as I don't have the necessary information.

So if anyone has information for 1926 and 1927 in terms of:

• start production of a camera/ batch of cameras,
• intermediary production of a camera/ batch of cameras
• moment that a camera/ batch of cameras is finished
• moment that a camera/ batch of cameras is sold/delivered

that would be helpful for extending the stock-and-flow scenario to 1926 and 1927.

Roland

 

 

 

 

 

By including the years 1926 and 1927 I am going off-topic in my own posting on 100 years Null-Serie.
So I would like to explain what the stock-and-flow scenario for 1925 has to do with the original purpose of this posting.

In my analysis the 'Null-Serie' is a confusing post-war concept.
It leads to complementary post-war concepts like 'the second test series' and 'the beginning of regular series production of the Leica I'.
When William and me have misunderstandings, than these often have to do with these confusing post-war labels.

So in my first posting I already stated that it was better to speak of one continuous flow of test cameras between the beginning of 1923 and the end of 1924,
assuming that Curt Emmermann received his test camera ('zur Begutachtung') at the end of 1924.

Now Alan provided a primary source that I had not seen before.
It shows that Curt Emmermann received his test camera in early February 1925.
Alan also provided additional information on the manual.
In January 1925 there was a manual indeed (as postulated by Ulf Richter), but that manual still carried the Leca name.
This explains why in early February 1925 Curt Emmermann received a Leica without a manual.

This course of events allows me to underline another point.
There is no hard borderline between the 'second test series of 1924' and 'the beginning of regular series production' either!

This already followed from Ottmar Michaely's observation that he can see no difference between Nr. 126 and regular series produced Leicas.
This can be explained very well by the need to use cameras like Nr. 126-129 or even nr. 126-133 for training purposes.
Entrepreneur Ernst Leitz II anticipated capacity problems on the assembly line if he wanted to introduce the Leica big scale on the March 1925 Leipzig spring fair. 
And so he must have ordered additional test cameras after June 1924 so that as many employees as possible could gain experience with assembling and disassembling
(anticipating repair work!) a test camera.

In order to illustrate this point I needed the stock-and-flow scenario for 1925, especially the first batch of 512-600 cameras that was taken in production after June 1924.
One can see that this batch was more than Leitz could swallow.
By March 1925 only a small part of this big batch must have been finished; the far majority of these 500 or so cameras was still in the pipeline.
This also implies that Ernst Leitz was taking a major financial risk!

Now one would assume that this batch of 512-600 cameras would mark the beginning of regular series production.
But what happens?
Ernst Leitz still sends a letter to Curt Emmermann whether or not he would like to receive a Leica on trial (zur Begutachtung).
Alan shows a primary source that proves that Curt Emmermann received his Leica in early February 1925.
So speaking in post-war concepts he both received 'second test series Leica' (on trial, zur Begutachtung) and a regular series produced Leica I.

In my opinion this confusion is the logical result of post-war concepts that are retroactively applied to the complex realities of 1923-1925.
It is much better to avoid these post-war concepts.
In that case there is one test series between the beginning of 1923 and the end of 1924.
At the same time there is no hard borderline between the test cameras after June 1924 and the beginning of (more or less regular) series production at the end of 1924 and the beginning of 1925.

Perhaps it is better to speak of regular series production after the March 1925 spring fair.
Up to that moment Ernst Leitz may have treated the introduction of the Leica as a project, with the Leipzig spring fair as a first deadline.
Regular production in terms of steady business-as-usual may have taken quite a while!  

This brings me to another observation.
Ernst Leitz must have anticipated capacity problems on the assembly line for the Leica I.
But I cannot exclude the possibility that the production of the 5-element Leitz Anastigmat (renamed Elmax in December 1924) caused additional capacity problems.
The first test cameras of 1923 must also have had the purpose to test the quality of the new 5-element lens.
This turned out to be excellent.
But at the same time, as the flow of test cameras was ever increasing, Ernst Leitz must have worried about capacity problems once this lens had to be produced on a much bigger scale.
This implies that he must have asked Prof Max Berek to redesign the 5-element Elmax lens to a simpler 4-element alternative during the test series of 1923-1924.
 

The changes from Elmax (5-elements) to Elmax (4-elements) to Elmar (4-elements) are complex as it involves a combination of name and design changes.
This requires a separate posting and further research.
Leitz (1933) puts the combined name and design change at the beginning of spring 1925 (…bis zum Frühjahr 1925).
But in German (like in Dutch and English) there is often confusion between ‘up to’ and ‘up to and including’.
Ulf Richter (2014) mentions June 1925:

“In the meantime Max Berek had recalculated the lens.
Now one could obtain a good optical performance with four lens elements.
In June 1925 the first samples of the new lens could be produced.”

This would be consistent with an ‘up to and including’ interpretation of Leitz (1933). 

The name change Elmax => Elmar would take place in October 1925.
This requires a separate posting as well.

To be continued.

 

Roland

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n my explanation 

 

 

 

[Pyrogallol]

If the camera project was partly to keep existing employees in work, a camera would have been more complex to work on than a microscope? The same test camera may have been assembled, taken apart and reassembled by several employees as part of their training on the new product. And I imagine the test cameras given out to photographers to use would have been taken apart to see how well the parts were standing up to wear in regular use.

As someone who likes to use FILCA cassettes, when were they first designed and which was the first camera modified to take them?

[Roland Zwiers]

I agree completely.
Training employees for assembly work for a complex new product must have been quite a challenge.

There is Leica literature on the development of the FILCA cassettes, but I have not studied this in detail.
Oskar Barnack (1931) states that this was one of the things on his to-do list when after 1918 production of the Leica was considered again.

Roland

 

 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

Did Dr Paul Wolff use a test series Leica in 1923-1924?

When discussing the test series of 1923-1924 it is important to know the users as well.
There are many clues that Dr Paul Wolff was an early user.
But received wisdom says that Dr Paul Wolff obtained his first Leicas in 1926 and that, moreover, his interest in Leica photography only really started in 1927.
Confusingly, Dr Paul Wolff has contributed to this narrative himself.
So how to untangle this conflicting information?

First I would like to present the quotes/ evidence that Dr Paul Wolff made use of a test camera in 1923-1924.
These quotes also show that he obtained his first Leica at the beginning of 1925:

1. Oskar Barnack’s work notes from 1923 show that there have been several Null-Serie Leicas on loan.
   So in 1923-1924 he may very well have lent a test camera to Dr Paul Wolff.
2. In 1934 Dr Paul Wolff critizises the quality of early leica films:
   “So the grain was there! It was the be-all and end-all of us first Leica-users. Normal cine film in the Leica, at that time still weakly orthochromatic and not free from halation - it was a cross! Yes, postcard size pictures were just possible, not really inspiring, but one already walked around with the idea that one day it might be different.”
   Now the many Leica reviews that appeared in the course of 1925 make clear that postcard size enlargements could not be distinguished from contact prints. 
   Alan presents the 1925 review in Amateur Photographer that mentions satisfactory enlargements up to 12x10". 
   These are reviews by unbiased editors!
   It follows that Dr Paul Wolff's critisicm applies to films from an earlier generation!
   And so that he made use of a Leica before 1925. 
3. In October 1924 the book Die Ski-Schule by Josef Dahinden is illustrated with pictures by Dr Paul Wolff.
   Most pictures in this book are small enlargements of 18x24mm cine negative frames.
   But some bigger enlargements may have been taken with a test series Leica in combination with a weakly orthochromatic film.
4. His book Sonne über See und Strand (1936) is dedicated to Oskar Barnack, who had passed away in the beginning of that year.
   Dr Paul Wolff refers to their first meeting, which must have taken place in 1921:
   When I shook Oskar Barnack's hand for the first time 15 years ago and when he hesitantly pulled out of his pocket his experimental Leica made of sheet zinc, there was already more than an inner sympathy for the man and his inconspicuous invention. But then, five years later, when I had my first camera in my hands and was trying to use it, this inner sympathy grew into a vow to remain loyal to Oskar Barnack and his work. The more people laughed about the absurdity of even dealing with such an apparatus, the more dogged my desire to impose my own will on the small apparatus became.
5. Dr Paul Wolff mentions the 1921 meeting again in a 1941 contribution for the photo magazine Photographie für Alle. 
   “Chance took me to Wetzlar in 1921.”
   I owe this information to Hans-Michael Koetzle (ed., 2014)
6. In his book Meine Erfahrungen mit der Leica (1934) Dr Paul Wolff refers to a meeting with Oskar Barnack in 1923.
   Oskar Barnack showed him one of the first (= Null-Serie) Leicas:
   „1925 was the first Leica year, it also gave me the Leica, after having met Oskar Barnack two years earlier at the Leitz factory, who showed me one of the first Leicas with the problematic question what I thought of it”.
7. In his book Practical Leica Photography (1934) Dr Paul Wolff mentions his almost ten years’ experience with the Leica 
   and his acquaintance with the experimental Leica (= the Handmuster of 1920?):
   “As I made the acquaintance of the Leica at a time when it was still a rough, experimental model in the pocket of its inventor, and as I count myself among the owners of the first series of Leica cameras, I think I am qualified to give a review of my experiences with this little camera in the course of nearly ten years”.
8. In an April 1937 contribution in the Dutch magazine Kleinbeeld-Foto Dr Paul Wolff mentions his 12 years’ experience with the Leica:
   “It is now 12 years already that I know and use the Leica”.
9. In 1941 Dr Paul Wolff recalls that he witnessed the progress from one Leica prototype to another:
   “Shortly after the war I came into contact with Barnack and his invention myself. (...) A man sat here, with interruptions for years, and filed and tinkered, always devising new and more perfect things. (…) The fruit of this diligent work lay on the table in ever more sophisticated test models.”
10. In his book Meine Erfahrungen mit der Leica (1939) Dr Paul Wolff juxtaposes two of his Leica pictures. 
    One picture is from 1924, the other from 1939.
    In this way Dr Paul Wolff demonstrates the progress he had made with Leica photography over a period of 15 years.

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!

Based on the evidence above I infer that Dr Paul Wolff obtained (instead of borrowed) his first Leica in the first months of 1925.
That was after his Leica picture of 1924.
This implies that before 1925 he must have borrowed one of Oskar Barnack’s test cameras.
 

This assumption does not solely rest on his Leica picture of 1924.
Dr Paul Wolff recalls the insufficient quality of early Leica films, but this criticism did not apply anymore to the films that were available in March 1925.
In his quotes Dr Paul Wolff points out that in 1921 he already saw the Handmuster of 1920
(‘his experimental Leica made of sheet zinc’; ‘a rough, experimental model in the pocket of its inventor’).
After that he was witness to the development of later prototypes
(‘The fruit of this diligent work lay on the table in ever more sophisticated test models’).
It is not unrealistic to assume that one day, urged by Oskar Barnack himself, he borrowed such a camera for test purposes
(‘…who showed me one of the first Leicas with the problematic question what I thought of it.’)

Received wisdom holds that Dr Paul Wolff obtained his first Leica in 1926.
What evidence points in this direction?
In Leica literature I can find four (partly overlapping) arguments:

1. Dr Paul Wolff won a Leica in 1926
2. This 1926 Leica was his first Leica
3. He took Leica photography seriously only after 1926
4. Dr Paul Wolff figures in the 1926 Leitz delivery register

Did Dr Paul Wolff win a Leica in 1926?

In a 1937 publication Dr Paul Wolff relates that he won a Leica at a 1926 photographic exhibition in his hometown Frankfurt am Main:
"Coincidence allowed me to win a Leica as a prize at the Photographic Exhibition in Frankfurt a.M., and ever since my entire inclination has been for the great life, for the unlimited expanse of the world, for everything that the small camera is called upon to capture".

Now the complete overview of the prize-winners has been published in the contemporary photo magazine Photofreund.
It concerns five silver medals, eight bronze medals and 18 honorary certificates.
There were five additional prizes organised by the German photo industry and the photo magazine Photofreund itself.
Dr Paul Wolff is not among the winners.  

In fact, Dr Paul Wolff could not have won a prize as he was one of the organisers of the exhibition.
He obtained a Leica as a token of appreciation for his efforts for making this exhibition a huge success.
Such payment in kind may even have been advantageous for tax purposes.

Of course, Dr Paul Wolff knew very well the difference between winning a prize and receiving a present.
He corrected himself in a speech that he gave for the 1938 annual meeting of a photographic society (Gesellschaft Deutscher Lichtbildner, (GDL)).
The speech was published in abridged form in the German photo magazine Gebrauchs-Fotografie.
Ulf Richter was so kind as to send me a copy of the original article.

To a certain extent, [the small camera] was handed to me by coincidence. So I have to acknowledge that the honourable title that is often applied to me - I'm a pioneer of the miniature camera - is only true with a certain reservation.

Isn’t it weird that our esteemed Franz Grainer was, so to speak, accomplice of this pioneering work? Perhaps he is no longer aware of that today. -- . How was it? At the big international photographers exhibition in Frankfurt a. M. I did not yet have the pleasure of being a member of our society. [The small camera] was presented to me on the good encouragement of Mr. Grainer in recognition of all my many contributions towards the exhibition. (...)

So I held this small camera that I had been given and said to myself, "It shouldn't be spoiled".

Franz Grainer was a founding member of the society.
In his speech Dr Paul Wolff implies that Franz Grainer was an equal contributor to his success as a Leica photographer.
Such high praise must have suited the occasion perfectly, but was completely beside the point.

 

Did Dr Paul Wolff take Leica photography seriously only after 1926?

The second argument is that Dr Paul Wolff only took Leica photography seriously after 1926.
This overlaps with the previous argument in a subtle way.
If he wanted to rescue a legend around winning (correction: receiving) a Leica, then he still had to stress that this had been his first Leica.
In that case there could still be a legend in which a sceptical Dr Paul Wolff was converted to Leica photography after a coincidental 1926 gift.

Suppose he had admitted to his audience that this 1926 gift was his fourth or even fifth encounter with a Leica (1921, 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1926).
That he liked his 1925 Leica so much that in 1926 he had requested a second Leica as payment in kind.
It would have brought him into trouble with the tax office.
And the legend would have been in ruins.

 

Does Dr Paul Wolff figure in the 1926 Leitz shipping register?

The third argument is that Dr Paul Wolff is mentioned twice in the 1926 Leitz shipping register.

 

When one looks at the 1926 registrations, there is no mention of Dr Paul Wolff, Frankfurt a/M.
Leica Nr. 1081 was delivered to ‘Herrn Wolff, Wetzlar’, so to a Mister Wolff who resided in Wetzlar.
Dr Paul Wolff was a resident of Frankfurt am Main.
Also note that ‘Hernn Wolff’ has no title.
Dr Paul Wolff did have one and even used it in his signature.
In German culture it was (and still is) very rude to omit an honorary title.
The shipping register takes care not to do so, witness the titles at Nr. 1079, 1084, 1091 and 1765.
Why then would Dr Paul Wolff have been treated with less respect?
 

Similarly, Leica Nr. 1776 was delivered to ‘Wolff, Wetzlar’.
Here we do not even know if it concerned a man, a woman or even a natural person.
So it is very well possible that the Leicas Nr. 1081 and 1776 were delivered to two different residents of Wetzlar.

All in all it is not obvious at all that Dr Paul Wolff won or obtained his first Leica(s) in 1926.
One can see that he created this legend himself in 1937, contradicting earlier statements.
In 1938 he had to correct himself.
But in doing so he took great care that the main storyline (Saulus – Paulus) would remain intact.
In 1949 (Leica Brevier) he even had the audacity to repeat his prize-winning legend of 1937.
Creating a legend may have suited his ego very well, but could only lead post-war research in a wrong direction.   

 

 

 

 

[Pyrogallol]

Someone could probably look up the Wetzlar voters list or census return etc to see how many Wolffes there were living there at the time. Then look to see who was old enough and with a suitably well paid job to be able to afford to buy a Leica. Find the family with a man interested in photography, then look in the attic and find the camera or even both of them !

Edited June 25, 2023 by Pyrogallol

[Roland Zwiers]

In Germany Wolff is nr. 104 on the list of most frequent surnames.

Currently there are about 60.000 people who bear the name.

 

 

[beoon]

Roland,

In the Barnack work note’s you note a recipient of a null series loan camera “Naumann or Neumann” and speculate this is Hanns Neumann.

I have two copies of the Curt Emmermann book Leica Technik originally from 1937, this was revised and reprinted in 1951 in conjunction with Hanns Neumann .

Not conclusive evidence, but might support your theory.

 

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,

I was also thinking in this direction.
But so far this approach is inconclusive.

In the second issue of Die Leica of July-August 1931 is a contribution by C.E. Neumann.
In the third issue of September-October 1931 are contributions by Dr. H. Naumann and C.E. Neumann.

If I have to chose between these two, then the Dr. title may offer a clue again.
Oskar Barnack would certainly have writted Dr. Naumann instead of Naumann.
That would point at C.E. Neumann.

But Neumann is a very common surname in Germany (18th place!) 
Naumann is much less frequent (position 193).

 

Roland

 

[Roland Zwiers]

5 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

In Germany Wolff is nr. 104 on the list of most frequent surnames.

Currently there are about 60.000 people who bear the name.

 

 

 

Wolffs of Wetzlar

Hello Pyrogallol,

I just made a quick-and-dirty calculation.
In 1925 Germany had 62,4 million inhabitants, with 16.500 people living in Wetzlar.
At the moment one out of 1361 Germans bears the surname Wolff.

• Suppose that the market share of 'Wolff' remained the same between 1925 and 2023.
• Suppose as well that the name Wolff is and was geographically equally distibuted.
• Suppose that there was not a big increase of Wollfs into (or exodus out of) Wetzlar between 1925 and 2023.
• Suppose the Wolffs had not significantly more or less babies between 1925 and 2023 than other surnames.

In that case one can make the following calculation:

In 1925 45.849 Germans had the surname Wolff (62,4 mln./ 1361)

The relative share of Wetzlar would be 16.500/62,4 mln.

So the number of Wolffs in Wetzlar would have been [16.500/ 62,4 mln.] X 45.849 = 12

So in 1925 about 12 people in Wetzlar would have had the surname Wolff.
Not all of these would have been old and/or rich enough to afford a Leica.

This means that with some additional information it should be possible to narrow down the number of candidates!

 

Roland

 

 

 

 

 

[willeica]

15 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

When William and me have misunderstandings, than these often have to do with these confusing post-war labels.

 

No misunderstandings, I'm just trying to to focus on the essential details in a sea of data.

You asked about 1926 deliveries. I'm not sure if these ones add anything, but here are the details for two cameras which I own from 1926, one of them is quite close in serial number to one of the 'Wolff cameras' whose details I gave you. I don't want to go into whether that one relates to the Paul Wolff, as you have already covered that at length.

Modell: Leica I Model A

Seriennummer: 1661

Ausgeliefert am: 03.07.1926

Ausgeliefert an: Foto Magasinet in Kopenhagen

 

Modell:  Leica I Model A

Seriennummer: 1783

Ausgeliefert am: 06.08.1926

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

Both of those cameras are the Variant 1 of the I Model A as described by von Einem, with no 7 metre mark on the distance scale and various features on the front of the Elmar lens,  some of which which are also in common with the Elmax and Anastigmat. 

I believe I also have a 1927 camera, which had received some 'upgrades'. I have not yet checked on that one with the archive, but I might do so when I am in Wetzlar again in October. I will also ask to see that entry for 1783 relating to Oskar Barnack. I suspect this just means that the camera went back to Barnack's department.

William 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

9 hours ago, willeica said:

No misunderstandings, I'm just trying to to focus on the essential details in a sea of data.

You asked about 1926 deliveries. I'm not sure if these ones add anything, but here are the details for two cameras which I own from 1926, one of them is quite close in serial number to one of the 'Wolff cameras' whose details I gave you. I don't want to go into whether that one relates to the Paul Wolff, as you have already covered that at length.

Modell: Leica I Model A

Seriennummer: 1661

Ausgeliefert am: 03.07.1926

Ausgeliefert an: Foto Magasinet in Kopenhagen

 

Modell:  Leica I Model A

Seriennummer: 1783

Ausgeliefert am: 06.08.1926

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

Both of those cameras are the Variant 1 of the I Model A as described by von Einem, with no 7 metre mark on the distance scale and various features on the front of the Elmar lens,  some of which which are also in common with the Elmax and Anastigmat. 

I believe I also have a 1927 camera, which had received some 'upgrades'. I have not yet checked on that one with the archive, but I might do so when I am in Wetzlar again in October. I will also ask to see that entry for 1783 relating to Oskar Barnack. I suspect this just means that the camera went back to Barnack's department.

William 

 

William: I don't want to go into whether that one relates to the Paul Wolff, as you have already covered that at length.

William, this part of my manuscript was written on your behalf!
In a previous PCCGB-research meeting I discussed the possibility that Dr Paul Wolff had used a Null-Serie Leica in 1923-1924.
I based myself on several pre-war sources that point in this direction.
 

You kept countering that this is impossible in view of common knowledge:

• Dr Paul Wolff won his first Leica in 1926
• Dr Paul Wollf is mentioned twice in the 1926 delivery register 'Kamera'

So I studied the pre-war and post-war sources again so as to make a comparison.
One can say I dived in to a sea of data so as to distract from it the essential conclusion. 

In my opinion the post-war sources are based on very thin ice.

• Dr Paul Wolff did not win a Leica in 1926
• Dr Wolff, Frankfurt a/M  is not mentioned in the 1926 delivery register 'Kamera'  
• Dr Paul Wolff invented a legend in 1937, had to correct himself in 1938, and repeated his legend in 1949 again.

So what is your opinion now?

Misunderstandings about this legend have already had a high cost in Leica literature!
A few years ago I had a discussion with the late Knut Kühn-Leitz on his seminal work on Ernst Leitz II.

Knut Kühn Leitz (2014): Ernst Leitz II und die Leica revolutionierte die Fotografie 

In this work he claims that suitable Leica films were only produced after 1930 as other 35mm cameras came on the market.
Only after 1930 film producers would find investments for increasing the quality of 35mm film for the purpose of photography worthwhile.

I observed that in pre-war literature there are many examples of suitable Leica films before 1930.
Then he gave me the German version of this quote from Dr Paul Wolff:

“So the grain was there! It was the be-all and end-all of us first Leica-users. Normal cine film in the Leica, at that time still weakly orthochromatic and not free from halation - it was a cross! Yes, postcard size pictures were just possible, not really inspiring, but one already walked around with the idea that one day it might be different.”

• He added the common knowledge that Dr Paul Wolff obtained his first Leica in 1926.
• That Dr Paul Wolff only started to take Leica photography seriously in 1927.
• That the must therefore apply to the situation after 1926/1927.
• And that my analysis must therefore be wrong!

This shows how serious Leica researchers have drawn wrong conclusions because of there reliance on received wisdom.
When received wisdom is based on thin ice this has to be discussed and rectified.
Otherwise it will be repeated time and again in future literature.

So I would really like to know whether or not I have been able to convince you.
If there is additional information that I have overlooked, please tell me so.
In photographic research I do not have fixed opinions.

Roland
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After all this work a your instigation I would like to hear your opinion!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[willeica]

1 hour ago, Roland Zwiers said:

William: I don't want to go into whether that one relates to the Paul Wolff, as you have already covered that at length.

William, this part of my manuscript was written on your behalf!
In a previous PCCGB-research meeting I discussed the possibility that Dr Paul Wolff had used a Null-Serie Leica in 1923-1924.
I based myself on several pre-war sources that point in this direction.
 

You kept countering that this is impossible in view of common knowledge:

• Dr Paul Wolff won his first Leica in 1926
• Dr Paul Wollf is mentioned twice in the 1926 delivery register 'Kamera'

So I studied the pre-war and post-war sources again so as to make a comparison.
One can say I dived in to a sea of data so as to distract from it the essential conclusion. 

In my opinion the post-war sources are based on very thin ice.

• Dr Paul Wolff did not win a Leica in 1926
• Dr Wolff, Frankfurt a/M  is not mentioned in the 1926 delivery register 'Kamera'  
• Dr Paul Wolff invented a legend in 1937, had to correct himself in 1938, and repeated his legend in 1949 again.

So what is your opinion now?

Misunderstandings about this legend have already had a high cost in Leica literature!
A few years ago I had a discussion with the late Knut Kühn-Leitz on his seminal work on Ernst Leitz II.

Knut Kühn Leitz (2014): Ernst Leitz II und die Leica revolutionierte die Fotografie 

In this work he claims that suitable Leica films were only produced after 1930 as other 35mm cameras came on the market.
Only after 1930 film producers would find investments for increasing the quality of 35mm film for the purpose of photography worthwhile.

I observed that in pre-war literature there are many examples of suitable Leica films before 1930.
Then he gave me the German version of this quote from Dr Paul Wolff:

“So the grain was there! It was the be-all and end-all of us first Leica-users. Normal cine film in the Leica, at that time still weakly orthochromatic and not free from halation - it was a cross! Yes, postcard size pictures were just possible, not really inspiring, but one already walked around with the idea that one day it might be different.”

• He added the common knowledge that Dr Paul Wolff obtained his first Leica in 1926.
• That Dr Paul Wolff only started to take Leica photography seriously in 1927.
• That the must therefore apply to the situation after 1926/1927.
• And that my analysis must therefore be wrong!

This shows how serious Leica researchers have drawn wrong conclusions because of there reliance on received wisdom.
When received wisdom is based on thin ice this has to be discussed and rectified.
Otherwise it will be repeated time and again in future literature.

So I would really like to know whether or not I have been able to convince you.
If there is additional information that I have overlooked, please tell me so.
In photographic research I do not have fixed opinions.

Roland
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After all this work a your instigation I would like to hear your opinion!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Myth and legend are commonplace in all fields and Wolff may have added to this himself. I was given the serial numbers of two cameras by a third party and it seems that they did go to a person or persons called Wolff in 1926. I then gave you the information about these cameras. It is up to you how you interpret that information. I don't have a view on whether either of those entries were the Paul Wolff. I have 3 friends, including yourself, who are very interested in Wolff, one in the US and another one in the Netherlands, besides yourself. I would bow to the collective expertise of all of you about Wolff.

I have seen many entries in Leitz/Leica delivery books and very few of them contain the names of individuals. They are more common in the early days, but as the dealership network grew the names are almost all dealers. You may be interested in this page from June 1925 which I photographed on behalf of a British friend who owns one of the cameras listed.

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 must add here that it is impossible at the moment to do in-depth research at the Leica Archives, because they have absolutely no staff. When you request details of a particular serial number they use a 'look up' system to search already scanned details and don't go further than that. When I go to Wetzlar I go in with very specific details which they will give or show to me, as I usually know exactly what I am looking for. I am in Wetzlar next October, but we already over 150 people registered for the LSI Conference and scheduling visits to the archive for all of them will not be an easy task, not least for the Leitz Park employees.

William 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Roland Zwiers]

William,
I fully agree that myth and legend are commonplace in Leica lterature, both pre-war and post-war.
So we have to dive in a sea of confusing data so as to sort out the mess.
But after this has been done it is important to agree on a conclusion; otherwise the legends will persist as 'common knowledge'. 

• Your opinion in these matters carries weight!
• What is your judgement after having been presented the available evidence?
• What information is missing for you to make up your mind?

Page 31 of the delivery book 'Kamera' is new to me.
Thank you!
For my research it is important to know what happened to the cameras that are mentioned in the Leitz engravings list for 1924, 1925 and 1926.

This applies to the Nrs. 126-2066.
And especially to the Nrs. 126-637, that is the first batch of 512 cameras that was engraved in November-December 1924.

Capi Nijmegen (Nr. 553 and 558) is the Dutch importer. 
Capi is mentioned as such in the first Dutch Leica reviews of April 1925.
Very interesting that these two cameras initially had the same order number: 375.

On the other hand, Nrs. 553 and 558 have been delivered in June 1925.
The Dutch reviews are from April 1925 and already refer to Capi.
That implies that the Dutch importer must have ordered Leicas before April 1925,
possibly during the March 1925 fair in Leipzig.

 

Roland  

 

 

 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

On 6/25/2023 at 9:44 PM, Roland Zwiers said:

Hello Alan,

I was also thinking in this direction.
But so far this approach is inconclusive.

In the second issue of Die Leica of July-August 1931 is a contribution by C.E. Neumann.
In the third issue of September-October 1931 are contributions by Dr. H. Naumann and C.E. Neumann.

If I have to chose between these two, then the Dr. title may offer a clue again.
Oskar Barnack would certainly have writted Dr. Naumann instead of Naumann.
That would point at C.E. Neumann.

But Neumann is a very common surname in Germany (18th place!) 
Naumann is much less frequent (position 193).

 

Roland

 

I checked German photo magazines from the period 1922-1925 again.
Helmut Naumann is an author with several contributions on micro-photography, e.g. of crystals.
It is possible that this Helmut Naumann acquired his Dr. title in a later year.
That could explain why Oskar Barnack did't write Dr. Naumann

In this period I also find authors like A. Neumann and G. Neumann.
That may be less of a surprise as 'Neumann' is a very common name in Germany.

Interesting in this respect is that a May 1925 review of the Leica was signed by 'N-n'.
This could stand for 'Naumann' or 'Neumann'.
Could this be the same photographer that appears in Oskar Barnack's worknotes of 1923?

Roland