Elmar with scale in inches

[Giuliobigazzi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have recently purchased this strange Elmar with an extended scale in inches. 
Nobody had ever seen one I assumed it was a special request. However, another example has surfaced that is exactly the same in every way. Blue coating and all. 
Because if this, i now think this must have either been a very small production run, or test pieces from the factory found and used up by the Americans. 
Does anyone here have an Elmar like this? It would be in the 59XXXX range from 1945 early 1946. 

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!

[jankap]

Leica Wiki: see top of this window.

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!

 

[Giuliobigazzi]

Hey not sure what you mean, I’m referring to the 3’6” and 3’9” marks, usually the feet scale goes to mark 3.5. 
that’s what’s different about these lenses 

[jankap]

Focussing range 3.28 feet.

Interesting is the entry "number of lenses/groups" in comparison with the drawing.😛

[Giuliobigazzi]

That’s right, 3.28ft= 1m mimimum focussing distance.

3’6” is the same as 3.5ft

3’9” is an added mark which equates to 3.75ft

At first the Elmax had 5 elements, then became 4 in the Elmar 

[Anbaric]

Interesting. I wonder if there was some specialised close focus application where 3'9" was significant? Is the serial number of the other example close to this one?

[Giuliobigazzi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes that’s what I first thought, but on a 3.5 lens surely it’s not that critical? 
The serials are 595xxx and 597xxx so pretty close. Delivered February 1946 and October 1945 respectively 

[luigi bertolotti]

The timeframe of manufacturing, for those two items, does suggest several hipotesis... it was the complex period of postwar... Leitz, like all other German concerns, was not a firm that "made its business as usual", Germany and its factories were controlled by Allied forces, manufacturing processes were highly un-stable : raw materials scarcity, demand vague, specialized personnel hard to find...  Who knows how THOSE lenses were actually manufactured ? It would be interesting to scrutinize in deep their mounts,,, Elmars were always built in high volumes, even during war..   did they have in house batches of standard mounts factory-made ? If yes... maybe their scales were unengraved (this would be logical in normal times for a high volume component, for which the demand for feet or meters could be fluctuating: you produce for the factory magazine the unengraved mount, then "customize" the scale when it's picked for assemblying a lens) .. If yes, who engraved them ? Where ? to provide some Elmars for who ? (On those times, many orders came from US/English people, variously involved in the occupation) . I think it's impossible to give a simple certain explanation... it's not the first time that some oddity emerges on items of that timeframe... the simplest explanation is that they are "first postwar items" 🤒

Edited August 15, 2024 by luigi bertolotti

[jc_braconi]

Not sure that the guy who was in charge of engraving was not accustomed to do this job (scarcity of people after war)and was disturbed by the place of this screw
Anyway 3.6 Feet = 97.35 mm vey close to 1m

[Anbaric]

2 hours ago, jc_braconi said:

Not sure that the guy who was in charge of engraving was not accustomed to do this job (scarcity of people after war)and was disturbed by the place of this screw
Anyway 3.6 Feet = 97.35 mm vey close to 1m

That's 3'6" (3 feet 6 inches) rather than 3.6 feet. In the decimal notation that Leica normally uses with a scale in feet, the equivalent marking is 3.5 feet (about 1.07m). An Elmar with a scale in feet usually looks like this, with the 3.5 feet marking in the same place as the 3'6" marking in this unusual example, and with nothing between that and the 4 feet marking. So there are two curiosities here - why did they use inches rather than their usual decimal fraction, and why is there an additional marker at 3'9" (3 feet 9 inches = 3.75 feet, about 1.14m)? I don't think this was an accident - it looks more like it was done for some specific purpose.

[Giuliobigazzi]

There is also an extra 6.5ft mark between 6 and 7 that is not there in the regular version. 
if my sample was the only one, a special order would have been the most likely theory, but with another example delivered months earlier, it confuses things. Still very much possible though, repro purpose perhaps?

[willeica]

2 hours ago, Giuliobigazzi said:

a special order

Or a request from 'visiting' military, given the date. The feet scale is a bit of a give-away. Bill Rosauer (derleicaman) might like to comment.

William