Leica IIIc or IIc?

[estenopo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hola, miembros del foro. ¿Alguna opinión sobre esta misteriosa cámara que compré hace poco? Escribí a Leica y la respuesta no me convence. La enviaron el 19/12/1958, pero el número y las especificaciones no coinciden con las de una Leica IIc; solo tiene una placa extraña en las velocidades lentas. ¿Podría ser una modificación? Tiene una pegatina de OLDEN NY en el interior. Gracias a todos por su colaboración.

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]

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

[PG Black nickel]

Es mayormente negro y eso no es normal... a menos que haya sido repintado.

It's mostly black and that's not normal... unless it's been repainted.

[PG Black nickel]

And with a nice sharkskin...funny III C

[PG Black nickel]

I said something stupid, IIICs also come in black, but the absence of slow speeds is rare!

[PG Black nickel]

On the database it's a IIIC, manufactured in 1958? It seems to me that the IIIC had long since been discontinued in 1958, unless it was a special production model? It is indeed strange!

[sandro]

 

In the list of serial numbers I have in Laney, it is a IIIC, manufactured in 1949-50.

Lex

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

According to Erwin Puts the IIc was made 1948-51 with the usual round blocking plate over the slow speed opening, with serials up to 451000. However, he shows the Ic in the same years with serials up to 562800, so this camera could be in this period as a IIc since Leitz serials sometimes skip around. I have seen pictures of a flat-top blocking plate like the one on this camera. My Ic is 560185 with the usual round blocking plate, but with the usual chrome finish. From the edge wear this camera was never chrome.

[nitroplait]

It is a IIIc where the slow speed complication has been removed.

The giveaway is the number of screws on the accessory shoe. There should only be two (rounded) screws if it was born a IIc. The serial number also indicates it is a IIIc.

 

7 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

From the edge wear this camera was never chrome.

Looks like a later chrome-stripped repaint job to my eyes. That is the usual way to do a repaint.

Many IIIc's of this serial range had very poor peeling chrome jobs and an owner may have found the deteriorated finish worth the trouble of a repaint.

The edge wear also looks manufactured - not something that has come naturally from 75 years of use.

Finally, I don't think Leica ever painted the ring around the shutter release on the IIIc on the painted versions.

 

Edited August 29 by nitroplait

[250swb]

27 minutes ago, nitroplait said:

 

Finally, I don't think Leica ever painted the ring around the shutter release on the IIIc on the painted versions.

 

And it looks like somebody forgot to relic the shutter ring. I agree the wear doesn't look natural although I think somebody has studied how the wear forms on a BP camera. But opening the images in Photoshop and brightening them there may be what looks like a sandpaper mark on the back of the top plate and also a smudge of white infill paint underneath the dioptre lever.