Dr. No Posted January 19, 2008 Share #41 Posted January 19, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) ..olaf!..you are to late... better to late, than never (Interesting TV-Program ) OLAF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 19, 2008 Posted January 19, 2008 Hi Dr. No, Take a look here Leica I with Hektor - Super clean or fake/repaint?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
luigi bertolotti Posted January 20, 2008 Share #42 Posted January 20, 2008 OK, seems to me that the issue of this splendid item has been deeply and correctly scrutinized... some uncertainess about the lens, but given that telewatt specifies that even lens barrels could be "revamped", this may explain its oddities (no s/n, standard lens mount, expanded scale). So I think Gunnar can be satisfied: as all the cameras that had servicing/conversions at the factory (and I think this is sure), it must be considered anyway an ORIGINAL, albeit not "in original conditions" ... let'say "bastard, but recognized by his royal family" . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted January 20, 2008 Share #43 Posted January 20, 2008 no, you could not have seen older Cameras with upgrade to IIIf ....it was only posible to upgrade to a IIIa syn... regards, Jan What I was trying to say that Leica's upgrade program ran in to at least the late 1950's. As you said the oldest models can't be upgraded beyond a certain point, because of the different size body shells (starting with the IIIc). But it is possible that a very early camera was upgraded maybe 20 years or more after it was made and therefore could contain more modern parts like the shutter speed dial and lens mount on this camera etc. If it was a late conversion they may have simply run out of vintage spares and used newer ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2008 Share #44 Posted January 20, 2008 All Standard and I could be upgradet to II, III, IIIa and II syn, III syn and IIIa syn, also all II to IIIa etc., not of course to IIIb or IIIf etc. And this upgrades were possible also at about 1950 and later, as you can see above in this thread at #34. str. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aauckland Posted January 20, 2008 Share #45 Posted January 20, 2008 It has probably all been said, ....and so expertly. But, simply stated; we have a 1931 Leica 1, converted to a Standard E, in the early 1950's, (post 1951 due to the use of Nr. symbol.) ...perhaps we would prefer to see a little window, (focus check), at the rear, but all other anomalies are explainable. As most people have already stated; is a beautiful camera, in "as new" condition, ...it looks unused, since it's conversion, (perhaps and added verification of this point could be made by inspecting the "take-up-spool", .....unused spools tend to be unreceptive to a film leader.) Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
echorec Posted January 20, 2008 Author Share #46 Posted January 20, 2008 Thanks everyone for sharing your expertise so generously! Very much appreciated! Let me know if you want me to check any more details or if you want close-up pictures of anything on the camera. Best regards, Gunnar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. No Posted January 20, 2008 Share #47 Posted January 20, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) yes, picture of the back of the camera. I meant to see on the otherones, that there is no aperture/windod? thanks, NO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
echorec Posted January 20, 2008 Author Share #48 Posted January 20, 2008 Here you go Olaf: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/43047-leica-i-with-hektor-super-clean-or-fakerepaint/?do=findComment&comment=457304'>More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 20, 2008 Share #49 Posted January 20, 2008 This is really a beauty!!.. ... regards, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2008 Share #50 Posted January 21, 2008 The camera got a new cover with vulkanite. Therefore you cannot see the window for focus check. str. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. No Posted January 21, 2008 Share #51 Posted January 21, 2008 The camera got a new cover with vulkanite. Therefore you cannot seethe window for focus check. str. two posibilities: 1. as str. stated 2. there were also rebiults by using a complete new body, PS thanks for the picture. NO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aauckland Posted January 21, 2008 Share #52 Posted January 21, 2008 I believe St|efan's explaination to be the most likely Olaf, since most post 1950 "body" replacement conversions, of this type, would likely utilize a IIIa body, and therefore require a blanking plate over the slow speed hole. A simple way of checking this point, would be if Gunnar, would remove the Hektor lens, and view the rear film plate, at the appropriatte shutter setting, ( .....looking for a blanked off hole.) Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
echorec Posted January 21, 2008 Author Share #53 Posted January 21, 2008 Alan, I don´t see that hole or screw, the film plate looks newer too. I have a Leica II to compare with so I know what to look for. Thanks, Gunnar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aauckland Posted January 22, 2008 Share #54 Posted January 22, 2008 Thank you Gunner, The mystery deepens, .....is it impossible, (or just unlikely), that a Leica Standard 1 ©, with the early # 62986, would have been produced originally without the viewing window?. (.This was a Standardised C, (since it is post #55404 manufacture), so it wouldn't need the window. .......although, since the lens flange does not have its customery O engraving, ......it could re-enforce the new body argument. Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. No Posted January 22, 2008 Share #55 Posted January 22, 2008 two posibilities:1. as str. stated 2. there were also rebiults by using a complete new body, PS thanks for the picture. NO LOOKS LIKE VERSION 2 :D OLAF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 22, 2008 Share #56 Posted January 22, 2008 It came to my mind that Laney, and Van Hasbroek too, maybe, wrote clearly that in the first years after WWII, a time in which any industrial raw material was scarce in Germany, Leitz assembled many cameras making use of spare parts available in their warehouse : this too can explain the oddities we observe in this item, and is another sign that the factory retrofitting with the 2nd s/n could indeed be dated to end of '40s... if so, the condition of the painting is anyway astonishingly good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baerbel_Kraus Posted January 22, 2008 Share #57 Posted January 22, 2008 Originally, all black painted Leica had engravings that were filled with a metal alloy rather than white paint. Therefore it is save to state that this camera is NOT in original condition. But nevertheless this is a true beauty! Regards, Alex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timrobson Posted January 24, 2008 Share #58 Posted January 24, 2008 The alloy Leitz used for the engravings was Wood's metal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted January 24, 2008 Share #59 Posted January 24, 2008 The alloy Leitz used for the engravings was Wood's metal. Can you tell more about it please ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.