Hello all, A friend of mine has this camera. Can anyone tell me which Leica this is and what the approximate value would be?


-- Eric Kragtwijk (e.kragtwijk@hccnet.nl), May 20, 2002

Answers

Eric. The vulcanite is missing, and from your picture, I can't even tell if it's a Leica or a Russian copy. If it's indeed a Leica with vulcanite stripped, it looks like a Standard to me. You need to post more and better photos.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 20, 2002.

Eliot,

This is the only picture I have. The serial is 1477xx. He claims it is a Leica...

-- Eric Kragtwijk (e.kragtwijk@hccnet.nl), May 20, 2002.

This looks an awful lot like my model 'A' with 50/3.5 collapsible Elmar.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), May 20, 2002.

not an A -- no hockey stick. i think it is a C rather than a standard due to the serial number. the chief cosmetic difference between the C and the standard is the diameter of the rewind knob. eliot will tell you more. i think this is a '34 C.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 20, 2002.

According to the Leica serial # listings in McKeown's guide 1477** should be a Leica standard, chrome, made in 1934. It's hard to tell from the photograph but rather than the vulcanite being missing, it looks like the camera has been covered with some other material. It also seems to be a black camera with brass knobs and lens. From those two observations I would strongly suspect a Russian-made imposter. It's very hard to tell without clearer, more detailed photos.

Dale G

-- Dale Griffith (dgrif55@aol.com), May 20, 2002.

a nice thing to do with these cameras is mount a voigt 12/15/21/25 (U pik) and an aqccessory VF and use it as a very pocketable scale focus camera. the only thing is that for the black lastic voigt finder to fit, you have to remove the original finder. it simply screws in, so you can take it on and off with doing any permanent damage. just make sure you cover the screw holes with two layers of electrical tape -- they go all the way through (i.e. you can see daylite if you look up thru the bottom). i used a C modified this way for about a year with the 25 and got a very large number of portfolio shots. indeed, the 35mm image of which i've sold the most copies ever was taken with this handy little rig (i bought the camera mail order from andrews camera in the UK after it was featured in a piece in AP on barnacks).

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 20, 2002.

I agree. SN 1477xx was allocated to a 1934 batch of the Leica Standard in chrome. This camera rather looks like a Russian copy to me. Eric, your dealer should know better.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 20, 2002.

OK, let's assume it's a Russian copy. We know that the body covering is replaced, but that could be done with a Leica too. What should one look for to separate a really good copy from the real McCoy?

-- Skip Williams (skipwilliams@pobox.com), May 20, 2002.

Skip, you would have to examine quality of construction and the engravings (which are not particularly well done on Russian copies), which we can't do based on the one photo present. But the fact this serial number should be a chrome camera is a clue to its not being original. Leica could have converted the camera from chrome to black paint, but that's not my best guess.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 20, 2002.

Thank you all for the responses!
I have to agree with the opinion of most of us that this is most likely a Russian copy. My friend will be disappointed...anyway, IŽll tell him to have it checked by the Leica importer to make sure.

-- Eric Kragtwijk (e.kragtwijk@hccnet.nl), May 21, 2002.

Did I not see this camera listed on Ebay recently???

-- David Seaman (Lincolnshire,England) (david@leicam.freeserve.co.uk), May 21, 2002.

David, yep, that's the one!

-- Eric Kragtwijk (e.kragtwijk@hccnet.nl), May 21, 2002.

the fact that it is black, while allocated a chrome serial number is no biggie. there were many many factory conversions. by the way, the number is for a IC (big C), not a standard.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 21, 2002.

I have several references including Rogliatti and Laney that say SN 1477xxx this is for a chrome Standard (I believe that is IE) made in 1934. Why do you say otherwise?

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 21, 2002.