View Full Version : OT: Rolliflex price?
I have a friend who is getting ready to put some things up on ebay and I'm pondering making an offer on his Rolli. I am not familier enough with them to know the exact model, but it's a late 50's/early 60's model, 2.8 Tessar, Syncro-Compur, no meter, in excellent shape except for one rivit/button near the top on the winder side has corroded much like what a zeiss bump looks like under the leather. I'm in no way an expert on Rollies though I have used a Yashicamat 124G so I'm familier with the basics.
Anyone here want to give me any advice on how to figure out the appropriate price. I've looked at Ebay, but that left me scratching my head even harder.
When I bought my Yashica 635, I found a ton of Rollei TLR sites. Toss it into google and a ton of 'em will fall on you. I think a really nice one is anywhere from $80-$250
If you have the serial number, you can google a lot of sites that let you date/model the camera in question. Once you know the model (for instance 3.5F), you can go to www.keh.com and plug it into the selling to KEH program and they will give you a price for what KEH is willing to pay you for it. Then adjust upwards by about 25% and you'll pretty much be at market.
First I'd get the serial number off the camera and then go here to identify the model : http://home.worldonline.dk/rongsted/Rolleisn.htm
Then I would go to ebay and look at the completed auctions of that model, consider the condition and find the average price and make an offer. The Tessar lensed Rollei's are very sharp and bargain priced compared to the Planar and Xenar models.
I've been shooting alot lately with my Rollei's, check out my photoblog for some pics if you want, great cameras!
nice photoblog, Todd :-)
I'll ask him about the serial when he gets it back from testing at the local camera repair shop (shutter speeds, etc) and follow up then. Thanks all!
A 2.8, even a Tessar, draws more tha $250 IMO, if its in good shape. Its worth doing some web-related searches so you can make an eduacted offer. Many of the ones going in the $250+ range are 3.5 Tessars, great cameras as they are.
FWIW just yesterday a fairly nice cond 2.8 Xenar sold for $1000 on the auction site. Having said all of that, last week a gorgeous Rollieflx 2.8 GX sold for a meager $1550. That is the one on my want list. Maybe in a month or so after I sell one of H'bld I might snag one just for the fun of it. Good luck.
The 2.8 Tessar was considered to be a poor lens for this camera because many thought it was taking the Tessar design too far. Of course, the same lens is used on the Super Ikonta 532/16. and no one complains about that.
Anyway, this model is thought to be inferior to the others when shot wide open. I don't know if that makes it more expensive as a collector's item or less expensive because it's considered to be inferior.
And that eBay sale would have been a 2.8 Xenotar (a different lens from the Xenar).
I guess something around $225 -$275 would be fair. Probably not much more than that.
Mike, I only saw some good digital pics of it so far as it was already off to the repair shop for testing. But in reading on the net, it may well be a 3.5 taking lens as I think I was looking at the f2.8 on the viewing lens. Still, your information is very helpful. I'll bug him some more on Monday.
He's also got a glorious 210mm Zeiss Tessar in an old Compound shutter that I'm pondering... :bang: But I'll bet it'd be pretty on the Speed Graphic... :angel:
If it's a 3.5 Tessar, then I'd probably max out somewhere around $225. It will be a coated lens, because it uses the Synchro Compur.
Even if it's a Xenar model, the price would be the same -- maybe $10 less, although performance is identical enough that you wouldn't notice the difference.
That 210mm Tessar sounds interesting. Not interesting enough for me to buy, but interesting nonetheless.
It's probably an Automat MX. If so, it's not worth more than $250.
Post the serial number and I'll look it up in Arthur Evans's book.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.