THIS Fake is Better Than Most!

[doubs43]

But it's still a fake. See if you can pick out the tell-tail differences that expose it for the Russian clone that it is.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Restored-Leitz-Leica-Camera-3F-w-50mm-3-5-Elmar-lens_W0QQitemZ7613425326QQcategoryZ30030QQrdZ1QQcm dZViewItem

Walker

[Skinny McGee]

Zorki 1................

[erikhaugsby]

Wow, look at the coating colors on that lens! Like nothing I've ever seen before..
And why does it have such a low serial number? #18223 should be on a Leica I, no?
The Rewind Lever is flush with the bottom level of the top casing when it should be on the level with the Fast Speed dial, and also is marked "B," not "R."

[VictorM.]

The first thing I notice is the shutter release-it accepts a standard cable. The second thing is, it's UGLY.

[wlewisiii]

First things I saw were the lack of slow speeds and the little lever under the rewind knob. Then the sn jumped out at me too.

William

[jano]

The first thing I notice is the shutter release-it accepts a standard cable. The second thing is, it's UGLY.

Dunno.. I kinda like it :D Reminds me of something a more "avante garde" arteeee-st might carry around while sipping a decaffeinated espresso with non-dairy creamer and a packet of sweet-n-lo.

[Fedzilla_Bob]

The ugly late 60's shelf paper along with the soup dish shutter release is a good tip off.

[JimG]

What's scary is seller this seller has sold (10100) items with a feedback of 99.9% Positive. So much for using this criteria for safe buying.

[Buze]

There are lots of signs anyway. Thing is, it's based on the best Zorki 1 (the 1d, IMO) so it's a waste of a good camera!
You just need to have a zorki and a leica LTM side by side once to see thru these fakes easily, they are in fact /very/ different. Just the shape of the body, the view/rangefinder windows etc are a dead givaway.

[kmack]

Strip off that ugly leather and replace it with something a little more sedate and I may pay up to $50 for it.

[tedwhite]

I wonder if the seller is, somehow (there are miracles - or so I've been told) unaware that he's selling a fake and therefore tossing his reputation in the tank?

Maybe someone ought to email him and tell him what he's in for when the naive buyer finds out he's been reamed royally.

[bmattock]

I would suspect that the company doing the auction, "Clutter-to-Cash" is in fact unaware that the camera is a fake. These companies are like consignment shops - a person drops off their stuff along with a description and a minimum bid amount (if any) and the operator takes it from there; by which I mean that they take photos, create the listing, receive payment when the item sells, and box and ship the item to the buyer. For this, they take a fee. From the seller's viewpoint, this is nice in that they just drop off stuff they don't want anymore, and they get an eventual check from "Clutter-to-Cash." There are many such companies - including a nationwide chain called "ISOLDIT."

The problems you've all noted - the feedback you're seeing is for "Clutter-to-Cash," which has done a lot of auctions - they would, being a electronic consignment shop. But they do not actually own the merchandise, nor do they necessarily know any more about it than my next door neighbor would know about my lawnmower if I asked him to sell it for me at his garage sale.

So I seriously doubt that they know it is a 'fake'. They only know what the seller told them.

Generally, a company like this will quickly reverse a sale and accept a return if the item turns out to be fake, damaged, or misrepresented in any way - they don't want a beef with eBoy, that's their bread and butter, so they'll do what it takes to keep customers happy. However, in the case of low-dollar items, shipping is the bugaboo - the buyer does not get shipping refunded (generally) and that is often a good reason not to return a low-cost item.

So I would not say that this seller 'knows' that this is fake. I would not necessarily blame them for not knowing it was fake - they can't be experts in everything, any more than a pawnshop or second-hand store would know that a purse was a Prada ripoff or a camera was a Leica clone.

The owner of the camera most likely knows it is fake, but it is hard to be certain - could have been someone else who was taken in and has never been hipped to the fact that it is a Zorki. And don't be so sure that 'anyone' would instantly know it was not a Leica. Cornpone Jones, first time in the big city, buys a "Leica" on Canal street and returns home with it, where he puts it on a shelf and someday his kid sells it on eBay - happens all the time.

Sadly, there may be no blame here - and one must always Caveat Emptor - and be wary and do our own homework, as Walker has done for us here.

Thanks, Walker! Frankly, I would not have known, but tend to suspect all Leica LTM bodies and Contax II, III bodies. So far, I don't think there are Leica M or Contax IIa, IIIa fakes, though, are there?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[reagan]

Geez, I just got kinda queezy staring at that cover. Now my eyes won't focus so I can type. Maybe my retinas got burned from the matte-finish chrome. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/images/icons/icon6.gif Thank God it doesn't say "Zorki" on it anywhere. It's rather embarrassing to the Comrades being seen in public like that. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/images/icons/icon11.gif

[doubs43]

Thanks, Walker! Frankly, I would not have known, but tend to suspect all Leica LTM bodies and Contax II, III bodies. So far, I don't think there are Leica M or Contax IIa, IIIa fakes, though, are there? Best Regards, Bill Mattocks

Bill, I called attention to this particular auction because on first look it appears to be genuine! Only on close examination did the differences begin to show themselves. It really is very well done as these things go and thankfully the seller gave us excellent pictures that show the details. It would have been more difficult if they had used an original black-style covering. Unlike the last one I took a good look at, they even placed the serial number in the correct position and had they used one more numeral it would have been more authentic-looking. It's interesting that the "Elmar" lens even has the slide for aperture adjustment as opposed to the FSU standard knurled ring surrounding the glass. Someone went to great lengths to make it as original as the Zorki allowed them.

It's late and my wife just got home from work but tomorrow I'll email the sellers and explain why it's not a genuine Leica. Hopefully they'll correct their ad.

Walker

[darkkavenger]

Pretty nice Industar-22. :)

[ZorkiKat]

It's interesting that the "Elmar" lens even has the slide for aperture adjustment as opposed to the FSU standard knurled ring surrounding the glass. Someone went to great lengths to make it as original as the Zorki allowed them.

Walker

Walker

The faker did not have to modify the lens to give it a sliding lever instead of ring for the aperture adjustment. FED 50mm lenses (Industar-10) had this Elmar- style aperture adjusting lever all the time. Only the I-22 and I-50 used the ring type adjuster. See pics below.

Some of the uncoated FED 50mm even had the old style 3,5-4,5-6,3... aperture scale.

:)

Jay

[lushd]

I just sent in a question to the seller to ask if the Leica bit is certain. Let's see what the answer is.

[doubs43]

Walker The faker did not have to modify the lens to give it a sliding lever instead of ring for the aperture adjustment. FED 50mm lenses (Industar-10) had this Elmar- style aperture adjusting lever all the time. Only the I-22 and I-50 used the ring type adjuster. See pics below. Some of the uncoated FED 50mm even had the old style 3,5-4,5-6,3... aperture scale. :) Jay

Jay, thank you. I wasn't aware of the I-10 although it's easily different enough to be told apart from the Elmar. The engraving of the fake lens is rather crude which shows it to be other than Leitz manufacture.

Walker

[nrb]

Once I bought one such fake. Very difficult to load film. Pictures coming out of there are worse than expected. Strangely there is a yesteryear glow in them.

[reagan]

Strangely there is a yesteryear glow in them.I have one I.22 that at times produces shots you might describe like that. I rather enjoy the lens and have made no effort to thoroughly clean or find out why the unique look.

[egpj]

What about the screws around the base of the top-plateconnecting it to the body. That is the first thing that jumped out at me. I know that IIf does not have those.

[doubs43]

What about the screws around the base of the top-plateconnecting it to the body. That is the first thing that jumped out at me. I know that IIf does not have those.

Glenn, the Russian copy here is based on the Leica Model II which doesn't have the die-cast body of the IIF. The interesting thing about the Leica II is that in spite of not having slow shutter speeds, the top dial will still have "1-20" on it. Many Model II Leicas were later converted to the Model III.

Walker

[ZorkiKat]

Once I bought one such fake. Very difficult to load film. Pictures coming out of there are worse than expected. Strangely there is a yesteryear glow in them.

This could be expected of such fakes. They are mostly made from cosmetically (and even mechanically) bad cameras which wouldn't otherwise sell 'as is'. Its possible that one fake could have been made from several cameras. As such the parts won't fit right, and the working registers would be off. The spaces and channels would be off as well, making film loading difficult, among other things.

The flange to focal distance is very critical. It takes just a bit of a fraction of a milimeter to make correct focus impossible. Often, the shimming found under the lens mount is not replaced in these fakes. The RF, which should be adjusted for each camera individually, is often just there, without proper calibration.

If a camera has been assembled from several donor parts, the adjustmenst would be off. It is possible to recalibrate the camera so that it could shoot right.

I've three of these fakes. All are cosmetically good, though I had to repaint a 'gold' Leica black because its brass (stripped off its chrome) tarnished in tropical climate. One is an excellent black "Leica" but has an obviously (to Zorki fans at least) Zorki body. The third, though by all means excellent cannot shoot because it was given non-opaque red shutters.

Jay

[ZorkiKat]

Jay, thank you. I wasn't aware of the I-10 although it's easily different enough to be told apart from the Elmar. The engraving of the fake lens is rather crude which shows it to be other than Leitz manufacture.

Walker

Walker

The I-10 also looks shorter than the real Elmar. The front fascia has a shorter diameter as well. A coated I-10 from later FED are quite nice to use, even for colour photography. And amongst the Industar collapsibles, it would be the collapsible I-10 made for FED-2 which would fit correctly on the M Leicas. :)

[lushd]

Here's the answer I got from the seller:
"You are probably right; we have been contacted by others, but our customer was told it was genuine when he bought it. It is too late to cancel the auction. We wil notify the winning bidder."

[doubs43]

Here's the answer I got from the seller:
"You are probably right; we have been contacted by others, but our customer was told it was genuine when he bought it. It is too late to cancel the auction. We wil notify the winning bidder."

It sounds as if the winner will be given the option of not accepting the camera if they thought they had bid on a genuine Leica. That's about as much as the seller can do but at least they're willing to do the right thing. Good for them.

Walker