Lack of serial number on LTM Elmar

[zeitoun]

I am considering purchasing a 1939 Leica I (as evidenced from its serial number) with a 5cm, f:3.5 Elmar lens. To my surprise, the vendor told me he could not find any serial number on the lens. This puzzled me as I thought all Leica lenses were numbered. Does anybody know what that may mean? Is there any chance this may not be a "real" Leica lens (it does look genuine on the pictures, and the vendor seems reputable).
Also, and somewhat unrelated, has anybody any experience using a Leica I? I do intend to use it. I have no problems guessestimating distance as I have been using a Rollei 35s for a long time (and actually quite enjoying it).
Thanks in advance for any hints or information on this topic.

Paul

[L39UK]

Hello Paul,
1939 is too late for the date of a Leica 1, they were produced 1925 to 1931.
Are you sure it is a Leica 1? What is its serial number?.
William

[zeitoun]

William,
The serial number is 313514. Acoording to the Cameraquest list, it is a Leica I that indeed dates to 1939 (a batch of 300 were made). However, the real puzzle I have is the lack of serial number on the lens. Any thoughts about that?
Thanks
Paul

[timrobson]

It would have to be a Leica Standard, which is, for all intents and purposes, a Leica I (some of the serial number lists I've seen refer to the Standards as Leica Is). The vendor may be missing the serial number. It's a tiny engraving on the small black rim surrounding the front element. If it doesn't have an engraving, then the lens may be older than the camera - the really early Elmars didn't have serial numbers (although serial numbers were sometimes scratched onto a hidden part of the mount at the factory).

[rgripp]

I believe that the early Elmars (prior to 1933) had no serial numbers - I have two with no serial numbers, and am convinced that they are genuine.
Robin.

[timrobson]

Another possible indicator of the age of the lens is its plating. If it's nickel, rather than chrome, plated, that increases the likelihood that it's an older lens. I believe (although I'm not certain) that Leitz had pretty well completed the move to chrome plating by 1939, even on accessories and components intended for black cameras.

You shouldn't have too much difficulty moving from a Rollei 35 to a Leica Standard, although there's no meter, and scale focusing is more difficult with the 50mm Elmar than it is with the 40mm lens on the Rollei due to its more limited depth of field. You can always buy a FOKOS or HFOOK rangefinder if it becomes a problem, however.

[Nikon Bob]

It also is my understanding that early Elmars had no serial numbers and if there is one it would be where poster #4 said it would be. I have a nickel Elmar with no serial number and it works just fine.

Bob

[zeitoun]

Tim or Bob,

How does one distinguish nickel from chrome plating?

Paul

[L39UK]

Paul,
Your camera serial no. 313514 is a Leica 111 (313501 - 313600) 1939.It should have a coupled rangefinder, speeds 1 second to 1/500 with a another slow speed dial on the front of the body to set the slow speeds of 1 second to 1/20 plus T.
The lens could be an early 5cm Elmar some of which were un-numbered when interchangeable lenses were first introduced circa 1931.
With regard to the Cameraquest listing,if you recheck the listing you will find that serial no's 313501 to 313600 are listed as Leica 111.This is your camera batch.
You have looked at serial no's 313401 - 313500 which are listed as Leica 1,but this is an incorrect listing as they are Leica Standards ( Leitz official listings).
Leica 1's were models A,B,and C.
Leica Standards are model E.
William

[zeitoun]

L39UK

OOPS, my apologies. I made a typo when I typed the serial number which really is 312514. Yes, I believe it must be a leica Standard. It is definitely a model without rangefinder. I believe the Cameraquest list does not distinguish the Leica I from the Leica Standard.

Paul

[timrobson]

It's hard to describe. Nickel plating has a "warmer" look to it than chrome plating. It's easiest to tell if, for example, you have a nickel plated lens mounted on a chrome camera as it will tend to stand out from the chrome, which has a "cool" look. Nickel plating has a very slightly yellowish tone.

[zeitoun]

tim,

The lens on the camera I am looking at does have a yellowish tint on the pictures. Coupled to the lack of serial number, it seems you are right, that the lens is older than the body, somebody previously mentioned 1933 as the time Leica switched from nickel to chrome. Any functional relevance of this?
Paul

[timrobson]

For a good illustration of the difference, take a look at eBay Item #170153396187. The lens is chrome plated, whereas the knobs and dials on the camera body are nickel plated.

[zeitoun]

Thanks Tim. The pictures do show the differences quite well. I am quite sure now that the lens I am considering is nickel plated, while the rest of the body is chrome plated.

Paul

[timrobson]

All things being equal, none whatsoever. You would notice a significant difference between coated and non-coated lenses, however Leitz didn't coat its lenses until after the war (although some earlier lenses were sent back for coating or coated by others). Non-coated lenses tend to flare more easily than coated ones, and the lack of coating also contributes to a softness in the glass, so they're easily scratched and often bear cleaning marks. Generally speaking, therefore, they tend to be less contrasty than coated lenses. The lens coating makes a post war Elmar a better choice for a shooter.

[timrobson]

One other point worth mentioning is that there is a bit of a collectibility premium attached to the Standard (although this is greater for the black Standards). This is to your benefit when you sell (or if you're getting a good deal), but less so when you're buying. Still, a chrome Standard is probably still the cheapest Leica I you're likely to find.

[zeitoun]

Thank you all for your prompt replies and all the info you provided. I got the answers I was looking for, I think!
This was my first post ever, and it turned out to be quite a pleasurable experience.
Thanks again to all. I now have to make up my mind!
Paul