fake Leica I Elmax 481 on evilbay

[Erik van Straten]

On e-bay, just a few minutes ago, a fake Leica I, no 481 with Elmax lens realized more than $ 3000.
For comparison I show Leica I no 404. The differences will show that no 481 is a fake.

Erik.

[john neal]

Erik,

Why fake? Yes, the spring looks like a replacement, but what else is wrong?

[Vince Lupo]

Looks pretty good to me -- I'd be interested to know about the 'fakedness' that gives it away....

[erikhaugsby]

I'd still like to shoot with No. 481 even if it isn't "authentic."

[Fuchs]

I have had Elmax Nr. 838 a few years ago (a true one), and I cannot see anything wrong with 481.
Is the seller saying it is a fake?

[Ron (Netherlands)]

First impression, it is real or a very good fake........whats the difference

[LeicaTom]

I don`t see any real difference either........BUT, then I don`t really know anything about the really early Leitz stuff, my expertise is in the "wartime" Grey painted 1942 to 1945 Leica IIIC models and there`s ton`s of things on them you can fake!!!!

Tom

[bob338]

someone has stolen the picture and posted it on craigslist...

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/ele/861398124.html

[Dralowid]

Hi Erik,

I don't quite get this, I can see that the vucanite is different but that coud be wear and one of the film advance knobs has more bevel than the other but all the screws seem right and the lens lettering is OK. Please let me into the secret

Michael

[Muggins]

Michael,

I wonder whether there's a "Don't tell the fakers how we spot 'em" mindset out there - I asked a similar question a while back about a coffee-and-cream "Contax" (which would have looked grand on a shelf next to my C3 Matchmatic!), and the thread just carried on around my query.

Not that I'm ever likely to find a Leica, bt it would be nice to know how to spot a fake that doesn't have "To Adolf, love Eva" on the top casing.

Adrian

[photomoof]

Come on guys are you pulling our legs?

The fake is not even close... it is an awful job, you don't need a list, the errors are glaring at you!!

Look closer!!

PS Michael is on the right track, kind like saying "that sure looked like my wife, but the hair color was a little different."

[John Shriver]

The hockey stick isn't the same size, the screw holes for it are in different places, and the hockey stick isn't plated.

[erikhaugsby]

The fake is not even close... it is an awful job, you don't need a list, the errors are glaring at you!!
So how does that help the rest of us that aren't so enlightened as yourself to call this an 'awful job?'

[photomoof]

So how does that help the rest of us that aren't so enlightened as yourself to call this an 'awful job?'

I know it does not, which is unfortunate I admit.

No collectors will post instructions on how to fake cameras on the web. In private, face to face, I or any collector would be glad to talk to you, this is why collectors join collecting societies to learn from each other.

By the by I am no Leica expert, a Nikon one of sorts, yes. :p

[Dralowid]

I no longer have a pre 10xxx Leica so have nothing to compare but I take the point about divulging all the little details that go to make up the bigger
picture.

Makes me wonder though, I once owned a standardised 50mm Anastigmat, not great to use but great to sell. Anyone ever seen a standardised Elmax?

By standardised I mean remounted in interchangeable Elmar type mount when the camera was converted. Lettering on the front was 'modernised' also.

Michael

[Erik van Straten]

I was so angry when I saw this fake going for over $ 3.000, that I forgot to write down the ebay-number. I only downloaded this picture. There were other pictures of it, shown from above, that I later could not find back. These pictures showed at once that it was a fake. OK, the people who bought it were stupid, but for now anybody must watch out for no 481.
When you guys do not see the difference between this fake and a real one, you deserve...
Anything is wrong on this thing. Just compare it carefully to the original I showed beside it.
Anyhow, a true 481 Elmax would realize a lot more, I would say about $ 15.000.

Erik.

[John Shriver]

The fake was auction 360090690845.

Another (one hopes real) one (s/n 484) was sold by Auction Team Breker, eBay item 360081730500.

Both 404 and 481 have a dimple in the middle of the shutter button, 421 doesn't.

[Erik van Straten]

Thanks John!

Erik.

[Erik van Straten]

Here some other pictures.

Erik.

[Dralowid]

Finances prevent me from moving in such exalted circles so at my level the fakers just can't be bothered.

Last week on evilbay UK there was a nice black II with 11 o'clock Elmar. Sold for £350 + which I thought was steep, but it certainly looked good.

What I couldn't understand was that although it was described as unrestored it had clearly previously had strap lugs that had been removed and replaced with tidy black screws. This didn't seem right to me...can anyone cast any light?

Michael

[Dralowid]

http://i18.ebayimg.com/04/i/001/0f/44/6a80_12.JPG (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200257426066&indexURL=0&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting)

Courtesy Ebay UK last week, see the strap lug screws I mentioned in my previous post.

Michael

[Erik van Straten]

Nice camera anyhow, and a very nice lens indeed if the optical cell is OK. I can't read the serial number. This adding and removing of the straplugs remains a mystery. Is there a screw at the other end also? If there is only one screw, then maybe it served some special purpose, but what, I don't know.

Erik.

[Erik van Straten]

This is what you can do with a Leica II and an Elmar 50mm.

Erik.

[john neal]

Erik,

here's what you can do with a 1932 Leica II and an Elmar

That black II has a screw at the other end, but I have not had chance to explore why they are there yet. The lens is clean, but I fear there is a trace of fungal damage on the front element - it will probably go to Sherry at some point to see if it can be resurrected.

Whay did I buy it? I have another very similar II from the same batch, but that one has a mint Elmar with infinity lock.

[Charles Woodhouse]

Hi John,
I guess you noticed that the lens is a IA lens converted to interchangeable. That should be enough reason for buying the camera. Check the solid focusing lever and the reduced diameter mounting flange.

[Dralowid]

John

If we are talking about the one I posted the ebay pic of, it has no infinity lock.

But folks...is it 'SHORT'??

Michael

[Erik van Straten]

Yes, it looks short.

Erik.

[Erik van Straten]

Hi John,
I guess you noticed that the lens is a IA lens converted to interchangeable. That should be enough reason for buying the camera. Check the solid focusing lever and the reduced diameter mounting flange.

I think you are right. Maybe the camera is a converted I. I cannot see it's serial number.

Leica's I can produce this:

[john neal]

Well, the serial is right for a 1932 II, although somewhat later than my other example. Research I have done suggests that the batch of numbers was issued in '32, but some of the bodies were actually completed in '33; this could be one of those.

You guys spotted the lens, eh? It is in excellent condition all over, except for the front element, which looks to have some slight etching. I'm hoping it will not affect results too much, but if it is possible, I would like to get it restored.

I'm hoping to find time today to investigate those screws at either end of the body. If this was built in 1933, it could just be that it has a III body shell and the screws were added to blank off the strap lugs. Alternatively, they could be there because it is a later replacement body shell. Not sure how I will tell.

The shutter is a bit dry, and a little lazy on the first curtain, but I'm sure a CLA will sort that out. All in all a nice example in pretty good condition - I bought it to use, so that my other one stays minty, but I'm now wondering if this one is too nice (is that possible?)

More later.

[john neal]

Right,

Here's all the dirt on this camera. The numbers match inside & out 867xx, so it is a II according to all the lists I can find. There are some detail differences with my other II which is about 350 earlier, mainly in that it has a light baffle at the bottom of the 2nd curtain drum - see pic.

Also, while it has the same film pressure plate - a round one with a hole for the focus tool, and prevented by rotating by two lugs, the lugs engage with a screw in the backplate - on my other body, there is a cast pip.

The screws in the body seem to just be there to blank off the holes. The more I think about this, the more I feel it is a II made with a III body - sort of a Leica 2.5?

The lens would appear to be converted A lens and is definitely shorter than my other 11 o'clock example, which dates to 1932, it is 28.5mm from front to back of the lens tube (ignoring the mount), while all my others are 31.5mm. So there you are, short ones do exist! Does this mean that they are of a different formulation, as the elements are 3mm closer to the film plane? ISTR reading in an old AP that the Elmar was recomputed at some point, but I can't now find the article.

While I was looking around, I removed a film chip from the curtain track, so the shutter is now much better. I'm looking forward to running some Tri-X through this :D

[edit] Just noticed that the vulcanite is loose right across the wind side of the body - careful handling is in order, I think!

[Dralowid]

Hi John,

Good to hear you've helped with the 'short' Elmar saga. I assume it is a difference in design of mount rather than any optical changes which I think came much later.

Since the camera has a hole in the pressure plate I assume it has a blanking plug in the back of the body. Add this to the lack of any blanking plate to cover over the slow speed dial and I'd guess that the body really is a II and not a III.

Anyway, congratulations, it looks to be in great condition, I hope you enjoy it and don't go along with the 'too good to use school'!

Michael

[Erik van Straten]

Right,



[edit] Just noticed that the vulcanite is loose right across the wind side of the body - careful handling is in order, I think!

When the vulcanite is loose, try to slip a piece of double sided tape into it. It's better when the vulcanite is fixed to the body. It's very brittle and it breaks easily.

The lens is a beauty. You should compare it carefully to an ordinary nickel Elmar. When it's so short, maybe it's a converted Elmax or Anastigmat!

Erik.

[john neal]

The lens is a beauty. You should compare it carefully to an ordinary nickel Elmar. When it's so short, maybe it's a converted Elmax or Anastigmat!

Oooh! Did they do that? I must say, I thought it would have to be a different formulation, as the front element is 3mm nearer the film plane.

How would I know? (OK, Erik, I appreciate you may not want to discuss that in open forum), but if you could PM me some clues, that would be great.

[Erik van Straten]

I'm afraid it's very hard to see. The last group of glass elements has to be taken out and studied. Anastigmats and Elmaxes have a rear group that consists of three elements instead of two. The chance it's an Anastigmat or Elmax is however very small. It can also be an Elmar with a relative shorter true focal length than the nominal. You should compare it carefully with another early Elmar. When you suspect it's an Anastigmat or Elmax, try to contact a specialist like James Lager. Good luck!

Erik.

[Erik van Straten]

This is an Elmax. Looks pretty short to me.

Erik.

[Dralowid]

Don't want to be a killjoy but converted Anastigmats are marked as such. A converted Elmax I have never seen. Spotting the additional element to 'prove' the lens is a job for a specialist

As you say, both are sufficiently rare as to be discountable.

I took a couple of rolls with an Anastigmat. Although in reasonable condition the results were not remarkable. The Elmar is way better.

Michael

[john neal]

Erik,

Thanks for that but, as Michael points out, it is a bit of a specialist job to strip down the rear elements. For now, I'll carry on thinking it's a short Elmar. If I send it to Sherry, i'll get her to count the elements and report back. Hopefully, we will get some dry weather this weekend, so that I can try it out.

[Erik van Straten]

Don't want to be a killjoy but converted Anastigmats are marked as such. A converted Elmax I have never seen. Spotting the additional element to 'prove' the lens is a job for a specialist




I've seen converted Anastigmats and Elmaxes that were relabeled Elmar, but I do not remember where or when. Anyhow, Sherry Krauter is a noted specialist.
Michael, I think it's really not interesting wich lens is better, the Anastigmat, the Elmax or the Elmar. It's the historic significance of the Anastigmats and Elmaxes that counts!

Erik.