Anyone know anything about this Leica

[mexipike]

A friend of mine has one of these and asked me to check on it for him. I don't know much about the older leicas so I thought I'd ask the experts.

John

[kokoshawnuff]

Looks like a Leica i converted to a ii...others will know more

[FrankS]

The shutter button threaded for a cable release says FSU fake to me. Sorry.

[je2a3]

It looks like a genuine Leica II + Elmar 50/3.5 warm nickel fittings and etc...but that shutter button does seem weird, could it have been an early soft touch accessory?

Higher resolution pics will help.

[FrankS]

Check this site: http://jay.fedka.com/index_files/Page367.htm

[agfa100]

That's one of the better fake's I have seen.... It's got a nice FED 50mm POST war lens on it, and it looks like a FEDII body.

They take great pictures, but it's not a Leica....

[kokoshawnuff]

Good eyes Frank. The text also looks a little funny. Here's a conversion:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabejoy...n/photostream/

Also this is what a iid in black should look like:

http://cameraquest.com/leica2.htm

[xayraa33]

It looks to be an early Leica II and not an FSU fake.

The front VF window border looks genuine Leica and the FED like shutter release button and collar look to be a screw-on after market addition popular in the USA in the 1930s and 40s.

Better photos of this camera could help with this confirmation.

[farlymac]

Something doesn't look right about the viewfinder window surround. The radii don't appear to be the same as on an original. And the engravings on the knobs look more like the Zorki ones on the Fedka site photos.

PF

[colyn]

I have to go with it being the real deal.. The Fed/Zorki has a squared off front bezel while the Leica has the cutout top right.. Engravings are early Leica II and the threaded shutter button is exactly like a screw-on one I had years ago on a IIIa...

[Tom A]

That is an authentic Leica 1 - converted to a II with the coupled rangefinder. The threaded ring around the release is correct - the early Leica cable releases would have a matching thread ( and in some cases a "claw" that held it in place. Nice shape too for something that is 80 + years old.
The 35f3.5 Summaron is a later lens - postwar and coated.
Hope you will start using it extensively too.
Love the old Kodachrome II cassette too - we are talking about digital cameras that can do iso 100 000 etc - and this film was 10 iso. Steady hand was a necessity!

[FrankS]

Tom, sorry for contradicting you, but I can sort of read Elmar in the fuzzy picture.

Even the quality of the documenting photos suggest fake/deception.

[mexipike]

The documenting photos are not an indicator of fake/deception. I took them today hastily with my cell phone. My buddy dropped my work and I took a look at it and snapped two pics real quick, I was busy so I didn't pay too much attention.
It certainly is possible it's a fake but I guess I need to snap some better pictures to get you guys some more info. If it is a fake it's not a big deal, it belongs to a friend of mine and he wanted to pass it off to me cheap, I told him that I probably wouldn't use it but may be able to find someone who would and if it were legitimate it may be worth more money then he thinks, just trying to help a buddy out.

[FrankS]

No problems, mexipike, just trying to analyse the evidence. Does the shutter button have a release accessory screwed in? The acid test is the camera body lens focus cam follower. Take an in focus picture of the camera front from slightly below, with the lens removed.

[Tom A]

Originally Posted by FrankS

Tom, sorry for contradicting you, but I can sort of read Elmar in the fuzzy picture.

Even the quality of the documenting photos suggest fake/deception.

The lens on the camera looks like a "no-number" Elmar 50f3.5. Engravings and position and look of the infinity lock corresponds to a 1929/1930 Leica 1. The Summaron 35f3.5 was another lens - part of the collage.
I doubt that anyone would fake a Leica II - particularly without adding either engravings or plaques to make it look more "collectible". They are not rare as such (100 000+ made). If the lens is removed it should have a 0 on the mount. The conversion from I to II was quite common and Leica would do it. At that time they would also incorporate the "standard" lens flange to shutter distance 0f 28.7 mm.

[john neal]

The body looks to me to be a genuine 1932 "lavatory seat" Leica II - I have had a few of these and it matches all of them, plus the serial no is right for the period.

The release looks like an aftermarket screw-on with a thread for a cable release (the OP should be able to verify this)

The lens is possibly later - I can't make out the serial engravings, but the pic is a bit blurred. One of mine had an 11 o'clock Elmar which was unnumbered, the last one I sold had the later 7 o'clock infinity lock, and was numbered - this is about the time that serial nos were first applied to lenses.

More detailed pictures / description really needed to be 100% sure, but it looks OK so far.

[Dralowid]

It is the real deal. I say that without bothering to check the number. Lens may be later and shutter release is an addition but the camera has the 'lavatory bowl' as John says and the nice big speed dial with its engravings are spot on.
A nice camera to have and to use. I imagine the rangefinder may well have the yellow tint too.

Michael

(as an aside, you can find a Fed with a similar viewfinder window bezel but I suspect its value would be higher than this camera)

[greyelm]

The serial number and vf bezel show it to be a 1932 model II (model D in the US). The shutter release is an after market add on. As already mention the rf cam is distinctive in Leicas.

[HuubL]

I agree with Tom, John and Michael, it's a original Leica II, but according to the number it's not a converted I. Upon close inspection the lens looks like it is numbered. Should be, as it's a 7 o'clock type. I guess it's an original set from 1932 and still in pretty good cosmetic shape. The release and surround are not original. No big deal though.

[buzzardkid]

That is a true Leica II from 1932, first production run: the Leica II series started with 71200 and the first production run ended with serial 101000.

Engravings, paint sheen and vulcanite fitted all are dead give-aways of this camera being genuine.

To those that mistook it for a Russian fake: this camera has nickel trimming that is nicely even and of high quality. Why would any Russian camera be de-chromed (usually crudely down to the brass) and subsequently re-plated in nickel? Also: the engravings on a Leica were filled with white Woods Metal, which over time wore out leaving the adjacent paint afflicted. The engravings on old, pre-war black-paint Leica's as a result have a very specific look, like this camera has. These characteristics can be faked but not so that it would also be profitable.

As said, the shutter release threads on and as such can be replaced. And, the VF window is the correct one, the Russian camera's have the flat square front that reaches up to the top plate. As said above, the one Russian model (early FED) that had the same VF window is so rare, it's likely worth more than a Leica.


Question to the OP: if the lens is numbered (small number engravings on the front brass ring, right around the lens element), what is the number? The lens usually is earlier in production date than the body, often approx. one year. If camera and lens are approx. a year apart, this may increase the chance of it being an original combo. No effect on usability etc but it's a nice extra to this lovely camera and lens kit.

Mine is similar and I love it!

[FrankS]

In this case, for the OP, I'm very happy to wrong.

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Originally Posted by Tom A

That is an authentic Leica 1 - converted to a II with the coupled rangefinder. The threaded ring around the release is correct - the early Leica cable releases would have a matching thread ( and in some cases a "claw" that held it in place. Nice shape too for something that is 80 + years old.
The 35f3.5 Summaron is a later lens - postwar and coated.
Hope you will start using it extensively too.

+1

Originally Posted by HuubL

I agree with Tom, John and Michael, it's a original Leica II, but according to the number it's not a converted I. Upon close inspection the lens looks like it is numbered. Should be, as it's a 7 o'clock type. I guess it's an original set from 1932 and still in pretty good cosmetic shape. The release and surround are not original. No big deal though.

+1

Originally Posted by buzzardkid

That is a true Leica II from 1932, first production run: the Leica II series started with 71200 and the first production run ended with serial 101000.

Engravings, paint sheen and vulcanite fitted all are dead give-aways of this camera being genuine.

To those that mistook it for a Russian fake: this camera has nickel trimming that is nicely even and of high quality. Why would any Russian camera be de-chromed (usually crudely down to the brass) and subsequently re-plated in nickel? Also: the engravings on a Leica were filled with white Woods Metal, which over time wore out leaving the adjacent paint afflicted. The engravings on old, pre-war black-paint Leica's as a result have a very specific look, like this camera has. These characteristics can be faked but not so that it would also be profitable.

As said, the shutter release threads on and as such can be replaced. And, the VF window is the correct one, the Russian camera's have the flat square front that reaches up to the top plate. As said above, the one Russian model (early FED) that had the same VF window is so rare, it's likely worth more than a Leica.


Question to the OP: if the lens is numbered (small number engravings on the front brass ring, right around the lens element), what is the number? The lens usually is earlier in production date than the body, often approx. one year. If camera and lens are approx. a year apart, this may increase the chance of it being an original combo. No effect on usability etc but it's a nice extra to this lovely camera and lens kit.

Mine is similar and I love it!

+1


I had a lot of FED's, Zorki's and Barnack Leica's in my hands and without having this Leica in my hands I can already state that it is genuine from these pictures as the above fellowmembers have done...
Just some advice: before making serious photo's, take a test roll to check whether the shuttercurtains are light tight and the shutter is operating correct....

[john neal]

Originally Posted by buzzardkid

That is a true Leica II from 1932, first production run: the Leica II series started with 71200 and the first production run ended with serial 101000.

Johan,

I beleive there is some question as to whether all these were actually produced in 1932 - largely based on the production figures for previous & subsequent years. It is felt that a good proportion were actually completed in 1933 alongside the III - something that can often be seen where parts have been shared between the types in 1933.

I don't know for sure if that's true, but there is some sort of logic there somewhere....

[Dez]

I also think this is a genuine converted Leica 1/2 camera. Note the contour of the rangefinder housing. There is a smooth curve all around the radius under the shutter dial, rather than the interrupted curve used in later model II's and subsequent Leicas and (as far as I know) all FSU copies. This is the "lavatory" design beloved by our Brit colleagues.

I have never seen anything like that shutter release collar, though. Tom, could you say a bit more about this early accessory? It does appear in the original photo that this bit may be chrome whereas all the other plated parts are nickel, so in that case, it could be a later repair.

Cheers,
Dez

[robklurfield]

I used to be in the watch business and had to do this kind of authentication thing for high-end vintage timepieces. I'm enjoying reading this thread, but I am incredibly happy that no one wants my opinion on this sort of stuff anymore.

With one model in particular (Rolex Princes from the 1920-30's), the "refurbishments" (repainted dials, etc.) were of such good quality and nearly impossible to detect that no one was willing to provide an opinion and some of those watches became as valuable and accepted by collectors as the unmolested originals. Another model (Daytonas from the 60's) was messed with so consistently that we had to dismantle them to look at one particular screw in movement to see whether the watch started life as the same model it was when it came to us (reassembled from pieces of several authentic watches in a combination that was more valuable).

I was invited to last year to join an e-commerce start up in the watch authentication business. I turned down the offer. I think the company is struggling. To quote Cream, "I'm so glad, I'm so glad, so glad, I'm glad..." I'm not opining on authenticity and that I didn't make the move. A good headache for someone else to enjoy.