Opinions, Please. Luftwaffen Leica IIIc....Restore Or Keep In Wartime Shape ?

[Roger Hicks]

There's an interesting attitude to history here. Someone -- I forget who -- would 'blow his nose' on a Nazi or Confederate flag.

Ok... would he blow his nose on a Royalist (or Roundhead) pennant from the Civil War? On a flag of the Knights Hospitallers or a flag of Soleiman's Janissaries from the Great Siege of 1565? On a Crusader or Saracen flag? On a Roman or Essene standard?

It is all very well to take sides in long-past wars, but destroying symbols (from either side) smacks of book-burning.

Both my grandfathers were killed in the war, one on the Russian convoys, one off Crete. The one who was killed off Crete was a keen amateur photographer and a holder of the George Medal. I have no doubt that they were fighting on the side of right. But somewhere I have a pfennig with the Reichsadler and swastika on it. Should I throw it away? Why?

To return to the original question, if you're not going to use it, why 'restore' it? It's a piece of history; if you don't want to use it, why does it need to work? I once had a grey-paint Luftwaffen Leica with all the good stuff, including an engraved lens and field-gray case blind-stamped Luftwaffe Eigentum. It was in good working order -- it was in the late 70s or early 80s -- but I bought it (and sold it) as a usable curio. To me it was an interesting and unusual Leica like my Model A or my 9cm fat-barrel with the serial number ending a*. I certainly didn't (and still don't) associate it with the death of my grandfathers.

If you want to boycott hideous, murderous regimes, don't buy anything Chinese. Very roughly, Hitler killed 16,000,000 people; Stalin doubled that at 32,000,000 (and I've had an NKVD Fed, too); and Mao doubled it again, at 64,000,000. Both German fascism and Russian communism have fallen from power; Mao's regime is still in power.

Cheers,

Roger

[LeicaTom]

Originally Posted by Dunk

Cheers

dunk

Very nice example of an Luftwaffen IIIB, good photos.

But I think what Steve was asking was to see what`s the evidence of this so called Waffen SS "SSKB" Leica IIIC that`s supposed to be real?
(someone here said that there`s photos of one in that book, but then they said said that they did`nt even own the book?)

Does the 30 Jahre book have photos of a SSKB IIIC in it or not?

I would really like to know, I don`t have access to this book now.

Tom

PS: Ohh and the US Army also used Leica`s during WW2 that`s also included in the research for my planned book.......Leica`s up to model IIIA & IIIB were susposed to have been issued,
IIIC`s were very rare and only a handful of them fell into Allied hands before May 1945, either captured on the ground, from crashed aircraft or in barter trading with Neutral countries, that`s how the American`s and British forces got their first look at the Leica IIIC.

[iamzip]

Without having read any of the other responses, I will paraphrase this mantra that is popular with car collectors: A camera can be restored as many times as you like, but it is only original once.
That being said I think it is perfectly acceptable to put it into good working order, CLA and all.

[murrayb53]

Tom, no, I have not seen the camera that was discussed.
Did you have the time to Google photo.net SS REICH ? There are a couple of interesting shots of an authentic wartime IIIc, but with what appears to be an
engraving which most likely was engraved at a later date.
Take a look and tell me what you think.

Steve

[LeicaTom]

Originally Posted by murrayb53

Tom, no, I have not seen the camera that was discussed.
Did you have the time to Google photo.net SS REICH ? There are a couple of interesting shots of an authentic wartime IIIc, but with what appears to be an
engraving which most likely was engraved at a later date.
Take a look and tell me what you think.

Steve

Steve,

Ohh yes, I do know that camera (an uncommon series in the #380xxx group *late 1941/early 1942*

But, I`m pretty sure the engraving is a fake, purely fantasy......a real Leica with a fake engraving, most certainly not an engraving used by any official German military capacity of the Waffen SS.

The oddest and rarest of all the WW2 German military engravings are the Kriegsmarine and Heer cameras, especially the Artillery ones for the Army (Heer or W.H. - Grey painted K shuttered cameras with military engravings are the rarest of all the WW2 cameras) - one has to be very careful with all the WW2 engravings, if it doesn`t match to the numbers in the Leitz records, then leave it alone, that`s the best advice.

Tom

PS: There was another case of a real camera and a fake engraving about 5 months ago (we disscused the camera here somewhere on RFF) A REAL Leica IIIC "Red Curtain" that was delivered to Bulgaria in late 1941 to a Leitz distributor there ~ it had a Kriegsmarine reichsadler and M. engraved prefectly in the upper left side of the top plate, a perfect engraving, but fake, this one was called out by Jim`s research and the numbers were nowhere close to any Navy shipment - it always pays to check numbers first before buying anything "wartime" Leica.

[Roger Hicks]

It appears, though, that the Nazis themselves sometimes 'faked' Nazi Leicas. Of course I've seen fake Afrika Korps Leicas in desert sand colour -- in fact, the last one I saw was a IIId as well -- but several collector friends as far back as the 70s (when there were far fewer fakes around) thought it possible that at least some were actually painted during WW2...

Cheers,

R.

[LeicaTom]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

It appears, though, that the Nazis themselves sometimes 'faked' Nazi Leicas. Of course I've seen fake Afrika Korps Leicas in desert sand colour -- in fact, the last one I saw was a IIId as well -- but several collector friends as far back as the 70s (when there were far fewer fakes around) thought it possible that at least some were actually painted during WW2...

Cheers,

R.

Yes, I`m sure that`s another factor, I`ve seen fake IIID`s and IIIC K`s (Grey painted and Chrome) as well and this was back in the late 1980`s/early 90`s.

Tom

[bmattock]

Roger,

I've really said all I want to on this subject, but in exiting this thread, I do want to correct a perception that I feel is quite unwarranted.

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

There's an interesting attitude to history here. Someone -- I forget who -- would 'blow his nose' on a Nazi or Confederate flag.

That would be me. I have no respect for such symbols as they have come to be regarded.

Ok... would he blow his nose on a Royalist (or Roundhead) pennant from the Civil War? On a flag of the Knights Hospitallers or a flag of Soleiman's Janissaries from the Great Siege of 1565? On a Crusader or Saracen flag? On a Roman or Essene standard?

No, I would not. First, the chances are fairly high that I would not even recognize them if I saw them, without doing some research first. Second, and more importantly, neither would the general public. The Nazi flag and the Confederate flag (and yes, I am quite aware that the so-called 'Confederate' flag wasn't actually what it is now purported to be) have identity with the general public. They are symbols that are well-understood. More on that later.

It is all very well to take sides in long-past wars, but destroying symbols (from either side) smacks of book-burning.

My lack of respect is not for historical artifacts but rather for the value people place upon them. I would not, for example, set fire to a historical document written by Adolf Hitler or Jefferson Davis. They are truly part of history and the record should indeed be preserved - in a museum, library, or other public repository.

Both my grandfathers were killed in the war, one on the Russian convoys, one off Crete. The one who was killed off Crete was a keen amateur photographer and a holder of the George Medal. I have no doubt that they were fighting on the side of right. But somewhere I have a pfennig with the Reichsadler and swastika on it. Should I throw it away? Why?

I have never said or intimated that you should. Again, more on that later.

To return to the original question, if you're not going to use it, why 'restore' it? It's a piece of history; if you don't want to use it, why does it need to work? I once had a grey-paint Luftwaffen Leica with all the good stuff, including an engraved lens and field-gray case blind-stamped Luftwaffe Eigentum. It was in good working order -- it was in the late 70s or early 80s -- but I bought it (and sold it) as a usable curio. To me it was an interesting and unusual Leica like my Model A or my 9cm fat-barrel with the serial number ending a*. I certainly didn't (and still don't) associate it with the death of my grandfathers.

And I don't suppose I would, either.

If you want to boycott hideous, murderous regimes, don't buy anything Chinese. Very roughly, Hitler killed 16,000,000 people; Stalin doubled that at 32,000,000 (and I've had an NKVD Fed, too); and Mao doubled it again, at 64,000,000. Both German fascism and Russian communism have fallen from power; Mao's regime is still in power.

I've said nothing about hideous regimes and boycotting them. No one that I am aware of collects Chinese-made televisions in commemoration of their use by the Chinese People's Army. Do you begin to see my direction?

It is not the evil done by the Nazis that I object to (well, actually, I do, but there's not much anyone can do about that now, since it's over and done with). Nor do I deny the place in history that WWII, winners and losers, occupy. Things which are of that era and have historical significance are rightfully museum pieces.

And if people placed the same value on formerly-military-owned Nazi items that had been converted from civilian use as they do the non-Nazi items, I'd have no objections at all. A camera, after all, is a camera.

But I do object to the fact that people *do* place special value on Nazi historical artifacts that they can own, such as cameras, flags, letter openers, and etc.

There probably is a legitimate market for such things, since they exceed the requirements of museums in terms of sheer numbers of surviving artifacts. But if they were merely historically-valued items, they would command similar prices as a Swedish-military-owned Leica or a US WWII Graflex, wouldn't they? But they do not. The others are collectible too, but not in the same league as the Nazi Leicas.

The same is true of the value people place on collectible Confederate memorabilia. Note that people do not display 'real' confederate flags, other than the stars and bars (which is actually fairly inauthentic and/or historically obscure). They display the stars and bars - and why? Because of the symbolic value.

I do not object to cameras. I do not hate Leica or hold them responsible for what they had to do during WWII. I have a Krups coffee grinder and a Mitsubishi car, for God's sake. My skin does not burn if I touch a Leica that was once owned by the German military during WWII. This is not about the 'right side' and the 'wrong side' or even about the good or evil of the Nazis.

It is about symbols, and the value people place on them. Collecting Nazi symbols is not something I feel comfortable with. I would not, had I the power, stop others from doing so - have at it. But I have no use and no interest in such things. I do suspect the motives of those who are fascinated with Nazi memorabilia, yes.

This is why I get such angry responses by collectors who (intentionally?) mistake my motives or my reasoning. It is not the camera, nor the regime, I find objectionable. It is their fascination with a symbol of - what? Nothing but hatred. The Nazi regime now 'stands' for something as a symbol, like it or not. It stands for hatred, in the same manner that the Confederate flag 'stands' for slavery. No, that is not what they originally were for - it is what they symbolize now.

You, Roger, understand this. You know Roland Barthes, you know semiotics. When an item becomes a symbol, it is no longer signaling what it is, but what it represents. One can argue all day long from logic about the history of Leica, or how a camera is just a camera, and blah blah blah and it means absolutely squat - because the camera that was once owned by the Nazi war machine is now a symbol.

The proof is undeniable - it is in the value people place on it - both monetarily and by asking such questions as 'restore or leave as-is'? That's not camera talk, that's symbol talk. When pointed out, it brings about an quick and very angry response. No one likes to be told that their camera (flag, belt buckle, etc) is a symbol of evil and that others hold it in low esteem therefore.

Semiotics says that the image of Hitler is no longer that of a man, or a historical figure, or a leader, or whatever else Hitler was when alive. Hitler is a symbol of evil - universally understood, as is the Nazi flag. Semiotics says that Pol Pot is not, even though he killed as many or more, neither is Stalin, or Mao, etc. Those figures do not have the semiotic power the symbol of Hitler does. And there is no accounting for why - it just is. This is the value humanity has placed on the image of Hitler.

The same is true for the Confederate flag. It was not the only, or even the predominate, battle flag, and it was not the official flag of the CSA. None of that matters in the slightest. The CSA historically fought for state's rights, not to (specifically) preserve slavery, and that's of no consequence either. The fact is that the stars and bars represent (symbolically) slavery, and that's that. Sure, some argue. But logic does not change the value that a symbol has in how it is seen by others.

And again, I hold this only for myself. Sure, I look askance at collectors of Nazi memorabilia, including cameras (and cigarette lighters, table napkins, whatever). I don't 'get it' because I see the symbols as symbols and not as the items themselves. If I tried to see them as they are - historically-significant items from a particular period in time, then I am forced to confront the fact that Nazi items are worth more money and are more assiduously colllected than, say, Finnish items of a similar vintage and background. When I confront that, I'm back to symbols again.

I have no use for symbols of evil. No one can argue that a Nazi-owned Leica is not a symbol of evil because that is precisely why they collect it, QED. They just choose not to confront the symbology of their own psychology. It does not make them evil, nor do I dislike them. I have lots of friends who do things I don't like or that I don't approve of. Life goes on.

[LeicaTom]

Originally Posted by photomoof

Just look at Lager's first book! If you think he is wrong, he might agree, anything is possible, the book was printed in 1993. Historical opinions sometimes change as more information is discovered.

But the photos in the first volume from 1993, were taken of cameras collected far before all these fake cameras out of eastern Europe started to appear at shows in the late 80's. Jim has been researching these cameras for many years.

If you don't own Lager's books -- borrow one from a Leica collector.

As for the SS faking SS cameras, as Roger suggests, my point from the beginning has been that the SS put the markings on the KB cameras NOT the Leica factory, so in that sense they are all fake, but records show that these particular cameras were used by SS reporters. This is an issue of who OWNED the cameras, not who engraved or scratched SS markings on them. Leica maintained very fastidious sales and delivery records.

As I`ve said I have the Military Book from Jim on order, it has`nt arrived yet and I might be the only Leica collector within a 100 miles of where I live, so next time I get to Orlando I`ll see if the dealer there has that book from 1993

The Leica factory NEVER engraved any military markings on the cameras, just the Air Force Supply Service numbers on the top plate - (the FL. #) you know I`ve been collecting and using Leica`s for over 20 years now and just because I don`t have a certain book doesn`t mean I don`t know what I`m talking about.......

Jim and I discuss the history of these cameras very often and many times there`s no real supporting evidence and many things are assumed that they are original, the only real verification you can get is to compare the cameras serial numbers to the original Leitz records, I`ve done that with all my "wartime" cameras up to the end of the #391xxx series, after that the records are NOT AVAILABLE at the present time, even Jim Lager himself doesn`t have the records of these cameras.
(thats why I`m researching all of that time period May 1945 to June 1946 Military/postwar US Army issued cameras)

My help here at RFF with identifying and verifying many wartime Leica`s has been a great help to many concerned, there`s really not enough people who specify in this field anymore, I`m trying to be very helpful in what I do and there`s doubting Thomas`s always out there, you can`t always believe what`s printed somewhere, there`s some mistakes in the book from Lanley and also a fake camera (a Chrome IIIC K) in that book, so don`t always believe what you see.

I`m not going to argue with anyone about any cameras, I can spot a fake miles away and with the help of the original Leitz records can verify a camera to it`s heritage very easily, this is all I have to say about this anymore.......

Tom

[murrayb53]

Tom,
What Military Book?
I haven't heard about this one.
Where did you order it from.

Thanks,
Steve

[murrayb53]

The earlier idea of sitting around and having a beer sounds great.

Steve

[murrayb53]

Yeah, my luck......all the way in Oz !!

ENJOY !!

Steve

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by bmattock

No one can argue that a Nazi-owned Leica is not a symbol of evil because that is precisely why they collect it, QED. They just choose not to confront the symbology of their own psychology.

Dear Bill,

Ummm... Yes I can, actually.

It's something that happened a long time ago. Like you, I may question the psychology of people who collect the residue of National Socialism -- I am even more puzzled by those re-enactors who choose Waffen-SS regiments -- but I'd counter with 'everything has got to be somewhere', unless, of course, it is destroyed.

There's a big difference in my book between a curio, and a symbol of evil. I was once shown the Magickal wand, sceptre, call it what you will, that had once belonged to Aleister Crowley. I found it banal.

Which, ultimately, is what any minor collectible can easily be, whether it's the model pigs I used to collect, non-Nazi Leicas, or Nazi Leicas. Collecting may be a route to history -- Paul-Henry van Hasbroeck's camera collection is a wonderful place to learn about camera design, engineering, the cost of labour, the substitution of capital for labour, and more -- or it may be essentially thoughtless and accidental, which I believe is generally the case.

You may think that someone who thought hard about National Socialism would not collect Leicas, but hell, Napoleon's Moscow campaign arguably showed him to be as big a monster as Hitler (read Adam Zamoyski's book if you haven't already). Should people spit upon Napoleonic memorabilia? An old girlfriend had a gold bee from Napoleon's coffin: there is, I think, a natural human inclination to be interested in things that have been 'touched by history' in a clearer way than usual.

Semiotics is, in its nature, transactional; the symbol has to mean something to someone, as does the signal. To make a 70-year-old camera a symbol of evil is reification, made doubly dangerous by the fact that there is a concrete thing to invest with symbolism. My own feeling is that unless something is being used as a rallying point for a barbaric philosophy, it is not anything like as symbolic as you maintain. Indeed, it can be a reminder of a past from which we can, with any luck, learn.

Cheers,

Roger

[Vince Lupo]

Don't know if I should wade into this or not, and sorry for asking a potentially stupid question, but isn't there a difference between the Nazis, which was a political party, and the Luftwaffe, which was the Air Force? If you're part of the Luftwaffe, does it necessarily follow that you would've been a member of the Nazi Party?

I have three Luftwaffe Leicas, and I don't really look at them as representatives of anything evil (though I do find them very interesting and collectible). If that were the case, then maybe we shouldn't be using Leicas at all, because the company made them for these military organizations. Should I then not drive my Volkswagen because of things that company may have done during WWII?

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Vince Lupo

Don't know if I should wade into this or not, and sorry for asking a potentially stupid question, but isn't there a difference between the Nazis, which was a political party, and the Luftwaffe, which was the Air Force?

Dear Vince,

An excellent point. Among her family heirlooms, a friend of mine has the standard silver-framed portrait of a handsome young fighter pilot who never came back: her great-uncle, I think.

She is a moderate socialist, and one of the people who helped hammer out the first joint history book to be used in both German and French schools. Should I shun her because her great-uncle was in the Luftwaffe? Should she throw away his picture?

I fully take Bill's point that this isn't what he's saying, but my argument is that one can invest too much symbolism in something that can't really carry it, and that Luftwaffe Leicas are in this category.

Edit: Just out of curiosity, how would you put into words the reasons why you find them 'interesting and collectable'? I'm not saying you're wrong, or a secret Nazi or anything, but I'd find it hard to put into words why I possess quite a number of things that are not necessary to life, such as my 1602 edition of Euripides's comedies.

Cheers,

Roger

[januaryman]

Originally Posted by Pitxu

Geez, you americans have got to get over this sh!t.

God, I love generalizations! Next to stereotypes, it's my favorite classification process.

[photovdz]

personnaly ... I would prefer to have a leica IIIa thinking it was used by Robert CAPA during war in Spain ;-)

[kuzano]

Originally Posted by murrayb53

I agree. I've decided to have the shutter taken care of and leave the rest alone.

Gee, as long as we are all heated up, how about Politics, Sex, Religon......Palin....?????

Steve :-)

I sincerely hope my time comes before someone who believes in the "Rapture" gains access to the codes for "First Strike Capability". I would have said I would leave the country, but where would a safe place be........

Regarding the original post. Leave it in what we call in the car collector industry "unmolested", or "Unrestored Original" if you are concerned about retention of value.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by photomoof

I remain committed to the idea that anything that happened during my lifetime is not "a long time ago." The Roman Empire is a long time ago. My childhood is just a short time ago.

Dear Fred,

Indeed. One of my most recent AP columns proposed a twist on Bertrand Russell's famous observation that anything before Trafalgar is history, and the rest is gossip. I suggested that you take your own age; subtract that from your birthdate; and treat that as a rough starting point for 'history'. Thus, if you were born in 1948 and are 60 now (to make the sums easier), 'history' starts in 1888.

But those who fought in World War Two, or even who lived through it as adolescents (rather than as children), are now old men and women: grandparents and great-grandparents. They are a small fraction of the world's population.

My maternal grandmother hated Germany and the Germans: 'They killed my Harry'. My paternal grandmother, who also lost her husband at sea, went on holiday to Austria in the 1960s.

Someone has to let go, and sooner is surely better than later. Look at it this way: the Vietnam war was a long time ago too (and I lost friends there). Do we go on blaming the Vietnamese? The Americans? Mao? Stalin? Marx...?

Oh: and letting go is not the same as forgetting.

Cheers,

R.

[murrayb53]

"Letting Go".....

Sometime back in the early '80s, back when I was standing behind a counter selling cameras, a gentleman approached me and said he was in the market for a new camera. I imagine he must have been in his late seventies or so and I asked what type of camera he was interested in. He replied he wanted an SLR with auto everything. His only stipulation....it couldn't be made in Japan or Germany. He said he never forgot what "those guys" did to us.

There are those who can never let go.

Steve

[Ronald_H]

Originally Posted by murrayb53

"Letting Go".....

Sometime back in the early '80s, back when I was standing behind a counter selling cameras, a gentleman approached me and said he was in the market for a new camera. I imagine he must have been in his late seventies or so and I asked what type of camera he was interested in. He replied he wanted an SLR with auto everything. His only stipulation....it couldn't be made in Japan or Germany. He said he never forgot what "those guys" did to us.

There are those who can never let go.

Steve

Disclaimer: I am deeply aware of WWII history, and my knowledge about it runs deeper than most people. My country was occupied for 5 years and although even my mum is too young to have lived through that, I remember and I care.

But back to that older gentleman at the counter: If he didn't want Japanese or German, how limited would his choice have been in the early eighties?

[murrayb53]

Limited ? Hell, there was nothing !! I understood his position and explained there wasn't a thing made here other than Kodak Instamatics (a few made in the USA).
He accepted that and walked over to the Photo Finishing Department to see what was available. No sale was made that day.

Steve

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

There's a big difference in my book between a curio, and a symbol of evil. I was once shown the Magickal wand, sceptre, call it what you will, that had once belonged to Aleister Crowley. I found it banal.

That's down to individual choices. However, semiotics deals with how society and the world in general see a thing, not how you or I see a thing.

Like I said, symbols are not necessarily 'logical', they are what they are. The Nazi flag is a symbol of evil. Period. It does not matter how you or I see it - it is a symbol, it is well-understood as such by the majority of humanity, and that's all there is to it. I can't change that, neither can you. Time might - I'm sure there were other such symbols in Mesopotamian times, known to those people, that we would not recognize.

Which, ultimately, is what any minor collectible can easily be, whether it's the model pigs I used to collect, non-Nazi Leicas, or Nazi Leicas. Collecting may be a route to history -- Paul-Henry van Hasbroeck's camera collection is a wonderful place to learn about camera design, engineering, the cost of labour, the substitution of capital for labour, and more -- or it may be essentially thoughtless and accidental, which I believe is generally the case.

It could be that, but it is not. Consider the collectible anything, say matchbooks.

What drives price?

Condition, age, rarity, provenance, and that most interesting of attributes, historical significance.

The word 'signify' has some relation to the word 'symbol'. An object signifies, and it can symbolize, and they can be two entirely different things.

A falling leaf signifies autumn. It also symbolizes autumn. However, a falling leaf can also symbolize loneliness (ee cummings). A signifier is a pointer - a symbol is that and more, it is a metaphor.

So the Nazi flag does not signify evil, but it does symbolize evil.

People confuse the former with the latter, and we end up with Nazi memorabilia being worth more than items which are rarer, have more historical significance, and are in better condition, etc, etc.

You may think that someone who thought hard about National Socialism would not collect Leicas, but hell, Napoleon's Moscow campaign arguably showed him to be as big a monster as Hitler (read Adam Zamoyski's book if you haven't already). Should people spit upon Napoleonic memorabilia? An old girlfriend had a gold bee from Napoleon's coffin: there is, I think, a natural human inclination to be interested in things that have been 'touched by history' in a clearer way than usual.

Again, 'signify' versus 'symbolize'. Napoleon's campaign has historical significance, but it does not have the symbolic value that a Wehrmacht Leica has. That can't be helped, it is what it is. The world at large isn't as willing to consider Napoleon a source of universal evil as it is Hitler. Why? No idea.

Semiotics is, in its nature, transactional; the symbol has to mean something to someone, as does the signal. To make a 70-year-old camera a symbol of evil is reification, made doubly dangerous by the fact that there is a concrete thing to invest with symbolism. My own feeling is that unless something is being used as a rallying point for a barbaric philosophy, it is not anything like as symbolic as you maintain. Indeed, it can be a reminder of a past from which we can, with any luck, learn.

It is not I who made these symbols; I interpret symbols, as do we all.

And while you or I (or any person) may interpret a symbol differently, in the end, we are all subject to the mass rule of how symbols are seen by the populace at large. A large skull and crossbones on a bottle of liquid is a symbol, universally understood, meaning 'poison'. There may be liquid ambrosia in the bottle, but who among us is going to take a taste? I continue to maintain that when people intentionally choose to collect Wehrmacht or Nazi or WWII-era German military or however you choose to term it - items - they have a reason. Unless one is a completist, an historian, or an archivist, there is something attractive about the symbol that makes it attractive to that person - and I am not such a person. It squicks me right out.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by bmattock

That's down to individual choices. However, semiotics deals with how society and the world in general see a thing, not how you or I see a thing.

Like I said, symbols are not necessarily 'logical', they are what they are. The Nazi flag is a symbol of evil. Period. It does not matter how you or I see it - it is a symbol, it is well-understood as such by the majority of humanity, and that's all there is to it. I can't change that, neither can you. Time might - I'm sure there were other such symbols in Mesopotamian times, known to those people, that we would not recognize.



It could be that, but it is not. Consider the collectible anything, say matchbooks.

What drives price?

Condition, age, rarity, provenance, and that most interesting of attributes, historical significance.

The word 'signify' has some relation to the word 'symbol'. An object signifies, and it can symbolize, and they can be two entirely different things.

A falling leaf signifies autumn. It also symbolizes autumn. However, a falling leaf can also symbolize loneliness (ee cummings). A signifier is a pointer - a symbol is that and more, it is a metaphor.

So the Nazi flag does not signify evil, but it does symbolize evil.

People confuse the former with the latter, and we end up with Nazi memorabilia being worth more than items which are rarer, have more historical significance, and are in better condition, etc, etc.



Again, 'signify' versus 'symbolize'. Napoleon's campaign has historical significance, but it does not have the symbolic value that a Wehrmacht Leica has. That can't be helped, it is what it is. The world at large isn't as willing to consider Napoleon a source of universal evil as it is Hitler. Why? No idea.



It is not I who made these symbols; I interpret symbols, as do we all.

And while you or I (or any person) may interpret a symbol differently, in the end, we are all subject to the mass rule of how symbols are seen by the populace at large. A large skull and crossbones on a bottle of liquid is a symbol, universally understood, meaning 'poison'. There may be liquid ambrosia in the bottle, but who among us is going to take a taste? I continue to maintain that when people intentionally choose to collect Wehrmacht or Nazi or WWII-era German military or however you choose to term it - items - they have a reason. Unless one is a completist, an historian, or an archivist, there is something attractive about the symbol that makes it attractive to that person - and I am not such a person. It squicks me right out.

Dear Bill,

I understand and respect your argument -- which sounds patronizing as hell, but isn't meant to be -- but I would still argue that semiotics is in its nature regional, limited in time and dependent on personal information and choice.

It can also depend on your premises. Eco's famous example of the light in the window well illustrates this.

Instead of treating 'Luftwaffe Leica' as a subset of the category 'Nazi' or even 'Luftwaffe of the Third Reich' (let alone 'Luftwaffe'), treat it as a subset of the category 'Leica'. There is a hierarchy of the ascription of meaning; our hierarchies are different.

In a bar in California I saw what I believe, on the balance of probability, to be Mengele's hat (a uniform cap, from Mengele's hat-maker, in Mengele's size, with a reasonably convincing provenance). Mengele leaves me confused: was he the epitome of evil (a premise easily defended), or a man completely devoid of moral awareness (not a bad working definition of the nature of evil)?

Would I spit upon or destroy Mengele's hat? Far from it. I would prize it. It is a reminder of how close monsters are to us -- or worse, how close we might be to monsters.There is a Leonard Cohen poem about one of the Nazi monsters: Eichmann, I think. Paraphrased, and from memory, it says, "All there is to know about Adold Eichmann. Height: average. Colour of eyes: average. Hair: average. What did you expect? Oversize incisors? Green saliva? Madness?"

If we choose to ruminate upon that aspect of the past, a Leica from the era of National Socialism is one thing. If we ruminate upon another, it is a camera. The preservation of any artifact is a direct link with history. What we choose to make of that history is important. Destroying or negating the artifact, symbolic or not, strikes me as a bad idea.

As I say, I flatter myself that I understand your viewpoint. I just don't agree with it. At best, we can agree to differ, because I doubt we can persuade one another.

(To those who object to this intrusion upon Leica collecting: I apologize, but not too much, because I believe that such questions need to be faced.)

Cheers,

R.

[John Shriver]

As for restore or not, look at the latest Westlicht auction. Two three crowns IIIg cameras. One original, one refinished. Former is estimated at twice the price of the latter. If you're concerned about the value of the camera, do nothing.