PDA

View Full Version : Kodak Retina IIIC scam????


colyn
08-11-2009, 19:33
Has anybody heard of such a camera or is the seller trying to pull a scam??

http://cgi.ebay.com/RETINA-IIIC-CAMERA-MODEL-28-N-NEW-VERY-VERY-RARE_W0QQitemZ370244136412QQcmdZViewItemQQptZFilm_ Cameras?hash=item5634452ddc&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

Peter A (NYC)
08-11-2009, 20:14
The description says it has a 1.2 lens.

raid
08-11-2009, 20:17
He means a 1:2 lens.
I don't know if it is a scam or not.

BillBingham2
08-11-2009, 20:24
I heard about this but never had a chance to ask my father if this was true or not. He worked at Kodak in Rochester as an industrial photographer and then photo journalist for his entire life. It does sound true as the folks over there loved cameras and would have hated to trash so many wonderful parts. Kodak was starting to do some really stupid things back then. (e.g. came up with an ASA 400 emulsion that had the grain of ASA 32 film but could not recreate it)

The thing that has the hair on my neck up on this one is the price. Retinas are great cameras but this price seems WAY over the top. Even if it's true the value of an item only is tangible is you can find someone to pay you what you think it’s worth. If you cannot, then it is worth less or worthless. If he says this is one of the last from parts, show me how you can tell. It’s late so perhaps he did, but I did not see it.
Just seems questionable.

Where did it come from? Give me something of a back story that I can check on, something plausible.

Seems like an old Kiev turned into a Contax or an old IIIa turned into something from the Luftwaffe.

B2 (;->

BillBingham2
08-11-2009, 20:25
The description says it has a 1.2 lens.

Interesting point. A 1.2 50mm would have a MUCH larger front element. If this guy really knew what he was doing this sort of error would not happen.

B2 (;->

Steve M.
08-11-2009, 20:29
Well, considering that the rest of this seller's wares consists of bracelets, duck stamps, and a Hopalong Cassidy knife, among other odd things, I would be a little reluctant to buy a $1500 camera no one has ever heard about from them. But that's just me.

ZeissFan
08-11-2009, 20:47
There are a couple of tell-tale things regarding the special Retinas that were assembled as gifts to Kodak execs. And of course I can't recall what they are.

I assume the seller can provide written proof that this is authentic.

colyn
08-12-2009, 05:40
I just sent an email to the seller asking him to verify the validity of this camera. We'll see what happens..

Disaster_Area
08-12-2009, 06:14
well.. if you look at the close up pic of the lens ... it clearly states "1:2.0" which would make it the standard f2 lens, this is something a LOT of non-photo people mess up in listings, I can't count the times I've gotten my hopes dashed by seeing "f1.2" in a listing title :) ... as to his claims that it's a rare collectors piece... meh... who knows...

btgc
08-12-2009, 06:43
a LOT of non-photo people mess up in listings, I can't count the times I've gotten my hopes dashed by seeing "f1.2" in a listing title

couple of days ago saw similar frog-to-queen lens...plain 1:2 represented as 1.2
Do you guys are going to blame seller at flea market that he is selling tea cup as trophy cup? He is right on his own, that's our move - buy or not.

This days many internet shops describe selling items same way, inaccurate I mean - specs are messed up or even missing, no picture of actual item or some generic one (say, not actual packaging with hoya filter but green background with hoya on it), no dimensions (very annoying for lens hoods) etc. In this age we are offered to shop instead of buying things we need.

Spider67
08-12-2009, 07:25
OK the"1.2" is simply a typing mistake.....
I am curious how he will document his other claims.

Roger Hicks
08-12-2009, 07:34
the issue isnt whether it is F1.2, it is clearly f2 (as it would be), that is obviously a miss print or the guy doesnt know what he is looking at. the issue is whether it is one of the 125 geniune 1977 Retina IIIC made from the left over kodak parts, issued as gifts.

there are a number of tell tale signs that show the difference but are generally kept secret to dissuade people from making replica's , the last genuine one i remember hearing about sold for around $3000 at auction ...the fact that this one doesnt have a serial number is cause for suspicion, the story presented by the seller that this camera is miraculously one of only two Retina IIIC that left the factory before a serial number was given is _________, yeah

Hang on, mate. If the differences are kept secret, how can anyone use them to tell if it's a fake or not?

Cheers,

R.

Gumby
08-12-2009, 08:01
While I agree that the listed item is expensive and the description fails to provide indisputable provenance or proof of rarity, let me caution you yokels who are speculating "scam". I have actually met this guy, seen his shop, dealt with him. He's real. My expreience with him have been good. He has helped me out when I needed help with Retinas.

I don't know anything about this particular product either, but please don't defame him just because he lacks verbosity. If you don't feel you have enough information... ask for information (there is a button on ebay for that); if you don't like what he has to say, don't bid.

These kind of accusations of scam are UnCalledFor. If you want more information, ask; if you can't afford it, don't bid; if you'd rather be a user than a collector, use what you have; if you just need something to talk about to get another posting credit, find something nondestructive because making accusations of "scam" just makes the entire RFF look like a reactionary lynch mob.

Oh, and if you don't like my opinion... please keep your disageement to yourself.

retro
08-12-2009, 09:43
Has anybody heard of such a camera or is the seller trying to pull a scam??

http://cgi.ebay.com/RETINA-IIIC-CAMERA-MODEL-28-N-NEW-VERY-VERY-RARE_W0QQitemZ370244136412QQcmdZViewItemQQptZFilm_ Cameras?hash=item5634452ddc&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

These cameras are mentioned in McKeown's books. They
apparently do exist.

Of course the "1.2" lens is a typo.

colyn
08-12-2009, 13:54
While I agree that the listed item is expensive and the description fails to provide indisputable provenance or proof of rarity, let me caution you yokels who are speculating "scam".

If you will notice I put question marks after the header so I was not calling him a scammer..

I don't know anything about this particular product either, but please don't defame him just because he lacks verbosity. If you don't feel you have enough information... ask for information (there is a button on ebay for that); if you don't like what he has to say, don't bid.

I did email him and got back a all cap (shouting) nasty response..

raid
08-12-2009, 13:58
Colyn,
What was the "message" of the email response ?

Brian Sweeney
08-12-2009, 14:07
Either he should put it side by side with a regular production Retina 3C, or provide proof of authenticity. The SN of the lens looks like it is late production. My very late production Retina IIC has a lens SN that starts with 5289xxx. I know it is late production as the F-Stop can be set to F2 and it can be used with an F2 front element. An earlier IIC that I repaired could not be moved past F2.8. I suspect the parts were getting low and Kodak simply used the same mechanism for the IIIC and Late IIC.

The SN of the lens on the one for auction is 5174816, which is a good bit earlier than mine. So- I would demand some proof as the Sn of the lens is right out of the regular production line.

colyn
08-12-2009, 14:11
Colyn,
What was the "message" of the email response ?

He repeated the auction description then rather loudly then insinuated I was calling him a liar then ended the message with "I WILL CERTIFY THAT THE CAMERA IS WHAT I SAY".

I have heard of such a camera but my understanding was that ALL are serial numbered.. This is why I called the auction into question..

He may very well be on the up and up but then I have no intentions of buying since it is well out of my range...and I don't collect...I use..

Gumby
08-12-2009, 14:14
If you will notice I put question marks after the header so I was not calling him a scammer..



I did email him and got back a all cap (shouting) nasty response..

Colyn is a "moron". Does that feel good?

I emailed him, too, and got a very informative reply. It was in ALL CAPS and had some mis-spelled words... even some missing information, but it was responsive and quite polite. Maybe calling someone "things in quotes" isn't quite as innocuous as you think!

colyn
08-12-2009, 14:14
The SN of the lens looks like it is late production.

According to the below link the serial number dates from 1957 which is the first year of the IIIC production..

http://licm.org.uk/livingImage/SchneiderNos.html

Brian Sweeney
08-12-2009, 14:15
Tell him that the SN on the camera is 100,000 less than an RFF member has in his collection. And I know my camera is from the 1950s. He states the SN of the lens as if it is the SN of the camera. He should have known better.

i will add that I have heard of these cameras, and recall seeing photo's of one prior to this one. I seem to recall a special SN, very low in number for the series. It did not continue where the Retina left off. It is possible that an early run Schneider lens was left-over for this camera build two-decades later. But, typically the earlier lenses are used up and higher SN's are left in the parts bin. My Nikon F now has a new SN on a 745xxxx top plate bought new from surplus parts. That replaced it's badly dented 7444xxx plate, also very late in the run.

So for $1,500- proof would be required before I bid more than $300, the going rate of a mint IIIC, to go with my IIC.

colyn
08-12-2009, 14:16
Colyn is a "moron". Does that feel good?

If someone disagrees with your opinion do you always resort to name calling??

If so I'll have to feed you to my ignore list..

Gumby
08-12-2009, 14:19
If someone disagrees with your opinion do you always resort to name calling??

If so I'll have to feed you to my ignore list..

Now don't start acting like that. You said putting a word, like SCAM, in "quotes" means that you don't mean it. I'm just testing that theory. I didn't mean it either. :rolleyes: But, please, put me on your ignore list if that makes you feel better.

Oh.... there are no quotes on the word 'scam' in the title or the text of the OP!

Gumby
08-12-2009, 14:26
Colyn (if you can still hear me)... in post #16 I must have rubbed you the wrong way by saying, "These kind of accusations of scam are juvenile." I'll correct that sutation and remove the "juvenile" part in an attempt to sooth your bad feelings about me. Is that OK with you?

colyn
08-12-2009, 14:29
Now don't start acting like that. You said putting a word, like SCAM, in "quotes" means that you don't mean it. I'm just testing that theory. I didn't mean it either. :rolleyes: But, please, put me on your ignore list if that makes you feel better.

OK The reason I called into question the auction is I was once told by a Retina collector a sign of being a fake is lack of serial number. The seller says no serial number on this one. I never meant to nor did I insinuate the seller was a scammer I'm simply putting the test to others..

Oh.... there are no quotes on the word 'scam' in the title or the text of the OP!

I am the OP and that was a question not an indictment so I won't argue the point..

colyn
08-12-2009, 14:57
i will add that I have heard of these cameras, and recall seeing photo's of one prior to this one. I seem to recall a special SN, very low in number for the series. It did not continue where the Retina left off. It is possible that an early run Schneider lens was left-over for this camera build two-decades later. But, typically the earlier lenses are used up and higher SN's are left in the parts bin. My Nikon F now has a new SN on a 745xxxx top plate bought new from surplus parts. That replaced it's badly dented 7444xxx plate, also very late in the run.

Most camera makers at one time or another will make a special addition and I have heard of a Retina IIIC (never seen one though) special addition but the lack of a serial number was my main issue with this item. The early lens number was another factor. In reality I hope this auction is legit..

So for $1,500- proof would be required before I bid more than $300, the going rate of a mint IIIC, to go with my IIC.

Since I am not a collector I have no intention of buying but like you I couldn't buy without proof beyond a doubt..without absolute proof it's just another Retina IIIC to me..

Brian Sweeney
08-12-2009, 15:00
( EDIT: I was writing this as Colyn quoted and responded to my earlier post, but it is still my opinion on the matter)

Scam would imply that the seller is intentionally deceiving the potential buyer.

I do not think this is a scam.

I do not think that this camera is authentic, either. Now, the seller of the camera may have been scammed. This will not be the first time that I've seen a camera on auction where the seller was ripped off.

Nothing in the auction proves that it is an authentic 1 of 125 limited edition cameras made 20 years after the camera was introduced. The serial number of the lens is too low, and indicates "just a regular production" IIIC. If the camera were real, and had a 3-digit serial number on the body of the camera, it would have been noticed and photographed, and put in the auction description.

Now: let's summarize;
Not a scam, probably a regular production IIIC with nothing to prove that it is otherwise. Circumstantial evidence in the SN of the lens that it is regular production, produced well before the end of the line.

Burden of proof is on the seller, and any potential buyer should demand this proof unless they have "inside information".

And just to add, even if it were real- there are not enough Retina collectors left to pay that kind of price. Retina prices are down 75% and more over a few years ago.

planetjoe
08-12-2009, 15:19
Now don't start acting like that.

[...]

Oh.... there are no quotes on the word 'scam' in the title or the text of the OP!

Forgive the intrusion, but I just wanted to point out that colyn never said "quotes"; rather, "question marks." Which are indeed there in the thread title.

This point is, of course, pedantic. Forgive me. For the record, concerning the larger issue at hand I'm a proponent of the scenario described very well by Brian, above.


Cheers,
--joe.

mabelsound
08-12-2009, 15:34
There was nothing wrong with what Colyn said; it was perfectly reasonable to ask if this might be a scam, and question mark indicated very clearly that it was a question, not an accusation.

colyn
08-12-2009, 15:43
For the record I never accused the seller of perpetrating a scam. Some may have mis-read my header and thought so.

I am in agreement with Brian Sweeney's assessment...

I do however feel the seller needs to be willing to provide absolute proof instead of replying in a negative way to my email...that in itself gives the wrong impression...

Beemermark
08-12-2009, 15:43
If someone disagrees with your opinion do you always resort to name calling??

If so I'll have to feed you to my ignore list..

Me thinks Gumby was no more calling you a "moron" than you were calling the eBayer a "scam".

Gumby
08-12-2009, 17:49
Forgive the intrusion, but I just wanted to point out that colyn never said "quotes"; rather, "question marks." Which are indeed there in the thread title.


You are forgiven, Joe... and correct. But the basic notion is similar, don't you think?

Gumby
08-12-2009, 17:52
There was nothing wrong with what Colyn said; it was perfectly reasonable to ask if this might be a scam, and question mark indicated very clearly that it was a question, not an accusation.

OK, I can respect that. Let's try this on for size:

"Mabelsound is a moron???"

Is that any better? Question, or accusation?

:D

Gumby
08-12-2009, 17:56
For the record I never accused the seller of perpetrating a scam. Some may have mis-read my header and thought so.

I am in agreement with Brian Sweeney's assessment...

I do however feel the seller needs to be willing to provide absolute proof instead of replying in a negative way to my email...that in itself gives the wrong impression...

WONDERFUL (not shouting). We all agree!

I'll tell you something I believe about the seller, but can't actually verify... he mgiht be a bit rough-around-the-edges but he seemed like a really nice guy with good, honest intent when I interacted with him.

May I ask, colyn, how did you phrase your information request? He was polite with me, yet never acknowledged any recollection of our past interactions so I assume the thought of me as just another ebay lookie-loo.

Brian Sweeney
08-13-2009, 02:51
The lens looks like it was made in 1957, probably in the Spring.

http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/age_of_lenses/

The Kodak Reflex (original) used the same Schneider 50mm f2 lens as did the IIIC and IIIc rangefinders. the serial numbers tend to be higher. I have a Schneider 35/4 for the Reflex and my IIC with a SN 54xxxxx. All of my S Series lens start in the 6M range and run through the 11M range. At about the 10M mark, the RF coupling for the IIIS was done away with. I have 25 or so lenses for the Retina cameras.

What bothers me about this auction is the wording and emphasis on the camera being authentic, but no real proof being presented.

The seller states that the validity of this camera can be verified by David Jentz. These seller goes on to claim that there are several attributes that the 28/n camera has and no other cameras have, and that these cannot be forged as they are an integral part of the camera. He states they cannot be reproduced in the fakes, but does not explain why.

I do not believe this for a minute. Anyone with access to a machine shop can forge just about anything. The seller does not show the unique attributes, or even state what they are. The Serial Number of the lens is just wrong. I think it is a IIIC with a new top plate. i would be glad to be proven incorrect, but someone better show those two unique features and explain why they would be impossible to forge. I think my $1,500 will be going toward a used M8 and i'll just stick with my Retina IIC and 1946 Retina II with 47/2 Ektar lens as the most uncommon Retinas in my collection

ZeissFan
08-13-2009, 05:02
Kodak often mixed and matched parts as it transitioned between models.

You'll find some IIc/IIIc cameras with features from the IIC/IIIC.

Close inspection of the camera doesn't lead me to believe that this is anything more than a IIIC without a serial number. Aside from the frame counter advance with a dark background, it doesn't look materially different from my own IIIC. But I could very well be wrong about this camera.

I don't know that you can use the lens serial number as a guide, as these special models were assembled from left-over parts and with roughly 20 years passing between the end of the folding Retinas and the special VIP models, it's very possible that finding parts for the various cameras was no simple task. They might have been happy to use whatever they could find.

Gumby
08-13-2009, 07:13
What bothers me about this auction is the wording and emphasis on the camera being authentic, but no real proof being presented.

The seller states that the validity of this camera can be verified by David Jentz. These seller goes on to claim that there are several attributes that the 28/n camera has and no other cameras have, and that these cannot be forged as they are an integral part of the camera. He states they cannot be reproduced in the fakes, but does not explain why.

I do not believe this for a minute.

Brian, I'm not quite to the point of disbelief that you are, but neither am I willing to do too much homework to prove the sellers assertions. My feeling is that if this is real, it could certainly be marketed better; no matter, I feel that it will not sell unless there is a real expert outthere who can see and personally verify these unique attributes.

Does this information give you more to gnaw on to help us understand if this is gen-u-ine (as opposed to a "scam") or not:

"EACH OF THE PICTURES SHOWS AND (sic) ATTRIBUTE. ALL ARE SHOWN EVEN THE ONE THAT CAN NOT BE FORGED. IF YOU TAKE A STANDARD LARGE 3C AND STUDY EACH PICTURE YOU WILL SEE THE DIFFERENCES. THE TOW (sic) THINGS THAT CAN NOT BE FORGED THE SERIAL # WHICH THIS DOES NOT HAVE AS IT WAS TAKE (sic) BEFORE THE # WAS PUT ON AND THE SECOND IS IN THE FILM COMPARTMENT . (sic, if that term applies to puctuation too) WHICH IS ONLY DONE AT THE FACTORY AS IT IS RIVETED..(sic, if that term applies to puctuation too) THERE ARE 7 ATTRIBUTES, SOME REDONE CAMERAS HAVE 3-4 BUT NONE HAVE ALL 7 . ITEMS INVOLVED ARE, EXPOSURE METER, TOP HOUSING, SERIAL # LEATHER STAMPING AND LACK OF, BACK CASE COVER, AND INTERNAL FILM WIND. YOU CAN CONTACT DAVID JENTZ David Jentz the writer and foremost expert on Retina Cameras HE HAS TWO 28/N AND CAN ATTEST TO THAT HIS IS ONE ALSO THIS IS HIS WEBSITE AND EMAIL (deleted) I WILL CERTIFY THAT THE CAMERA IS WHAT I SAY"

Again, let me say that I have acutally met and delt with the seller. He may be mistaken but I don't think that he is in any way dishonest. He certainly knows more about Retinas than I do... but then again... I'm just a humble user of them.

Brian Sweeney
08-13-2009, 14:07
I'll bring up my IIC later and try to see some of the differences. They must be really subtle. Now, I can pick up an early production Nikon F2 (first 1600) and spot the differences immediately. Things like not having a stainless steel insert for the strap lugs, a different shaped film advance tip made of metal -not plastic, flat head screws, and a few other things most people might miss. But I am not seeing anything on this camera that looks different from a regular production IIIC.

colyn
08-13-2009, 14:12
But I am not seeing anything on this camera that looks different from a regular production IIIC.

I have a IIIC that was given to me in 1961. Comparing that camera to the photos on the auction the only difference I can see is the lack of a serial number.

Since the seller is unwilling to provide absolute proof himself I too have to consider it just another production run IIIC..

Brian Sweeney
08-13-2009, 15:31
I'm holding my late IIC up against his pictures shown in the auction. The SN on my camera is 76600x. The lens SN is 528925x. I recall that were about 14,000 IIC's made, about 1/3rd as many as the IIIC's.

The Back Leatherette looks identical; the chrome of the advance sprocket looks identical (shinier than older Retina's), coloring of all numbers etc, look identical. I could find some hand-written two-digit numbers written in the film compartment, but the Camera SN is not there. This was a practice for the Contax and early Nikon RF cameras, but I do not remember seeing a Retina do it- but have not checked them all. (Contax did this, and early Nikons did this to match the Back with the Body. There were adjustments made to the individual backs of early Nikons.)

I think if the seller wants to get top dollar for this camera, he needs to show the differences that he references. Put his camera side-by-side with a late run IIIC. I can put two Retina IIIS cameras side by side and show the same types of differences that he mentions in the ASA dial- the range was extended, and in the marked f-Stop- the early one has an unmarked F1.9 (really F1.9, and works with F1.9 lens!) setting and the late one marks F1.9 as the minimum stop.

colyn
08-13-2009, 16:32
I have compared my IIIC with the photos provided on the auction and the one and only difference I could find is the Gossen name embossed in the meter diffuser of the "RARE" model.

The seller says "THIS IS NOT THE REGULAR LARGE 3C AND PUT SIDE BY SIDE YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE" . Sorry but I can't...

I have in my parts box a Retina Reflex which used the same body/meter as the IIIC and it has the same Gossen diffuser so that in my opinion rules out a later made diffuser for this model.

Whether or not this auction is a scam I cannot say but I suspect the camera is nothing more than a production model with a new top plate.

Brian Sweeney
08-13-2009, 17:04
Gossen is on the diffuser of my Reflex S series cameras, early 1960s. It is not on my IIIS or IIIc. I think it is also on my Auto III, 1964 vintage.

Gumby
08-14-2009, 16:03
The seller says "THIS IS NOT THE REGULAR LARGE 3C AND PUT SIDE BY SIDE YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE" . Sorry but I can't...

Actually, me neither. Maybe we just don't have discriminating eyes?

Brian Sweeney
08-14-2009, 16:32
I've picked up some "slightly different" cameras before, mostly Nikons. A Nikon F Apollo with a SN in the 7303xxx range, with a white (not) black insulation around the flash contact. Steel inserts on the Strap Lugs, and looks mostly like my late Nikon F Apollo- except that insulation. Most Apollo's appeared much later, but these early ones are known to exist. Special production run for a big customer? Who knows, but the differences are there. Two Nikon F2's that did not have steel inserts, etc that I already mentioned. I've spent a lot of years looking for "stupid little meaningless differences between identical cameras of different runs in the production". I can rationalize owning multiples of the same camera models. Like Eleven Nikon F2's and Nine Nikon F's.

I'm not seeing the glaring differences on this Retina IIIC compared with a regular production run. If they are so subtle, the seller needs to closely document it. I can get a macro shot of the steel Strap Lug inserts in that 7303xxx Nikon F Apollo and show the difference in the pre-production Lever Advance Tips of the F2 sitting next to a standard production F2. You'll have to take my word that they are made of metal, not plastic- unless I borrow a thermal imager.

Gumby
08-14-2009, 16:41
If they are so subtle, the seller needs to closely document it.

If you would be so kind as to send me a Retina IIIC, I'll call the seller and stop by his shop to do a comparison. Shall I send you my address? :D

Brian Sweeney
08-14-2009, 16:52
Colyn has the IIIC. I have the IIC and IIIc. Not to be confused. The IIC is identical to the IIIC except it does not have the light meter, but does have all of the mounting brackets for it. I could turn my IIC into a IIIC. It works perfectly with an F2 front element. But I won't...

After taking apart a lot of Kodak Retina's (well, between 20 and 30), it amazes me about the parts re-use from one model to the next. You can replace a pressure plate on a IIa with one from a IIIc. The IIIS and Retina Reflex-S use many common parts, and I rebuilt a $20 IIIS missing a number of parts using a dead Reflex-S. Transferred and calibrated the light meter, door latch, etc. If only that damned gear Rack were made out of stronger material!

And I know one IIC that does not change F-Stop as you change Shutter Speed. I modified it for an RFF member.

If you would be so kind as to send me a Retina IIIC, I'll call the seller and stop by his shop to do a comparison. Shall I send you my address? :D


Better Idea: Have him send me the IIIC in question, and I'll get the macro shots using my 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor on the Nikon E3 with SB-29. That will get just about any detail, including strap lug inserts.

ZeissFan
08-14-2009, 17:44
The Retina IIS shares the body shell with the Ib/IB, IIc/IIC, IIIc/IIIC in a nonfolding design. It's also the same body shell as the Retina Reflex and/or possibly the Reflex S (can't recall exactly, as I haven't looked at them in a while).

From an economic point of view, it made sense to reuse parts and tooling as much as possible.

If you changed the IIc into a IIIc, you'd want to swap out the lens elements too, as the IIc is an f/2.8 Xenon, while the IIIc is an f/2.0 Xenon. But I know what you mean. You can see all of the bracket and screw holes.

The Contax IIa and IIIa are similar in that respect. They're the same camera except for the meter, top deck and rewind knob of the IIIa. Same applies to the Contax II and III.

Economies of scale.

Brian Sweeney
08-14-2009, 19:19
The Retina IIIS uses the interchangeable lenses of the Reflex cameras, the IIS is a fixed lens and "evolved" into the Auto III.

The IIIS is the same body shell as the Reflex S, but is longer than the IIS. The base plate on the IIIS and Reflex-S is interchangeable.The IIS is the same body shell as the Auto III, and is very close to the IIc/IIIc.

The rear module of the F2.8 lens and F2.0 lens is the same. I've taken several out, and interchanged some of them. I know about the SN of the rear module, front module, and mounting plate all matching- but in practice, I have found it makes little difference. I put the F2.0 front module onto my IIC and it was quite sharp at F2.0. Most IIC's and IIc's have a physical stop at F2.8. My particular IIC opens up to F2.0, even though it is unmarked. I think it was more marketing than anything else.

The other thing I find confusing: Retina cameras have two parallel SN streams. I have a IIIS with a Sn in the 700K range, and another in the 52K range. I have replacement top plates that run in the 800K and 70K range for the Retina Reflex III. I suspect two plants produced the cameras in parallel, and each used their own SN blocks. I do not know, and have not seen anything written to explain it- but have not looked hard.

Also: I'm glad I opened the Big Leather Field Case that has about 10 of my working Retina cameras in it. I forgot a (postwar) Retina II with Xenon lens that is now working again, parts scavenged from a third Retina II with an incomplete lens. I'll have to test the Retina II Xenon against the Retina II Ektar. Also: the SN of the Retina II (not IIa) is inside the camera, on the back as you open it. It is not on the top plate. All of my Retina IIa cameras had the SN on the Top Plate. There are two versions of top plates for the IIa, and they are not interchangeable with out modifying an internal stop on the body for the film counter to work.

Retina naming convention reminds me of the Taxi Episode when the Rev Jim gets confused over which is safe to eat, "Blue Berries" or "Blueberries".

BillBingham2
08-14-2009, 20:31
Brian,

Please let me know what you end up with (Xeon vs Ektar), would love to know.

B2 (;->

colyn
08-14-2009, 21:08
Brian,

Please let me know what you end up with (Xeon vs Ektar), would love to know.

B2 (;->

I've had both and find the Xenon has a slight edge on the Ektar..at least so in my opinion..

Bill58
08-15-2009, 00:00
IF I was the seller, I'd provide a letter in the ad from an independent, respected expert that says he has personally examined this camera (serial #______) and it is authentic (as represented). Without that, I'd be highly dubious.

mgd711
08-19-2009, 03:38
huh! :confused: remina, how is that advertisement relevant :rolleyes:

Its not, itís a spammer.......

retro
08-23-2009, 18:45
McKeown's book states that the special edition IIICs have their
serial number embossed into the leather on the back of the
camera and the numbers are 997xxx or 998xxx.

kodaknagel
08-29-2009, 10:18
OK - Folks -

The Typ 028/N Nachbau Retina IIIC was made in 1977 in celebration of the 50th anniversary of Kodak A.G. in Germany.

This special Nachbau Typ 028/N Retina IIIC was made from spare parts, was hand assembled and was given to VIPs as gifts.

HSRC data shows that slightly more than 125+ cameras were made.

Attributes of a Typ 028/N Nachbau Retina IIIC:
1. No serial number on top chrome housing ( spare part )
2. Invoice number 997xxx or 998xxx embossed on back door leatherette.
There are no engraving machines in use in 1977 at Kodak A.G. -
this is why the number is embossed !
3. Always has a metric focus scale.
4. Always has "Gossen" on front lens cell of exposure meter ( spare part )
Gossen is not present on standard production Typ 028 Retina IIIC cameras
unless they were repaired.
4. Always has a Retina-Xenon f:2 or f2.0/50mm lens which can have a serial number from the entire range of this lens as these cameras are made from spare parts.
5. A small disc on the bottom of the film chamber is made of black plastic, not aluminum alloy as on regular production Typ 028 Retina IIIC cameras.
6. There is a special casting number inside the front folding door -
but this information will be kept secret to prevent fakes.

I will not give several other attributes as I do not wish fake cameras to be created from spare parts.

Authentification by a well published Retina camera historian is recommend before considering the purchase of a Nachbau

- Caveat emptor.

colyn
08-29-2009, 10:39
3. Always has a metric focus scale.

Then this one is a fake since the focus scale is in feet...

4. Always has "Gossen" on front lens cell of exposure meter ( spare part )
Gossen is not present on standard production Typ 028 Retina IIIC cameras
unless they were repaired.

I have a IIIC given to me in 1961 with the Gossen lens cell. Never been repaired since I have owned it.

kodaknagel
08-30-2009, 14:20
Colyn,

Could we see some photos of your Typ 028 Retina IIIC with Gossen on the exposure meter.

We have nevere seen it even in the late production models in the 100xxx and 101xxx serial number range.

More on production of the Typ 028 Retina IIIC to follow.

Dave

kodaknagel
08-30-2009, 14:33
Typ 028 Retina IIIC was manufactured from November 28, 1957 until the middle of 1960.

The HSRC identified body serial number ranges are EK 753822 to 755546, EK 756296 to EK758715, 761500 to 764379, 50003 to 101376, and EK 800009 to EK806823.

EK serial number prefix is for Eastman Kodak imports to North America for warranty purposes.

HSRC estimate of total production if the Typ 028 Retina IIIC based on serial number data is 66,010+ cameras.

HSRC database shows 91 % of Retina IIIC cameras have a Retina-Xenon C lens and
9% have a Retina-Heligon C lens.

16000 of the late production Typ 028 Retina IIIC cameras have the ASA 3200/DIN 36 exposure meter.

The last manual for the Typ 028 Retina IIIC we have identified has a publication date of June of 1960.

The last Retina-Xenon C lenses for the Typ 028 Retina IIIC have a serial number series of 6448xxx and were manufactured in March of 1960.

The presence of Gossen on exposure meters on Retina cameras is first seen in late 1960 and early 1961.

kodaknagel
08-30-2009, 14:46
One more thing - the Typ 028 Retina IIIC on that ebay offering is a mystery !

I would never state that " it is a fake " - The camera simply does not make criteria as a Typ 028/N Nachbau from 1977.

That particular camera has many more attributes of a true Nachbau than I have seen in just repaired cameras.

I am not quite certain what this Retina IIIC is , but I can tell you that I would not call it a fake - I think it was built this way originally for many reasons -

I just can not tell you when it was built or why it was built !

But the constellation of findings in this particular Typ 028 Retina IIIC offered on ebay make it a rarity.

The buyer must decide for themselves if they want this rare Retina IIIC.

rpjasin
09-19-2009, 11:31
Haven't logged in in a while and was glad to see this discussion happening. When this camera was first offered over a year ago I posted a comment about it that seemed to fall on deaf ears, so I am glad you folks have an interest after all. The IIIC/N is currently on ebay as I write this, and I can tell you that when it was offered earlier this year, I was in touch with the seller who put me in touch with none other than the world expert on Retinas, David L. Jentz. Mr. Jentz responded to me on 2-7-09 the following: "The Typ 028 Retina IIIC that photobuffman is offering has 6 of 7 attributes of a Typ 028/N Nachbau Retina IIIC camera, but it lacks a serial number embossed in the back door leatherette. Now the 6 attributes this camera has could only come from later assembly outside of the typical 1958 to 1960 production time of the standard Typ 028 Retina IIIC cameras. I can not tell you when his Typ 028 Retina IIIC camera was assembled, only that it has 6 of 7 attributes of the 1977 Nachbau model. You must decide for yourself if you want this camera. The real McCoy Typ 028/N Retina IIIC cameras have the serial number embossed in the back door leatherette in an area below the viewfinder window. The serial number is actually an invoice number and is 6 digits starting as 997xxx or 998xxx. From our data, we have estimated that 120+ were made in 1977 for the 50th anniversary of Kodak. A.G. and were given to V.I.P.s Some had special engravings also present on the back of the top chrome housing that were specific for the V.I.P. receiving this fine gift. Without the proper serial number embossed in the back door leather, I can not verify when this camera was made. I can only tell you that it is a good bet it was assembled much later than standard production because of some internal and external differences from standard production cameras. Many of the special parts used in this camera and the Nachbau cameras where not in existence until the late 1960's.
Again, you must decide whether you want this camera - I can tell you that what he is offering is quite rare, but I can not tell you that it was made in 1977". Well, there you have it. Doesn't sound like a scam to me. In my correspondence with Photobuffman, I know he is an avid Retina collector and he told me he had over 200 Retinas and Retinettes and has since sold many of them to cover his personal expenses. Even though he is spelling challenged I believe him to be an honest person that truly loves Retinas. Do keep in mind though, like with anything, "Caveat Emptor". Bob, proud owner of a IIa, Ib, IIC, IIIC, IIIS, automatic III, Reflex S, Reflex IV and all the lenses.

Gumby
09-19-2009, 12:01
Bob, That is EXACTLY what the seller says in both his listings and persponal correspondence... except to those who started their enquiry with "I think you're scamming".

raid
09-19-2009, 12:34
I hope that in the end someone will buy this camera and let us know whether she/he likes it or not. The rest is for collectors, and the 6/7 information may please some and not please others. Maybe 6/7 of all collectors will like the camera? Or is the satisfaction level "6 out of 7"?

Gumby
09-19-2009, 12:54
He is talking about 6 our of 7 points-of-identification/proof... what are you talking about?

raid
09-19-2009, 12:55
You didn't get the joke?! I tried.

Gumby
09-19-2009, 12:56
It wasn't funny. :)

ZeissFan
09-19-2009, 17:35
Raid, I was amused. Nice camera humor! :)

colyn
09-19-2009, 17:39
I wonder how many "last times" he plans to relist it...:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

kitaanat
09-20-2009, 05:16
kodaknagel, Brian Sweeney, Colyn, thanks for sharing the links and info about Retina IIIC type 028.

My IIIC's SN : 51xxx
Schneider 2/50mm SN : 5 5xx xxx
ISO/ASA : 1300/33
Shutter SN : 324xxxx

added:

I wonder why my lens's serial number is newer
and start to confuse that what exactly year my
camera assembled.