CLA M2 or M3 before selling

<p>I am thinking of trying to sell either a M2 or M3 (I have one of each) and I believe neither have had a CLA in 20+ years if ever. Would it be wise to have them CLA'd before selling or sell as is? Would the cost of the CLA be recovered in a better selling price? They both appear to work, I have recently put a couple rolls through the M3 with no troubles and the shots are fine. The M2 appears to work fine, shutter sounds right film advance lever moves smoothly, a 5cm lens appears to focus properly. In other words, I think nothing needs to be repaired, just cleaned up a bit. <br>

Thanks for your thoughts.<br>

Jim</p>

<p>A Leica which has just been CLA'd will sell more readily, but in terms of hard cash I don't think you will earn back the cost of this in the selling price.</p>

<p>I agree with David, it is unlikely the cost of a CLA will be recovered in the selling price. Unless the main functions are not as they should be (shutter speeds, RF operation, VF clarity) the adage of "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" applies.</p>

<p>I had always wanted an excellent condition M4-2 or M4-P. About ten years ago I found an M4-P that was acquired by the seller in an estate sale. A virtually unused sample of a collector. After 25 years sitting in a box, the slow shutter speeds were much too slow, while other speeds and functions were perfect. Rather than return it immediately, I spent a week occasionally exercising the shutter until the speeds returned to their intended values (I use a modest Calumet shutter tester). Since then I have had no problems whatsoever with the camera functions and the VF and RF remain clear and also work as intended. Leicas are pretty robust. Those who are obsessed with mechanical and optical perfection may disagree, but I think that there are more variables in photography to worry about than absolute accuracy or perfection (if there is such a thing).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"spent a week occasionally exercising the shutter until the speeds returned" <em><strong>Arthur P.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Yup</strong>, found that "virtually unused" <strong>Ferrari in a barn</strong>, doing nothing except driving it around reving the engine for a week; eventually the car seemed to run as it should. (Good advice Arthur...)<br /> <br /> Now, your ROI (Return On Investment) may not be realized, because if you use (not a cheap, quick & dirty service) a quality high reputation service, you'll probably pay over $300, plus experience a significant delay before you can list the camera for sale. <br />With that you'll probably get more in the sale, but most likely just enough to cover that last expense. <br /> Finally, some folks have their own favorite technicians to use, by doing it for them, you may have picked the wrong one.</p>

<p>My experience is that you'll lose money on the CLA. It brings slightly more money on the sale, but not enough to cover the costs of a good technician.</p>

<p>Recently, I bought an M3 that the seller stated had just been serviced by his "great" technician in MI. Since I wanted the RF to focus closer, I bought it and had the seller send it directly to DAG. Don told me that the camera was dirty, winding gritty, viewfinder dusty, etc. I had Don ship the camera back to the seller for a full refund. The seller was incensed that I sent back a camera without having seen it at all. Well, I'm not going to dispute DAG's opinion. In fairness to the seller, I should mention that I did get a full refund. The irony of the situation here was that I had asked the seller not to CLA the camera, as I had my own technicians (like DAG, and Gus), whom I trust with these repairs and overhauls.</p>

<p> An honestly dirty camera with wear and missing vulcanite is preferably to a cheaply tarted up parts source candidate.</p>

<p>Thanks for all your input. You have confirmed a feeling I had but with no real evidence or experiences to back it up. I guess I'll just have to exercise them both a little bit (Oh No!). I appreciate your thoughts.</p>

 

<p><strong><em>Yup</em></strong><em>, found that "virtually unused" <strong>Ferrari in a barn</strong>, doing nothing except driving it around reving the engine for a week; eventually the car seemed to run as it should. </em><br>

Disingenuous! As anyone with any engineering knowledge knows, a car that has spent a long time in a barn will have engine oil like treacle with no lubricating (or flow) properties, entirely unserviceable coolant and hydraulic fluid and sludgy fuel and will need replacement of a vast number of rubber products (hoses, brake cylinder seals, tires). There are virtually no parallels to Leica cameras except in the extreme case where shutter blinds may be so perished as to need replacement. I can think of no objection to firing off a sluggish shutter a few dozen times to see if it picks up.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"There are virtually no parallels - I can think of no objection to firing off a sluggish shutter" <strong><em>David B.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You forgot to mention installing a new battery in our Ferrari, but did I really have to mention that along with your list of other restore items?<br>

It's called an <strong>*</strong>Analogy David. (Valuable precision mechanism and it's need for proper lubricants)</p>

<p>So one should ask, when does lubricant cease to be so?</p>

<p>The fact that you're forcing a precision mechanism to function, when it's void of the true substance that the designers and engineers agree is necessary for the mechanism to sustain it's intended lifespan, is reprehensible.</p>

<p>Not to mention, the complete spreading & oxygenation of newly formed <strong>acidic material</strong> further in to highly polished surfaces.<br>

At least a fine watch just stops when it gets "coked-up". But <strong>the poor Leica,</strong> has an advance lever that a person (who lacks basic common sense), can use to do real damage...</p>

<p><strong>*</strong><em>a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based.</em></p>

<p>The fine watch analogy that needs a CLA is closer to the dormant Leica. Another factor involves updates to early models of Leicas that were applied to later versions. If I knew I was buying an early version of a Leica CL, I would buy it "as is" as chaeply as possible and send it Sherry Krauter requesting an update of the internals. The same applies to early versions of M3's with the glass pressure plate, I'd rather have it updated with the later metai version. Incindently, a Hamilton Railroad Grade 992 movement will do considerable damage to itself if wound and run without proper adjustment and lubrication.</p>

<p>I think that if you can assure a potential buyer that:<br>

1) The shutter fires smoothly at all speeds <br>

2) The viewfinder is clear and the rangefinder patch is bright and clear.<br>

3) The camera is free of dents<br>

then I suggest that the expense of a CLA on your part is wasted expense. Personally. I would much prefer to obtain a working camera at an attractive price and once having bought it, arrange a CLA at my own expense and with a camera guru whom I know. </p>

<p> </p>