I’ve been collecting and using old cameras for most of my adult life. I’m a spare change collector however; no Leica, Rollei, Contax, etc. elite cameras in my cabinet. Instead, my collection is mostly filled with old Kodaks and sprinkled with an assortment of other low-value brands/models. Being somewhat mechanically inclined, I look for affordable, vintage 35mm and 120/620 film cameras in repairable condition, give them a home-grown CLA, and run a roll or two of film through them for fun. In particular, I look for “sleeper” cameras that aren’t in high demand by collectors but have one or more unique qualities that distinguish them from the plethora of cheap, ho-hum, copycat film cameras that flooded the markets back in the day. I bought my first Argoflex Forty at an online auction after reading a review on the Photo Jottings website. Up to that point, the only Argus cameras that stuck in my mind were the C3 “brick” and the Argus 75, neither of which held any special value to me. The Argoflex Forty was different. I was intrigued by the combination of functionality and basic simplicity of the camera: the brilliant viewfinder, the large negative, the apparent quality of the lens, the 9-bladed (circular) iris, and the range of shutter speeds and apertures. As a late middle-aged lifelong eyeglass wearer, my vision has started to degrade to the point where attempting to manually focus and frame through squinty and/or dim viewfinders, which would describe most of the cameras in my collection, has become too tedious. The large, bright, and reasonably accurate viewfinder in the Argoflex Forty was just the antidote for these tired old eyes to keep enjoying my hobby. Since I tend to shoot landscapes at apertures of f8 or smaller, guesstimating distance for the scale-focused lens isn’t too much of an issue. In fact, for both metering and subject distance, I use apps on my phone which, up to this point, have served me well. All relationships have their ups and downs and, after shooting my first roll of film, I started to feel the honeymoon was over. You see, most of the frames had what appeared to be a light leak along either one or both sides of most of the frames. I didn’t notice the problem on the top or bottom edges, just on the sides. At first, I blamed this on trimming the roll of 120 film to fit the 620 supply side (a tight fit but possible). I soon discounted this theory after noticing that even the later frames, buried deeper on the spool and safe from light bleeding over the edge of the spool, were affected. I also saw the problem on film that I had re-rolled onto 620 spools in my darkroom. I then took out my high-powered LED flashlight and tried to find any evidence of light leak to no avail. Searching through other reviews of the Argoflex Forty on the web, I found evidence of the same problem in the sample photos provided in the reviews. Most of the reviewers dismissed it as a light leak and others opined that it was a desirable effect that added vintage charm to the photos. This would not do! I wanted and expected excellent results from this camera based on the positive reviews. Something had to be done. Here is a particularly egregious example. This is a long exposure shot of the interior of a church sanctuary. Outside the frame on both sides are exit doors with viewing panes to the outside. The light through both doors has bled onto the edges of the film.