"Heer Leica"

What do you Leica experts think about this "Heer Leica"?

 

Item number 140065576348 on "that" auction site.

 

Look closely. Is it the real thing, or an early FED?

 

The seller claims that the camera survived Stalingrad, but his father did

not...

I'm no expert, although it doesn't stink like a FED that seller offers sending more information, further pictures and even fondling the camera while the auction is up.

 

So I'd ask him for a cam follower close up picture, RM allignment, smoothness of the lens' rings and the rest of the whole cataloque.

 

Talking common sense: He doesn't seem to be a shutterbug himself and asks for enough money to get me a fine M2 beater, so according to his non existant return policy he should work. I'm reasonable and avaricious enough to torture even those, who put up a FED or Leningrad, with lengthy questionaires and ended often enough deciding "no thank you", if the result the results indicated the offered item was another fishy, sticky, beater far from "ready to shoot". - I collect cameras not paper weights! (although I have pelenty of both)

 

If I was into living history WW 2, a FED would take good enough pics of my comrades. If I felt a urge to collect Barnacks, I'd either play a US guy allowed to carry one (have there been some with cheaper guns than Patton's?) Or ask my local silkscreen print shop for a little favour... I buy army surplus to save and not to burn $$.

Despight the correct shutter button and what looks like a roller on the r-finder follower, it's certainly not a Leica.

Just look at the damned thing - it's obvious, isn't it ! Use your eyes.

The top of the viewfinder window is level with the top surface - Not what you would find on a

Leica. And, the vulcanite covering looks suspiciously like thin vinyl, not the thick rubbery

cover of vulcanite. Vulcanite would crack or separate from the body but not peel back. Also,

notice the lens cap, with sharp white printed lettering, unlike genuine Leica caps.

Absolutely right.

 

And look at the crudeness of the top cover - the early Leica II was a bit lumpy looking but that had a semicircular shape under the speed dial (it didn't then have to accommodate the slow-speed mechanism). The arrows on the winders are too thin. The small r/h rangefinder window - again the II had small windows, but not that small.

Any so called Leica with engravings such as Heer swasticas or generals names are ALWAYS fake. No such engraving was ever made at the Leitz works.I know my father did survive Stalingrad.

I agree with all who think it is a fake made from a Fed or Zorkii. The line across the front of the top cover juts out to go around the frame of the VF window. Somehow the maker managed to obtain a correct release button, but that isn't impossible. The top cover situation is the deciding factor. I cant't understand why a perfectly good Fed/Zorkii cant stand on its own merits.

Dan, the early FEDs had this release button.

 

http://www.rus-camera.com/camera.php?page=fed&camera=fed

 

The leather/vulcanite must have been changed, because the four screws on the front can't be seen.

Well, you know what? I'm no expert either, but I'm gonna stick my neck out and say it's genuine. I have compared it with pictures in both Rogliatti and Lager, and I feel it matches up well. As for the rangefinder window matching up with the top of the camera: some did, and some didn't. The "dog-ear" type window does not. However, the one in the auction is the other style, which does. Lager and Rogliatti show the non-dog ear style as being on a chrome body, not black paint. However, they may have made both styles in both finishes.

 

It is a model II, and the serial number matches for a II. I don't know German, but I think "Heer" just means it was reserved for internal use at Leitz, not to be sold. I don't think it's a military or Nazi designation. And there is no swastika.

 

All in all, I think it just looks too damn right to be wrong. OK, prove me wrong.

Well, even the non-dog-eared style doesn't come <i>quite</i> up to the top. Close, though. I know, I know: close only counts in horsehoes. And I concur about the four screws that should be showing. Well, I'm not confident enough to risk 750 Euros on it. Not that I'd want it anyway. But if it's a fake, it's a very fine one, isn't it? You can spot most from 10 feet away.

Rob F, --Of course you are wrong! HEER just means "army".

 

Jerry

You haven't heard of a "Betriebsk", I preseume ("Heer" means army). Why spoil a nice thread with your display of no-know?

"Heer" means Army supply, not internal use! Leitz used "Betriebsk" for marking for internal use.

Rob, "Heer" means "Army".

 

Look at the viewfinder front window.

 

This is a real Leica II:

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/leica/sm/smpix/dblk.jpg

 

Another model:

http://www.theclassiccamera.com/Picts/Stock_1002100000001.jpg

 

AND here's a FED:

http://www.rus-camera.com/camera/fed_nkvd_sssr.jpg

 

...it has the same style viewfinder frame as the camera in the acution:

http://i22.ebayimg.com/07/i/000/7f/69/29be_3.JPG

http://i17.ebayimg.com/02/i/000/7f/69/287c_3.JPG

 

No Leica ever looked like that.

Has anyone seen any other cameras -other- than Leicas (or faux-Leicas) with WWII German

military markings? Might prove to be useful as a baseline of comparing the marks

independently of the camera itself.

I think I saw Elvis with this exact camera. Just last week. He was shooting professional wrestlers.

It looks phony to me, but it's actually not a bad fake. In addition to the middle window being off, the lens cap is nothing that Leica made and the rewind knob also looks off. Also, it seems to me that a camera with serial number 292xxx should not have the 0 at the top of the lens mounting ring since it was long after standardization was introduced, so the 0 would have been dropped by then.

here is one that a photodealer nearby sells - but he says its a fake<div></div>

The last pics are of a perfectly good Leica IIIB.

 

I can't understand how anyone can mistake these cameras for eachother. I thought maybe photographers in particular would have a better eye.

 

The '0' would be there that late, though.

The IIIB above probably wouldn't have the '0'; IIIAs all seem to have it, but it might have gone by # 29****

The 'HEER' is OK but the way it's done is so crude no German officer would have been seen dead with it.

It looks like a real Leica but with added engraving. I'm 90% sure. But either way I wouldn't pay any kind of premium for something like this.

 

Harry, that camera in the pics looks much the same - a real Leica with some additions/modifications.

I'm astounded at the level of ignorance being shown here. The fakers really do have a market for their stuff and it looks like it might be quite lucrative.

Hi All: There are two details in the pictures of a "Leica IIIb" which make me doubt its authenticity: The milling on the collar surrounding the shutter release is vertical on genuine Leica's in my experience, not cross-hatched like this example. Also, that stop screw for the diopter adjuster looks strange to my eye. Otherwise, I'd say that the engraving is indistinguishable from that on a real Leica. To my eye, the camera shown on auction is definitely not a genuine Leica for all the reasons others have posted. Best, David