mark_crame1 Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Hi, I have a photograph of Flight Lieutenant Frank Howell who was a pilot with the Royal Air force during the Battle of Britain. In it he is holding his Leica - and I am wondering if any of you might be able to identify it for me. This photograph was taken in 1940 if that helps. Frank Howell was killed in the 1950's in an accident, and this request stems from a conversation that I had with his daughter (who was born after his death)a while ago. Many thanks in advance - it would be great to ID it and let her know. Regards, Mark.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_crame1 Posted December 19, 2003 Author Share Posted December 19, 2003 A close up...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neal_shields Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 What ever it is it seems to be a one of a kind left handed model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbutterworth Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 I'm not sure, but the image is flipped... a little PS should take care of that. <p> Hope that helps!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_collier2 Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Tough to say but the negative is flipped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neal_shields Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 I can't see the little lever under the rewind crank so I am guessing a IIIa? Sorry about the above post, I couldn't help it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awahlster Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 First off your photo it backwards left to right. As there is NO Leica that would appear as this one does in the photo posted here. That said it would most likely be a a 1938-1946 Leica IIIb (G) as it does not have the eyepc. diopter adjustment of the two earlier models with this confuguration as well as having what appears to be a viewfinder Dipopter adjustment below the rewind knob. The lens appears to be the venerable 5cm f3.5 Elmar with a hood on it. McKeown's gives it's value as $300-450.00 in EX and 700-900.00 in Mint Oh and I can rule out the IIIc 1940-1946 as there does not appear to be a step in the top cover under the diopter adjustment lever. It was sure a lot easier trying to figure out this puzzel after I flipped the photo right to left. If some one else has a different opinion please let me know as I tried to do this based on the literature and examples I have.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 #1 the negative is flipped left to right. as far as the camera goes, i don't see a slow speed knob on the front. that, plus the top plate arrangement leads me to believe it is a iib (the ii/iiic was a 1940 intro anyway. not to many made their way to britain that year -- you said it was a 1940 photo. plus the case looks worn suggesting that it is not a brand new camera) as for the lens, the easy guess would be the typically supplied elmar 50. but the profile looks wrong to me. my guess -- and it is only that -- is that the lens is something native, like a taylor hobson. i feel like i have seen the profile before, but can't quite place it. definitely a 50 though as no auxilliary finder is fitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 sorry for any repetition. some posts went up whilst i was composing my reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__ly_tu Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 is treads for tripod stick turns right or to left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awahlster Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 My copy of Mckeown's dosen't seam to list a Leica IIb. As to not seeing a slow speed dial can easily explained by the angle of the photo and the deep shadow across the front of the camera. The lack of the viewfinder diopter adjustment frame that would show in this angle as being behind the rewind knob. And the time frame means this almost has to be a two year old IIIb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles barcellona www.bl Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 The photo of the camera is such that id is speculation - it could be a Zorki for all we really know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 you are, of course, right. i should have said iia. i don't agree about the shadow, as i read the light, the chrome slow speed dial would have been recorded. it is all dark because it is a dark iia case. i don't think there is a slow speed dial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_crame1 Posted December 19, 2003 Author Share Posted December 19, 2003 Yes, definately 1940. Haha! The bloody neg has been flipped for over 60 years!!! This was taken from a print. This is great news - We can both look at it properly now. As said, the chances of a delivery to the UK of a Leica in 1940 would have been tricky to say the least...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 look at the wear on the strap; look at the top plate near the rewind; look closely at the light and the place where the slow speed dial should be; look at iiib production numbers and dates and think about europe in the 1930s. iia is IMO the best guess. and while everybody was knocking out iia copies in the 30s (especially FED), i can tell by the look of FL howell that he is holding a leica. i would say a reid if it were a few years later, but he didn't own a russian camera. also the case looks like EXACTLY like a 30s leica case i have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 no question, a iia type. i just realize that you can plainly see the top edge of the case go straight across. the top edge is plainly picked out by the light. a iiib would have had a cutout in the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_crame1 Posted December 19, 2003 Author Share Posted December 19, 2003 Charles has a point - but I do know from various sources that he was a Leica man. Thanks for your help so far everyone. I also think that the case would cover anything on the front of the body. Oh, and just to make you laugh, it's printed in a book the wrong way around too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan flanders Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Although the camera clearly proves it, two other clues show it was reversed in printing: his fly, and the way his four-in -hand is tied. I'm betting it is a IIIb, but it could be an upgraded II. The Spit evokes nostalgia; us bomber types always loved to see "little brother" up REAL close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awahlster Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Ok I have three photo's/prints to back up my assurtion it is a 1938ish IIIb The first shows the viewfinder diopter adjustment as it is on the a models from the rear showing it clearly sticking out in the view of the origional photo. The second photo is of the same thing from the front again showing the frame sticking out from behind the top of the camera. The third is a blow up (corrected for right left) In which the top front edge of the case CAN NOT BE SEEN AT ALL but if you look close a curved shape right where the slow speed dial is located can be. The strong shadow on the top of the lens clearly tells that NO detail in the slow speed shutter dial area could be seen. So we have to fall back on the model a's viewfinder diopter frame to tell us which of the two choices we have it is. And this clearly says IIIb.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awahlster Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 next<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awahlster Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 next one<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awahlster Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 And one last blow up to show the IIIb style viewfinder diopter adjust ment lever under the rewind knob. There is just enough of an image to see that there has to be something (like a small chrome knob) in front of the rewind knob. This camera HAS to be a model IIIb as there is no model IIb and unless it is a very highly modified IIa that is the only choice that has these features or lack of features. I'm done agree or disagree but please post pictures to back up you points. Thanks<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awahlster Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Roger there is no model IIa listed that I can find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 I don't think there was a IIa. The earliest a was the IIIa, where the a signifies the addition of a 1/1000 top speed. This example can't be a III anything, without a slow speed dial. It's gotta be a II (D) in chrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 no question the a was available in a slow speed-less version. do you see what i mean about the case?? the top edge of the case is visible across the entire front of the camera. there is absolutely no cutout for the slow speed dial. i see what you mean, however, about the window. the only other possibility is that this is the fed iia copy, which as you will see in a link i will post below lacks the slow speeds but also has the pictured window arrangement. the fed would also explain the IMO strange lens profile. see what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now