Just spotted : a false-true Contax III

[nicolas_douez]

I recently was strong enough (pfff, I'm still wet :-) to resist the

urge to buy (despite the attractive price) a Contax III on fleabay

that seemed a bit too... well, a bit too nice to be true.

 

I was right I assume. It's not the usual fake Contax with an entire

Kiev body and only a Contax frontplate we use to see here and there -

it's more subtle.

 

No pictures of the inside were available, nor pictures of the back.

 

Just two pictures, almost identical, taken from the top. On the

first one, one can see the little "foot" that is a well known

feature of the II/III.

 

On the other picture, it's not here any longer, but with an exerced

eye one can see the trace of something removed with a picture

software (pointed by blue arrow).

 

I have both a 1936 Contax II and a 1956 Kiev 2 at home. You can see

by yourself on my pictures.

 

So, at least had this camera one Kiev part - and probably more. The

seller claimed the camera was a genuine Contax, I'm afraid it was

not.

 

Three posts to follow. Caveat emptor !

 

:)=<div></div>

[nicolas_douez]

Two...<div></div>

[nicolas_douez]

Three...<div></div>

[nicolas_douez]

That's it !<div></div>

[jorn ake]

Good detective work there. If you ever manage to squeeze yourself into the workshop of an Eastern European camera store, you will see all sorts of hybridization, born not necessarily out of dishonesty but out of a tradition of necessity leftover from the 50's, 60's and 70's. I can imagine that some of these cameras after repair find their way into other regions, and probably for the original owner are no less authentic than when the camera came into their hands. BUT things are different for the buyer who is expecting authentic to mean 100% Contax!

[silent1]

Look closely, you'll see that (for whatever reason) the second picture may have been taken with the back off the camera, hence no foot. I agree, however, that the foot in the first picture matches your Kiev, not your Contax. Hard to be sure if it's a complete (and well done, seemingly) fake, or a genuine Contax with a Kiev back fitted...

[mskovacs]

Look closely at the focusing scale. Contax uses German "commas" instead of Russian "decimals". E.g. 1,15 vs 1.15 metres.

[paul t]

Unfortunately I sold or swapped my Contax III and Kiev 3, so I can't compare

them side-by-side, but it seems that the top plate of the camera you've shown

here is a genuine Contax - there's a little decorative pressing around the film

counter on the Contax which is absent on the Kiev. <p>

OTOH the Contax should also have feathers on the rewind arrow (can't quite

see on the photo here), while the calibration on the exposure meter is very

different, too - I'm not sure about that on your 'Contax', it does look more like

the Kiev version. <p>

As has been noted here before, Contax cameras that have been 'repaired'

with Kiev parts are often more of a problem than out and out fakes. For

instance, if the meter goes on your Contax, it's not possible to replace the

selenium cell with one from the Kiev, becasue the internal design is quite

different - you have to replace the whole unit... which COULD be what has

happened here.

[nicolas_douez]

Mike, you're right, but the auction listing picture isn't terrific and I can't see if the lens mount has commas or dots. Dots maybe (so it's a Kiev lens mount).

 

Paul, yes I'm agree, here we have something far more subtle than a "common" Kiev disguised in Contax. It's probably a 50-50 hybrid. A genuine Contax III body and VF/RF, a genuine Contax III top cover (you're right, the film counter window is of a Contax design and the feathers are here around the rewind knob), probably an entire Kiev 2/3 back, more than probably a Kiev shutter module and a late Kiev lightmeter module. In addition (according to Steve Ash website) it seems that the lightmeter flip-on cover is of a Kiev type (slight differences in the rectangle decorative pressing).

 

Today I noticed a nice Contax III in Germany, with a BIN option. Surprisingly the auction pictures are black and white (although it's quite easy to shoot color pics with a basic digicam, isn't it ?). I looked at what the seller had recently bought, and found... working Kiev cameras, Kiev cameras for parts, and even spare Russian shutter modules...

 

A pity my "American" Contax II (not received yet, and probably never to be) has been stolen in the mail, because it was a genuine prewar German beast, I was fully sure of that.

 

:)=

[mskovacs]

How long has it been? I sold a Nikon F from Canada to an Italian and it was held for almost two months in customs.

[nicolas_douez]

It was sent Airmail from Union, NJ, on 02/16.

 

French customs are not the baddest, so I don't think they caused the problem. Never got problems with them whilst 2 years of int'l evilbaying.

 

Yesterday I received an item that was sent from Baton Rouge, LA, on 03/11 (and another sent from Marseille, 120 km far from me, on 03/09 !)

 

:)=

[charles_barringer]

I believe you may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater by declaring

this camera to be partially or totally inauthentic on the basis of two photos.

The photo without the foot could have been easily made simply by folding the

offending foot to its "resting" position. No need to change feet, socks, shoes,

or backs (any of which is possible).

 

I agree that the pattern of the foot is Kiev, not Contax, but without seeing a

picture of the back and other details I would not condemn the entire camera. I

also agree that there are many hybrids around - this is simply an

acknowledgement that Contax and Kiev (prior to the IV/IVa) are virtually

identical (with exceptions) and that the users wanted to keep them in action,

using whatever parts were available and inexpensive. Clearly more details

should be required of the seller before making a decision to buy, or to

condemn, this example.

 

Given the enthusiastic response to the intital observation, could I suggest that

the best way to "get a handle" on this situation is to create an interactive

database of the characteristics and details of the cameras. This would ask that

individuals closely inspect their cameras to determine which characteristics

go with which serial numbers.

 

As an example, looking quickly at 6 Kiev III between 1954 and 1957 I see that

the rewind arrow piercing a zero exists on A5458xx, B5418xx, 5589xx, but is

replaced by a plain arrow in A5610xx and 5710xxx. This would suggest a

demarcation around the beginning of 1957, but only by observing a few

dozen or hundred more such cameras can we arrive at a truly educated

estimate.

 

If someone will tell me how this can be done, I will be happy to suggest a

design for the database, and fill in information for a number of cameras, over

time. If the database is intelligently set up, it would require only a few minutes

per camera.

 

If I'm coming in late, and this project has already been started, please let me

know. I would willingly participate in someone else's project.

 

Charlie Barringer

(traducteur francais/anglais de "Made in USSR, the authentic guide ...")

[paul t]

Charlie, this is a really good idea. I was pondering exactly this, when looking

at the thread about a Leica II over on the Leica forum. IT should be quite easy

to select the key parts on Contax/Kiev cameras, plus Leica II/Fed etc, and

have a data base, so any user could check the shutter etc etc etc is original.

<p>

THis would really empower buyers. I'm confident that, between this site and

the beststuff site, it would be easy to build up a database as you suggest. It

could be done with lenses, too - for instance, there are increasing numbers of

fake Zeiss lenses out there . And, more recently, Russian sellers are even

auctioning ZK fakes made from Jupiters!

[paul t]

Actually, Nicolas, the foot you show is not the only design for Contax. Below is

the foot on my old Contax III (which looked markedly different from that on my

1952 Kiev II). Sorry if it's a large scan, I don't have photoshop on this machine.<div></div>

[nicolas_douez]

Cleverly pointed out Charles, but despite all my questions sent to the seller, I never got any other picture of the camera, and the only answer I got was : "Dear Sir, it is Contax not Kiev, it was bought in Prague, it is from 1938, but if you think that it has Kiev parts in it, then it has ; I can't tell you anything else".

 

I had asked the seller about the foot (well I agree the foot could have been the ONLY Kiev part on this camera, why not : I've seen many Contax II & III with a missing foot, so replacing the missing original Z-I foot by a Kiev foot is not a sacrilege IMHO) but I got no answer.

 

Added to the fact that the camera comes from abroad the former iron curtain, well there is more than a doubt, there is a serious doubt.

 

Warning : I do NOT have bad feelings towards the Eastern European countries citizens. They are as nice people as any other nice people.

 

Also note that the camera has sold for an average-low price and got 3 bids only, that is fairly uncommon for an otherwise good looking and advertised as fully working Contax III.

 

:)=

[nicolas_douez]

Paul, I see no difference between the Contax III foot you show and the Contax II foot I show, but I might get some new glasses...

 

:)=

[nicolas_douez]

Just found this Contax II for sale on Hibay USA, and again it is the same foot. Isn't it ?<div></div>

[marco_vera1]

Besides the foot there is nothing else to show the benefit of the doubt. Is this the camera that fetched $64 a few days ago? Probaly worth the risk at that price...

 

Charles what sort of information would you like us to check for your database? I am sure quite a few on this forum could provide some..

[nicolas_douez]

No, it has sold for $105. Besides the foot, the problem was the ambiguous answers from the seller, who probably knew much more about it than he simply wanted to say.

[paul t]

Actually, Nicolas, I don't understand your theory about the foot being erased.

Why erase the foot from one photo and not another? have i misunderstood

something? As far as I can see, the foot is simply flipped out of the way on the

second photo - you can still see the little nipple on the foot's baseplate, which

locks it in place. From the photo, I do think the meter calibration looks like that

of a kiev 3, but it's impossible to tell for sure. <p>

BTW, I thought the foot on your own Contax III was smooth, rather than ridged.

Another example of how you can only tell so much by looking at photos on the

web,...

[nicolas_douez]

If you carefully look at the circular shadow under the lens mount on the picture that does not show the foot, you will see a central less dark zone that can be the trace of a software surgery on the picture. On my Sony LCD flat screen I clearly see a yellow shape that might be the zone on which a Photoshop (or other software) operation had been done as this yellow shape is of the foot shape.

 

So I thought the foot was removed not to be here as an evidence of a Kiev part beeing on this Contax III as the seller claimed it had no Kiev part (this photo was sent to me upon request and was not visible on the auction page). Also strange was it, that I couldn't get any other pictures, and no answers to this simple question : "are the words Zeiss-Ikon stamped in the back leather ?".

 

But I might be fully wrong. This Contax III might have had only a Kiev foot and it might have been the best deal of the year. Who knows ?

 

The obvious facts : I asked the seller if the body might have some Kiev parts in it. He answered : no. But I noticed something that was the proof that the answer should have been : yes.

 

BTW and although evidences are against me :-)) I'm no picky collector nor purist and I woudn't mind using a nice Contax II/III in which Kiev parts had been fitted, if it was to keep the camera working.

 

But at least I'd prefer to know it, and not to get deliberate wrong answers ; that's all.

[peter_4711]

Hello,

please friends of russian KIEV-and Contax rangefinder,

a genuine or faked Contax III can't identified on details like

an arrow on rewind knob, diffent lightmeter sensitive, foot on camera back and other details.

The pre- war Contax III camera have many changed details in the running short production time.

Example= The first KIEV III lightmeter included a sensitive like german DIN,and is engraved too, but you can not to say is a genuine Contax III. Is not a question too the frontshield holder of a

KIEV III is very easy to converted for a faked Contax III.

For determinated is a fake or not is importend to dissampled

the rangefinder camera.

The first step is to look on the frontshielder screws the are included genuine Zeiss own, or russian international metric screws.

And many many othe determinated steps.

 

peter

[paul t]

Not sure I agree about the retouching but I think you're entirely right about the

most important thing, Nicolas - if a seller gives evasive answers, walk away. I

find the attitude of a seller is the best clue to the condition of the product. <p>

So a telling concidence. Look at the Leica forum, where one buyer is worried

about how authentic his Leica II is. THe seller has lousy feedback. It's the

same guy!

[nicolas_douez]

Bingo ;-)

[roseberry guitars]

Lots of good information in this thread, for sure.

 

Like a lot of others, I too was looking at this camera as it is the model I am looking for. But in this case I turned away, not because of the camera but the circumstances. I'm not very knowledgable on the tiny distinguishing features of the Contax/Kiev line but I can spot a suspect proposition 99 times out of a 100 and this quickly rang the bells for me. This guy was not on the up and up with those of you who emailed him (as evident by the answers you have posted) nor with many of his previous customers, as there were many repeats of simular issues throughout his history.

 

I ALWAYS!!!... check feedback on the auctions, read a few positives to get a feel for the seller and search out EVERY negative. And then if I'm interested and not fully familuar with the product, I research. It has taken me a while sometimes but the auctions are 5-7 days, usually ample time to find out what one needs to know. If there is a re-occuring issue that I am not willing to deal with I will not play no matter how attractive the game.

 

Good on you Nicolas for controling your urge to purchase. You may or may not have pegged a fake (I don't know, others on this forum are much more qualified than I and I'm thankful they are here) but you certainly were wise to follow that little voice that warned you off.