real or fake?

[m_whitman]

<p>i just went through my stuff and found this leica. can anyone tell me if it is real?<br>

<img src="https://rapidshare.com/files/459617172/Brick-20110428-00109.jpg" alt="" /><img src="https://rapidshare.com/files/459617230/Brick-20110428-00107-1.jpg" alt="" /><img src="https://rapidshare.com/files/459617279/Brick-20110428-00104.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Could you try posting that picture again. I am only getting question marks. </p>

<p>Here is a quick way to check if the camera is a fake. Turn it over and look at the base plate. See the latch? If the open and close marking are in German it has a good possibility of being the real thing. If you see Cyrillic, it is without any question a fake, being a made-over Zorki or Fed.</p>

[graham_line]

<p>Unscrew the lens and look at the focus follower at the top of the opening. Leica's are round, old FSU cameras are roughly triangular.<br>

"Property of Eva Braun" engravings probably indicate a fake. ;-)</p>

 

[Rob F.]

<p>If the shutter release has a threaded hole in it, it's a fake. Should be solid, no hole.<br>

If the frame around the front rectangular finder window comes up all the way flush with the top of the camera, it's a fake. Should be a slight relief or recess below the top.<br>

Fake Leicas usually have oversize screws on the front surface, and they are often bright. Should be small and dark.<br>

Leica didn't engrave nazi markings like the eagle symbol or a swastika on their cameras. On the other hand, a real Leica can be engraved, "Heer Eigentum" (Army Property); or markings indicating Luftwaffe property. If the latter, there will be a military property number on the top plate.</p>

[graham_line]

<p>With cameras of the era being both very expensive and all-mechanical, it was not uncommon for Leica to upgrade an earlier model to the latest features at the customer's request.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Leica IIIb according to the serial number. Looks like someone painted it gold at some time in an effort to make it look unique. As I haven't ever inspected a Leica IIIb, no idea if it is fake or not, but it doesn't look fake if you ignore the fact that it is gold...</p>

[m_whitman]

<p>I will just put a jpeg</p>

<div></div>

[m_whitman]

<p>another jpeg</p><div></div>

[m_whitman]

<p>another</p><div></div>

[photo5]

<p>It's not a IIIb, the real IIIb has slow speeds, this one does not. I think this is a very good copy of a Leica!! But the serial number is a giveaway.</p>

[m_whitman]

<p>Thanks to all for your responses. Do you think that as a "very good copy" - as D Lee put it - it has some value?</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>$40 IMHO</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Did some of the Russian fakes use the round RF follower? The accessory shoe and shape of the shutter release seems right, thats where the fakes also show up sometimes. I suppose it dosn't matter really. If it works and you like the results then I would just use and enjoy it.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I remember reading about Mao Zedong's wife (the 4th?) marshalling enormous resources to produce a number (under 10) of Leica M4 (or M5?) copies that I think were called the Shang'hai, which was done to show the ability of modern Chinese workers in the optics and mechanics industry. With that in mind, an apparent realistic copy like that of M no doubt required quite a bit more effort than its sale price today might reflect.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Looks like a IIIb. Absent slow speed dial, although main speed dial has "20-1" on it. Present: R/F focussing lever under rewind knob. Shutter button and surround are correct, as is the position of the frame counter arrow.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>...and from the top, that looks like the surround of the real IIIb-style adjacent finder windows. Front VF and RF windows look correct. No strap lugs, though. Can you post a back view, and maybe the bottom plate and internal view with plate removed?</p>

[leigh_youdale]

<p>Looks exactly like a fake "gold plated" Leica II that I once owned. Remanufactured from a Fed II.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>Doesn't look like a Fed to me, and definitely not a Fed 2. Can anyone who is convinced this is a fake point out any specific features of the camera that would identify it as a Fed/Zorki rather than a Leica? Nearly every gold 'Leica' is a fake, of course, but do we have an exception here? It may not have left the factory like that, of course (is this a 'Frankenleica'?). As well as the features Mukul and I mentioned, one of the OP's filedropper links shows the bottom plate, which has a Leica-style pattern of screw heads, etc.</p>

<div></div>

[mukul_dube]

<p>No question of its being based on a FED-2, which looks radically different from any Leica ever made. If it is at root a Soviet era camera, it has to be a FED-1 or a Zorki-1. But there are too many things which say "Leica", and my inclination is to think that it is a genuine Leica IIIb with the slow speed dial removed. This assumes that the R/F focussing adjustment actually works. The strap lugs will have had to be removed, of course.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>I also don't think any of the Fed/Zorki-1 models had adjacent eyepieces as this seems to have from the top plate view. Starting with a Fed or Zorki, it would be very difficult (and rather pointless) to fake this feature when it would be much simpler to make the camera look like a Leica II. I've never heard of a 'IIb' (let alone a 'IIb Luxus' in gold!), and the '20-1' suggests this originally had slow speeds. One explanation is that the slow speed dial was removed, the hole plugged, and the body re-covered, with the metal perhaps being re-coloured at the same time. Otherwise, maybe a 'cut-and shut', unconventional upgrade, or even an authentic rarity. How about that finish - is it re-plated, painted (but how about the lens mount threads?), stripped to the brass, or just photographed under very yellow light?!</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>The absence of strap lugs is a mystery. The Leica II did not have them, nor its copies the FED-1 and Zorki-1; while all later Leicas beginning with the III had them (I'm not sure about the Standard). Can it be that a II upgraded to a III series at the factory was left without strap lugs and was later downgraded by the removal of slow speeds?</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>A II upgraded to a higher spec would normally retain its top plate, including the non-adjacent VF & RF eyepieces and original serial number. But perhaps this was a non-standard upgrade of some kind, maybe from a damaged camera where the original top plate could not be re-used? A downgrade is a slightly simpler explanation; I remember seeing posts here from someone who had a troublesome slow speed mech removed from a III-series, and I suppose a minimalist might get rid of strap lugs at the same time (new Vulcanite would hide both modifications). But maybe this is just some camera mechanic's idea of an 'a la carte' LTM body made from whatever parts were available, with added gold bling. If Leica actually made it this way it would be very valuable.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>It looks like a Leica II (D) c. 1938 (http://www.leitzmuseum.org/CameraMakes/Leica/1938-II-D-1.html) or a very good copy (from my non-expert viewpoint). The chrome was removed for some reason or other.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>A II would not have the little lever under the rewind knob, and its V/F and R/F eye-pieces would not be in one frame. A "family resemblance" is of course inevitable.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>The IIIb top plate is very distinctive. It's the only model with the two 'new' features Mukul mentions that still uses the pre-war construction method - the top is built up from smaller sub-assemblies (as in the original II), with the rangefinder housing sitting on top of the flat top plate. In later models the entire top plate is one die cast piece that extends seemlessly down to the lens mount. The problem here is that there was no 'IIb' as far as we know, so the lack of slow speeds and strap lugs makes this an upgrade, downgrade, 3rd party hack, or custom job.</p>