is this a real leica?

[giampiero_cirotto]

<p>Hi, i've to buy my first leica but i'm afraid it's a fake. i've checked all i can serial numb,weight, colours, letters, but my brother is still convinced it'an unsafe leica. i'm sure i'm right. what do u think about? Could someone help us? Leica II, model D (black) 1933. Thanks everybody.<br>

<img src="http://i47.tinypic.com/2504jra.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="430" /><img src="http://i47.tinypic.com/20fopee.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="500" /><img src="http://i50.tinypic.com/jqi9fd.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="530" /></p>

[tjfuss]

<p>Based on the limited photos, it looks real to me. The features are consistent with the 1933 Model II (D) indicated by the serial number. The area around the viewfinder window rules out the very cheap Fed/Zorki conversions.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>The middle picture is very reflective - can't see much. All I can say is that I cannot see any reason to suspect this is a fake (I've owned at least 30 Leicas, mostly newer than this one). If the number is 6 digits starting 106xxx, this is correct - the rangefinder cam follower is round, not triangular as with Russian cameras, and it doesn't have a big fixed surround to the shutter button - in fact the small screw-on surround might be missing, spares are available. As I said, I can't judge the engraving on the top because I can't see it! What does your brother think is suspicious? Don't pay too much for this camera - it's nice to have but not very rare and is almost certain to need servicing - value is around US$400/£250. Please understand I am not saying for sure it is genuine but I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Based on the images it appears to be genuine. I would not expect to see a fake this good at the likely price you are paying (Perhaps $300). In general the fakes target the more expensive bodys, especially the limited editions that are collected.</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

If you're still worried, save up a little more and buy an M. There are no fakes that are even remotely like the real thing.

[dhbebb]

<p>Rough guide to value (recent e-bay sale):<br>

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/160628838144?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649<br>

This had more brassing (wear to black finish) than "your" camera, was said to be workng AOK and went for £220 ($350). It's also a model III but this probably makes little difference to the price.</p>

[andrew_aylett]

<p>It's not fake it's a Leica II made in 1933 , I used to collect them and if the leica in the photo is a fake then I'm a parrot . </p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Genuine. I'm willing to join Andrew in his cage. V/F front window and shutter release are indicators. Also the R/F cam follower and the frame counter bumps.</p>

[exabetal]

Yes, a real Leica II with a nickel 7 o'clock Elmar. The originally black vulcanite is a bit bleached (browned)

and with an 11 o'clock Elmar the value could've been a bit higher, but the laquer still looks pretty good. It

should bring at least US$400.

[alex_lofquist]

<p>I've had screw-mount Leicas for over sixty years and it looks fake to me. The finish is just too coarse.</p>

[giampiero_cirotto]

<p>Thanks to everybody. Lots of interesting informations. I've to deal with the seller. His request 700$! </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Dealers charge a lot more, they are high-overhead middleman. eBay is squeezing them out.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I wouldn't pay $700 for that...</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>... the seller. His request 700$!</em><br>

Note the example from e-bay that I quoted. The only way a Leica II is worth anything like that money is if it's had a major service and is guaranteed to work perfectly for a year (a major service will cost $160 or more). The lens is worth max. $100. As a Leica newbie, you may be apprehensive about buying on e-bay, but if you buy a Leica which looks good cosmetically and is stated to be 100% working (shutter firing on all speeds, rangefinder patches clear and bright, lens free of mold and major scratches [almost impossible to find a prewar Elmar with no scratches at all]), AND you factor in $160 for a CLA (cleaning, lubrication, adjustment), you won't go far wrong!</p>

[paul_neuthaler]

<p>real, tired and worn -- still a Leica though. CLA'd will last another 80 years at least. Film -- I'm not so sure! </p>

[bms]

<p>Look sreal to me but.... $700? I go my IIIc for $300 or so, Dr. Gus made it like new for a few $ and I am very happy. For $700 you can get a decent M, or a III with a better lens. This lens looks like it is worn out.</p>

[exabetal]

$700 is more than $200 to much!

[dhbebb]

<p><em>Dr. Gus made it like new for a few $</em><br>

Would like to hear more details of this! Does "like new" include new shutter curtains and rangefinder prisms and re-finishing of chrome? I never heard of this amount of work costing less than $500 and up! I am sure Gus is fine, but tales abound of people offering cheap Leica servicing who dunk whole cameras into vats of degreasant without any stripdown! I have been very happy with the work of Newton Ellis & Co. of Liverpool UK, who do use things (with customers' agreement) like silicone rubber spray to recondition shutter curtains and avoid fitting new ones, but I have never paid less than $180 to $200 for a Leica service!</p>

[david_olsen5]

<p> Save a little more money and get a Leica M3, supposedly the best Leica ever made. It would probably be around $ 1000 for a good one though.</p>

<p>DaveO</p>

[Rob F.]

<blockquote>

<p>I've had screw-mount Leicas for over sixty years and it looks fake to me. The finish is just too coarse.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>--Give it a break, Alex. It's almost 80 years old. I'm only 70, and you should see the finish on me!<br>

I'm sure it's real. I see no red flags at all.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>Save a little more money and get a Leica M3, supposedly the best Leica ever made. It would probably be around $ 1000 for a good one though.</em><br>

Except if you want a black finish (which does look neat). Black-finish M3s seem to sell for humungous money ($4000+).</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>Sorry, Rob. If it is an original Leica it has been repainted. I also question the rounded edges of the top casting. My model G certainly looked better than that. Also the base mount appears to be 1/4 inch diameter rather than the 3/8 inch used by Leica at that time.</p>

[astral]

<p>Comparing it to my Leica II (SN 211XXX) there are some <em>apparent </em>discrepancies. On mine:</p>

<ul>

<li>there is no screw at the front of the top plate that is located (partly?) beneath the lens mount; </li>

<li>the 'plinth' below the shutter dial is flush with the front edge and has well-defined angular edges; </li>

<li>shutter dial is noticeably smaller;</li>

<li>top-plate 'D.R.P.' engraving is directly beneath 'Leica'. </li>

</ul>

<p>Of these, the area around the shutter dia seems most questionable to me. But, maybe only thorough hands-on examination and side-by-side comparison with a contemporary camera will clinch the matter.</p>

[astral]

<p>Looking at Paul N's photos (and a few others scattered around the interweb world) it does look very much as though the discrepancies I noted above are fully consistent with an earlier version than mine. On that basis it seems <em>very unlikely </em>to be a fake<em></em>. The price, however, is way too high in my view.</p>

[jeff_guthrie]

Alotnof these more ancient Leicas have been played with a bit over the years, and some have had parts interchanged.

I own enough fakes and real Leicas to know the difference. As others have said, the real value should be about $400.

For $700 and a bit of shopping, you cold find an M2 or M3 body, or a much cleaner screwmount Leica.

 

Offer the seller what it's worth, if he accepts, fine, if not, spend your money somewhere else.