Fake or real Leica?

[steven_laverty]

At the suggestion of David W. Griffin, I emailed Leica. Impressively they got right back to me. Thought others might be

interested. Here is their reply (I omitted the employees name):

 

Steven

 

It's hard for us to say if it is "real" or not. We do not have a historian here.

 

It looks like it could be a model E or C. The E did come in silver chrome. If you read the attachments, one of the

differences is the size and functioning of the rewind knob. That could help you determine which it is.

 

As for having no serial #, there is the possibility that somehow a top cover "escaped" the factory. The policy has always

been to have the old part before engraving the new part. The old part is then destroyed so as to ensure there is only one

of that serial #.

 

Possibly a Leica dealer who hands vintage equipment copuld help or maybe some with the Leica Historical Society.

http://lhsa.org/

 

 

The attachments referred to are two (2) PDFs. Both are excerpts from Leica An Illustrated History. One is 2 pages

dealing with the Model C. The other is three (3) pages on the Leica E. Anyone interested in the PDFs can email me.

[james_elwing]

<p>The base looks like a Leica Standard Model E as it seems to have the larger hole on the side for attachment to the body, like later 1930's IIIA for instance? Anyone have an opinion on that?<br>

The rewind knob is earlier Leica 1 C, but the accessory shoe looks later to me.<br>

I did note that some bits look cold chrome while others look like warmer and earlier nickel.<br>

This whole exercise may have begun with a stolen Leica which had the SN scrubbed off leaving brass through chrome or black enamel. Later in its career, someone may have been wanting it to look a little less stolen or just a little prettier. Every second car repairer would have done re-chroming.</p>

 

[carbon_dragon]

Usually this is easy. At this point we know it's either a REALLY GOOD fake or a real Leica. It looks crude but the problem

is it doesn't really have the profile of a Soviet/Ukranian fake. I once found a real Leica that had been so abused that it

looked as bad as this one so I don't think we can really tell. He probably needs to take it in person to a real expert who

can examine it closely. Usually the Russian sellers don't go to near this much trouble when they are trying to fake

something.

 

 

Did it come with a lens?

[james_elwing]

<p>And it would have to have 'To Adolf from Eva' inscription to have any value anyway</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>I don't think anyone has pointed to a specific feature that could not be found on a real Leica, though this one presumably didn't leave the factory looking exactly the way it does now. Anybody familiar both with Leicas of this era and Soviet copies could probably tell rather quickly just by the feel of the mechanism.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

Yes, but like I said before that Leica I found in a junk bin was so beat up that it would have felt like a Soviet one had it

worked at all (which it didn't). Either this is a Soviet with some amazing part fabrication or with Leica parts added, or it's a

Frankenstein with lots of non-standard maintenance resulting in a very odd outcome. Maybe it could be a Soviet copy

using a lot of Leica Parts post war? I'm not an expert and I can't tell from pictures in my books. If you gave it to a tech who

fixes both Russians and Leicas he might be able to tell from what the parts inside the camera looked like.

 

 

This is the first time I've ever seen one of these "is this a Leica threads" that can't be answered in 10 seconds.

 

 

Ha, maybe he should send it to Leica for a CLA! My local tech is Mark Hama in Atlanta and he once somewhat grudgingly fixed my Russian "Leica" copy to be a pretty smooth picture taker, though it was never as smooth as a real Leica. The lesson is that if it's a Leica maybe Leica or a good tech could fix it up and if it's NOT a Leica they could make it work better.

[mukul_dube]

<p>FEDs and Zorkis started as copies of the Leica II, or model D, which had R/F and V/F. To use one of those to fake an earlier Leica would involve making by hand much of the camera top. Besides, why fake a Leica and not add the Leica name?</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>We did once have a 'real or fake' thread a few years ago that couldn't be answered quickly:<br>

http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00Ydyd<br>

Quite a few people dismissed it as a fake, but it turned out to be a rare (unique?) custom factory upgrade job, so there are some odd things out there. In that case there was a serial number to go on, and Leica were able to look up the original order. Leica I style Soviet cameras do exist:<br>

http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/special-auction-services/catalogue-id-srspe10042/lot-2a76be46-161b-4bc1-8c27-a42900d18c54<br>

as do fake Leicas based on them:<br>

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/iannorris/leicafake.htm<br>

(bottom of page)<br>

but I haven't yet seen anything that positively indicates Steven's camera is one of them. Both the cameras in those last two links have obvious Soviet features.</p>

[steven_laverty]

I don't have the lens for this camera anymore. Several years back, when we began selling off the collection, I sold a

small lens that, for whatever reason, I didn't associate with any of the cameras. Thinking back I'm certain it belonged to

this camera. At the time, I was surprised by the amount (about $150) this small seemingly insignificant lens sold for. I'll

check to see if I still have a picture of the lens.

 

It seems the best hope for a definitive answer will be to physically bring the camera to an expert. I'm going to try Leica

first since they are here in New Jersey. If not I'll try to find someone in the NY Metro area. Any suggestions?

[Richard Williams]

<p>Here's one more test you can try - can you see 2 stop pins under the film sprocket shaft?:<br>

http://licm.org.uk/livingImage/Leica-fakes.html<br>

I can see both pins on my IIIa (though not the grooves next to the teeth) with a bit of effort (it's a small detail you have to view at an angle while following their instructions - remove the takeup spool and shine a flashlight on the gears). The Soviet copies apparently only have one. This is so obscure I can't imagine any normal faker trying to change it (especially one who forgot to engrave a serial number!).</p>

 

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>I see the wire wheel abrasions, but if someone at some point tried to polish away a serial number, the <strong>ultra thin</strong> chrome would have changed color to the next layer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"can you see 2 stop pins under the film sprocket" <em><strong>Richard W.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm with Richard, hard to cover-up mediocre machining and lack of redundancy (Dual-pin drive).<br>

Add to that <strong>poor engraving</strong>, and you have a confirmed fake...</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>My guess, though, is that this one <strong>will</strong> have both sprocket shaft pins, which would in that case suggest there is more likely to be some other (non-fake) explanation for the lack of serial number, since a forger sophisticated enough to fake the pins would (according to my twisted logic) be unlikely to forget the (easy to fake) serial number. I might place a small bet on the top plate having been re-chromed by a third party which, as James suggests, would also be consistent with the nearly illegible Leitz engraving. Incidentally, is the engraving around the lock on the bottom plate (presumably auf/zu? - I can't really read it) that faint, or is it just the photo?</p>

[steven_laverty]

Richard, I'm not able to get the takeup spool out. All I can see, with great difficulty, are the sprockets. They do have

grooves next to them. I can't get a good enough look to characterize the quality of the machining. With the spool there, I

can't see the pin(s) at all.

 

The words Auf/Zu are engraved on the bottom. Like the engraving on top it is very light. It also seems to have a rough

appearance. Parts of some letters are more legible than others. I'll try to add a better photo of the bottom.<div></div>

[Richard Williams]

<p>I wonder if the base plate might also have been re-chromed? Otherwise, the lettering style looks OK. Positions of all 6 screws look correct for a Leica. Not sure what to suggest about the spool - I haven't had this problem. A thin latex glove might give you more grip, but suspect it will need careful use of pliers, perhaps protecting the spool with a bit of cloth or rubber.</p>

[knut_schwinzer]

<p>Hmm, at least the baseplate seems to be original: http://www.l39sm.co.uk/leica-reid-fakes.php</p>

[steven_laverty]

I used pliers And was able to take out the spool. I also reread the directions and realized I wasn't depressing the shutter

release button. Doing so really exposes the opening. It definitely has two pins. Still a bit of a tough angle to view let

alone photograph. Couldn't get a shot showing both pins but they are definitely there. I'll post a half way decent (for me)

shot of the sprocket.<div></div>

[Richard Williams]

<p>Looks authentic to me. I'm going for 'Leica with unusual service history'.</p>

[steven_ptashkin]

It's a real Leica all right. A Leica I from 1931 from the looks of it, that has had all of it's black paint scrubbed off. The serial

number was in front of the cold shoe, but since the numbers were not deeply ingraved, the number disappeared with the

paint. The German text for on/off on the bottom cover would indicate a European market model. With the black paint

removed, the camera has little value to a collector, but would make a very good user to walk around with.