Why my M4-P has a M4-2 serial?

[gfdal]

Hi
I own 2 M4-P.
One is serial number 15891xx which is a M4-P from 1982 according to cameraquest listing.
The second one is number 15329xx. But according to the same listing, it is supposed to be a M4-2 from 1980 😕
Now, I can't see any difference between the 2 bodies. They have the same frames (6).
But the one doubtful came with a M4-P box, and a M4-2 manual. Even more confusing, isn't it?
Knowing that the last batch of M4-2 produced was 1531351 - 1533350, is it possible that mine is one of the first M4-P, sharing a M4-2 number?
Thanks for your help
Alain

 

[Bill Blackwell]

... But according to the same listing, it is supposed to be a M4-2 from 1980... I can't see any difference between the 2 bodies. They have the same frames (8). But the one doubtful came with a M4-P box, and a M4-2 manual.... Knowing that the last batch of M4-2 produced was 1531351 - 1533350, is it possible that mine is one of the first M4-P, sharing a M4-2 number? Alain

There are three possibilities:

1. The top cover was replaced and M4-P frame lines (6, not 8) added - this would be an easy upgrade;

2. Your M4-P came from a group of numbers originally assigned to the M4-2. This is common with bodies and lenses under similar circumstances (M4-2 to M4-P, M4-P to M6, M6TTL to M7, etc.); or

3. Your hotshoe was replaced with a different (M4-2) number on it.

If you have the original box (and assuming it has the matching serial number on it), then assumption 2 must be correct. If you don't have the box there is really no way to tell for sure.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

Another thought occurred to me:

The M4-2 and M4-P bodies were the last to be sealed (at the factory) at the 12 O'clock screw on the lens mount, but the seal was not stamped. The original seal on these cameras were characterized by a jagged surface. New re-seals are smooth or often stamped with a technician's identifying seal. If the camera has the original seal, this may be further evidence of option 2.

 

[gfdal]

Thanks Bill.
Did I say 8 frames ??? ok, my mistake, of course 6.
I compared the seals from both boides, and they are both jagged and unstamped.
So it looks like the number is wrongly assigned to a M4-2 when it's a M4-P...

 

[JNewell]

In a sort of reverse twist on your facts, there is an M4-2 listed on eBay right now that is advertised as one of the chrome M4-2s, which are very rare. The serial number, however, comes from a block assigned to M4-P production. I don't know whether this is a serial number anomaly (which is certainly possible) or whether it has been put together from parts. I have read that the chrome M4-2s were all made up in the early years of M4-2 production, but who knows. The seller has the box and warranty papers, so if it's not genuine someone went to a lot of trouble to put it together and make it look correct.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

In a sort of reverse twist on your facts, there is an M4-2 listed on eBay right now that is advertised as one of the chrome M4-2s, which are very rare. The serial number, however, comes from a block assigned to M4-P production. I don't know whether this is a serial number anomaly (which is possible) or whether it has been put together from parts. It would have been a somewhat expensive retrofit, because (among other things) you'd have to change both the top plate and the viewfinder frameline mask. I'd lean toward the latter because I have read that the chrome M4-2s were all made up in the early years of M4-2 production, but who knows. You can (almost) never say never.

I have seen the same listing. I am, without exception, skeptical whenever I see this. Without any further evidence, I would automatically assume the camera is not original. I have on occasion emailed these sellers with my "concern" and almost always get no response or a sarcastic remark, such as, "mind your own business."

You can say, "It would have been a somewhat expensive retrofit," but not if the seller gets his asking price!

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Leica factories were run by people. Don Goldberg told me once when I asked him about an old 'cron I used to have. The lens had a depth of field table that included f22, even though the smallest opening was f16. Don said that at Leica they sometimes grabbed parts that fit to assemble the lens, not caring about other particularities. That's how he explained that the base of my lens had this weird setting.

I concluded that people will be people, no matter the culture and the times.

Take care! 🙂

 

[gfdal]

Francisco, I think this is the best explanation... 😀