john neal
fallor ergo sum
I have been offered a Leica I as a restoration project, but I could use some advice from the experts here.
I think that this could be a bitza camera, or certainly one that has been back to the factory for an upgrade at some point - whatever, it has had a fairly hard life, is showing all of its 70+ years of age, and is in desperate need of TLC, so I know I would be taking on some work here.
My question is around the date when the ratchet was discontinued from the wind-on mechanism. This body has the "J" shaped ratchet on the wind gears - I think that makes it pre-1931 (BICBW). However, the serial is in 6 figures, which suggests post-1932 - this is hard to determine as the top-plate has been worn away right where the serial no is. this really needs as trip down to look for an internal serial no to check for a parts camera.
Add to the above the fact that it has strap lugs and a standardised lens mount (with the")" at the top), which makes me wonder if this is a model I that has been rebuilt into a Standard or III body shell, BUT it has the porthole on the back for focus adjustment, and a round pressure plate (as fitted to my 1932 model II.
I would love to return this to its former glory with a full paint job and either a nice black snake skin or proper revulcanising at CRR. I would propose to do all the work myself (except the vulcanising), in order to control costs andrecord progress, but is it a body worthy of the trouble?
Oh yes, it comes with an unnumbered Elmar that mounts at a very strange angle - another minus point for originality, perhaps?
I have no pix, nor the immediate opportunity of taking any, but I relish the challenge. Any advice would be most welcome.
TIA,
I think that this could be a bitza camera, or certainly one that has been back to the factory for an upgrade at some point - whatever, it has had a fairly hard life, is showing all of its 70+ years of age, and is in desperate need of TLC, so I know I would be taking on some work here.
My question is around the date when the ratchet was discontinued from the wind-on mechanism. This body has the "J" shaped ratchet on the wind gears - I think that makes it pre-1931 (BICBW). However, the serial is in 6 figures, which suggests post-1932 - this is hard to determine as the top-plate has been worn away right where the serial no is. this really needs as trip down to look for an internal serial no to check for a parts camera.
Add to the above the fact that it has strap lugs and a standardised lens mount (with the")" at the top), which makes me wonder if this is a model I that has been rebuilt into a Standard or III body shell, BUT it has the porthole on the back for focus adjustment, and a round pressure plate (as fitted to my 1932 model II.
I would love to return this to its former glory with a full paint job and either a nice black snake skin or proper revulcanising at CRR. I would propose to do all the work myself (except the vulcanising), in order to control costs andrecord progress, but is it a body worthy of the trouble?
Oh yes, it comes with an unnumbered Elmar that mounts at a very strange angle - another minus point for originality, perhaps?
I have no pix, nor the immediate opportunity of taking any, but I relish the challenge. Any advice would be most welcome.
TIA,
Dralowid
Michael
By 'very strange angle' on the Elmar, I assume you don't mean infinity is at 11 o'clock which is not uncommon on early converted lenses?
Does it have the big shutter release button, semi rounded accessory shoe or partly black base plate lock? All these things add to interest and imply age.
Also how many screws round the top? Small locating pin for base plate?
Is the pressure plate alloy or steel? Is the text on the Elmar smaller tha usual?
The fact that the serial number is obscured is a bit of shame. Re-painting a black Leica and getting the engraving clear is really not that easy. Re-filling the engraving with 'Woods Metal' is said to be difficult.
IMVHO (ugh) I think that black cameras are best left worn though the brass can be chemically blackened rather than painted.
Is it worth it? It is always your call but I'd wait for a fixed lens camera or something with some redeeeming features.
On the other hand all old Leicas need a little tlc. and uneconomic restoration is a weakness of mine!
Michael
Does it have the big shutter release button, semi rounded accessory shoe or partly black base plate lock? All these things add to interest and imply age.
Also how many screws round the top? Small locating pin for base plate?
Is the pressure plate alloy or steel? Is the text on the Elmar smaller tha usual?
The fact that the serial number is obscured is a bit of shame. Re-painting a black Leica and getting the engraving clear is really not that easy. Re-filling the engraving with 'Woods Metal' is said to be difficult.
IMVHO (ugh) I think that black cameras are best left worn though the brass can be chemically blackened rather than painted.
Is it worth it? It is always your call but I'd wait for a fixed lens camera or something with some redeeeming features.
On the other hand all old Leicas need a little tlc. and uneconomic restoration is a weakness of mine!
Michael
john neal
fallor ergo sum
Michael,
No - not an 11 o'clock, I have one of those on my II - this is a 7 o'clock that stops at 6:30!
As far as i remember, small release button, semi-round shoe and all-black base plate lock.
Small locating pin & (I think) 3 screws on the front, 2 on the back. Oh yes, the rewind knob is decidedly non-Leica!
Pressure plate looks to be brass, and I didn't really check the Elmar too closely - it looks a bit of a dog to be honest.
Woods metal is a definite non-starter for me, would have to resort to some other ruse, if I could find the engravings!
I'll take another look at it and have a think.
Thanks for the mental massage
No - not an 11 o'clock, I have one of those on my II - this is a 7 o'clock that stops at 6:30!
As far as i remember, small release button, semi-round shoe and all-black base plate lock.
Small locating pin & (I think) 3 screws on the front, 2 on the back. Oh yes, the rewind knob is decidedly non-Leica!
Pressure plate looks to be brass, and I didn't really check the Elmar too closely - it looks a bit of a dog to be honest.
Woods metal is a definite non-starter for me, would have to resort to some other ruse, if I could find the engravings!
I'll take another look at it and have a think.
Thanks for the mental massage
Last edited:
Luddite Frank
Well-known
You have been "offered" ?
If that means 'free' or "less than the cost of a case" of your favorite beverage, I'd say go for it.
If you have to spend real money, then by all means, take your time and research...
Regarding the "odd angle" on the Elmar: does the the fixed locking tab on the lens-mount stop at 6:30 ?
What do you want to wind-up with: "shooter", "nice shooter", or "fills a hole on the shelf" ?
If that means 'free' or "less than the cost of a case" of your favorite beverage, I'd say go for it.
If you have to spend real money, then by all means, take your time and research...
Regarding the "odd angle" on the Elmar: does the the fixed locking tab on the lens-mount stop at 6:30 ?
What do you want to wind-up with: "shooter", "nice shooter", or "fills a hole on the shelf" ?
john neal
fallor ergo sum
Hi Frank,
This is from a dealer friend who knows I'm a mug for an old Barnack, and have some of the skills required to fix it. So, some cash would have to change hands.
The odd angle is actually not 6:30, more like 5:30, so there may be a burr somewhere on one of the plates.
What would I want to end up with? A regular shooter, I think. I recently sold off my Standard, and miss it terribly - it was probably my favourite "walking about" camera when fitted with the CV 25 Snapshot Skopar. Having said that, if a strip-down revealed a 3-digit serial, I would have to make the best restoration I could for such a historic device
This is from a dealer friend who knows I'm a mug for an old Barnack, and have some of the skills required to fix it. So, some cash would have to change hands.
The odd angle is actually not 6:30, more like 5:30, so there may be a burr somewhere on one of the plates.
What would I want to end up with? A regular shooter, I think. I recently sold off my Standard, and miss it terribly - it was probably my favourite "walking about" camera when fitted with the CV 25 Snapshot Skopar. Having said that, if a strip-down revealed a 3-digit serial, I would have to make the best restoration I could for such a historic device
Luddite Frank
Well-known
Hmmm...
Sounds like an interesting challenge....
Is the Elmar nickel-plated or chrome ?
If your goal is a shooter more than anything else, this could be worth your while...
I'm waiting for a Standard, with the "hockey-stick" infinity lock to cross my path...
Good luck !
Luddite Frank
Sounds like an interesting challenge....
Is the Elmar nickel-plated or chrome ?
If your goal is a shooter more than anything else, this could be worth your while...
I'm waiting for a Standard, with the "hockey-stick" infinity lock to cross my path...
Good luck !
Luddite Frank
Telewatt
Telewatt
updates where often made, interesting is nickel or chrome...
this is a page of the original update catalog of leica...on the top the camera you have and on the right the camera you like to have!...
Leitz did the same with the lenses..if you have a very old lens without number and Rangfinder posibility you had to changed it...and they changed to chrome!..
..and coating was extra servises..so if it is not coated it was normal.
good luck!
Jan
this is a page of the original update catalog of leica...on the top the camera you have and on the right the camera you like to have!...
Leitz did the same with the lenses..if you have a very old lens without number and Rangfinder posibility you had to changed it...and they changed to chrome!..
..and coating was extra servises..so if it is not coated it was normal.
good luck!
Jan
Last edited:
john neal
fallor ergo sum
Hi Frank,
I'm going to check it out again today - ISTR that the Elmar is chrome, but there is no guarantee that it and the body started life together.
What intrigues me is the ratchet on the wind mechanism. According to my research, this only existed on the first 600 Leica I cameras produced (with any lens mount), so I need to see if that is original, or fitted by some enterprising technician who could not source the correct clutch spring at some time in the past. Again, this really needs a strip-down to verify.
You can guess that I'm hoping that ratchet is genuine - hockey stick cameras were often upgarded to the later I (C) spec, so the serial # could be an interesting one (fingers crossed).
I'm going to check it out again today - ISTR that the Elmar is chrome, but there is no guarantee that it and the body started life together.
What intrigues me is the ratchet on the wind mechanism. According to my research, this only existed on the first 600 Leica I cameras produced (with any lens mount), so I need to see if that is original, or fitted by some enterprising technician who could not source the correct clutch spring at some time in the past. Again, this really needs a strip-down to verify.
You can guess that I'm hoping that ratchet is genuine - hockey stick cameras were often upgarded to the later I (C) spec, so the serial # could be an interesting one (fingers crossed).
john neal
fallor ergo sum
Jan,
Thanks for that, I don't speak german, but I get the idea.
The body I'm looking at has obviously been through some sort of upgrade process, as it has genuine strap lugs, correctly fitted, as well as the standardised lens mount.
I'm inclined to take the risk and see what can be done with it, but will have to get the price right first
Thanks for that, I don't speak german, but I get the idea.
The body I'm looking at has obviously been through some sort of upgrade process, as it has genuine strap lugs, correctly fitted, as well as the standardised lens mount.
I'm inclined to take the risk and see what can be done with it, but will have to get the price right first
Dralowid
Michael
John,
Just get out there and buy it!
In your mind it is already yours...even though that Elmar sounds a bit evil.
Six screws should mean it is old enough to be interesting.
And finding out what it is is always fun!
Michael
Just get out there and buy it!
In your mind it is already yours...even though that Elmar sounds a bit evil.
Six screws should mean it is old enough to be interesting.
And finding out what it is is always fun!
Michael
john neal
fallor ergo sum
Ahh, Michael, how well you know me
I may just take the body, if that is an option. I really don't need another Elmar, but if it really is an unnumbered version, that makes it pre-1932 and interesting. It does have a big mark on the front element though, so it will probably flare even worse than normal.
I will report back later as I'm hoping to get another look at it at lunchtime, and start the haggling process. If that goes well enough, I may even bring it home
I may just take the body, if that is an option. I really don't need another Elmar, but if it really is an unnumbered version, that makes it pre-1932 and interesting. It does have a big mark on the front element though, so it will probably flare even worse than normal.
I will report back later as I'm hoping to get another look at it at lunchtime, and start the haggling process. If that goes well enough, I may even bring it home
Dralowid
Michael
John,
Look twice at the Elmar.
I'm the guy who bought a Standard from a certain internet auction website and found that what I had thought was an Elmar turned out to be a converted Anastigmat. This was way out of my league but the proceeds from it's sale have funded this passtime ever since!
Michael
Look twice at the Elmar.
I'm the guy who bought a Standard from a certain internet auction website and found that what I had thought was an Elmar turned out to be a converted Anastigmat. This was way out of my league but the proceeds from it's sale have funded this passtime ever since!
Michael
john neal
fallor ergo sum
Michael,
Well, I weakened, and now own the "beast" !
I managed to strike a reasonable price for the body + lens, which looks right for an unnumbered Elmar. It rund from 3.5 to 18, is uncoated and the engraving looks to be the right shape. I will have to compare it with my 1932 one to see if the script is any smaller/larger than usual.
The body is a definite conundrum - 6 screws around the top-plate, "round" accessory shoe, large speed dial, domed (but small diameter) release button, but it has a standardised mount and strap lugs. The wind and speed knobs are nickel, but the rewind is a non-Leica part that has a hole right through to the top surface. It looks like all the body screws have been replaces at some point with more recent countersunk ones in steel, so DAG will be getting an order for replacements.
At the bottom end, it has the small lug for the baseplate, but the closing latch is all black, although the edge of the half circle is chromed, so I guess that wore away and got painted. There is the central screw that holds the crate into the body, so that looks right, and the arrangement of the leaf spring is right too. The take-up spoollooks like it might just be a FSU replacement, but has also been repainted, so it's hard to tell at the moment.
The big question for me is the ratchet on the wind mechanism. This is a flat J shape that traps between the wind and transfer gears to stop the shaft from winding backwards - it makes the right clicking noise, and does not appear to be an afterthought, so that will need some research - my early reading in "The first 50 years" suggests that this was only a feature of the 1A, and then only on the first 600 or so bodies.
The vulcanite is the early pattern (I think), worn smooth in places and badly cracked, but still there - I guess I will find plenty of old glue holding large areas of it in place! It has the porthole in the back for the focus adjuster, so that fits with the general period of the body, which I'm told is 1931. The shutter blinds look like they will need replacing, as there are bad cracks around the stitching, something I will verify later when the shell comes off.
The real bummer is that someone has taken sandpaper to the serial no on the top-plate at some time in the past Through a strong loupe, it looks to have a 5-digit serial that has one or two 6's and an 8, possibly a zero, although it is so obscured, I won't be sure until i get the body off and have a look at the frame to see if the internal no has survived.
If I get chance to take some pics tonight, I will post them to show the general tatty condition, and the size of job that I have taken on. The only thing I'm worried about is whether I will resist the urge to just get it to useable condition and forget about a proper restoration. My money is currently on the former
Well, I weakened, and now own the "beast" !
I managed to strike a reasonable price for the body + lens, which looks right for an unnumbered Elmar. It rund from 3.5 to 18, is uncoated and the engraving looks to be the right shape. I will have to compare it with my 1932 one to see if the script is any smaller/larger than usual.
The body is a definite conundrum - 6 screws around the top-plate, "round" accessory shoe, large speed dial, domed (but small diameter) release button, but it has a standardised mount and strap lugs. The wind and speed knobs are nickel, but the rewind is a non-Leica part that has a hole right through to the top surface. It looks like all the body screws have been replaces at some point with more recent countersunk ones in steel, so DAG will be getting an order for replacements.
At the bottom end, it has the small lug for the baseplate, but the closing latch is all black, although the edge of the half circle is chromed, so I guess that wore away and got painted. There is the central screw that holds the crate into the body, so that looks right, and the arrangement of the leaf spring is right too. The take-up spoollooks like it might just be a FSU replacement, but has also been repainted, so it's hard to tell at the moment.
The big question for me is the ratchet on the wind mechanism. This is a flat J shape that traps between the wind and transfer gears to stop the shaft from winding backwards - it makes the right clicking noise, and does not appear to be an afterthought, so that will need some research - my early reading in "The first 50 years" suggests that this was only a feature of the 1A, and then only on the first 600 or so bodies.
The vulcanite is the early pattern (I think), worn smooth in places and badly cracked, but still there - I guess I will find plenty of old glue holding large areas of it in place! It has the porthole in the back for the focus adjuster, so that fits with the general period of the body, which I'm told is 1931. The shutter blinds look like they will need replacing, as there are bad cracks around the stitching, something I will verify later when the shell comes off.
The real bummer is that someone has taken sandpaper to the serial no on the top-plate at some time in the past
Through a strong loupe, it looks to have a 5-digit serial that has one or two 6's and an 8, possibly a zero, although it is so obscured, I won't be sure until i get the body off and have a look at the frame to see if the internal no has survived.If I get chance to take some pics tonight, I will post them to show the general tatty condition, and the size of job that I have taken on. The only thing I'm worried about is whether I will resist the urge to just get it to useable condition and forget about a proper restoration. My money is currently on the former
Luddite Frank
Well-known
Would love to see some pics ... sounds quite interesting !
Luddite Frank
Luddite Frank
john neal
fallor ergo sum
No pics tonight I'm afraid, the digithing needs charging.
There is good & bad news:
It's a normal model 1 from 1931 (serial in the 60xxx range) and the condition inside is better than I had hoped. However, the ratchet is a "handyman" bodge that will need to be removed at some point.
Pics tomorrow, I hope.
There is good & bad news:
It's a normal model 1 from 1931 (serial in the 60xxx range) and the condition inside is better than I had hoped. However, the ratchet is a "handyman" bodge that will need to be removed at some point.
Pics tomorrow, I hope.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
"The digi-thing" ! ( I love it ! )
I don't have a digi-thing yet, so I have to ask for a shiny-thing back with my 35mm prints, to go in the pop-out cup-holder of my computer...
Is the ratchet gizmo situated inside the camera body ?
( Wonder if there's any connection between the bodged ratchet and obliterated serial #...)
1931 C still sounds pretty good !
I have to get my 1932 D CLA'd so I take it shooting again...
LF
( How is that Elmar looking ? )
I don't have a digi-thing yet, so I have to ask for a shiny-thing back with my 35mm prints, to go in the pop-out cup-holder of my computer...
Is the ratchet gizmo situated inside the camera body ?
( Wonder if there's any connection between the bodged ratchet and obliterated serial #...)
1931 C still sounds pretty good !
I have to get my 1932 D CLA'd so I take it shooting again...
LF
( How is that Elmar looking ? )
Last edited:
john neal
fallor ergo sum
Frank,
I'm afraid that I am a true Luddite when it comes to digital. I tried it (and inhaled), but didn't like it at all. Don't get me wrong, I don't go around breaking them up, or anything, I just choose not to use them (mostly because I can't see anything through the tiny little looky-holes that they all seem to have. My wife, on the other hand, loves them and seems to be able to get decent results. Chacun a son gou, I guess....
Anyway, the ratchet is inside the body - curved rather skillfully around the wind shaft gear and spring-loaded so that it jams the gears if there is any reverse motion. I'm guessing that whoever made it had seen an original C and copied it when the clutch spring broke. Having thought about it overnight, it is less of a bodge and more a very clever fix. I do't yet know whether I will be able to return the wind to original condition, or if this ratchet will have to stay.
I'm guessing that the serial removal probably has some connection to the repair. In fact, the whole camera has been apart more often than the curtains at the London Palladium. All the screw holes around the top-plate are stripped - the screws were held in with some sort of brown snot that fell out when I loosened them. Another cause for serious thought...
I'm sure that this can be rescued to the point of being a nice shooter, providing I'm careful. A new skin from Camera Leather or Aki will make a big difference, and hide a whole lot of age-related problems.
The Elmar is not as bad as i first thought - the big mark wiped off, leaving a few light cleaning marks, but the rear element is pristine. I think a good hood will be de rigour, but it should still be capable of forming an image. Probably a B&W only lens, but that is no major problem.
I'm putting together a wish list for Don G that will include a full body set of screws, clutch spring and replacement pressure plate as the one in there was polished back to bare brass at some time (just think of the halation prospects!).
I too have a 1932 D - great condition and my fabvourite of the old Barnack designed bodies. It has a contemporary 11 o'clock Elmar (uncoated), and the whole kit is a solid 9 out of 10 condition wise - the cinderella to the ugly (C) sister!
More when I get some charge in the digithing.
I'm afraid that I am a true Luddite when it comes to digital. I tried it (and inhaled), but didn't like it at all. Don't get me wrong, I don't go around breaking them up, or anything, I just choose not to use them (mostly because I can't see anything through the tiny little looky-holes that they all seem to have. My wife, on the other hand, loves them and seems to be able to get decent results. Chacun a son gou, I guess....
Anyway, the ratchet is inside the body - curved rather skillfully around the wind shaft gear and spring-loaded so that it jams the gears if there is any reverse motion. I'm guessing that whoever made it had seen an original C and copied it when the clutch spring broke. Having thought about it overnight, it is less of a bodge and more a very clever fix. I do't yet know whether I will be able to return the wind to original condition, or if this ratchet will have to stay.
I'm guessing that the serial removal probably has some connection to the repair. In fact, the whole camera has been apart more often than the curtains at the London Palladium. All the screw holes around the top-plate are stripped - the screws were held in with some sort of brown snot that fell out when I loosened them. Another cause for serious thought...
I'm sure that this can be rescued to the point of being a nice shooter, providing I'm careful. A new skin from Camera Leather or Aki will make a big difference, and hide a whole lot of age-related problems.
The Elmar is not as bad as i first thought - the big mark wiped off, leaving a few light cleaning marks, but the rear element is pristine. I think a good hood will be de rigour, but it should still be capable of forming an image. Probably a B&W only lens, but that is no major problem.
I'm putting together a wish list for Don G that will include a full body set of screws, clutch spring and replacement pressure plate as the one in there was polished back to bare brass at some time (just think of the halation prospects!).
I too have a 1932 D - great condition and my fabvourite of the old Barnack designed bodies. It has a contemporary 11 o'clock Elmar (uncoated), and the whole kit is a solid 9 out of 10 condition wise - the cinderella to the ugly (C) sister!
More when I get some charge in the digithing.
Last edited:
Dralowid
Michael
...the clsoing latch, part black, part chrome. Is the central bit flat or does to have a raised strip running across it. If it does I would opine (love that word) that the base may be earlier than 60xxx??
Michael
Michael
john neal
fallor ergo sum
Michael,
The central, black, part is flat as far as I can remember (I'm at work now). The outer half-circle was once chromed, but it has worn off most of the part. The catch is very loose too - I will have to see if there should be a friction washer in there somewhere.
Feel free to opine as much as you like - it's OK as long as you clean up after......
The central, black, part is flat as far as I can remember (I'm at work now). The outer half-circle was once chromed, but it has worn off most of the part. The catch is very loose too - I will have to see if there should be a friction washer in there somewhere.
Feel free to opine as much as you like - it's OK as long as you clean up after......
Luddite Frank
Well-known
John,
Sounds like you'll wind up with a good user w/o having to worry about scuffing-up a "priceless collectible".
As for shiny pressure plates, I have a "Kodachrome Adapter" for the Recomar 33 9x12 plate camera, which is is essentially a Kodak 35 body, mounted to a sliding plate, a la Leica "Focaslide", set-up on a flanged 9x12 plate that slides into the body slots of the plate camera. The pressure plate in this rig is bright, polidhed Nickel. I guess 1930's Kodachrome had sufficient anti-halation coatings to prevent any issues ?
I also love the idea of shooting 2.4 x 3.6 cm negs with a 9x12cm bellows camera !
I also have some FILCA cassettes that some industrious person polished-up all shiny... ("ummm - Shiny !" ).
Digicams are great for folks who just need casual snapshots and the ability to share electronically... can't knock that ... I'll even admit to using the one in my cel-phone occasionally... but I just can't get excited over the really good digitals...
It's a lot of cabbage to fork-over for a gizmo that will be obsolete within 5 years, vs a lifespan of over 70 years + for a Leica, Nikon, Contax, etc.
Frank
Sounds like you'll wind up with a good user w/o having to worry about scuffing-up a "priceless collectible".
As for shiny pressure plates, I have a "Kodachrome Adapter" for the Recomar 33 9x12 plate camera, which is is essentially a Kodak 35 body, mounted to a sliding plate, a la Leica "Focaslide", set-up on a flanged 9x12 plate that slides into the body slots of the plate camera. The pressure plate in this rig is bright, polidhed Nickel. I guess 1930's Kodachrome had sufficient anti-halation coatings to prevent any issues ?
I also love the idea of shooting 2.4 x 3.6 cm negs with a 9x12cm bellows camera !
I also have some FILCA cassettes that some industrious person polished-up all shiny... ("ummm - Shiny !" ).
Digicams are great for folks who just need casual snapshots and the ability to share electronically... can't knock that ... I'll even admit to using the one in my cel-phone occasionally... but I just can't get excited over the really good digitals...
It's a lot of cabbage to fork-over for a gizmo that will be obsolete within 5 years, vs a lifespan of over 70 years + for a Leica, Nikon, Contax, etc.
Frank