Only a theory but could be plausable

[CanonRFinder]

First, I have no connection with the following auction but something that I have muddled over the odd time. In the following auction the lens has a SIX digit serial #

http://cgi.ebay.com/Leitz-Leica-SM-...ViewItemQQptZFilm_Cameras?hash=item45eeed687c

On my database I have recorded nine 100mm f/4 lenses with SIX digit serial # and this is the tenth lens. Most of these six digit lenses are spread individually throughout my database BUT at times there seem to appear in batches, (this is also the case with other focal lengths where I have recorded six-digit serial #). Most of these six-digit # end with a zero (0) but I have also recorded a couple ending in one (1). I have recorded four 100mmf/4 lenses with serial #414600, #414650, #414670, and #414710 and to date have not recorded any lenses between these four lenses. My theory is that these lenses were to replace lenses that were lost after the lenses had left the factory for distribution. At the time Canon were producing lenses there must have been some law in Japan at that time preventing the duplication of serial #. If this was the case then to replace the “lost” lenses Canon replaced those with another lens with the same # except it now had a zero at the end designating a replacement lens. By coincident I decided to check the 85mm f/2 chart, there also is a batch of lenses with six-digit #, and at a rough calculation from my information it looks like these may have been a consignment that was lost early in 1950.🙄

 

[Al Kaplan]

You must lead an awfully boring life! No offense, but there must be more fruitful things to do than speculate about sixty year old lost lens shipments. I've lost stuff in shipment, both coming and going. It happens.

 

[ZeissFan]

Actually, my own thought was, "What?"

I read this twice, and I still don't understand the question. I feel like an idiot (again).

However, you might want to pose this question to a Canon collectors forum. They probably have people who compile lists of serial numbers, and they should be able to share information with you.

 

[CanonRFinder]

I suppose life is boring at the moment as I have been told by the quack (Dr) to keep of my feet after doing a stupid thing by jumping of a ledge and badly bruising both heels last month while in the middle of a recent trip to France, Germany, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Anyway it was more an observation than a question and I suppose it makes research what it is “research” be it small or insignificant. Questions will be asked. I only wish there was a Canon Rangefinder forum like there is for Leica, Zeiss and Nikon but alas there isn’t or not yet (must chase up Mike Otto on that). Information and knowledge about Nikon wouldn’t be where it is if it wasn’t for Rotoloni, likewise with Leica and Laney, or Barringer & Small for Zeiss and many other researchers. Peter

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Now I'm going to have to look at the SN of my 100/4. I suspect it is run of the mill 5 digit. It makes sense that the 6th digit was added to replace a lens. What are the chances that it was just to replace the name ring of a repaired lens?

As far as doing the research on information like this, it's a tough -and often boring job- but I'm glad that some people are doing it!

I've spent a lot of hours in the lab staring at numbers for hours until figuring things out. Of course, being paid to do it helps pass the time.

 

[januaryman]

You must lead an awfully boring life! No offense, but there must be more fruitful things to do than speculate about sixty year old lost lens shipments. I've lost stuff in shipment, both coming and going. It happens.

"No offense?" Gee, I am always taken aback at the sharp or taunting tone taken on forums everywhere when someone writes about an issue that seems irrelevant or unimportant to someone else. Surely it's easier to just not read the message than to take issue with what another human being has thought was interesting or curious? The OP is a man who is an expert in Canon rangefinders/lenses. He has written books on his area of expertise. To insult him in this way is just inconsiderate and mean spirited. I find the information he has assembled and the data he has acquired to be very useful, as do many others. As such, I think his quest for information to be very "fruitful," although you may not. Others may question the value of your areas of interest with equal lack of tact, but I won't.

Sorry for the rant, but this type of response always irks me.

 

[payasam]

This sort of thing is an internal matter of a business house. It is of no photographic interest. Had a serial number different from the common kind marked a lens which was in some way different from the usual kind, then it could have had meaning for a photographer.

There were and are those who go into "royal" dynasties in great detail, so there is no reason why a business house should not receive the same attention. I wouldn't do it, though, and of course Al wouldn't.

I agree that it is best to ignore matters of no interest to oneself: but I suspect that Al had in mind the sort of thing that I have stated.

 

[payasam]

How stocks and their numbering are handled are the concern of industrial manufacturing engineers and, perhaps, book-keepers. I am not convinced that the serial numbers of my lenses influence my photographic work. As a matter of fact, in half a century I have not once thought even why five lens elements might be better or worse than seven or four. The things are, in currently fashionable language and literally also, transparent to the user.

 

[ferider]

I suppose life is boring at the moment as I have been told by the quack (Dr) to keep of my feet after doing a stupid thing by jumping of a ledge and badly bruising both heels last month while in the middle of a recent trip to France, Germany, Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

Very sorry to hear this, Peter. Hope you get better soon.

Interesting observation, too.

I have used results of your research multiple times in the past and am grateful it exists, together with similar work by Rotoloni on Nikons and Lager on Leicas.

Best,

Roland.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Quite a few changes were quietly introduced into cameras, lenses, and other photographic equipment, and those who know the history and serial numbers have an advantage in selecting equipment from hunting grounds such as Ebay. That's one reason why my $67 1953 J-3 is every bit as good as the best wartime Sonnar.

 

[planetjoe]

Sheesh.

Sheesh.

Public Service Announcement: ignore this post if you're not interested in non-photographic comments.



There are very few threads that have inspired my desire to respond in defense of another poster as this one has. While I happen to find the minutiae of serial numbers interesting, I would feel the same even if I did not. What I feel is embarrassed, somehow. Go figure.

Pardon the supposition (delivered without the slightest intent of irony), but to demand pure photographic discourse from RFF - in a "gear" thread, at that - is perhaps disingenuous.

Normally, I'd ignore the trolls, but I'm inclined to consider Al and payasam with more respect than that, their comments notwithstanding. Hence, my response.

I'll now return you to you regularly scheduled thread, and apologize for my impertinence.


Cheers,
--joe.

 

[payasam]

Surely you speak in jest, Joe? Although a member, you are not exactly kind to RFF.

-- A. Troll

 

[xayraa33]

CanonRFinder, you are doing some good investigative work on Canon RF gear.
Keep it up do not be dissuaded.

 

[CanonRFinder]

Ah, a lively discussion, which is what, I like to see. I check the RFF site quite often and skip most of the subjects unless they interest me in some way. I also know I should get of my butt and use some of my many Canon Rangefinder lenses I own so as I can enter into some of the discussions on why this lens is better than others in regards to Bokeh, vignette, contrasts etc and now the book is out of the way I will. I also knew that Nikon placed a colon after the serial # but Rotoloni (I have his books and NHS journals) is still unsure why and can only theorize. Another small thing that intrigued me was when Nikon collectors were mentioning a certain “tick” mark on F series lenses and by Googling, I found out what it was and why these lenses sell sometimes for high prices. All these small additions add to the knowledge of Nikon and likewise to other makes. My main aim and still is, is to broaden the knowledge on Canon RF gear, as there was nothing out there in the English language other than Peter Dechert’s book. Maybe now people who have purchased my book will realise that certain Canon RF Lenses are unique. I suppose I got a bit uptight about the “bored” remark but life is anything but that. Anyway, I will keep adding dribble to this forum, as there is really nowhere else to have a discussion or put a point across where people who are interested in other makes can access a variety of information besides variety is the spice of life. Peter

 

[Sonnar Brian]

http://www.canonrangefinder.servehttp.com/

Peter, Thankyou for maintaining your excellent site on Canon Rangefinders. It's been a great source for information. Quite a few of us do appreciate it, and the time and effort that goes into updating and maintaining it. Most of my Canon lenses are "R6's", but take great pictures.

I love taking things apart to find out what makes them tick. I do not have the patience to document the lessons learned in a format to share with others.

 

[MikeL]

You must lead an awfully boring life! No offense, but there must be more fruitful things to do than speculate about sixty year old lost lens shipments.

I was thinking the same about bringing a stuffed monkey around and taking photos of it. But to each, his own. 😉

 

[marke]

I was thinking the same about bringing a stuffed monkey around and taking photos of it. But to each, his own. 😉

Yeah, but Monkette talks. I've never heard a lens talk, have you? ...much less a lens with no clear history. 🙄

 

[MikeL]

Yeah, but Monkette talks. I've never heard a lens talk, have you? ...much less a lens with no clear history. 🙄

Heh heh, you got me there Mark. 🙂

 

[Al Kaplan]

Monkette has managed a couple of succesful political campaigns for mayor and city council here in North Miami, and more people were folowing the mayoral race on my blog than in the Miami Herald according to Google's statistics. In the last election (this past May) her candidate was a woman with no political experience at all running against a popular multi-term city councilman. After three recounts it was agreed that the woman lost by 13 votes, not too shabby. His wife congratulated Monkette and me.

It's all in good fun. I've known some of these movers and shakers since they were in high school and I wasn't much older, like 40 years ago. Yes, it takes a bit of guts to show up at Chamber of Commerce and City Council meetings, orstroll through the super market, with a toy monkey perched on your shoulder. I've been spreading the word that in 2011 Monkette is going to be charging $5,000 to act as a political consultant, 10 grand to manage a campaign.

Probably half the photos at http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com for April 2009 show Monkette (and me) working on a couple of politcal campaigns.

Even AT&T used the exact same toy monkey in their TV commercials (after I did). Do you think that the executives at AT&T felt silly?

 

[MikeL]

I've mostly followed Nikon history through NHS, but I find the history of how things develop to be interesting and entertaining, and I appreciate your effort to bring that history to us. Thanks!