Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
On ebay that is.
I just bought a very nice old black Leica II and received it today. It turns out to be in far better condition than it appeareed to be from the listing. This is a very early one from the first production batch in 1932. Both the lens mount and the focusing mount have an engraved "O", indicating the mount is standardized. It has an early nickel Elmar with an 11 o'clock pin release focus tab and no serial number. Although the glass looked very dirty, it cleaned up fine and has no scratches, just a really minimal amount of internal fog- probably not enough to make it worthwhile dismantling it. I only needed to clean and re-lube the focusing mount. All the camera functions are very smooth: I guess I'll know after I run a roll through it.
I'm not familiar with the very early Elmars, and one thing seems odd. The lens barrel is brass, with no nickel plate, and it is certain that there never was any. There is almost no wear on the barrel, but it just is not plated. Is this normal? I have a 1928 model A as well, and its Elmar has a nicely plated barrel.
Cheers,
Dez
I just bought a very nice old black Leica II and received it today. It turns out to be in far better condition than it appeareed to be from the listing. This is a very early one from the first production batch in 1932. Both the lens mount and the focusing mount have an engraved "O", indicating the mount is standardized. It has an early nickel Elmar with an 11 o'clock pin release focus tab and no serial number. Although the glass looked very dirty, it cleaned up fine and has no scratches, just a really minimal amount of internal fog- probably not enough to make it worthwhile dismantling it. I only needed to clean and re-lube the focusing mount. All the camera functions are very smooth: I guess I'll know after I run a roll through it.
I'm not familiar with the very early Elmars, and one thing seems odd. The lens barrel is brass, with no nickel plate, and it is certain that there never was any. There is almost no wear on the barrel, but it just is not plated. Is this normal? I have a 1928 model A as well, and its Elmar has a nicely plated barrel.
Cheers,
Dez
chris7521
Well-known
I'm not aware of a non plated one. Are you sure there is no nickel left on the last 1/4" in the back, when the lens is off the camera and collapsed? I have one that is completely worn off except for that portion but otherwise pretty decent condition. Someone just used it frequently! as well as the camera!
Good luck on your new camera!
Good luck on your new camera!
David Hughes
David Hughes
Wow! So people do get lucky on ebay...
The Elmar's serial number ought to be on the rim of the lens: the bit that would rub against the lens cap. It's in very tiny figures and you'll need good lighting and - perhaps - a magnifier to read it.
Regards, David
The Elmar's serial number ought to be on the rim of the lens: the bit that would rub against the lens cap. It's in very tiny figures and you'll need good lighting and - perhaps - a magnifier to read it.
Regards, David
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
There were Elmars made with no serial number. Mine has none if you look at where it should be. There is a huge variety of Elmar 50/3.5 versions and that helps make them interesting. Not much remained standard for long on these it seems. I have never seen one with a brass lens barrel though.
Bob
Bob
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
No sign of nickel
No sign of nickel
Nope, no serial number and no nickel on the lens barrel, including the parts at the front and back of the barrel that do not rub on anything. No significant scratches on the barrel which would imply lots of wear. If ever there was nickel plating on the barrel, somebody has gone to some trouble to carefully remove it, and with no scratches, why would anyone do that? Now very strangely, if I look at the bayonet flange at the back of the barrel, there IS nickel plating just on the face of the flange that bears on the focusing mount, but none on the outer circumference of that flange, which is not a wear point, and where original plating would stay forever. So this is quite the mystery.
In fact there are very few signs of use on the entire camera. The wind and rewind knobs typically abrade where they rub against the case; that is happening a bit here, but no wearthrough of the nickel plating on the knobs.
This is from the first model II production batch, with a serial number in the 80,000 range. The body has the focusing hole in the back, and the small rewind knob does not extend. The body and base are just like those of the original Leica 1's, with the tiny little locating pin on one end to attach the base. It has a 1/4" tripod socket, and lens calibrated in feet, so it was an export model. I would greatly appreciate any information the list members can provide on this unusual camera.
Cheers,
Dez
No sign of nickel
Nope, no serial number and no nickel on the lens barrel, including the parts at the front and back of the barrel that do not rub on anything. No significant scratches on the barrel which would imply lots of wear. If ever there was nickel plating on the barrel, somebody has gone to some trouble to carefully remove it, and with no scratches, why would anyone do that? Now very strangely, if I look at the bayonet flange at the back of the barrel, there IS nickel plating just on the face of the flange that bears on the focusing mount, but none on the outer circumference of that flange, which is not a wear point, and where original plating would stay forever. So this is quite the mystery.
In fact there are very few signs of use on the entire camera. The wind and rewind knobs typically abrade where they rub against the case; that is happening a bit here, but no wearthrough of the nickel plating on the knobs.
This is from the first model II production batch, with a serial number in the 80,000 range. The body has the focusing hole in the back, and the small rewind knob does not extend. The body and base are just like those of the original Leica 1's, with the tiny little locating pin on one end to attach the base. It has a 1/4" tripod socket, and lens calibrated in feet, so it was an export model. I would greatly appreciate any information the list members can provide on this unusual camera.
Cheers,
Dez
Dralowid
Michael
I'd suggest the small rewind knob will extend but that it has got stuck. A common problem. No lens serial number implies that it earlyish, or a conversion from a fixed lens.
The barrel may have been stripped to remove worn nickel, difficult to say but I have never heard of an exposed brass Elmar. Mind you, some are mighty dull.
Can you post a picture? Sounds like a nice camera.
Michael
The barrel may have been stripped to remove worn nickel, difficult to say but I have never heard of an exposed brass Elmar. Mind you, some are mighty dull.
Can you post a picture? Sounds like a nice camera.
Michael
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
Rewind knob
Rewind knob
Yes, you are correct about the rewind knob. It just needed a bit more motivation. I would assume that someone had stripped the barrel due to badly worn nickel plate, except that there is so little wear on the lens in general, and no signs of significant abrasion on the barrel. If someone had managed to do this so neatly, using what had to be a chemical process, and then re-blacked the inside of the barrel perfectly, I would think the person would then certainly have the resources to re-plate it, as nickel plating is so straightforward. Very strange.
One last interesting thing, the top cover has the original semicircular smooth curve around the shutter speed dial, instead of the "faceted" design that appeared on the model II and carried on all the way to the IIIG.
The camera looks exactly the same as the early Leica D on page 21 of Lager's "Leica Illustrated Guide".
I'll see about getting a few pictures posted shortly.
Cheers,
Dez.
Rewind knob
Yes, you are correct about the rewind knob. It just needed a bit more motivation. I would assume that someone had stripped the barrel due to badly worn nickel plate, except that there is so little wear on the lens in general, and no signs of significant abrasion on the barrel. If someone had managed to do this so neatly, using what had to be a chemical process, and then re-blacked the inside of the barrel perfectly, I would think the person would then certainly have the resources to re-plate it, as nickel plating is so straightforward. Very strange.
One last interesting thing, the top cover has the original semicircular smooth curve around the shutter speed dial, instead of the "faceted" design that appeared on the model II and carried on all the way to the IIIG.
The camera looks exactly the same as the early Leica D on page 21 of Lager's "Leica Illustrated Guide".
I'll see about getting a few pictures posted shortly.
Cheers,
Dez.
Last edited:
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
It works!
It works!
I ran a roll of film through it, and while the results don't make me look like Cartier-Bresson, there are no shutter problems at all.
Here are pictures of this wonderful beast.
This camera has a 340 degree focusing Elmar with no serial number, the first version of top with a completely round section under the shutter dial, the large shutter dial, and the older version of baseplate with the very small locating pin. It still has the focusing hole in the back. And the inexplicable lens barrel which only has nickel plating on the back side of the flange that mates with the focusing mount. It appears to be totally original.
Any insights would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
Dez
It works!
I ran a roll of film through it, and while the results don't make me look like Cartier-Bresson, there are no shutter problems at all.
Here are pictures of this wonderful beast.
This camera has a 340 degree focusing Elmar with no serial number, the first version of top with a completely round section under the shutter dial, the large shutter dial, and the older version of baseplate with the very small locating pin. It still has the focusing hole in the back. And the inexplicable lens barrel which only has nickel plating on the back side of the flange that mates with the focusing mount. It appears to be totally original.
Any insights would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
Dez
Pastor Chris
Well-known
Beautiful camera and a wonderful find! Being a total newbie to old cameras, but and old hat with regards to metal, that brass looks like it was recently worked upon. Did you polish it with anything? I wonder if the seller somehow stripped some plating that looked bad from wear. If so, then it looks like they did a nice job. The first impression is that there is no patina on that brass, which tends to darken easily, even when cared for well. It looks very white.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
Nice camera!
That lens barrel looks like it might have been hand-polished; brass can be hand-buffed to look nearly new ( though it takes a lot of elbow grease ).
I have two early Summars whose barrels are nearly nickel-less...
Check the black backsides of the lens / barrel / mount for a number that might be written in pencil or scratched into the metal...
I have a Leica II, s/n 77xxx with 3,5 Elmar s/n 99xxx, which is stamped into the blackened brass mount-ring for the front lens element. Same 11 o'clock INF lock, collimating plug in the back, large shutter-speed dial, AND, the elusive shutter release collar. My lens is in Metres, and the tripod socket is 3/8" "European".
These are gorgeous little cameras.... post some pics from yours !
Luddite Frank
That lens barrel looks like it might have been hand-polished; brass can be hand-buffed to look nearly new ( though it takes a lot of elbow grease ).
I have two early Summars whose barrels are nearly nickel-less...
Check the black backsides of the lens / barrel / mount for a number that might be written in pencil or scratched into the metal...
I have a Leica II, s/n 77xxx with 3,5 Elmar s/n 99xxx, which is stamped into the blackened brass mount-ring for the front lens element. Same 11 o'clock INF lock, collimating plug in the back, large shutter-speed dial, AND, the elusive shutter release collar. My lens is in Metres, and the tripod socket is 3/8" "European".
These are gorgeous little cameras.... post some pics from yours !
Luddite Frank
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
Brass barrel
Brass barrel
I must confess I did apply a little Brasso to the lens barrel. It had darkened but not at all evenly, so I cleaned it off to see what the surface was like, as part of my overall cosmetic cleaning of the camera. The only real servicing I did was to dismantle, clean, and re-lubricate the focusing mount.
There is almost no wear of any kind on the lens barrel, so it's really not obvious why anyone would have gone to all the trouble of stripping the nickel. I can always get it replated, I guess, but at this point I figure the brass barrel to be a part of the character of this lovely old camera.
Cheers,
Dez
Brass barrel
I must confess I did apply a little Brasso to the lens barrel. It had darkened but not at all evenly, so I cleaned it off to see what the surface was like, as part of my overall cosmetic cleaning of the camera. The only real servicing I did was to dismantle, clean, and re-lubricate the focusing mount.
There is almost no wear of any kind on the lens barrel, so it's really not obvious why anyone would have gone to all the trouble of stripping the nickel. I can always get it replated, I guess, but at this point I figure the brass barrel to be a part of the character of this lovely old camera.
Cheers,
Dez
Luddite Frank
Well-known
Looks like the lens might have more wear than the camera body... I say this because of the brassing of the aperture tab and front element ring, as well as the brassing around the front edge of the outer knurled ring of the front mount.
Don't see quite as much wear on the plated elements of the camera body itself...
Don't see quite as much wear on the plated elements of the camera body itself...