Leica LTM a III to a war time IIIc?

[xayraa33]

This ad is claiming a Leica III has been converted to a stepped rewind lever IIIc.

They might be going on the serial number, but a IIIc is 1/8 th inch wider than a Leica III and it has a different shutter speed split at 1/30th of a sec. instead of 1/20th of a sec.
This camera looks to be an original stepper rewind lever Leica IIIc.

And it looks to be a badly painted stepper rewind lever IIIc with a restamped serial number or an original factory replacment serial number.

What do you think?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Leica-III-Black...ryZ30030QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[ray*j*gun]

I have a III and a IIIc and I cannot see how my III could be "converted". The factory would have had to make a scaled down version of the IIIc top plate etc...... NO WAY!! I think you are correct....its a painted IIIc with an old number.

Ray

 

[xayraa33]

yes, different body size between the two models.
the IIIc baseplate is 1/8 th of an inch longer than the baseplate on a Leica III.

 

[LeicaTom]

This camera I`ve seen...........

Built from parts and just painted and someone just stamped an old number on it, if they had`nt screwed up they would have fooled everyone too, even me , by making this one

The DEAD GIVEAWAY is the IIIF bottom, big mistake and the paintjob is`nt up to early 1940`s Leiitz standards, (that marvelous Black porcelain glazed look, which is almost IMPOSSIBLE to reproduce)
....... this could? have been a ACTUAL 1940/41 Factory conversion from III to IIIC
BUT, I have never seen this before done just in sake of saving a number

*Note just added* : I did read the story about the Viewfinder upgrade written by the seller, which I almost think could have happened, at least on paper (the camera STILL would have gotten an ASTERISK)
- but that IIIF bottom, that`s where the painters went wrong, they dropped the ball on this one!

Factory conversion would have put an ASKTRISK after the serial number to denote as camera body replacement as if the original III was destroyed or beyound repair, but a "upgrade" to another body altogether really is`nt the theme by a real Leitz conversion, this is a "fantasy" camera, dreamed up by someone, they even went to the trouble of painting over the rangefinder wiindow rings, which Leitz NEVER would have done in the wartime period (all the WW2 era painted cameras HAD chrome rings)

It was nice idea and is a $450?$500 camera because of the paintjob, it would make an atractive user camera that`s for sure - I`m sure the seller is selling it for it`s "collector" value, stay away from this one though it`s not an original factory job

To the best of my knowledge not a single black paint "stepped" rewind platform
Leica IIIC was ever produced by the Leitz factory - I will disccus this with Jim Lager soon

Tom

 

[xayraa33]

the paint looks like a bad Russian/Ukrainian job.

 

[LeicaTom]

I wrote the seller asking about the IIIF bottom explaination........let me see if I get a response back - and nothing against the seller, I know them to be a reputable dealer
I would think this is/was a camera that just came along for the ride in some collection that was bought up and now it`s being sold with a realistic explaination - just that IIIF bottom and the painted RF windows and missing
* Asterisk don`t Historically JIVE with me ........

Tom

 

[landsknechte]

This seller runs a nice camera store not too far from where I live. He's always seemed like a reputable dealer (I got my III-IIIa conversion from him), but he's not the most knowledgeable person about the Barnack Leicas. However, I think he thinks that he knows more than he actually does...

 

[xayraa33]

How can a viewfinder upgrade in the style of a whole IIIc top cover happen to a camera that has different body dimensions.
I can see a Leica III upgraded to a IIIb, with its combined rf/vf, but not a III to a IIIc.
The Leica IIIc body shell is an eight of an inch longer than a Leica III, IIIa, & IIIb.

 

[LeicaTom]

How can a viewfinder upgrade in the style of a whole IIIc top cover happen to a camera that has different body dimensions.
I can see a Leica III upgraded to a IIIb, with its combined rf/vf, but not a III to a IIIc.
The Leica IIIc body shell is an eight of an inch longer than a Leica III, IIIa, & IIIb.

Yes, that makes the whole point, all cameras made before the IIIC were the same body size and have been converted into cameras up untill the Flash Sync models of the early 1950`s - the painting story is too, that when that was done, the ENTIRE top of the camera was replaced on most occasions - and most of these conversions you see with the POST 1955 Leitz GMBH or what I call the Leica IIIG type top plate engravings

The IIIC`s were only able to be converted into IIIFBD models and sometimes and very rarely they received IIIF self timers as well - have a early 1950`s
"wartime" Leica IIIC to IIIFBD conversion * see photo below*

This kind of conversion was very common after 1949 in Europe, while many people didn`t have the $$$ to go and buy a brand new IIIF so the IIIC`s were modified, this camera for example was more than likely an American GI PX purchase that was sold to a German who then in return sent it back to the company era 1950/53 for the IIIFBD "upgrade"

That was the extent of the NORMAL factory conversions on screw mount cameras

Tom

 

[xayraa33]

The sellers note about the viewfinder upgrade is someting that could have never happened.
a Leica III cannot be made into a Leica IIIc.
The camera in the sellers photo was born as a Leica IIIc and it still is a IIIc.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A lot depends on what you mean by IIIc 'specification'. Changing from the fabricated shutter crate (up to IIIb) to the die-cast crate (IIIc and later) would indeed equate to a new camera. This appears to have the fabricated crate (no metal surround to the lens flange) and is therefore pre-c and cannot be converted. The basic chassis construction (fabricated vs. die-cast) is a point no-one seems to have made yet. Unless I had too much Cahors with my dinner and have failed to spot something -- or unless I can't see the flange surround on my lousy internet computer. EDIT From others' comments the latter is presumably the case.

Cheers,

R.

 

[xayraa33]

A lot depends on what you mean by IIIc 'specification'. Changing from the fabricated shutter crate (up to IIIb) to the die-cast crate (IIIc and later) would indeed equate to a new camera. This appears to have the fabricated crate (no metal surround to the lens flange) and is therefore pre-c and cannot be converted. The basic chassis construction (fabricated vs. die-cast) is a point no-one seems to have made yet. Unless I had too much Cahors with my dinner and have failed to spot something -- or unless I can't see the flange surround on my lousy internet computer.

Cheers,

R.

The die cast crate is also longer length wise than the fabricated crate.
the flange surround is there, it is a Leica IIIc.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The die cast crate is also longer length wise than the fabricated crate.
the flange surround is there, it is a Leica IIIc.

Thanks. See edit. I must get a new monitor for the internet...

Either way, of course, the conversion is impossible as others have noted.

Cheers,

R.

 

[LeicaTom]

I received an email back from the seller, he was very understanding about it -

ME Q: If this was a wartime era conversion (from the body that`s used it must be a pre May 1946 conversion) Then how does that explain the IIIF (1950`s) bottom?

SELLER A: Thank you for your note. You do indeed have an interesting point. I never noticed the later base plate key until your email. This came to me in an estate that I recently purchased. I will have to investigate further.

As I`ve said this was a camera that just came along for the ride, and was more than likely a camera that was someone`s fancy - custom made paintjob etc.

I wish I could see the insides to see what kind of "wartime" body was used to make this camera out of, more than likely a postwar ex-US ARMY "Half Race" one

Tom

 

[xayraa33]

he should say that the camera is, a non factory painted stepper rewind lever IIIc with the wrong baseplate and a re stamped serial number and edit out that Leica III to IIIc conversion nonsense in the ad.

 

[LeicaTom]

he should say that the camera is, a non factory painted stepper rewind lever IIIc with the wrong baseplate and a re stamped serial number and edit out that Leica III to IIIc conversion nonsense in the ad.

Heheheheheeee! Yeah

Except, it`s still posted, it has a HIGH RESERVE, (I would safely guess like $800+)
no one who KNOWS about Leica`s would buy it, it`s just the unsuspecting folk who have more money then brains that would make a mistake and try to buy it

Tom

 

[xayraa33]

Heheheheheeee! Yeah

Except, it`s still posted, it has a HIGH RESERVE, (I would safely guess like $800+)
no one who KNOWS about Leica`s would buy it, it`s just the unsuspecting folk who have more money then brains that would make a mistake and try to buy it

Tom

But I also question the sellers knowledge.
if this is his bread and butter business, he should know better,... unless he wants to hoodwink.

 

[ray*j*gun]

***bay.....its a free for all. Sometimes the sellers know and sometimes they don't. If you buy there however you'd better know.

 

[xayraa33]

yeah!! seems like the right thing to do to me also! particularly from a seller/store that presumably wants a good reputation and is now aware by his own admission to Tom. all this does is cast my supision and doubt over anything he sells!


please forgive my ignorance, but if i dont ask then i dont learn! (attemping to gain more brains than i have money hahaha which ordiaraly shouldn't be difficult! dead broke half the time! which would give me an IQ of minus 120 eh )
Even if it was geniune how does it make it worth more or more collectable? arn't # 287219 (1938) leica III only worth around $500 and a Leica IIIc under #400 000 about $350-450. what would be the point of stamping an old number on it? isnt it better to have an all origonal camera anyways? just my thought but if i want a III then i buy a III but if i want IIIc or whatever then i would prefer to get that origonal as well...all things being equal that is, isnt an origonal leica better than one that has been changed?


also another basic question. Tom does it and i notice from time to time others do. why do people people hide the serial number (or at least the last 3 numbers) when posting a picture? some kind of theft security thing i am sure but it just hasn't accured to me exactly why is all?

the original IIIc could have been stolen and the serial number was unwittingly restamped.
maybe the first digit was changed from a 3 to a 2.

you hide the last three numbers on a camera or lens in any pic you show on the internet because someone could say the item is his property that was lost in a theft.

maybe his claim is real , but there is a good chance that the claim is bogus and he wants something for nothing.Remember, you got the whole world watching your picture of a photographic item.

with phoney documentation he could make your life hell, who needs the trouble.

 

[xayraa33]

ah i see! thanks..particularly if its an expensive item

i have often noticed people on ebay asking for serial numbers so apart from gathering year information i guess they are inquiring as to whether it may be stolen...it would make one hesitant to reveal the serial number but if you didn't then you would look guilty...a catch 22 situation

if you are selling something fine, you probably have to reveal and show the serial number and as a buyer I want to see a clear photo of it in the ad.

but in forums like this, why show serial numbers.
most members here are honest people, but who else is watching?

you can buy a Nikon SP off eb*y that was stolen in 1965 and has exchanged hand seventeen times since then and never know it was ever stolen until the original aged owner thinks he spotted it in a picture of camera porn on this forum.
like I said, who needs the trouble.