anomalous serial number doesn't agree with usual lists...

[dougdarter]

I have just bought a Black and nickel III with serial number 123969, with a 3.5cm Elmar of the same (approx) date, either '32 or '33, as there is no serial number

It was advertised as a 1933 camera, yet on checking the lists, the serial number says it should have been produced in chrome only.

The finish is definitely 'factory', Looking closely at the top plate, you can see where serial number has been stamped in, so what do you think??

Incorrect listing, or later factory re-finish??

Is it possible that there is an anomoly in the listing details??

I apologise for 'snapshots'

Thanks for your help.

 

[Dralowid]

Indeed 123969 is listed as a chrome III...hmmm

Couple of things going on here:

1) Slow speed dial is from a later camera, it should have screw in the centre which implies the mechanism may also be later? Dunno.

2) the Elmar's flange is significantly smaller than the camera's flange. This may be because it is a conversion of an early lens? No infinity lock and ending up at 11 o'clock? Again I dunno and no longer have an old 35mm Elmar to check against. No serial number is no problem.

3) (I said a couple!). Chrome cameras were more expensive than black when new so why convert which would be quite a long winded and expensive operation...also looks like the knobs are nickel which is right for a black camera of this age.

4 (getting carried away now) The engraving on this camera looks right for a black camera if a little overpolished etc.

It is a nice camera and none of the above matters, I'd guess the list is wrong but suggesting such a thing is risking the wrath of aged Leicaphiles worldwide. Others will, no doubt, chime in.

 

[dougdarter]

Indeed 123969 is listed as a chrome III...hmmm

Couple of things going on here:

1) Slow speed dial is from a later camera, it should have screw in the centre which implies the mechanism may also be later? Dunno.

2) the Elmar's flange is significantly smaller than the camera's flange. This may be because it is a conversion of an early lens? No infinity lock and ending up at 11 o'clock? Again I dunno and no longer have an old 35mm Elmar to check against. No serial number is no problem.

3) (I said a couple!). Chrome cameras were more expensive than black when new so why convert which would be quite a long winded and expensive operation...also looks like the knobs are nickel which is right for a black camera of this age.

4 (getting carried away now) The engraving on this camera looks right for a black camera if a little overpolished etc.

It is a nice camera and none of the above matters, I'd guess the list is wrong but suggesting such a thing is risking the wrath of aged Leicaphiles worldwide. Others will, no doubt, chime in.

That is just about the conclusion I came to as well. I'm quite happy that the camera and lens are genuine, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over the conumndrum, but thanks for the concise answer.

Doug

 

[Dralowid]

Doug, it may appear concise but remember this is the internet so it could be entirely wrong!

Michael
(By the way, following the floods is biscuit manufacture back online?)

 

[dougdarter]

Doug, it may appear concise but remember this is the internet so it could be entirely wrong!

Michael
(By the way, following the floods is biscuit manufacture back online?)

Hi Michael, ah yes, United Biscuits, a favourite tea stop when I was walking the beat in Carlisle 30 years ago!! Yep, back up and running. It would take more than a flood to stop them making biscuits!!