Black Leica ii questions

[Delrizzo]

Hello everyone. This is my first post so apologies if I am not doing this correctly. I have just purchased a 1932 Leica ii and overall I am delighted with this wonderful camera. There are inconsistencies, however, and I was hoping that someone here could shed some light. Firstly, the serial number is from a batch of Leica Standards not iis. Secondly, the word No on the top plate has no line under the o. I have looked at a lot of Leica LTMs and there is always a line under the o. Finally, the viewfinder window is not bevelled as the early Leicas were it is more in keeping with a much later Leica iii. Are these inconsistencies fairly normal or might it have had work carried out as with the viewfinder window. I would be fascinated to know your thoughts and any other information you might have about the Leica ii.

 

[B-9]

From the serial number it looks to be a Standard that was factory converted to a II later in life. That would explain the late viewfinder bezel. Another big giveaway is the "0" on the lens mount which suggests it was at one time a Standard.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Looks like a prewar conversion. The "O" in the lens mount is normal. The pictures are very close up so I can't get a good image of the whole.

The lettering on top is normal for after 1935 ("D.R.P." right under "Leica"). "Germany" means that it is an export model. The "No" without the small line under the "o" and the "1" without a flag are maybe mistakes by the worker who did the conversion but it is more probable that the conversion was done abroad, probably in the US.

The condition of the paint is very good. Personally I prefer a Leica III, but the camera looks very good to me.

Erik.

 

[Delrizzo]

Thank you for the quick replies. Do you think the conversion affects the value of the camera? I paid about 500USD for the camera. I have posted a wider shot which shows the camera more clearly.

 

[Erik van Straten]

This is an excellent buy (if the lens is clean and without scratches). The paint work is beautiful and the vulcanite and the lens are like new (from the pictures). Can you make a picture of the front glass of the lens?

The Leica II is a common camera. Conversions are relatively rare. Value is a personal thing.

Erik.

 

[Delrizzo]

Thank you and value is a personal thing but it's good to know that I did not pay over the odds. Is this the angle you would like to see?

 

[Erik van Straten]

The flash is a bit disturbing, but it looks quite good. I do not see any scratches or haze. Haze can be cleaned, but scratches are forever. These old Elmars can be amazingly good. See the thread on LTM Leicas. The lens is from 1933.


Erik.

 

[Jerevan]

I think the conversion must be a bit later than 1935, probably -37 or later, since it has the newer viewfinder window. It looks like it is in very good condition, as Erik says. The original black lens cap is also a good sign that the camera was taken care of.

 

[Jerevan]

As time went on, the II (converted or not) became a sort of "budget version" I suppose, since the III line had longer shutter speeds, the distance correction ("diopter") and the eyelets for a strap.

I have the feeling that many IIs are in comparatively better condition - maybe they were more "sunday cameras"?

 

[Erik van Straten]

I think the conversion must be a bit later than 1935

I agree, I said "after 1935". The conversion could also be done during or after the war, as long as "Woods metal" lettering was used.

Yes, in another thread I've said that Leica II are often in good condition. Leica III were professional cameras.

Erik.

 

[Gregm61]

Beautiful camera. Congratulations on the find.

 

[Jerevan]

I agree, I said "after 1935". The conversion could also be done during or after the war, as long as "Woods metal" lettering was used.

Yes, in another thread I've said that Leica II are often in good condition. Leica III were professional cameras.

Erik.

I defer to your expertise, Erik. 🙂 I have no idea where in time the breaking point for the newer styled window is, but my latest "I can't let this one get away" camera is a chrome II from 1937. Cleanest Leica I've had to date.

 

[Delrizzo]

Fascinating information and very useful, thank you all. A short story from my side - My Grandfather was Hungarian and lived in Berlin from 1920. He always owned Leica cameras adopting or converting to the latest model. I wanted a Leica II as it was a clear part of the history of Leica and my grandfather's story. Strangely enough this camera followed the same route as my grandfather. He escaped to the US in 1938 and then on to the UK which is the same journey it seems, from the information gathered above, that this little Leica II took. His final trade in Leica was for a Leica M2 which he felt was a good place to stop. Final question from my side. Would it not be unusual to convert a Standard to a Leica II, would it not usually be a Leica III conversion?

 

[David Hughes]

"Would it not be unusual to convert a Standard to a Leica II, would it not usually be a Leica III conversion?"


Well, yes and no; that's because it's a personal thing and some want this and some want that and not everyone can afford what they'd like. Also the war created difficulties, no new spares and so on. We don't know the camera's history and so we can only guess.

FWIW, I prefer the model II, the IIIc and M2 for photography but own and use the 1926 and later Standard ones from time to time. I often think, but don't know the others' opinions, that inconsistency is a typical Leica/Barnack trait.

BTW, you are lucky to have the shutter button guard; that and the lens caps often vanish or get replaced with something "wrong". Some say cycle tyre valves were adapted to make the button guard...

Regards, David

 

[Dralowid]

Standard to II is a fairly usual conversion, although I do not have any references to pre war conversion costs it would have been cheaper than converted to III.

Unless extraordinary the value of a conversion is now roughly the same as the value of the camera it now is. Unfortunately this can be a lot less than the value of what it once was!

(Though not in this case, II's seem to fetch more than Standards)

 

[Roger Hicks]

The first Leica I ever used was no. 23010, a II conversion. It had the small pin on the base-plate and a pressure plate with a hole in the middle for setting up focus.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Erik van Straten]

(Though not in this case, II's seem to fetch more than Standards)

Yes, but not more than I's in original condition.

In use, I prefer the I and the III. This is not a rational choice, but is using 80 year old gear rational anyway.

Erik.

 

[Dralowid]

The I with a 'hockey stick' now seems an expensive camera.

The only time I have seen a premium on conversions was when I thought of offering a 'set' of postwar black conversion (II non syn and syn, III non syn and syn) for a Westlicht auction. In the end I decided to keep them.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The only time I have seen a premium on conversions was when I thought of offering a 'set' of postwar black conversion (II non syn and syn, III non syn and syn) for a Westlicht auction. In the end I decided to keep them.

For most people the conversions are a complicated matter. Far too complicated. Most people like a simple evolution, first the first model, then the second etc. They see conversions as a kind of forgeries. The older a camera is and the least unaltered the more they like them.

Erik.

 

[Dralowid]

And what a shame that is. I suppose they also believe that a unconverted camera is a better investment(OK so it is).

To me conversions at least show that the owner at the time was sufficiently interested in their photography to want to upgrade, after all when Leitz started offering a camera with a coupled rangefinder it must have seemed like something very special. Upgrading something rather than buying new fits the psyche of the time. All this gives the camera a little bit of 'back story'.

Pity the poor Contax I owners who only sent their cameras back to the factory so that they could be made to work again...for a while.

I collect 8mm movie cameras. They have no use and no value and yet the cheapest allowed families on a budget to take poor quality films that are now seen as something rather special, snapshots in time too fleeting to be social documents but none the less fascinating. To think that you could buy a film splicer on the high street...

I do wish that people who have an interest in old equipment (whatever it may be) try and build up a raison d'etre for their ownership of the item that is more than just its value...not necessarily provenance, maybe just historical context.