brassed SP galore

that one had to have either left the factory with a faulty paint job, someone did it on purpose, or someone spent a lot of time and money replacing a lot of little bits of glass and grip material.
 
Yeah, it is missing paint where there should be paint. I wonder if it is in the correct serial number range for an authentic BP.
 
Merkin said:
that one had to have either left the factory with a faulty paint job, someone did it on purpose, or someone spent a lot of time and money replacing a lot of little bits of glass and grip material.
Click to expand...



Agreed. I can't believe to be that brasses from regular use.
Don't like it that much either. A little brassing looks good, but this is too much for my taste.
 
Looks quite nice to me...
20120_3.jpg
 
If they brassed it any more they could have sold it as a "gold" camera... But on some different level i like the camera, dunno why 😀
 
I've seen Carl Merkin's brassed out Leica M2R with Leicavit that he calls "the Brass Monkey." Most of the the paint is missing on that camera also, but still it looks beautiful to me, because I love brassed out cameras.

I guess some of you question if it could be "honest wear." To me the wear could be honest. Pretty hard to put that matching wear on that lens.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
I've seen Carl Merkin's brassed out Leica M2R with Leicavit that he calls "the Brass Monkey." Most of the the paint is missing on that camera also, but still it looks beautiful to me, because I love brassed out cameras.

I guess some of you question if it could be "honest wear." To me the wear could be honest. Pretty hard to put that matching wear on that lens.

Cal
Click to expand...

Disassembly and solvents. take a look at the paint on the top plate, it looks bubbled.
 
Objects wear with normal use in predictable patterns. With antiques one is taught to look for normal use patterns on objects. If the pattern is not within a normal use pattern there is the possibility that the wear was faked. If a camera were to wear in this manner it would be caused by the acidity of the sweat in the users hands. Notice on the body, left side of the photograph, that there is no wear to the body where the camera would be held. Why is there wear on the area around the lens? Or, for that matter there appears to be wear or brassing on an internal ring of the lens that is not normally touched?
 
Steve Bellayr said:
Objects wear with normal use in predictable patterns. With antiques one is taught to look for normal use patterns on objects. If the pattern is not within a normal use pattern there is the possibility that the wear was faked. If a camera were to wear in this manner it would be caused by the acidity of the sweat in the users hands. Notice on the body, left side of the photograph, that there is no wear to the body where the camera would be held. Why is there wear on the area around the lens? Or, for that matter there appears to be wear or brassing on an internal ring of the lens that is not normally touched?
Click to expand...

And under the viewfinder? wear at the VF window all the way to the glass? Why's the red lens mounting dot still there?
 
Here in Japan, more than a few people rub off the black paint to make the camera look more "cool". Shintaro (the Leica painter) will even rub the paint off the corners of newly repainted cameras to make them look like they have been "professionally" used.

But I have seen a well worn and beaten S3 which has had much of it's chrome plating worn off. I'm tempted to buy it. The black SP in the auction looks nice, and I think the price is quite fair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom