Estate Sale of Kodak Medalist 11 help please.

[Retro-Grouch]

Seems like a bit of a double bind. Older cameras like this tend to be quirky designs, compared to their modern brethren. There's no telling whether you'll bond with the Medalist; cameras that look, on paper, like your dream camera turn out to be a PITA to use, and vice versa. I went through this with a Hassy SWC; it was my dream camera until I finally owned one. Believe me, I wanted it to be happily ever after, but no way...
Unfortunately, as with me and the SWC, you won't know whether you'll bond with the Medalist until you use it. It seems that the real question is whether it's worth $475 to find out. For some folks, that's chump change, and for others, a princely sum. In consolation, should it not work out, you would probably get most of your money back by selling the Medalist.
I would also say that, personally, I've always thought it would be cool to have a Medalist. If I knew that I could get one fully CLA'd and converted for $525, I'd be on it in a second!

 

[Nitroplait]

It shouldn't be that difficult to answer, especially since you are in the unique position of having the camera in hand.
If that camera was 100% functional and sitting on a shelf in a camera store with a pricetag of $525, would you buy it?

 

[Timmyjoe]

I've always been interested in cameras of a certain age, because of their history. The Medalist you have is not a Medalist II as you originally noted, but an Original Medalist, if it has the black anodized focus barrel. Those were made for the US Navy during WWII.

I had a Medalist II for a few years, and to be honest, it was a bit of a PITA to use, being heavy and "old school" as far as operation. And no matter how clean the optics in the viewfinder, it's still a pretty squinty viewfinder compared to modern cameras. As far as image quality goes, I like the lower contrast I get from lenses made from the 1930's to early 1950's, but that is personal taste. It depends on what you are looking for as far as image quality goes.

Best,
-Tim

 

[johannielscom]

I'd love myself a Medalist!

And I'd get one if it was advertised as having frozen rangefinder and shutter, since a mistake is easily made: if the lens isn't fully extended, both rangefinder and shutter will freeze up.

You might get lucky and actually get a working camera for too little money.

 

[JeffS7444]

So it will be around $475 for service shipping and insurance to have it fully working again. Should I lash out, or put it on the shelf to look at.

At $50, you got an excellent deal IMO: If you do nothing more than resell it as-is, you ought to realize a respectable profit. Styling was by Walter Dorwin Teague, a leading designer of his time, though IMO, Art Deco as a whole hasn't aged especially well.

As a curio sitting on a shelf (shrug) I guess that's a matter of taste.

 

[campy]

I have a Medalist II that cost me $150 in working condition and excellent cosmetics. As others have said it is a little clunky to use and you just don't get that thrill up your leg as you do with a Hasselblad or Rolleiflex. Focusing is different but the image matches crisply when in focus. I think it's one of the nicest cameras to look at with it's spiral focusing.