I want to reskin a Leica II

[David Russo]

Should I tape the hole in the back before applying the new skin?

The only leatherette supplier I found is Louw2008, a Chinese seller on eBay. About thirty dollars.

Thanks!

 

[aw614]

I have no complaints with the skin I bought from louw2008 on ebay for my Leotax.

 

[WoodallP]

Yes the II is tricky to get but Hugo Studio claim to do one; though you have to scroll down the list a bit though.

I cut my own using a Brother CM300 cutter and cheap Amazon sticky stuff and it’s ok.

The golden rule, as pointed out by another member in a different thread (sorry OP I forget where, but credit is due), is to smear the body with hand sanitiser before applying self adhesive skins. This gives you a few minutes for fine adjustments before the alcohol dries. But leave it for a few hours after, just to be sure.

 

[WoodallP]

I cut my own using a Brother CM300 cutter and cheap Amazon sticky stuff and it’s ok.

This was taken in the paper template phase.

 

[Dralowid]

I may have got the wrong end of the stick but I think the OP is asking whether he should remove the plug from the collimation hole in the back of the camera and just tape it over before applying the new covering. Presumably this is because the new covering does not accommodate the plug?

If this is what he is saying it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

If it is not what he is saying I apologise.

 

[WoodallP]

I may have got the wrong end of the stick but I think the OP is asking whether he should remove the plug from the collimation hole in the back of the camera and just tape it over before applying the new covering. Presumably this is because the new covering does not accommodate the plug?

If this is what he is saying it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

If it is not what he is saying I apologise.

You are right, this was the main point. I have two early IIs (one a converted I, the other a 1932 original) but neither have this hole. I was supposing that it was flat enough that you could just cover over it with the plug in and that maybe the tape ws just to protect it. I went off at a tangent a bit on the general lack of skins available knowing that Aki-Asahi clearly state that they don’t do one.

 

[Dralowid]

Years ago there was a thread about collimation holes. I can neither find the thread nor remember any conclusions!

 

[David Russo]

The plug went missing before I acquired the camera. The only skin I could find does not have any aperture for the hole, so I could either just cover it with the skin or tape over the hole and then put the skin on top of that.

And I don’t know what kind of tape might be appropriate. I could tape the hole and try the camera without a covering.

Or spend the money to send it somewhere for this work.

 

[WoodallP]

I’ve never had a model with a hole so this is all supposition, but here goes. Firstly I don’t think you will ever need the hole, but the skin may not be 100% opaque, so covering the hole first is a good idea. I would be disinclined to use tape as that would leave a sticky exposed surface on the inside which could build up crud that one day falls on your film. I would be tempted to stick (glue round the hole) a piece of opaque thin black paper over the hole then apply the skin; a piece of 120 backing paper with the black side facing into the camera would be ideal.
As I say, none of my early Barnacks have the hole so none of this is from experience but I am supposing that the hole is flush with the camera back and doesn’t have a raised rim.

 

[Dralowid]

The hole does not have a raised rim. The depth of the plug would originally be the thickness of the body plus the thickness of the vulcanite covering. Hence the plug is proud when the covering is removed.

Since the camera has the collimation hole we can assume that it is quite early and of interest to those who collect these things. Having said that I don't know if re covering a camera impacts on value.

I don't think tape or paper is a long lasting solution. The covering will sag into the hole in time.

It shouldn't be too hard to find a disc of steel or alloy that is close to the right thickness and close to the right size. This could be epoxied into the hole, sanded flat and the camera recovered.

 

[WoodallP]

The hole does not have a raised rim. The depth of the plug would originally be the thickness of the body plus the thickness of the vulcanite covering. Hence the plug is proud when the covering is removed.

Since the camera has the collimation hole we can assume that it is quite early and of interest to those who collect these things. Having said that I don't know if re covering a camera impacts on value.

I don't think tape or paper is a long lasting solution. The covering will sag into the hole in time.

It shouldn't be too hard to find a disc of steel or alloy that is close to the right thickness and close to the right size. This could be epoxied into the hole, sanded flat and the camera recovered.

A good point, after a while you’d probably get a soft depression (the camera too maybe 🙂 ). Probably no impact on use but not nice and a weak point. A metal plug would be better as a long term solution. I’m not sure how it would affect value as it has already lost its plug and skin. My IIs are users and not of much value. I suppose the important thing is not to do anything that can’t be undone easily and redone differently, and everything so far falls into this category.

 

[oldhaven]

Can you check if the hole is tapped? If so you may be able to find a grub or flat head screw or a rangefinder adjuster cover from another camera that fits it. How big is the hole? You could get your initials engraved on a plug and leave it visible.

 

[CMur12]

If the hole is meant to provide access to make adjustments, I would expect that the original covering had a matching hole there with a plug that could be removed to make said adjustments.

- Murray

 

[WoodallP]

If the hole is meant to provide access to make adjustments, I would expect that the original covering had a matching hole there with a plug that could be removed to make said adjustments.

- Murray

Hi Murray,

Yes it did but the hole belongs to a previous life for the camera and is no longer needed for adjustment. It was there to allow Leica engineers to correctly shim the lenses on a camera by camera basis before the standardised 28.8mm flange distance was introduced. I’m supposing the OPs camera is a Leica I which would have been standardised when it was converted to a Leica II. I don’t know if new Leica IIs were produced with a hole; if so if was to use up remaining parts I think.

 

[Dralowid]

Just to confuse things I have an older camera with a hole in the pressure plate but not in the body. Having said that records show that it went back to the factory in '33, '40 and '42 so who knows....

If you were to dismantle an early Leica I or similar you should find that the vulcanite is sandwiched between camera and lens and has been milled. Later cameras hav ethe vulcnite stopping at the lens mount.

 

[santino]

Just to confuse things I have an older camera with a hole in the pressure plate but not in the body. Having said that records show that it went back to the factory in '33, '40 and '42 so who knows....

If you were to dismantle an early Leica I or similar you should find that the vulcanite is sandwiched between camera and lens and has been milled. Later cameras hav ethe vulcnite stopping at the lens mount.

Me too!