Highway 61
Revisited
Ha ! This "Jena Contax" in white paint and faux brown leather covering is like Nessie the Loch Ness monster its seems !
Some years ago (I'd say, in 2001-2002) this very camera was offered for sale on eBay by "Dear Boris" and here it is again...
Better pass your way...
L David Tomei
Well-known
Please forgive me for getting a bit lost regarding the authenticity of the MaZo Contax III. May I ask why the accessory plate looks to be fake? ...and why the bezel on the self timer should be black on a pre-war model? Based on the photos posted by MaZo, it looks like a genuine Contax III. The photo of the engraving on the accessory shoe appears to be a bit too fuzzy on my screen for me to understand why it's a fake. Thanks.
David
David
Highway 61
Revisited
The so-called "Jena" Contaxes made in Saalfeld in 1946-1947 all have a black bezel around the selftimer lever shaft.
There were only three Contax III made there and then so there is very little chance if any for any of them to be on the market now.
The engraving of the accessory shoe looks crude and not machine-stamped.
The leather covering is typical of the Kievs (pattern, color, patina).
The trims black paint gets off the way the paint typically gets off on all early Kievs.
The tripod socket folding foot clearly has the Kiev look, as well as the serrating of the focusing wheel (simple not double).
The screws of the front plate look misaligned (because the genuine Contax frontplate fits on a Kiev casting but there are some slight alignments problems).
If it was a genuine Contax III, it wouldn't have that "Carl Zeiss Jena" engraving on its accessory shoe.
I still think that this is an early Kiev III with a genuine prewar Contax frontplate and a fake accessory shoe.
For more info about the Jena Contaxes, you can read this :
http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/zconrfKiev.htm
There were only three Contax III made there and then so there is very little chance if any for any of them to be on the market now.
The engraving of the accessory shoe looks crude and not machine-stamped.
The leather covering is typical of the Kievs (pattern, color, patina).
The trims black paint gets off the way the paint typically gets off on all early Kievs.
The tripod socket folding foot clearly has the Kiev look, as well as the serrating of the focusing wheel (simple not double).
The screws of the front plate look misaligned (because the genuine Contax frontplate fits on a Kiev casting but there are some slight alignments problems).
If it was a genuine Contax III, it wouldn't have that "Carl Zeiss Jena" engraving on its accessory shoe.
I still think that this is an early Kiev III with a genuine prewar Contax frontplate and a fake accessory shoe.
For more info about the Jena Contaxes, you can read this :
http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/zconrfKiev.htm
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The spacing and typography of the serial looks odd, but that is a bit too low-resolution to clearly identify. The front panel is of a older type, too. But both might still be explained away by the prototype nature of a Jena Contax III (of which only three are supposed to exist).
What positively nails it as a dressed-up Kiev is the single edged focus wheel - Zeiss used a double wheel, the single is a Kiev invention. And while older parts might have crept into a Zeiss prototype, no part from the future could possibly have done so.
Last edited:
Highway 61
Revisited
The top cover finish and the embossing near the frame counter also shouts Kiev not Contax.
The comparison between the lightmeter dial scales and index and a genuine prewar Contax III one should also say Kiev.
The comparison between the lightmeter dial scales and index and a genuine prewar Contax III one should also say Kiev.
L David Tomei
Well-known
Thanks Highway 61 and sevo for the details. So much to learn and so little time... ciao!
David
David
L David Tomei
Well-known
I had been interested in engraving tool marks and variations that could be seen on Leicas from the 1930's through 50's. I am curious about similar engraving tool marks on Contax's under low power magnification (<100x). What may look odd to the trained eye would perhaps have distinct macroscopic tool marks.