Jupiter 8 zero serial numbers

[oldhaven]

I found a few references to J8 serial numbers starting with zero, but nothing definitive. I just bought this lens block and was wondering when and what it was used for?

 

[newst]

The general consensus I have gathered from "people who should know" is that the zero prefix serial numbers have no specific meaning. Soviet lens production was not like that in the West where you had individual companies producing their own products. All Soviet lens manufacturers were owned by the state and produced what they were directed to. The government moved lens production from one center to the next depending on the current plan. Some manufacturers held to the year of manufacture serial conventions, others didn't. Hence some lens serials started with zero.

 

[oldhaven]

I have found with some research than this lens/optical block was used for a TV camera, the Electronika. It was probably made in the 1970’s. I bought it because it has perfect new glass. It is an experiment, as when it gets here I am hoping the glass will fit in a much less than new J-8 I own. I am still unsure why the serial starts with 0, though it may be that lenses used for other than consumer cameras were numbered differently.

 

[Brambling]

From a certain point, possibly from 1970, lenses released in 1970 started with "0" - there is such a version).
"00ХХХХХ" - there is a version that this is a "test sample" ("Опытный Образец"),
I also had "0000ХХХ" - here you can break your head))))

Sometimes different factories made different versions of the same lens, in any case, the factory logo was different.

The lens blocks were usually interchangeable, for example, Jupiter 8M (Kyiv-Contax) with a little modification can be installed in the Jupiter 8 M39 case.

 

[oldhaven]

Thank you Mr. Brambling. I am looking forward to my surgery to replace the cataracts on my old Jupiter so he can once again enjoy seeing some of the world's beauties. (Assuming I am a good surgeon and the replacements can be used.)

 

[Brambling]

But I'm curious, in your opinion, does the value of the lens drop when you replace the lens?And if you replace the entire lens unit, or even both - the back and the front, what about the cost and identity?Cleaning and lubrication - that's understandable, but how does replacing parts, even with identical ones, but not the same year, affect the historical value?

This is not an idle question - I got a Jupiter 9 from Konvas (I know for sure, it had remnants of a Konvas bayonet mount on it), this Jupiter can be mounted in any frame - a mirror, a rangefinder of any Soviet type, it can be adapted to the 6x6 format for any camera... At first I was excited, but then I changed my mind - there are native 85 mm Auto for Nikon, there are for Zenit M39, there are for rangefinders - I didn't see any point in changing.

 

[oldhaven]

This is called grandpa's axe. It has had the handle replaced 3 times and the head once, but it is still grandpa's axe. Still, you ask a serious question. I probably would not do any replacement on a historically significant item, but something in the middle of a run of hundreds of thousands that is not functionally OK would probably not be something to worry about. I suppose the replaced parts could be kept with the lens. Actually, the TV camera lens probably has more historical or collector value than the J-8.
I see this in classic motorcycles and cars where matching numbers increases value and some unusable vehicles are worth more than good driveable ones with replaced parts of the same era. I just bought a Carl Zeiss 50/2 Sonnar from 1959 that is likely one of the last ones made. It has lens separation on the front lens, but still takes decent photos. That one will remain untampered with at least as long as I have it, which proves your point.
Ron

I have a hip replacement, I don’t know where my old hip went, but I feel like I am still me. I just work much better and my wife is not disappointed with my loss of historical value.

 

[wlewisiii]

I had to tell the story of The Ship of Theseus to a very young but intelligent and decently educated co-worker the other night. It was a very educational experience for her so it was well worth the time it took to walk through the whole of the story and will probably serve her well in years to come.

 

[oldhaven]

One of each is both alike

 

[Brambling]

This is called grandpa's axe. It has had the handle replaced 3 times and the head once, but it is still grandpa's axe. Still, you ask a serious question. I probably would not do any replacement on a historically significant item, but something in the middle of a run of hundreds of thousands that is not functionally OK would probably not be something to worry about. I suppose the replaced parts could be kept with the lens. Actually, the TV camera lens probably has more historical or collector value than the J-8.
I see this in classic motorcycles and cars where matching numbers increases value and some unusable vehicles are worth more than good driveable ones with replaced parts of the same era. I just bought a Carl Zeiss 50/2 Sonnar from 1959 that is likely one of the last ones made. It has lens separation on the front lens, but still takes decent photos. That one will remain untampered with at least as long as I have it, which proves your point.
Ron

I have a hip replacement, I don’t know where my old hip went, but I feel like I am still me. I just work much better and my wife is not disappointed with my loss of historical value.

Thank you very much for your calm and clear answer, I understood and accepted your point of view and fully share it.