Kodak Retina IIIC scam????

[colyn]

Has anybody heard of such a camera or is the seller trying to pull a scam??

http://cgi.ebay.com/RETINA-IIIC-CAM...eras?hash=item5634452ddc&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

 

[Peter A (NYC)]

The description says it has a 1.2 lens.

 

[raid]

He means a 1:2 lens.
I don't know if it is a scam or not.

 

[BillBingham2]

I heard about this but never had a chance to ask my father if this was true or not. He worked at Kodak in Rochester as an industrial photographer and then photo journalist for his entire life. It does sound true as the folks over there loved cameras and would have hated to trash so many wonderful parts. Kodak was starting to do some really stupid things back then. (e.g. came up with an ASA 400 emulsion that had the grain of ASA 32 film but could not recreate it)

The thing that has the hair on my neck up on this one is the price. Retinas are great cameras but this price seems WAY over the top. Even if it's true the value of an item only is tangible is you can find someone to pay you what you think it’s worth. If you cannot, then it is worth less or worthless. If he says this is one of the last from parts, show me how you can tell. It’s late so perhaps he did, but I did not see it.
Just seems questionable.

Where did it come from? Give me something of a back story that I can check on, something plausible.

Seems like an old Kiev turned into a Contax or an old IIIa turned into something from the Luftwaffe.

B2 (;->

 

[BillBingham2]

The description says it has a 1.2 lens.

Interesting point. A 1.2 50mm would have a MUCH larger front element. If this guy really knew what he was doing this sort of error would not happen.

B2 (;->

 

[Steve M.]

Well, considering that the rest of this seller's wares consists of bracelets, duck stamps, and a Hopalong Cassidy knife, among other odd things, I would be a little reluctant to buy a $1500 camera no one has ever heard about from them. But that's just me.

 

[ZeissFan]

There are a couple of tell-tale things regarding the special Retinas that were assembled as gifts to Kodak execs. And of course I can't recall what they are.

I assume the seller can provide written proof that this is authentic.

 

[colyn]

I just sent an email to the seller asking him to verify the validity of this camera. We'll see what happens..

 

[Disaster_Area]

well.. if you look at the close up pic of the lens ... it clearly states "1:2.0" which would make it the standard f2 lens, this is something a LOT of non-photo people mess up in listings, I can't count the times I've gotten my hopes dashed by seeing "f1.2" in a listing title 🙂 ... as to his claims that it's a rare collectors piece... meh... who knows...

 

[btgc]

a LOT of non-photo people mess up in listings, I can't count the times I've gotten my hopes dashed by seeing "f1.2" in a listing title

couple of days ago saw similar frog-to-queen lens...plain 1:2 represented as 1.2
Do you guys are going to blame seller at flea market that he is selling tea cup as trophy cup? He is right on his own, that's our move - buy or not.

This days many internet shops describe selling items same way, inaccurate I mean - specs are messed up or even missing, no picture of actual item or some generic one (say, not actual packaging with hoya filter but green background with hoya on it), no dimensions (very annoying for lens hoods) etc. In this age we are offered to shop instead of buying things we need.

 

[Spider67]

OK the"1.2" is simply a typing mistake.....
I am curious how he will document his other claims.

 

[Roger Hicks]

the issue isnt whether it is F1.2, it is clearly f2 (as it would be), that is obviously a miss print or the guy doesnt know what he is looking at. the issue is whether it is one of the 125 geniune 1977 Retina IIIC made from the left over kodak parts, issued as gifts.

there are a number of tell tale signs that show the difference but are generally kept secret to dissuade people from making replica's , the last genuine one i remember hearing about sold for around $3000 at auction ...the fact that this one doesnt have a serial number is cause for suspicion, the story presented by the seller that this camera is miraculously one of only two Retina IIIC that left the factory before a serial number was given is _________, yeah

Hang on, mate. If the differences are kept secret, how can anyone use them to tell if it's a fake or not?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gumby]

While I agree that the listed item is expensive and the description fails to provide indisputable provenance or proof of rarity, let me caution you yokels who are speculating "scam". I have actually met this guy, seen his shop, dealt with him. He's real. My expreience with him have been good. He has helped me out when I needed help with Retinas.

I don't know anything about this particular product either, but please don't defame him just because he lacks verbosity. If you don't feel you have enough information... ask for information (there is a button on ebay for that); if you don't like what he has to say, don't bid.

These kind of accusations of scam are UnCalledFor. If you want more information, ask; if you can't afford it, don't bid; if you'd rather be a user than a collector, use what you have; if you just need something to talk about to get another posting credit, find something nondestructive because making accusations of "scam" just makes the entire RFF look like a reactionary lynch mob.

Oh, and if you don't like my opinion... please keep your disageement to yourself.

 

[retro]

Has anybody heard of such a camera or is the seller trying to pull a scam??

http://cgi.ebay.com/RETINA-IIIC-CAM...eras?hash=item5634452ddc&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

These cameras are mentioned in McKeown's books. They
apparently do exist.

Of course the "1.2" lens is a typo.

 

[colyn]

While I agree that the listed item is expensive and the description fails to provide indisputable provenance or proof of rarity, let me caution you yokels who are speculating "scam".

If you will notice I put question marks after the header so I was not calling him a scammer..

I don't know anything about this particular product either, but please don't defame him just because he lacks verbosity. If you don't feel you have enough information... ask for information (there is a button on ebay for that); if you don't like what he has to say, don't bid.

I did email him and got back a all cap (shouting) nasty response..

 

[raid]

Colyn,
What was the "message" of the email response ?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Either he should put it side by side with a regular production Retina 3C, or provide proof of authenticity. The SN of the lens looks like it is late production. My very late production Retina IIC has a lens SN that starts with 5289xxx. I know it is late production as the F-Stop can be set to F2 and it can be used with an F2 front element. An earlier IIC that I repaired could not be moved past F2.8. I suspect the parts were getting low and Kodak simply used the same mechanism for the IIIC and Late IIC.

The SN of the lens on the one for auction is 5174816, which is a good bit earlier than mine. So- I would demand some proof as the Sn of the lens is right out of the regular production line.

 

[colyn]

Colyn,
What was the "message" of the email response ?

He repeated the auction description then rather loudly then insinuated I was calling him a liar then ended the message with "I WILL CERTIFY THAT THE CAMERA IS WHAT I SAY".

I have heard of such a camera but my understanding was that ALL are serial numbered.. This is why I called the auction into question..

He may very well be on the up and up but then I have no intentions of buying since it is well out of my range...and I don't collect...I use..

 

[Gumby]

If you will notice I put question marks after the header so I was not calling him a scammer..



I did email him and got back a all cap (shouting) nasty response..

Colyn is a "moron". Does that feel good?

I emailed him, too, and got a very informative reply. It was in ALL CAPS and had some mis-spelled words... even some missing information, but it was responsive and quite polite. Maybe calling someone "things in quotes" isn't quite as innocuous as you think!

 

[colyn]

The SN of the lens looks like it is late production.

According to the below link the serial number dates from 1957 which is the first year of the IIIC production..

http://licm.org.uk/livingImage/SchneiderNos.html