Tell him that the SN on the camera is 100,000 less than an RFF member has in his collection. And I know my camera is from the 1950s. He states the SN of the lens as if it is the SN of the camera. He should have known better.
i will add that I have heard of these cameras, and recall seeing photo's of one prior to this one. I seem to recall a special SN, very low in number for the series. It did not continue where the Retina left off. It is possible that an early run Schneider lens was left-over for this camera build two-decades later. But, typically the earlier lenses are used up and higher SN's are left in the parts bin. My Nikon F now has a new SN on a 745xxxx top plate bought new from surplus parts. That replaced it's badly dented 7444xxx plate, also very late in the run.
So for $1,500- proof would be required before I bid more than $300, the going rate of a mint IIIC, to go with my IIC.
i will add that I have heard of these cameras, and recall seeing photo's of one prior to this one. I seem to recall a special SN, very low in number for the series. It did not continue where the Retina left off. It is possible that an early run Schneider lens was left-over for this camera build two-decades later. But, typically the earlier lenses are used up and higher SN's are left in the parts bin. My Nikon F now has a new SN on a 745xxxx top plate bought new from surplus parts. That replaced it's badly dented 7444xxx plate, also very late in the run.
So for $1,500- proof would be required before I bid more than $300, the going rate of a mint IIIC, to go with my IIC.
Last edited:
colyn
ישו משיח
If someone disagrees with your opinion do you always resort to name calling??
If so I'll have to feed you to my ignore list..
Gumby
Veteran
Now don't start acting like that. You said putting a word, like SCAM, in "quotes" means that you don't mean it. I'm just testing that theory. I didn't mean it either.
But, please, put me on your ignore list if that makes you feel better.Oh.... there are no quotes on the word 'scam' in the title or the text of the OP!
Gumby
Veteran
Colyn (if you can still hear me)... in post #16 I must have rubbed you the wrong way by saying, "These kind of accusations of scam are juvenile." I'll correct that sutation and remove the "juvenile" part in an attempt to sooth your bad feelings about me. Is that OK with you?
colyn
ישו משיח
Now don't start acting like that. You said putting a word, like SCAM, in "quotes" means that you don't mean it. I'm just testing that theory. I didn't mean it either.
OK The reason I called into question the auction is I was once told by a Retina collector a sign of being a fake is lack of serial number. The seller says no serial number on this one. I never meant to nor did I insinuate the seller was a scammer I'm simply putting the test to others..
I am the OP and that was a question not an indictment so I won't argue the point..
colyn
ישו משיח
Most camera makers at one time or another will make a special addition and I have heard of a Retina IIIC (never seen one though) special addition but the lack of a serial number was my main issue with this item. The early lens number was another factor. In reality I hope this auction is legit..
Since I am not a collector I have no intention of buying but like you I couldn't buy without proof beyond a doubt..without absolute proof it's just another Retina IIIC to me..
( EDIT: I was writing this as Colyn quoted and responded to my earlier post, but it is still my opinion on the matter)
Scam would imply that the seller is intentionally deceiving the potential buyer.
I do not think this is a scam.
I do not think that this camera is authentic, either. Now, the seller of the camera may have been scammed. This will not be the first time that I've seen a camera on auction where the seller was ripped off.
Nothing in the auction proves that it is an authentic 1 of 125 limited edition cameras made 20 years after the camera was introduced. The serial number of the lens is too low, and indicates "just a regular production" IIIC. If the camera were real, and had a 3-digit serial number on the body of the camera, it would have been noticed and photographed, and put in the auction description.
Now: let's summarize;
Not a scam, probably a regular production IIIC with nothing to prove that it is otherwise. Circumstantial evidence in the SN of the lens that it is regular production, produced well before the end of the line.
Burden of proof is on the seller, and any potential buyer should demand this proof unless they have "inside information".
And just to add, even if it were real- there are not enough Retina collectors left to pay that kind of price. Retina prices are down 75% and more over a few years ago.
Scam would imply that the seller is intentionally deceiving the potential buyer.
I do not think this is a scam.
I do not think that this camera is authentic, either. Now, the seller of the camera may have been scammed. This will not be the first time that I've seen a camera on auction where the seller was ripped off.
Nothing in the auction proves that it is an authentic 1 of 125 limited edition cameras made 20 years after the camera was introduced. The serial number of the lens is too low, and indicates "just a regular production" IIIC. If the camera were real, and had a 3-digit serial number on the body of the camera, it would have been noticed and photographed, and put in the auction description.
Now: let's summarize;
Not a scam, probably a regular production IIIC with nothing to prove that it is otherwise. Circumstantial evidence in the SN of the lens that it is regular production, produced well before the end of the line.
Burden of proof is on the seller, and any potential buyer should demand this proof unless they have "inside information".
And just to add, even if it were real- there are not enough Retina collectors left to pay that kind of price. Retina prices are down 75% and more over a few years ago.
Last edited:
planetjoe
Just some guy, you know?
Forgive the intrusion, but I just wanted to point out that colyn never said "quotes"; rather, "question marks." Which are indeed there in the thread title.
This point is, of course, pedantic. Forgive me. For the record, concerning the larger issue at hand I'm a proponent of the scenario described very well by Brian, above.
Cheers,
--joe.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
There was nothing wrong with what Colyn said; it was perfectly reasonable to ask if this might be a scam, and question mark indicated very clearly that it was a question, not an accusation.
colyn
ישו משיח
For the record I never accused the seller of perpetrating a scam. Some may have mis-read my header and thought so.
I am in agreement with Brian Sweeney's assessment...
I do however feel the seller needs to be willing to provide absolute proof instead of replying in a negative way to my email...that in itself gives the wrong impression...
I am in agreement with Brian Sweeney's assessment...
I do however feel the seller needs to be willing to provide absolute proof instead of replying in a negative way to my email...that in itself gives the wrong impression...
Beemermark
Veteran
Me thinks Gumby was no more calling you a "moron" than you were calling the eBayer a "scam".
Gumby
Veteran
You are forgiven, Joe... and correct. But the basic notion is similar, don't you think?
Gumby
Veteran
OK, I can respect that. Let's try this on for size:
"Mabelsound is a moron???"
Is that any better? Question, or accusation?
Last edited:
Gumby
Veteran
WONDERFUL (not shouting). We all agree!
I'll tell you something I believe about the seller, but can't actually verify... he mgiht be a bit rough-around-the-edges but he seemed like a really nice guy with good, honest intent when I interacted with him.
May I ask, colyn, how did you phrase your information request? He was polite with me, yet never acknowledged any recollection of our past interactions so I assume the thought of me as just another ebay lookie-loo.
The lens looks like it was made in 1957, probably in the Spring.
http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/age_of_lenses/
The Kodak Reflex (original) used the same Schneider 50mm f2 lens as did the IIIC and IIIc rangefinders. the serial numbers tend to be higher. I have a Schneider 35/4 for the Reflex and my IIC with a SN 54xxxxx. All of my S Series lens start in the 6M range and run through the 11M range. At about the 10M mark, the RF coupling for the IIIS was done away with. I have 25 or so lenses for the Retina cameras.
What bothers me about this auction is the wording and emphasis on the camera being authentic, but no real proof being presented.
The seller states that the validity of this camera can be verified by David Jentz. These seller goes on to claim that there are several attributes that the 28/n camera has and no other cameras have, and that these cannot be forged as they are an integral part of the camera. He states they cannot be reproduced in the fakes, but does not explain why.
I do not believe this for a minute. Anyone with access to a machine shop can forge just about anything. The seller does not show the unique attributes, or even state what they are. The Serial Number of the lens is just wrong. I think it is a IIIC with a new top plate. i would be glad to be proven incorrect, but someone better show those two unique features and explain why they would be impossible to forge. I think my $1,500 will be going toward a used M8 and i'll just stick with my Retina IIC and 1946 Retina II with 47/2 Ektar lens as the most uncommon Retinas in my collection
http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/age_of_lenses/
The Kodak Reflex (original) used the same Schneider 50mm f2 lens as did the IIIC and IIIc rangefinders. the serial numbers tend to be higher. I have a Schneider 35/4 for the Reflex and my IIC with a SN 54xxxxx. All of my S Series lens start in the 6M range and run through the 11M range. At about the 10M mark, the RF coupling for the IIIS was done away with. I have 25 or so lenses for the Retina cameras.
What bothers me about this auction is the wording and emphasis on the camera being authentic, but no real proof being presented.
The seller states that the validity of this camera can be verified by David Jentz. These seller goes on to claim that there are several attributes that the 28/n camera has and no other cameras have, and that these cannot be forged as they are an integral part of the camera. He states they cannot be reproduced in the fakes, but does not explain why.
I do not believe this for a minute. Anyone with access to a machine shop can forge just about anything. The seller does not show the unique attributes, or even state what they are. The Serial Number of the lens is just wrong. I think it is a IIIC with a new top plate. i would be glad to be proven incorrect, but someone better show those two unique features and explain why they would be impossible to forge. I think my $1,500 will be going toward a used M8 and i'll just stick with my Retina IIC and 1946 Retina II with 47/2 Ektar lens as the most uncommon Retinas in my collection
Last edited:
ZeissFan
Veteran
Kodak often mixed and matched parts as it transitioned between models.
You'll find some IIc/IIIc cameras with features from the IIC/IIIC.
Close inspection of the camera doesn't lead me to believe that this is anything more than a IIIC without a serial number. Aside from the frame counter advance with a dark background, it doesn't look materially different from my own IIIC. But I could very well be wrong about this camera.
I don't know that you can use the lens serial number as a guide, as these special models were assembled from left-over parts and with roughly 20 years passing between the end of the folding Retinas and the special VIP models, it's very possible that finding parts for the various cameras was no simple task. They might have been happy to use whatever they could find.
You'll find some IIc/IIIc cameras with features from the IIC/IIIC.
Close inspection of the camera doesn't lead me to believe that this is anything more than a IIIC without a serial number. Aside from the frame counter advance with a dark background, it doesn't look materially different from my own IIIC. But I could very well be wrong about this camera.
I don't know that you can use the lens serial number as a guide, as these special models were assembled from left-over parts and with roughly 20 years passing between the end of the folding Retinas and the special VIP models, it's very possible that finding parts for the various cameras was no simple task. They might have been happy to use whatever they could find.
Gumby
Veteran
Brian, I'm not quite to the point of disbelief that you are, but neither am I willing to do too much homework to prove the sellers assertions. My feeling is that if this is real, it could certainly be marketed better; no matter, I feel that it will not sell unless there is a real expert outthere who can see and personally verify these unique attributes.
Does this information give you more to gnaw on to help us understand if this is gen-u-ine (as opposed to a "scam") or not:
"EACH OF THE PICTURES SHOWS AND (sic) ATTRIBUTE. ALL ARE SHOWN EVEN THE ONE THAT CAN NOT BE FORGED. IF YOU TAKE A STANDARD LARGE 3C AND STUDY EACH PICTURE YOU WILL SEE THE DIFFERENCES. THE TOW (sic) THINGS THAT CAN NOT BE FORGED THE SERIAL # WHICH THIS DOES NOT HAVE AS IT WAS TAKE (sic) BEFORE THE # WAS PUT ON AND THE SECOND IS IN THE FILM COMPARTMENT . (sic, if that term applies to puctuation too) WHICH IS ONLY DONE AT THE FACTORY AS IT IS RIVETED..(sic, if that term applies to puctuation too) THERE ARE 7 ATTRIBUTES, SOME REDONE CAMERAS HAVE 3-4 BUT NONE HAVE ALL 7 . ITEMS INVOLVED ARE, EXPOSURE METER, TOP HOUSING, SERIAL # LEATHER STAMPING AND LACK OF, BACK CASE COVER, AND INTERNAL FILM WIND. YOU CAN CONTACT DAVID JENTZ David Jentz the writer and foremost expert on Retina Cameras HE HAS TWO 28/N AND CAN ATTEST TO THAT HIS IS ONE ALSO THIS IS HIS WEBSITE AND EMAIL (deleted) I WILL CERTIFY THAT THE CAMERA IS WHAT I SAY"
Again, let me say that I have acutally met and delt with the seller. He may be mistaken but I don't think that he is in any way dishonest. He certainly knows more about Retinas than I do... but then again... I'm just a humble user of them.
I'll bring up my IIC later and try to see some of the differences. They must be really subtle. Now, I can pick up an early production Nikon F2 (first 1600) and spot the differences immediately. Things like not having a stainless steel insert for the strap lugs, a different shaped film advance tip made of metal -not plastic, flat head screws, and a few other things most people might miss. But I am not seeing anything on this camera that looks different from a regular production IIIC.
colyn
ישו משיח
I have a IIIC that was given to me in 1961. Comparing that camera to the photos on the auction the only difference I can see is the lack of a serial number.
Since the seller is unwilling to provide absolute proof himself I too have to consider it just another production run IIIC..
I'm holding my late IIC up against his pictures shown in the auction. The SN on my camera is 76600x. The lens SN is 528925x. I recall that were about 14,000 IIC's made, about 1/3rd as many as the IIIC's.
The Back Leatherette looks identical; the chrome of the advance sprocket looks identical (shinier than older Retina's), coloring of all numbers etc, look identical. I could find some hand-written two-digit numbers written in the film compartment, but the Camera SN is not there. This was a practice for the Contax and early Nikon RF cameras, but I do not remember seeing a Retina do it- but have not checked them all. (Contax did this, and early Nikons did this to match the Back with the Body. There were adjustments made to the individual backs of early Nikons.)
I think if the seller wants to get top dollar for this camera, he needs to show the differences that he references. Put his camera side-by-side with a late run IIIC. I can put two Retina IIIS cameras side by side and show the same types of differences that he mentions in the ASA dial- the range was extended, and in the marked f-Stop- the early one has an unmarked F1.9 (really F1.9, and works with F1.9 lens!) setting and the late one marks F1.9 as the minimum stop.
The Back Leatherette looks identical; the chrome of the advance sprocket looks identical (shinier than older Retina's), coloring of all numbers etc, look identical. I could find some hand-written two-digit numbers written in the film compartment, but the Camera SN is not there. This was a practice for the Contax and early Nikon RF cameras, but I do not remember seeing a Retina do it- but have not checked them all. (Contax did this, and early Nikons did this to match the Back with the Body. There were adjustments made to the individual backs of early Nikons.)
I think if the seller wants to get top dollar for this camera, he needs to show the differences that he references. Put his camera side-by-side with a late run IIIC. I can put two Retina IIIS cameras side by side and show the same types of differences that he mentions in the ASA dial- the range was extended, and in the marked f-Stop- the early one has an unmarked F1.9 (really F1.9, and works with F1.9 lens!) setting and the late one marks F1.9 as the minimum stop.