Leica III with 7 digit serial number

[RichL]

I vaguely recall that Leica put a 0 on the end of some of their serial numbers for some reason. Whether it was a particular upgrade or modification or what, I just don't remember. Not the standardizing mark on the lens mount but in the actual serial number.

 

[Livesteamer]

Roger has mentioned "Mortimer Street Specials" in the past. Leicas that were made up of bits and pieces during WWII and after when Leicas were hard to get.

Could this be a combination of Leica and Russian parts? Joe

 

[nhchen]

Russian ones usually don't have any strap lugs and don't have a little lip above the middle viewfinder window. Maybe it was made from one of the japanese copies?

nathan

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Some better pictures or the original link might be an idea.

Regards, David

PS Saw a black, pre-war "Elmar" from "Canada" (marked in red) on ebay recently. I should have linked it to a thread. (EDIT) Found it, try here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LEICA-Elm...D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

amazing is not the word. Still the seller did warn you, perhaps...

 

[archive59]

So, I now have the camera in question in my possession and it is a Leica. Not in the best condition maybe, but...
If I can return to my original question and rephrase a little. What, if any, legitimate reason is there for a Leica III having a 7 digit serial number/having a '0' added at the end of the serial number?

 

[sevo]

So, I now have the camera in question in my possession and it is a Leica. Not in the best condition maybe, but...
If I can return to my original question and rephrase a little. What, if any, legitimate reason is there for a Leica III having a 7 digit serial number/having a '0' added at the end of the serial number?

That might just be a slip in some repairers engraving. These occur even in perfectly legitimate 100% Leicas, and there are collectors specialising in them. But this one is odd in other aspects (dioptre, typography) as well, which looks like a unofficial (war time or third world) repair ("Mortimer Street Special") with refurbished, appropriated or even entirely self-made spares.

 

[David Hughes]

That might just be a slip in some repairers engraving. These occur even in perfectly legitimate 100% Leicas, and there are collectors specialising in them. But this one is odd in other aspects (dioptre, typography) as well, which looks like a unofficial (war time or third world) repair ("Mortimer Street Special") with refurbished, appropriated or even entirely self-made spares.

Hi,

A few decent photographs here and we'll tell you a lot about it...

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

I seem to remember someone once pointing out that on "real" Leica's the flash shoe attaches with four screws vs three on the FSU cameras.

mike

Hi,

Looking at old photo's of mine the IIIa (made from 1936 to 1948) had three screws and the IIIb (1938 onwards) had 4 on the accessory clip (or cold shoe). And the IIIc had 4 so it looks like that was when they changed, allowing for parts running out at some point and that determining the change date. I've a standard Leica (1939) with three screws to the clip, suggesting the model rather than date decided it. The acid test would be a 1948 model IIIa.

The FEDs and Zorkis (that would be the basis of a fake) had three screws.

Regards, David

 

[Dralowid]

I am intrigued. If the slow speeds work then the crate is either Leica or Leotax ish (unlikely). If not then it is probably FSU.

There is no 1-20 on the shutter dial that I can see but it looks odd anyway. I am still unconvinced by the top housing which appears more FSU than Leica. Forget the sync and the leather type covering, they are red herrings. From the pics the lens, though missing the catch looks correct.

So based on these pictures I am leaning towards a Leica body which has been completed using Fed/Zorki parts (engraved Leica) dressed up with a later cover and a sync of a type I have seen before somewhere.

I wouldn't worry too much about the number at this stage, as the mystery deepens you may be inclined to to remove the top housing. If Leica there will be a serial number scratched into the top of the crate.

Better pictures would be a help. Getting stuck into cameras like this can often be more fun than researching the real thing...not that I am saying that it isn't real of course...

Michael

 

[David Hughes]

All good questions, but I'm afraid I cannot answer them.

Point 1, I should probably find something more productive to waste my time on, but I do find the whole fake Leica subject very interesting.

Point 2, The immediate telltale signs of a fake do not seem to be present with this camera. I have never really understood the economic drivers to produce low value fakes, but if someone is prepared to go to these lengths then I'm sure they will turn/have turned their attention to higher value Leica.

You are right, the numbers on shutter speed dial are strangely skewed.

Cheers,
Mark

Hi,

Well, as for point 1, there's a lot that's odd about Leicas and no real logic to some things. I can understand the "mongrels" f'instance but the factory defies logic at times. Why was the IIIc, which was a totally different change to the line up, called the IIIc and not the IV f'instance? Then there's the way the V and VI never appeared but they went off at a tangent and used letters after III...

So the answer to point 1 is that anything that adds to our collective knowledge is a good thing.

Now, point 2, and the first point to make is that there's one born every minute and they have money. The second point is that I can remember a time when no one wanted film cameras and they were sold for silly prices like a pound each for seriously good stuff. As the FED and Zorki model 1's were produced by the million (perhaps) there are thousands about in some countries where wages are lower than (say) the USA; it doesn't take much to change engravings and the tools are cheap. So a cheap source of base models and a little work and out comes something someone might just buy for a lot of money.

I often wonder why they don't produce (say) a black FED 1* and not bother with anything else, apart from getting it into excellent working order...

Regards, David

* Body only please, the chrome lenses don't need anything blacked up. And not the Zorki 1 for reasons to do with the body shell and paint systems...

 

[Rob-F]

I vaguely recall that Leica put a 0 on the end of some of their serial numbers for some reason. Whether it was a particular upgrade or modification or what, I just don't remember. Not the standardizing mark on the lens mount but in the actual serial number.

I wonder if you might be thinking of the asterisk they add after the number, when the original top cover is replaced.

 

[archive59]

I am intrigued. If the slow speeds work then the crate is either Leica or Leotax ish (unlikely). If not then it is probably FSU.

There is no 1-20 on the shutter dial that I can see but it looks odd anyway. I am still unconvinced by the top housing which appears more FSU than Leica. Forget the sync and the leather type covering, they are red herrings. From the pics the lens, though missing the catch looks correct.

So based on these pictures I am leaning towards a Leica body which has been completed using Fed/Zorki parts (engraved Leica) dressed up with a later cover and a sync of a type I have seen before somewhere.

I wouldn't worry too much about the number at this stage, as the mystery deepens you may be inclined to to remove the top housing. If Leica there will be a serial number scratched into the top of the crate.

Better pictures would be a help. Getting stuck into cameras like this can often be more fun than researching the real thing...not that I am saying that it isn't real of course...

Michael

I am struggling to get decent pictures that will actually be of any use!

The slow speeds do in fact work, surprisingly accurately too. The shutter generally is pretty smooth. Both speed dials do look like they have been made or taken from a non-Leica, as does the 'handle' on the base locking catch. The leather body covering is not very well done, but it does hide the fact that the body has a collimating hole in it. The top housing looks genuine Leica but seems odd in photos because it has had a knock just by the rangefinder adjustment screw and that makes it look poorly made. As has been noted the diopter adjustment is missing and the eyepiece is not original.
The flash sync was done by International Camera Corp., Chicago 7.

I will continue to try to get some better pictures. I have just remembered reading somewhere that using foil as a reflector can help bring out the detail on a chrome camera. Worth a try.

Thank you everyone who has contributed so far, it has all been useful and interesting.

Mark

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Try lighting evenly from both sides and under and over exposing, depending on the point of interest.

Regards, David

 

[Dwig]

I wonder if you might be thinking of the asterisk they add after the number, when the original top cover is replaced.

It does look like a top RF cover replacement. The front VF window and lack of a diopter adj on the one eyepiece match the IIIb covers and not those of a III. the IIIb models moved the diopter adj. The III had a small step in the bezel around the front VF window. If there is a small horizontal gap between the top RF cover and the top plate toward the rear of the side adjacent to the rewind knob then it is a IIIb top cover.

 

[Dralowid]

The slow speeds do in fact work, surprisingly accurately too. The shutter generally is pretty smooth. The leather body covering is not very well done, but it does hide the fact that the body has a collimating hole in it.
Mark

Ha! A collimating hole would suggest that the crate and body started life as a I or maybe II, subsequently upgraded to III with the addition of slow speeds/rf etc etc.

Plot thickens!

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Very interesting indeed.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

not the Zorki 1 for reasons to do with the body shell and paint systems...

Off-topic question: why not Zorki 1?
My '52 Zorki-Zorki prepared by Alex is the quietest shutter of all my cameras. Compared to my Leica Standard its mech. is so rugged as to be indestructible.

 

[David Hughes]

Off-topic question: why not Zorki 1?
My '52 Zorki-Zorki prepared by Alex is the quietest shutter of all my cameras. Compared to my Leica Standard its mech. is so rugged as to be indestructible.

Hi,

It was about doing a black version. The Zorki body shells I have seen are some alloy and that means a weird/dangerous paint system needed; otherwise the paint doesn't adhere properly and comes off.

As far as they go I rate FEDs and Zorkis alike and have photo's from all my 1950's versions on my website.

Years ago someone commented that FEDs and Zorkis were built like tanks and. having a scientific* turn of mind, I weighed mine and a Leica II. The Leica was heaviest...

Regards, David

* The alternative, on the internet, is believing everything you are told and that is very dangerous too.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The first Leica I used was a II, no. 23010. It was an upgrade of an earlier camera. This and Mortimer Street during WW2 are believable explanations. Hard to tell without seeing/handling the camera.

Afterthought: The Russians made "bitzas" too. Even when the cameras were still (reasonably) current.

Second afterthought: It was not unknown for Leica factory staff to "win" parts, especially rejects (a badly engraved shutter speed dial, maybe? And a very old body? And bits that had been replaced during upgrades/rebuilds?). Perhaps this was made by someone who couldn't "win" quite enough parts... Such "winning" had to be clandestine...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Dralowid]

Another afterthought...very early Feds had collimation holes and all sorts of other very Leicalike features. However I doubt anyone would have tried to put slow speeds in one. These days they are very expensive.

That US flash sync looks post war.