Anthonym-3
Newbie
I saw a LEICA 3f on EBAY, the seller claimed it is a "rare" flat dial. I have a 1952 3f RD that matches his photos. Is this true and does it make a difference in value?
LEICA IIIf flat dial?
- Thread starter Anthonym-3
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 16
- Views 299
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Without seeing the listing it's hard to say what's going on. Is it possible it's a Leica IIf with the "flat" disc covering the space where the slow speed shutter speed dial is located?
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
yes, what's the ebay link?
JeffS7444
Well-known
A quick check on [That Auction Site] revealed that cameras listed as "flat"all had shutter speed dials similar to the one on the right. Besides minor differences in indicated shutter speed, the example on the left has markings in more of a radial (non-flat?) pattern.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I think the bit they're referring to would be the "jaws" of the flash sync dial. On most IIIfs (including mine), the prongs used to push the dial around to change the setting lift upwards from the top deck of the camera, making them easier to manipulate. On the one in the right on @JeffS7444's comparison, they're totally flat to the top deck.
The flat version looks cleaner, but I imagine it'd be a pain to use. Not the end of the world if you only use electronic flash - set it to 2 for a black dial and 0 for a red dial and never think about it again - but an absolute nightmare if you actually use flash bulbs and need to change that setting regularly.
The flat version looks cleaner, but I imagine it'd be a pain to use. Not the end of the world if you only use electronic flash - set it to 2 for a black dial and 0 for a red dial and never think about it again - but an absolute nightmare if you actually use flash bulbs and need to change that setting regularly.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Back in the day when I had a IIIf, I simply had a thick plastic toothpick in my bag for adjusting the flash sync ring. 🙂
G
Anthonym-3
Newbie
nation.
Well that certainly settles the question????????
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Well, I'm not sure what the "nation." line means. But if you mean the question as being ...
... I don't think my comment has anything to do with that directly. It was a comment directed at ColdKennels' remark, which I quoted for clarity.
Good luck with discovering whether the 'flat dial' is rare, and what difference it makes in the camera's value.
When I decided to buy another Barnak last year, out of nostalgia for the ones I once had, I elected to get a IIIc because I almost never use a flash anyway, and I like the cleaner look without the synchronization control. ... Yes, that's another aside and not directed at your principal questions. 😉
G
Leica IIIc + Color-Skopar 35mm f/2.5 by Godfrey DiGiorgi, on Flickr
Last edited:
WoodallP
Pragmatist Barnack lover
Hi G, it seemed quite on topic for me but I have a Swiss army knife with a plastic toothpick that I use for many things.
Flat dial was a new denomination for me, so I am glad to have learned about another Barnack variance.
Anthonym-3
Newbie
GODFREY, In viewing the photo of your 3c I was struck by the fact that my 1952 3f RD has the same discoloration on the shutter button.Well, I'm not sure what the "nation." line means. But if you mean the question as being ...
... I don't think my comment has anything to do with that directly. It was a comment directed at ColdKennels' remark, which I quoted for clarity.
Good luck with discovering whether the 'flat dial' is rare, and what difference it makes in the camera's value.
When I decided to buy another Barnak last year, out of nostalgia for the ones I once had, I elected to get a IIIc because I almost never use a flash anyway, and I like the cleaner look without the synchronization control. ... Yes, that's another aside and not directed at your principal questions. 😉
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yes, that's pretty common for Leica bodies produced in the 1947-1951 time period. The IIc I had (what, 56 years ago? it was a 1948 camera body) showed the same discoloration. It's probably a matter of the plating/finishing done in the early post-WWII time period being a little skinty.
BTW: Proper naming nomenclature defines these cameras a Leica IIc, IIf, IIIc, IIIf, etc. It becomes confusing when you use numeral-based names, like 3c or 3f, since there are no actual RF camera bodies named that way by Leica. I feel that people should use the proper names so that folks new to the cameras don't get confused. 🙂
G
:: I'd been planning to send this nice IIIc out to have the body refinished in black, but I have both black and silver finish lenses for it, and I haven't quite decided which "look" I prefer. LOL! 😉
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Dralowid
Michael
Early post war chrome wasn't that great. I was also told that knobs and fittings etc from that time sometimes do not have nickel beneath the layer of chrome.
Nitroplait
Well-known
The post-WWII material shortages led many manufacturers to select less than ideal alternatives or to use them in smaller amounts.
There is a historical authenticity about those cosmetically decaying chrome cameras - not unlike the terrible black paint finish that almost fell off by itself (which we now love so much).
There is a historical authenticity about those cosmetically decaying chrome cameras - not unlike the terrible black paint finish that almost fell off by itself (which we now love so much).
WoodallP
Pragmatist Barnack lover
I know it's a bit of a tangent to the original question but my biggest cringe is when I see people trying to sell a "Leica D.R.P" or "Leica DBP", though classifying everything as a "Leica III" (especially when selling parts) is quite frustrating (and let's not get into the pre-war "parallel universe" naming scheme).
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I once had a minor argument with someone who was selling a Leica III as a Leica IIIF (note the capital letter!) because Leitz New York used that stupid "Model A" to "Model G" convention. It should be stricken from the record forever, as far as I'm concerned.
WoodallP
Pragmatist Barnack lover
I think the most stupid bit was having model C with both standardised and non-standardised mounts and then introducing the Standard (model E).
But hey, Canon naming is worse and let's not start on Werras!
Thread viewers
Similar threads
