Name that Camera

[rybolt]

I picked this up today and I have only the barest clue as to what it really is. The serial number is 70852 which shows that it should be a Model I from 1931. It has the rangefinder which would imply that it's a conversion? The lens is the 50mm f3.5 Elmar with the infinity lock at 11. The lens is totally locked and won't extend or come off. I'm pretty sure it's just from oxidation as the brass is pretty green.
Any ideas?
Signed,
Clueless in Ohio

 

[burancap]

The serial number is 70852 which shows that it should be a Model I from 1931. It has the rangefinder which would imply that it's a conversion?

I think that sums it up. An older factory conversion. The II with the originally fitted RF started at 71200.

 

[rybolt]

Thanks! Based on the serial number I was pretty confident but not positive.
I appreciate the data.

 

[KoNickon]

Sounds like it needs some work, but well worth it.

 

[dogberryjr]

I name that camera "Karl-Heinz." C'mon, looks like a Karl-Heinz, doesn't it?

 

[Sparrow]

... lemon juice will devolve the verdigris ... but take care please

 

[pete hogan]

Lots of nice potential there, rybolt!

 

[goamules]

You didn't say what the price was. So I don't understand people saying "it's worth it." If the camera costs $400, and a new shutter and CLA is $200, and the lens is scratched but still needs a $60 cleaning, I would say $660 is not worth it. It all depends on how much the camera costs, when you could buy a clean, shiny, working one like it for about $400. Unless you do the work yourself, then subtract some of the above!

 

[HuubL]

An interesting conversion, definitely a Leica II, but with a strange number indication. The number isn't preceded by "No", it's situated 'higher' on the viewfinder housing and 'Germany' is usually not indicated underneath the number, although, I'm not sure if this was common perhaps on exported early Leicas.

 

[Erik van Straten]

It could be an early conversion (thirties) carried out in the US. I've never seen a conversion like this before. Very interesting!

Erik.

 

[Filzkoeter]

I name that camera "Karl-Heinz." C'mon, looks like a Karl-Heinz, doesn't it?

Naaah, it's a girl!
I name the camera "Gertrud-Edeltraud". Fits the year 1931 🙄


Good luck restoring that old girl, it's worth it 🙂

 

[Steve M.]

Shirley. Shirl for short.

 

[KoNickon]

You didn't say what the price was. So I don't understand people saying "it's worth it." If the camera costs $400, and a new shutter and CLA is $200, and the lens is scratched but still needs a $60 cleaning, I would say $660 is not worth it. It all depends on how much the camera costs, when you could buy a clean, shiny, working one like it for about $400. Unless you do the work yourself, then subtract some of the above!

You can't do a simple economics calculus on things like this. They aren't making any more of them.... And the folks on the thread who know about such things have indicated that it's an interesting sample.

My guess is he paid a lot less than $400 for it.

 

[rumbliegeos]

That is what I call an artifact. I hope it can be restored to functionality economically, but it is pretty cool just as it is.

 

[Dralowid]

It could be an early conversion (thirties) carried out in the US. I've never seen a conversion like this before. Very interesting!

Erik.

Note the two screws close together under the central rangefinder window.

The Elmar has a serial number which might imply that it was not converted from a fixed lens.

As you say, camera serial number and 'Germany' are unusual and imply export.

Nice one!

 

[rybolt]

I appreciate all of the comments and information. I picked this camera up with the idea of re-selling it. I know my limitations and doing any sort of rehab is out of the question for me. I was careful not to ask for a value on the camera. I currently have it listed on the auction site with no reserve and an opening bid of $200.
Finding homes for these cameras is a hobby for me and my goal is to break even if possible. This particular camera came from the estate of an old friend and all proceeds from the sale will go to a local charity.

 

[Luddite Frank]

Interesting camera... as for serial #'s, I have an original Leica II, s/n 77xxx with nickel Elmar 5cm s/n 99xxx, both dating to 1932.

Is the corrosion limited to the exterior of the camera, or are the insides green and fuzzy too ? It kind of looks as though it was tucked-away in a damp leather ever-ready case for a long time...

I hope it finds a good home.

Luddite Frank

 

[rybolt]

LF- I never mind making a fool of myself. I don't know if there's any internal fuzz because I can't get the lens off the camera. I was reluctant to force it because I don't know if it's SUPPOSED to come off. I've had tons of III series cameras but this one is a mystery to me because of the variations. The case that comes with it is ratty but has no signs of mold or mildew.

 

[B-9]

Great find! I wish I had the money ide make it mine.
Maybe I'll post a few things for sale and see where it goes.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Note the two screws close together under the central rangefinder window.

My - not converted - II (74510) has those two screws too.

Erik.