Noobie Question No. 7: VIDOM, FIKUS, SCNOO etc. Where did they get these names from?

[David.Boettcher]

I'm sticking to my theory that they were more or less random.

Regards, David

It may be unjustified stereotyping, but I find it difficult to believe that Germans would do anything at random - they are far too organised for that. In "Three men on the bummel" in about 1900 Jerome K Jerome describes the German love of order in chapter 7 - here is an excerpt:

On a certain fixed date in the autumn the German stakes his flowers and bushes to the earth, and covers them with Chinese matting; and on a certain fixed date in the spring he uncovers them, and stands them up again. If it happens to be an exceptionally fine autumn, or an exceptionally late spring, so much the worse for the unfortunate vegetable. No true German would allow his arrangements to be interfered with by so unruly a thing as the solar system.

And there is much more in this vein - you can read it here: http://www.literaturecollection.com/a/jerome/three-men-bummel/7/

Such an organised people would never even think of generating their five letter codes at random . . .

Regards - David

 

[Harry S.]

This has always been a thorn in my side on this forum. I know it may be technically correct to refer to Leica items using these codes, but I find it extremely pretentious. Like a secret code in the secret men's club.

No offense intended.

 

[haempe]

Such an organised people would never even think of generating their five letter codes at random . . .

This IS a unjustified stereotyping...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Looking at lists of code words I'm struck by the randomness of them.

For example, Elkin is followed by Elmar and further down the page Elruu is followed by Emoox. Every now and again 3 or 4 will follow a sort of sequence, look at cases f'instance, and then break off completely.

There may have been a negative logic; meaning rude words and negative ones would be left out and I doubt if they would chose "Zeiss" for one of the codes.

As for being pronouncable, how about the popular FBXOO - which they must have sold by the thousand to agents...

I'm sticking to my theory that they were more or less random.

Regards, David

ELKIN = 18x24 ciné (KINe) plate for ELDIA (contact printer for slides -- DIApositives). ELMAR has already been explained.

Can't conveniently find ELRUU and EMOOX, but (for example) it's not hard to work out FICYL (FIlm CYLinder) for the Leica developing drum or FIDAX, axle for same. A FILCA is a FILm CAssette, and most people I know have no difficulty in pronouncing the word FBXOO more or less as fuh-buk-soo (assumimg they pronounce it at all).

As the more obvious derivatives got used up, sure, they had to get more creative, even to the point of meaninglessness, but a lot of cases begin ET (I strongly supect from from ETui, case or bag) and when they ran out of ETs they went to EU: EURUS, Morocco leather purse for WINTU, already explained.

My own guess is that there was always a (probably informal) competition to try to make up a code word that fitted the product, drawing on whatever languages anyone could think of, plus existing code words -- which I first heard referred to as "Leitz catalogue Chinese". A particularly good one probably warranted a drink from his chums after work. Some are REALLY obvious: CENTO for a 100cm column for a VALOY enlarger. I'm sure that if I spoke better German (probably along with more Latin) I could explain a lot more of these code words. Maybe even BUUGR, 'Suitcase projector, complete'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

This has always been a thorn in my side on this forum. I know it may be technically correct to refer to Leica items using these codes, but I find it extremely pretentious. Like a secret code in the secret men's club.

No offense intended.

Dear Harry,

Thirty or forty years ago it was a sort of in-joke, but there were far fewer Leica collectors in those days, and many of us knew each other personally. Besides, a film-cutting template is simply easier to call ABLON, and who can resist NOOKY?

Cheers,

R.

 

[David Hughes]

It may be unjustified stereotyping, but I find it difficult to believe that Germans would do anything at random - they are far too organised for that. In "Three men on the bummel" in about 1900 Jerome K Jerome describes the German love of order in chapter 7...

Snip! Snip!

Such an organised people would never even think of generating their five letter codes at random . . .

Regards - David

True but look at what he says about the German way of speaking German. How each region, even town has their way of saying things and so on. I won't quote chapter and verse but I was reading it the other night.

And it still happens today; I said something to a friend of mine at work years ago and she stopped dead in her tracks and said that no one had said that to her since she was five years old and only her uncle used that expression (luckily she wasn't blushing). And everywhere I'd been in Germany it was the standard greeting...

Also, some of my colleagues had fled from Germany in the 1930's and spoke a different version of the language to everyone else. And then there's Hamburg and Berlin...

The same things happen in most countries with extreme local variations in some cases. At work we always had problems with speaking to Marseille - especially if our people were born and bred in Paris, for example.

Going back to the code words; we need someone who speaks and understands the German spoken around Wetzlar in the 1920's to go through the list and comment on it. Then we might get somewhere.

There's a certain amount of logic to the list if you pick things at random, for example, the leather cases but it soon breaks down as you go through the list and see more and more exceptions. I'm using "Codewords Description and Index as at September 1938" by Hove - of course - but there's other lists in the catalogues of the 50's, 60's and so on. I've not got the full set for obvious reasons.

Regards, David

PS Having typed all that I remembered that I have a modern-ish Canon SLR called a Kiss something or the other in the collection. Would you expect those logical Japanese in the marketing dept to allow that? But then who would buy a camera sprayed pink? But they sell them...

 

[David Hughes]

ELKIN = 18x24 ciné (KINe) plate for ELDIA (contact printer for slides -- DIApositives). ELMAR has already been explained.

Can't conveniently find ELRUU and EMOOX, but (for example) it's not hard to work out FICYL (FIlm CYLinder) for the Leica developing drum or FIDAX, axle for same. A FILCA is a FILm CAssette, and most people I know have no difficulty in pronouncing the word FBXOO more or less as fuh-buk-soo (assumimg they pronounce it at all).

As the more obvious derivatives got used up, sure, they had to get more creative, even to the point of meaninglessness, but a lot of cases begin ET (I strongly supect from from ETui, case or bag) and when they ran out of ETs they went to EU: EURUS, Morocco leather purse for WINTU, already explained.

My own guess is that there was always a (probably informal) competition to try to make up a code word that fitted the product, drawing on whatever languages anyone could think of, plus existing code words -- which I first heard referred to as "Leitz catalogue Chinese". A particularly good one probably warranted a drink from his chums after work. Some are REALLY obvious: CENTO for a 100cm column for a VALOY enlarger. I'm sure that if I spoke better German (probably along with more Latin) I could explain a lot more of these code words. Maybe even BUUGR, 'Suitcase projector, complete'.

Cheers,

R.

Hi,

I'll go along with it starting logically but soon becoming impossible.

I often wonder how many hours have been devoted to studying the lists for rude words and so on: I won't mention any names. And there were all those silly adverts using the codewords in the 50's and 60's.

TTFN, David

 

[summar]

My favorite is NOOKY, a close-up device for the Elmar 5cm lens.

 

[John Robertson]

Anybody know where "Elmar" came from in the first place? Even at the time, it must have sounded a little odd. (It's an old-fashioned male first name which also happens to end in -ar like so many of the old lens designs.)

Trying to think of an English equivalent. Something like "hey, here's my newest lens design, I call it the Alistair."

HEKTOR was Oskar Barnacks dog i believe!!

 

[David.Boettcher]

HEKTOR was Oskar Barnacks dog i believe!!

No, Hektor was not Barnack's, he was one of Max Berek's two dogs. The other was Rex, who featured in the SummaREX.

Professor Max Berek was Leitz's chief optical designer, responsible for the design of many, if not all, early Leica lenses.

Regards - David

 

[Roger Hicks]

No, Hektor was not Barnack's, he was one of Max Berek's two dogs. The other was Rex, who featured in the SummaREX.

Professor Max Berek was Leitz's chief optical designer, responsible for the design of many, if not all, early Leica lenses.

Regards - David

Dear David,

Unless it was the king (rex) of Summars. I have seen both possibilities canvassed.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David.Boettcher]

Unless it was the king (rex) of Summars. I have seen both possibilities canvassed.

Hi Roger,

Thanks for that, I was just quoting Rogliatti, I haven't seen the king option mentioned before. But then I am still a noobie at all this . . .

Regards - David

 

[David Hughes]

My money's on both the dog and lens being Rex but I'd love to follow the reasoning behind going from Elmax to Elmar.

BTW, David, have you discovered the microscope link with the cameras? I mean the fact that most bits were made not to basic standards but to the standards of the (was it?) Royal Microscope Society? Hence the strange thread pitches etc. I've often wondered about the link between the microscope "Mikro-Summar" an eyepiece, perhaps, and the Summar. I'd love to get my hands on some Leitz microscopes from that period to see what parts in the camera where just lifted from the parts dept.

If you deal with Malcolm Taylor you'll find he knows a lot more about them than he lets on...

Regards, David

 

[Roger Hicks]

My money's on both the dog and lens being Rex but I'd love to follow the reasoning behind going from Elmax to Elmar.

BTW, David, have you discovered the microscope link with the cameras? I mean the fact that most bits were made not to basic standards but to the standards of the (was it?) Royal Microscope Society? Hence the strange thread pitches etc. I've often wondered about the link between the microscope "Mikro-Summar" an eyepiece, perhaps, and the Summar. I'd love to get my hands on some Leitz microscopes from that period to see what parts in the camera where just lifted from the parts dept.

If you deal with Malcolm Taylor you'll find he knows a lot more about them than he lets on...

Regards, David

Dear David,

RMS was a basic standard. Try naming many earlier standards (other than Whitworth, which is generally too coarse a thread for microscopes).

A widely-read German correspondent (sorry, forgotten his name, but if he's reading this, I was very grateful) kindly pointed out in another thread that Imperial measures were widely used in Germany until WW1, and survived in large measure until WW2 when the NSDAP (there's a clue in every single capital letter) demanded more metrication. There were many hybrids, too: hence 39mm x 26 tpi for Leica thread.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David Hughes]

Dear David,

RMS was a basic standard. Try naming many earlier standards (other than Whitworth, which is generally too coarse a thread for microscopes).
Cheers,

R.

Hi,

I think we'll have to agree to differ as my understanding, based on a paper of the 1850's in the "Transactions of the Microscopical Society" (which, of course, I can't find easily) was that the standard came about because of problems and so in the 1890's the standards were drawn up to sort things out. Leitz would have used them, doubtless.

The history of metricaton is a fascinating area. I was a Civil Servant for many years and was involved in standardisation internationally (ending up on the UK sub committee) for all sorts of things; even the beginnings of the internet (involving the defence dept.). At times it was like being in the front row at a circus...

Back to the topic, I'd be far more interested in Leitz' parts bin in the 20's and earlier. I used to repair microscopes (unofficially) for the local school's lab's at one time but their elderly stuff (mostly donated Zeiss) was stolen before I thought about comparing it with the cameras (sigh).

Regards, David

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi,

I think we'll have to agree to differ as my understanding, based on a paper of the 1850's in the "Transactions of the Microscopical Society" (which, of course, I can't find easily) was that the standard came about because of problems and so in the 1890's the standards were drawn up to sort things out. Leitz would have used them, doubtless.

The history of metricaton is a fascinating area. I was a Civil Servant for many years and was involved in standardisation internationally (ending up on the UK sub committee) for all sorts of things; even the beginnings of the internet (involving the defence dept.). At times it was like being in the front row at a circus...

Back to the topic, I'd be far more interested in Leitz' parts bin in the 20's and earlier. I used to repair microscopes (unofficially) for the local school's lab's at one time but their elderly stuff (mostly donated Zeiss) was stolen before I thought about comparing it with the cameras (sigh).

Regards, David

Dear David,

Where are we in disagreement? Surely we're agreeing that RMS was, indeed, an early basic standard.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David.Boettcher]

I'd love to follow the reasoning behind going from Elmax to Elmar.

To a noobie this Elmax/Elmar stuff is all very confusing.

In "Leica and Leicaflex Lenses" Gianni Rogliatti says that in 1925 improved glass from Schott und Genossen of Jena enabled Berek to redesign the Elmax with two rather than three elements in its rear group, thus reducing the total number of elements from five to four and cutting manufacturing costs. The new lens was named the Elmar.

However, Rogliatti's story doesn't on the face of it make a lot of sense. The 1902 Zeiss Tessar had the same basic layout of four lenses in three groups, the third group being a cemented pair like the 5cm Elmar. If Zeiss could make a Tessar in 1902 with this layout, why did Berek have to wait until new glass was created in 1925 to make a lens with the same basic layout as the Tessar? Or was it more that the Zeiss patent had expired in 1922 and Berek was then free to use the Tessar layout without being challenged by Zeiss? (Although I must admit that I don't know enough about lens design to know what the effect of placing the diaphragm in the first space, rather than the second space like the Tessar, would have on the requirements for the third group.)

Note that I am not saying that the Elmar was a Tessar clone, just that the layout which may have been arrived at completely independently by Berek, could have fallen within the claims of the Zeiss Tessar patent. But the Tessar had been a very successful design for a long time, which Berek would have known . . .

There is an alternative story that the Elmax was renamed the Elmar after a complaint by Ernemann, a maker of 35mm cinema projectors, who had registered the name "Ermax" and Elmax was deemed to be too close to that.

Regards - David

 

[Roger Hicks]

To a noobie this Elmax/Elmar stuff is all very confusing.

. . .

There is an alternative story that the Elmax was renamed the Elmar after a complaint by Ernemann, a maker of 35mm cinema projectors, who had registered the name "Ermax" and Elmax was deemed to be too close to that.

Regards - David

Dear David,

Pretty damn' confusing after 40+ years, too!

I'd never heard the Ernemann story, but it seems entirely likely. Here's another I've just thought of: EL (Ernst Leitz) MAX (Max Berek).

Mind you, that's after substantial aperitifs...

EDIT: Ernemann made Ermanox cameras too, often with ultra-speed Ernostar lenses.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David.Boettcher]

Here's another I've just thought of: EL (Ernst Leitz) MAX (Max Berek).

Mind you, that's after substantial aperitifs...

Hi Roger,

I think we already had that on page one of this thread - go easy on those aperitifs . . .

Regards - David

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

It's difficult to probe too far into optics and its history. You could argue that the Tessar was a development - perhaps "next step" would be a better word - from the Cooke Triplet; a compound rear lens replacing the simpler one. Equally, we could drag others into it as 4 in 3 groups were quite common.

The relationship between Zeiss, Abbe and Schott is complex also; best done by a search and binoculars will bring up a lot about Abbe designing (in Jena University) and then Schott making glass, and so on. I'd imagine the patents came into it, lawyers etc and I dare say the factory's foremen had a say as the legal relationship was complex and designed to benefit a legal trust for the benefit of the employees. Typing from memory, btw, so don't take it on trust too much.

There's one other aspect, lens design in those days was tedious and expensive. Large and accurate drawings were made and rays of light drawn, after a tedious calculation demanding a lot of accuracy. Perhaps the success of the early Leica gave them the cash to employ more staff on optic design and the short life of the patent Zeiss had meshed nicely.

I'm sure we'll be told.

Regards, David

PS Just remembered a 1930 brochure and looked. Nothing much but it's described as the "Leitz Anastigmat Elmar" there. In a later catalogue they talk of the "corrections" applied to the Elmar, which might mean something but is a translation so might not. And they talk of the Summar as a modified Gauss type. Interesting but off topic.