Lee Rust
Member
Just fixed up a jammed CX and now it works perfectly. I love the shutter sound and the whole mechanical aspect of it. Excellent image quality too. Many thanks to Farlymac for posting the overhaul procedures!
Something just occurred to me. Is it possible that you have the Univex Mercury CC (the first model)? The CC had leather on the back part of the "hump" instead of the serial number plate like on the CX. The easiest way to tell the difference between the CC and CX is that the CC has the word "Univex" on the front, and the CX does not.
Something just occurred to me. Is it possible that you have the Univex Mercury CC (the first model)? The CC had leather on the back part of the "hump" instead of the serial number plate like on the CX. The easiest way to tell the difference between the CC and CX is that the CC has the word "Univex" on the front, and the CX does not.
That's what I would suspect as well. 43126 is definitely a CC, not a CX. Note that on many late CX examples, the first digit "1" of the serial number is stamped rather weakly, and often barely visible, so this one might be 143,126 instead.
Also, there is no CX with leather-covered back. Only early CC examples had leather on the back part of the rotor housing (up to S/N 20,xxx, 1939). There is a reason behind the change: the front-side depth of field table starts with f3.5, referring to the Wollensak and Ilex Tricor f3.5/35mm lenses. In 1939, Univex introduced two new, more advanced lenses, the f2.7/35mm Wollensak Tricor and the incredible f2/35mm Wollensak Hexar. Therefore, a second table was required, stating the additional depth of field values for f2 and f2.7. The change was made at the same time the CC-1500 was introduced.
Interesting. My CC model is one of the earliest made with a serial number of #008538. Also the footage indicator between the two dials above the lens is not shape as most are. It has a tapered look insteadUnfortunately, it is not possible to estimate the date using your method, as the Mercury II serial numbers did not start with "000001". The situation is somewhat more complicated:
When Universal introduced the original Univex Mercury (CC) in 1937, the serial numbers started with "00,001". Early examples in the 00,05x range are known to exist in collections. Until the end of production in 1942, about 45.000 were made, being numbered consecutively.
In 1939, the famous, short-lived Mercury CC-1500 appeared, being introduced by Universal at the New York World Fair. These spectacular cameras (less than 3.000 were made) were given separate serial numbers beginning with 100,001. Examples with 102,xxx numbers are known to exist.
The Mercury II (CX) was first shown by Universal in several 1944 newspaper ads, but not made in relevant quantities until the end of WWII in mid-1945. The CX prototype shown in the CX user manual bears the serial number 046,000; the earliest CX production examples known to exist are in the 046,4xx range. When numbering reached 99,999, Universal left out the numbers given to CC-1500 cameras and continued with 103,xxx. The last CX cameras made in 1952 had numbers in the 190,000 range.
Additionally, it must be considered that during the first production years (1945 - 1948) more CX cameras were made and sold than in the later period until 1952, as Universal was slowly getting into financial trouble.
Your CX 86,334 is, therefore, quite an early example, possibly made in 1946 or 1947. You may verify this by examining the bottom of the camera - on early CX examples, you will notice a flat surface with several circular insertions, while on late examples, the bottom shows three little "feet".
serial number is on the inside above the film mask opening:angel:Hi everyone, I'm new to the group. I've been collecting cameras for a few years now. I have a Universal Mercury II CX serial number 43126. I have a second Mercury II CX that has leather in place of a back plate, so there is no serial number available. This one has the three "feet" on the bottom of the camera. I'm trying to figure out when the "feet" were added to determine the possible serial number run it may be part of. Any suggestions?
Hi, I'm new to the group, as I bought just last week a very nice Univex Mercury II CX. Concerning serial numbers first I'll say that in the base there are no "feet" but three "holes" on the shutter release side. And my camera is clearly marked in the back plate of the "bump" (under Depth of Focus) as MODEL CX SERIAL No. 449xx.serial number is on the inside above the film mask opening:angel:
And indeed the cameras, which are fascinating but (to be generous) idiosyncratic.. . . I hope to help keeping this thread alive 😉
These are the simplest cameras to maintain. A drop or two of napha aka lighter fluid on the shaft of the shutter speed dial will make the shutter run like new again. Also if the lens needs an internal and external cleaning, your saliva on Q-Tips will clean it right upmay be it's just me:
i have a thing for "ugly" thing.
that happened before -- thing i found "ugly" at first just haunted me and i would eventually love it later.
(perhaps "ugly" is not the correct word, "characteristic" is more like it.)
i am talking about the Mercury II.
i read about it in every article on half frame cameras collection --and more often, articles on "the ugliest cameras on earth etc".
it looks like a kitschy prop from a low budget sci-fi cult movie.
people call it from "parking meter" (right here in RFF i think) to "mickey mouse", hardly a compliment.
that said, i can't help getting one recently.
and i LOVE it!
i even love the oxidization of the untreated aluminum camera body, looks and feels just like a Herman Miller made Eames "aluminum group" chair!
everything about this camera is different: the look (i mean THE look), the operations, the shutter sound.
mine costs me US$20+postage (not sure if it is a good buy, but the prices on the Bay keeps moving upward these days...)
the body is solid, the leatherette intact, all the buttons smooth...the high speed is doubtful (1/100, 1/200, 1/300, 1/1000 sec looks the same in bare eyes observation) but other speed including B & T are good.
i just popped in a Tri-X and will fool around a bit, just hope it will give good results --"characteristic" ;-) i hope, at least.
anyone share some thoughts (--or even better, your photo by a Mercury)?
![]()
Thanks Brian for your comment...noted about the Lighter Fluid...Hi everyone, I bought two Mercury IIs, one with a lens and one without...not knowing what to expect I just hope for the best...when arrived, both shutters were frozen but with some WD40 sprayed into the mechanism and repeated firing, both shutters came back to life...seems to be in a good working state now...BUT after testing the units with film, another weird problem surfaced...the pictures are all strangely out of focus, and it is the kind of blur that occur when flange focal is off...since I used very small aperture and tried many different focal distance, the negatives all came out blurry...and this happened on BOTH cameras. I am now suspecting that maybe it's the lens? (since I only have one lens, and it's been used to test both cameras)....does anyone have some idea what can I do next to test further? Should I take the lens apart and see if the glass elements have been flipped or something (saw that in a post somewhere as a possible issue)...thanks
Here are the pics of the lens, I had a lens spanner before and I did have some experience with taking a lens apart, but I need to get a new spanner since I don't own one anymore now.WD-40 should be avoided, leaves too much residue and goes everywhere. Best to use Lighter Fluid sparsely on the shutter blades, or Isopropyl alcohol 99%.
Post some pictures of the lens with a light shining through the back. Do you have the experience and tools to take it apart?