Value of Camera Repaints vs Collectible Camera Restorations

[Melvin]

For those who don't care about condition repainted (especially if not to highest quality level) can be chance to get working gear for significantly lower price, I guess.

I can just guess what Lennon would do to classic camera to make it matching his painted RR 🙂

It's well known that Lennon removed the finish from his Epiphone Casino, so that it's just bare wood. It was his main guitar, which he can be seen playing on "Let It Be".

 

[Rayt]

What is this? Antique Roadshow? 🙂

 

[splashrinum]

What is this? Antique Roadshow? 🙂

Great little topic.
And Nice work--thank you for sharing- for me this makes perfect sense though.🙂😛

 

[Sonnar Brian]

> But I don't see how restored planes are a good comparison to restored Leicas or Nikons.

I've been to the Paul Gerber facility of the Smithsonian, and now the Udvar Hazy, where the Smithsonian restores aircraft. The planes are restored to good working and good cosmetic condition. Someone asked why restore the aircraft to flying condition when they would probably never be flown, the answer was the technology of the period was being preserved for future generations. They did fly the FW-190 that they restored, before putting it into the Museum for show. The explosive bolts were removed, an FW-190 pilot brought in to see the aircraft before the restoration started pointed them out. Aircraft represent a good "snapshot" of the innovation and technology of their day. The same can be said of premium camera equipment: they also represent a good snapshot of innovation and technology of their day, and are a bit smaller -if not more affordable- for "the rest of us". When I take a Zeiss Sonnar apart, the precision is amazing. 0.02mm shims routinely used to shim the lens. It took a few tried to even set them the copper is so thin.

I would argue that restoring a Leica III or Contax II to good working condition is preserving the best that 1930s mechanical and optical technology had to offer. The same is true of premium photography equipment of most generations, it is a good measure of technology and innovation.

 

[dave61]

Do yer own thing, dudes

Do yer own thing, dudes

I believe strongly in preservation and restoration. It is vital to preserve our history. Cosmetic-only restoration is a crime, as it often leaves a pretty, non--functional, hollow shell.😱
Most 50+ year old Leicas and Contaxes are not going to be in good working order unrestored. You can do a mechanical-parts-only restoration (a.k.a. CLA); on a car this would result in a 'driver', a beat-up vintage car that runs well. Or you can go full tilt, do 'body-off-frame' resto, make it look and function like it did on 'Day One'.
Occasionally you come across 'survivors', unrestored, mint originals. These ARE priceless and SHOULD be in museums.
Look at this from the perspective of the 'old car hobby'. If a 1954 Cadillac Eldorado Biaritz is found in some old garage, it will likely need restoration to be driveable again. A 'concours d'elegance' quality resto would greatly improve the value of the car. An amatuer (shade-tree rattle-can) resto, while perhaps making the car driveable, would look spotty and not be worth much, except perhaps to the owner.
Restos have 3 levels: Mechanical only, to make it work; Amateur, to make it work and look a little better; and professional, to make it look and operate like new. Considering the age of most of our RF cameras, one of these three will be needed. A true professional resto neither raises nor lowers values; it makes it equal to the value of a mint original, which is what the result of a pro resto should be. If the object is to CHANGE the color,or options, so it is no longer 'box stock', that is a personal choice. Usually, unless flawlessly done with period-correct parts, any customizing will lower the value of an antique or classic.
My belief, be it old cameras or old cars, is 'keep it stock, stock rocks'.
Of course, that's just me. I can still enjoy a good hot rod or lead sled when they're done right. It's personal taste. There's enough M3's and Contax II's around. Cover yours in fake leopard skin, titanium plate, and dayglo Hemi Orange for all I care.😛

 

[johannielscom]

...Inge Morath`s former BP M2 (Erik van Straaten has it now and shown photos of the camera here) is such a camera I would look for.

In due time, I will have a non-original Black M3 DS that is worn down by famous photographer Johan Kuiper.
I own the camera already, and I'm busy getting it worn by shooting it as much as I can. Thirty more years will do it I reckon.😀

 

[Ade-oh]

As it happens, I recently sent my Leica IIIc to CRR for a full overhaul. Having given it some thought, I decided to get it repainted at the same time (black, it was chrome). Why?

1. I prefer the look of black cameras.

2. It's a 1946 manufactured body and the chrome finish was pitted, so it was looking ratty. Whilst I was getting the mechanics sorted out, I thought I might as well give some attention to the cosmetics too.

I'm not a collector of 'historic' cameras, more an enthusiastic amateur user of a range of film cameras. I acquire and use cameras and lenses for my own pleasure, not with the intention of selling them on, so I'm not that concerned about whether the value goes up or down. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

The general point about whether restorations can or should be regarded as more valuable than originals really relates to all antiques and historic items. From what I can see, it's often a function of usability: restored mechanical items often have more value than broken untouched originals. Mint, working condition originals are at a premium.

 

[dll927]

The whole question of restoring to 'original condition' applies to many types of antique and collectable items. If you watch that program on PBS where so-called experts appraise antiques, usually any attempt to repair something, especially furniture, pretty much makes it worthless or close to it. So if an item shows use, that's part of its "panache".

There are lots of stories about Leica collectors who would never think of putting a roll of film in their priceless (?) jewels. They are strictly for display and show. Well, if you have a IIIg that has never been contaminated with film, does that serve the purpose of what it was made for? I doubt it. And given the current prices of Leicas, one would have to have money to burn to trreat them that way.

At one point, CameraQuest supposedly had an M4 that had belonged to the late Garry Winogrand. It had been used so much that it had imprints on the pressure plate from so much film going through!! And the price CQ was asking was nearly astronomical. I sincerely doubt the camera looked very new. So here's a case of pretty much the opposite condition. Take your pick.

 

[johannielscom]

Yes, odd question. Some people prefer white shirt, some prefer black... some people like black car, some don't.

I wear a black shirt all the time. I also wear black pants, shoes, t-shirts, a jacket, socks, my towels are black and my bicycle is. Almost all my lenses are black, and all my cameras are. Why? I like black. I shoot street and the black is far more stealth on a black wearing guy than the chrome is.

black is the alpha and omega of color. Add 'em all up, and you get black.

If I'm wearing anything else, it's mostly beige, and that matches my Billinghams. I like beige when I'm in a non-black mood.

Do not think I am pulling your leg, this is all true. My wife gets depressed with my being black all the time, it's that bad.

 

[dee]

Hmm - I love old Lambrettas from 1950-1955 or so .
I remember nearly new machines and the paint [ and preparation ] was nothing special on a post war budget machine . The German Lambretta / NSU versions had superb glossy paintwork .
[ A beautiful irony that NSU took the model outdated in 1951 which they improved out of almost all recognition and were competing directly with the Italian model in 1957 .
Most ' restore ' Italian machines to the NSU standard , but it just looks wrong to me -
however , it would be much MORE DIFFICULT to replicate that slighty matt , somewhat
careless original finish .
I guess with a considerable investment in today's terms , a new owner has a right to the best he/she can get . That's what I am hoping for from my painted Kievs .
As for resale - it's simply what it's worth to the buyer - even an over restored rare Leica will find an admirer ... and a ' pretty ' black Kiev looks a great deal smarter that the original indifferent chrome .
[ and the more rare cameras are ' restored ' the smaller the market for the originals ]