What is considered an original camera

[giellaleafapmu]

I am sorry if my question is really stupid but I am not into collecting things. However, I was just wondering what do collectors (Nikon collectors to be precise) consider to be an original camera. I am asking this because I have a passion for Nikon F's, however Photomics are more and more difficult to repair and I happen to have two F's which were only CLAed by reputable technicians and whose Photomics are now beyond repair and I also have plain prisms from the same time of the cameras which were obviously not sold with the camera and I was wondering whether a camera made of a main body and an accessory (the plain prism) from the same period is considered "original" or not. Actually, I don't even know how to check if a prism or a Photomic come originally with a given body or was swapped later.

GLF

 

[KoNickon]

If the prism wasn't sold with the body, then it's not original. The best you can do is confirm that it's of the correct vintage, i.e. contemporaneous with the body.

But as you say, there's no way to know whether a finder is original to the body without having the original sales receipt.

Would the body and finder have been boxed together, or would you have received a box for the body and another box for the finder? In other words, were Nikon Fs sold "a la carte" or were body and finder boxed together? If a la carte, presumably the serial number of both body and finder would be recorded on the sales receipt, but if they were boxed together, who knows.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

If the prism wasn't sold with the body, then it's not original. The best you can do is confirm that it's of the correct vintage, i.e. contemporaneous with the body.

Yep, they are, I am sure...but I cannot prove it (unless someone else has serial and history of F bodies).

GLF

 

[Landshark]

The F originally did not have a ttl or Photomic meter so the plain prism is "original". Even more "original" if the serial numbers are of correct vintage.

The original Photomic meter wasn't ttl either but had a sensor above at about 11 o'clock viewed from the front.

Nikon did have a clip on selenium meter available as an accessory early on too.

 

[KoNickon]

There's a lot of good information about serial numbers and production dates for the Nikon F and finders here: http://www.destoutz.ch/nikon-f.html

 

[Paul Jenkin]

It's an interesting question and one I've been pondering for the past few days.

I've just acquired a Nikon F with a serial number 64008xxx (i.e. made in the first 9,000 of the model run between March 1959 and December 1959.) It has a plain prism head and has the F36 winder with it. All functioning very nnicely and in extremely good condition for its age.

However, right on the top of the pentaprism is a very small "ding" that, although not noticeable and makes no difference to how the camera operates, I know it's there.

I'm not looking to sell the camera, nor do I value it above the price I paid for it. that said, if I could find an identical replacement of similar age and in better condition, why would that be a problem?

If we buy a vintage car and it suffers a scrape, are we meant to leave the scrape in-tact ad-infinitum? Most clssic car owners spend money on repairing, replacing and improving their cars. Some even go as far as restoring to concourse standard. I hasten to add at this point that I'm not suggesting we accept after-market, lookalike or re-engineered spares. However, if the replacement is identical and contemporary, why not upcycle?

 

[giellaleafapmu]

Cars are not cameras collectible-wise. But even in automobile collection the more original the better. (Having said that -- the world most expensive Ferrari was repainted from blue to red.)

The issue with Nikon F's is that there were so many changes in the early models and they have been well documented by collectors. What may seem correct may indeed not be. But little worry on your camera since the value is not high, and you just want a ding free body.

Just a word on valuable cameras ($5000 or so) keep the original parts if you intend to someday sell.

Of course the idea is to always keep all original parts and I (and probably most of us) were not thinking to rare cameras, just users that we would like to keep as closed to original as possible and still be properly working.

The dilemma about restoring and not restoring is anyway a hard one, what is a bit funny to me is that a lot of builders do feel that their "creatures" should be fixed to be operative for ever and a lot of collectors feel that just touching anything is "spoiling the original item". The well known watch maker Roger W. Smith even said several times in interviews that he does not use any exotic material such as carbon fiber or rare metals alloys for his watches to make it possible restoration from any good watchmaker in the future, yet I guess that any owner of a Roger Smith's watch would rather keep a non working watch than asking another watchmaker to produce a spare part for the watch should something break.

Since several answers from knowledgeable collectors appeared I'd like to ask a last question: where is the line? Is a CLA "alteration of original"? If during a CLA appears a broken small part can this be replaced? If a part is no longer available should the camera be left non working or is it allowed to produce a spare at the lathe? I would say that for me small parts such springs or gaskets should be no problems where larger items, such as a whole prism should be original but I wouldn't know where to exactly put a line.

GLF

 

[mdarnton]

The cameras belong to you, they can be fed into a wood chipper if you like.

Not if you want to keep the wood chipper in "original" condition. There's a tool for everything:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPDLX0koXFs

 

[shadowfox]

Y'know,

I appreciate those who are stickler with original parts and keeping the historical integrity of their collectibles. Without these people preserving the knowledge and therefore setting the standard, we would be a poorer community.