ZebGoesZeiss
Established
Someone has offered me a Leica M6 and a pre-asph 35mm Summicron-M in what can only be described as "user" condition. There are wear marks, it looks higly used, but supposedly - it works fine. The price? $1700 for both.
I was just wondering, I see these ads: "I'm looking for a user M". Or "I'm looking for a beater M". Or how about "Don't care about looks, but it has to be in 100% working condition". Or my favourite: "Glass has to be flawless".
My take on this has always been: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it probably is a duck. That is: I stay away. Twice I have taken the chance, and both times there were issues that needed attention (ie: CLA). If it lookes like it's been dragged through Sahara for months, most likely the glass will not be "flawless" or pristine".
Let's say the M6 is $800. For $2-300 extra, you'll get an M6 that looks great, and stands a better chance of having been cared for. What I'm wondering about is: For those of you looking for "beaters" and "users": What is the rationale behind it? Do you calculate in the CLA costs?
I was just wondering, I see these ads: "I'm looking for a user M". Or "I'm looking for a beater M". Or how about "Don't care about looks, but it has to be in 100% working condition". Or my favourite: "Glass has to be flawless".
My take on this has always been: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it probably is a duck. That is: I stay away. Twice I have taken the chance, and both times there were issues that needed attention (ie: CLA). If it lookes like it's been dragged through Sahara for months, most likely the glass will not be "flawless" or pristine".
Let's say the M6 is $800. For $2-300 extra, you'll get an M6 that looks great, and stands a better chance of having been cared for. What I'm wondering about is: For those of you looking for "beaters" and "users": What is the rationale behind it? Do you calculate in the CLA costs?
Last edited: