| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| AidasCams |
Posted - Nov 22 2007 : 10:11:15 AM
Hello everyone,
I'd like to discuss about these doubtful authentity cameras, which appear on the market periodically:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=150183138133&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=005
Knowing this guy from Moscow as the eBay seller of many fakes, incl.: TSVVS, Fed-Zorki, Yunost-Sport, etc., I'm sure the Sputnik-2 is from the same creative line, but ... it looks great! I can't understand why these modern fakers are using contrived markings althouth the genuine lens and parameters of Sputnik-2 can be found easily in old soviet literature ...
Regards,
Aidas |
| 46 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| okynek |
Posted - Nov 27 2007 : 09:33:38 AM
I have to open my eyes . It there - great article about Sputnik - Thanks to Photo history of Mr. Abramov:
http://www.photohistory.ru/sputnik-all.pdf
Article is in Russian and unfortunately I did not have English version  Download time was slow. So be patient, it worse it! You can see there prototypes for Sputnik 3, 4, 5...  - just kidding 
Article does not put all the stops on the above camera history, it more guide for modification and usach of Sputnik but I found it absolutely fascinated! If no one else take initiative to translate it in English, I'll try, I'm just warry that my English is not strong enough for such job 
By any means, Bill, please continue your research before any conclusions. |
| Vlad |
Posted - Nov 26 2007 : 10:42:40 AM
Alain, the suspense is killing me! |
| cedricfan |
Posted - Nov 26 2007 : 10:41:41 AM
Like my Zenit AM-2 serial 92000002 which is totally different from the "big production" AM-2 cameras. I did take it apart in attempt to fix it, but no luck as everything under the top looks different, mostly "hand made". Also the face is propably made from an Avtomat top, with the text scratched away! So, you never know about the prototypes or beginning of the production as Zoom would propably like to call them.
http://www.cedricfan.sivut.ws/Juhani's%20website%20ORIGINAALIT/ |
| mermoz37 |
Posted - Nov 26 2007 : 10:39:07 AM
hi friends
would you wait some few days...i will show you a surprise for you. .
so we can continue the discuss after. .
Sherlock Holmes. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 26 2007 : 10:27:19 AM
Okynek,
I will do some tests on the lens coating today, including acetone and looking with ultraviolet light, but even before I do it I am pretty sure that these are professionally coated lenses, not acetone dye. I have been involved with lenses and cameras for 40 years and I know coatings pretty well.
Also, I would agree that there is no way it is a prototype. Not every camera has a prototype. If all that is being done is cosmetic changes and a new model number, no prototype is needed. But, I have a number of prototypes of Russian cameras in my collection and they vary in so many ways from normal production techniques that you would not believe it! For example, the prototype of the Zorki-35M has the top plate of a Zenit-E, with the reflex prism housing cut off, a new flat plate added, welded in place, and then resurfaced with matte chrome! You can see this detail in the photos at my web site at, http://nightphoto.com/z35m.html
So, this camera aside, it is quite amazing what designers and engineers will go through to make a new model. This faceplate will be 'childs play' to them if they want that look on it so that it matches the well-known SPUTNIK style of front label. And, I don't understand why you think no engineer would make it this way when the Komsomolets already has a lens faceplate made this way? So, it is not new.
It is a good idea to shoot a roll of film through it and I will do it this week.
Regards, Bill
|
| okynek |
Posted - Nov 26 2007 : 08:53:34 AM
Bill I respect your opinion and your expertise very much! I believe we have to look for paperwork about this camera: manuals, advertisements, news paper adds, pictures, anything! I keep my mind open as well, and believe me I will be really happy if you discover true Sputnik 2, but then more I think, and read about your finds then more I skeptical about origin of the camera. As an engineer by hard and by education I can tell you no way reputable manufactory will make faceplate the way you described(it not technological even for prototypes). As a person who spent half of my life in USSR I can tell you that no way prototypes can have name written in English( I do not want bored you with personal stories about paranoia of patriotism at that time). Also in the middle of the 70th I got my first camera and was really in photography. I was living in Kiev and was visiting photo stores weekly. I do not remember that Sputnik or any other camera was laying on the shelves. The exceptions was Etude and Kiev 6. Etude no one considered to be a camera and Kiev 6 not many can afford. May be other places in USSR have better supply. But in capital of Ukraine I can not remember excess inventory of Sputniks in 70th. Believe me I’m not trying to argue with you. Same as you, I trying to find true. And as you can see something in this camera is against my believes and experience.
I’m also concerned about blue coating on the lenses. Lens coating is really sophisticated process, what hard to replicate without very special machinery and dryer. But on other hand it easy to dissolve few drops of ink from ballpoint pen in acetone, and tined the glass. Every year we colored this way Christmas lights. I wonder if you could run roll through your camera and examen the results. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 26 2007 : 02:08:28 AM
Yuri,
Also, I would just add that the dimensional writing around the lens is very attractive and matches the look of the "Sputnik-2" metal label, even to the fact of a black background with raised letters in the "brushed steel" look. So it would have the very cosmetic purpose of making the camera more attractive and modern looking, which may be a good reason to coat the front lenses in blue (something I have not seen forgers do). This new faceplate, combined with the new name and nameplate, the blue coated lenses, the "LOMO logo on the hood, and the new knobs make for a very hot seller (hopefully) without having to do much in the way of redesigning the body.
Regards, Bill
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 26 2007 : 01:44:42 AM
Yuri,
If LOMO made it, then I think they were trying to make the camera look different without really changing much. This would be a cosmetic change to see if they could make something that was "updated" and attractive, and which would sell better to a Western market since they had a lot of Sputniks laying around and no lack of Lubitel-166 parts. So maybe make 100 of these... try to sell them... if they do good then probably make a simpler way of making the lens faceplate, or at least make them without the serial number on it (put it somewhere else). These kind of faceplates are not so difficult to make, just changing the serial number each time would be if the camera was successful in sales and went past a pre-series stage.
Look at the FED-6TTLs. They have things that are difficult to make and would have no doubt been changed if it went into production and many cameras are made one way and then changed for easier production in some ways.
The main thing that gives me doubtful feelings, other than the source, is that there would seem to be some literature saying something like the Sputnik-2 was going to be shown at Photokina or some other trade show. However, they may have been made for a distributor such as Mashpriborintorg to try in the west, but it never got that far... so, no literature. Maybe some literature will surface. In the meantime I will look at more details.
Proof that they are fake from a source that actually knows the forgers, more than "all roads lead to Moscow" which we already know, is unlikely do to the secretive nature of their work and the fact that they may want to sell more of these if they have them or want to make more. In this case, I would expect that they would be offered on some of the non-English Ebay sites, or possibly privately.
So, there is some theories which no doubt can be questioned, but so can most theories. In my experience with the cameras and other objects, patience and diligence in looking and recording the details of examination and documentation usually lead to an answer, but usually not right away. So, I have learned to keep my mind open, so that I don't close off the possibilities in any direction.
Regards, Bill
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Nov 26 2007 : 12:34:29 AM
Bill, we'll take the camera shipping stuff offline.
Vlad. |
| fedka |
Posted - Nov 26 2007 : 12:19:29 AM
Bill, you made a good pint about perfect fit, but this may have totally different meaning. Forgers are actually more interested in perfect fit than workers at LOMO were used to. This is a nature of a Comminist economy.
Also, as a professional who saw many technical things - do you have any theory on why LOMO decided to go with such involved process to produce a lens faceplete. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 26 2007 : 12:18:48 AM
Vlad,
That is a great offer and I will arrange to do that with you. I will pay shipping both ways and I won't take your cameras apart... don't worry! That would be very helpful... thank you.
By the way... my side is just to find the truth if possible.
Bill
Regards, Bill
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Nov 26 2007 : 12:05:57 AM
Bill, your arguments start to sway me to your side. :) If you are really on the quest to put this to bed once and for all, I am offering to ship you all the cameras (my Sputnik and all Lubitels that you need) for examination if you'd like.
Vlad |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 25 2007 : 11:47:15 PM
I am just calling it epoxy (not glue ... epoxy resin). It may be some other composition, but I can tell it's not metal. This composition looks original and has age in my opinion. But hard to tell with this kind of hardened substance that is either green or has been painted green.
The substance (composition)is used to make the thin metal that has been die-stamped stronger, and especially so that it will lie perfectly flat, not bend, to be easier and more stable to glue, and not be subject to denting and damage so easily. In my opinion, this is the kind of thing that a factory does, more than what a forger does. Usually a forger makes what can be seen very good, but not what is not meant to be seen. In this lens-plate the back side is very finely polished and does not look like a forgers work.
As you can see from the close-up photos, the parts fit together perfectly. Not just the lens plate, but all the parts. Everything is done so expertly and even finished on the back side of the lens plate. The plate looks to have been glued on only once, with no residue of an older glue where another plate has been removed to replace with a fake plate.
Also, I will tell you something about myself, which is that for a living I am a dealer in antique paintings and antiques (including technical antiques), so I am very familiar with close examination in order to find fakes and restortations or alterations in objects. This is a major part of my job, which I have been doing for over 30 years... so I am not inexperienced with examining things, knowing construction techniques, and the substances used. I have been deciding about fake antiques and paintings on a daily basis for many years, including work for auction houses, clients and museums.
I am still examining this camera and all the opinions and ideas of our fellow forum members are very valuable to me and believe me when I say that I pay careful attention to all of you. One thing that is holding me back from some comparisons is the lack of two cameras to compare, in person. Although I have a Sputnik-1, it is a very early version (serial # 000046 - a pre-series with some differences from other Sputniks), I do not have a later model of Sputnik and I do not have a Lubitel-166 or 166B. So, I have only been comparing the Sputnik-2 with these through conversations with some collectors who have these and through photos on the web.
Also, I don't care about the price I paid for this camera. Even if it is a fake, the price is fine, so that does not enter into my thoughts about it. As I find more to tell, I will tell it. If anyone has questions about details, I will answer best I can.
Regards, Bill
|
| okynek |
Posted - Nov 25 2007 : 11:01:24 PM
Bill I absolutely agreed with you, more research has to be don. Until we find documents, pictures, or testimony of peoples involved in production (or forgery) we can not indefinitely say anything about this camera. Examining parts may lead you to wrong direction. Parts may be authentic, taken from other cameras, or they can be manufactured in first class shops using best machinery. Better if you look how pars fitting together and how they are installed. Check plactic, check holes in this plactic, check epoxy, is it 30 years old or it harden month ago. And why epoxy? If Lomo use die-stamping on real machinery they do not need epoxy. You need epoxy only for technique what I was using earlier. |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Nov 25 2007 : 3:37:09 PM
Have you - or anyone - ever seen a Sputnik 3?
It exists with Kiev 6 TTl pentaprism! |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 25 2007 : 2:32:41 PM
Yes, you are right! Of course people can make anything with machines, not only in Russia, but in many industrial countries in the world, including China, America, Germany, etc.
But when the question of authenticity, or the origin, of a Soviet camera is in question, it is not just a question of if it can be done... it is more a question of who actually did it.
In this case (Sputnik-2), I have not seen any other fakes or forgeries done in anything close to this technique by the people from Moscow and other cities. On the other hand, I have seen this kind of "die-stamping" (not "die-casting") done on another camera from GOMZ-LOMO, the Komsomolets, although that was 20 years earlier.
I am also not saying that I think the Sputnik-2 is authentic... nor am I saying it is a forgery. But I have one to examine, which I am doing.
So far the work in several areas (the lens coating, the die-stamped lens plate, and the wind and rewind knobs) look like factory work to me. So that is in favor of a factory model, or maybe a pre-series that was never put into full production.
On the other hand, there are some things against authenticity or factory made, but they are not so much technical. The things against are: the cameras in question were bought from a seller who sells fake Leicas and painted cameras often; so far there is not documentation for Sputnik-2; and, an argument that this is not a good way to make serial numbers, although this last point is based on the die-casting technique rather than a die-stamping technique which when used, would be easier to change the numbers.
There is one other possibility that I have thought of which we have not discussed. That is that a small number of these cameras were made, either by LOMO or a by a distributor to fill a special or custom order from a Western retailer or distributor. This was done by Soviet factories as can be seen with the "No-Name Kiev" and also the "all black FED-5" cameras that were made for Germany. So that, in my opinion, can be another thing to at least consider.
Often, especially with Soviet and other Communist block cameras, where secrecy was common, it takes some amount of time to discover the true origins. It is only recently that the TSVVS has been said to have been made at the Almaz Zavod, rather than at FED (even in Princelle's it is listed as probably by FED).
So, although I don't actually have a definite opinion on this Sputnik-2, maybe with more time, more examples being found or sold, or direct documentation or testimony from someone who knows the origin for a fact (not just heard they are this or that), the actual truth of the origin can be known.
Regards, Bill
|
| okynek |
Posted - Nov 25 2007 : 1:39:31 PM
I do not claim I will attempt to do this at home on a jiffy. I just trying to show that with right equipment and right people it pretty easy. No need to have whole LOMO factory behind. And actually we do not know what resources people who make this cameras have. I used to work on military production in Kiev. For 200rg of alhogol I had access to any machinery and tools -ANY! If I would only have more talent I would be able to make much more elaborate thinks than logos for cameras. In fact in 1989-1991 I was involved in production of illegal Sinkler like computers on that factory. I’m not imberes to say this. This was a hack of the engineering achievement to develop multilayed motherboard, switched power supply, get all components; keyboard and case was milled from sheets of aluminum on huge Japanese CNC. It was complete illegal assembly line there created by 5 engineers in they 20th. I saying all of this because by my opinion remanufacturing of cameras not only fusible, but it not to hard to arrange in Russia.
By the way lettering on that toy labeling machine is only 3mm high and lettering what I made is about 5mm high. And then smaller letters then easy to make them. Epocsy available everywhere now. To make perfect rings you only need punch due what could be found at many tool distributors.
And again, I admire the ingenuity and talent of the people who did this fakes. Just a little honesty on they side would complement they work. But then we would not have such great discussion! |
| mermoz37 |
Posted - Nov 25 2007 : 12:48:54 PM
and how do you do for cutting sharp circles to fit and adjust so well as these pletes on our camera's lenses ?....just a question  !!!! |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 25 2007 : 12:40:49 PM
Well Okynek, Very nice! If you can produce front lens plates like the ones on the Sputnik-2, with the small size letters, evenly written in a circle, and then painted black with the fronts of the letters polished back to bare metal, and the back filled with epoxy resin and then ground flat also ... then please do it and tell me if it was easy or hard! Thank you for your experiments. The size of the serial numbers on the Sputnik-2 are just a hair less than 2 mm tall.
Regards, Bill
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Nov 25 2007 : 11:00:50 AM
BRAVO!!! LOL!!! |
| okynek |
Posted - Nov 25 2007 : 10:15:26 AM
I believe this is much easy to make then you think
I was using cooking foil and ballpoint pan. It take me about 30sec to make.
Quality ca be be perfected with thicker foil and simple labeling mashine what sold about $15.00
 |
| fedka |
Posted - Nov 25 2007 : 09:03:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by nightphoto
Why would a forger make this way of making a serial number when they are already so expert at making fake engravings (Leica, ZK Lenses... on and on). It is hard to believe they would choose this way, in my opinion.
Bill, your question (above) is the biggest mystery about these Sputnik-2s. I can even understand coating, but why die cast numbers? I think this is the only example of such technique in all. I can't think of any Russian camera (on non-Russian for that matter) with die cast serial number.
As a side note, this alone makes this Sputnik-2 valuable, regardless of its origin.
Yuri |
| cedricfan |
Posted - Nov 25 2007 : 01:41:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by okynekCan you tell me why so many very rare cameras happen to end up in same hands?
They can. You all know Arsenal. And I know a very small camera shop in St Petersburg that has sold at least three used Almaz, the rare ones and not 103!
http://www.cedricfan.sivut.ws/Juhani's%20website%20ORIGINAALIT/ |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 25 2007 : 12:13:02 AM
Well, it may be that they are fakes, but... the serial numbers are not cast. They are die-stamped. Please look at the photos and my description of the lens plates carefully. Fairly easy to change a number, just use a die that has many separate numbers and replace the last one or two on the row. No doubt, this is how it was done, whether by a forger or the factory. This is a similar process to putting printers type together, individual letters and numbers keyed up in a block, then stamped into the metal plate. It is an easy process and many factories do it... but very few individuals have the machinery needed.
I do agree with Yuri that if a manual for one of these was found it would help to authenticate it. However, many cameras, rare or not, come without the box and papers or accessories even if they are only 30 years old. This alone would not prove a fake. In this case, if only 100 or so were made, they may have even come with the regular Sputnik manual and stereo accessories. Why would a forger make this way of making a serial number when they are already so expert at making fake engravings (Leica, ZK Lenses... on and on). It is hard to believe they would choose this way, in my opinion.
Also, I wonder who would take the time, or even think of coating the lenses of these Sputnik-2s with a different coating than on Lubitel-166? What is the answer to that?
Regards, Bill
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Nov 25 2007 : 12:10:53 AM
Okynek, Yuri, very entertaining reads! I've enjoyed them tremendously! Thank you! very interesting points though! |
| fedka |
Posted - Nov 24 2007 : 10:41:24 PM
The Sputnik-2 in Princelle is definitely some sort of experimental model, not even prototype. Sputnik was always based on Lubitel as far as its class.
Sputnik-2 from eBay and from Bill's pictures looks like an old Sputnik shell populated with newer, Lubitel-166 inspired parts, and as such can be possible.
A do have a few remarks:
1. Unrelated to Sputnik-2. I do not have my Sputniks handy (keep my cameras in boxes, not on those pretty displays:-), but I think that second knob is not for rewind, but for inserting and locking a spool/film.
2. Sputniks were sold with accessories - a stereoscope, printing easel. I would estimate that 50% of the Sputniks I sold came with these parts (cleaner, less used samples), and 50% did not (mostly older, beat up ones). I think between the two Sputniks I have now and some 6-8 I sold, my sampling pool is close to 10.
The Sputnik-2s look pretty new, so they should have come with these accessories, and probably boxes and manuals. Question for S-2 owners - did they come with the accessories? If not, this points more to a fake, since nobody bothered po produce anything beyond the camera body.
3. The cast/molded serial number. I fully agree with previous posts - this is absolutely insane. I've seen tanks and tractors with big cast and ground nameplates, but serial numbers were engraved or stamped.
Soviet factories did a lot of stupid things, not because engineers were bad (no, we were good!), but because of political decisions. But casting serial numbers on a cheap plastic camera - I can't accept it. If a camera sells for $500, then yes, it can be done, but in 1977, export or not, it was a cheap camera.
Look at the Lubitel - earlier ones had engraved serial numbers on the lens rings, but later ones (166) removed serial numbers from the lenses altogether and started stamping them on the bottom - with some hot thing pressed in plastic - a really cheap way. Sputniks, as Lubitels, had serial number engraved on the lenses, so why would a Sputnik-2 (sort of Lubitel-166) have a cast number?? Not engraved, not stamped in plastic, but cast.
Let's assume the Sputnik-2 is a fake. But even in this case I wonder - WHO decided to cast numbers???
I have a theory - LOMO started making Sputnik-2 with these cast numbers, and each one would take a few days to cast. So after 6 months Ivan Petrovich, who had to make new tooling for each new number either retired, started drinking non-stop, or ended up an a mental hospital. Production stopped.
|
| okynek |
Posted - Nov 24 2007 : 10:02:22 PM
Bill, as sad us I'm to tell you this, but all indications that Sputnik 2 on the pictures is fake. Can you tell me why so many very rare cameras happen to end up in same hands? And by coincidence this seller also happens to make other fakes? Reason 2; can you look how "Made in USSR" written on any other import camera in your collection? It made in small font on the back or on the bottom. Country of manufactory must be printed by International low, but it almost hidden on Zenit cameras. Easy to understand why; not much reasons to advertise to perspective buyers on the West that camera were made in Impair of Evil. And what is LOMO means to average Joe in 70-80th? New drug? Now, look on Sputnik 2. It screamed I'm from USSR, I'm made by LOMO same as famous LS-A of late 90th. Come on, BUY ME!!!! Would any one put this on the front of the camera in 70th? The only think is missing is KGB and PERESTROYKA on the back, I suppose. This camera made for tourists. It all shiny and new, with rare name. Just BUY ME DEMET!!!
It definitely was made on the factory, but on which? It definitely used real Lubitel parts, but where was they assembled? It is much easier then anyone think to have access to high grade machinery and super skills, 30+ years of experience specialists in Russia. They was making unique parts for military whole they life and now for 10 years they are without work, without food, without any perspective. They can make spacecraft to the moon, not just fake cameras. They are happy to earn $300 per month. So forge (or I would say modify) camera no matter if it Leika Olimpic 1936, or TSVS or Lubitel 2 will cost less then $10 in labor.
But as many say before me no matter if it real or fake if it made right it worth the money, and place in collection.
|
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Nov 24 2007 : 8:05:23 PM
In Russia Everything is possible... When in Moscow, At Starii Arbat street I visited a shop of old furniture. Exceptional original Louis XV and Louis XIV chests and tables and chairs... everything perfect. I knew the shop was mantained by a group of museum restorers that knows every original techniques. In the next shop I felt to ground! an original Stereo "Doppel Leica" How this camera came there???? I knew it only by photos because there were made only two: one for the Barnack, the constructor, and the other one to the daughter of Mr Ernst Leitz. I careful examined it. A high skill of craftsmanship was present. Who made them? probably the same that built the reversed Leica commented some days ago. At 1000 $ it was not an stratospheric price. Yury of Fedka may say something more... |
| Vlad |
Posted - Nov 24 2007 : 11:46:32 AM
All good points... yes, I don't know, it's a tough one ... maybe someone should ask Mika (moscowphoto), I'm sure he's not going to have an issue telling us the story if the cameras are authentic.. maybe I will ask him if I have time, I've been doing enough transactions with him past couple of months so maybe he'll reveal something..
Vlad. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 24 2007 : 11:13:26 AM
Well, hypothetically (if the camera is authentic) I think the reason for an export model would be to sell the cameras to the west. In this case, no prototypes are needed because there is not much advance over the original Sputnik. Just a new name, a coated lens (named T-23 as it is the same as T-22 with just a new coating), new front lens plate and lens rings from Lubitel 166, etc. Why would a prototype be needed? Also, when you have too many Sputnik cameras sitting around (as Princelle mentions in his Sputnik page ... "lots of SPUTNIKS were remaindered during the seventies by big retailers, to the total disinterest of collectors") it is probably a good idea to try making a new model to see if it will sell better, and probably you might try to sell them in Moscow where there are more people and many visitors.
I would not see this as a domestic production taking priority first camera, since domestic needs with the Sputnik were already more than taken care of.
Just a hypothetical answer to your comment. I still don't know if the camera is authentic, but the parts I looked at all look factory made, even the front lens plate that I took the close-up photos of.
To me the bigger questions would be ... Can a forger make parts like this? ... Is it worth the time to make for the price they sell them for when you consider it would take 2 Lubitels and a Sputnik to make it and then wholesale to the seller?... Why make an export model when a domestic model would be more convincing? ... Would a forger really go as far as coating a lens in a way that is perfect (and different in color the coatings on Lubitel-166, Lubitel-166B, Lubitel-2 and Sputnik-1)? .... Why would a forger put a date of 1977 on this Sputnik-2 when a more convincing date would be when the literature about a possible Sputnik-2 was written, in the 1960s? ... I think these questions are harder to answer than why a Soviet factory that can do almost anything if the ministry orders it, would do it.
Regards, Bill
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Nov 24 2007 : 01:12:51 AM
All done and said I still can't shake the feeling that why would they do an "export only" model though... it is highly unorthodox looking back at all the history of manufacture in USSR... they would've released a Russian version first (That would be first early serial #s) and then make the export variation.. usually domestic production took priority... it just does not sit right with me... |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 23 2007 : 2:32:58 PM
Also, I just want to add:
The ring with writing is very thin metal, stamped from behind with the letters (so the back was hollow). The hollow metal stamped ring was filled with a non-metallic filling, maybe an epoxy or compound ... this is the green substance you see from behind. The front was painted black. Both the front and the back were then polished (ground), so that the tops of the letters lost their black paint, and on the back, the compound became smooth and level with the rim of the metal lip. The polishing marks can be seen on both sides with magnification.
No mistake that the front is metal and filled with non-metal. Any questions... please ask and I will take a look and tell you.
Regards, Bill
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 23 2007 : 11:59:50 AM
Hello Everyone,
I was able to unscrew the 3 little screws that hold the front lens ring to the lens. This was easy. Then, there were two holes at the back of the lens ring that made it possible to gently push the flat round inserts with the writing (serial numbers, logo, etc.) away from the lens ring. So, without further comment to color things either way by me, below is a link to the web page with 20 close-up photos of these parts. I made a page so it is easier to view:
http://www.nightphoto.com/sputexam.html
I have not put the parts together again yet, so I can take more photos if requested. Aidas, please feel free to forward this link to your friend if you want. More opinions are better. I have also obtained some opinions from advanced collectors (besides the very excellent ones on this forum !)
Regards, Bill
|
| AidasCams |
Posted - Nov 23 2007 : 11:43:10 AM
Bill,
I like your point of view. Although some people like all these fake Leicas, I'm angry to see how cute Zorkys and Feds lost theirs identity in behalf of counterfeits ... But it's not the case with Sputnik-2. As I said before, I really like this camera! Our discussion leads us to some presumptive hypotesis. And I like it 'cos I'm not quilified enough to say it's fake or not. Your and Alain's arguments are strong enough, so let see what happen in near future.
Today I have send Sputnik-2 pictures to camera collector, who never saw it before. After the close examination he said "Aidas, this camera was made with high technician skills. I don't care it's fake or genuine one. I like this camera - could you buy it for me?"
Regards,
Aidas |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 23 2007 : 10:53:10 AM
Hi Aidas,
Don't worry, I will not be disappointed no matter which way it turns out! I like this camera fake or not, and that is why I collect them.
But, I have found from experience that often it is not what collectors, sources, camera dealers, and collectors say that leans towards one truth or another, but more the examination of the details of the camera and also of the factory records and in some cases the records of a distributor. Of course in the 1970s Soviet Union, all roads lead to Moscow, much as today. These cameras were offered by Moscowphoto, a known dealer in fakes, which we all know and have watched for a long time. But, not every camera he has is fake and I have bought authentic cameras from him as well.
So, now I have taken the front lens plate (with the serial number, etc.)from the lens ring, after taking the lens ring away from the camera. Shortly I will post close-up photos here on this thread, for discussion.
Regards, Bill
|
| mermoz37 |
Posted - Nov 23 2007 : 05:25:14 AM
Hi all ,
i am newbie on this forum...So salutations.
so , i bought another sputnick 2, from Moscow photo, like Bill...
truth is many questions about this camera ...even if it is fake.
first of all, if one considers the selling price reported to provided work and the scarcity of the camera, I think that the forger worked for not enough money.
By examining my 7000007, I see disconcerting details which I do not know on other cameras:
like Bill says , one of the buttons is an original ( no arrow on the top) and is impossible to counterfeit in so good plastic shape (in my opinion)….
for do the frontages of lenses, I think that it is possible to manufacture them out of zinc plates, with the same technics as that which is used by the printers (zinc+acid work )… but it will be necessary to modify the negative with each fake to change the serial number…??? not very profitable at all!
to be continued
kind regards
Alain
|
| AidasCams |
Posted - Nov 23 2007 : 04:53:21 AM
Hi Bill,
Sorry to dissapoint you, but I do not believe in miracles. Just after the first Sputnik-2 #77000015 entered the market in summer this year, I had a big discussion with few serious collectors about this new "sensation". They reached personal sources in Russia to clarify the situation. I was told, that all links goes to Moscow, the big centre of camera counterfeiting. Just after I found camera #77000009 (... already yours) on Moscowphoto store, I was sure they are ready to share the limited quantity (let's say 100 copies) of these cameras among the collectors.
I agree with you, that similar camera in Princelle book looks very suspicious, but do existing also records in soviet catalogues (dated 1966-1969)about improved Sputnik under name Sputnik-2. Unfortunately I couldn't find a sample image of Sputnik-2 yet, but I really hope to have one as soon. As its already said in Princelle book, the new project had new lens T-35 75mm/F 1:4.
Anyway your camera looks too rich for the year of 1977. Beeing in some kind of stagnation, soviet photo industry produced the same bad quality cameras both for export or local markets. I can't remember a case, when prototype camera came in export labelings in the very hearth of October revolution - Leningrad ...
Anyway your camera has a big value as "souvenir" camera. And the price is good enough. I was promised to get one fully working FED-B fake camera (maybe from the same fakers, or another source in Kiev ...). Otherwise I would buy this Sputnik-2 for display purposes.
Best Regards,
Aidas
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 23 2007 : 01:13:57 AM
Thanks for your ideas Luiz.
I thought that Estafeta had the T-35 lens in both LOMO and BeLOMO.
Also, I know that the regular Sputnik had coated Triplet lenses and also Estafeta has coated triplet lenses. Maybe the only need to coat a triplet lens is to make it sell better?
Also Kosomolets did have die-stamped f-stops and logo around the lens, so it would not be the first time that GOMZ-LOMO used such a technique. And, of course a company like LOMO which makes all kinds of cameras, telescopes, microscopes, and technical optics has many capabilities at their disposal.
If the die-casting of different serial numbers would have been so expensive and difficult, how could a forger do this for just 2 cameras? I am not even sure that the front serial numbers and other writing is die cast. It may be embossed from the back or some similar technique where it is easy to change a single digit of a number. This will take a closer examination. Maybe more pressed from the back with a die (in fact, this is what it looks like) ... so die-stamped with the serial numbers removeable from the die?
Why did the original Sputnik have a rewind knob? Both the original Sputnik and the Sputnik-2 have a rewind knob. Both operate the same way. The reason can be ... A. Rewinding for when you wind a bit too much ... B. Rewinding for when you want to take a few exposures (say in color) and then want to switch films (say for Black and White).
So, as I said before... I am not saying that these Sputnik-2 are not fake, but a closer examination will maybe help to decide. Of course I am very aware of GOMZ-LOMO manufacturing techniques, as well as those of the forgers! Of course I know what other camera parts can be used from cameras of this time, like Lubitel-166, etc.
There seem to be a number of details that do not match the Lubitel series, but look to be factory made. So, as I get time, I will take the camera apart and make a detailed report about the different parts, in themselves and compared to other cameras. Then maybe more of the story about where these cameras came from will be clear. It is a bit too easy to declare them a fake, or not a fake, without looking closely in this case. So, that is my opinion so far. I will write with more details when I have them, which will hopefully be soon.
Regards, Bill
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Nov 22 2007 : 9:19:05 PM
Hmm... that is an interesting point.. I have never seen lens writing die casted like that on any other camera.... |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Nov 22 2007 : 8:44:37 PM
Bill and Gang
Don't be angry with me, I see only two interesting fakes ! Positively both cameras are fake! Totally fake. I will explain why.
----Both cameras are presupposed to be made in 1977---.
It will be sufficient to see or remind Lubitel cameras made in 1977.
Those cameras were made up to 1995 and they never used Triplet 23 lenses. -Because they never existed- Yes they were built but were 3.5 never 4.5 and were used in both Estafeta model of LOMO and BelOmo. If One knows basic optics he will know that there is no need in multicoat a triplet. By that reason there are no multicoated triplets world over. Results will be unoticed, costs will increase. Lubitel always were made at LOMO who had and used the same tools in factory; so, first series Lubitel had T22 lenses marked with etched engravings and later silkscreened. Suppose there were a technological gap between both --But letters were never cast--- Further more.. It is unthinkable do a series of camera numbers die castings you need to change the mold! Do you know in how much the cost it implies? Vilia, Orion and Siluet Elektro had similar lettering but never individually numbered! --See that "Sputnik 2" plate in these two cameras is made with the same lens bezel technics-But I ask -- When any other Lomo camera used similar manufacture? I go further those bezel seems to be glued in original Lubitel 166 lens rings. -- Lubitel 166 knobs can substitute directly Lubitel 2 knobs and of course Sputnik knobs all have the same chamfered hole. and a question-- Why rewind in 120 cameras?
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 22 2007 : 12:33:16 PM
Yes, Juhani,
And also the film winding knobs on the Sputnik-2 are obviously factory made, however will not fit onto the Lubitel-166 or other Lubitels. The rewind knob has an embossed, molded direction arrow, not present on Lubitel knobs. So, I think they must have been made by LOMO for this camera.
Princelle says that during the 1970s many Sputniks were remaindered and hard to sell, so maybe this is an attempt by the LOMO factory to make something a bit newer that would sell.
Regards, Bill
|
| cedricfan |
Posted - Nov 22 2007 : 12:27:38 PM
You are making sense! Some details are not worth faking, not at least that well.
Another example: FED and Zorki are nowadays faked to chinese Shanghai. But Shanghai has slowspeed dial in front like Leica, and it wouldn't be that hard to add one to the fakes also. It is usually inoperative = broken anyway in Shanghais, so nobody would notice anything odd. Now the knobless fake is clear to distinguish...
And in my opinion the Sputninks are certainly in the top ten ugliest FSU-cameras
http://www.cedricfan.sivut.ws/Juhani's%20website%20ORIGINAALIT/ |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Nov 22 2007 : 11:46:49 AM
Hello Everyone,
Well, I have one of these Sputnik-2 cameras, and although I originally thought it was a fake, largely like Aidas says, because of the seller in Moscow who sells many fakes, now I am not so sure after having examined the camera in detail and talking with a few others.
The one I have is the one most recently sold on Ebay and is serial #77000009. So this would indicate a manufacture date of 1977.
There are some things about this camera that would be very hard to fake, although nothing is impossible to fake in my opinion. The main thing is the lens coating which is blueish and does not seem to be the same color as a coating on either any Sputnik or Lubitel lens. But there are other small details that point to a small edition of an authentic Sputnik-2, probably made for export and with the main improvement over Sputnik being the lens which is a Multi-coated Triplet-23.
When you hold the camera in your hands and look at the details of the lenses, lens barrels, writing around the lens, and even the nameplates, it is hard to believe that this is a fake... although I am not 100% sure that it is not.
It is certainly not the same camera pictured in Princelle's 2nd edition as Sputnik-2, although to me that one looks a bit like a fake or maybe a hand-made prototype, with the logo painted right on the bakelite with spray-paint.
Maybe the original Sputnik-2 was never really made, but kept on hold until 1977 when a small edition with a new lens was made for export. More like a pre-series that was not successful and then discontinued. I am trying to find signs of a fake in the details, but so far, can't find any (but I keep looking ;-)).Here are two photos.
http://www.nightphoto.com/images/sput2b.jpg
http://www.nightphoto.com/images/sput2a.jpg
Regards, Bill
|
| okynek |
Posted - Nov 22 2007 : 10:55:11 AM
By the way that Crab fitting for Sputnik is amazing! Are you have it in your collection? can you put more pictures? |
| Vlad |
Posted - Nov 22 2007 : 10:54:50 AM
I waiting eagerly for Bill to chime in, he's got quite a lot to say on the subject. |
| okynek |
Posted - Nov 22 2007 : 10:52:20 AM
I’m second in motion that this is a fake camera. Not many camera prototypes dear to be engraved in English. Prototypes have to go thought KPSS approval. And Party leaders and they kissers did not like foreign signs, and specially in English. But it always room for exceptions. |
|
|
