| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| okynek |
Posted - Jul 22 2008 : 10:18:48 PM
http://cgi.ebay.com/Fed-38mm-f3-8-Stereo-Lens-for-Leica-Screw-Mount_W0QQitemZ360071703839QQihZ023QQcategoryZ3323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem |
| 42 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| cedricfan |
Posted - Oct 12 2008 : 07:13:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dmzi
2. Any sickle on the device is not present. There is a star and figure "5" in a circle. If you are familiar with the Soviet military coding, it means for air fleet.
Yours faithfully, dmzi
A bit OT but could anyone please tell me what part of army does "6" stand for inside a star? |
| James McGee |
Posted - Sep 20 2008 : 02:58:55 AM
I agree with Dmzi. Whoever knowingly sells a fake item regardless of what it is and does not declare that it is a fake is a cheat and a criminal.
Many of us are knowledgeable enough to realise that certain items offered for sale are definate fakes, and usually we don't buy them.
But there are people out there who are perhaps new to collecting Soviet photo equipment who could easily buy a fake thinking that it was the genuine article. If they did buy one of these items and later discovered that they had been cheated the experience could well put them off collecting for life.
So I for one would never encourage these rogues by buying anything from them.
Best wishes to everyone, Jim |
| dmzi |
Posted - Sep 20 2008 : 01:00:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by okynek
At list now price is reasonable for starters :)))
It is impossible to encourage the dealers with fakes, even if the fake costs 20 cents. Especially, when the seller does not write, that it is a fake!!!
dmzi |
| okynek |
Posted - Sep 19 2008 : 3:53:06 PM
At list now price is reasonable for starters :))) |
| Bull Halsey |
Posted - Sep 19 2008 : 1:03:01 PM
I've seen numerous offerings on eBay for the lens but I have yet to see a viewfinder offered with these lenses.
Has anyone seen one?
Steve |
| Vlad |
Posted - Sep 19 2008 : 09:39:11 AM
It's like those John Player specials made in Poland too, I'm sure they have made a ton of these as well. They got some kind of big operation over there faking Russian equipment, this is definitely not a small shop. These lenses show up every couple of month consistently.
Vlad |
| dmzi |
Posted - Sep 19 2008 : 01:06:54 AM
[quote]Originally posted by nightphoto
This lens sells very good for a fake! My understanding too that all of these FED-Stemar lenses are fakes made in Poland and that FED never really made a lens like this. They always look to be in great condition ... never any wear ;-)
Regards, Bill
Kind day by all!
Certainly, that is the Polish fake of doubts does not cause. But most interesting, that this item sell once again. Funny!
http://cgi.ebay.com/Fed-38mm-f3-8-Stereo-Lens-for-Leica-Screw-Mount_W0QQitemZ150296287559QQihZ005QQcategoryZ3323QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
dmzi |
| James McGee |
Posted - Aug 02 2008 : 12:54:35 AM
Hi Bill, Dmzi,
I don't know much about Soviet military photographic items, but I have been following your posts with interest, and I am learning all the time.
You have illustrated and demonstrated perfectly what the collecting of Soviet photo cameras and equipment is all about. I personally don't collect military items specifically, nevertheless the topic is interesting for me, and I suspect that most of us feel the same way.
So my best regards to you also from Baku, where it is extremely windy as usual.
Best wishes, Jim. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Aug 01 2008 : 11:44:31 AM
Hello dmzi !
You are right! Collecting is more interesting with the Soviet cameras just because these questions and discussions.
Thanks for your good observations and opinions about the camera ... maybe some more Soviet military cameras will come up for us to talk about!
my best regards to you from San Francisco, California where it is foggy as usual.
Regards, Bill
|
| dmzi |
Posted - Aug 01 2008 : 02:24:21 AM
quote:
Originally posted by nightphoto
Dear dmzi,
Thank you for those details from your examination of the camera. Of course without actually having the camera to see, or very good close-up photos of the details, I can not confidently argue about authenticity or not, and I can't even come to a confident conclusion myself.
However, I would say this:
1. I saw the back vulcanite removed and although that led me to the idea that the camera was a military item, I can also see that the idea of removing this area is a good thing for a forger to do because it makes the camera look authentic. Of course it would have been very helpful, as far as determining authenticity, if the military inscriptions were still in place, but I also realize that sometimes military markings are removed when the object is taken from the military. But if the back identification was removed, why would not the star and number 5 be removed also, since those engravings also identify the piece as belonging to the military?
2. I would very much like to see a close up photograph of the paper label inside the camera. Close examination of that label could be very helpful in reaching an opinion (which I know you have reached, but everyone needs to reach their own iopnion from the evidence and details).
3. Most likely a set made by the Air Force or Military would have the options of using all new items. So, for example, if the set was made for aerial photography by the Air force in 1976, all the lenses would also be from that year or close years ... not from 1956 (at least, although possible, I find it doubtful).
Also, what about the lens with the French designation "Fabrique en URSS" and the way that engraving looks to be faked from original writing (see original thread about this camera) that reads "Made in USSR"? Why would the military do such a thing or use a lens like that? Seems unusual to say the least.
4. I will take your word for the color of the camera matching other military items since you have much experience and have seen the camera in person instead of just photos, which can be deceptive as far as exact colors go. But military paint is not hard to get, or to match.
5. Many pieces of Soviet military photographic and other equipment was not painted green, when it was not intended to be on the field. Seems like the "star and 5" and the inscription on the back would easily designate it as military.
6. You are correct that just because other examples of cameras don't show up on the market (or have not yet shown up) does not mean they are fake. In fact I have a number of cameras that do not show up often, or ever that are not fake, for example Zorki-35M. So, I use this only as a good indication that further investigation of the details of the camera is necessary before deciding or having an opinion. In this case, because it is supposed to be a military piece, over 30 years old, it would seem likely that others like it would have existed (the Soviet Military was very large at that time) and would have been sold as surplus or just taken during the 1990s, and so would have appeared on the market. The other cameras that you mention are more like prototypes and so are not expected to be seen in large numbers ... but regular military cameras with no special attributes mechanically?
So thank you for the details and if you have some clear photos of this camera, or know who does, I know we would all like to see them! I have not made up a final opinion about the camera ... but still I think it might not be an authentic military issue Kiev and lenses. And as you say ... we are all entitled to our opinion ... and to change it.
Regards, Bill
Kind day, Bill!
Thank once again. Unfortunately, I only repaired the camera and did not make photos. The owner of the camera - my brother Anatoli Zi (bar90). But he has other sights on dialogue with the collectors and itself disposes of the collection, including manufacturing of photos of cameras. In this camera it is a lot of strange, as well as in many other products of the Soviet time, but you see in it and there is an interest of a collecting - to find out, to find, to argue.
Regards, dmzi
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Jul 31 2008 : 1:07:38 PM
Dear dmzi,
Thank you for those details from your examination of the camera. Of course without actually having the camera to see, or very good close-up photos of the details, I can not confidently argue about authenticity or not, and I can't even come to a confident conclusion myself.
However, I would say this:
1. I saw the back vulcanite removed and although that led me to the idea that the camera was a military item, I can also see that the idea of removing this area is a good thing for a forger to do because it makes the camera look authentic. Of course it would have been very helpful, as far as determining authenticity, if the military inscriptions were still in place, but I also realize that sometimes military markings are removed when the object is taken from the military. But if the back identification was removed, why would not the star and number 5 be removed also, since those engravings also identify the piece as belonging to the military?
2. I would very much like to see a close up photograph of the paper label inside the camera. Close examination of that label could be very helpful in reaching an opinion (which I know you have reached, but everyone needs to reach their own iopnion from the evidence and details).
3. Most likely a set made by the Air Force or Military would have the options of using all new items. So, for example, if the set was made for aerial photography by the Air force in 1976, all the lenses would also be from that year or close years ... not from 1956 (at least, although possible, I find it doubtful).
Also, what about the lens with the French designation "Fabrique en URSS" and the way that engraving looks to be faked from original writing (see original thread about this camera) that reads "Made in USSR"? Why would the military do such a thing or use a lens like that? Seems unusual to say the least.
4. I will take your word for the color of the camera matching other military items since you have much experience and have seen the camera in person instead of just photos, which can be deceptive as far as exact colors go. But military paint is not hard to get, or to match.
5. Many pieces of Soviet military photographic and other equipment was not painted green, when it was not intended to be on the field. Seems like the "star and 5" and the inscription on the back would easily designate it as military.
6. You are correct that just because other examples of cameras don't show up on the market (or have not yet shown up) does not mean they are fake. In fact I have a number of cameras that do not show up often, or ever that are not fake, for example Zorki-35M. So, I use this only as a good indication that further investigation of the details of the camera is necessary before deciding or having an opinion. In this case, because it is supposed to be a military piece, over 30 years old, it would seem likely that others like it would have existed (the Soviet Military was very large at that time) and would have been sold as surplus or just taken during the 1990s, and so would have appeared on the market. The other cameras that you mention are more like prototypes and so are not expected to be seen in large numbers ... but regular military cameras with no special attributes mechanically?
So thank you for the details and if you have some clear photos of this camera, or know who does, I know we would all like to see them! I have not made up a final opinion about the camera ... but still I think it might not be an authentic military issue Kiev and lenses. And as you say ... we are all entitled to our opinion ... and to change it.
Regards, Bill
|
| dmzi |
Posted - Jul 31 2008 : 12:06:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by nightphoto
Hi dmzi,
I believe there were a number of opinions about this camera, based on the photos that were on Ebay before it was sold. Some of the differing opinions can be read about the camera (if we are talking about the same one ... the one with a lens marked "Fabrique en URSS").
You can read the thread for that camera here:
http://www.ussrphoto.com/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=365&SearchTerms=military,kiev
As you can see ... originally I thought it may be authentic, but now I think it is not, due to many details about it.
Here are some reasons that make me doubtful:
1.Jupiter-12 lens has an export markings "Fabrique en URSS" (Why would a Soviet Army camera have French Export Engraving?).
2. It was a 1976 Kiev, with an early 1957 KMZ-made J-9, and an Export J-12, all painted the same color. (Why would Soviet Army put this group of equipment together, from different times, and then paint it ll the same? ... why not just all new equipment ... all 1976 for example?).
3. I would think that if a camera was to be used by the Soviet Army, say in a combat zone, where it may have been painted dull green so as not to shine or reflect in the light, then the chrome winding knobs will be painted green too, especially since the chrome lenses are painted!
4. Why would it have no "KIEV" logo, but still have the Arsenal logo on the accessory shoe? If they want it not to be identified with a factory then it would have no logo.
5. The paint did not look up to Soviet Military standards. It did not appear to be baked on paint ... instead, just enamel paint, easy to flake off with a little use. I have seen many Soviet Army equipment pieces and the paint does not flake off. Also, the green paint appears to be a lighter shade of olive green than other military objects that have geen paint from that era of Soviet Army equipment.
6. Why do we not see more Soviet Army Kievs? If there is one authentic example, there must have been many used in the huge Soviet Army. Where are any others? My guess is that the Army used standard Kievs.
My question to you would be ... What are the actual specific details why you think it was authentic? Where there details that are not present on regular Kievs from that time. Interior military engravings? Or, just that it was green and had a hammer, sickle, and star engraved on the front plate?
Regards, Bill
ThankS Bill for the stated opinion, but:
1. On a back cover of the camera the table is removed, on which the militarians usually wrote purpose of a product, number of a party and number of military acceptance. What for at manufacturing a fake to spoil a leather on a back cover. Not logically?
2. Any sickle on the device is not present. There is a star and figure "5" in a circle. If you are familiar with the Soviet military coding, it means for air fleet. In the given situation for air photography. To what the paper label inside the camera testifies also.
3. Most likely it is a part of a complete set, which was prepared for air photography and contained still any adaptations.
4. The colouring lens and camera completely corresponds to colour used for military devices. Through my hands thousand units of the electronic equipment for the militarian of that time have passed.
5. The colour is applied to such products not for masking, as you write, and for a designation of an belonging of the device to the given category (military production). Therefore of sense to paint over chrome of a part is not present. It not for investigation in field conditions.
6. The absence that, or other device on sale on auctions, as you write, is not an attribute of a fake in general. For example, you will challenge originality SMENA - E because it does not meet on sale? SMENA - 20? Or ZENIT - M?
However, everyone has the right to the opinion.
Yours faithfully, dmzi |
| cedricfan |
Posted - Jul 30 2008 : 11:31:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by nightphoto
3. I would think that if a camera was to be used by the Soviet Army, say in a combat zone, where it may have been painted dull green so as not to shine or reflect in the light, then the chrome winding knobs will be painted green too, especially since the chrome lenses are painted!
Very good point!
As you may know I am a fan of USSR-MC and we have many KMZ-Dneprs (KMZ here being Kiev Motor Zavod, Ukraina) here in my region of Finland. Several of them are army versions, and I am always amazed how much effort was done to have normally chromed details silverpainted in them! Another thing is the star-symbol stamped to practically every part.
So if the army wanted these to be made like that why would a camera be any different. Like Bill says.
Smena rules |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Jul 30 2008 : 3:34:50 PM
Hi dmzi,
I believe there were a number of opinions about this camera, based on the photos that were on Ebay before it was sold. Some of the differing opinions can be read about the camera (if we are talking about the same one ... the one with a lens marked "Fabrique en URSS").
You can read the thread for that camera here:
http://www.ussrphoto.com/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=365&SearchTerms=military,kiev
As you can see ... originally I thought it may be authentic, but now I think it is not, due to many details about it.
Here are some reasons that make me doubtful:
1.Jupiter-12 lens has an export markings "Fabrique en URSS" (Why would a Soviet Army camera have French Export Engraving?).
2. It was a 1976 Kiev, with an early 1957 KMZ-made J-9, and an Export J-12, all painted the same color. (Why would Soviet Army put this group of equipment together, from different times, and then paint it ll the same? ... why not just all new equipment ... all 1976 for example?).
3. I would think that if a camera was to be used by the Soviet Army, say in a combat zone, where it may have been painted dull green so as not to shine or reflect in the light, then the chrome winding knobs will be painted green too, especially since the chrome lenses are painted!
4. Why would it have no "KIEV" logo, but still have the Arsenal logo on the accessory shoe? If they want it not to be identified with a factory then it would have no logo.
5. The paint did not look up to Soviet Military standards. It did not appear to be baked on paint ... instead, just enamel paint, easy to flake off with a little use. I have seen many Soviet Army equipment pieces and the paint does not flake off. Also, the green paint appears to be a lighter shade of olive green than other military objects that have geen paint from that era of Soviet Army equipment.
6. Why do we not see more Soviet Army Kievs? If there is one authentic example, there must have been many used in the huge Soviet Army. Where are any others? My guess is that the Army used standard Kievs.
My question to you would be ... What are the actual specific details why you think it was authentic? Where there details that are not present on regular Kievs from that time. Interior military engravings? Or, just that it was green and had a hammer, sickle, and star engraved on the front plate?
Regards, Bill
|
| dmzi |
Posted - Jul 30 2008 : 1:17:02 PM
Of course with military items the situation can become more complex as they are not as likely, and maybe unlikely to be written up in journals and books of the day, and the materials used (for example the green paint on the "Military Kiev" is not as familiar to everyone in general. Still, my opinion about the Military Kiev that was on Ebay a few months ago is that it was not an authentic Army Kiev.
My best wishes to, all as well, especially to Jim and Zoom!
Regards, Bill
Hi, Bill!
It is interesting, what you has allowed to reach such conclusion about "Military Kiev"? I not only held this Kiev, but also repaired it. I can tell, that you are mistaken concerning its authenticity.
Regards, dmzi
[/quote] |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Jul 30 2008 : 10:23:33 AM
Okynek,
Sure you can forge both a camera and papers. Maybe it will be easier to make fake papers than a fake camera. But ... it will be easier to tell the fake paper than the fake camera. That is why you don't see faked papers. They are eay to tell that they are fake. You do see faked cameras and lenses because it is harder to tell a fake.
Zoom is correct. It is only easy to forge bad looking paper, manuals and boxes. To make authentic looking documentation is nearly impossible.
The fakes are made to sell and make money. Look at FED Stemar and you can see that it would not be so hard to make considering the money you can get. Same with Zorki-250. These things were picked from the many Leitz accessories to make because it is fairly easily possible and they will be attractive to collectors. Other items are not so attractive or hard to make. We will probably see new things pop up on the market since these two do so well. Look at the John Player Special cigarette pack camera ... first made in Poland in the 1980s ... sold well ... now made again in larger quantities! As they say with any mystery or crime ... follow the money!
Regards, Bill
|
| Zoom |
Posted - Jul 30 2008 : 06:16:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by okynek
IMHO forging papers is much easy then fabricating camera.
Continue deluding yourself...
I know the required technologies. As for me, I can design and make a fake camera or a fake lenses, I can fabricate a text, but I can't print an "old-looking" documentation...
Why? Because a camera falsification demands usual machine tools which are available, but a document falsification demands those technologies which already are not present for a long time...
|
| okynek |
Posted - Jul 29 2008 : 11:18:29 PM
IMHO forging papers is much easy then fabricating camera.
If master can fabricate camera then he find ways to fabricate papers if desire.
Forge camera is practically impossible. Forge papers are possible. That is why absents of papers is strange to me. Absents of papers is actually give me hope that this items may have some original roots. And for Zorky 250... it has so much wrong staff for fake camera..... I really hope that same day we will find some prove. May be it is only a dream
The main question for me why only few items(FED-Stereo, Zorki-250) was faked from 100th of accessories made by Leitz?
I do not have answers, just speculations. May be because some work was done to fabricate them in Russia? May be even on prototypes stage? May be some tinkers made them "at the kitchen table" 50-70 years ago, and created urban legends?
Hard to believe that some shadow guys in Gdansk or on Arbat in 90th just decided to fake them out of the blue.
|
| Zoom |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 8:17:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by James McGee
I really can't imagine that they would take the passport to an expert and pay money to have it checked to see if it was genuine. If it looked okay I'm sure they would just accept it as being authentic.
I agree with you, but: only if this passport-manual "looked okay".
1. Paper must be old (this is visible without any experts). -- This is difficult, but possible.
2. Passport must be made using the relief printing technology (is visible too). -- This is very difficult.
3. "Counterfeiter" must have an original old fonts (and know an old typesetter to make a manual typesetting ;). -- This is very difficult, impossible out from FSU countries.
4. He must have old-style clips. -- Possible in Russia.
5. He must write a text, contents of the fake passport-manual. Do not forget that our "fake item" was never exist. -- This is very, very difficult. An author must know Russian very well.
...
Cost of this fake papers will exceed all conceivable limits...
And all this our "counterfeiter" must do to sell a fake thing to the naive buyer who does not see a coated lenses? ;)
For what??
Remember Ockham's Razor: "Non sunt entia multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"... |
| James McGee |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 1:46:49 PM
Bill, Zoom, and everyone,
It's way past my bedtime, but I wanted to reply before going to bed, (or I may not be able to sleep ).
Bill, I accept all that you say with regard to forging documents, though I was thnking only of the passport and not the boxes or manuals.
My only comment about what you say is that if someone pays a few hundred dollars for a camera with a passport, and perhaps an "original" purchase slip. I really can't imagine that they would take the passport to an expert and pay money to have it checked to see if it was genuine. If it looked okay I'm sure they would just accept it as being authentic.
But this is all academic, and I know I'm repeating myself when I say that my real point is that there would have been some mention in the press, or some other reference or article written at the time. Of course this would be an historic record, and cannot be faked.
So I would be very suspicious of any item which has appeared in recent years, but has no pedigree or historical basis.
Best wishes, and regards, Jim.
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 12:51:07 PM
Of course anything is possible to fake, including paperwork, and hypothetically printed boxes. I have never seen any successful attempts at faked papers or boxes. The way you will be able to tell is that when a piece of equipment seems like it could be a fake (because it is not written up in contemporary literature, and other suspicions arise) any papers, boxes or manual will be more closely examined. Yes, you can use old paper, but the old paper from a book will not be the same as old paper from a government document or factory passport. It will be detectable from comparisons between authentic items from the factory and the suspected fake works. And, how to make the ink surface look oxidized in reflected light or not show lack of florescence under ultra-violet light as an original 70 year old document will do? How to replicate the exact halftone pattern of the printing on the box when those presses that made the 70 year old box labels and printing no longer exist? Fakes of printed paper are among the easiest objects to authenticate ... not like in the movies where the border guards and police just don't notice the fake papers after a quick inspection. If paers or printing are examined closely, fakes will be detected.
With paintings and other objects, many times the best fakes are not 100% detectable and the situation comes down to a preponderance of opinion by experts and the way the evidence points. So, over time this preponderance can even change, along with the "official" opinion of the experts.
With the cameras it can be a bit more simple, due to the smaller values of most of them. So, is it worth making an entire manual, entire box, and a passport for a "FED-Stemar"? Probably not, (especially since they sell well, even when most believe they are fakes as many collectors of Russian cameras collect fakes too .. same with the FED Sport which sells well at high prices).
So, although I agree with Jim that items like FED Stemar and FED-Sport have a large degree of suspicion attached to them as they are not mentioned in literature of the time as far as we know, if it was easy to forge papers, boxes and manuals that would pass close examination, it would probably have been done and then the items would bring even higher prices.
In the end, it is probably fair to say that with FED-Sport and FED Stemar Lens, there is no real evidence, either documents, passports, manuals, boxes, or mention of them in contemporary literature of the 1930s - 1950s, and there are many things about the camera and the lens themselves that don't add up ... which does add up to a preponderance of experts thinking they are not period and authentic items from the FED Zavod.
Of course with military items the situation can become more complex as they are not as likely, and maybe unlikely to be written up in journals and books of the day, and the materials used (for example the green paint on the "Military Kiev" is not as familiar to everyone in general. Still, my opinion about the Military Kiev that was on Ebay a few months ago is that it was not an authentic Army Kiev.
My best wishes to, all as well, especially to Jim and Zoom!
Regards, Bill
|
| James McGee |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 11:42:51 AM
Hi Zoom,
I appreciate your comments, but I think we are getting away from the point.
The main message I want to get over is that to show that a rare item such as the "Fed-Stereo" lens ever existed and was available to buy there must have been something written about it somewhere in the press. I can't imagine an item like this going on sale and nothing ever being written about it in any book or journal.
The same goes for the so called "Fed-Sport". Photography was very popular among Soviet people, and the introduction of something like the "Fed-Stereo" lens would have caused a sensation at the time.
So what I'm saying is that if an article about a certain photographic item was never written and doesn't exist, then in all probability neither does the photographic item in question.
You say that all known fakes never had passports, or any other documentation. I don't know if this is true or not, but if the fake and the passport were done well enough, they would pass for genuine and no one would be ever be any wiser.
I have high respect for what you say and the depth of your knowledge, and the same goes for Bill, but I believe that both your good self and Bill are mistaken when you say that the documentaion for a camera or lens would be too difficult to fake.
I'm not qualified to say for sure, but my instincts tell me that these documents would be relatively easy for a skilled forger to produce.
Bill says, Quote: "It may be easy to fake new paper objects, but to make them look old is difficult". I don't agree, a good forger would probably just use old paper! There are plenty of sixty and seventy year old books for sale everywhere.
And the forger doesn't even need to copy anything. The item being faked never existed, and neither did the pasport, he can invent a new one as long as it is in keeping with the general style of the manufacturer. Make no mistake, from what I have seen recently these people can be very clever, skilful, and cunning,"хитрый" (Heedri).
But I too digress and am drifting away from my main point, and that is that for items such as these they would surely have been well documented at the time they were on sale, and if that documentation doesn't exist then in all probability neither did the item.
Best wishes to all, but especially to Zoom and to Bill
|
| Zoom |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 09:24:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by James McGee
...how could you know?
All known real fakes had nothing documents. Besides: all doubtful things had no documents too!.. |
| James McGee |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 07:09:11 AM
Zoom,
With all due respect, if as you say "I never saw forged passports, or any other faked papers", how could you know?
best wishes, Jim. |
| Zoom |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 07:03:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dmzi
I studied this Kiev and, as the man REALLY working on a military factory, I can tell, that it is an original paint used in that time on Soviet Military Equipment.
What camera you are talking about? |
| Zoom |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 06:57:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by James McGee
Perhaps it's difficult to do, but nevertheless passports, receipts, and boxes can all be faked.
Only one objection: I never saw a forged passports nor any other faked papers... ;) |
| dmzi |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 02:11:58 AM
quote:
Originally posted by nathandayton
Let me throw in this. I am ex-military intelligence and am very dubious about the "Military" Kievs because the paint color does not match the standard colors for Soviet Military Equipment. Any of you who have been in the military know that they are pains in the ass about this sort of thing!
I studied this Kiev and, as the man REALLY working on a military factory, I can tell, that it is an original paint used in that time on Soviet Military Equipment. Besides the form of drawing such as assignment and classification, corresponds to assignment: for air photography. |
| James McGee |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 01:12:25 AM
Bill,
I totally agree that the best way to authenticate items such as the Fed stereo lens, and the Zorki-250 is through contemporary literature of the time.
Perhaps it's difficult to do, but nevertheless passports, receipts, and boxes can all be faked.
Literature of the period cannot be faked, and an item or article about a certain piece of photo equipment is a historic factual document that can be irrefutable proof that the said item existed. Contemporary literature is historic hard evidence that cannot be questioned.
On the other hand if an item is offered for sale and there is no reference or hard evidence of it's existence in any literature of the time then we should be very suspicious.
During the past few months there have been quite a few items of dubious authenticity showing up either at shops, or auction sites. For example the so called "Fed-Sport".
The Fed-Stereo lens is another. This was supposedly on open sale and would have been well documented in books and articles if it existed.
Best wishes, Jim. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Jul 27 2008 : 3:43:41 PM
I agree with Zoom. For a living I am an art and antiques dealer for 30 years and I am very familiar with fakes and reproductions of many objects. It is very difficult to fake papers. Much more difficult to fake the age and details of papers and original boxes than it is to make a fake object and to make an object appear old. Many times it is easy to be fooled by an object, but almost never by paper objects.
It may be easy to fake new paper objects, but to make them look old is difficult. To fake an original box, passport for camera / lens, or especially an original box would be almost impossible.
Also, something like the Zorki-250 or this FED stereo lens would almost certainly have been mentioned in an issue of Sovetskoe Foto or one of the many Soviet books about photographic equipment.
Regards, Bill
|
| Zoom |
Posted - Jul 27 2008 : 2:25:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by okynek
As you may know forging of papers is much easy then forge camera or lens.
Sorry... NO! You are mistaken.
Paper, inks, fonts, points (Russia and a West countries uses differing typographic measurement systems*), relief printing technology, text: contents and style, clips, etc... This is a high level of a falsification...
*) -- now, with a computer-based typography, it is not so important... |
| okynek |
Posted - Jul 27 2008 : 12:43:20 PM
Well, Leitz ideas were prototypes for most if not all of Zorki and FED staff. It is not the point. Discovery of documentation certainly would help. But it would also raise questions about ethnicity of such documentation. As you may know forging of papers is much easy then forge camera or lens. In fact if I would think to make fake camera or lens to sell for big $$, I would start from forging paperwork before taking on fabrication of the camera/lens. Absents of documentation is argument to certain extends because from 100th cameras sold on eBay only few have manuals or pastor survived. So if only few such attachments were ever made, all papers may be lost. Statistically speaking we need to find 100th such attachments before we can find one passport or manuals.
Again, absents of documentation is a strong point. But it does not means that we have to discard completely possibilities of existing authentic FED Stereo attachment, or Zorki 250, or other stuff. I believe we have to be skeptical when we find such unusual staff, but at the same time we have to keep our eyes open.
From my experience working in Soviet industry from 10 completed projects less then 1 made to production. And countless unfinished projects were neglected and forgotten. With all documentation destroyed. Can this item be one of such unfortunate projects?
Just look on Ladoga, or GOMZ-Stereo, or other unusual cameras in Wiki.
I strongly believe it could be more mystery in these items. And I hope we will discover them soon!
And, honestly, I still thinking that that Zorki 250 you mentioned has stories to tell. Too many strange staff was added to it, That contradict with simple intentions to forge and sell camera for a profit.
All above is just my personal opinion.
|
| Zoom |
Posted - Jul 26 2008 : 5:47:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by okynek
...But I was thinking - you can't get smoke without fire, if fake lenses show up, it must be original somewhere?? At list prototypes should exist?
Yes: exist. Leitz Stemar. ;)
The same story is a story about "Zorki-250" ("Reporter")...
The best way to authenticate something: to find a documentation (User manual, packaging, etc.). |
| nathandayton |
Posted - Jul 26 2008 : 3:31:55 PM
Let me throw in this. I am ex-military intelligence and am very dubious about the "Military" Kievs because the paint color does not match the standard colors for Soviet Military Equipment. Any of you who have been in the military know that they are pains in the ass about this sort of thing! |
| okynek |
Posted - Jul 25 2008 : 11:52:56 PM
Well, it bought yesterday by known to us yuriy1974 for $641( + shipping). (yuriy1974 was winner of green Military Kiev )
Congratulation Yuriy ones again!
|
| James McGee |
Posted - Jul 25 2008 : 10:53:47 PM
Hi everybody,
Okynek, I must say that I'm pleased you posted this topic. I didn't know that these fakes existed, and if you hadn't made this post I might even have bought one!
So thanks for the warning. This is one item that shall remain absent from my Fed collection.
Best wishes, Jim. |
| okynek |
Posted - Jul 25 2008 : 10:33:15 PM
I agreed with all this. But I was thinking - you can't get smoke without fire, if fake lenses show up, it must be original somewhere?? At list prototypes should exist? |
| nathandayton |
Posted - Jul 25 2008 : 12:37:10 PM
I also believe all of these lenses to be fakes. To me the telling factors are: the lenses themselves are from Smenas, they are all in "like new" condition, there is no viewfinder and there is no documentation. The lack of documentation is telling! There should be pre-war mention in the literature of such an important piece! Considering that other items have shown up with boxes and docs(I have several myself), it strains belief that, considering what they would have cost, these would not show up boxed with instructions! |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Jul 25 2008 : 10:22:19 AM
This lens sells very good for a fake! My understanding too that all of these FED-Stemar lenses are fakes made in Poland and that FED never really made a lens like this. They always look to be in great condition ... never any wear ;-)
Regards, Bill
|
| Zoom |
Posted - Jul 25 2008 : 06:10:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by okynek
Fed stereo lens. Fake or original? How to know?
It's easy: most probably that ALL this lenses are a fakes. ;) |
| James McGee |
Posted - Jul 25 2008 : 03:35:44 AM
All I can say is, Looks pretty good, and would certainly have fooled me if it wasn't genuine!
Regards, Jim. |
| Vlad |
Posted - Jul 23 2008 : 1:35:00 PM
So far all I've seen 3 or 4 were homemade Poland versions. |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Jul 23 2008 : 12:59:52 PM
A very good item dated presumibly from pre war era.
But observe: Coated lenses. This could be a strong point of a probable fake. There are some from Poland in which the scale focus are only representative and have no function at all. Lenses came from Smena.
LP |
|
|
