| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Vlad |
Posted - Jul 27 2008 : 10:52:00 PM
Any ideas?
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/FED-nkvd-star.jpg
Vlad |
| 8 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 1:56:59 PM
OK, Vlad.
Anything else to test? 
Amitiés. Jacques. |
| James McGee |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 1:13:06 PM
Vlad,
I must agree, the relief does look very good indeed. It's almost a shame that the artist didn't work for Fed seventy five years ago.
Jacques is right, the more you look at the small amount of information available in the photo the more is wrong.
I hadn't noticed that the viefinder window is flush, and as Jacques points out this doesn't appear until much, much later than this serial number.
It's almost like one of those puzzles where you have to spot the ten deliberate mistakes!
I had discounted the serial number starting with a 3xxx because that would have made it a "Fed-1-a", and that should have totally different engraving, and no accessory shoe.
I had initially thought of it as being a "Fed-1-b", and that the serial number started 9xxx, but then Jacques pointed out that the engraving was wrong for that as well, and of course he is correct.
So this one piece of top plate that we can see is a real mongrel, and spans several types of Fed-1, all in one piece of metal. Perhaps it's a trick photo!!!
Very strange indeed, but one thing is for sure, the Hammer & Sickle is beautifully done.
Best wishes, Jim
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 12:34:43 PM
And serial # looks like 3214.. well done relief though! |
| Vlad |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 12:33:41 PM
LOL Ooooh You guys are of such low opinion of me ehehhehe... No I'm honestly not testing you guys, I've bumped into this image on Abramov's site, he is requesting more information about this image, and I thought I'd post it here if anyone had any ideas... obviously it seems like a homemade modification based on your responses, I wanted to find out this much, since we have all these FED experts here...
Vlad |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 12:27:10 PM
Hi Jim,
Perhaps you are right when you say that Vlad is testing us...
So I will add that there is something else strange on this camera. The window is "flush", which will appear only after # c. 10500/11000.
Really, that camera is not honest!
Amitiés. Jacques.
|
| James McGee |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 05:01:41 AM
Jacques,
I agree with what you say. The number is difficult to see, but I think it is 9214, which means a fairly early FED-1-b.
Also the picture is low resolution and shows only a small part of the camera, so we don't have too much information.
As we can see the serial number has only four digits, so I would guess the number is 9214, because the camera already has the accessory shoe, (if it were 3214 the engraving would not say NKVD-UkSSR, and there would be no accessory shoe)
The problem that I can see and as you point out is that the engraving is too big for this serial number. As I remember this engraving should not appear until close to serial number 40,000.
So again, something not quite right. Does anyone have any thoughts? Perhaps Vlad is trying to test us!!!!
Best wishes, Jim |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 04:19:19 AM
Nothing better, Jim!
But I'm dubious about the main engraving. I cannot read the exact serial number, but, if it is 3xxx, the engraving should be the one of an 1a.
If the # is 8xxx or 9xxx, the engraving should be the narrow 1b one (it's the large 1b one).
Amitiés. Jacques. |
| James McGee |
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 01:27:34 AM
Vlad,
All I can say is that this Hammer & Sickle seems to be a much later addition. The camera is a very early Fed-1 and I think that most of us are very familiar with this camera.
The engraving is done in "relief, which is also very unusual". So I think that this camera was possibly just embelished a long time ago by someone who simply had the ability, perhaps just to individualise the camera for themselves.
I don't think that this would have been done to make the camera into a formal gift or presentation because if that were the case there should have been some additional inscription to mark the occassion.
Of course these are just my personal thoughts, perhaps someone else has a better theory.
Best wishes, Jim. |
|
|
