| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 09:09:54 AM
Another one Viktor sent me, he may have information about it, but decided not to tell me what it is in his email probably to stir up discussion, let's see what members come up with.. my guess is - some kind of Ayaks-9 variation?? The year seems right - 1949.. any thoughts?
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/DSC_0033_resize.JPG
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/DSC_0035_resize.JPG
|
| 53 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 23 2008 : 11:12:52 PM
Zoom, just my personal opinion, but I do think there is overwhelming evidence here with a few pictures of the different camera samples that are quite different from the original Robot based on experts opinions plus Viktor's (Even though there is a doubt that it may have been repainted) plus the one he mentions that another person has just like it (which I believe without a doubt, plus Viktor promised photos of that one as well).. which leads me to believe that there is in fact a series of these cameras.. I think your counterpoints are strong but not enough to outweigh the other evidence.. I am just playing a common juror here like a court of law where both sides present evidence and arguments.. so far I'm leaning towards authenticity  .
Vlad |
| stephanvdz |
Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 08:00:44 AM
sorry I had only a normal robot II to compare...
Stephan |
| stephanvdz |
Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 07:57:28 AM
so I agree some luftwaffe robot have the rounded flim chamber parts also... (or vice versa)... I lways thougt that luftawaffe robots were plain robot II (who have normal chambers)...
and I agree that luftrobot have simplified mount (whit a recessed part) like the "russian robot"...
but the winder barel is still different...
We definitivly need to open both an original and a "russian" one to look for significative difference...
with all those new evidence, I really think that russian robots are rebuild or reconditionned units... more than full copies.
Stephan |
| Zoom |
Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 07:48:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Victor Suglob
This article will dissipate doubts about that camera, which I have.
Nothing is dissipated...
Victor's camera is black, camera from that article is "white"...
Victor's camera has no plant logo. As for me -- it is impossible to forgot engrave it...
It is better to Victor to send more detailed photos of his camera... Especially: an "insides" and the place, where in original Robot the serial number is engraved.
About an article from magazine "Sibirskiy Uspekh": long article... but nothing about a history of this camera. A twaddle round about a special aero-cameras, but nothing more...
Of course, Victor had not a plant to make a fake cameras. But he is mistaken that there are no counterfeiters... |
| Zoom |
Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 06:25:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Luiz Paracampo
... Robotsky ...
Btw. the word "Robot" is Slavonic -- from Chech "robota" (in Russian -- "rabota") -- labor, work. So, "Robot" ~> "Worker".
Adding -sky to "Robot" has no sense in anyway... :P |
| Zoom |
Posted - Dec 15 2008 : 06:10:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Luiz Paracampo
I believe the second logo on the binocular was the first Novosibirsk Pribori Zavod logo (around 1942) Zoom with the word...
I know this logo, but the "owner" still not identified...
|
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Dec 14 2008 : 8:09:51 PM
Delight yourselves at:
http://www.robot-camera.de/ROBOT_Kameras/Spezial-Kameras/RoBoT_Prototypen/robot_prototypen.html
An interesting prtotype with identical interior but without registration marks at
30768-4
see variations at
http://www.robot-camera.de/ROBOT_Kameras/Robot_II/robot_ii.html
and finally suspect about original robot parts.
This was completely possible oncein 1949 Germany was paying War debts.
LP |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Dec 14 2008 : 7:50:34 PM
Bill
A good find! Unhappily we cannot see the internal of the camera.
In the pages of Suglob we see the internal of Robotsky and one can see the four pins in the frame. This is the main difference of Robots between Luftawaffe and non-Luftwaffe. This interior exactly reproduces Luftwaffe Robots of 1942. The springs of the single and double wind are also exactly the same; but the double spring really has two decks of springs coupled between them using the same single ratchet lock on both. By this reason the button is double tall
The Russian version is slightly different. When repairing those cameras with the stuck shutter it is extremely dangerous opening the tower because frequently people wound the spring to the maximum.
May be Russians could have solved this prolem with a different tower design.
LP |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Dec 14 2008 : 7:25:26 PM
Thanks for the proper history of the factories Zoom!
Here is a link that shows lots of photos of Robot Luftwaffen. You can see that the lens mount is identical between Soviet Robot and Luftwaffen Robot. (Click on 2nd small image).
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/3634577#
Also, seems that these Soviet Robots would have been used with a normal lens for normal shooting if they sometimes came with a leather case with neckstrap (as shown in the article) but probably could have also been useful for other purposes (microscope, medical, etc.)so maybe the lens on Viktor's camera is a special purpose lens, or maybe just added later.
Thanks for the possible ID of the factory logo for my binoculars Luiz!
Regards, Bill
|
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Dec 14 2008 : 7:13:25 PM
Simply FANTASTIC !!!!!! All this Robotsky history !!!!!
These cameras could be rebuilt after the war from original exceeding parts from Luftwaffe Robot, the same way first run of Kievs were built from Contax parts. I know well these Luftwaffe cameras and main parts are identical.
OK - There are many things in between the Heavens and the Earth than we could know....
I believe the second logo on the binocular was the first Novosibirsk Pribori Zavod logo (around 1942) Zoom with the word...
LP |
| stephanvdz |
Posted - Dec 14 2008 : 6:56:56 PM
what is logical for me is that those cameras where made with some robot parts, and that the first step was copying robots, then may be simplifying or upgrading the model. There was no immediate need in producing robots-like cameras since robots (luftwaffe or others) were available as war surplus or recuperations (more than 30000 were produced for german military purpose). but those reconditioned cameras (?) were useful for the development of further projects...
It's also a known fact that robot cameras were used by a lot of secret services around the world ... west or east... stasi-robots are known, there is even a robot camera hidden in a flexaret case and shooting through the rewind button (the ultimate tribute to E-A Poe, a camera hidden in a camera)... I wonder if those cameras were bought through parrallel market or directly at the "western" factory ? (robots were not classified equipment ?).
I definitively think that the lens mount of this camera (the one we are all talking about) is not a standard robot mount... but a direct attachment for a something that is not a lens... please show a frontal picture of the camera and thing...
Stephan |
| Zoom |
Posted - Dec 14 2008 : 6:31:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by nightphoto
In Princelle, it says KOMZ has been making lenses since the early 1950s. I thought the article says that the GOMZ factory was evacuated to Kazan (the City), rather than to KOMZ (the factory that was in that City). Maybe, if that is correct, then that was the start of KOMZ. Maybe Zoom knows this history?
GOMZ ("GOMZ imeni OGPU", in that time has number 349) was never evacuated from Leningrad! ;) But indeed, near the half of this plant (equipment and a service staff) was transferred (during July-August, 1945) to Kazan to KOMZ (in that time this plant was in a building stage -- founded in 08.02.1940). In October 1941 KOMZ made the first serial production -- the binoculars B-6. During the war plant also made a lenses. So: Princelle and Tumazov are not correct... ;) |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 14 2008 : 4:07:53 PM
Bill, that actually makes perfect sense about this being a precursor the Leningrad!
Thanks so much for your analysis!
Cheers,
Vlad |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Dec 14 2008 : 2:32:14 PM
Hi Vlad,
In general, I am leaning for authenticity of the camera, especially if the round pieces visible from the interior views of the back are not present on the original Robot cameras.
Also, it has occurred to me that the time frame is correct for the development by GOMZ of a motorized camera, since they eventually, a few years later, did develop the Leningrad and its prototype models. Some of the fittings do look right for GOMZ and the body covering can also look right for that company.
The last photo of the one in the article, shown with the case, is also convincing as it is somewhat fragmentary or missing parts, which is not what you will usually see when a series of fakes is produced (then they will all be complete).
So all in all, I am thinking that the cameras are authentic, although I'm still a bit doubtful as to whether or not Viktor's camera has had a replaced top and engraving, and lens, maybe (although photos can be deceptive as we have found out before .. so maybe it is original too).
There would be good reason for the military to have a camera like this, and it may lead to GOMZ starting work on a project of the eventual Leningrad.
Regards, Bill
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 14 2008 : 1:58:24 PM
So Bill so what do you think about the authenticity of the camera right now accounting for all the other evidence? Just myself I am leaning heavily to Viktor's position that the camera was indeed produced in some kind of small quantities, there is overwhelming evidence of the other cameras existing and significant modifications performed to each of thiose to differ for Luftwaffe version..
Also regarding your question of references, I've went through the article again, and these numbers like [1], [2] and so on are not provided to any portions when Robot is mentioned, but provided for other cameras... there is also a disclaimer on top of the article saying that all this are educated deductions and article is not to be taken as a solid source...
but the number of facts in my opinion outweigh the claim that these are all fakes...
Just my position for the record before I leave you guys for a wekk, I've been hesitant to express it before I hear everyone's opinions..
Cheers, everyone play nice while I'm gone, Bill is in charge.
Vlad |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Dec 13 2008 : 6:49:53 PM
But ... TSVVS does also make the logo in the same way as Soviet Robot ... so maybe there are variations allowed!
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/P1012334.JPG
Regards, Bill
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Dec 13 2008 : 6:32:14 PM
Here is a photo of the logo on some military binoculars from the same period. A different maker, not KMZ and not GOMZ ... unknown to me, but as you can see the Soviet Army insignia is drawn with all one outline also. I believe that this is how military engraving of this symbol was designated to be ... and not another way as on these cameras ... but just my opinion...
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/bino1.jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/bino4.jpg
Regards, Bill
|
| nightphoto |
Posted - Dec 13 2008 : 6:26:01 PM
In Princelle, it says KOMZ has been making lenses since the early 1950s. I thought the article says that the GOMZ factory was evacuated to Kazan (the City), rather than to KOMZ (the factory that was in that City). Maybe, if that is correct, then that was the start of KOMZ. Maybe Zoom knows this history?
Vlad, are these historical time-related references related to the camera we are talking about, or the other cameras in the article.
Here is a photo of a SPORT case I have. It is similar in that it has the device on the bottom to screw the camera into that is the same, however, I think KIEV also has that same device design and so that may have more to do with who makes the case than the factory the camera came from. In some ways the case for this Robot camera looks more like a Kiev case (the overall design).
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/6d6c_1.JPG
Because the interior design is different than a Robot (if this is the case, since I don't have the Robot and I'm not familiar with the interior design of it) then that may towards authenticity of the ones pictured in the article, but it seems that the camera we are shown of Viktor's may have been changed.
Also, I still have some doubts about all of them as I have noticed that the 'hammer and sickle' design is odd. If you look at the photo of the Photosniper FS-2 on page 172 of Princelle (also see page 202 ... the periscope), you can see that the hammer and sickle are drawn with one single outline, while on the supposed Soviet Robot this important insignia is drawn with a separate outline for the sickle, making it look like it is in front of the hammer. I think this is what has been making the logo look very odd and not authentic on all of these cameras pictured!
Regards, Bill
|
| stephanvdz |
Posted - Dec 13 2008 : 3:51:48 PM
I don't have the leather case of the sport (and I'm still looking for a cartridge...)
i'll check for the robot case...
Stephan |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 13 2008 : 2:51:39 PM
Bill, yes it does say while GOMZ was evacuated to KOMZ, or maybe that just meant KOMZ... It is puzzling...
Regarding references, there are quite a few stated, the ones that do come to attention and time period related (besides all known books that we are aware of like McKeown and Yakovlev) are
[3] A nomenclature reference of Aerophoto Services inventory 1949 Voyenizdat(Military publication)
[5] 50 years of GOI a collection of 1968
[11] Yudovina T.S. GOI Museum
Bill, Stephan what do you think about the leather case shown with that no-number Camera? Stephan, does that look like a Robot case? BillI I believe you have a Sport with a leather case, does not case resemble what is show on the photo?
I seems that we have established that quite a few of these cameras existed, 1 in Viktor's collection, another one in the hands of the ex-KGB officer (to which Viktor attests to the authentic roots of this camera, since supposedly it's been in his possession for years..) and the 2 cameras shown in the article...
Vlad. |
| stephanvdz |
Posted - Dec 13 2008 : 1:54:51 PM
so a robotsky would have :
- a different spring winder cover
- some rounded parts inside underneath the spring winder (simplified film chamber)
- and i suppose that the viewfinder eyepiece are different (not a plain round piece)...
otherwise everything looks robot
Stephan |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Dec 13 2008 : 1:09:45 PM
Well, this is very interesting. I'm not sure where the magazine "Siberian Success" has obtained their information, however, if the article was written in 2003, there is some possibility that they can be writing about a non-authentic camera. I only have some questions about the article because according to Vlad's initial translation, the article says that "... while GOMZ was evacuated to Kazan during the war, a lot of different German technology was brought there ...". As far I have read, GOMZ was in Leningrad during the whole war and ever since. It is because of the 900 day Seige of Leningrad that the original GOI Fotosniper started to be made at KMZ, and Princelle states that when the war was over German camera parts were distributed to the different Soviet factories, including Optiko-Mechanical Engineers that were delivered to GOMZ in Leningrad.
So, although I don't read Russian and so can't comment directly on the accuracy of the article, I would like to see references for the article. In the past I have read many things about Soviet cameras that were not true, but were published in recent magazines and web sites.
Has anyone else ever heard that GOMZ was relocated to Kazan during the war?
But this article, because of the interior photos, as Stephan says, does point towards a direction of some authenticity of the camera shown in the article ... but maybe Viktor's black-top example, as Vlad says, has had restoration using a Robot Luftwaffen top-plate as a replacement for a missing one (no GOMZ logo either).
Also, to Viktor ... I am sure that no one here thinks that he personally would ever be faking cameras! We all know him to be honorable and honest to the highest degree. We sometimes only question the authenticity of a camera ... never the honesty of Viktor.
Regards, Bill
|
| stephanvdz |
Posted - Dec 13 2008 : 12:29:47 PM
now we have a clue... inside the chamber is different from german robots... no round part inside in a german robot... if there are those round things in this robotsky, it's not a fake...
Very interesting article even if I don't read russian.
Stephan |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 13 2008 : 11:51:07 AM
In short, this article says that while GOMZ was evacuated to Kazan during the war, a lot of different German technology was brought there, so the Soviet version of the Robot was developed in limited quantities. But the author of the article still does not know what these cameras were developed for, whether it was spy or military application like connecting to military equipment. And that it was based as Stephan and Luiz indicated correctly on the Robot Luftwaffe. The camera was made to be equipped with GOI I-22 lens developed in 1945.
Also mentioned a version of this camera without the serial # and lens, but according to the author the leather case has a front lens compartment that seemingly made for I-22 lens, and the overall construction of the leather case is very similar to what GOMZ made for the Sport SLR camera.
In short this is a limited series made for unknown purpose by GOMZ in 1949.
Mostly the article described various military cameras and their applications including as you see from the picture the PAU, S-13, SSH-45 and AFA...
But I do have a suspicion that the camera that Viktor has had been "restored", painted black recently and the engraving filled in. If you notice the images in the article are all chrome versions.
Also Viktor promised another "mystery" camera for us to discuss in the near future.
And now an exerpt from Viktor's email regarding this Robot and this thread:
Теперь по-поводу робота.
У меня такой аппарат один. Я знаю человека, у которого точно такой аппарат (сотрудник КГБ) под номером 4900065. Я на днях этот аппарат попытаюсь сфотографировать.
В том, что производство роботов было начато в 1949 году, подтверждает статья из журнала ╚Сибирский успех╩ (╧1 за 2003 год). Эту статью я отсканировал, а сам журнал есть у меня.
Высылаю тебе эту статью, выложи ее, пожалуйста, на сайте. Этой статьей мы развеем сомнения о том аппарате, который есть у меня.
Кстати, после перевода сообщений от многих экспертов, выставленных на твоем форуме, я узнал, что у меня есть якобы завод по производству аппаратов. :) Я хохочу, ха-ха-ха. Пора и мне уже выпустить аппарат под своей фамилий (шутка).
Google translated:
----------------------
Now, about a robot.
I have such a device. I know the person who has exactly the same apparatus (KGB officer) at No. 4900065. I will the other try to photograph
the unit. The manufacture of robots began in 1949, confirms the article from the magazine ╚ Siberian success ╩ (╧ 1, 2003). This article, I scanned, and the original magazine is with me.
Sending you this article, attached it, please post it on the site. This article will dissipate doubts about the unit, which is with me.
Incidentally, following the thread of messages from many experts offered on your forum, I learned that I have a factory allegedly producing these and many other cameras :) I laughed, ha-ha-ha. Maybe the time has come and I have to issue camera under my name (a joke),.
---------------------------------
Vlad |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 13 2008 : 09:37:11 AM
I've got a huge surprise for all of you.. I am short on time, so I will post what I have quickly and then go into explanations later.. I will give you a little time to process this as well .
Needless to say Viktor replied with some proof  . This is an article from magazine "Sibirskiy Uspekh" from 2003.
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/robot1.Jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/robot2.Jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/robot3.Jpg
I will provide more info from his email a little later, but he said this particular piece is in his collection, also a person he knows who is former KGB employee has one as well (serial #4900065) and he will try to take pictures of his camera as well and send them to me.
Vlad |
| fedka |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 11:21:11 PM
Just my quick 5 cents.
Vlad, Zoom, yes - that hammer and sickle, though beautiful, is totally out of place.
Soviets never used this symbol as decoration. And on this Root it clearly is for decorative purpose only. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 10:56:16 PM
The lens mount looks the same as a Robot Luftwaffen ... just that the smaller lens does not fully cover the mount.
Maybe plate on back was never glued onto the covering or easy to recover with similar covering from an old camera.
Modified winding knob does not look like from F-21 (I think).
Engraving on the back is easy to remove if the top will be painted .. which it was.
It would be possible desirable to make a fake from a Robot Luftwaffen that is incomplete ... and so it could be more profitable to make a Soviet fake (especially since the missing replacement parts and lens for a Luftwaffen Robot would be almost impossible to find).
A Robot Luftwaffen can bring $350 Euro at Westlight Auction in 2007. Maybe if this camera is believed to be authentic it can bring more than $1500 Euro, in my opinion.
So, my opinion is, but I can't say for sure, that the top parts (engraving, serial number, top-plate painting) look too new to be from 1948. And why paint the top black but not the bottom ..doesn't seem like the way the Soviet Army would do it, in my opinion.
Regards, Bill
|
| stephanvdz |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 8:58:42 PM
what puzzles me... and make me think about something that is not a fake... is :
- a luftwaffe robot is not cheap, making a fake from one must bring back more money than selling it as a luftwaffe robot... or faking a luftwaffe robot from a civilian one... what is the commercial interest to make a fake of something that is not valuated on the market?
- the lens attached seems very strange, it looks more like a scientifical adapter... a tube ... this could allow for a very non disturbing use (no stress on the paints...) but also means that the set has no value... otherwise stated...
So I'm quite dubious about a speculation fake (something done to bring back money)...
we need to see the "lens"...
recapitulation :
- the base is obviously a pre49 robot II with double spring (the arrow at the flimplane indicator, the flash socket...and the finder with angle finder)... probably not a typical luftwaffe device because of the bright chrome parts, the filmplane arrow usually absent on luftwaffe robot... but age is coherent...
- the lens mount has been taken out and modified for a fixed device
- the spring winder has been modified (outside and may be inside)
- the film tension winder is also modified (higher than on normal robots...)
- there is no trace of robot engraving, embossing, or plate on the back...(that's very surprising, it means it has been recovered...)
- the black paint is a bit matte... and new looking,
- the russian engravings are very clear... (but it could be a laboratory item) and non standard...
I would love to see if there a serial number inside... with or without F
Hypothesis : this is a modified robot for scientifical or military use (microscope, astro, periscope...oscilloscope... I don't know...we need to find on what it was attached) and definitively not a spy camera...
Stephan |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 7:07:23 PM
It may not be a strong point for engraving to be fresh for a camera from the 1970s onward, but on a camera from 1948 the engraving, especially if filled with white enamel, will never look that fresh. Just look at any F-21 from the 1950s or 1960s ... always the lettering is not fresh looking and the white is somewhat yellowed from time. Only the newer F-21s have a very white enamel.
Also the placement of the engraving is very wrong. The serial numbers would never be engraved starting so close to the edge of the camera body! No way.
Also the top plate black paint looks fresh and is a semi-matte istead of gloss enamel. During the 1940s - 1960s only a glossier enamel was used on cameras ... the semi-matte type of paint was not used until at least 1970s or later ... check your old black cameras from any country, especially the Soviet Union. The top plate is newly painted, with a few little scratches for effect ... after 1970s for sure.
And, if at least 66 of these were made, why no others have been seen! Not very likely.
This camera is a very obvious fake with nothing in the details speaking to an authentic age of 1949, in my opinion.
Regards, Bill
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 5:20:26 PM
Zoom, please see all Stephan's points above stating differences between this and Robot camera. So it was not just inscription it was quite a few things.. I was just thinking with this many changes to the original camera and if this was done to a lot of these, why not use your own serial numbering system.. I would probably agree with you if it was only inscription, but seems like there were some quite heavy mechanical changes...
Vlad |
| Zoom |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 5:03:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Vlad
Just for argument's sake I don't quite understand why shouldn't it. If the Soviets did rebuild these and used them even in some limited quantities for clandestine operations it would make sense to serialize them...
It was not necessary: camera had an own serial number (now wiped/chased/brazed, as I think).
A rebuilding in a fact is not a serial production, so it no "sense to serialize" etc...
And what was rebuilded? Only new inscriptions? ;)
I'm see nothing to explain this number and hammer-sickle-star emblem...
|
| stephanvdz |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 3:40:48 PM
Luiz,
i'm not sure it's a luftwaffe version because it has chrome parts, but anyway it's not a fixed model (not a airplane wing model but a portable one, because it has a flash socket...)... and it has the 40mm finder not the 75mm one. But it's a 40 to 48 version...
It would seem logical for USSR army to rebuild some available robots for direct use...
but the strangest part is the "lens"... looks like a microscope or telescope or periscope attachment
Stephan |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 3:28:37 PM
Luiz, please, any pictures of that Luftwaffe Robot would be appreciated if you have them?
Thanks,
Vlad |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 3:27:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Zoom
If it is a rebuilded from Robot-II camera, it should not have 'Soviet like' serial number (490066 == 1949 year)...
Just for argument's sake I don't quite understand why shouldn't it. If the Soviets did rebuild these and used them even in some limited quantities for clandestine operations it would make sense to serialize them accordingly so they are kept track of, especially with Stephan's points that this Robot had been significantly modified...
Vlad |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 3:26:02 PM
Exactly Stephan.
More, this is an 1942 Robot issue model Luftwaffe series. |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 3:24:08 PM
And I've emailed two of the site collectors of the Robot web site with link to this forum thread, let's see if there is anything new they can say.. maybe they can even post directly here if they read this, this would be preferable since I am gone to sunny Jamaica all next week..
So far to summarize we have the following arguments:
For authenticity (in terms that it's in fact period-accurate Soviet remade spy camera, we know it's a Robot originally):
1. The time period it was supposedly used for seems correct in terms of manufacture and possible use by USSR military
2. Very odd discrepancies in actual construction that Stephan had pointed out
Against authenticity:
1. As Zoom and Bill pointed out - if it is a spy camera it would not have these markings or if it's a military camera it should also have factory logo
2. as Bill pointed out the engraving looks too fresh (although IMHO that's not a very strong point)
Vlad |
| stephanvdz |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 3:07:43 PM
the flash socket is of a prewar robot II, and most robot II were issued without accessory shoe (but the holes to put one on...)
Stephan |
| stephanvdz |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 3:04:39 PM
I checked my robot bible and the base of the camera is a prewar or just postwar robot II , this model with the doublespringwinder and could be made from a military robot (though not a luftwaffe model which is totally black...). (More than 20000 robots were issued to the german military).
Still there is something bizarre with both the winder barrel, and film tensionning winder... non standard at all, and also the absence of any markings on the back
Stephan |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 2:44:35 PM
hmm.. thanks for the input gentlemen, this is getting quite interesting in a sense that this is NOT an original ROBOT... wow.. I did ask Viktor for more details, still waiting for reply...
I'll try to email site owner, see what he knows.
Thanks!
Vlad. |
| uwittehh |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 2:24:49 PM
Stephan,
Robots with the higher spring motor are existing, but it looks a bit different (other screw, as you said). Maybe there were 2 motor windings of a Lomo 135 stacked?
The accessorie shoe seems to be missing, there ist the hammer engraving now. The flash is not typical, you are right, normally there are two ones instead of one.
It's an interestin camera, maybe the site I have posted can tell more.
Vlad, I think you can write a mail to the site owner, maybe he knows more?!
Ulrich
http://fotos.cconin.de |
| stephanvdz |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 2:13:33 PM
bizarre ... vous avez dit bizarre, comme c'est étrange ...
It looks like a robot II but there are some special elements :
- the engravings and specially the film position sign (totally not robot)
- the barrel of the double winder mechanism is not standard at all, nor is the screw on top...
- the film winder is also higher than normal
- the flash plug is not the robot standard one (robot was one of the earliest company to use modern flash plugs)
- the cover of the back has no embossing or no robot plate...
and furthermore the lens or what looks like a lens seems fixed and not on the normal robotscrewmount.
it would really be interesting to see if there is no original serial number inside
may be a special camera modified in USSR at one point, from a wartime robotII.
Stephan |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 12:02:32 PM
I also believe this is a non-authentic forgery. Even the engraving on the top looks fresh. If it were authentic the engraving would be more similar to the Soviet Army engraving seen on the KMZ photosniper. Also, I don't think that the Army would be putting markings on a camera used for undercover surveillance.
In my opinion ... definitely not authentic. Of course one side-effect of sites like Abramov's and any other historical references with information that is obscure, is that the craftsmen who make the forgeries read them and can use the information to make a forged version of a camera that has not been seen, only mentioned. Then they can point to the reference and say "and here it is!"
I think that the Soviet KGB and other agencies did of course use many foreign cameras when operating outside of the Soviet Union. I even have a circa 1925 Kodak box camera that was used by the Amtorg Trading Organization (it has the "Amtorg" metal tag affixed to it), a Soviet trade organization in New York City known for spying and intelligence activities. So, I think within the Soviet Union, unmaked cameras were used for surveillance and outside the country a foreign camera would usually be used (or possibly a completely unmarked KGB camera, such as Totchka or the miniature ring or microdot KGB cameras), in special circumstances.
But ... only my opinion.
Regards, Bill
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 11:19:22 AM
I see.. makes sense .. I have no more information about this camera (like what lens etc..) at this time beyond the pictures of it.. I am waiting for reply from Viktor about it, I will post what he says. Then I will move this camera to appropriate section in catalog..
Thanks for all your input guys!
Vlad |
| Zoom |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 10:59:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Vlad
Zoom, I think I know what makes you think that - the blatancy of Soviet symbolics on a covert camera? Is it?
If it is a Soviet-made camera, it should have the hammer-sickle-star emblem whith a plant mark. If it is a Soviet-made camera for a secret services, it should not have the "hammer-sickle-star" emblem. If it is a rebuilded from Robot-II camera, it should not have 'Soviet like' serial number (490066 == 1949 year)...
And, in general, this place is closed by a cold shoe... ;)
Btw., what lens? |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 10:57:24 AM
Like Zoom I am convinced of being an "authentic" Fake!
LP |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 10:33:02 AM
Zoom, I think I know what makes you think that - the blatancy of Soviet symbolics on a covert camera? Is it?
Vlad |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 10:29:46 AM
Zoom, I appreciate your opinion on this.. Yes this is Robot, but what in particular makes you think that this was not used by Soviet Union before Ayakses were perfected? This still makes it an MGB camera (later KGB) G. Abramov seems to mention the fact that these cameras were used in late 40s:
quote:
В этот же период некоторые подразделения МГБ применяли специальные немецкие фотокамеры серии ROBOT, однако высокая стоимость такой техники, сложности с ремонтом и запасными частями существенно ограничивали возможности использования этих импортных фотокамер в повседневной оперативной деятельности. (G. Abramov)
---
In the same period, some units MGB special German camera series ROBOT, but the high cost of such technology, the complexity of the repair and spare parts significantly restrict the use of the imported cameras in their daily operations.
(G. Abramov) http://www.photohistory.ru/1207248179642549.html
Vlad |
| Zoom |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 10:18:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Vlad
You are absolutely correct Ulrich! This is a Soviet version of Robot! Very cool!! Thank you! I will add it to catalog as such.
I think that this camera is the genuine Robot that facked as a "Soviet version of Robot"... "I think"? No. I'm firmly convinced. |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 09:48:35 AM
You are absolutely correct Ulrich! This is a Soviet version of Robot! Very cool!! Thank you! I will add it to catalog as such.
Vlad |
| uwittehh |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 09:45:08 AM
Hi Vlad,
take a look at
http://www.robot-camera.de/ROBOT_Kameras/Robot_Star/robot_star.html
The site is in german, bur you can see that the Robot Star looks as yours.
Ulrich
http://fotos.cconin.de |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 09:34:43 AM
Ulrich, do you have a picture of that Robot camera you're talking about you can post here for comparison? Thanks! |
| uwittehh |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 09:32:37 AM
Hi Vlad,
it looks as somebody took a Robot and makes a russian camera out of it...
Ulrich
http://fotos.cconin.de |
| Vlad |
Posted - Dec 12 2008 : 09:16:25 AM
On another thought after examining Ayaks-9 this one is too damn round and fat to be it... but the body of this one is eerily familiar, I can't put my finger on it though... |
|
|
