| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Aidas Pikiotas
AidasCams
Lithuania
973 Posts
My Collection
|
|
zhang
Kievuser
310 Posts |
|
Aidas Pikiotas
AidasCams
Lithuania
973 Posts
My Collection
|
 Posted - Mar 19 2009 : 09:28:50 AM
|
Hi Zhang,
it seems to be truth ...  Your Shanghai 58-2 camera looks like younger brother of 2M prototype.
Best Regards,
Aidas |
 |
|
Aidas Pikiotas
AidasCams
Lithuania
973 Posts
My Collection
|
|
Juhani Halmeenmaki
cedricfan
Finland
1020 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 19 2009 : 11:29:51 AM
|
Well, yuo do have the Chinese Smenas, so you have good proof they did co-operate closely in those days. Knowing all this it makes sense that even here they could have done it.
Best regards,
Juhani |
|
|
Guido Studer
Guido
Switzerland
362 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 19 2009 : 12:14:28 PM
|
Hello Aidas
Two interesting cameras but some details are disturbing ... The first thing is the missing KMZ logo on both cameras. I never seen prototypes without such logos.
Best wishes - Guido |
|
|
Jacques M.
France
2604 Posts |
Posted - Mar 19 2009 : 1:03:37 PM
|
Beautiful cameras, indeed.
Of course, they do look like the prototypes shown in the JLP!
If I had to compare, I should use the Canon rangefinders which were produced before: the IIB (up to 1/500th, made from 1949) and the III (1/1000th, made from 1951).
No doubt there is a sort of relationship Canon-Zorki2-Shanghai, even if this Zorki was a prototype.
I was always astonished by this period, at least by the activity of KMZ. Mass production of the 1, prototypes of the 2, proto and production of the 3, proto of the Rodina, first preseries of the 3S, soon the 4... I don't forget the army of Zenit, almost already, nor the lenses for themselves and Arsenal...
All that in 5 years or so (1950-55)... Fascinating!
Amitiés. Jacques. |
|
|
Bill Parkinson
nightphoto
USA
1027 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 19 2009 : 6:52:10 PM
|
I think it is almost impossible to tell if the cameras from Viktor are authentic prototypes from the photographs. They may be authentic, however it would also be easy to make these variations from the parts of various Zorki cameras ... fit together and re-engraved.
My experience has taught me to look at the engraving with strong magnification, comparing a production model that is known from the same factory and period with the camera being examined for authenticity. Even a prototype would have been given to a factory engraver to make the engraving so the same tools would be used as on a regular production model.
As well, it is important to look at the edges of the rangefinder housing to see if they are gently rounded or have a sharper edge than a known production model. If the edges look sharper, this can be a sign that the original cast housing was ground down (to remove engraving) and then refinished and new engraving added. Comparison with a similar model helps here too.
The next thing I look for is if there is a difference in the finish between the top plate of the camera and the rangefinder housing. If so, it can also indicate the refinishing of the rangefinder housing in order to change the engraving.
Not all prototypes from KMZ have the KMZ Logo. I know that there is not one on my Zorki-35M and it is known to be authentic. There is a logo on the most prototypes, but probably it may have to do with whether the camera was going to be shown to the public in any way, rather than just as a development prototype to be shown only in house.
I would be interested to know if either camera has a serial number and if so, what are the numbers and do they have a KMZ logo on the backs? Also, it is always interesting to know where the cameras were purchased or if there is any provenance.
Regards, Bill
|
|
|
zhang
Kievuser
310 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 02:22:42 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AidasCams
... let me show you one more sample from Viktor Suglob archives  It seems to be almost identical to Shanghai camera! Knowing that these cameras were made in 1955, we can make a precondition that USSR have supplied friendly China with original cameras, no?
Viktor wanted to know your opinions - what the hell is it?
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/DSC_0002.JPG
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/DSC_0005.JPG
Best Regards,
Aidas
Aidas, Thanks for the photos. The 2nd one looks indeed alomost identical to a late model Shanghai 58-2, except:
1, the engravings in Russian on top plate and around rewind setting lever,
2,Flash socket that looks like a Zorki's, but this can easily be replaced,and
3, A slightly larger rewind nob, but it could be a wrong impression from the photo.
4, 4 chromeplated screws on the front, that could also be easily replaced.
Every other details are amazingly the same, the leather covering pattern, the position of arrow on the accessary shoe, shutter release button,and the collar around it.....
I would not be surprised if someone faked it with a late 58-2.
Kind Regards,
Zhang |
|
|
Zoom
596 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 02:30:06 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AidasCams
Our belorussian friend Viktor Suglob had given me a permission to repost here a picture of experimental Zorki-2M camera!
As I see, Suglob like a fake cameras... |
|
|
Zoom
596 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 02:31:17 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AidasCams
Viktor wanted to know your opinions - what the hell is it?
The fake again... |
|
|
Aidas Pikiotas
AidasCams
Lithuania
973 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 04:15:29 AM
|
First of all let me tell you, that particular 2M cameras are not from Viktor Suglob collection! Viktor never saw them alive so he's not able to say anything about the authentity of these 2 cameras indeed ... That's why he asked me to show you these cameras in order to know your opinion about this. The pictures of Zorki-2M were received from the same secret source in Moscow (you should find an old Topic about Iskra-3 in archives to read the Viktor's story).
Zhang,
My first impression was these Zorki-2M cams are identical to Shanghai 58-II (4th version), according to Douglas S Denny book, but the decorative rim around the finder's window is still confusing me ...
Zoom,
I doubt any of us have enough competence to say it's a fake from the picture, sorry ...
Best Regards,
Aidas
|
|
|
zhang
Kievuser
310 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 05:50:35 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AidasCams
First of all let me tell you, that particular 2M cameras are not from Viktor Suglob collection! Viktor never saw them alive so .....
Zhang,
My first impression was these Zorki-2M cams are identical to Shanghai 58-II (4th version), according to Douglas S Denny book, but the decorative rim around the finder's window is still confusing me ...
....
Best Regards,
Aidas
Aidas,
I only have doubt about the 2nd one, The 1st one would not be easy to fake with a Shanghai 58-2 IMO.
Cheers,
zhang |
|
|
Zoom
596 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 06:30:54 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AidasCams
Zoom,
I doubt any of us have enough competence to say it's a fake from the picture, sorry ...
This is the experience...
Btw., my email is known to Victor. It is not a problem to ask me about this cameras directly without through my very poor English... |
|
|
BERRY alain
mermoz37
France
814 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 08:05:17 AM
|
hmmmm....
no doubt, no confuse  ! .... for me , "Zorki 2u" is a fake from shangai camera(if I compare whith mine two shangai camera on shelves :
- 3 little screws in accessorie shoe whith particular drawwing tiny arrow on (and right very close to the edge).
- "B" timer exactly same engraved.
- round front lense finder exactly same .
- large shinny flat top shutter button, , etc, etc ....
seemed easy to make on former Shangai because originals engraving are not very deep in brass material...
alain |
|
|
Vladislav Kern
Vlad
USA
4252 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 09:24:24 AM
|
Viktor Suglob says:
"
У меня этого фотоаппарата нет, а есть только фотографии, потому ничего о нем не знаю. Достоверных данных о Зорком 2м у меня просто нет.
Не обижайтесь на меня, мне часто приходят фотографии неизвестных камер, которые мы не можем классифицировать. Мы специально выставляем фото камер, может кто-то, что-то знает.
I don't have this camera but only picture so I don't really know anything about it. Actual real information about Zorki-2m I just don't ahve.
Don't be offended at me, I often get pictures of unknown camera which we cannot classify, that is why we specifically post these cameras here maybe someone knows anything about them."
|
|
|
Jacques M.
France
2604 Posts |
|
Zoom
596 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 09:59:33 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vlad
Viktor Suglob says:
"I don't have this camera... I often get pictures of unknown camera which we cannot classify..."
Ask him: That's why to write something similar to a "copyright" in this cameras pictures ("MIRFOTO 2009")? The one copyrighter (I mean David Tomlinson) is enough for us... ;) |
Edited by - Zoom on Mar 20 2009 10:02:02 AM |
|
|
Vladislav Kern
Vlad
USA
4252 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 10:03:40 AM
|
Technically it's not a copyright but a source. Copyright would be written as (C) MIRPHOTO 2009 
Cheers,
Vlad |
|
|
Zoom
596 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 10:11:24 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vlad
Technically it's not a copyright but a source.
'Technically' I wrote: 'something similar to a "copyright"' ;)
You say: source? OK. Source of this cameras, as AidasCams wrote: "the secret source in Moscow", but not "Mirfoto". So... :P |
|
|
Vladislav Kern
Vlad
USA
4252 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 10:33:57 AM
|
I would consider Viktor the source of these photos from this forum's point of view though since he provided them for us to discuss.
Technicalities aside, I don't really have enough formed opinion about this particular cameras, but it does seems to be an exact copy of the Chinese unit posted by Zhang and Jacques besides the rangefinder and viewfinder windows which I would not be surprised if there is a variation of this Chinese camera with same exact attributes.. I would think it wouldn't be too hard to replace the rangefinder ring but viewfinder is still a puzzle..
Vlad
|
|
|
Bill Parkinson
nightphoto
USA
1027 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 11:44:33 AM
|
Aidas,
Although I have previously said that it is difficult, from photos of this quality, to authenticate some of the details such as engraving and the originality of the parts, I agree with the others that these cameras are fakes.
And, in the case of KMZ cameras, I believe that you can put much weight on the opinion of our member Zoom, when authenticity is concerned, as he has some special knowledge and resources available about KMZ cameras.
Regards, Bill
|
|
|
Aidas Pikiotas
AidasCams
Lithuania
973 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 12:34:22 PM
|
Bill,
I'm close to agree, that these Zorki-2M cameras could be fakes, but I'm not yet ... I don't really want to offend any of you (sorry if I somehow did already), but until now I can see only emotional verdicts - it's a "FAKE"... I have never though it's so easy to determine the authentity of camera by looking at the picture indeed ... Sure, if we are talking about USSRPhoto 2 Years anniversary camera, it's really easy to say who is who , not to say so about these 2M unfortunately. If I have never met such a camera in my life, that doesn't mean that this camera couldn't exist at all ... I would prefer a language of arguments to prove it or vice versa! Thanks!
Best Regards,
Aidas |
|
|
Bill Parkinson
nightphoto
USA
1027 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 1:21:26 PM
|
Aidas,
I'm sure you have not offended anyone ... this is just a forum and just Russian cameras ;-)
If Viktor has to make a decision about authenticity from using these photos and is asking for input from us, then we have only the photos and any information that he can give us, which would be second-hand, if he does not have the cameras in his hand.
I think that if you read all the posts about the camera that has many identical features of a Shanghai, this is more than just emotional information. As well, my own opinion, in the case of the first Zorki-2M, is that the engraving looks wrong in some way and from the photo, the front and possibly all of the rangefinder housing looks to have been ground down probably in order to make new engraving. The edges of the top rangefinder housing look too sharp, in my opinion and using only the one medium quality photo.
Also, I would question why these models would have been made as "prototypes". Do they have significant changes to models that already exist ... changes to features or to the overall cosmetic or functional design? In my experience, prototypes usually have fairly big differences from cameras that existed before them and I don't see those changes in these two.
Of course we all know that just because we have not seen it before does not mean it is fake. Unfortunately, without better and more detailed photos or having the camera in hand it will be difficult for anyone to prove for sure that these cameras are fake or authentic, and so the language of arguments can only be less exact than if the proper information was provided.
And, I have said, it is no small detail that these prototypes would not be known to Zoom and it would seem that the KMZ logo would be present on this type of camera (although not necessarily on experimental prototypes), in my opinion. So to my eyes, looking at these photos, I would not be inclined to buy these cameras at high prices, if I was offered them. If they were cheap ... sure, why not!
Regards, Bill
|
|
|
Vladislav Kern
Vlad
USA
4252 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 3:38:22 PM
|
I may have to weigh in on this. I have to look up the exact source where I've read it later (it's possible it was Abramov's site but may be mistaken).
Let's look at this from historical perspective. From what I understand designer Nikolai Marenkov was brought into the Zorki-3 project to combine the slow shutter dial into the same assembly so it's combined. He did come through and the resulting cameras was called Zorki-3M (M for Marenkov in honor of his achievement on this model). Makes no sense to me what his achievement would be on Zorki-2M if it ever existed since the camera still has a slow dial and it's almost very close copy of the Leica III with no distinguished advances to credit Marenkov...
Vlad |
|
|
Bill Parkinson
nightphoto
USA
1027 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 5:02:43 PM
|
Also, both of these cameras have the synch plug located where the self-timer would be. This seems like a weird place to put it ... almost like the plug was put there to fill the hole left when a self-timer was removed?
Maybe Marienkov got his initial put on the camera for adding a synch plug ;-0
Regards, Bill
|
|
|
Vladislav Kern
Vlad
USA
4252 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 5:07:33 PM
|
| Look at the Chinese one, it has the sync in the same place |
|
|
Zoom
596 Posts |
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 5:08:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AidasCams
... but until now I can see only emotional verdicts - it's a "FAKE"...
As for me, my opinion was not quick and emotional...
And I think that Victor, as a serious collector, must stay out of this "secret source in Moscow" (or better to say: counterfeiters workshop) forever...
|
|
|
Bill Parkinson
nightphoto
USA
1027 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 20 2009 : 8:21:26 PM
|
There are similarities to Shanghai, and also, as Aidas says, the frame around the rangefinder window is not like the Shanghai (more like Zorki-3M, but with a recessed accessory shoe). So, given these unique features and differences, the way to tell for sure what the camera is, will probably be to look on the inside of the rangefinder housing, as well as other details of the interior and the outside of the rangefinder housing under magnification, to see what has either been done to the camera, or if it has a construction like a prototype.
It is harder to make fakes than it is to detect that they are fakes when the camera is in hand ... usually! As far as a "secret source" goes, I have found that it is good to look at everything that is presented ... many times the same source that has fakes also has some authentic rare cameras. For example, from one source, also in Moscow, I have been offered (several years ago) first, a FED No.194 (fake and I did not buy it), and second, a Zenit D Automat (perfect & working, which I did buy). Often sources are secondary and so are buying authentic cameras as well as fakes, both of which can be offered and who knows if the secondary source really knows that some are fakes .... probably, but maybe not! Here are both below: 
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/fed4.jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/fed2.jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/zenitd1.jpg
In this case, I never had the FED in my hands and although somewhat obvious that it is fake, a more experienced friend helped me to decide that it was fake from the photos ... (and it would be quite hard to fake a Zenit-D, so that was an easy choice!).
Regards, Bill
|
|
|
Guido Studer
Guido
Switzerland
362 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 21 2009 : 12:11:24 AM
|
Dear friends
First I like to say that I have not said that this cameras are fakes. But after all ...
The missing KMZ logo is one thing, and I think this is an important thing in this time. Because an engraving of a name without the logo makes no sense to me. Okay Bill, your Zorki 35M has no logo and no serial number too, but it was made many years later. I only relay on Zorki prototypes from the early fifties.
The engraving is not as good (correct) as I think it must be. Look at the top engraving "Zorki 2-M" with the unnecessary "-". And this engraving is to big too, no more space for the serial number. The front engraving shows a "M" in italic letters, not the same as we can see on the front of the Zorki 3M.
About the "M" in the name ... I don't think it stands for "Nikolay Mikhaylovich Marenkov", but for "modernized" or something like this. But it's just an other story.
Let's come back to this "Zorki 2M" and the historical context:
The first known prototype of the Zorki 3 was called Zorki 2, and it was build in 1950 or even before. After 1951 the Zorki 3 was build with this slow speed selector on the front, after 1954 this model changed to the Zorki 3M with only one speed selector on the top. Why to build in 1955 (!) a "prototype" with this old technic which was not very reliable and very complicated to repair?
And the year 1955 ... Why this "prototype" would be build in this year? Okay, in 1955 KMZ began to produce models with flash sync (Zorki C, 2C, 3C, Zenit C ...). That's the reason because this "prototype" couldn't be build before 1955?
The big viewfinder was introduced in 1951 with the Zorki 3. Nothing very new in 1955, isn't it?
The Zorki 2 line was produced after 1954, and the only difference to the Zorki 1 line was the self timer. The difference between the Zorki C (1955) and the Zorki 2C (1955) was also the self timer. Why to build a "Zorki 2M" in 1955 without self timer?
The rangefinder housing on the top of the camera looks absoluty not like build by KMZ. No Zorki ever had a accessory shoe with a rounded corner. There are other details there that don't match the KMZ habits. For example, why use a shutter release buttom from 1948/1949 on this cameras and not the one that all Zorkis after the Zorki 1b in 1949 use, with the cable release screw?
Both shown cameras has very early Industar 22 lenses mounted (Moscow and Zorki, 1948/1949). Why not a lens from 1955?
I didn't know nothing about this Shanghai from China. But after I saw pictures of this camera I'm very shure that this "Zorki 2-M" is not a real one.
By the way: You are very right with all your points, Bill, it's not so simple to say something about a camera by only viewing some pictures of it. But in this case there are so much things that don't fit that I think we can say it's not a real prototype. Too much things ...
Vlad/Aidas: Please give us the full informations on the question in the initial posting next time. Looking to the first post from Aidas I was thinking this camera would be a prototype without any question.
Best wishes - Guido
|
|
|
Bill Parkinson
nightphoto
USA
1027 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 21 2009 : 12:48:44 AM
|
Guido,
All very good points and very well said and organized with the historical facts! Thank you and I agree too!
Regards, Bill
|
|
|
Jacques M.
France
2604 Posts |
Posted - Mar 21 2009 : 03:33:58 AM
|
Guido,
I totally agree with you, particularly concerning your last remark about method. I had not really understand what the question was. And Aidas, I don't speak fluently English so I go more or less directly to the main point, without really argueing. Probably I am not alone.
Bill: what a Fed 1a! Even as a fake, it's beautiful! I wonder why there are not more black Fed 1a? (fakes, of course!)
Amitiés. Ja&cques. |
|
|
Aidas Pikiotas
AidasCams
Lithuania
973 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Mar 23 2009 : 03:55:33 AM
|
Hi,
Thanks a lot for your exhaustive comments! It seems I have made a mistake not to explain the situation in my very first post, sorry I had no intensions to show you the 2nd version of particular camera, but after Zhang directed us to chinese beginning, it became much more interesting indeed ...
Need to say, that Viktor's book have a special chapter "Cameras met in collector's practise" and these two cameras have found place in this chapter many time ago ... Your comments only confirm us, that 2 Zorki-2M cameras can not be considered until now as an equality members of great Zorki RF family indeed. Though knowing the colourful personality of Nikolay Marenkov, too many questions are to be answered in the future ...
Best Regards,
Aidas
btw ... the markings on pictures "Mirfoto 2009" was my idea and I can't see any problem until yet. I refered Viktor's archives as the very 1st source to show us these cameras and will do that in future again ... |
|
|
zhang
Kievuser
310 Posts |
Posted - Mar 23 2009 : 07:33:00 AM
|
Aidas,
For some strange reason, I can't open your site. What a source of information about Soviet cameras. I miss it.:-( Sorry for bit of OT.
Zhang |
|
|
Zoom
596 Posts |
|
Lenny
496 Posts |
Posted - Mar 03 2016 : 07:01:56 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by nightphoto
I have been offered (several years ago) first, a FED No.194 (fake and I did not buy it)
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/fed4.jpg
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/fed2.jpg
In this case, I never had the FED in my hands and although somewhat obvious that it is fake, a more experienced friend helped me to decide that it was fake from the photos.
Regards, Bill
Love this one, even if it's a fake. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
New bomb in collector's market!
