| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Jacques M.
France
2604 Posts |
 Posted - Nov 04 2008 : 4:39:18 PM
|
Hello,
Some weeks ago, I was at Alain's home. I met Claire, Alain's wife (no McDo nor coke for dinner...) and Michel. When three French collectors meet, they speak of Vlad, and they thank him for such a site... And I especially wondered at seeing so much rarities...
Alain had asked me to date his Fed 2s: not too difficult if it is roughly done. When handling his 00007 preserie, it seemed to me heavier than the others. The time to find a balance and to weigh some Fed 2s. The result was surprising: the 00007 was 50g heavier than the other ones! ten per cent more... We didn't have time enough to determine why. Perhaps brass instead of aluminium for the shutter cage? Or maybe because this camera saw some secrets in these early '50s? Perhaps Stalin's death? Who knows...
Any opinions? 
Amitiés. Jacques.
|
|
Michel
France
217 Posts |
Posted - Nov 04 2008 : 4:53:45 PM
|
"When three French collectors meet, they speak of Vlad, and they thank him for such a site... And I especially wondered at seeing so much rarities..."
I absolutely agree with you, Jacques.
And I shoule add : "Vlad's kindness to translate russian quotes or give some advices."
Thanks again, Vlad.
Amitiés à vous, Jacques.
Michel. |
 |
|
Jacques M.
France
2604 Posts |
Posted - Nov 06 2008 : 08:03:56 AM
|
Just a word more about these strange different weights.
Alain's very early preserie #000007 weighs 537 grammes nude: without lens or spool.
In the same conditions, my preseries #003729 weighs c. 470g. And my other Fed 2s are all between 465/480g.
The first question is "why"? Brass shutter cage, perhaps, Alain?
And the second: till which number? Is it only good for Alain's camera, or too for other very early preseries, for example Vlad's #000200? (seen in the Wiki).
It would be helpful to know that, for example to separate the wheat from the tares (I've been waiting for 50 years to put that one somewhere. Tell me if you don't understand!)
Amitiés. Jacques.
BTW, Michel, could you give me the types and serial numbers of the lenses of your two 3xxxxxx Fed 2s ? Thanks.
|
Edited by - Jacques M. on Nov 06 2008 08:08:17 AM |
|
|
Luiz Paracampo
Luiz Paracampo
Brazil
2002 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 06 2008 : 08:46:24 AM
|
As a production engeneer I can always say that: One of the methods of knowing the development and evolution stage of any instrument, is the comparison on its wheight. Given the same properties, the heavier is the older.
LP |
|
|
Vladislav Kern
Vlad
USA
4252 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 06 2008 : 09:04:19 AM
|
| I will weigh my #000200 tonight... body only? |
|
|
zhang
Kievuser
310 Posts |
Posted - Nov 06 2008 : 09:30:46 AM
|
| Yes, Vlad is great! And there are great French collectors,too.:-) |
|
|
Vladislav Kern
Vlad
USA
4252 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 06 2008 : 10:15:37 AM
|
Come on guys, stop it!  I am very humbled, but thank you for all the praise, I was very very surprised by the success of this forum as well 
I guess there was Vlad the Impaler, now there is Vlad the Collector. . |
|
|
Jacques M.
France
2604 Posts |
Posted - Nov 06 2008 : 10:51:12 AM
|
Yes, Vlad, body only.
Thanks Luiz, for the rule: "the older, the heavier". Valid for men too!!
Amitiés. Jacques. |
|
|
Michel
France
217 Posts |
|
Michel
France
217 Posts |
|
Vladislav Kern
Vlad
USA
4252 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 06 2008 : 11:32:22 PM
|
My #000200 weight is 485g.
Vlad |
|
|
Jacques M.
France
2604 Posts |
Posted - Nov 07 2008 : 06:56:00 AM
|
Thanks, Vlad.
5g more, it's not significant, more especially as we didn't use the same balance. So it seems that only very early Fed 2s weigh more. Anyway, with Alain and his 007, we can expect everything...
Thanks too, Michel. Your first couple (body # 3-480014 and Industar 26m F410 # 1962546) is very interesting, to compare with another couple: body 3a # 3-202131 with 26m F410 # 1982213. Of course, we have no proof, but I think that the four items were made in 1963. The "ordinary" F410s stop at c. 21xxxxx. Afterwards, it's another story... upon which I will try to write something here when I have cleared my ideas!
So this first couple is probably original. Not the second one: the F400 should be found only with 2b-s, and your lens is one of the first ones...
Amitiés. Jacques. |
|
|
Vladislav Kern
Vlad
USA
4252 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 07 2008 : 09:37:25 AM
|
No problem, A curious observation though, I have 2 FED-2a's in my collection - Burgundy and Green, (or is it 2b, can't remember off-hand), and the green one is also 480g, but the red one is 505g. . Go figure.. hehehe... my guess is they used whatever parts were available at a time, if they run out of aluminum, they use brass etc for some components...
Vlad |
|
|
BERRY alain
mermoz37
France
814 Posts |
Posted - Nov 07 2008 : 1:07:10 PM
|
oh, oh… I will have to also weigh all my fed colors  |
|
|
Jacques M.
France
2604 Posts |
Posted - Nov 07 2008 : 4:03:21 PM
|
Hi Vlad,
Certainly you are right for the Fed 1-s: the shutter cages were made in brass till c. # 130000, aluminium after. But some of the postwar 1f were in brass. Probably lack of aluminium in 1948-50 which obliged Fed to use prewar parts, as you say.
The situation is probably different for the 2-s. Perhaps prototypes and some very early preseries were made of brass, but it's certainly exceptional: the metallurgy of these two metals is quite different. And as far as I know, there was no mass producted Fed 2s made in brass...
But Alain can perhaps clear all that if he examines closely his 007 and tells us why it's 50g too heavy?
Amitiés. Jacques. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Fed 2: the weight of history?
