| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Luiz Paracampo |
Posted - Sep 04 2013 : 06:37:48 AM
http://www.ebay.com/itm/FED-TSVVS-Russian-Leica-Rangefinder-USSR-Army-Air-Force-camera-4672-/370848164388
|
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Sep 06 2013 : 10:05:44 AM
Hi Jacques,
Yes, we agree mostly. The WIKI lists are important for those who are trying to figure out the often unknown or partially unknown history of these cameras and their factories. Accuracy is important in order not to reach wrong conclusions (it is easy enough to reach the wrong conclusions even with the right information!)
The authentic No. 1 TSVVS would be an historic camera, so, to me, a TSVVS that originally had a different number and had the top plate re-engraved as "No.1" would be a fake. Personally, I would just take it off the WIKI as it is not "TSVVS No. 1". But maybe a note at the bottom of the WIKI might be appropriate to state that there has been seen on Ebay an "authentic example of TSVVS, but with an altered serial number to read "No.1" - most probably not the real TSVVS No.1".
Eventually the photos of this camera we are speaking of will not be on Ebay and the links to the auction in our discussions will not be available and so it will be hard for others who have not seen the photos to judge for themselves. Maybe we should open a WIKI category for "Fakes & Suspected Fakes" since it is a big issue in the field of Russian camera collecting?
Regards, Bill
|
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Sep 06 2013 : 03:01:26 AM
Bill,
I am OK with the added note: it's not the TSVVS which is fake, but the s/n 1. And I am OK too with the fact that we don't put in the wiki some expensive cameras which are obviously fakes, Fed-Zorki for example. Or some others which are less fakes than fantasy cameras!
On the other hand, I think that the forum must not become a place of delation where we separe the true and the false. There is a soft tendancy towards this direction these last times. We don't have any right to do so. It is what I wanted to mean.
The balance between the two is difficult to maintain. It's a collective task...
Amitiés. Jacques. |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Sep 05 2013 : 11:42:50 PM
Jacques,
I'm not saying take the No.1 TSVVS away from the WIKI, only that a note should be added that it is of doubtful authenticity. In this case, without the note of that widely-held opinion, the listing is misleading. For example, without that note, someone who has not seen photos will think it is actually the real No.1 and will think that the lens that is on it is the lens that the real No. 1 had on it. No doubt that would be wrong!
And also, so then should we add all fakes to the different lists in the WIKI rather than judge a camera as a fake and decide not to add it. We are the ones who make the lists and so, on some level we must have the power to decide. For example, should we add every FED-Zorki that shows up on Ebay, regardless of whether we think it is a fake or not? I think we must use our best judgement in adding and deleting from the WIKI lists so that they will have some accuracy.
Just my opinion.
Regards, Bill
|
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Sep 05 2013 : 3:20:31 PM
Of course, I agree with Vlad and Bill about this particular TSVVS.
But it's not because a camera is in the wiki that it's a true genuine one. To be in the wiki is not a proof of genuity: we feel that the wiki contains very probably some faults.
For example, and only about the TSVVS: we have three s/n 7...
So, must we cancel the three s/n 7 because two (at least!) are untrue? Cancel all the cameras that one of us has not personally checked? Name who checks and adds something in the wiki? And so on...
We can observe, and we do it in the forums. But we don't have the power to decide. IMO...
Jacques.
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Sep 05 2013 : 11:56:43 AM
Hi Bill,
Oh I see, you guys are talking about an entry in the serial number list. Yeah I have no problems with adding that text to it. Thanks all
Vlad |
| nightphoto |
Posted - Sep 05 2013 : 10:15:25 AM
Hi All,
To me it is clear from the photographs that this camera is a real TSVVS but not the real "No. 1" camera. The top of the rangefinder housing has obviously been ground down as evidenced by the sharp flat edges near the rewind knob. As well, the finish on the top of the rangefinder housing is not correct for TSVVS. Both of these point towards grinding down and re-engraving. In our WIKI, in my opinion, there should be a note after the listing for this camera in the list of cameras below the main entry that states "(authenticity of this example is doubtful)", or better yet, the "No.1" should be removed from our list. I have no doubts that it is a fake "No. 1" from the photos. It is a TSVVS, but the number will not be known.
Regards, Bill
|
| Vlad |
Posted - Sep 04 2013 : 8:04:18 PM
I don't think we have a wiki entry for this particular #1 serial number, just for general TSVVS entry. But yes, I am not entirely convinced the serial #1 is authentic as well. I wouldn't call it fake just yet, but a "unverified authenticity". It's impossible to reach this conclusion without holding and examining this camera in your hands so I'm willing to give it some benefit of the doubt, since speculation on a photograph is not a confirmation of a fake.
Cheers,
Vlad. |
| Lenny |
Posted - Sep 04 2013 : 4:53:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jacques M.
http://www.ussrphoto.com/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2153&SearchTerms=tsvvs
Let's say this #1 was a real TSVVS, and only the number was changed to "1", wouldn't this camera be a fake then? To me it counts as a fake, because it says "#1" in a range of history when it's NOT.
But in the Wiki here it is declared as "authentic". This is what I don't understand now. We have a special thread about this #1 TSVVS and most if not all posters describe it as fake, but in the Wiki it's not a fake. So who decides here what is fake and what is not fake. The owner of this #1??? |
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Sep 04 2013 : 4:27:38 PM
http://www.ussrphoto.com/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2153&SearchTerms=tsvvs |
| Lenny |
Posted - Sep 04 2013 : 3:42:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jacques M.
Yes...
I think we already spoke of this camera.
Anyway, a bit too expensive for me!
Jacques.
It looks like sandpaper was used by hand (marks are round not straight) on the top plate. The rewind knob was unmounted, but not the time wheel.
The rewind knob has a different arrow than #5, 6 and 7 (Photohistory).
On the time wheel the marks for B, 20, 30 and 40 seems to be different on #1, 5 and 6.
The shoe has different shape on those 4 cams either.
Even if every cam was made by hand, shouldn't the marks on the time wheels and the screws on the shoes be at the same position?
If you ask me, there is not only one fake. Poor workanship, easy to discover for everyone. Even if I would pay $16000, I'm not sure if it will pass the customs office because they could think it's a fake and recycle it.
|
| Jacques M. |
Posted - Sep 04 2013 : 07:24:02 AM
Yes...
I think we already spoke of this camera.
Anyway, a bit too expensive for me!
Jacques. |
|
|
