FED 1a - smooth brown covering

Obviously there is a dispute in the wiki entry for this smooth brown cover, because it is the only one found till now.

There is also a dispute in the wiki entry for the smooth black cover, because some covers seem to be more shiny than others. To me the shiny look is not a reason to think it could be not original, it could just be that some cameras were used more than others.
But in this wiki entry I added the following lines some time ago:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="MS Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
There are also a Fed 1c #71648 and a Fed 1d #157514 listed with a smooth black cover, so it seems there must have been kind of cover replacements. All covers including the vulcanites on these early Fed 1 are leaves, the cut of the leaf can be seen below the lens mount. The finish of the hole on the backside can help to determine if a cover is not original.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The finish of the hole on the backside for #968 with the smooth brown cover looks strange, at least something is missing there.

And there are other covers which look extremely strange at the hole, for example the pigskin of #793. It seems this #793 is not original.
How do you think about #793 and #968?

Pictures can be seen few posts later.

I think that both the camera FED are original. There is no reason to think that it's not the original only because of the fact that the camera is in the singular. Lenny, if you learn the texture of the skin of the 1920s or 1930s, you will understand that there is an old FED &#8470;793 original leather. But as the number on the certificate is not true for you, then arguing with you is useless. If you can, show your original FED with a smooth coating?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="MS Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by levonsa</i>
<br />I think that both the camera FED are original. There is no reason to think that it's not the original only because of the fact that the camera is in the singular. Lenny, if you learn the texture of the skin of the 1920s or 1930s, you will understand that there is an old FED &#8470;793 original leather. But as the number on the certificate is not true for you, then arguing with you is useless. If you can, show your original FED with a smooth coating?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hello Alexey,

I have no problem with the brown color of #968, I only repeated what was written in the wiki. But on #968 is at least something missing on the hole at the backside and maybe something else. I would like to know what others think about that hole.

For #793 I'm of the opinion that the cover is not original. It's not such a big problem, sometimes replacements were needed. The rest of the camera seems still original. But I wish we could come to that conclusion that the cover is not original. Curious how others think about it.

Hello guys,
I am not sure about #793, the lether seems to be from that time, so it could be possible, that this camera was original covered in brown (although it looks pretty funny).
What is about Wiki-camera #968, that is for sure a recovered camera. The camera is genuine of course, but the leather cover is definitely new (my opinion).

In any case we need more information (tech. specification, books, etc.) to prove our theories.

Regards, Alexander

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="MS Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by AlexanderK</i>
<br />Hello guys,
I am not sure about #793, the lether seems to be from that time, so it could be possible, that this camera was original covered in brown (although it looks pretty funny).
What is about Wiki-camera #968, that is for sure a recovered camera. The camera is genuine of course, but the leather cover is definitely new (my opinion).

In any case we need more information (tech. specification, books, etc.) to prove our theories.

Regards, Alexander
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thanks Alexander,

you think #968 is not original because it's so shiny, right.
At least the cover is pretty well glued, all original covers are well glued. Fed really used good glue at that time. That's another point for me to think #968 could be original. Or is it so well glued because the glue is new and not original?

#793 isn't well glued, the cover is loose on the edges, seems not original to me.


#793

http://www.ussrphoto.com/resize/resize_image.aspx?ImgWd=800&IptFl=/UserContent/2152016_793.jpg

http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/2152016_793.jpg


#968

http://www.ussrphoto.com/resize/resize_image.aspx?ImgWd=800&IptFl=/UserContent/2152016_968.JPG

http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/2152016_968.JPG

Lenny, let's discuss your FED with a smooth finish. Show me how it is you shine.

Alexey,

as I wrote in the first post, the shiny look is not a reason for me to think it's not original, it could just be that some cameras were used more than others.
The finish of the hole on the backside and how the cover is glued are much more important to me, and that's valid for every cover, smooth brown, smooth black, pigskin and vulcanite.

#142 has a pigskin too. Does someone have a picture from the backside?

Thanks