New bomb in collector's market!

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

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

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

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

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

Look at the Chinese one, it has the sync in the same place

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...

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

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

Guido,

All very good points and very well said and organized with the historical facts! Thank you and I agree too!

Regards, Bill

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!)

Amitiйs. Ja&cques.

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 ...

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kievuser

For some strange reason, I can't open your site.

---

This is not a strange reason, this is The Great Firewall of China in work...

To test: http://www.websitepulse.com/help/testtools.china-test.html

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.