Camera question: Sputnik-2

Hello everyone,

I'd like to discuss about these doubtful authentity cameras, which appear on the market periodically:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=150183138133&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=005

Knowing this guy from Moscow as the eBay seller of many fakes, incl.: TSVVS, Fed-Zorki, Yunost-Sport, etc., I'm sure the Sputnik-2 is from the same creative line, but ... it looks great! I can't understand why these modern fakers are using contrived markings althouth the genuine lens and parameters of Sputnik-2 can be found easily in old soviet literature ...

Regards,
Aidas

I’m second in motion that this is a fake camera. Not many camera prototypes dear to be engraved in English. Prototypes have to go thought KPSS approval. And Party leaders and they kissers did not like foreign signs, and specially in English. But it always room for exceptions.

I waiting eagerly for Bill to chime in, he's got quite a lot to say on the subject.

By the way that Crab fitting for Sputnik is amazing! Are you have it in your collection? can you put more pictures?

Hello Everyone,
Well, I have one of these Sputnik-2 cameras, and although I originally thought it was a fake, largely like Aidas says, because of the seller in Moscow who sells many fakes, now I am not so sure after having examined the camera in detail and talking with a few others.
The one I have is the one most recently sold on Ebay and is serial #77000009. So this would indicate a manufacture date of 1977.
There are some things about this camera that would be very hard to fake, although nothing is impossible to fake in my opinion. The main thing is the lens coating which is blueish and does not seem to be the same color as a coating on either any Sputnik or Lubitel lens. But there are other small details that point to a small edition of an authentic Sputnik-2, probably made for export and with the main improvement over Sputnik being the lens which is a Multi-coated Triplet-23.
When you hold the camera in your hands and look at the details of the lenses, lens barrels, writing around the lens, and even the nameplates, it is hard to believe that this is a fake... although I am not 100% sure that it is not.
It is certainly not the same camera pictured in Princelle's 2nd edition as Sputnik-2, although to me that one looks a bit like a fake or maybe a hand-made prototype, with the logo painted right on the bakelite with spray-paint.
Maybe the original Sputnik-2 was never really made, but kept on hold until 1977 when a small edition with a new lens was made for export. More like a pre-series that was not successful and then discontinued. I am trying to find signs of a fake in the details, but so far, can't find any (but I keep looking ;-)).Here are two photos.

http://www.nightphoto.com/images/sput2b.jpg

http://www.nightphoto.com/images/sput2a.jpg

Regards, Bill

You are making sense! Some details are not worth faking, not at least that well.
Another example: FED and Zorki are nowadays faked to chinese Shanghai. But Shanghai has slowspeed dial in front like Leica, and it wouldn't be that hard to add one to the fakes also. It is usually inoperative = broken anyway in Shanghais, so nobody would notice anything odd. Now the knobless fake is clear to distinguish...

And in my opinion the Sputninks are certainly in the top ten ugliest FSU-cameras

http://www.cedricfan.sivut.ws/Juhani's%20website%20ORIGINAALIT/

Yes, Juhani,
And also the film winding knobs on the Sputnik-2 are obviously factory made, however will not fit onto the Lubitel-166 or other Lubitels. The rewind knob has an embossed, molded direction arrow, not present on Lubitel knobs. So, I think they must have been made by LOMO for this camera.
Princelle says that during the 1970s many Sputniks were remaindered and hard to sell, so maybe this is an attempt by the LOMO factory to make something a bit newer that would sell.

Regards, Bill

Bill and Gang
Don't be angry with me, I see only two interesting fakes ! Positively both cameras are fake! Totally fake. I will explain why.
----Both cameras are presupposed to be made in 1977---.
It will be sufficient to see or remind Lubitel cameras made in 1977.
Those cameras were made up to 1995 and they never used Triplet 23 lenses. -Because they never existed- Yes they were built but were 3.5 never 4.5 and were used in both Estafeta model of LOMO and BelOmo. If One knows basic optics he will know that there is no need in multicoat a triplet. By that reason there are no multicoated triplets world over. Results will be unoticed, costs will increase. Lubitel always were made at LOMO who had and used the same tools in factory; so, first series Lubitel had T22 lenses marked with etched engravings and later silkscreened. Suppose there were a technological gap between both --But letters were never cast--- Further more.. It is unthinkable do a series of camera numbers die castings you need to change the mold! Do you know in how much the cost it implies? Vilia, Orion and Siluet Elektro had similar lettering but never individually numbered! --See that "Sputnik 2" plate in these two cameras is made with the same lens bezel technics-But I ask -- When any other Lomo camera used similar manufacture? I go further those bezel seems to be glued in original Lubitel 166 lens rings. -- Lubitel 166 knobs can substitute directly Lubitel 2 knobs and of course Sputnik knobs all have the same chamfered hole. and a question-- Why rewind in 120 cameras?

Hmm... that is an interesting point.. I have never seen lens writing die casted like that on any other camera....

Thanks for your ideas Luiz.

I thought that Estafeta had the T-35 lens in both LOMO and BeLOMO.

Also, I know that the regular Sputnik had coated Triplet lenses and also Estafeta has coated triplet lenses. Maybe the only need to coat a triplet lens is to make it sell better?

Also Kosomolets did have die-stamped f-stops and logo around the lens, so it would not be the first time that GOMZ-LOMO used such a technique. And, of course a company like LOMO which makes all kinds of cameras, telescopes, microscopes, and technical optics has many capabilities at their disposal.

If the die-casting of different serial numbers would have been so expensive and difficult, how could a forger do this for just 2 cameras? I am not even sure that the front serial numbers and other writing is die cast. It may be embossed from the back or some similar technique where it is easy to change a single digit of a number. This will take a closer examination. Maybe more pressed from the back with a die (in fact, this is what it looks like) ... so die-stamped with the serial numbers removeable from the die?

Why did the original Sputnik have a rewind knob? Both the original Sputnik and the Sputnik-2 have a rewind knob. Both operate the same way. The reason can be ... A. Rewinding for when you wind a bit too much ... B. Rewinding for when you want to take a few exposures (say in color) and then want to switch films (say for Black and White).

So, as I said before... I am not saying that these Sputnik-2 are not fake, but a closer examination will maybe help to decide. Of course I am very aware of GOMZ-LOMO manufacturing techniques, as well as those of the forgers! Of course I know what other camera parts can be used from cameras of this time, like Lubitel-166, etc.

There seem to be a number of details that do not match the Lubitel series, but look to be factory made. So, as I get time, I will take the camera apart and make a detailed report about the different parts, in themselves and compared to other cameras. Then maybe more of the story about where these cameras came from will be clear. It is a bit too easy to declare them a fake, or not a fake, without looking closely in this case. So, that is my opinion so far. I will write with more details when I have them, which will hopefully be soon.

Regards, Bill

Hi Bill,
Sorry to dissapoint you, but I do not believe in miracles. Just after the first Sputnik-2 #77000015 entered the market in summer this year, I had a big discussion with few serious collectors about this new "sensation". They reached personal sources in Russia to clarify the situation. I was told, that all links goes to Moscow, the big centre of camera counterfeiting. Just after I found camera #77000009 (... already yours) on Moscowphoto store, I was sure they are ready to share the limited quantity (let's say 100 copies) of these cameras among the collectors.

I agree with you, that similar camera in Princelle book looks very suspicious, but do existing also records in soviet catalogues (dated 1966-1969)about improved Sputnik under name Sputnik-2. Unfortunately I couldn't find a sample image of Sputnik-2 yet, but I really hope to have one as soon. As its already said in Princelle book, the new project had new lens T-35 75mm/F 1:4.

Anyway your camera looks too rich for the year of 1977. Beeing in some kind of stagnation, soviet photo industry produced the same bad quality cameras both for export or local markets. I can't remember a case, when prototype camera came in export labelings in the very hearth of October revolution - Leningrad ...

Anyway your camera has a big value as "souvenir" camera. And the price is good enough. I was promised to get one fully working FED-B fake camera (maybe from the same fakers, or another source in Kiev ...). Otherwise I would buy this Sputnik-2 for display purposes.

Best Regards,
Aidas

Hi all ,
i am newbie on this forum...So salutations.


so , i bought another sputnick 2, from Moscow photo, like Bill...
truth is many questions about this camera ...even if it is fake.

first of all, if one considers the selling price reported to provided work and the scarcity of the camera, I think that the forger worked for not enough money.
By examining my 7000007, I see disconcerting details which I do not know on other cameras:
like Bill says , one of the buttons is an original ( no arrow on the top) and is impossible to counterfeit in so good plastic shape (in my opinion)….
for do the frontages of lenses, I think that it is possible to manufacture them out of zinc plates, with the same technics as that which is used by the printers (zinc+acid work )… but it will be necessary to modify the negative with each fake to change the serial number…??? not very profitable at all!

to be continued

kind regards
Alain

Hi Aidas,
Don't worry, I will not be disappointed no matter which way it turns out! I like this camera fake or not, and that is why I collect them.
But, I have found from experience that often it is not what collectors, sources, camera dealers, and collectors say that leans towards one truth or another, but more the examination of the details of the camera and also of the factory records and in some cases the records of a distributor. Of course in the 1970s Soviet Union, all roads lead to Moscow, much as today. These cameras were offered by Moscowphoto, a known dealer in fakes, which we all know and have watched for a long time. But, not every camera he has is fake and I have bought authentic cameras from him as well.
So, now I have taken the front lens plate (with the serial number, etc.)from the lens ring, after taking the lens ring away from the camera. Shortly I will post close-up photos here on this thread, for discussion.


Regards, Bill

Bill,
I like your point of view. Although some people like all these fake Leicas, I'm angry to see how cute Zorkys and Feds lost theirs identity in behalf of counterfeits ... But it's not the case with Sputnik-2. As I said before, I really like this camera! Our discussion leads us to some presumptive hypotesis. And I like it 'cos I'm not quilified enough to say it's fake or not. Your and Alain's arguments are strong enough, so let see what happen in near future.

Today I have send Sputnik-2 pictures to camera collector, who never saw it before. After the close examination he said "Aidas, this camera was made with high technician skills. I don't care it's fake or genuine one. I like this camera - could you buy it for me?"

Regards,
Aidas

Hello Everyone,

I was able to unscrew the 3 little screws that hold the front lens ring to the lens. This was easy. Then, there were two holes at the back of the lens ring that made it possible to gently push the flat round inserts with the writing (serial numbers, logo, etc.) away from the lens ring. So, without further comment to color things either way by me, below is a link to the web page with 20 close-up photos of these parts. I made a page so it is easier to view:

http://www.nightphoto.com/sputexam.html

I have not put the parts together again yet, so I can take more photos if requested. Aidas, please feel free to forward this link to your friend if you want. More opinions are better. I have also obtained some opinions from advanced collectors (besides the very excellent ones on this forum !)

Regards, Bill

Also, I just want to add:

The ring with writing is very thin metal, stamped from behind with the letters (so the back was hollow). The hollow metal stamped ring was filled with a non-metallic filling, maybe an epoxy or compound ... this is the green substance you see from behind. The front was painted black. Both the front and the back were then polished (ground), so that the tops of the letters lost their black paint, and on the back, the compound became smooth and level with the rim of the metal lip. The polishing marks can be seen on both sides with magnification.

No mistake that the front is metal and filled with non-metal. Any questions... please ask and I will take a look and tell you.

Regards, Bill

All done and said I still can't shake the feeling that why would they do an "export only" model though... it is highly unorthodox looking back at all the history of manufacture in USSR... they would've released a Russian version first (That would be first early serial #s) and then make the export variation.. usually domestic production took priority... it just does not sit right with me...

Well, hypothetically (if the camera is authentic) I think the reason for an export model would be to sell the cameras to the west. In this case, no prototypes are needed because there is not much advance over the original Sputnik. Just a new name, a coated lens (named T-23 as it is the same as T-22 with just a new coating), new front lens plate and lens rings from Lubitel 166, etc. Why would a prototype be needed? Also, when you have too many Sputnik cameras sitting around (as Princelle mentions in his Sputnik page ... "lots of SPUTNIKS were remaindered during the seventies by big retailers, to the total disinterest of collectors") it is probably a good idea to try making a new model to see if it will sell better, and probably you might try to sell them in Moscow where there are more people and many visitors.
I would not see this as a domestic production taking priority first camera, since domestic needs with the Sputnik were already more than taken care of.

Just a hypothetical answer to your comment. I still don't know if the camera is authentic, but the parts I looked at all look factory made, even the front lens plate that I took the close-up photos of.

To me the bigger questions would be ... Can a forger make parts like this? ... Is it worth the time to make for the price they sell them for when you consider it would take 2 Lubitels and a Sputnik to make it and then wholesale to the seller?... Why make an export model when a domestic model would be more convincing? ... Would a forger really go as far as coating a lens in a way that is perfect (and different in color the coatings on Lubitel-166, Lubitel-166B, Lubitel-2 and Sputnik-1)? .... Why would a forger put a date of 1977 on this Sputnik-2 when a more convincing date would be when the literature about a possible Sputnik-2 was written, in the 1960s? ... I think these questions are harder to answer than why a Soviet factory that can do almost anything if the ministry orders it, would do it.

Regards, Bill

All good points... yes, I don't know, it's a tough one ... maybe someone should ask Mika (moscowphoto), I'm sure he's not going to have an issue telling us the story if the cameras are authentic.. maybe I will ask him if I have time, I've been doing enough transactions with him past couple of months so maybe he'll reveal something..

Vlad.

In Russia Everything is possible... When in Moscow, At Starii Arbat street I visited a shop of old furniture. Exceptional original Louis XV and Louis XIV chests and tables and chairs... everything perfect. I knew the shop was mantained by a group of museum restorers that knows every original techniques. In the next shop I felt to ground! an original Stereo "Doppel Leica" How this camera came there???? I knew it only by photos because there were made only two: one for the Barnack, the constructor, and the other one to the daughter of Mr Ernst Leitz. I careful examined it. A high skill of craftsmanship was present. Who made them? probably the same that built the reversed Leica commented some days ago. At 1000 $ it was not an stratospheric price. Yury of Fedka may say something more...

Bill, as sad us I'm to tell you this, but all indications that Sputnik 2 on the pictures is fake. Can you tell me why so many very rare cameras happen to end up in same hands? And by coincidence this seller also happens to make other fakes? Reason 2; can you look how "Made in USSR" written on any other import camera in your collection? It made in small font on the back or on the bottom. Country of manufactory must be printed by International low, but it almost hidden on Zenit cameras. Easy to understand why; not much reasons to advertise to perspective buyers on the West that camera were made in Impair of Evil. And what is LOMO means to average Joe in 70-80th? New drug? Now, look on Sputnik 2. It screamed I'm from USSR, I'm made by LOMO same as famous LS-A of late 90th. Come on, BUY ME!!!! Would any one put this on the front of the camera in 70th? The only think is missing is KGB and PERESTROYKA on the back, I suppose. This camera made for tourists. It all shiny and new, with rare name. Just BUY ME DEMET!!!
It definitely was made on the factory, but on which? It definitely used real Lubitel parts, but where was they assembled? It is much easier then anyone think to have access to high grade machinery and super skills, 30+ years of experience specialists in Russia. They was making unique parts for military whole they life and now for 10 years they are without work, without food, without any perspective. They can make spacecraft to the moon, not just fake cameras. They are happy to earn $300 per month. So forge (or I would say modify) camera no matter if it Leika Olimpic 1936, or TSVS or Lubitel 2 will cost less then $10 in labor.
But as many say before me no matter if it real or fake if it made right it worth the money, and place in collection.