Camera question: Sputnik-2

The Sputnik-2 in Princelle is definitely some sort of experimental model, not even prototype. Sputnik was always based on Lubitel as far as its class.
Sputnik-2 from eBay and from Bill's pictures looks like an old Sputnik shell populated with newer, Lubitel-166 inspired parts, and as such can be possible.
A do have a few remarks:

1. Unrelated to Sputnik-2. I do not have my Sputniks handy (keep my cameras in boxes, not on those pretty displays:-), but I think that second knob is not for rewind, but for inserting and locking a spool/film.

2. Sputniks were sold with accessories - a stereoscope, printing easel. I would estimate that 50% of the Sputniks I sold came with these parts (cleaner, less used samples), and 50% did not (mostly older, beat up ones). I think between the two Sputniks I have now and some 6-8 I sold, my sampling pool is close to 10.
The Sputnik-2s look pretty new, so they should have come with these accessories, and probably boxes and manuals. Question for S-2 owners - did they come with the accessories? If not, this points more to a fake, since nobody bothered po produce anything beyond the camera body.

3. The cast/molded serial number. I fully agree with previous posts - this is absolutely insane. I've seen tanks and tractors with big cast and ground nameplates, but serial numbers were engraved or stamped.
Soviet factories did a lot of stupid things, not because engineers were bad (no, we were good!), but because of political decisions. But casting serial numbers on a cheap plastic camera - I can't accept it. If a camera sells for $500, then yes, it can be done, but in 1977, export or not, it was a cheap camera.
Look at the Lubitel - earlier ones had engraved serial numbers on the lens rings, but later ones (166) removed serial numbers from the lenses altogether and started stamping them on the bottom - with some hot thing pressed in plastic - a really cheap way. Sputniks, as Lubitels, had serial number engraved on the lenses, so why would a Sputnik-2 (sort of Lubitel-166) have a cast number?? Not engraved, not stamped in plastic, but cast.

Let's assume the Sputnik-2 is a fake. But even in this case I wonder - WHO decided to cast numbers???

I have a theory - LOMO started making Sputnik-2 with these cast numbers, and each one would take a few days to cast. So after 6 months Ivan Petrovich, who had to make new tooling for each new number either retired, started drinking non-stop, or ended up an a mental hospital. Production stopped.

Okynek, Yuri, very entertaining reads! I've enjoyed them tremendously! Thank you! very interesting points though!

Well, it may be that they are fakes, but... the serial numbers are not cast. They are die-stamped. Please look at the photos and my description of the lens plates carefully. Fairly easy to change a number, just use a die that has many separate numbers and replace the last one or two on the row. No doubt, this is how it was done, whether by a forger or the factory. This is a similar process to putting printers type together, individual letters and numbers keyed up in a block, then stamped into the metal plate. It is an easy process and many factories do it... but very few individuals have the machinery needed.
I do agree with Yuri that if a manual for one of these was found it would help to authenticate it. However, many cameras, rare or not, come without the box and papers or accessories even if they are only 30 years old. This alone would not prove a fake. In this case, if only 100 or so were made, they may have even come with the regular Sputnik manual and stereo accessories. Why would a forger make this way of making a serial number when they are already so expert at making fake engravings (Leica, ZK Lenses... on and on). It is hard to believe they would choose this way, in my opinion.
Also, I wonder who would take the time, or even think of coating the lenses of these Sputnik-2s with a different coating than on Lubitel-166? What is the answer to that?

Regards, Bill

quote:

---

Originally posted by okynekCan you tell me why so many very rare cameras happen to end up in same hands?

---

They can. You all know Arsenal. And I know a very small camera shop in St Petersburg that has sold at least three used Almaz, the rare ones and not 103!

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by nightphoto

Why would a forger make this way of making a serial number when they are already so expert at making fake engravings (Leica, ZK Lenses... on and on). It is hard to believe they would choose this way, in my opinion.

---

Bill, your question (above) is the biggest mystery about these Sputnik-2s. I can even understand coating, but why die cast numbers? I think this is the only example of such technique in all. I can't think of any Russian camera (on non-Russian for that matter) with die cast serial number.
As a side note, this alone makes this Sputnik-2 valuable, regardless of its origin.
Yuri

I believe this is much easy to make then you think



I was using cooking foil and ballpoint pan. It take me about 30sec to make.
Quality ca be be perfected with thicker foil and simple labeling mashine what sold about $15.00

BRAVO!!! LOL!!!

Well Okynek, Very nice! If you can produce front lens plates like the ones on the Sputnik-2, with the small size letters, evenly written in a circle, and then painted black with the fronts of the letters polished back to bare metal, and the back filled with epoxy resin and then ground flat also ... then please do it and tell me if it was easy or hard! Thank you for your experiments. The size of the serial numbers on the Sputnik-2 are just a hair less than 2 mm tall.

Regards, Bill

and how do you do for cutting sharp circles to fit and adjust so well as these pletes on our camera's lenses ?....just a question !!!!

I do not claim I will attempt to do this at home on a jiffy. I just trying to show that with right equipment and right people it pretty easy. No need to have whole LOMO factory behind. And actually we do not know what resources people who make this cameras have. I used to work on military production in Kiev. For 200rg of alhogol I had access to any machinery and tools -ANY! If I would only have more talent I would be able to make much more elaborate thinks than logos for cameras. In fact in 1989-1991 I was involved in production of illegal Sinkler like computers on that factory. I’m not imberes to say this. This was a hack of the engineering achievement to develop multilayed motherboard, switched power supply, get all components; keyboard and case was milled from sheets of aluminum on huge Japanese CNC. It was complete illegal assembly line there created by 5 engineers in they 20th. I saying all of this because by my opinion remanufacturing of cameras not only fusible, but it not to hard to arrange in Russia.
By the way lettering on that toy labeling machine is only 3mm high and lettering what I made is about 5mm high. And then smaller letters then easy to make them. Epocsy available everywhere now. To make perfect rings you only need punch due what could be found at many tool distributors.
And again, I admire the ingenuity and talent of the people who did this fakes. Just a little honesty on they side would complement they work. But then we would not have such great discussion!

Yes, you are right! Of course people can make anything with machines, not only in Russia, but in many industrial countries in the world, including China, America, Germany, etc.

But when the question of authenticity, or the origin, of a Soviet camera is in question, it is not just a question of if it can be done... it is more a question of who actually did it.

In this case (Sputnik-2), I have not seen any other fakes or forgeries done in anything close to this technique by the people from Moscow and other cities. On the other hand, I have seen this kind of "die-stamping" (not "die-casting") done on another camera from GOMZ-LOMO, the Komsomolets, although that was 20 years earlier.

I am also not saying that I think the Sputnik-2 is authentic... nor am I saying it is a forgery. But I have one to examine, which I am doing.

So far the work in several areas (the lens coating, the die-stamped lens plate, and the wind and rewind knobs) look like factory work to me. So that is in favor of a factory model, or maybe a pre-series that was never put into full production.

On the other hand, there are some things against authenticity or factory made, but they are not so much technical. The things against are: the cameras in question were bought from a seller who sells fake Leicas and painted cameras often; so far there is not documentation for Sputnik-2; and, an argument that this is not a good way to make serial numbers, although this last point is based on the die-casting technique rather than a die-stamping technique which when used, would be easier to change the numbers.

There is one other possibility that I have thought of which we have not discussed. That is that a small number of these cameras were made, either by LOMO or a by a distributor to fill a special or custom order from a Western retailer or distributor. This was done by Soviet factories as can be seen with the "No-Name Kiev" and also the "all black FED-5" cameras that were made for Germany. So that, in my opinion, can be another thing to at least consider.

Often, especially with Soviet and other Communist block cameras, where secrecy was common, it takes some amount of time to discover the true origins. It is only recently that the TSVVS has been said to have been made at the Almaz Zavod, rather than at FED (even in Princelle's it is listed as probably by FED).

So, although I don't actually have a definite opinion on this Sputnik-2, maybe with more time, more examples being found or sold, or direct documentation or testimony from someone who knows the origin for a fact (not just heard they are this or that), the actual truth of the origin can be known.

Regards, Bill

Have you - or anyone - ever seen a Sputnik 3?
It exists with Kiev 6 TTl pentaprism!

Bill I absolutely agreed with you, more research has to be don. Until we find documents, pictures, or testimony of peoples involved in production (or forgery) we can not indefinitely say anything about this camera. Examining parts may lead you to wrong direction. Parts may be authentic, taken from other cameras, or they can be manufactured in first class shops using best machinery. Better if you look how pars fitting together and how they are installed. Check plactic, check holes in this plactic, check epoxy, is it 30 years old or it harden month ago. And why epoxy? If Lomo use die-stamping on real machinery they do not need epoxy. You need epoxy only for technique what I was using earlier.

I am just calling it epoxy (not glue ... epoxy resin). It may be some other composition, but I can tell it's not metal. This composition looks original and has age in my opinion. But hard to tell with this kind of hardened substance that is either green or has been painted green.

The substance (composition)is used to make the thin metal that has been die-stamped stronger, and especially so that it will lie perfectly flat, not bend, to be easier and more stable to glue, and not be subject to denting and damage so easily. In my opinion, this is the kind of thing that a factory does, more than what a forger does. Usually a forger makes what can be seen very good, but not what is not meant to be seen. In this lens-plate the back side is very finely polished and does not look like a forgers work.

As you can see from the close-up photos, the parts fit together perfectly. Not just the lens plate, but all the parts. Everything is done so expertly and even finished on the back side of the lens plate. The plate looks to have been glued on only once, with no residue of an older glue where another plate has been removed to replace with a fake plate.

Also, I will tell you something about myself, which is that for a living I am a dealer in antique paintings and antiques (including technical antiques), so I am very familiar with close examination in order to find fakes and restortations or alterations in objects. This is a major part of my job, which I have been doing for over 30 years... so I am not inexperienced with examining things, knowing construction techniques, and the substances used. I have been deciding about fake antiques and paintings on a daily basis for many years, including work for auction houses, clients and museums.

I am still examining this camera and all the opinions and ideas of our fellow forum members are very valuable to me and believe me when I say that I pay careful attention to all of you. One thing that is holding me back from some comparisons is the lack of two cameras to compare, in person. Although I have a Sputnik-1, it is a very early version (serial # 000046 - a pre-series with some differences from other Sputniks), I do not have a later model of Sputnik and I do not have a Lubitel-166 or 166B. So, I have only been comparing the Sputnik-2 with these through conversations with some collectors who have these and through photos on the web.

Also, I don't care about the price I paid for this camera. Even if it is a fake, the price is fine, so that does not enter into my thoughts about it. As I find more to tell, I will tell it. If anyone has questions about details, I will answer best I can.

Regards, Bill

Bill, your arguments start to sway me to your side. :) If you are really on the quest to put this to bed once and for all, I am offering to ship you all the cameras (my Sputnik and all Lubitels that you need) for examination if you'd like.

Vlad

Vlad,
That is a great offer and I will arrange to do that with you. I will pay shipping both ways and I won't take your cameras apart... don't worry! That would be very helpful... thank you.

By the way... my side is just to find the truth if possible.

Bill

Regards, Bill

Bill, you made a good pint about perfect fit, but this may have totally different meaning. Forgers are actually more interested in perfect fit than workers at LOMO were used to. This is a nature of a Comminist economy.

Also, as a professional who saw many technical things - do you have any theory on why LOMO decided to go with such involved process to produce a lens faceplete.

Bill, we'll take the camera shipping stuff offline.

Vlad.

Yuri,
If LOMO made it, then I think they were trying to make the camera look different without really changing much. This would be a cosmetic change to see if they could make something that was "updated" and attractive, and which would sell better to a Western market since they had a lot of Sputniks laying around and no lack of Lubitel-166 parts. So maybe make 100 of these... try to sell them... if they do good then probably make a simpler way of making the lens faceplate, or at least make them without the serial number on it (put it somewhere else). These kind of faceplates are not so difficult to make, just changing the serial number each time would be if the camera was successful in sales and went past a pre-series stage.
Look at the FED-6TTLs. They have things that are difficult to make and would have no doubt been changed if it went into production and many cameras are made one way and then changed for easier production in some ways.
The main thing that gives me doubtful feelings, other than the source, is that there would seem to be some literature saying something like the Sputnik-2 was going to be shown at Photokina or some other trade show. However, they may have been made for a distributor such as Mashpriborintorg to try in the west, but it never got that far... so, no literature. Maybe some literature will surface. In the meantime I will look at more details.
Proof that they are fake from a source that actually knows the forgers, more than "all roads lead to Moscow" which we already know, is unlikely do to the secretive nature of their work and the fact that they may want to sell more of these if they have them or want to make more. In this case, I would expect that they would be offered on some of the non-English Ebay sites, or possibly privately.
So, there is some theories which no doubt can be questioned, but so can most theories. In my experience with the cameras and other objects, patience and diligence in looking and recording the details of examination and documentation usually lead to an answer, but usually not right away. So, I have learned to keep my mind open, so that I don't close off the possibilities in any direction.

Regards, Bill

Yuri,
Also, I would just add that the dimensional writing around the lens is very attractive and matches the look of the "Sputnik-2" metal label, even to the fact of a black background with raised letters in the "brushed steel" look. So it would have the very cosmetic purpose of making the camera more attractive and modern looking, which may be a good reason to coat the front lenses in blue (something I have not seen forgers do). This new faceplate, combined with the new name and nameplate, the blue coated lenses, the "LOMO logo on the hood, and the new knobs make for a very hot seller (hopefully) without having to do much in the way of redesigning the body.

Regards, Bill