Stalinist

My newest find, a nice "golden" FED or Zorki that was made to a "Stalinist". I polished and polished and polished until my fingers were bleeding :-) Now it will look so shiny some months until it gets ugly again :-/ So here are some photos of it, enjoy them:









Ulrich

http://fotos.cconin.de

What a Diamond, Can you possibly put in a case lined in treated cloth for silverware? That looks like a lot of work to lose it again. Awesome....Don

ZORKIE'S Survive

Wow! So shiny my eyes hurt! Yours is weird though! Looks like some other person did it than two of mine and one of Bill's. Ours have double stroke on that stars and the font is completely different!

Hi,

If I remember correctly, all these fake cameras have "STALINEC" markings in Cyrillic characters, instead of "STALINIEC", like on this camera ... I'm not good in Russian language, but it seems, that particular camera was made by faker, who doesn't speak Russian either ...


Best Regards,
Aidas

OH YEA!!! I didn't even notice the misspelling until you pointed it out Aidas! You are very correct! No way this is work of Russian speaking maker unless he did not finish school heheheehe...

Ulrich it's still a very beautiful camera and may be very unique because of the misspelling.

Vlad

Thanks for your answers, folks :-)

Interesting, that the engraving is misspelled, I have seen some other "Stalinist" on ebay, they looked like the one here in the Wiki.
This special one is from an Italian seller who sells off all his collection as he writes (and he has/had a lot of cameras to sell) in the auction text.
Don, what do you mean with the case for silverware? I have never heard of it before.

Ulrich

http://fotos.cconin.de

By the way, this is my second "golden" FED. As you can read often in forums or on the web these golden cameras were made by the way that the worker rubs off the alloy and the chrome parts of it until he gets to the brass body.

I don't think that this is the was to get a "golden" camera. Nearly all parts are rebrassed (only 2 characteristic parts stay silver on both of mine, the knob on the body where the bottom plate is fixed, and the little knob of the lever for rewinding), even the screws are brassed.

I think they re-galvanised (is it the right term?) the cameras, disassembled they completely and throw them in a galvanising bath to rebrass them. All parts seem to be rounder and softer as the original parts. What do you thonk how the "golden" cameras were made?

Ulrich

http://fotos.cconin.de

I also own a Stalinist, but the engravings are quite deep and with filled-in with red enamel, both on the top plate and on the lens cap. A great deal of work went into that cap. It's not plated aluminum but turned brass.

The only thing that gets me about the camera is that it's a Zorki and not a Fed. :-)

Steve

Steve,

I don't know if mine is a FED or a Zorki. It looks like a FED, but after disassemblng it it also could be an early Zorki (the shutter back is not painted black, it is chromed). It seems to be a real Frankenstein :-)

The red engravings could be enamel, they are also very deep and filled good, and nothing of the colour is gone when I polished it. It's a great work of that the worker who has done it.

Ulrich

http://fotos.cconin.de

Hi Ulrich,

I must congratulate you on the wonderful work that you did on this camera, it is very beautiful.
As you pointed out yourself this lovely finish will oxidize and turn ugly in time, (the same thing happened to my wife years ago).
I would suggest that you paint or spray the external gold finish with a very "good quality" hard wearing laquer so as to keep oxygen away from the finished surface, and I'm sure that the camera will then stay in the same gleaming condition for years to come.
Incidentally, the stories about people cleaning off the chrome plating on these cameras to reveal the brass underneath are not true. These camera bodies are not made from brass. They are as far as I know usually made from steel and aluminium.
I would guess that the coating on your camera is from an electro plating or anodizing process, and is probably copper or a copper alloy. If your camera were to be left in a moist atmosphere for a few days, you would probably notice that the camera is turning green at the edges of the metal and around joints. This would confirm that the coating is copper based, though I'm not suggesting for one minute that should do this after you spent so long to get it the way it is. (If I thought that I could make my wife beatiful again by polishing her, I probably would, but some how I don't think it would work as well as it did on your camera)
Best wishes, Jim

Jim, You are one GUTSY guy !!
If your Wife reads your thread, you are in deep water fella !!

You just might be Gold-Plated.........
Ever see Goldfinger ?

Steve :-)

Hi Steve,
You may be right that she would kill me if she read my post, but she doesn't read or speak English so I feel pretty safe.
Like most of my cameras she is Russian, and if I'm to be honest she doesn't need too much polishing to look good.
Cheers, Jim

Oh baby, did you just get yourself out of that one.

Real Slick.

I'll have to remember that, "Doesn't need too much polishing to look good".

Steve

You both are cracking me up! . Sorry little OT as well - Steve - I've been emailing and calling you (left a message), if you have a chance get back to me.. Thanks!
Vlad

Hi All,
Apologies for my off topic flippancy in the last couple of posts, I just coud't resist, but now to get back on topic, or at least close to it.
I would like to know what other forum members think with regard to the subject of gold coloured commemorative cameras such as this "Stalinist", and other fakes, which often involve the destruction of a perfectly good Fed-1, Zorki-1, or other Soviet cameras.
There is no doubt that Ulrich's "Stalinist" is a beautiful camera, and to many people is quite desirable.
Unfortunately many fakes though they may be attractive initially when "fresh" soon lose their lustre, the electro plating peels off or turns green and they become just pieces of junk.
Some people are of the opinion that these cameras are collectible in their own right, but I don't agree.
I would in some respects concede that some of the early fakes were perhaps collectible because in general they were of higher quality than modern fakes, and at least usually showed a high degree of skill in their manufacture.
But my major objection to fake Leica's and fake commemorative cameras is the destruction of perfectly good Fed-1's, Zorki-1's, and other cameras, which are in themselves collectible in their original condition.
I think that to change, adulterate or make the camera into something that it was never meant to be is an insult to the people who made the original camera. For example a Fed-1 made by the Communards is to my way of thinking much more interesting than a poorly faked "Leica" made from the same camera.
So speaking for myself, I would not buy a camera I knew to be faked from a Fed-1 or Zorki-1 because it only encourages these people to make more, and I don't want to help these people to destroy historically important cameras.
I would be interested to know what thoughts other forum members have on this subject?
Best wishes, Jim.

Hi Jim,

I agree with your point of view absolutely!!! That's why I hate fakes, no matter if they look great or like piece of junk...


Best Regards,
Aidas

I beg to differ. As far as I am concerned, I have seen some fakes that were indeed works of art, very clean and professionally executed. I agree that most of what you can purchase today on eBay are nowhere near as nice or interesting. What still amazes me is the bottom line cost to the buyer. For the most part these fakes are a bargain considering the work that went into them. Also consider the glut of both Fed's and Zorki's that must be available. On U.S. terms, consider these cameras to have been re-purposed, or a better term, "re-cycled.

I started my collection with a couple Leica fakes that were nicely done. I have collected Leica far longer than my Russian cameras.

I own a few brass, copper, gold, or whatever you want to call them cameras. They round out what I consider to be a very interesting, and enjoyable mini collection.

As an aside, I recall back in the late 90's while selling some of my equipment at a camera show, the gentleman sitting next to me was telling me about a rare Black Canon RF camera which he had shipped somewhere in California to be stripped and re-painted. He said the total job was to cost near $1000. That blew my mind. So expensive !!
One has to laugh when you can buy a black enameled Russian camera today so cheaply. Yes, I know there are some lousy looking black cameras being sold but there are also some fine cameras as well. Like everything else, it depends on what you buy.

No, I wouldn't condem these fakes. I feel they have their own niche, jsut as long as you know their fake !!

Steve

I also somewhat agree with Steve, although I do prefer mechanically modified cameras rather than cosmetically even though own quite a bit of the latter, the aspect of sometimes ingenious modifications and mechanical work fascinate me quite a bit.

I would've probably gotten really upset if someone did modify a FED-S or a FED-Zorki but there were hundreds of thousands of these regular FEDs and Zorkis made and a lot of them as Steve said were broken, and laying around in some garbage piles..

Vlad

And most of these "golden" ones are made of the cameras that were too bad to be sold in normal looks, or had problems. So usually no loss to collectors.

Smena rules

Hi everybody,
I think Steve hit the nail on the head when he said,

"I wouldn't condem these fakes. I feel they have their own niche, just as long as you know their fake!!"

To my mind some of the earlier fakes were very skillfully done, for example some of the Fed-Zorki fakes are virtually identical to the originals, but these are definately intended to deceive the unwary buyer, and this is wrong.
I must admit that some of the earlier Leica copies were also quite well done with excellent engraving, swastikas, etc. But it is usually very easy to tell that they are fakes because they usually retain the Fed or Zorki detail, shutter release collars, etc. They might deceive a tourist, but an experienced collector can spot them right away.
As far as I am concerned the modern fakes are in the main just junk. If as Juhani points out they are made from junk, to my mind they remain junk. As the saying goes "You can't make a silk purse from a sows ear!"
In general I think that fakes are a bad thing. Admittedly there are some very well done examples, but most are inferior.
I think I am right in saying that the original faked Leica's came about because of the tourist industry in the FSU. Most tourists would not be experts on Leica cameras and could easily be deceived into beleiving that they were getting a bargain.
Another objection that I have is that these cameras "muddy the waters". Sometimes it's difficult for a collector, (especially beginners) to know that they are buying a fake and can easily be cheated out of quite a lot of money.
As a general rule we can trace the history of most genuine Soviet cameras that we collect. For example we usually as a minimum know the year of manufacture, the factory, etc. And as we all know it's great fun and interesting to do a bit of detective work to discover what we don't know.
With a fake camera you can know nothing, it has no traceable history, there is nothing to discover, and therefore no character. All you can know for sure is that it was made sometime in the past by some xxxhole who wanted to make a quick buck at someone else's expense.
So Steve is right, if you buy a fake, and you know it's a fake before you part with any money, then it's your own choice.
Personally speaking, I don't like them, especially the modern fakes. It seems like everybody has "jumped on the band wagon" to make some easy money, and I for one don't want to encourage the trade.
Best wishes to all, Jim.