Mysterious Spy Camera, can we identify?

Luiz, please, any pictures of that Luftwaffe Robot would be appreciated if you have them?

Thanks,
Vlad

Luiz,
i'm not sure it's a luftwaffe version because it has chrome parts, but anyway it's not a fixed model (not a airplane wing model but a portable one, because it has a flash socket...)... and it has the 40mm finder not the 75mm one. But it's a 40 to 48 version...
It would seem logical for USSR army to rebuild some available robots for direct use...

but the strangest part is the "lens"... looks like a microscope or telescope or periscope attachment

Stephan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vlad

Just for argument's sake I don't quite understand why shouldn't it. If the Soviets did rebuild these and used them even in some limited quantities for clandestine operations it would make sense to serialize them...

---

It was not necessary: camera had an own serial number (now wiped/chased/brazed, as I think).
A rebuilding in a fact is not a serial production, so it no "sense to serialize" etc...
And what was rebuilded? Only new inscriptions? ;)

I'm see nothing to explain this number and hammer-sickle-star emblem...

Zoom, please see all Stephan's points above stating differences between this and Robot camera. So it was not just inscription it was quite a few things.. I was just thinking with this many changes to the original camera and if this was done to a lot of these, why not use your own serial numbering system.. I would probably agree with you if it was only inscription, but seems like there were some quite heavy mechanical changes...

Vlad

It may not be a strong point for engraving to be fresh for a camera from the 1970s onward, but on a camera from 1948 the engraving, especially if filled with white enamel, will never look that fresh. Just look at any F-21 from the 1950s or 1960s ... always the lettering is not fresh looking and the white is somewhat yellowed from time. Only the newer F-21s have a very white enamel.
Also the placement of the engraving is very wrong. The serial numbers would never be engraved starting so close to the edge of the camera body! No way.
Also the top plate black paint looks fresh and is a semi-matte istead of gloss enamel. During the 1940s - 1960s only a glossier enamel was used on cameras ... the semi-matte type of paint was not used until at least 1970s or later ... check your old black cameras from any country, especially the Soviet Union. The top plate is newly painted, with a few little scratches for effect ... after 1970s for sure.
And, if at least 66 of these were made, why no others have been seen! Not very likely.
This camera is a very obvious fake with nothing in the details speaking to an authentic age of 1949, in my opinion.

Regards, Bill

what puzzles me... and make me think about something that is not a fake... is :

- a luftwaffe robot is not cheap, making a fake from one must bring back more money than selling it as a luftwaffe robot... or faking a luftwaffe robot from a civilian one... what is the commercial interest to make a fake of something that is not valuated on the market?
- the lens attached seems very strange, it looks more like a scientifical adapter... a tube ... this could allow for a very non disturbing use (no stress on the paints...) but also means that the set has no value... otherwise stated...

So I'm quite dubious about a speculation fake (something done to bring back money)...

we need to see the "lens"...

recapitulation :
- the base is obviously a pre49 robot II with double spring (the arrow at the flimplane indicator, the flash socket...and the finder with angle finder)... probably not a typical luftwaffe device because of the bright chrome parts, the filmplane arrow usually absent on luftwaffe robot... but age is coherent...
- the lens mount has been taken out and modified for a fixed device
- the spring winder has been modified (outside and may be inside)
- the film tension winder is also modified (higher than on normal robots...)
- there is no trace of robot engraving, embossing, or plate on the back...(that's very surprising, it means it has been recovered...)
- the black paint is a bit matte... and new looking,
- the russian engravings are very clear... (but it could be a laboratory item) and non standard...

I would love to see if there a serial number inside... with or without F

Hypothesis : this is a modified robot for scientifical or military use (microscope, astro, periscope...oscilloscope... I don't know...we need to find on what it was attached) and definitively not a spy camera...



Stephan

The lens mount looks the same as a Robot Luftwaffen ... just that the smaller lens does not fully cover the mount.

Maybe plate on back was never glued onto the covering or easy to recover with similar covering from an old camera.

Modified winding knob does not look like from F-21 (I think).

Engraving on the back is easy to remove if the top will be painted .. which it was.


It would be possible desirable to make a fake from a Robot Luftwaffen that is incomplete ... and so it could be more profitable to make a Soviet fake (especially since the missing replacement parts and lens for a Luftwaffen Robot would be almost impossible to find).

A Robot Luftwaffen can bring $350 Euro at Westlight Auction in 2007. Maybe if this camera is believed to be authentic it can bring more than $1500 Euro, in my opinion.

So, my opinion is, but I can't say for sure, that the top parts (engraving, serial number, top-plate painting) look too new to be from 1948. And why paint the top black but not the bottom ..doesn't seem like the way the Soviet Army would do it, in my opinion.

Regards, Bill

Just my quick 5 cents.
Vlad, Zoom, yes - that hammer and sickle, though beautiful, is totally out of place.
Soviets never used this symbol as decoration. And on this Root it clearly is for decorative purpose only.

I've got a huge surprise for all of you.. I am short on time, so I will post what I have quickly and then go into explanations later.. I will give you a little time to process this as well .

Needless to say Viktor replied with some proof . This is an article from magazine "Sibirskiy Uspekh" from 2003.







I will provide more info from his email a little later, but he said this particular piece is in his collection, also a person he knows who is former KGB employee has one as well (serial #4900065) and he will try to take pictures of his camera as well and send them to me.

Vlad

In short, this article says that while GOMZ was evacuated to Kazan during the war, a lot of different German technology was brought there, so the Soviet version of the Robot was developed in limited quantities. But the author of the article still does not know what these cameras were developed for, whether it was spy or military application like connecting to military equipment. And that it was based as Stephan and Luiz indicated correctly on the Robot Luftwaffe. The camera was made to be equipped with GOI I-22 lens developed in 1945.

Also mentioned a version of this camera without the serial # and lens, but according to the author the leather case has a front lens compartment that seemingly made for I-22 lens, and the overall construction of the leather case is very similar to what GOMZ made for the Sport SLR camera.

In short this is a limited series made for unknown purpose by GOMZ in 1949.

Mostly the article described various military cameras and their applications including as you see from the picture the PAU, S-13, SSH-45 and AFA...


But I do have a suspicion that the camera that Viktor has had been "restored", painted black recently and the engraving filled in. If you notice the images in the article are all chrome versions.

Also Viktor promised another "mystery" camera for us to discuss in the near future.

And now an exerpt from Viktor's email regarding this Robot and this thread:

Теперь по-поводу робота.
У меня такой аппарат один. Я знаю человека, у которого точно такой аппарат (сотрудник КГБ) под номером 4900065. Я на днях этот аппарат попытаюсь сфотографировать.
В том, что производство роботов было начато в 1949 году, подтверждает статья из журнала ╚Сибирский успех╩ (╧1 за 2003 год). Эту статью я отсканировал, а сам журнал есть у меня.
Высылаю тебе эту статью, выложи ее, пожалуйста, на сайте. Этой статьей мы развеем сомнения о том аппарате, который есть у меня.
Кстати, после перевода сообщений от многих экспертов, выставленных на твоем форуме, я узнал, что у меня есть якобы завод по производству аппаратов. :) Я хохочу, ха-ха-ха. Пора и мне уже выпустить аппарат под своей фамилий (шутка).


Google translated:
----------------------
Now, about a robot.
I have such a device. I know the person who has exactly the same apparatus (KGB officer) at No. 4900065. I will the other try to photograph
the unit. The manufacture of robots began in 1949, confirms the article from the magazine ╚ Siberian success ╩ (╧ 1, 2003). This article, I scanned, and the original magazine is with me.
Sending you this article, attached it, please post it on the site. This article will dissipate doubts about the unit, which is with me.
Incidentally, following the thread of messages from many experts offered on your forum, I learned that I have a factory allegedly producing these and many other cameras :) I laughed, ha-ha-ha. Maybe the time has come and I have to issue camera under my name (a joke),.

---------------------------------
Vlad

now we have a clue... inside the chamber is different from german robots... no round part inside in a german robot... if there are those round things in this robotsky, it's not a fake...

Very interesting article even if I don't read russian.

Stephan

Well, this is very interesting. I'm not sure where the magazine "Siberian Success" has obtained their information, however, if the article was written in 2003, there is some possibility that they can be writing about a non-authentic camera. I only have some questions about the article because according to Vlad's initial translation, the article says that "... while GOMZ was evacuated to Kazan during the war, a lot of different German technology was brought there ...". As far I have read, GOMZ was in Leningrad during the whole war and ever since. It is because of the 900 day Seige of Leningrad that the original GOI Fotosniper started to be made at KMZ, and Princelle states that when the war was over German camera parts were distributed to the different Soviet factories, including Optiko-Mechanical Engineers that were delivered to GOMZ in Leningrad.
So, although I don't read Russian and so can't comment directly on the accuracy of the article, I would like to see references for the article. In the past I have read many things about Soviet cameras that were not true, but were published in recent magazines and web sites.
Has anyone else ever heard that GOMZ was relocated to Kazan during the war?

But this article, because of the interior photos, as Stephan says, does point towards a direction of some authenticity of the camera shown in the article ... but maybe Viktor's black-top example, as Vlad says, has had restoration using a Robot Luftwaffen top-plate as a replacement for a missing one (no GOMZ logo either).

Also, to Viktor ... I am sure that no one here thinks that he personally would ever be faking cameras! We all know him to be honorable and honest to the highest degree. We sometimes only question the authenticity of a camera ... never the honesty of Viktor.

Regards, Bill

so a robotsky would have :
- a different spring winder cover
- some rounded parts inside underneath the spring winder (simplified film chamber)
- and i suppose that the viewfinder eyepiece are different (not a plain round piece)...
otherwise everything looks robot

Stephan

Bill, yes it does say while GOMZ was evacuated to KOMZ, or maybe that just meant KOMZ... It is puzzling...

Regarding references, there are quite a few stated, the ones that do come to attention and time period related (besides all known books that we are aware of like McKeown and Yakovlev) are

[3] A nomenclature reference of Aerophoto Services inventory 1949 Voyenizdat(Military publication)
[5] 50 years of GOI a collection of 1968
[11] Yudovina T.S. GOI Museum

Bill, Stephan what do you think about the leather case shown with that no-number Camera? Stephan, does that look like a Robot case? BillI I believe you have a Sport with a leather case, does not case resemble what is show on the photo?

I seems that we have established that quite a few of these cameras existed, 1 in Viktor's collection, another one in the hands of the ex-KGB officer (to which Viktor attests to the authentic roots of this camera, since supposedly it's been in his possession for years..) and the 2 cameras shown in the article...

Vlad.

I don't have the leather case of the sport (and I'm still looking for a cartridge...)

i'll check for the robot case...

Stephan

In Princelle, it says KOMZ has been making lenses since the early 1950s. I thought the article says that the GOMZ factory was evacuated to Kazan (the City), rather than to KOMZ (the factory that was in that City). Maybe, if that is correct, then that was the start of KOMZ. Maybe Zoom knows this history?

Vlad, are these historical time-related references related to the camera we are talking about, or the other cameras in the article.

Here is a photo of a SPORT case I have. It is similar in that it has the device on the bottom to screw the camera into that is the same, however, I think KIEV also has that same device design and so that may have more to do with who makes the case than the factory the camera came from. In some ways the case for this Robot camera looks more like a Kiev case (the overall design).



Because the interior design is different than a Robot (if this is the case, since I don't have the Robot and I'm not familiar with the interior design of it) then that may towards authenticity of the ones pictured in the article, but it seems that the camera we are shown of Viktor's may have been changed.

Also, I still have some doubts about all of them as I have noticed that the 'hammer and sickle' design is odd. If you look at the photo of the Photosniper FS-2 on page 172 of Princelle (also see page 202 ... the periscope), you can see that the hammer and sickle are drawn with one single outline, while on the supposed Soviet Robot this important insignia is drawn with a separate outline for the sickle, making it look like it is in front of the hammer. I think this is what has been making the logo look very odd and not authentic on all of these cameras pictured!




Regards, Bill

Here is a photo of the logo on some military binoculars from the same period. A different maker, not KMZ and not GOMZ ... unknown to me, but as you can see the Soviet Army insignia is drawn with all one outline also. I believe that this is how military engraving of this symbol was designated to be ... and not another way as on these cameras ... but just my opinion...





Regards, Bill

But ... TSVVS does also make the logo in the same way as Soviet Robot ... so maybe there are variations allowed!





Regards, Bill

So Bill so what do you think about the authenticity of the camera right now accounting for all the other evidence? Just myself I am leaning heavily to Viktor's position that the camera was indeed produced in some kind of small quantities, there is overwhelming evidence of the other cameras existing and significant modifications performed to each of thiose to differ for Luftwaffe version..

Also regarding your question of references, I've went through the article again, and these numbers like [1], [2] and so on are not provided to any portions when Robot is mentioned, but provided for other cameras... there is also a disclaimer on top of the article saying that all this are educated deductions and article is not to be taken as a solid source...

but the number of facts in my opinion outweigh the claim that these are all fakes...

Just my position for the record before I leave you guys for a wekk, I've been hesitant to express it before I hear everyone's opinions..

Cheers, everyone play nice while I'm gone, Bill is in charge.
Vlad

Hi Vlad,
In general, I am leaning for authenticity of the camera, especially if the round pieces visible from the interior views of the back are not present on the original Robot cameras.
Also, it has occurred to me that the time frame is correct for the development by GOMZ of a motorized camera, since they eventually, a few years later, did develop the Leningrad and its prototype models. Some of the fittings do look right for GOMZ and the body covering can also look right for that company.
The last photo of the one in the article, shown with the case, is also convincing as it is somewhat fragmentary or missing parts, which is not what you will usually see when a series of fakes is produced (then they will all be complete).
So all in all, I am thinking that the cameras are authentic, although I'm still a bit doubtful as to whether or not Viktor's camera has had a replaced top and engraving, and lens, maybe (although photos can be deceptive as we have found out before .. so maybe it is original too).
There would be good reason for the military to have a camera like this, and it may lead to GOMZ starting work on a project of the eventual Leningrad.

Regards, Bill