Subscribe in a reader
« We Loved 'Em, And They're Gone |
| New Year's Eve »
And you thought the Nikon D3 was expensive? Oh no no no.
(And the sad thing? It never gets to take any pictures....)
Mike (Thanks to Micah Marty)
Posted on Sunday, 30 December 2007 at 03:47 PM | Permalink
Photo Arsenal always has prices well pumped up. As far as I can conclude, for about a third.
So this Leica would really cost only $60K. ;-)
Sunday, 30 December 2007 at 04:04 PM
Sunday, 30 December 2007 at 04:06 PM
So, how did it make its way out of the Leitz Museum?
Chuck Albertson |
Sunday, 30 December 2007 at 04:49 PM
Maybe you should go to Hong Kong, Germany and personally inspect it.
Claire Senft |
Sunday, 30 December 2007 at 05:10 PM
They are selling their museum pieces to get some cash? Not a good sign....
Sunday, 30 December 2007 at 06:09 PM
I know the M3's a good camera, but surely this is a little over the top for only the millionth example! (And if it's not been used, I bet its shutter's seized up by now too; what a waste.)
Monday, 31 December 2007 at 03:08 AM
Who needs such a museum piece when you can do whith this for such a reasonable price?
Monday, 31 December 2007 at 06:56 AM
What the heck, that's the cleanest pre-owned Leica I've ever seen. As soon as my Minolta SR-3 poops out I'm after that thing like 4 on 3. I hope nobody snaps it up before that happens.
And, may Kris Kringle bring everybody what they want for New Year's.
Monday, 31 December 2007 at 10:27 AM
Mike, Not sure this is real--Flash mount screws were put in by a amateur-- over turned. Plugs for flash holes are missing.
Round thing on left side of back plate is missing. Words and numbers almost line up but not quite and did the Film numbers start at 40--had one but can't remember.
Carl Leonardi |
Monday, 31 December 2007 at 11:29 AM
What an honest looking gentleman too! And how nice of him to "just open" a branch in HK! Such cheap postage, only $40 for trusting my well-spent 86+Thousand bucks half-way around the world! Amazing what you can find for a song on e-bay, and it's so trustworthy!
Monday, 31 December 2007 at 12:16 PM
I bet it's not even digital; you have to put that film stuff into it.
John Igel |
Monday, 31 December 2007 at 12:51 PM
I liked this bit in the ad:
"... our competent manager Mr. Evan Wong is available for you in the showroom
from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM."
I wonder which manager you get to deal with other times??
Monday, 31 December 2007 at 03:00 PM
Carl's concerns are precisely why provenance is important when you're paying real money for anything of historical import. The camera might very well prove legitimate but it cannot be simply as described in the very short description. The slightly mangled screw heads and the slight ding in the front of the top cover (opposite the second zero in the serial number) suggests that either this camera was used or else suffered damage at some point and was refurbished/repaired. Either of which is entirely possible. I can think of several common and innocent scenarios wherein this takes place. But one would want to find out these things !
If this camera is legitimate, then a verifiable paper trail exists that leads back to the museum. One would want to follow that trail back and inquire of the various parties involved if they can explain these points.
Only a fool would lay out $80,000 for any kind of antique without provenance.
pax / Ctein
[[ Please excuse any word-salad. ViaVoice in training! ]]
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://www.ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
Monday, 31 December 2007 at 06:20 PM
You are right - a camera which never gets to take pictures is a sad thing. There should be a law allowing for a confiscation of unused cameras, so they could get into some actions. Closing them in cupboard should be forbidden - it just drives camera prices up.
Tuesday, 08 January 2008 at 07:51 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.