Scroll down the ad to read the story.

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1254276386

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), July 17, 2001

Answers

Thanks, Bud. What an amazing history! I got exhausted just from reading it. I think this camera definetely won her place in Leica history. -Iván

-- Ivan Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), July 18, 2001.

Great story to pump up the price of a beat up black paint M2, and apparently it worked. Or am I just being my usual skeptical self...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 18, 2001.

I do not think the price was out of line for a black paint M2. Collectors like them beat up like that...well maybe not quite that bad :-)

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), July 18, 2001.

William Hanna, apparently died March 22, 2001. There is a cartoon character of a cat. This wouldn't be the Hanna of the Hanna-Barbera cartoons, would it?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 18, 2001.

Yup...that's Tom and Jerry in the picture....Mr. Barbera (pronounced Bar-BEAR-uh) died sometime in the past 2-3 years, too.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), July 18, 2001.

Hi,

Sure is a great history for that M2. You can see a picture of the owner of the M2 on page 709 of the November 1965 edition of National Geographic and can just make out his M2 as he rides his camel also looks like he has a chrome lens and viewfinder also.

Mark

-- Mark Griffin (gripper@mark-griffin.com), July 18, 2001.

Jack Flesher and I had the same thought. I make violins for a living, and often antique them, and the first thought I had when I saw this camera last week is that something is wrong with the wear pattern, something antiquers are always thinking about. How does one, for instance, naturally wear the chrome from the back of the straplugs, in the protected areas up next to the camera body, and yet leave so much paint in other places? And yet the story appears to be a good one. In the antique violin business, we'd say it's too good :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), July 18, 2001.

That truly is an amazing story about an incredible camera.

I checked the number, 1005 304, and it was part of a batch of black paint M2s produced on July 7, 1960. I feel a small kinship as my black paint M2, 1005 253, is from the same batch and yes mine is also very beat up, but works perfectly and I wish I knew mines history.

These old Leicas are built like tanks.

-- Steve LeHuray (icommag@toad.net), July 18, 2001.

I think the biggest point is that this guy got his money's worth! People talk about how over priced Leicas are, but how many of those new and improved "wonder-plastic" cameras will be operating in 2040? How many would have survived just one of these expeditions?

Sometimes I imagine that my 1966 M2 is much smoother and more precise than my M6... But then again, maybe it is not my imagination.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 18, 2001.

I also find this story highly suspicious. Additionally to the 'unusual' wear mentioned above, I am also wondering why this guy would decide suddendly to sell it: If a pro. keeps the same camera for 30 years it would be really for sentimental reasons. I don't see why this guy would suddendly decide to part with it, if all it needs is a CLA.

-- Xavier Colmant (xcolmant@powerir.com), July 18, 2001.

The buyer has been very busy. Since April he has purchased several other M2's, a couple M4's, an M5, and an M6 plus a variety of other stuff.

The other M2's were purchased for under $1000. (around $800) And from reviewing the pictures, were in much better condition than this M2.

So I guess the story behind this M2 is worth around $2500.

Why is it that when I tell a story people either fall asleep or leave the room?

-- David S Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), July 18, 2001.

Collectors are so special people, hard to guess their reasons to buy something, the camera looks nice, I mean it has a lot of history through it, I personaly like worn stuff, I wish that look on my cameras, with out the inside wear, on the other hand I wouldn´t pay that much, hope it goes to a museum.

I wonder how a M6 would do.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 18, 2001.

Great story. Does anyone have the referenced National Geographics? I looked up one of his books (on nomads) on www.abebooks.com (a *great* source for used and out of print books), and found it. Did not find his other book.

But first you'd want to find out if those National Geo shots were done by the same person as these books.

Of course, to spin this yarn, s/he could've assumed the identity of some adventure photographer.

Suppose I had an M6 I wanted to sell, I pretended that I was Reza, the famed Iranian photographer. I could just go through his portfolio and reproduce an account of it pretending I was he, and that my camera for sale had gone to all these places (from the Russian and Central Asian mafias to the coal mines of Wales, e.g.).

I guess the question to ask the seller is to confirm the ID of this photographer who left him this camera on consignment.

Someone mentioned violins. Indeed, this story's like the movie, The Red Violin.

-- tsw (tsesung@yahoo.com), July 18, 2001.

Now I'm really curious, but I can't get to that page. Can someone make it linkable?

-- Sanford Gerald (sanford@usa.com), July 18, 2001.

I have to wonder how *all* the black paint got worn off the front around the rangefinder/viewfinder windows (where fingers don't spend a lot of time) especially if the camera had a lens mounted on it most of the time, which would keep clothing and camera bag from rubbing that area. Yet somehow there's still black paint on the baseplate, and on the top plate--just coincidentally so the Leica script and serial # stand out so esthetically. Also, the black paint is completely worn off the selftimer--not just the raised part that your finger usually pushes--and how often would a pro PJ use it? If this camera hasn't been "detailed", then maybe the owner spent his idle moments whenever he was bored rubbing off the paint.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), July 18, 2001.

If the owner spent all that time rubbing the paint off, he was obsessive-compulsive and there would be no way he would sell this camera having all that history. I smell something rotten in the state of Denmark.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), July 18, 2001.

As pointed out earlier, this seller has been busy. The thing that made me suspicious about this M2 besides the unusual wear pattern, is that this same seller sold an almost identically worn black paint M4 with an almost identical fascinating story about two weeks ago!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 18, 2001.

I agree that there are elements of the wear pattern that seem quite odd. The most glaring thing is how well preserved the top is relative to the rest of the metal surfaces. On my old chrome M3s, the top and bottom are where most of the dings, bright marks, and polished areas are.

Why is the paint completely missing from the top of the shutter speed dial but fully intact around it (where your fingers rub when setting the dial)?

The paint on the top plate by the rewind knob is also surprisingly intact considering the wear around the eyepiece and the concave surface by the knob. (One of my M3s is highly polished in a semicircle around the knob, but the eyepiece paint is still mostly intact.)

The self-timer wear is one of the few things that doesn't look that unusual--my middle finger lies across the timer lever for my standard grip on the camera.

A lot of the wear on this camera, though, just doesn't seem consistent with what you get from use.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), July 18, 2001.

...this same seller sold an almost identically worn black paint M4 with an almost identical fascinating story about two weeks ago!

That's interesting!

I looked on his past auctions and couldn't find it- I looked back to mid-May. Jack, can you locate the one you're talking about- the M4?

Here's his feedback page.

The first link to the M2.

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), July 18, 2001.

I think it's great that some fool wants to pay thousands of dollars for that piece of shit. Perhaps Solms could borrow it to make copies for all the collectors who missed out on the biding. They could call it the M-2S.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), July 18, 2001.

Have to admit, I too am now a little skeptical. I had a black paint M4 that had been through who knows what before I got it, the paint was 75% gone, yet it just did not look like these photos. Also I spent a good 1/2 hour last night doing every possible web search for this guy and came up with nothing. For someone so well travelled and so published it seems there's no 'trail'. Even the 'Chicago Geographic Society' he says he worked for seems non-existant.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 19, 2001.

Yesterday I sent an e-mail to the NG photographer who's M2 this was supposed to be. here is the reply I recieved:

Josh,

No problem. You're not the first one to have doubts, and I understand them very well.

The Leica M2 is mine, and it did go through the adventures described and more. Some of the stories of those adventures can be found in the following articles and books, and you'll find more under my name on the internet.

National Geographic: - November 1965: I Joined a Sahara Salt Caravan - June 1968: Trek by Mule Among Morocco's Berbers - February 1970: The Danakil: Nomads of Ethiopia's Wasteland - April 1974: The Drought Threatens the Tuareg World

National Geographic book chapters: - Nomads of the World: two chapters - Primitive People: two chapters - Secret Corners of the World: one chapter

International Wildlife: March-April 1984: My Travels with the Nomads

Smithsonian: October 1985: Crossing Patagonia: one long, long ride in a hard, lovely land

Books: - Aborigines of the Rain Forest: The Yanomami (Time-Life Books, London 1982) - Wind, sand and Silence: Travels with Africa's Last Nomads (Chronicle Books, San Francisco 1992)

I hope this puts your misgivings to rest,

Best wishes,

Victor Englebert

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), July 19, 2001.

I'm the seller of the black M2 on Ebay. It seems that this auction has brought out some of the best armchair investigators that the Net has to offer, and since so much of this bears on my credibility as an Ebay seller, I will try my best to address most of the major concerns. Flesher confuses someone who routinely doubts (a skeptic) with someone who routinely condemns (a jerk.) Darnton, the violin maker, thinks that the story is "too good," whatever that means. It may mean that international photojournalists lead more interesting lives than violin players. And your point is... ? His analysis of the paint wear makes no sense at all: ALL the paint is missing from the sides of both the topplate and the bottomplate: the areas which receive the most wear. Colmant proffers a psychological theory. The truth is that most NG photographers are not camera collectors. Most professional photographers are not camera collectors and regard these instruments as mere tools. Why do people sell their stuff? I don't know. I didn't ask. What makes people keep their stuff? tsw: Several interested bidders asked to contact the camera's owner in order to verify his identity. I arranged the exchange of e-mails and everyone certainly seemed satisfied. Jay: This black enamel paint wears very easily. Holding the camera with your right hand, the middle finger naturally rubs against the self-timer. Flesher says that I recently sold a black-paint M4, worn, with a similar history. This is completely false. (Where do you get this stuff?) And, "yes," I am busy. What about it? Bill Mitchell: You think the buyer payed too much for "a piece of shit?" Last month on Ebay, you bid $300 for a 5x7 Ansco field camera. That's three-times market value: the same as the Leica sale; only the 5x7 Ansco really IS a piece of shit. Ebay sets the value for collectible items today. If any of you think the camera is not worth the $3200 which it sold for, then I would be interested in seeing the source for your evaluation. It takes more than one "crazy" bidder to make an auction, and in this case, the underbidder had $3,158 on the camera. $2,700 was underneath that, and then $2,300. These people have a passion for collecting historic objects and are willing to bid aggressively for them. The day after the Leica sold, 8 postcards of mine went off for $210. Is anyone from the peanut gallery going to accuse me of having secretly printed these in my basement? I have nearly 1,000 positive comments from satisfied buyers participating in honest auctions. I sell without reserves and with an unqualified money-back guarantee. I even provide a link to an essay of mine helping new bidders to identify shill bidding and deceptive selling practices on Ebay. Contributers to these Internet bulletin boards are very casual in accusing others of dishonesty and fraud. After 5 years on Ebay, this is the first time that ANYONE has accused me of running a bogus auction. Charles Klopman

-- Charles Klopman (Charles@Klopman.net), July 19, 2001.

"Last month on Ebay, you bid $300 for a 5x7 Ansco field camera. That's three-times market value: the same as the Leica sale; only the 5x7 Ansco really IS a piece of shit."

Hahahaha ZING! That's funny. Good times. Good times. I like lively discussions.

(Please note that this isn't a comment on either of the cameras or the ammount bid on them, just the fact that people are getting worked up about the whole thing. If you want to pay $3200 or $500 or even $6 for a camera, more power to you. It doesn't bother me either way.)

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), July 19, 2001.

Dear Mr. Klopman,

I reviewed your posting of this camera on ebay. I also went to your website via your nicely provided link. I also viewed many of your recent sales. I was impressed with your effort and amazed at the varity and volume of the stuff you peddle.

I have also reviewed the postings of this group. Indeed, my comment above was directed at the value of the story vs the value of the camera.

Nowhere do I find any reference directly dealing with your honesty. The story is an amazing one. So much so, a number of your bidders sought verification. Do you consider those bidders to have accused you of running a bogus operation by seeking verification?

Skepticism of such a story is different that skepticism of Klopman. In your ebay ad you cite the story as someone else's story. You cite your interest as receiving the camera as a consignment sale. Then in summary you sum up the features of the M2 camera. I never suspected you of anything other than passing the story on. Indeed, as I stated, its a $2500 story.

Congratulations on your sale of the camera! Believe it or not, I have purchased merchandise on ebay that was misrepresented from sellers that "fudge" the truth. I suspect other have had similar experiences.

The internet is a great place for the amalgamation of opinion and fact. Here in this ng you will find a great deal of both. Indeed, some of the members went to extra efforts to verify the story in your behalf without being asked. They appear to have been driven by their own natural curiosity. The truth comes out in the end.

In this newsgroup, the members have agreed to disagree in a civil manner. You may or may not subscribe to that ethic, the choice is yours. Those that choose to find your ebay business as an honest and ethical business will do so. Hissing at those that don't won't bring them around.

You do seem to know quite a bit about cameras. With your knowledge and experience about cameras you could make quite the positive contribution here. Maybe even drum up some business. No telling how many leica collectors there are lurking out there.

-- David S Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), July 19, 2001.

Dear David: You're right. I fell asleep.

-- Charles Klopman (Charles@Klopman.net), July 19, 2001.