Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/02/24

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Question: Single Stroke vs. Double Stroke M3
From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@pacbell.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:44:50 -0800
References: <20030225011413.97780.qmail@web40807.mail.yahoo.com> <038501c2dc6f$2236ea20$6401a8c0@oemcomputer>

Don

Right!  Clockwork motors!  Now that Leica has re-instituted the
Leicavit and essentially snubbed Tom Abrahamson, Tom should
build an M version of the MOOLY, which was a fantastic device.
I regretted giving mine up when I went from a IIIa to a IIIf.  Leitz
never made one for the M2.  The MOOLY was much smaller
than the one made by DAG's father, and never ran out of batteries.

Tom A,. Now is the time!  I will order one right now, if possible.

Jerry


Don Dory wrote:

> Part of this discussion ignores the decision by Leica to use a "glass"
> pressure plate.  I think that these plates were indeed more prone to static
> than the metal plates used before and after.  So, with the decision to use
> the superior glass plate, the decision to ameliorate static marks with a
> slower wind makes sense.  Bear in mind that Leica had clockwork motors and
> other rapid advance methods in place.
>
> Don
> dorysrus@mindspring.com
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from "Gary Williams" <nasmformyzombie@mindspring.com> (Re: [Leica] Question: Single Stroke vs. Double Stroke M3)
In reply to: Message from Javier Perez <summarex@yahoo.com> (Re: [Leica] Question: Single Stroke vs. Double Stroke M3)
Message from "Don Dory" <dorysrus@mindspring.com> (Re: [Leica] Question: Single Stroke vs. Double Stroke M3)