Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/25

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: Re: the first IIIg
From: bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)
Date: Sat Sep 25 19:25:30 2004

Right. Just don't buy it as an "investment." But then other than a very
small handful of very special cameras - most of which probably are in
the Sols museum, no Leica is a decent "investment." But we've been round
and round on that one many times.



-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
JCB
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 1:22 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: [Leica] Re: Re: the first IIIg 


At 10:10 AM 8/17/2004, Brian Reid wrote:


>In my opinion a fake Leica is of equal value to the original, as long 
>as
>it is a well-made fake. A fake Leica that takes bad photographs is of 
>course not useful.


If experts have some difficulty in distinguishing between real and fake,

then fake must be, basically, as good as real. After all, they have
perfect 
original specimens as models.

If you look at it another way, a fake might be completely hand made. It 
might actually be better than the original since everything is checked, 
double checked, triple measured, hand finished, etc.

JB 

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from jcb at visualimpressions.com (JCB) ([Leica] Re: Re: the first IIIg)