Re: M4-2

[Stephen Gandy <cameras@jetlink.net>]

seungmin@luxmail.luxcom.com wrote:
 
>        I have been thinking of adding a M4-2 to my M collection and came up
>      with a question.  As far as I know, M4-2 is basically the same as M4
>      except that the former was made in Canada without a self timer.  My
>      question comes here, why is M4-2 not as much appreciated as M4?  Is it
>      because it is Canadian made with less attention to quality.  Your
>      opinions are appreciated.
> 

The used Leica Rangefinder market is driven by collectors, not users. 
While the M4-2 is arguably a better user, that is not why collectors are
buying Leicas.

Its Quality of craftsmanship, and that is what the M4-2 doesn't have
when compared to the M4.

Specifically:

1) a cheaper black chrome finish which is not considered as beautiful as
the chrome or  black enamel finish of the M4's.   A few M4's were made
with black chrome finish, and they have a lower value than the other
two.  

2) No top plate engraving.  this is a VERY big deal to Leica collectors

3) No traditional vulcanite, it was replaced by a cheaper body covering

4) last, the M4-2 was the first of the M's to be primarily made in
Canada.  The Leica collectors were not pleased.

whether any of these points are valid is in the eyes of the beholder,
but Leica collectors generally have share these opinions and it is they,
not the users, who are responsible for about 95% of used Leica M sales
in the US.

Stephen Gandy