Re: [Leica] CL Profitability

[Stephen <cameras@jetlink.net>]

Lucien,

thanks for contributing all the documentation, it must have taken a lot
of research to find it all.   geez, I wish I had that much patience.

well done!

Stephen


Lucien_vD wrote:

> Stephen wrote
>
> >The guess is that with a limited market which depended upon long term
>
> >professional capabilities, Leica chose to retire the CL in order to
> >regain M line sales.   They eventually did that.   I agree this
> scenario
> >is  not common  business move, but it may have happened--or maybe
> not.
>
> Stephen,
>
> When Leitz decided to retire the CL from the market, there was no M
> camera
> in production (except maybe the MDa). The M5 was also stopped, a few
> thousand black chrome M4s where made in Canada, and the M4-2 was still
> not
> available.
> I remember that around 1976, the belgian importer was still
> discounting
> chrome M4s, six years after the end of the production (for 15.000BF,
> 560$,
> argh!).
> I think that period was the worst (beside the war) for Leitz and the
> Leica.
> I don't remember who told me that during 30 years, the photographic
> part of
> Leitz was never beneficial, and survived only because of the other
> departments.
>
> I think that I prefer the present situation.
> Except the RED SEAL on the front of the camera.
> My crusade will never end.  ;-)
> or maybe they made the M6J just for me ?
>
> Hereafter some readings:
>
> In Emil G. Keller's
> The Source of Today's 35mm Photography Part II,
> The Leica Years 1945-80, 1989
>
> ""Initially, the demand turned out to be more
> than satisfactory and "Minolta" was not even able
> to deliver fast enough.
> Then followed price increases combined with technical problems:
> The metering systems was flawed, some in-house experts even
> suggested that the design had not been perfect to begin with.
> Minolta lived up to its expectations and continued to manufacture
> the camera under their own name, but the market had turned
> away from the rangefinder system and lost out against
> other cameras in the lower or similar price range.
> Many CL users, even today, swear by the concept and
> would love to see it revived using today's technology.""
>
> In Practical Photography 02/1974:
> Test Leica CL
>
> ""However, 200 GBP is a rater awkward price for a camera of this type.
>
> There are several very good single-lens reflex available for around
> this
> figure, and these are more versatile than the Leica CL.""
>
> But in Modern Photography, 1973
> LEICA CL test
>
> ""Since it's finished in the manner we've come to expect from Leitz
> and
> costs only about half as much as the M5, it also represents an
> excellent
> value""
>
> Different of "point de vue" !!
>
> In Amateur Photographer August 11, 1984:
> A New Leica ? from Mike Pierce:
>
> ""There was a hope that some CL users would be persuaded
> to move up to the 'M' or Reflex system.
> It sold quite well, slightly more than the M5(...).
> The traditional 'M' user viewed it with some suspicion,
> but in relation to the market at which it was aimed,
> it was overpriced""  ?!?
>
> According to Filippo Giunta:
>
> "Leica M mount cameras, a systematic approach" 1996
>
> 1) the serial numbers of the Minolta CL are in the 1.031.xxx range,
> a Minolta serial number.
>
> 2) CL 3 batches =
> 1.300.001-1.335.000 = 35.000 made
> 1.395.001-1.410.000 = 15.000 made
> 1.425.000-1.440.000 = last number founded 1.432.846 (50 jahre)
> + 1.440.871 in a Leica Catalog from LHSA (maybe a misprint)
>
> = between 57.846 and 65.871 ex. made from 73 to 76
> = around 15.000/year.
>
> M6 = around 10.000/year ?!?
>
> BTW my CL is the 1.333.797
>
> Lucien
> BELGIUM