Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/10

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] M5 ?
From: "M.E.Berube" <MEB@goodphotos.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:27:12 -0500
References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001109161617.00aa7700@206.34.200.40>

Sorry....dyslexia kicked in from over exposure to excessive political 
punditry.....

Should have been "over 127XXX"  (not 271XXX.)
Your 137XXX should be fine ...mine is a 136XXX and is functionally flawless.
Also not a hard and fast rule as Sherry says that many of the earlier ones 
that were prone to breakage have been fixed (or parted out) by now or 
didn't break in the first place.

Michael

At 11:18 AM 11/10/00 +0100, Tarek Charara wrote:
>le 09.11.2000 22:31, M.E.Berube à MEB@goodphotos.com a écrit :
>
> >> Reliable?
> >
> > Over #271XXX  or so they get more reliable. The earlier than 271XXX bodies
> > reportedly had problems with some roller that could be costly to fix.
> > (According to Sherry K Leica M5 goddess extraordinaire.)
>
>Hello,
>
>I just checked the M5 serial numbers and from what I understand they go from
>1287001 to 1384000. Is there something I'm missing? The M5 I'm looking at
>has #1376573... So that's probably a good sign.
>
>Tarek
>---------------------------------------------------------
>
>Tarek Charara
>http://www.orients-unis.net

In reply to: Message from "M.E.Berube" <MEB@goodphotos.com> (Re: [Leica] M5 ?)