tward
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by tward on Sept 26, 2010 18:37:08 GMT -5
First this will be my first post to the forum, been a looker but I am not much on the talk end. I have collected and used vintage cameras for about 40 years, had a bunch of different stuff from 35mm, half frame, medium and large format. Anyway on with the show. Found this and had a hunch it might not be the usual C4. From the little bit of info I can find not many around. Thought you would like to see one. C four with a 50mm F2.8, excellent condition. The Argus collector site stated some think it may have been a military version. At any rate hope you enjoy.
[/url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/31033169@N05/5027916610/[/url]
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Sept 26, 2010 18:40:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by aceroadholder on Sept 26, 2010 20:05:57 GMT -5
Tward, looks like you've hit the Argus jackpot. About as rare as hen's teeth, the black C-4 should bring you a tidy sum if you decide to sell. Talk with the gang over on the argus yahoo website and they should be able to tell you what the market is now. A really beautiful camera.
Orlin in SC/USA
|
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Sept 26, 2010 22:04:29 GMT -5
Welcome to the Camera Collector! That is a great find.
|
|
|
|
Post by aceroadholder on Sept 27, 2010 0:06:39 GMT -5
The photos that I have seen of the black C-4 show the color of the body to be as shown in the photograph here.... not really black, but sort of a blue/purple.
I have no trouble imagining a near mint black C-4... there are plenty of very nice C-4's up for auction all the time. Back in the day, a nice camera of any make was not a cheap proposition. People, recently out of the great depression, took very good care of most high end consumer items they purchased.
Orlin in SC/USA
|
|
tward
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by tward on Sept 27, 2010 11:46:58 GMT -5
Maybe a great find, but the Military did not purchase the C-4, and I have my doubts about its authenticity. The anodized finish on the aluminum doesn't match the painted finish on the lens barrel, and the whole thing looks too new and too perfect (as does the image on the Argus collectors' site). I would be looking for signs (perhaps under the covering) of some tinkering with the finish. Not hard to do, really. Without some original period documentation of the existence of a black version, I would take this with a very large grain of salt. I have no reservations about the authenticity of the camera at all. Anodized metal color, can vary greatly, based upon exposure to light and so on. I have seen a picture of another black body that the body actually looks brown. As for the military thing I would tend to agree that it would not only be black body but probably no bright emblems and so on, and would be marked with a FSN, Federal Stock Number, some place. Maybe my picture makes it look much better than it is, but is does show slight signs of use and the things one would expect to see from disassemble for coloring, just do not exist. It looks to me like a camera that was well cared for and then stored for a lot of years. Tim |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2010 15:38:49 GMT -5
I don't know much about Argus but from what I have seen on line and my experience with Soviet cameras I'm skeptical that the black C4 came from the factory. The Argus collector site seems unwilling to give it an authenticity stamp, too.
Soviet cameras from the 1950s and '60s are so common they don't fetch much from collectors even when in like new condition. Some sellers try to increase the value by creating "R@re" black models. The fact that a 50-year-old camera such as the Argus is in mint condition would be a warning flag to me that it has been repainted. I used military issued cameras in the Army and never saw one(including a Leica M4) that stayed in like new condition.
|
|
tward
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by tward on Sept 27, 2010 17:13:24 GMT -5
I don't know much about Argus but from what I have seen on line and my experience with Soviet cameras I'm skeptical that the black C4 came from the factory. The Argus collector site seems unwilling to give it an authenticity stamp, too. Soviet cameras from the 1950s and '60s are so common they don't fetch much from collectors even when in like new condition. Some sellers try to increase the value by creating "R@re" black models. The fact that a 50-year-old camera such as the Argus is in mint condition would be a warning flag to me that it has been repainted. I used military issued cameras in the Army and never saw one(including a Leica M4) that stayed in like new condition. Wayne I would tend to agree that it probably was not a military camera. As for post factory tinkering, most of the time my experience is the knock off or fake rare cameras would be of a pedigree much more than an Argus. This particular one I have is not mint at all and does not show any signs of dismantling or tampering that I have seen on other fake cameras. I would be more inclined to think it was an employee special project or sample or something along those lines. The Argus group will probably look it over much closer than I. Tim |
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Sept 27, 2010 20:07:20 GMT -5
Tim,
If it proves to be a fake, perhaps it is the only fake black Argus C4 in existence. That would be a real collectors piece.
I don't know anything about the Argus c4, but I do know people who have bought cameras and then hardly used them (for a variety of reasons). My own cameras, in the main, show signs of wear because I tend to use them. My Canon D30, which expired last December, was looking fairly battered after two and a half years fairly heavy use.
Dave.
|
|
tward
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by tward on Sept 27, 2010 20:29:43 GMT -5
Tim, If it proves to be a fake, perhaps it is the only fake black Argus C4 in existence. That would be a real collectors piece. I don't know anything about the Argus c4, but I do know people who have bought cameras and then hardly used them (for a variety of reasons). My own cameras, in the main, show signs of wear because I tend to use them. My Canon D30, which expired last December, was looking fairly battered after two and a half years fairly heavy use. Dave. Well Dave I would truly be fortunate then....the only fake black Argus  . |
|
|
|
Post by aceroadholder on Sept 27, 2010 21:44:24 GMT -5
From what I understand, Argus made 100-200 black C-4's... perhaps less. I would go to the Argus collector website and see if the serial number falls into the range of when they were made.
The effort it would take to make a really good fake isn't worth the effort.... it's an Argus, not a Leica. The collecting world for this camera is small... if you faked one, or tried to pass off a fake, your name would be on the wall of every collector world wide.
Orlin in SC/USA
|
|
tward
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by tward on Sept 27, 2010 22:00:53 GMT -5
From what I understand, Argus made 100-200 black C-4's... perhaps less. I would go to the Argus collector website and see if the serial number falls into the range of when they were made. The effort it would take to make a really good fake isn't worth the effort.... it's an Argus, not a Leica. The collecting world for this camera is small... if you faked one, or tried to pass off a fake, your name would be on the wall of every collector world wide. Orlin in SC/USA I have already submitted my info to the Argus Group, hopefully they can provide some insight. I have been taken a couple times with fake Leica's and hopefully won't make the same mistake twice. But I just find it hard to imagine anyone would try and do a fake Argus.........just does not seem like a good candidate. Tim |
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Sept 28, 2010 3:09:38 GMT -5
Fake money: Britain has had its share of counterfeit money. It has always tended to the £20 note in recent years. Why? Well it' take the same effort to produce a £5 or £10 note, so you 'earn' more relative to time spent with the £20. Why then not the £50 forgery? The reason is that they are not common enough usage: people would pretty quickly stop accepting the £50 if there was a sniff of forgery. I would image the same thing applies to cameras, and everything else for that matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by aceroadholder on Oct 1, 2010 14:09:04 GMT -5
There is a reason you might anodize one aluminum part and paint the other. If you are looking just for surface protection, anodize the lot and let it go. If you want the appearance of the parts to match, then you can have problems.
I've worked at manufacturing plant where black anodize was done for FN Arms, Winchester Division. Surface preparation was critical for appearance match. If one part is cast or stamped and another is machined, when anodized, they will have a very different appearance when they come out of the tank. Stamped parts may have a beautiful shine, whilst the machined parts will be a dull flat black.
Machined parts have to be polished to a mirror finish to get really good anodized finishes. Anodize hides no flaws in the part.
I can readily imagine that at Argus, they weren't going to spend a lot of time trying to polish out parts they could just paint and be done with it... especially with a very short run product. To boot, there's nothing wrong with well done paint on a camera.. for my 2 cents worth.
Orlin in SC/USA
|
|
.