Re: [Leica] CL Profitability

[Lucien_vD <Lucien_vD@compuserve.com>]

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 camer=
a
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 no=
t
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 Leic=
a.
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 =3D
1.300.001-1.335.000 =3D 35.000 made
1.395.001-1.410.000 =3D 15.000 made
1.425.000-1.440.000 =3D last number founded 1.432.846 (50 jahre)
+ 1.440.871 in a Leica Catalog from LHSA (maybe a misprint)

=3D between 57.846 and 65.871 ex. made from 73 to 76 =

=3D around 15.000/year.

M6 =3D around 10.000/year ?!?

BTW my CL is the 1.333.797



Lucien
BELGIUM