Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Time for the defenestration of Roanoke, Virginia. Since Marc's top floor is not at the same elevation as the Praha window from which national hero Jan Masaryk departed, one may presume a non-lethal result. P.S. (in this case, means "pre-script"!!): note well, I love my M6, my main everyday user. Handier than my M4 that I also love and am unretiring as I write (Sherry is doing a CLA on it). I write this response principally because I couldn't swallow Marc's insults about some good friends. From: "Marc James Small" <msmall@infionline.net> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] Marc Small's statement that M6 is best built M camera At 09:10 AM 7/28/03 -0400, Seth Rosner wrote: > >The usual undocumented - and undocumentable - "for complex reasons." Marc >should produce a single Leica repair person not attached to Solms or >Northvale to state a single complex (or simple) reason that the build >quality of M6's is the best. > > I will simply say that these are probably the very people who told me the opposite, Seth. .............in your imagination, marc. You're wrong about the M6, Marc. > I suspect that they were telling you what you wanted to hear, as all small merchants must do. ........of all of the arrogant, condescending, demeaning, insulting remarks you have made on this site, this one, marc, is the worst. It happens that the people of whom I was writing are THE three most highly regarded independent Leica service people in the United States. Everyone on the LUG, including you, knows who they are. I wonder how you would feel if I were to say to you in a public forum - which I am not doing and do not intend to suggest - you, mr. small, are a penny-ante, small-time lawyer? In fact, each of the three is absolutely straight, will never say what he/she does not believe, to the point on occasion of brusqueness. You know the three of whom I spoke (I also know from them that you have used the services of at least two of them in the past) and since your message, I have asked each of them whether they have spoken to you on the issue of comparative M-camera quality and not one has. Thus you were not speaking the truth. Or, if there were three others who"told you the opposite" I challenge you to disclose their names here, where you have demeaned my friends, so that I may speak directly with them to confirm what you say they have told you. In short, I do not believe you. You're wrong about the M6, Marc. >Why not call them back and discuss the changes in engineering approaches between 1937, when the M3 began life, ..........it was 1954, Marc. > and 1975, when the M4-2 was designed. Specifically, ask them about the longevity impact of that changeover from adjustable to go/no-go components. Don't just ask, "WHAT" is better; seek their referent, and ask "WHY is it better?" ..........more rubbish that you constantly interject to deflect from being caught with your pants down on YOUR issue: is the build quality of the M6 the best? You're wrong about the M6, Marc. >One primary example of change was the shift from bronze gears in the M2 through M4 and the steel gears used since the M4-2. ......how brilliantly well-informed you are, marc. Never was bronze used. It is too soft. The gear trains of Leicas were always brass until the M4-2 and M4-P. Last Monday, 28 July, Ernst Hartmann, head of the service department of Leica Northvale, told me that the reason Leitz went from brass to steel in the M4-2 and M4-P was because the force applied by the motor winders Leitz made for those cameras was sufficiently strong that Leitz was concerned that the brass gear trains MIGHT show, according to Leitz standards, unacceptable levels of wear. In the event, Ernst also said that instances of brass gears failing on ANY earlier M Leica were extremely rare, including the first Leica MP, an M3 built for motor winder. You're wrong about the M6, Marc. >Bronze gears lap into themselves fairly readily, and thus we have the buttery smooth advance of an M3. Steel gears take millions of advances to do the same. ......whereas brass (NOT BRONZE) gears will only take half-a-million, right? >But the bronze (sic) gear will be worn out by the time the steel gear is just getting lapped into smoothness, ............bronze might not last a thousand advances. But millions of advances? 10 rolls a day (every day) x 36 exposures x 365 days/year (every year) x 40 years = 5,256,000 advances. You'll be gone by then. So will we all. Except the old f*rt, Ted. >The change in engineering methods is easily documented by anyone who cares to examine the maintenance schedule for a 1953 automobile and for a 2003 automobile and who can then compare the AAA rates on highway break-downs: in olden days, breakdowns were frequent and so was maintenance. Today, maintenance has been reduced and breakdowns as well. ............more diversionary rubbish. But I am still driving a 1967 - 36 year-old - Ferrari made like they did in "olden" days, mostly by hand, with nary a break-down in the 25 years I have owned it, including some hard driving on race tracks like Watkins Glen and Lime Rock. But not to divert, back to the subject: you're wrong about the M6, Marc > The same works for mechanical cameras. (Seth, if you are REALLY interested, I can pass on some Industrial College of the Armed Forces materials on MTBF methodology for your review.) .........please send this to me by ordinary mail. You're wrong about the M6, Marc. >Those interested in this are encouraged to check the archives, as this topic has been discussed to death. ...........sic semper tyrannis! >I will probably have no more to contribute on this thread, ...........Gott sei danke! >as I've had my say multiple times over during the past ten years. ............ad nauseam. See my remarks above about the M6. Marc, when will you learn that you don't need to flaunt your brilliance to earn respect? We know you are well-informed about certain things. You don't have to be well-informed about everything. So when you shoot your mouth, oops, your computer off about anything that comes into your mind, citing imaginary experts and fake sources and demeaning and belittling others in an effort to make yourself bigger, it only demeans, belittles and discredits you. I was only joking about defenestration. Love and kisses to all, including Marc. Seth LaK 9 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html