Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Erwin Puts wrote: > "A brandnew broken Leica is still a broken Leica. Period, as Eric > says" > > No discussion on this point. But this fact, unfortunate as it is, does > not > prove in any way what we are (the minority) try to convey. ANY > product, > handbuilt, crafted in small series or machine produced and Quality > Controlled to an extremely small tolerance figure can and will > occasionaly > fail (Murphy's law will see to that). This failure does prove nothing. Erwin, while I certainly will agree that your viewpoint(s) on present vs "old" Leicas do have some merit (I particularly found the cheap post war labor interesting) one important factor has not been discussed so far. The numerous quality control problems---of new or near new Leicas that are discussed on the LUG these days---did not (at least in my memory) occur during M3/M2/M4 production. How do you account for this in the "newer is better" made argument? When Murphy's law goes into high gear at Leica, what are consumers to think? Regards, Stephen Gandy