Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]- ----------- > >Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:12:31 -0400 >From: Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net> >Subject: Re: [Leica] was consistent underexposure problem > >I guess what I don't understand is how the value added by the final >assembly of susbsets can be so high as to dominate all the assembly that >took place in Portugal, thereby allowing the "Made in Germany" stamping on >the camera. > >Dan C. > >At 07:28 PM 20-09-99 +0200, Dominique PELLISSIER wrote: >[snip] >>Comment : >> >>As you know the cost of labor in Portugal is not as high as in Germany.Now >>the process of fabrication includes much handwork. >>Only the final assembly of subsets is made at Solms. >> >>Made in Germany, made in Canada, made in Portugal, made in Japan : it >>doesn't matter.Made by (or for) Leica is important. >>We are in a global economy. >>(BTW my antique Apple powerbook 145 has been made by Sony, so what!) >> ############## I don't want to write anything but I remember a man from Leica France saying that it's not the added value which determines the"made in Germany" stamp, but a number of operations made in Germany (6 or 8 ??). What operations ? Just clean the bottom plate 6 times ;-) More seriously, the "made in germany" is not managed by the European union, as I read in another post, but by a german authority. It would be interesting to start a research on this theme including a comparison with the "swiss made" for the watches. Dominique Pellissier