Re: [Leica] Country of origin Smoke Screens

[Stephen Gandy <Stephen@CameraQuest.com>]

Well Erwin, it amazes me how maintain your objectivity  and even handedness,
when I see it as anything but when the subject turns to Leica.

Have you EVER made ANY post on the LUG about a current Leica product which did
not support Leica management in the best possible light ?   Objectivity  would
seem to demand that at some point in time you would have to find something
negative, most other LUGers have at some point or another.   Any post of yours
referring to Leica problems that I can remember has only amounted to a
disgruntled acknowledgment after many posts have made whatever problem common
knowledge.  Remember the arguments we had a few years ago when you claimed there
was no reasonable proof the lagging  R8 sales affected Leica's financials?  I
do, it still makes me laugh whenever I see an R8.

 I don't know if you are on Leica's payroll, but if you deserve to be,  since
your unending praise of new products and lenses probably sells more product than
Leica's often inept advertising.    I give thanks your lens tests don't talk
about exceedingly fine detail in Che's beard.

I don't think the real  issue here is Country of Origin with you at all, but
your attempt at  PR damage control.

If it became generally known how much of the M6 is made outside of Germany,
sales might lag.  Older used cameras might be preferred to the new.    I think
that is what you are worried about.     For some reason you seem to have a blind
devotion to Leica management, defending their decisions and promoting their
products -- even if their decisions and products don't deserve it.

Some will doubtless believe your Leica promotional mindset  and unflinching
Leica management loyalty has nothing to do with your dependence upon Leica's
good will to provide you with information and test products for the CD's,
articles, and books you want to sell.    I am not one of them.

In my opinion the biggest smoke screen on the LUG is you Erwin, often fooling
people into believing you are detached and objective in your Leica posts.  I
think the best solution for everyone would be Leica making  you an official paid
spokesman.   You would then be able to quote official Leica positions as a Leica
employee, and I wouldn't be bothered about your painful lack of objectivity
since there would never be any question that you have any objectivity.

Stephen Gandy

 Erwin Puts wrote:

> The current discussion about the country of origin of the M6 and the
> additional value this information might have for the consumer, that is
> user/buyer of the camera, can be approached from different perspectives.
> I fully agree with Ted and others who argue that the CoO is irrelevant for
> the process of taking photographs. If the camera functions as specified and
> delivers the goods, what extra info can be gleaned from the fact that the
> camera is made in Portugal, Solms or Dresden? Nothing at all. THis is the
> same as the obsession with the manufacturer of the glass, that is used in
> Leica lenses. Is a Leica lens less worth when it has glass. manufactured by
> Hoya (Japan), Corning (France) or Schott (Germany). And who is aware of the
> fact  that many glass types from Schott are manufactured in Malaysia?
> Is it then in the interest of the general consumer to know the CoO of every
> part and the locations of the assembly and quality control? It would only
> matter if you can claim that the origin of manufacture and/or assembly has a
> statistically relevant impact on qulaity and quality assurance.
> Bill has listed the origin of some of the parts and some of the assembly
> locations. More could be added and presented in more detail.  But it is
> indeed irrelevant. The consumer buys a product and pays for the quality. If
> the shutter gears, according to original Solms specs should be made of
> material X and be machined to a tolerance of a thousands of an inch and
> checked to ensure it has these values, why should it be deemed important
> where that check is done and who produces the steel for the gear? Most
> socalled Swedish steel, used by Volvo and Saab (and in their advertising!),
> is made in Holland at the Hoogovens plant in IJmuiden!
> If one would dare to  presume that German workers generally do better than
> their Portuguese collegues, I would challenge anyone to prove it or be
> accused of xenophobia!
> Knowing the meticulous quality and great pride of the Portuguese workers at
> the Leica plant, I would sense it as very insulting that someone could
> assume that these men mand women would be inferior to the mythical German
> quality workers. And if fact: IT IS NOT TRUE!!!!!!
> Portuguese quality is as good, if not better than German quality.
> To answer the original  question: who would benefit from the knowledge of
> the country of origin? It is the dealer of second hand cameras. If one could
> say with certainty: Leica M6 cameras till serial number 1.234.567are Solms
> made and after that production shifted to Portugal, I am sure that in an
> instant those cameras with <#1.234.567 would be priced at a premium by any
> dealer as being of higher value.
> Just as has happened with M3 bodies with serial number above 1.100.000, that
> are assumed to be the pinacle of mechanical Leica quality. I have NEVER read
> any serious analysis, why this should be true and after numerous visits to
> the factory, where  this question has been discussed in extenso, I still do
> not know, nor does the factory itself. This is a myth that will benefit only
> two parties: collectors and sellers.
> And so does the info about the origin of production, (As Bill as
> exemplified: a very vague concept in itself) of M6 bodies. The myth of any
> superiority of production origin suits the seller and collector, not the
> user. It might be useful to know the origin of a product if we know for sure
> that there is a quality difference. But in the case of Portugal versus Solms
> or Wetzlar, this difference does not exist and I challenge everyone to bring
> conclusive proof of the contrary! Is it then in the interest of the consumer
> to know the origin. From a view of playing games like Trival Pursuit: by all
> means. From a consumer/user/buyer perspective: not relevant at all.
> The "Made in ..." has an interesting origin. In the Industrial Age (around
> 1870) British products were superior to anything made elsewhere. So when the
> Germans started to manufacture industrial goods, the English forced them to
> indicate the "made in germany" on their products as a sign of inferior
> quality, as we westerners generally laughed at any product that had the sign
> "made in Japan"  and we now are suspect when a product says "made in China".
> Old habits never die. or so it seems. The alleged quality differences
> between German and Canadian lenses. between Wetzlar and Solms M bodies,
> between Solms and Portugal R bodies, between German and Japanese
> manufactured lenses only serve one purpose: produce smoke screens to make
> the consumer insecure!
>
> Erwin