[Leica] historians burden

[imx <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

Any Leica collector and/or historian would like to have all facts neatly
arranged and ready to study.
The area of the production numbers and years of production of Leica products
will however always be fragmentary and full of uncertainties, even when the
collector books do suggest the contrary.
Let us face these very basic facts.
Leica has a thick book in folio format where you will find several entries
on a line:
a date, two serial numbers, a lens or body identification and a code number.
As example:
17 december 1957, 1.000.000 to 1.003.000, elmarit 2.8/90, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This entry tells you that on this date the indicated serial namber range has
been 'booked' for that lens.
That is all! Every author of any Leica book in existence (except one) has
interpreted these lines as meaning: "there have been produced 3000 elmarits,
producton starting in december 1957".
In fact the correct interpretation is:
"On 17 december the factory has the intention to produce a batch of elmarit
lenses and has reserved the indicated number range for that purpose and the
engraving of front lens rings with the lens name and consecutive serial
numbers may begin at any time."
It is a reasonable assumption that these rings have been produced.  But
there is no evidence what so ever in the factory records about production of
lenses itself.
Several possibilities now pop up.
(A)The full range of numbers has been indeed produced, but not in one batch,
but in several ones, stretching over a longer but unknown period, making it
difficult to correlate the production years to the allocation years. A
current case is the VE2.8/35-70. Number range has been allocated in 1998,
but production is not et finished.
(B)The full range of numbers has not been produced, but we do not know how
many.

There is on the other hand fragmantary info about sold lenses
(Verkaufsbücher).  But if we find a gap in the serial numbers (and many can
be found), what does that mean: not produced? not sold?, sold by other
means? kept in the factory?
Laney's books do use the sales figures as being identical to the production
numbers, which is tricky.
Sartorius uses the allocation numbers as production numbers, although he
sometimes mentions the allocation principle. But he uses the allocation
dates as dates of production, which is tricky too.
A small French booklet does the only thing that can be done to find reliable
info: he presents the lowest and highest number he has ever spotted. But
even then he does not know if and how many gaps there are.

The real production figures not being available, there is a certain amount
of uncertainty around all figures and dates that try to indentify dates and
numbers of production.
The documents that exist give valuable info for imaginative leaps of
fantasy.
The 1,5/85 is a case: production numbers are allocated from 1943, but there
are sales recorded in 1949. has this lens be on stock for 6 years? are there
some lenses made at a later date?

I think we should get accustomed to the fact that the world is not so well
ordered and neat as we hope. And some information we may never get to a
satisfactory level of reliability!
Leica history is a fascinating, but somewhat trivial pursuit.  But if it is
taken on, it should be done professionally according to the rules of the
profession of industrial history.


Erwin