Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Maybe I misread that. If corporate age is the only frame of reference, Leica may be older. From a practical standpoint, I don't care how long the corporate shells have been around - since they're just names - it's carrying on the business itself that is important. Voigtlander is out; Zeiss has been out of cameras for quite some time. Even Leitz itself is out of the business. By the corporate form, I could tell you my family is over 2,037 years old. That doesn't mean I do anything that Lucius Arruntius Stella did one hundred and two generations later (I am not the court poet to Octavian), just that I'm a part of that line (well, I guess I am something of a rhetor by trade). Imagine seeing that footnote in your Jenney, Scudder, Bacon at a Jesuit high school! Time for a drink Dante On Thu, 10 May 2001, Marc James Small wrote: > At 06:56 PM 5/10/2001 -0400, Dante Stella wrote: > >Shows that Konica fielded a commercial camera about 22 years before the > >UR-Leica. > > Does not compute, Dante: the issue was whether Corporate Konica was older > than Corporate Leitz/Leica. > > Marc > > msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 > Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! >