[rollei_list] Re: Rolleimot...first Rollei SLR
- From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:56:08 -0700
Carlos,
Prochnow was the ONLY one who really wrote a book. Whether accurate or not
it was the only source. Still I take things with a grain of salt. I TLRs
were selling less in the late 50s and 60s and SLRs were winning. They
started the SL66 and it accounted for 50% of their revenue. This was after
the company reported declining sales. Now, declining sales tells me that
revenue is reduced.
So tell me, when you said. "Heidecke lost interest in the SLR production for
two reasons:
1) The TLR sales were very good
THIS WOULD Seem inaccurate as TLRs sales were on the decline as noted by
Prochnow.
2)Viktor Hasselblad and Heidecke talked on the issue during their 1955
meeting in Göteborg: " After its completion in 1957, Reinhold Heidecke lost
interest in the 6x6 SLR. There was a good
turnover from the Rolleiflex and his colleagues persuaded him that they
could develop other cameras..
Hearsay. I think Victor was smart. Reality is IMO that Reinhold make a
mistake.
Your turn.
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:58 PM, CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It seems that Prochnow is a lot more significant to you than you want
> to accept, it happened with your article too, you have the Prochnow
> summary that came with some Rollei models..
> Anyway you did not answer my question, companies have good and bad
> moments, we were talking about Heidecke in 1955, 1957 and 1958, and
> you are diminishing the impact that the Singapore investment had for
> the Rollei economy, at least you are accepting the SL 66 and Rollei 35
> success, thanks to Prochnow of course.-
> Carlos
>
>
> 2010/4/11 Peter K. <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > I see, so you are trying to change subjects. OK. What happened was the
> > Franke & Heidecke company was renamed Rollei Werke Franke & Heidecke in
> > 1962. The following year in 1963, the family council, concerned with
> > dropping sales and production, appointed a new Managing Director, Dr.
> > Peesel, to reorganize the management team at Rollei. So perhaps not going
> > bankrupt but losing to Hasselblad. They were going downhill with their
> TLR
> > as the only production camera. Can I say that?
> >
> > Eventually they did go bankrupt.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:15 PM, CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter, again the issue is simple, When did happen the Rollei
> >> bankruptcy, in 1960 or in 1981? Please answer this question.
> >>
> >> Carlos
> >>
> >> 2010/4/11 Peter K. <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> > I agree in part about Singapore. I disagree on the others. All you
> have
> >> > said
> >> > here you heard from Prochnow. He probably glamorized it. I still think
> >> > Heidecke screwed up and Victor simply outsmarted him.
> >> >
> >> > Hasselblad had ZERO interest in a TLR. That is a dream created by
> Rollei
> >> > somewhere. Prochnow was daydreaming about that one. Victor used that
> >> > threat
> >> > as a means to convince Heidecke not to build an SLR. Heidecke took the
> >> > bait
> >> > and Rollei eventually failed. Hasselblad never considered a TLR even
> >> > AFTER
> >> > Rollei came out with an SLR. So I stand by my comments.
> >> >
> >> > Numbers are numbers. You can produce 1000 cameras but if you only sell
> >> > 500
> >> > then you are at a 50% loss.
> >> >
> >> > Your turn. I know you will not let me have the last word.
> >> >
> >> > Peter K
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 4:24 PM, CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> This issue is very simple Peter, Heidecke never ordered to put in
> >> >> production the finished SLR prototype, he was keen about it
> initially,
> >> >> he knew about Hasselblad cameras and he knew about the lenses and
> >> >> magazines, Richard Weiss was his second Technical Manager and
> Heidecke
> >> >> ordered him to dedicate his time for the SLR prototype developing
> >> >> leaving any other task.
> >> >> Heidecke mind was not a suicidal one, his numbers were right and he
> >> >> lost interest on the SLR, he did not want to cause a Hasselblad TLR
> as
> >> >> a reaction to a Rollei SLR beyond any "gentlemen agreement". The
> >> >> technical term for F&H situation was "TLR cameras produced a good
> >> >> turnover", it means a good relationship between production and sales.
> >> >>
> >> >> BTW Peter, I really don't think Heidecke errors in the fifties(we saw
> >> >> them as errors today) were decisives for the future of Rollei,
> Rollei
> >> >> survided two decades after Heidecke death and the bankruptcy had
> >> >> nothing to do with the TLR, it happened because they wanted to
> compete
> >> >> with the Japanese industry at the same production level taking money
> >> >> from the banks to install and to produce in the Singapore plants, but
> >> >> they had a lot of commercial success with the SL 66, the Rollei 35
> and
> >> >> slide projectors sales, with a different industrial and commercial
> >> >> strategy F&H Rollei Werke could avoid the bankruptcy as others
> >> >> companies like Leica avoided it. Post Heidecke management took good
> >> >> decisions as the SLR and 35mm cameras production, but Singapore was a
> >> >> plan ambitious too much.
> >> >>
> >> >> Carlos
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 2010/4/11 Peter K. <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> >> > I think the nice term is gentlemens' agreement. Sorry I disagree.
> He
> >> >> > was
> >> >> > fat
> >> >> > and happy and making money so this is the alleged reason, I think
> it
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > legend not really fact.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > My post is not THAT different. He was "talked out of it" by Rollei.
> >> >> > They
> >> >> > allege a genetlemens' agreement. Just because it is written that
> way
> >> >> > does
> >> >> > not make it true.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think production #s are meaningless. Sales are what is important.
> >> >> > Two
> >> >> > very
> >> >> > different things. GM produced many cars, but sold fewer. Hence they
> >> >> > went
> >> >> > bankrupt. Same for F&H.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Your turn Carlos. I mean, I am not trying to step on your ego here.
> I
> >> >> > know
> >> >> > you are a big fish in our little pond. :-)
> >> >> > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:33 PM, CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Peter, this is the time machine, we already discussed this topic,
> we
> >> >> >> agreed on the TLR with interchangeable lenses, but now you added
> the
> >> >> >> SLR prototype within the same causes for the SLR no production in
> >> >> >> 1957, you wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ".. From what I have read, Heidecke did not lose interest. He was
> >> >> >> talked out of the idea of producing an SLR by the management of
> >> >> >> Rollei. These were the same geniuses who talked him out of putting
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> interchangeable lens TLR
> >> >> >> that he developed into production. They were comfortable and
> making
> >> >> >> money so they did not want to change..."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Your post below is saying now a different thing regarding the SLR
> >> >> >> prototype, you now writes that "he", Heidecke ABANDONED the SLR
> >> >> >> project in 1957 quoting the meeting with Hasselblad, now you are
> >> >> >> separating the facts regarding the TLR and the SLR, "to ABANDON"
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> "to LOSE" interest are different ways to say similar things To
> >> >> >> abandon
> >> >> >> the SLR production with the protype ready to do it was a Heidecke
> >> >> >> personal decision.
> >> >> >> If you compare the production for Hasselblad and for F&H from 1948
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> 1958, the fact a few pros started to use Hasselblad to replace
> >> >> >> Rolleiflexes did not affect Rollei sales very much, this fact was
> >> >> >> one
> >> >> >> of the causes for Heidecke error about the SLR no production, if
> >> >> >> Rollei was losing a lot of market there was not a meeting
> Heidecke/
> >> >> >> Hasselblad, but businesses were good for the TLR, Heidecke only
> >> >> >> wanted
> >> >> >> to avoid Hasselblad could make a TLR, it was right for the Rollei
> >> >> >> numbers in the fifties.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Carlos
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 2010/4/11 Peter K. <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> >> >> > Carlos,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > No I am not mixing facts. I guess the easiest way to rebut what
> I
> >> >> >> > say
> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> > try
> >> >> >> > to discredit the source as many lawyers do. But I will not go
> away
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > easily.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > My source is the same as yours, Prochnow. The only difference is
> I
> >> >> >> > do
> >> >> >> > not
> >> >> >> > believe everything he writes verbatim. I wrote an article for
> >> >> >> > Shutterbug
> >> >> >> > maybe 12 years back and corresponded with Prochnow and also
> Rollei
> >> >> >> > Fototechnic. The latter provided some copies of old
> documentation
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > loaned
> >> >> >> > me several books dealing with Rollei. Prochnow was kind enough
> to
> >> >> >> > clear
> >> >> >> > up
> >> >> >> > some questions I had and allowed me to use some photos.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > This is from the article:
> >> >> >> > "With Mamiya’s introduction of a TLR with interchangeable lenses
> >> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> > 1957, F
> >> >> >> > & H experimented with the idea of converting a Rolleiflex 2.8 E.
> >> >> >> > Reinhold
> >> >> >> > Heidecke approved the plan for a prototype , PR178 in 1958 which
> >> >> >> > was
> >> >> >> > created
> >> >> >> > with 3 interchangeable twin lenses (see Photo). They were the
> >> >> >> > standard
> >> >> >> > 80mm
> >> >> >> > F2.8 Planar, a telephoto 135mm F4 Sonnar lens, and a wide angle
> >> >> >> > 60mm
> >> >> >> > F5.6
> >> >> >> > Distagon lens. Technical management convinced Reinhold Heidecke
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > there
> >> >> >> > would be too many drawbacks with interchangeable lenses and F &
> H
> >> >> >> > abandoned
> >> >> >> > the project. Even so, this was the basis for the development of
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > Tele-Rollei of 1959 with a 135 F4 Zeiss Sonnar lens, and the
> >> >> >> > Wide-angle
> >> >> >> > Rollei of 1961 with its 55mm F4 Zeiss Distagon lens."
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Reading between the lines, basically Heidecke was older and
> >> >> >> > wealthy
> >> >> >> > and
> >> >> >> > did
> >> >> >> > not need or want to fight this. his health was also not very
> good.
> >> >> >> > Remember
> >> >> >> > he passed away less that two years later in 1960. Ten years
> after
> >> >> >> > Franke
> >> >> >> > who
> >> >> >> > died in 1950.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > As to the SLR, it was SLR development originated in 1955 (this
> was
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > original SLR Prototype) and abandoned in 1957. The reason he
> >> >> >> > ABANDONED
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > SLR was he and Hasselblad allegedly had some sort of gentlemens
> >> >> >> > agreement.
> >> >> >> > Rollei would not make an SLR and Hasselbald would not make a
> TLR.
> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> > think
> >> >> >> > Victor was a much smarter business man. Hasselblad had no need
> to
> >> >> >> > make a
> >> >> >> > TLR
> >> >> >> > as his SLRs was selling exceptionally well and replaced many
> >> >> >> > Rolleis
> >> >> >> > pros
> >> >> >> > were using at that time. Two years after Heidecke's death Rollei
> >> >> >> > began
> >> >> >> > development on the SLR again. This was 1962 and the start of the
> >> >> >> > SL66.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Peter K
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:16 AM, CarlosMFreaza
> >> >> >> > <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Peter , I noticed now that you are mixing the facts completely,
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> first SRL prototype and the interchangeable lenses prototypes
> >> >> >> >> were
> >> >> >> >> two
> >> >> >> >> different cameras, they were not produced for different reasons
> >> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> I
> >> >> >> >> don think to repeat those different causes.
> >> >> >> >> It's very difficult to discuss with someone mixing facts, it
> does
> >> >> >> >> not
> >> >> >> >> make sense to continous this topici if you don't distinguish
> >> >> >> >> between
> >> >> >> >> 1955, 1957, 1958 and 1962/63.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Carlos
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 2010/4/11 CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> >> >> >> > What is your source Peter? Where did you obtain that info?
> Who
> >> >> >> >> > was
> >> >> >> >> > better informed than Prochnow that integrated the team that
> >> >> >> >> > developed
> >> >> >> >> > the prototype?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Carlos
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > 2010/4/11 Peter K. <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> >> >> >> >> Carlos,
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> All this is interesting but have to say that a lot of this
> is
> >> >> >> >> >> what
> >> >> >> >> >> one
> >> >> >> >> >> would
> >> >> >> >> >> call romanticizing the past. I read that management
> convinced
> >> >> >> >> >> Heidecke
> >> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> >> abandon the interchangeable lens TLR.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Now I am sure you have been in executive meetings. The term
> >> >> >> >> >> "he
> >> >> >> >> >> lost
> >> >> >> >> >> interest" reminds me of one where after an hour of
> discussion,
> >> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> >> President
> >> >> >> >> >> of the company I worked for listened to what myself and a
> >> >> >> >> >> colleague
> >> >> >> >> >> had
> >> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> >> say, then turned to us and told us "This is not open for
> >> >> >> >> >> discussion,
> >> >> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> >> >> will ...." And believe me I am using very nice language to
> >> >> >> >> >> describe
> >> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> >> discussion much like Prochnow does in his book. Of course
> the
> >> >> >> >> >> press
> >> >> >> >> >> release
> >> >> >> >> >> read that we had reached an accord in doing...." This is
> what
> >> >> >> >> >> I
> >> >> >> >> >> call
> >> >> >> >> >> romanticizing.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Bear in mind, Heidecke was older, tired and his health was
> >> >> >> >> >> declining
> >> >> >> >> >> at
> >> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> >> time. It was only a few years before he passed on and not
> long
> >> >> >> >> >> after
> >> >> >> >> >> later
> >> >> >> >> >> Rollei was in financial troubles. So I for one do not buy
> the
> >> >> >> >> >> claim
> >> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> >> Rollei TLR sales were good. At that time you had immense
> >> >> >> >> >> competition
> >> >> >> >> >> from
> >> >> >> >> >> Mamiya, Minolta, Yashica, and others. Granted the Rollei was
> >> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> >> pro's
> >> >> >> >> >> choice, but Mamiyas sold well and were eating away at
> Rollei's
> >> >> >> >> >> market.
> >> >> >> >> >> They
> >> >> >> >> >> had a very good quality camera at a lower price point with
> >> >> >> >> >> excellent
> >> >> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> >> interchangeable lenses. So you could buy the TLR and 2
> lenses
> >> >> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> >> >> what
> >> >> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> >> >> Tele Rollei would cost.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Peter K.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 9:23 AM, CarlosMFreaza
> >> >> >> >> >> <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>> He lost interest Peter. A team of three engineers developed
> >> >> >> >> >>> the
> >> >> >> >> >>> 1955
> >> >> >> >> >>> SLR prototype, two of them were Richard Weiss and Claus
> >> >> >> >> >>> Prochnow,
> >> >> >> >> >>> they
> >> >> >> >> >>> finished the camera for 1957 and according Prochnow,
> Heidecke
> >> >> >> >> >>> lost
> >> >> >> >> >>> interest in the SLR production for two reasons: 1) The TLR
> >> >> >> >> >>> sales
> >> >> >> >> >>> were
> >> >> >> >> >>> very good; 2)Viktor Hasselblad and Heidecke talked on the
> >> >> >> >> >>> issue
> >> >> >> >> >>> during
> >> >> >> >> >>> their 1955 meeting in Göteborg: " After its completion in
> >> >> >> >> >>> 1957,
> >> >> >> >> >>> _Reinhold Heidecke lost interest in the 6x6 SLR_. There was
> a
> >> >> >> >> >>> good
> >> >> >> >> >>> turnover from the Rolleiflex and his colleagues persuaded
> him
> >> >> >> >> >>> that
> >> >> >> >> >>> they could develop other cameras... The decision was also a
> >> >> >> >> >>> result
> >> >> >> >> >>> of
> >> >> >> >> >>> a meeting between Reinhold Heidecke and Victor Hasselblad
> in
> >> >> >> >> >>> Gothenburg..." (Report 2, page 26-538 and SL 66 brochure).
> >> >> >> >> >>> BTW the SLR production in 1957 would mean a continous
> >> >> >> >> >>> improvement
> >> >> >> >> >>> for
> >> >> >> >> >>> the model 10 years before the SL 66 regular production and
> an
> >> >> >> >> >>> earlier
> >> >> >> >> >>> competition regarding Hasselblad when the market was still
> >> >> >> >> >>> different,
> >> >> >> >> >>> but as a results of that decision, Rollei R&D became only
> >> >> >> >> >>> dedicated
> >> >> >> >> >>> to
> >> >> >> >> >>> design improvements and accesories for the TLR including
> the
> >> >> >> >> >>> Rolleimot, it only changes in 1962, after Heidecke death in
> >> >> >> >> >>> 1960,
> >> >> >> >> >>> when
> >> >> >> >> >>> Rollei new management decided to develop the SL 66 and to
> >> >> >> >> >>> manufacture
> >> >> >> >> >>> a 35mm camera, but it's necessary to say things were good
> for
> >> >> >> >> >>> the
> >> >> >> >> >>> Rollei TLR up to about 1960
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>> We commented several times on the interchangeable lenses
> TLR
> >> >> >> >> >>> camera,
> >> >> >> >> >>> the prototypes were ready for production in 1958, this
> time
> >> >> >> >> >>> the
> >> >> >> >> >>> Rollei management had a stronger influence on Heidecke to
> >> >> >> >> >>> decide
> >> >> >> >> >>> the
> >> >> >> >> >>> camera no production, deviating from the original design
> >> >> >> >> >>> towards
> >> >> >> >> >>> the
> >> >> >> >> >>> Tele and Wide Rolleiflexes. Anyway, "it was clear that this
> >> >> >> >> >>> was
> >> >> >> >> >>> not
> >> >> >> >> >>> a
> >> >> >> >> >>> substitute for a single-lens reflex camera" writes Prochnow
> >> >> >> >> >>> on
> >> >> >> >> >>> the
> >> >> >> >> >>> TLR
> >> >> >> >> >>> with interchangeable lenses in the previous page, but it
> was
> >> >> >> >> >>> a
> >> >> >> >> >>> direct
> >> >> >> >> >>> competition against the Mamiya TLR with interchangeable
> >> >> >> >> >>> lenses,
> >> >> >> >> >>> they
> >> >> >> >> >>> started to lose their own market.
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>> 2010/4/10 Peter K. <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> >> >> >> >>> > From what I have read, Heidecke did not lose interest. He
> >> >> >> >> >>> > was
> >> >> >> >> >>> > talked
> >> >> >> >> >>> > out
> >> >> >> >> >>> > of
> >> >> >> >> >>> > the idea of producing an SLR by the management of Rollei.
> >> >> >> >> >>> > These
> >> >> >> >> >>> > were
> >> >> >> >> >>> > the
> >> >> >> >> >>> > same geniuses who talked him out of putting the
> >> >> >> >> >>> > interchangeable
> >> >> >> >> >>> > lens
> >> >> >> >> >>> > TLR
> >> >> >> >> >>> > that he developed into production. They were comfortable
> >> >> >> >> >>> > and
> >> >> >> >> >>> > making
> >> >> >> >> >>> > money so
> >> >> >> >> >>> > they did not want to change.
> >> >> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >> >> >>> > If you think about it, these idiot managers thought the
> >> >> >> >> >>> > Rolliemot
> >> >> >> >> >>> > was OK
> >> >> >> >> >>> > to
> >> >> >> >> >>> > develop but not an SLR? Talk about stupidity. The
> Rolliemot
> >> >> >> >> >>> > is
> >> >> >> >> >>> > odd
> >> >> >> >> >>> > or
> >> >> >> >> >>> > maybe
> >> >> >> >> >>> > useless but it was what I would call the Edsel of
> >> >> >> >> >>> > accessories.
> >> >> >> >> >>> > I
> >> >> >> >> >>> > am
> >> >> >> >> >>> > sure
> >> >> >> >> >>> > there are odd accessories things developed by other
> cameras
> >> >> >> >> >>> > makers
> >> >> >> >> >>> > throughout the years. Even Leica (are they still in
> >> >> >> >> >>> > business
> >> >> >> >> >>> > these
> >> >> >> >> >>> > days?)
> >> >> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >> >> >>> > --Peter K
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> ---
> >> >> >> >> Rollei List
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'subscribe'
> >> >> >> >> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> >> >> >> >> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
> >> >> >> >> www.freelists.org
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> >> >> >> >> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > --
> >> >> >> > Peter K
> >> >> >> > Ó¿Õ¬
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> ---
> >> >> >> Rollei List
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> >> >> >> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> >> >> >> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
> >> >> >> www.freelists.org
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> >> >> >> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Peter K
> >> >> > Ó¿Õ¬
> >> >> >
> >> >> ---
> >> >> Rollei List
> >> >>
> >> >> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >>
> >> >> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> >> >> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> >> >>
> >> >> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> >> >> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
> www.freelists.org
> >> >>
> >> >> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> >> >> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Peter K
> >> > Ó¿Õ¬
> >> >
> >> ---
> >> Rollei List
> >>
> >> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> >> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> >>
> >> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> >> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> >>
> >> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> >> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Peter K
> > Ó¿Õ¬
> >
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
--
Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬
Other related posts:
