[rollei_list] Re: Which Rolleicord
- From: "Jeffery Smith" <jls@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:23:21 -0600
Four months ago, I bought a 'brand new' Rolleiflex 2.8F Aurum (yes, that
gold plated one with the endangered animal skin covering). I haven't taken
it out of its box yet (it was still in the corregated box that came from the
factory). I'm going to wait until Harry finishes with my Rolleicord and
Rollei 35 before I bog him down with a third camera. I'm praying that a
selenium meter that hasn't seen light for several decades will still work.
I still cruise ebay for a good deal on an SL66.
Jeffery "Pimp My Ride" Smith
New Orleans, LA
http://www.400tx.com
http://400tx.blogspot.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Brick
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 6:13 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Which Rolleicord
At 03:04 PM 12/26/2006 -0800, Richard Knoppow wrote:
> I would count on having to have a CLA done even if the seller
> claims its been done already. There are lots of caveats to buying
> anything used, I won't repeat them other than lens condition is
> vital. "Cleaning marks" mean fine scratches and are to be avoided,
> the lenses are not replaceable, at least not economically.
> The quality of construction and design of the Rolleicord is equal
> to the Rolleiflex, the difference is mainly in the complexity.
Six months ago, I bought a 'brand new' SL66. It had set in its
original packaging for 25 years. It required $300 of Harry Fleenor's
time to put it in working order. All of the lubricant had dried up,
the focus was so stiff it was nearly impossible to move. The lens
mount was so stiff you could barely fully mount the 80mm lens (the
one that came with it). Once mounted, it was nearly impossible to
un-mount. And the shutter speeds needed adjusting. While inside,
Harry also upgraded the flash circuit to be able to handle studio strobes.
Harry also said that there was no evidence that the camera had ever
been used, and that the camera was indeed new, manufactured in 1981.
It is a gorgeous SL66, but a mint, barely used camera, will require a CLA.
The SL66 that I use daily has never seen a repair technician in its
life. It was manufactured in 1976 and sold, in Germany to a young
man, in 1978. He took immaculate care of the camera, and used it
frequently. I bought it from him last year and it works flawlessly.
It is a perfect camera.
So... you never know until you get the camera as to whether it will
need service or not. In my situation, I would have guessed that it
should have been the other way around. The new camera working
flawlessly and the old used camera needing service.
Jim
---
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
---
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
Other related posts:
