-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Leitz Greenkat kestrel (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter lozninja
- Start date
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Binstro,
I think that Leitz may have left the Porro binocular business before 1970, concentrating on roof binoculars, which would would be seven or eight years before multicasting.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur
This is certainly a Japanese Binocular and by Kamakura Koki Co. Ltd, so it will be pretty good, but the Leitz lettering is odd, it doesn't look right and I can't imagine a Leitz Germany/Portugal connection, possibly it infers that it has been modelled on an old Leitz design.
. Hi Ben,
The only connection that Leica had with Japanese production that I know of is with Minolta.
Several Minolta lenses such as the 16 mm F/2.8 fisheye and some macro lenses and maybe a zoom were sold and rebadged with the Leica label after being carefully checked by Leica cameras.
I think also that the Leica R3 and R4 cameras were Minolta made copies, but they were not very reliable or up to Leica standards. There was also the fairly modern Minolta and Leica rangefinder cameras, which were both well thought of. And a very rare Minolta camera, I think a copy of a Leica M camera, which is extremely valuable.
As to the binocular in this thread, in my opinion it is an out and out fake.
Poland, China, Hong Kong and Taiwan are the usual suspects. However the faker, or similar word, could be anywhere in the world.
Fake engravings on Leica cameras are common, and many people have been caught and have paid over the odds for these cameras.
At least it wasn't a fake Rembrandt painting costing millions.
Fake goods from China run into the millions and possibly billions of pounds.
Then there are the fake antiques. A famous one was found in England and believed to be ancient, until it was realised that the supposed Latin inscription read ' Tis a pis pot a large one'.
The only connection that Leica had with Japanese production that I know of is with Minolta.
Several Minolta lenses such as the 16 mm F/2.8 fisheye and some macro lenses and maybe a zoom were sold and rebadged with the Leica label after being carefully checked by Leica cameras.
I think also that the Leica R3 and R4 cameras were Minolta made copies, but they were not very reliable or up to Leica standards. There was also the fairly modern Minolta and Leica rangefinder cameras, which were both well thought of. And a very rare Minolta camera, I think a copy of a Leica M camera, which is extremely valuable.
As to the binocular in this thread, in my opinion it is an out and out fake.
Poland, China, Hong Kong and Taiwan are the usual suspects. However the faker, or similar word, could be anywhere in the world.
Fake engravings on Leica cameras are common, and many people have been caught and have paid over the odds for these cameras.
At least it wasn't a fake Rembrandt painting costing millions.
Fake goods from China run into the millions and possibly billions of pounds.
Then there are the fake antiques. A famous one was found in England and believed to be ancient, until it was realised that the supposed Latin inscription read ' Tis a pis pot a large one'.
I've had an interesting discussion with a colleague, who is a Leica camera expert.
Leitz-Eigentum means Leitz-property.
Now, all the major binocular firms would buy in competitors binoculars for testing.
It might be argued that such a binocular would be marked simply as the property of the company.
But to go to such elaborate lengths to engrave markings on both back plates does not seem to fit.
With the Leica camera fakes it seems that there was a small team engraving markings on Soviet Leica copy cameras to make them seem like the real thing. The problem was that the engravings were not quite right, and not the right size. In addition the engraved Soviet cameras were inferior to the real thing.
. My friend suggested that once the engraving tool was set up it was fairly automatic to engrave the top plates and sometimes also the bottom plates of the cameras. These plates were removed from the camera before they were engraved and then reattached.
It would seem that the back plates of the binocular, which is the subject of this thread, would be removed and the engravings made.
At best it could mean that we have a bought in Greenkat binocular, which is marked as the property of another company. In my opinion, the value would not be very much greater than the original Japanese binocular.
But, in my opinion, this binocular was engraved specially for financial reward, by making it appear as if it somehow was made by Leitz.
My friend also asks whether the letters engraved are typically Leitz. And I would ask when Leitz binoculars were renamed Leica binoculars?
Also one has to ask why Leitz would choose to buy a Greenkat binocular as a potential competitor for what they were making? As far as I know they were not making anything similar at the time. My friend suggests that they might buy in real competitors binoculars.
This business of trying to make lower-priced binoculars into something apparently higher-priced made by top binocular maker has always been around.
In addition, many binoculars are marked as if they were made in Germany, when they were made elsewhere. Increased value, just by suggestion.
Leitz-Eigentum means Leitz-property.
Now, all the major binocular firms would buy in competitors binoculars for testing.
It might be argued that such a binocular would be marked simply as the property of the company.
But to go to such elaborate lengths to engrave markings on both back plates does not seem to fit.
With the Leica camera fakes it seems that there was a small team engraving markings on Soviet Leica copy cameras to make them seem like the real thing. The problem was that the engravings were not quite right, and not the right size. In addition the engraved Soviet cameras were inferior to the real thing.
. My friend suggested that once the engraving tool was set up it was fairly automatic to engrave the top plates and sometimes also the bottom plates of the cameras. These plates were removed from the camera before they were engraved and then reattached.
It would seem that the back plates of the binocular, which is the subject of this thread, would be removed and the engravings made.
At best it could mean that we have a bought in Greenkat binocular, which is marked as the property of another company. In my opinion, the value would not be very much greater than the original Japanese binocular.
But, in my opinion, this binocular was engraved specially for financial reward, by making it appear as if it somehow was made by Leitz.
My friend also asks whether the letters engraved are typically Leitz. And I would ask when Leitz binoculars were renamed Leica binoculars?
Also one has to ask why Leitz would choose to buy a Greenkat binocular as a potential competitor for what they were making? As far as I know they were not making anything similar at the time. My friend suggests that they might buy in real competitors binoculars.
This business of trying to make lower-priced binoculars into something apparently higher-priced made by top binocular maker has always been around.
In addition, many binoculars are marked as if they were made in Germany, when they were made elsewhere. Increased value, just by suggestion.
Indeed - and if they did, they would know how to spell Objektive - german for objectives - correctly.
So the Leitz engravings are probably fake - not sure about the rest.
But anyway all those buzzwords like fully coated and BaK4 (again in dubious spelling) and the given field of view of 157m on 1km (which would be world-class and is a lot wider than any 8x50 which usually top out at 120m or so) leave some more questions...
But if the original poster likes the view and did not pay an outrageous sum, I'd say enjoy your bins.
Joachim
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
A metre is about 3 feet - in a 8.5x50 of this vintage? Maybe it isn't really a 8.5 mag?
Last edited:
