Hi Pete!  (and everyone else)

By way of introduction, I am a Catholic school teacher, age 47, living
in the good ole USA in the Cleveland, Ohio area.  My wife and I have 3
teenagers (yikes!) who for the most part take it easy on us.

I collect cameras!  Specifically, pentax screwmount and kmount,
rangefinders (various brands) several tlr's, Kodak retinas (folders)
several medium format folders (Ikonta's) and of course two Duo 620's.
  These are recent additions - I have one each of a version I and a
version II.  The version I is currently getting its shutter cleaned so
I can use it.  I do not think they vary that much from what I saw in
the photo section.

I have recently been trying the "stand method" for developing some apx
100 - have to reduce the agitation (blocking highlights, but otherwise
super nice).  Is anyone still doing wet printing or has everyone gone
the other route?

A couple of questions:

1.  Is is okay to post pictures taken with the Duo 620's?  That was
one feature of this group I was hoping to see.  I haven't run film
through either camera, but am likely to in the next week or so. I will
try to roll some 120 onto the 620 spool.  I hope that is not too much
of a problem.

2.  I notice on my version II that there is a serial number on the
side of the shutter - is that suppose to match the number near the
lens or the one near the film plane?

Looking forward to hearing from others.

Dave





--- In duo620@..., "pete.naylor" <pete.naylor@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, David W.     Welcome to the Duo 620 Group!    Please feel free to
> post any scans of relevant historical stuff about the Duo, whether
> sales brochures or whatever.  Original photo magazine "road tests" are
> very welcome too.
>
> Any photos of your cameras, especially if they're ones with different
> lens/shutter combinations from those already posted, are also
> welcome.
>
> Lastly, if you access the "Database" area in the left-side menu,
> you'll see we've already got the details of quite a few cameras,
> broken down into the three main types of Duo's.    Please feel free to
> add yours, when you get the chance.    All you have to do is hit "Add"
> at the bottom right, and the Yahoo computer will enter each camera in
> the correct place going by body s/no.
>
> Pete Naylor - Moderator
>

Hi, David W.     Welcome to the Duo 620 Group!    Please feel free to
post any scans of relevant historical stuff about the Duo, whether
sales brochures or whatever.  Original photo magazine "road tests" are
very welcome too.

Any photos of your cameras, especially if they're ones with different
lens/shutter combinations from those already posted, are also
welcome.

Lastly, if you access the "Database" area in the left-side menu,
you'll see we've already got the details of quite a few cameras,
broken down into the three main types of Duo's.    Please feel free to
add yours, when you get the chance.    All you have to do is hit "Add"
at the bottom right, and the Yahoo computer will enter each camera in
the correct place going by body s/no.

Pete Naylor - Moderator

Hi, Jack          That sounds a great idea, mate - please proceed!
If you could touch on your impresssions on their comparative ease of
use on the Ser 11 Duo's, that would be nice.    I think you've
previously mentioned that you're a proponent of the later Service RF,
so it would be relevant to hear your viewpoint again on that
aspect.    I keep looking at Paul K's pics of his Standard RF on a
Duo, and I keep thinking that my large hands and fingers would have
some difficulty in accessing the focussing control - but I'm open to
hearing otherwise!

PETE IN A MILDER 25C PERTH











--- In duo620@..., "jack_hufnagel" <huffy49@...> wrote:
>
> Pete:
>
> As is happens, I'm expecting a Kodak Service Rangefinder in the mail
> late this week.  Would it be proper for me to write up an article for
> the files area comparing the two (Service and Pocket), as these are
> possibly the only two which fit the Duo?
>
> I also own a pair of Hugo Meyer units, a Prazisa, a Watameter, a
> Voigtländer, an Ideal (by Federal Instruments), and a Kopil. One I
> started to collect old folders, the inclusion of accessory
> rangefinders was inevitable, I suppose.
>
> We're having a warm spell here at 3º C!
>
> Jack
>

Pete:

As is happens, I'm expecting a Kodak Service Rangefinder in the mail
late this week.  Would it be proper for me to write up an article for
the files area comparing the two (Service and Pocket), as these are
possibly the only two which fit the Duo?

I also own a pair of Hugo Meyer units, a Prazisa, a Watameter, a
Voigtländer, an Ideal (by Federal Instruments), and a Kopil. One I
started to collect old folders, the inclusion of accessory
rangefinders was inevitable, I suppose.

We're having a warm spell here at 3º C!

Jack

Hi, Jack       Thanks for adding your cameras' details to the
databases.   Slowly but surely we're getting some kind of picture
appearing .........

Regarding the accessory rangefinder issue, I admit I'm in no
position of experience whatsoever to make profound statements such
as the Kodak Pocket Rangefinder appearing to be an easier
proposition for the Ser 11 Duo's, compared to the later Standard RF -
  it was all purely based on comparing your pic and Paul K's that had
made me think the earlier one would have been better.

I guess I really need to acquire one (or both) of these RFs, so I
can speak from some authority.   The only accessory RFs I've got are
Voss Photometers from the late 40s/early 50s, which are typically
German horizontal ones with 'wide' feet.    Nice units that look
great on early Diaxes, but not much bloody use on a Duo 620!

(Pete In A Miraculously Cooler Perth)













--- In duo620@..., "jack_hufnagel" <huffy49@...>
wrote:
>
> Pete:
> I updated the database per your hint. Having used the Pocket
> rangefinder, I'm of the opinion that the Service rangefinder may be
> the easier to use when mounted on the camera, as the lower
placement
> of the focusing wheel would allow a hand to turn it whilst holding
the
> camera. It would also put  a LOT less less pressure on the shoe and
> mount. Using the Service rangefinder on the Duo is very much a two
> handed exercise, and awkward at that.
>
> On the accessory shoe size, the skulduggery by the Great Yellow
Father
> was in making the shoes on the Monitor and Tourists incapable of
> accepting most standard accessory feet.  I was puzzled by this fact
> until I got my hands on a Kodak accessory rangefinder (with its
> smaller foot.)
>
> Jack
> (Here in substantially cooler Philadelphia (-20C at 4:00pm)
>
>
> --- In duo620@..., "pete.naylor" <pete.naylor@>
wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Jack    Many thanks for posting that pic of the Ser 11 Duo
with
> > the Pocket Rangefinder in situ.    When you compare it with Paul
K's
> > pics of his Duo with the later Standard Rangefinder in place,
it's
> > pretty obvious which one would have been easier to use thanks to
the
> > focussing control being high up and well away from the VFs.
> >
> > Another thing about the Pocket Rangefinder is that it was quite
> > expensive at $7.00 in 1937, which equates today to just over
$100
> > using the CPI yardstick.
> >
> > By the way, if you haven't yet looked at the 'Database'
listings,
> > have a peek some time at the Series 11 item.  One of the
questions I
> > included was whether a camera has a shoe or not, and although
we're
> > still in early days (hint!) with the number of cameras listed
it's
> > already clear that local German market cameras didn't have a
> > shoe.    The msot likely reason for that would have been the
expense
> > of the US-made Kodak item incl import duties, compared to local
> > grown rangefinders which wouldn't have fitted anyway thanks to
the
> > shoe's narrower width.
> >
> > I'd originally suspected that this was due to some retailing
> > skulduggery by the Great Yellow Father in Rochester, but when
you do
> > some measuring you find there isn't enough space to fit a wider
> > standard shoe anyway.
> >
> > Interestingly, I have a 35mm half-frame Mercury 11 CX of c. 1945
> > vintage which has had its original second wide-type shoe, the
one
> > just above the VF, removed and replaced by a really narrow one
of
> > just 10 mm.   Hard to work out just why a previous owner had
done
> > this other than because he had a really tiny RF sitting around
doing
> > nothing, and necessity being the mother of invention .......
> > I've just posted a pic of the Merc along with an Argus Model A
and
> > Perfex 55 in my Flickr Portfolio Pages, so if anybody's
interested,
> > here's the link:
> >
> >         http://www.flickr.com/photos/32113303@N07/3194218190/
> >
> >
> >
> > Pete N. (In A Cooler Perth)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Pete:
I updated the database per your hint. Having used the Pocket
rangefinder, I'm of the opinion that the Service rangefinder may be
the easier to use when mounted on the camera, as the lower placement
of the focusing wheel would allow a hand to turn it whilst holding the
camera. It would also put  a LOT less less pressure on the shoe and
mount. Using the Service rangefinder on the Duo is very much a two
handed exercise, and awkward at that.

On the accessory shoe size, the skulduggery by the Great Yellow Father
was in making the shoes on the Monitor and Tourists incapable of
accepting most standard accessory feet.  I was puzzled by this fact
until I got my hands on a Kodak accessory rangefinder (with its
smaller foot.)

Jack
(Here in substantially cooler Philadelphia (-20C at 4:00pm)


--- In duo620@..., "pete.naylor" <pete.naylor@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Jack    Many thanks for posting that pic of the Ser 11 Duo with
> the Pocket Rangefinder in situ.    When you compare it with Paul K's
> pics of his Duo with the later Standard Rangefinder in place, it's
> pretty obvious which one would have been easier to use thanks to the
> focussing control being high up and well away from the VFs.
>
> Another thing about the Pocket Rangefinder is that it was quite
> expensive at $7.00 in 1937, which equates today to just over $100
> using the CPI yardstick.
>
> By the way, if you haven't yet looked at the 'Database' listings,
> have a peek some time at the Series 11 item.  One of the questions I
> included was whether a camera has a shoe or not, and although we're
> still in early days (hint!) with the number of cameras listed it's
> already clear that local German market cameras didn't have a
> shoe.    The msot likely reason for that would have been the expense
> of the US-made Kodak item incl import duties, compared to local
> grown rangefinders which wouldn't have fitted anyway thanks to the
> shoe's narrower width.
>
> I'd originally suspected that this was due to some retailing
> skulduggery by the Great Yellow Father in Rochester, but when you do
> some measuring you find there isn't enough space to fit a wider
> standard shoe anyway.
>
> Interestingly, I have a 35mm half-frame Mercury 11 CX of c. 1945
> vintage which has had its original second wide-type shoe, the one
> just above the VF, removed and replaced by a really narrow one of
> just 10 mm.   Hard to work out just why a previous owner had done
> this other than because he had a really tiny RF sitting around doing
> nothing, and necessity being the mother of invention .......
> I've just posted a pic of the Merc along with an Argus Model A and
> Perfex 55 in my Flickr Portfolio Pages, so if anybody's interested,
> here's the link:
>
>         http://www.flickr.com/photos/32113303@N07/3194218190/
>
>
>
> Pete N. (In A Cooler Perth)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Jack    Many thanks for posting that pic of the Ser 11 Duo with
the Pocket Rangefinder in situ.    When you compare it with Paul K's
pics of his Duo with the later Standard Rangefinder in place, it's
pretty obvious which one would have been easier to use thanks to the
focussing control being high up and well away from the VFs.

Another thing about the Pocket Rangefinder is that it was quite
expensive at $7.00 in 1937, which equates today to just over $100
using the CPI yardstick.

By the way, if you haven't yet looked at the 'Database' listings,
have a peek some time at the Series 11 item.  One of the questions I
included was whether a camera has a shoe or not, and although we're
still in early days (hint!) with the number of cameras listed it's
already clear that local German market cameras didn't have a
shoe.    The msot likely reason for that would have been the expense
of the US-made Kodak item incl import duties, compared to local
grown rangefinders which wouldn't have fitted anyway thanks to the
shoe's narrower width.

I'd originally suspected that this was due to some retailing
skulduggery by the Great Yellow Father in Rochester, but when you do
some measuring you find there isn't enough space to fit a wider
standard shoe anyway.

Interestingly, I have a 35mm half-frame Mercury 11 CX of c. 1945
vintage which has had its original second wide-type shoe, the one
just above the VF, removed and replaced by a really narrow one of
just 10 mm.   Hard to work out just why a previous owner had done
this other than because he had a really tiny RF sitting around doing
nothing, and necessity being the mother of invention .......
I've just posted a pic of the Merc along with an Argus Model A and
Perfex 55 in my Flickr Portfolio Pages, so if anybody's interested,
here's the link:

         http://www.flickr.com/photos/32113303@N07/3194218190/



Pete N. (In A Cooler Perth)








-- In duo620@..., "jack_hufnagel" <huffy49@...> wrote:
>
> I've uploaded a shot of my Duo-620 Series II with the earlier Kodak
> Pocket Rangefinder attached. This unit, also designed by Joseph
> Mihalyi, is my all-time favorite accessory rangefinder due to the
> included pocket clasp and the distance scale visible in the
> viewfinder. It's also the only accessory rangefinder I own (of
about
> about 10 or so) that also fits my Kodak Monitors. I suppose Kodak
> designed the Monitors accessory shoe specifically to fit their
> rangefinders.  Interestingly, the later Kodak Tourist only uses the
> later Kodak Service Rangefinder as the pocket clasp on the Pocket
unit
> gets in the way.
>
> The Great Yellow Father was always right <sigh>.
>

I've uploaded a shot of my Duo-620 Series II with the earlier Kodak
Pocket Rangefinder attached. This unit, also designed by Joseph
Mihalyi, is my all-time favorite accessory rangefinder due to the
included pocket clasp and the distance scale visible in the
viewfinder. It's also the only accessory rangefinder I own (of about
about 10 or so) that also fits my Kodak Monitors. I suppose Kodak
designed the Monitors accessory shoe specifically to fit their
rangefinders.  Interestingly, the later Kodak Tourist only uses the
later Kodak Service Rangefinder as the pocket clasp on the Pocket unit
gets in the way.

The Great Yellow Father was always right <sigh>.

Hi, Rolf      I think you'll find that the Group members are
interested in our various post discussions, but some prefer to stay
generally silent.    Well, we have to respect their wishes, of
course.

I think the matter of whether a camera has a European-style 3/8"
tripod hole or US/British/Etc smaller 1/4" one is so clouded by the
various adaptors available, that it's not as good a yard - or metre -
stick as it ought to be, to use to identify where the camera was
originally sold.    You've mentioned Exaktas for example, for which
I'm quite a fan myself.    Of the entire 11 Exaktas I have in my
collection (ie one of each major model and TRUE variant, not the
silly minor production changes that Messrs A & R classify as
variants!), only one has a 3/8" tripod socket.  It's a late 53/early
54 Varex VX, so that reinforces your belief about Ihagee being one
of the last to go over to the universal 1/4".    Mind you, several
of my Exaktas have some very suspicious-looking 1/4" tripod holes,
that reek of being adaptor items rather than original fitments.

Rolf, just getting back to Duo 620 matters, there are a few missing
details in the database regarding your two Ser 11 Duo's.    That may
be my fault, seeing I recall that it was me who inserted them!
However, could you please have a look when you get the chance, and
either reinput them again or post those missing details here in
the 'Messages' section so I can insert them.   The obvious method of
you just inserting them as an amendment, isn't an option
unfortunately, because Yahoo Group Regulations only permit the
Moderator ie , me!) to carry out amendments.    If you reinput the
cameras' complete details that'll go through OK, and I can then just
delete the original incomplete entries.   Cheeeees, I'm making this
sound so complicated, but really it's not ............!!

(Pete N - From A Suddenly Cooler Perth)











--- In duo620@..., Rolf Eipper <rolfs-3d@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Pete,
> Maybe the tripod socket size on various cameras is a bit beyond
this
> groups interest. I think I can say however that the US made
cameras
> never used the 3/8 inch size for any of their cameras. Europe
seems to
> have used either 1/4 inch or 3/8 inch which ever suited their
fancy,
> then there came a time when everybody changed over to 1/4 inch,
maybe
> the Exakta was one of the last to change over from 3/8 to 1/4
inch. I
> let some one else deal with this aspect of camera collecting
information.
> My point was and I would hope that others on this list will
confirm
> this, that all Kodak Duo 620 cameras made for export had the 1/4
inch
> tripod socket. That the 3/8 socket could be converted to take a
1/4 inch
> tripod screw only confuses the matter and has nothing to do with
the
> original production model features.
> cheers
> rolf
>

Hi Pete,
Maybe the tripod socket size on various cameras is a bit beyond this
groups interest. I think I can say however that the US made cameras
never used the 3/8 inch size for any of their cameras. Europe seems to
have used either 1/4 inch or 3/8 inch which ever suited their fancy,
then there came a time when everybody changed over to 1/4 inch, maybe
the Exakta was one of the last to change over from 3/8 to 1/4 inch. I
let some one else deal with this aspect of camera collecting information.
My point was and I would hope that others on this list will confirm
this, that all Kodak Duo 620 cameras made for export had the 1/4 inch
tripod socket. That the 3/8 socket could be converted to take a 1/4 inch
tripod screw only confuses the matter and has nothing to do with the
original production model features.
cheers
rolf

Hi, Rolf           Sorry, I might have misled you when I said the
focussing scales on Duos were either metric or imperial, but 'some
cameras would have both'.   We're having an ongoing heatwave here in
Perth, and I'm maybe not being as lucid as I should be!   What I
meant was some OTHER cameras, ie non-Duos, had dual focussing
scales.    So in the case of all Duos. we can be pretty certain
which markets they were intended for by the indicated focussing
scale.   Then there's other clues like the writing on the DOF
guide.   Certainly the size of the tripod hole can be another clue,
but we have to bear in mind that folks would sometimes fit those
adaptor gizmos like your Nikon has.

Regarding the antiquity of tripod holes, the two oldest cameras in
my collection are both US-made, one being a c.1905 No 2 Folding
Brownie and the other a c. 1904 Seneca Chautauqua wooden plate
job.   Both have 1/4" tripod holes both in the baseplate and on one
side, so clearly tripods go way back even on smaller portable
cameras like the Brownie.   By the way - the humble No 2 Folding
Brownie was reputedly the very first camera to use what was later to
become 120 reel film!    That's something I like to remind the
Hasselblad/Bronica crowd ....

I have some other pre-WW1 era ostensibly British folders from
Butcher and Houghton's, but which are very likely German-made bodies
from Huttig and Krugener fitted with British-sourced lenses and
shutters.   They also have original 1/4" tripod holes at both bottom
and on one side, not adapted from 3/8".

The Duos only have a single tripod hole on the baseplate, for the
same reason as 35mm stuff like the Diaxes (other than the 1951 weird
one with both a 1/4" and 3/8" holes) - ie, because there's no
suitable place on either side, what with the rear door hinge and
opening/closing plumbing taking up all available space.   Besides, I
think that by the early 1930s tripods had adjustable heads to allow
the camera to be tilted sideways.   With the Duos, that would have
been the more common method of usage I reckon, thanks to its 'half-
frame' format, and the likelihood that tripod shots would generally
be 'landscape' rather than 'portrait'.

Pete In A Sweltering Perth













--- In duo620@..., Rolf Eipper <rolfs-3d@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Pete,
> now you opened a can of worms, my 1937 German language Compass has
a 1/4
> inch tripod thread, while the strangest combination I find on my
1948
> Nikon 1, it has a 3/8 inch female thread on the camera bottom with
a 1/4
> inch insert you talk about, to fit the 1/4 inch male/female  screw
that
> is attached to the original camera case.  This opens up a whole
new
> interesting line of investigation.
> Does  a camera have a 1/4" or 3/8" tripod socket, is it on the
bottom or
> also on the side, or as on your Diax have both types, until what
date
> were cameras made without a tripod socket? etc, etc.
> Can you elaborate what you mean when you say " In the case of the
Duo
> 620s, the focusing scales
> were either metric or imperial, but some cameras would have both."
What
> does the "s" stand for? and what do you mean by saying, " some
cameras
> would have both"? why would they have both, there would be  no
need for
> it. Do you mean the scale on the lens or the depth of field scale
on top
> of the camera?
> cheers,
> rolf
>

Hi Pete,
now you opened a can of worms, my 1937 German language Compass has a 1/4
inch tripod thread, while the strangest combination I find on my 1948
Nikon 1, it has a 3/8 inch female thread on the camera bottom with a 1/4
inch insert you talk about, to fit the 1/4 inch male/female  screw that
is attached to the original camera case.  This opens up a whole new
interesting line of investigation.
Does  a camera have a 1/4" or 3/8" tripod socket, is it on the bottom or
also on the side, or as on your Diax have both types, until what date
were cameras made without a tripod socket? etc, etc.
Can you elaborate what you mean when you say " In the case of the Duo
620s, the focusing scales
were either metric or imperial, but some cameras would have both." What
does the "s" stand for? and what do you mean by saying, " some cameras
would have both"? why would they have both, there would be  no need for
it. Do you mean the scale on the lens or the depth of field scale on top
of the camera?
cheers,
rolf

Hi, Rolf        Yes, that's a good pointer to distinguishing
Continental-market cameras in general, as opposed to those heading
for export destinations like the USA or UK.   In the case of Duo
620s, the focussing scales were either metric or imperial, but some
cameras would have had both.

One common accessory item pre-1950 or thereabouts, was a cunning
little converter gizmo with an outer male 3/8" thread and an
internal female 1/4" thread, so folks in non-metric countires who'd
acquired a Continental-market camera could adapt it to use a locally-
sourced tripod.

Finally around 1950 sanity prevailed and all countries went to the
1/4" thread AFAIK.    Interestingly, using my 35mm Diaxes as a
yardstick (or should that be metre-stick?)you can notice that the
1948 Diax Original with f2.8 Culminar has a Continental 3/8" tripod
hole, but the 1949 Diax Original with f2.8 Xenar has both the 3/8"
and 1/4" holes.   My next Diax, a 1951 Diax 1, just has the 1/4"
hole as did all Diaxes from then onwards.  I think that timescale
progression would likely be typical of the entire camera industry,
however that 1949 'Original' is the only camera I've ever seen to
have both 'belt and braces'.


Pete N.












--- In duo620@..., Rolf Eipper <rolfs-3d@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all, I found one other interesting thing, the Metric or meter
models
> have a 3/8 inch tripod socket while the English versions have a
1/4 inch
> tripod socket.
> cheers
> rolf
>

Hi all, I found one other interesting thing, the Metric or meter models
have a 3/8 inch tripod socket while the English versions have a 1/4 inch
tripod socket.
cheers
rolf

Hi, Peter        Thanks for that detective work, mate.    So it's
definately a Series 11 CRF Duo with f3.5 KA and focussing scale in
feet.    Shame Herr Kuckbusch didn't cough up with its body s/no,
though.

Yahoo moved the goalposts in 'Groups'a while back about posting pics
as attachments to post messages, which is why we can't open Herr K's
pic.    Could you maybe post it separately in the 'Photos' area,
please?

VMT From PN












--- In duo620@..., "Peter Lerro" <Peter.Lerro@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi to the Duo-620 Group.
> Here's the reply which Rahn sent to me regarding the Series II CRF
which they're auctioning off on Jan. 24.
> Peter Lerro (in Media, PA)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Wolfgang Kückbusch
> To: 'Peter Lerro'
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 2:07 AM
> Subject: AW: Item 233 Kodak Duo Six-20 Series II, CRF
>
>
> Dear Mr. Lerro,
>
>
>
> please look on the attached photo, I think it will answer on all
of your questions.
>
>
>
> The distance is in feet.
>
>
>
> If you need any other information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Wolfgang Kückbusch
>
>       AUCTIONEN
>
> RAHN Gmbh     since  1910
>
>
>
> www.photographica-auctionen.de
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
>
> Von: Peter Lerro [mailto:Peter.Lerro@...]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 3. Januar 2009 19:51
> An: info@...
> Betreff: Item 233 Kodak Duo Six-20 Series II, CRF
>
>
>
> Would you be so kind as to provide me with some information
regarding how the rangefinders scale is inscribed on this particular
item? What is the word just next to the first number, i.e., the
closest distance setting? Is it "feet" or "meters", or perhaps
something else. Also, what is the first number that is inscribed,
next to that particular word?
>
> This information would be most vital in determining my eventual
interest in pursuing this camera.
>
> Please accept my sincere thanks for your consideration to this
request.
>
>
>
> Peter A. Lerro
>
> 1920 Colt Rd.
>
> Media, PA 19063,  USA
>

----- Original Message -----

From: palerro

To: duo620@...

Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 2:01 PM

Subject: [duo620] Re: Series 11 CRF Duo On Sale At European Auction

Pete,
This is decidedly "GOOD NEWS"! This Duo-CRF on auction appears to
have a "Metric" DOF scale, just like mine; however, I have in inquiry
into the auction house to confirm this. But better yet, it only has
Kodak Anastigmat lens, whereas mine sports a Schneider-Kreuznach
Xener. Incidentally, I've entered both my Duo Series II, CRF and my
non-CRF in the group's data-base.

Peter Lerro (in Media, PA)

--- In duo620@yahoogroups.com.au, "pete.naylor" <pete.naylor@...>
wrote:
>
> Bernard P. from the IDCC has kindly sent me details of a CRF Duo
being
> auctioned in Germany by the Rahn Auction House on 24th Jan. The
bad
> news (or good news, if you already have one!) is that they expect
to
> get between 320 - 450 Euros for it, which is a lot of dosh for a
> reasonable-looking but certainly not minty exampke.
>
> The link is at:
>
> http://www.photographica-auctionen.de/eng/index.asp
>
> if you're curious. I've managed to work out everything about it
bar
> its body s/no for our Ser 11 CRF Database, from Rahn's description
and
> pics, so we're up to two of 'em now.
>
> Pete N.
>

Hi, Peter       Good idea of yours to contact the auction house,
mate!    With a bit of luck they may also supply the missing body
s/no when they respond.    I can't help thinking that their 320 -
450 E's estimate is optimistic though, in today's economic climate.

Thanks also for inserting your cameras' details in the various
Databases.   If anybody else is having trouble doing this, it's not
all that hard.   This is the procedure:

a.   Hit 'Database' in the menu over the left side;

b.   The three databases then come up - hit the title of the one you
want;

c.   That complete database will then come up - now hit 'Add Record'
at the bottom;

d.   A questionnaire will come up - type your camera's details in
the various blank boxes, and when you've finished hit 'Add Record';

e.   The complete database will then appear, with your camera's
details inserted in the correct sequence position by body s/no.
If you find you've made an error, go back and resubmit.   You won't
be able to delete or amend your original entry, but I as Moderator
can delete that original incorrect entry in due course.

f.   Easy-peasy!!!   Go and have a beer,and pat yourself on the back.

Pete N.














--- In duo620@..., "palerro" <Peter.Lerro@...> wrote:
>
> Pete,
> This is decidedly "GOOD NEWS"! This Duo-CRF on auction appears to
> have a "Metric" DOF scale, just like mine; however, I have in
inquiry
> into the auction house to confirm this. But better yet, it only
has
> Kodak Anastigmat lens, whereas mine sports a Schneider-Kreuznach
> Xener. Incidentally, I've entered both my Duo Series II, CRF and
my
> non-CRF in the group's data-base.
>
> Peter Lerro (in Media, PA)
>
>
> --- In duo620@..., "pete.naylor" <pete.naylor@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Bernard P. from the IDCC has kindly sent me details of a CRF Duo
> being
> > auctioned in Germany by the Rahn Auction House on 24th Jan.  The
> bad
> > news (or good news, if you already have one!) is that they
expect
> to
> > get between 320 - 450 Euros for it, which is a lot of dosh for a
> > reasonable-looking but certainly not minty exampke.
> >
> > The link is at:
> >
> >          http://www.photographica-auctionen.de/eng/index.asp
> >
> > if you're curious.   I've managed to work out everything about
it
> bar
> > its body s/no for our Ser 11 CRF Database, from Rahn's
description
> and
> > pics, so we're up to two of 'em now.
> >
> > Pete N.
> >
>

Pete,
This is decidedly "GOOD NEWS"! This Duo-CRF on auction appears to
have a "Metric" DOF scale, just like mine; however, I have in inquiry
into the auction house to confirm this. But better yet, it only has
Kodak Anastigmat lens, whereas mine sports a Schneider-Kreuznach
Xener. Incidentally, I've entered both my Duo Series II, CRF and my
non-CRF in the group's data-base.

Peter Lerro (in Media, PA)


--- In duo620@..., "pete.naylor" <pete.naylor@...>
wrote:
>
> Bernard P. from the IDCC has kindly sent me details of a CRF Duo
being
> auctioned in Germany by the Rahn Auction House on 24th Jan.  The
bad
> news (or good news, if you already have one!) is that they expect
to
> get between 320 - 450 Euros for it, which is a lot of dosh for a
> reasonable-looking but certainly not minty exampke.
>
> The link is at:
>
>          http://www.photographica-auctionen.de/eng/index.asp
>
> if you're curious.   I've managed to work out everything about it
bar
> its body s/no for our Ser 11 CRF Database, from Rahn's description
and
> pics, so we're up to two of 'em now.
>
> Pete N.
>

Bernard P. from the IDCC has kindly sent me details of a CRF Duo being
auctioned in Germany by the Rahn Auction House on 24th Jan.  The bad
news (or good news, if you already have one!) is that they expect to
get between 320 - 450 Euros for it, which is a lot of dosh for a
reasonable-looking but certainly not minty exampke.

The link is at:

          http://www.photographica-auctionen.de/eng/index.asp

if you're curious.   I've managed to work out everything about it bar
its body s/no for our Ser 11 CRF Database, from Rahn's description and
pics, so we're up to two of 'em now.

Pete N.

Aw, gee, fellas - I didn't think it was some kind of trick
question!    After all, "Spot The Mistake" doesn't infer that the
error would have to be specifically amongst the print, does it?

Actually, it may not be a SNAFU on the advertisers' part at all - it
may just be that at the time of submitting the ad to P.P., they
didn't actually have a kosher pic of the new Duo-620 Series 11.
So they included a pic of something they thought looked fairly
similar.   If they'd just included a pic of the old Art-Deco Duo,
folks might have thought "So, What's The Difference With This New
Model That Costs $5 More?"

I've seen this go on with adverts in the BJP Almanacs, where the
printing submission deadlines for the next year's almanac were
around August the previous year.    Even manufacturers themselves
might not be positive yet what a new model might end up looking like
in production the following year, so an artist would bodge up
something approximate and hope that it turned out to be similar.

For example, Ensign in the UK weren't sure in August 1945 how their
new 'Commando' folder would look, so such a bodge-up pic appeared in
the 1946 BJPA at p. 51.    Ultimately, the production Commando
looked quite different.   When I started collecting Commandos, I
could never work out why there never seemed to be any around like
the BJPA one.   So I queried this with Ensign Guru Adrian Richmond,
who confirmed he'd never seen one like it either!

Pete N.

(PS - if you want to see what the three Commando variants actually
look like, there's a pic and write-up in my Flickr Portfolio at:

          http://www.flickr.com/photos/32113303@N07/page2/ )









--- In duo620@..., "Johnny Georgiou" <johnnyapg@...>
wrote:
>
> Ditto....It WAS a trick question!
> Johnny G.
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: R.C.Booth
>   To: duo620@...
>   Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 1:22 PM
>   Subject: Re: [duo620] Re: Duo Ad Posted
>
>
>   So, Pete, I guess that should get us drummed out of the group.
eh?  I was totally focused on the text in the ad - a poor excuse but
true!
>
>   RCB
>
>   http://rcbooth.zenfolio.com/
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: pete.naylor
>     To: duo620@...
>     Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 11:12 AM
>     Subject: [duo620] Re: Duo Ad Posted
>
>
>     OK, guys - I'll put you out of your misery! It's the pic of
the
>     camera itself that's wrong. Surely that's not a Duo-620, but a
>     Vollenda 127? I mean, how many Duo's have you seen with top
struts?
>
>     Pete N.
>
>     -- In duo620@..., "R.C.Booth" <rcbooth@> wrote:
>     >
>     > I have to agree with Johnny that nothing stood out as an
error in
>     that ad. But, I have not yet learned all ins and outs of Duo
620
>     minutiae!
>     >
>     > RCB
>     >
>     > http://rcbooth.zenfolio.com/
>     > ----- Original Message -----
>     > From: Johnny Georgiou
>     > To: duo620@...
>     > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 9:58 AM
>     > Subject: Re: [duo620] Re: Duo Ad Posted
>     >
>     >
>     > Hi Pete, I did look at the ad but nothing stood out ( I am
not
>     too swift
>     > with minutiae). I managed to focus long enough for a second
peek
>     at the ad.
>     > Now where is that body release for the shutter? Tis that the
>     error?
>     > JohnnyG
>     > ----- Original Message -----
>     > From: "pete.naylor" <pete.naylor@>
>     > To: <duo620@...>
>     > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 1:58 AM
>     > Subject: [duo620] Re: Duo Ad Posted
>     >
>     > > Hi, Johnny Thanks for searching so diligently and
>     > > finding that one, mate - the more we have, the merrier. By
the
>     way,
>     > > have you had a look at that one from the Aug 37 P.P. with
the
>     mistake
>     > > in it, that Jack B. found yet?
>     > >
>     > > Pete N.
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > --- In duo620@..., "camjunker" <johnnyapg@>
>     wrote:
>     > >>
>     > >> Hi Pete et. al.,
>     > >> I have posted an advertisment from the March 1935 issue
of
>     The Camera
>     > >> (The Photographic Journal of America) to the More Duo620
>     album. I
>     > >> finally unearthed a couple large boxes of old photo
magazines
>     and, of
>     > >> course, had to browse through a few.
>     > >> Johnny G.
>     > >>
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > ------------------------------------
>     > >
>     > > Yahoo!7 Groups Links
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > ----------------------------------------------------------
>     -----------
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > No virus found in this incoming message.
>     > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>     > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1871 - Release
Date:
>     1/1/2009 5:01 PM
>     >
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
>
>
>
>     No virus found in this incoming message.
>     Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>     Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1871 - Release
Date: 1/1/2009 5:01 PM
>

----- Original Message -----

From: R.C.Booth

To: duo620@...

Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 1:22 PM

Subject: Re: [duo620] Re: Duo Ad Posted

So, Pete, I guess that should get us drummed out of the group. eh?  I was totally focused on the text in the ad - a poor excuse but true!

 

RCB

 

http://rcbooth.zenfolio.com/

----- Original Message -----

From: pete.naylor

To: duo620@...

Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 11:12 AM

Subject: [duo620] Re: Duo Ad Posted

OK, guys - I'll put you out of your misery! It's the pic of the
camera itself that's wrong. Surely that's not a Duo-620, but a
Vollenda 127? I mean, how many Duo's have you seen with top struts?

Pete N.

-- In duo620@yahoogroups.com.au, "R.C.Booth" <rcbooth@...> wrote:
>
> I have to agree with Johnny that nothing stood out as an error in
that ad. But, I have not yet learned all ins and outs of Duo 620
minutiae!
>
> RCB
>
> http://rcbooth.zenfolio.com/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Johnny Georgiou
> To: duo620@yahoogroups.com.au
> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 9:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [duo620] Re: Duo Ad Posted
>
>
> Hi Pete, I did look at the ad but nothing stood out ( I am not
too swift
> with minutiae). I managed to focus long enough for a second peek
at the ad.
> Now where is that body release for the shutter? Tis that the
error?
> JohnnyG
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "pete.naylor" <pete.naylor@...>
> To: <duo620@yahoogroups.com.au>
> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 1:58 AM
> Subject: [duo620] Re: Duo Ad Posted
>
> > Hi, Johnny Thanks for searching so diligently and
> > finding that one, mate - the more we have, the merrier. By the
way,
> > have you had a look at that one from the Aug 37 P.P. with the
mistake
> > in it, that Jack B. found yet?
> >
> > Pete N.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In duo620@yahoogroups.com.au, "camjunker" <johnnyapg@>
wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Pete et. al.,
> >> I have posted an advertisment from the March 1935 issue of
The Camera
> >> (The Photographic Journal of America) to the More Duo620
album. I
> >> finally unearthed a couple large boxes of old photo magazines
and, of
> >> course, had to browse through a few.
> >> Johnny G.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo!7 Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
-----------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1871 - Release Date:
1/1/2009 5:01 PM
>

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1871 - Release Date: 1/1/2009 5:01 PM

----- Original Message -----

From: pete.naylor

To: duo620@...

Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 11:12 AM

Subject: [duo620] Re: Duo Ad Posted

OK, guys - I'll put you out of your misery! It's the pic of the
camera itself that's wrong. Surely that's not a Duo-620, but a
Vollenda 127? I mean, how many Duo's have you seen with top struts?

Pete N.

-- In duo620@yahoogroups.com.au, "R.C.Booth" <rcbooth@...> wrote:
>
> I have to agree with Johnny that nothing stood out as an error in
that ad. But, I have not yet learned all ins and outs of Duo 620
minutiae!
>
> RCB
>
> http://rcbooth.zenfolio.com/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Johnny Georgiou
> To: duo620@yahoogroups.com.au
> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 9:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [duo620] Re: Duo Ad Posted
>
>
> Hi Pete, I did look at the ad but nothing stood out ( I am not
too swift
> with minutiae). I managed to focus long enough for a second peek
at the ad.
> Now where is that body release for the shutter? Tis that the
error?
> JohnnyG
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "pete.naylor" <pete.naylor@...>
> To: <duo620@yahoogroups.com.au>
> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 1:58 AM
> Subject: [duo620] Re: Duo Ad Posted
>
> > Hi, Johnny Thanks for searching so diligently and
> > finding that one, mate - the more we have, the merrier. By the
way,
> > have you had a look at that one from the Aug 37 P.P. with the
mistake
> > in it, that Jack B. found yet?
> >
> > Pete N.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In duo620@yahoogroups.com.au, "camjunker" <johnnyapg@>
wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Pete et. al.,
> >> I have posted an advertisment from the March 1935 issue of
The Camera
> >> (The Photographic Journal of America) to the More Duo620
album. I
> >> finally unearthed a couple large boxes of old photo magazines
and, of
> >> course, had to browse through a few.
> >> Johnny G.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo!7 Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
-----------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1871 - Release Date:
1/1/2009 5:01 PM
>

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1871 - Release Date: 1/1/2009 5:01 PM

OK, guys - I'll put you out of your misery!   It's the pic of the
camera itself that's wrong.   Surely that's not a Duo-620, but a
Vollenda 127?   I mean, how many Duo's have you seen with top struts?

Pete N.














-- In duo620@..., "R.C.Booth" <rcbooth@...> wrote:
>
> I have to agree with Johnny that nothing stood out as an error in
that ad.  But, I have not yet learned all ins and outs of Duo 620
minutiae!
>
> RCB
>
> http://rcbooth.zenfolio.com/
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Johnny Georgiou
>   To: duo620@...
>   Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 9:58 AM
>   Subject: Re: [duo620] Re: Duo Ad Posted
>
>
>   Hi Pete, I did look at the ad but nothing stood out ( I am not
too swift
>   with minutiae). I managed to focus long enough for a second peek
at the ad.
>   Now where is that body release for the shutter? Tis that the
error?
>   JohnnyG
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: "pete.naylor" <pete.naylor@...>
>   To: <duo620@...>
>   Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 1:58 AM
>   Subject: [duo620] Re: Duo Ad Posted
>
>   > Hi, Johnny Thanks for searching so diligently and
>   > finding that one, mate - the more we have, the merrier. By the
way,
>   > have you had a look at that one from the Aug 37 P.P. with the
mistake
>   > in it, that Jack B. found yet?
>   >
>   > Pete N.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > --- In duo620@..., "camjunker" <johnnyapg@>
wrote:
>   >>
>   >> Hi Pete et. al.,
>   >> I have posted an advertisment from the March 1935 issue of
The Camera
>   >> (The Photographic Journal of America) to the More Duo620
album. I
>   >> finally unearthed a couple large boxes of old photo magazines
and, of
>   >> course, had to browse through a few.
>   >> Johnny G.
>   >>
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > ------------------------------------
>   >
>   > Yahoo!7 Groups Links
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
>
>
>
>   No virus found in this incoming message.
>   Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>   Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1871 - Release Date:
1/1/2009 5:01 PM
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Johnny Georgiou

To: duo620@...

Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 9:58 AM

Subject: Re: [duo620] Re: Duo Ad Posted

Hi Pete, I did look at the ad but nothing stood out ( I am not too swift
with minutiae). I managed to focus long enough for a second peek at the ad.
Now where is that body release for the shutter? Tis that the error?
JohnnyG
----- Original Message -----
From: "pete.naylor" <pete.naylor@yahoo.com.au>
To: <duo620@yahoogroups.com.au>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 1:58 AM
Subject: [duo620] Re: Duo Ad Posted

> Hi, Johnny Thanks for searching so diligently and
> finding that one, mate - the more we have, the merrier. By the way,
> have you had a look at that one from the Aug 37 P.P. with the mistake
> in it, that Jack B. found yet?
>
> Pete N.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In duo620@yahoogroups.com.au, "camjunker" <johnnyapg@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Pete et. al.,
>> I have posted an advertisment from the March 1935 issue of The Camera
>> (The Photographic Journal of America) to the More Duo620 album. I
>> finally unearthed a couple large boxes of old photo magazines and, of
>> course, had to browse through a few.
>> Johnny G.
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo!7 Groups Links
>
>
>
>

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1871 - Release Date: 1/1/2009 5:01 PM

Hi Pete, I did look at the ad but nothing stood out ( I am not too swift
with minutiae). I managed to focus long enough for a second peek at the ad.
Now where is that body release for the shutter? Tis that the error?
JohnnyG
----- Original Message -----
From: "pete.naylor" <pete.naylor@...>
To: <duo620@...>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 1:58 AM
Subject: [duo620] Re: Duo Ad Posted


> Hi, Johnny               Thanks for searching so diligently and
> finding that one, mate - the more we have, the merrier.   By the way,
> have you had a look at that one from the Aug 37 P.P. with the mistake
> in it,  that Jack B. found yet?
>
> Pete N.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In duo620@..., "camjunker" <johnnyapg@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Pete et. al.,
>> I have posted an advertisment from the March 1935 issue of The Camera
>> (The Photographic Journal of America) to the More Duo620 album. I
>> finally unearthed a couple large boxes of old photo magazines and, of
>> course, had to browse through a few.
>> Johnny G.
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo!7 Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Hi, Johnny         Yes, that is strange - and the two caameras have
different lenses and shutters, too.   It'll be interesting to see as
the databases get bigger, if we can detect that there were
production runs of one lens and shutter type, or if they're all
intermingled.   I tend to suspect the latter, but time will tell.

One thing that's already apparent is that there's no logic to the
rear VF's being plated or painted.   I originally suspected that it
was a production thing, say using black painted ones once the
optical VFs had replaced the very early non-optical VFs.   Then once
it became apparent that the paint wore away because of contact with
the ERC top, harder-wearing plating got introduced to replace it.
However, that theory is already debunked because of the haphazard
way both types of finish are cropping up.    Maybe some other reason
will come up as more cameras' details get inputted?

Pete N.













--- In duo620@..., "camjunker" <johnnyapg@...> wrote:
>
> Nothing special but the SN is very close to one posted by Richard.
> That is all I needed after watching the Twilight Zone New Year's
> marathon! A bit spooky in a fun way.
> Johnny
>

Hi, Johnny               Thanks for searching so diligently and
finding that one, mate - the more we have, the merrier.   By the way,
have you had a look at that one from the Aug 37 P.P. with the mistake
in it,  that Jack B. found yet?

Pete N.










--- In duo620@..., "camjunker" <johnnyapg@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Pete et. al.,
> I have posted an advertisment from the March 1935 issue of The Camera
> (The Photographic Journal of America) to the More Duo620 album. I
> finally unearthed a couple large boxes of old photo magazines and, of
> course, had to browse through a few.
> Johnny G.
>

Nothing special but the SN is very close to one posted by Richard.
That is all I needed after watching the Twilight Zone New Year's
marathon! A bit spooky in a fun way.
Johnny

Hi Pete et. al.,
I have posted an advertisment from the March 1935 issue of The Camera
(The Photographic Journal of America) to the More Duo620 album. I
finally unearthed a couple large boxes of old photo magazines and, of
course, had to browse through a few.
Johnny G.