FED1 engraving errors

I have a FED-S Type c No. 69929 which is missing the "X" of "Charkow" in the last row.






A regular plate for comparison:



Are there any other examples of engraving errors in FED1 cameras?

Regards,
Christian

Hello Christian,

Yes, there are errors from time to time.
I remember an early Fed 2 with two or three letters missing at "Dzerjinskiy".
And I have a Fed NKAP which seems genuine. All is perfect, except that the two letters NM. are missing.

On the other side, there can be too errors about numberings: a digit more... or less!

Amitiйs. Jacques.

Hello Jacques!

Very interesting, can you provide some photos?

I didn't even realize the engraving error when I bought the camera, it was Yuri from Fedka.com who noticed this during CLA.

I also have a FED-S Type d with "numbering error" (No.2570).



Regards,
Christian

Concerning my "Red Flag", you will find the pictures there:
http://www.ussrphoto.com/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2057

About your Fed S, it's very interesting.
Some (non rare) Fed 1 have strange numbers, for example there:
http://www.ussrphoto.com/Wiki/default.asp?WikiCatID=98&ParentID=1&ContentID=1035&Item=FED+1b+%2D+Unusual+Serial+Numbers

One can think that bodies were exchanged during the warranty. And that the original serial number was engraved on the new body. Leitz did so too with their Leica II and III.

But certainly there can be mistakes or forgettings too...

Very interesting, your S, Christian!

Amitiйs. Jacques.

Thanks!

The Red Flag is marvellous, would love to have one but I'm too concerned about forgeries.

My FED-S No.2570 has Lens No.25237 if this helps. Body looks like normal Type d.


The warranty-issue has been discussed, but I find it hard to imagine in this case.
If the original No. was really around 2500 this would mean it was made in 1934, whereas unless I'm mistaken FED1 Type d were made from 1939-41.
Also if it was an engraving error, it means that 2 digits are missing (from "10" to "16"), as Type d starts from No.95xxx.
Am I correct?

More pictures of the FED-S here:
http://ussrphoto.com/Forum/topic.asp?whichpage=7.76&TOPIC_ID=1466

Regards,
Christian

Yes, you are completely correct!
Difficult to think there was only a question of warranty. Unless the second Fed failed too and had to be replaced...

Is the shutter box made in brass or in aluminium? Does the film plate have a hole or not? It would be useful to know to have a more precise view.

If you don't know, you will find curious ones too in DVD's collection: have a look at the C and B.
http://www.dvdtechcameras.com/collect/fed/fed.htm

As for the lens, your number is more or less in the middle of the production. Some 13000 of these lenses were produced, including some odd ones towards the end. S/n from 20xxx to 33xxx, by my data.

Jacques.

Jacques, hat's what I love about these cameras - everytime you look at them you find something new.
I previously didn't pay much attention to shutter box material and holes in pressure plates, that's how it looks:

Film plate does have a hole in all my FED-S.
Also two normal FED c and d have the hole, FED e doesn't.

Shutter box:

FED-S c No.69929: Brass
FED-S d No.2570: Aluminium, "5" stamped on bottom if you look through lens mount
FED-S e No.174186: Aluminium, "33"

FED1 c: 60570 Brass
FED1 d: 129277 Aluminium
FED1 e: 174186 Aluminium

Can't check FED-S No.70883 as it is loaded with film, but it does have the hole.

Aidas says that Aluminium was used from #125.000 onwards, so maybe first and last digits are missing and it should read "125.70x"?

Regards,
Christian

About the aluminium shutter box, I would say rather c. 115000. And there are exceptions earlier. I have a Fed S d model c. 95000 with an alu box. Perhaps repair.

Concerning the hole in the press film, it was suppressed at c. 150000. So, your S should have a s/n between 115000 and 150000. Probably. Anyway, there is no doubt: it's a "d".

It is possible to cross all that with the s/n of the lens. But the listing in the wiki shows that we cannot really find a regularity s/n of camera - s/n of lens. And a lens can have been changed...

Jacques.