I also collect Fountain Pens, and this discussion comes up often with
regard to a valuable pen that was assembled from contemporary parts of the
era. Is it original? Well, in that case, it's definitely made from
original parts. And in the Pen industry, this is exactly the technique
that was used to use up old stock or to repair pens sent back when the
original parts were gone. So it's usually up to the collector if he/she
considers it "original" or not.
As to an M-1 vs. an OM-1. You could easily switch the top and bottom
plates from a distressed M-1 to a pre-MD OM-1 to make a new camera. I
don't think anyone would know the difference. Consider that if you trashed
the lens mount on your M-1 in 1973 and sent it to Olympus for repair, I'd
bet that they would honor a request to fit the covers to a new OM-1 for
you. Unless the internals changed radically, there is NO way you'd know.
I agree with Sean's comment that an M-1 is worth a lot more with an
M-System lens on it.
Skip
At 08:41 PM 6/19/00 -0500, you wrote:
Hey Sean,
I liked your 2 yens worth comment. I agree on your integrity theory of
trading top and bottom covers of an M-1 to a regular OM-1 body in mint
condition.
The tell-tale signs would be in the meter and the grounding of the camera,
also no motordrive switch. I know some of the older OM-1 bodies have the
same characteristics described. It just comes down to integrity. Some
people just don't have it.
If you have a car and it's in a car accident, not major and lets say they
replace the hood, fender, grill and the front bumper with new parts, and all
the work is done right, to spec's. Is the car worth more or less? or has it
devalued? , after the accident....
Take Care, Sam....
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Chan <Sean.Chan@xxxxxxxx>
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, June 19, 2000 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] M-1 in Tokyo
>Dan,
>
>Dan Lau wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:02, Sean Chan <Sean.Chan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Externally, I can't see anything wrong - no >dings, etc.
>> >
>> >Anyhow, when I looked through the viewfinder, there was gunk there :-(.
>>
>> Actually, what is to prevent a dishonest person from buying this
>> camera, take the top/bottom covers off and put them on a production
>> OM-1 and then selling it off as a collector's M-1 for hundreds
>> more than what (s)he paid for it? I don't think it will be possible
>> to tell the difference from an original M-1.
>
>Probably no, you won't be able to tell the difference but I think
>changing *anything* from an M-1 part to an OM-1 part will greatly
>devalue the M-1. I for one won't live with myself to do such a
>thing - and usually when I purchase something 2nd hand if it's not
>advertised to be modified I assume the product to be made with
>original parts.
>
>To be honest, that M-1 without an M lens is not worth as much as one
>with. I'd guess that an M-1 body alone is probably 'bout 60-700f an
>M-1 system (50mm F1.8)?? It can't be treated as an OM-1 body that I
>can go out and buy any of the numerous OM-System 50mm F1.8 Zuiko's
>(in which case I'd value the body to be 80-85% and the 50/1.8.
>
>My 2 yen worth,
>Sean
>--
>Sean Chan Sean.Chan@xxxxxxxx http://www.msdw.co.jp
>EI/UNIX IT Dept. +81 3 5424-4318 (W) +81 3 5424-4399 (F)
>Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Japan Ltd., Yebisu Garden Place Tower
>20-3, Ebisu 4-Chome, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, JAPAN 150-6008
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|