mthomas
Member
I have found two Rolleiflex sites on the web that seemingly allocate different serial numbers to different manufacture-date ranges.
The first site -- https://tlr66.org/sn80.php#f -- publishes these data:
The second site -- http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/A-F_tlr.shtml -- provides these (contradictory) data:
I'm looking at a Rolleiflex 2.8F with a serial number of "2448XXX". According to the "tlr66.org" information, the camera I'm looking at was made in "1966/67." But, according to "rolleiclub.com", the camera is one of an initial batch made between June 1960 & December 1965.
Anyone have an opinion as to which source is correct?
Thanks very much,
Marc
The first site -- https://tlr66.org/sn80.php#f -- publishes these data:
The second site -- http://www.rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/A-F_tlr.shtml -- provides these (contradictory) data:
I'm looking at a Rolleiflex 2.8F with a serial number of "2448XXX". According to the "tlr66.org" information, the camera I'm looking at was made in "1966/67." But, according to "rolleiclub.com", the camera is one of an initial batch made between June 1960 & December 1965.
Anyone have an opinion as to which source is correct?
Thanks very much,
Marc
Last edited:
hanskerensky
Well-known
I think that the Rolleiclub.com site wants to give the same information but did fail to make a clear distinction in their text between the initial batch 2.400.000 from start (in 1960) and the second variant from 2.442.134 (in 1965).
Most of the 2.8F serial number information on both sites comes from the German book "Rollei Report 2" written by (former Rollei camera engineer) Claus Prochnow.
Most of the 2.8F serial number information on both sites comes from the German book "Rollei Report 2" written by (former Rollei camera engineer) Claus Prochnow.
mthomas
Member
This is very useful information. Thank you. I have no German but some of Prochnow's work appears to be available in English.
(The discrepancy in serial numbers and associated features -- in my case, I wanted to try cutting & exposing my own 220 film stock -- put me off buying a camera that would in fact have been ideal. A pity those numbers were so poorly attributed.
Thanks again,
Marc
(The discrepancy in serial numbers and associated features -- in my case, I wanted to try cutting & exposing my own 220 film stock -- put me off buying a camera that would in fact have been ideal. A pity those numbers were so poorly attributed.
Thanks again,
Marc
Beemermark
Mentor
The DOB is important why?
mthomas
Member
I want 24-frame exposure & counting capability.
Marc
Marc
Godfrey
somewhat colored
According to Collector's Guide to Rollei Cameras by Arthur G. Evans (published ©1986), the serial number range 2,400,000 to 2,451,850 denotes a Rolleiflex 2.8F (type 1) made between June 1960 and 1966, with both Schneider Xenotar and Zeiss Planar lenses. The type 1 identifiers specify that the inscription "2.8F" precedes the serial number, and it does not have a 24-exposure 220 film counter. The 2.8F (type 2), serial numbers greater than 2,451,850, does have the 24-exposure 220 film counter.
Arther Evans is much more succinct and readable than Klaus Prochnow, albeit that Klaus' books are more comprehensive.
G
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
A picture of the camera you're looking to buy (the crank wind side) ought to make clear whether it's got 220 capability. Also a picture of the pressure plate. Can you request pictures? I concur with what Godfrey cites for the Evans book; I also have the Ian Parker book but it wasn't very clear about this.
mthomas
Member
The 2.8F camera in which I was interested (i.e., ser.no.2448xxx) was being sold by an estate agent who's a good friend of mine. She initially described the camera over the phone to me as being in mint condition but did not have it at hand -- the actual sale was to be held over the (Aug.7/8) weekend 40 miles from her office (from whence she was calling).
She called me yesterday to say she was sorry, but that the 2.8F had been sold for $1,625 USD on Sunday evening.
Even though I had an "inside track" I had hesitated initially, as I have said, because I wanted a fully 220 compatible 2.8F and could not find definitive information based on the truncated serial number my friend provided.
I thank everyone for the help they've offered here, although I must say that I'm as confused as ever about the evolution of the 1960's Rolleiflexes' features as denoted by their serial numbers.
Consider camera #2448608 and also camera #2451432. Both have serial numbers ostensibly within the so-called "Type 1" range, and yet both are equipped with wind-side "12/24" selectors. (See https://www.ebay.com/itm/274891018906
and
https://www.ebay.com/itm/324739591302.)
Puzzling, is it not?
Marc
She called me yesterday to say she was sorry, but that the 2.8F had been sold for $1,625 USD on Sunday evening.
Even though I had an "inside track" I had hesitated initially, as I have said, because I wanted a fully 220 compatible 2.8F and could not find definitive information based on the truncated serial number my friend provided.
I thank everyone for the help they've offered here, although I must say that I'm as confused as ever about the evolution of the 1960's Rolleiflexes' features as denoted by their serial numbers.
Consider camera #2448608 and also camera #2451432. Both have serial numbers ostensibly within the so-called "Type 1" range, and yet both are equipped with wind-side "12/24" selectors. (See https://www.ebay.com/itm/274891018906
and
https://www.ebay.com/itm/324739591302.)
Puzzling, is it not?
Marc
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Aargh! Sorry you missed out -- but wait for an offering that is clearly a 12/24, rather than roll the dice based on the serial number. Best to deal with a knowledgeable seller. You've landed in the middle of an area of uncertainty in Rollei-land. I'm with you; I would love a Rollei that takes 220. But I'll use my Yashicamats instead I guess.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
It would seem to me that the records keeping wasn't always exact. There are 'errors' and variations in the records reported by both Prochnow and Evans, and the same sorts of things happen in the various different lists of serial numbers of Leica equipment too. These were, at that time, largely hand-assembled cameras and the errors in the number reports are most likely errors by the people doing the assembly, inspection, or packaging.
With any of this older gear, it's best to simple examine the particular unit you are looking at carefully and read up in the various collectors guides and model information to discover precisely what it has. It is also the case that some units might have been upgraded or modified to have a later feature (I could see the 12/24 mechanism counter/220 film compatibility being a relatively easy and perhaps popular retrofit at that time ... the 24 frame capability being mostly useless now with the extremely limited amount of 220 film available and thus not particularly popular or important to most user/buyers).
G
mthomas
Member
Thanks Godfrey. I think you're assessment of the situation is correct.
Marc
Marc
hanskerensky
Well-known
According to Claus Prochnow these both are in the type 2 range which has indeed a 12/24 film selector.
Also according to Claus Prochnow it was possible to update the earlier type 1 with a 12/24 film selector. This could only be done at the factory (Werksumbauten).