Rolleiflex K7F 2.8 Planar on the Goodwill website

[indy_kid]

https://www.shopgoodwill.com/Item/60441509

 

[Kino]

That will go through the stratosphere...

 

[ic-racer]

My 2.8F is a "Honeywell" version also. I think the current prices of any 2.8F are still bargains compared to other things that cost $700 in the 1980s.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

... that cost $700 in the 1980s.

Do you mean brand new? I remember when the last of the regular Rolleiflex 2.8 models were being sold by the New York mail order stores around 1980 and 1981 (not the Aurum or other commemorative models). The 2.8s were about $2000 to $2200 then.

Look at the pictures of the 2.8 in the auction. The lenses look clean. And the eye-level prism is not dented, which is quite rare. This looks like a nice piece.

 

[campy51]

I have it my watch list, but anything I have ever watched on Goodwill auctions ever sold for less than what you could find everyday. This will go for what you can get on ebay and without any protection of returning if it's a dud. This is coming from a guy that just bought a 3.5 F from an out of state Craigslist ad.

 

[warden]

I have it my watch list, but anything I have ever watched on Goodwill auctions ever sold for less than what you could find everyday. This will go for what you can get on ebay and without any protection of returning if it's a dud. This is coming from a guy that just bought a 3.5 F from an out of state Craigslist ad.

I was wondering about that. If it reaches market value is there reason to buy? It would seem not, but I could be missing something. It does look like a wonderful camera.

 

[AgX]

https://www.shopgoodwill.com/Item/60441509

That site is blocking me.

 

[Kino]

I have it my watch list, but anything I have ever watched on Goodwill auctions ever sold for less than what you could find everyday. This will go for what you can get on ebay and without any protection of returning if it's a dud. This is coming from a guy that just bought a 3.5 F from an out of state Craigslist ad.

+1 You pay high market used prices on a total crapshoot. Unless it can be had dirt cheap, not worth it at all...

 

[ic-racer]

Do you mean brand new? I remember when the last of the regular Rolleiflex 2.8 models were being sold by the New York mail order stores around 1980 and 1981 (not the Aurum or other commemorative models). The 2.8s were about $2000 to $2200 then.

Look at the pictures of the 2.8 in the auction. The lenses look clean. And the eye-level prism is not dented, which is quite rare. This looks like a nice piece.

I got mine used for $700 in 1984. Based on the trends in the 1980s I would have thought something like that (or mine) would go for $5000 today. So, I think that under $1500 these clean 2.8F cameras are a good deal.

 

[campy51]

Up to $451 as of 11/20 at 2:30 EDT with 6 days to go. We should have a pool for what the final price will be.

 

[Kino]

I'll predict $975.99 USD ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Should I throw in a bid just to drive the price higher?

 

[Kino]

Oh, so bad...

 

[indy_kid]

Yeah, Goodwill is a crapshoot on some items, and I've been burned a few times. However, I did get a K7F a few months ago for $720. Good condition, no obvious problems. Sold it for $800+, so I was happy. If it had been bad, I would have sent it to Harry Fleenor at Oceanside Camera Repair for a full CLA. $300-500 for that, which would likely boost its fair-market value close to the prices I see "mint" 2.8 Planars from Japan being listed on eBay.

Took it out for test shots, along with the 1938 RF111A and 1954 K4B that I have listed for sale. T-Max 100 film on a very sunny day. You tell me: which camera took which shot?

 

[ic-racer]

Up to $451 as of 11/20 at 2:30 EDT with 6 days to go. We should have a pool for what the final price will be.

Or better yet, someone here should buy it

 

[BrianShaw]

Should I throw in a bid just to drive the price higher?
View attachment 211628

Only a jerk would even suggest such an action.

 

[indy_kid]

Only a jerk would even suggest such an action.

Actually, I did that on the Goodwill site, TWICE recently, and the SAME items being sold.

One store had listed a Leica camera and a FED-2 camera. In the first auction, they actually used the phrase "Leica camera" in their description. It looked like a Leica, but it had Olympic Rings and a Nazi eagle etched into the top. A look at the other images confirmed to me that it was a Russian Zorki-1, Type C. You could even see the decorative rim around the chrome parts. There was also a serial number on the back, in addition to a different one that had been etched on the top (that one was correct for a 1936 Leica). I notified the seller, and they thanked me for the info. The auction continued, with no update to the description. So, I bid a really high price, knowing I could return it as being falsely described. As it happened, someone outbid me. The 2 sold for $350+.

So, about 2 weeks later, I see the same cameras for auction again. Obviously, either they notified the winner of the truth, who backed out of the auction, or the person who received them found the "Leica" to be a Zorki and returned them for a refund. However, what blew my mind was that they used the same description, cut and pasted from the first auction! I wrote them again, reminded them that I had warned them about a false description, and urged them to act. They did nothing. So, I bid $1000 and won (someone actually came in at the last 20-30 seconds and pushed the price up to $500). I didn't pay, naturally. Told them I wasn't going to, as they had been warned about their fraud.

I'm keeping a very close eye on the listings to see if they show up again. If they do, I'm going to alert their local Prosecutor, as this would be repeated attempts to commit fraud. I have copies of the messages I sent, if necessary. I told them to list them honestly, and they'd likely still get a good price, as there are collectors of Leica (and other) faked cameras. I have a suspicion, however, that they've contacted the 2nd-place bidder, told them the "winner" had backed out and this bidder could have the cameras for $500, but there would be no return or refund. Would not surprise me at all.

Sometimes, a "push" bid can save someone else from an expensive heartache.

 

[BrianShaw]

I may have been wrong about “jerk”... could just be a Savior complex. Ha ha ha (not).

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Not worth buying unless it can be bought at a low price anticipating repairs.

The Rolleiflex is complex enough of a camera that you'd want to buy where either you can inspect it or it's from someplace like KEH where they test it and offer a warranty or a return policy.

 

[indy_kid]

Now past the $1K mark...

 

[AgX]

Actually, I did that on the Goodwill site, TWICE recently, and the SAME items being sold.

One store had listed a Leica camera and a FED-2 camera. In the first auction, they actually used the phrase "Leica camera" in their description. It looked like a Leica, but it had Olympic Rings and a Nazi eagle etched into the top. A look at the other images confirmed to me that it was a Russian Zorki-1, Type C. You could even see the decorative rim around the chrome parts. There was also a serial number on the back, in addition to a different one that had been etched on the top (that one was correct for a 1936 Leica). I notified the seller, and they thanked me for the info. The auction continued, with no update to the description. So, I bid a really high price, knowing I could return it as being falsely described. As it happened, someone outbid me. The 2 sold for $350+.

So, about 2 weeks later, I see the same cameras for auction again. Obviously, either they notified the winner of the truth, who backed out of the auction, or the person who received them found the "Leica" to be a Zorki and returned them for a refund. However, what blew my mind was that they used the same description, cut and pasted from the first auction! I wrote them again, reminded them that I had warned them about a false description, and urged them to act. They did nothing. So, I bid $1000 and won (someone actually came in at the last 20-30 seconds and pushed the price up to $500). I didn't pay, naturally. Told them I wasn't going to, as they had been warned about their fraud.

I'm keeping a very close eye on the listings to see if they show up again. If they do, I'm going to alert their local Prosecutor, as this would be repeated attempts to commit fraud. I have copies of the messages I sent, if necessary. I told them to list them honestly, and they'd likely still get a good price, as there are collectors of Leica (and other) faked cameras. I have a suspicion, however, that they've contacted the 2nd-place bidder, told them the "winner" had backed out and this bidder could have the cameras for $500, but there would be no return or refund. Would not surprise me at all.

Sometimes, a "push" bid can save someone else from an expensive heartache.

Your action may seem funny. But actually you are cranking up prices in favour of a not cooperative, not to say malafide seller.
Furthermore having bid after complaining you no longer could have argued on being fooled, so they could have insisted on you taking and paying that camera.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Only a jerk would even suggest such an action.

I may have been wrong about “jerk”... could just be a Savior complex. Ha ha ha (not).

Glad you woke up and saw the humor in my post. A bunch of bidders will drive up the post days ahead of the closing time rather than waiting until the end of the bid time. That being the case, I joked about jumping in.

 

[indy_kid]

Your action may seem funny. But actually you are cranking up prices in favour of a not cooperative, not to say malafide seller.
Furthermore having bid after complaining you no longer could have argued on being fooled, so they could have insisted on you taking and paying that camera.

My action was never intended to be funny; it was to stop someone who didn't know a real Leica from a fake from losing a lot of money.

The seller has no standing to force me to pay. They had been told it was a fake; I even specified the exact model and included a link to the web page that describes the details of the Zorki-1(C). Most importantly, they used a fraudulent description in their 2nd listing of these items. As I stated, they claimed the auction included a Leica camera. It did not.

On the other hand, I have standing to file fraud charges against them! They knew it wasn't a Leica, yet went ahead and advertised it as such.

The only question I have right now is, "Where are those cameras?" Will they be relisted with an accurate description, or have they been sold to a back-up bidder who doesn't know any better? Since I already know this Goodwill has no problems with fraudulent listings, I suspect they sold them to a back-up bidder with a firm "no return" clause in the offer, rather than have them show up a 3rd time and raise everyone's suspicions. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[indy_kid]

Speaking of Leicas, there's an M4 with a 90mm lens on one auction, and a 50mm Summicron F2 lens on another.

https://www.shopgoodwill.com/Item/60422700

https://www.shopgoodwill.com/Item/60423145

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Speaking of Leicas, there's an M4 with a 90mm lens on one auction, and a 50mm Summicron F2 lens on another.

https://www.shopgoodwill.com/Item/60422700

https://www.shopgoodwill.com/Item/60423145

One day left, and the M4 is up to $850. There is a major problem with the shutter (look at the pictures). If the buyer is in USA, figure on $300 or more for a proper overhaul, cleaning, and repair. The lens is an old thread-mount Elmar with an M adapter. The LeicaMeter looks like it has discoloration along the bottom. (look at the pictures). That may just be dirt or it may be corrosion from a leaking battery, which renders the meter most likely unrepairable. In my opinion, this not an attractive package at this price.