Very early Rolleiflex Automat? Please help

[Emanuel Schi]

Hello, I have a set of (I think) a very early Rolleiflex automat 1. It looks totally like an Automat 1, but the serialnumber (830228) does not check out.
Could it be a preproduction model?
Would really appreciate some help!
Thanks!

Greetings,
Emanuel

 

[Kino]

Nvm. I can not upload photos even under 2mb, sorry..

Scale the image to 1000 pixels on the longest side and it will upload.

 

[Emanuel Schi]

Scale the image to 1000 pixels on the longest side and it will upload.

Thank you, it worked!

 

[reddesert]

I don't know which sn list you are using but here is a serial number / model list for prewar Rolleiflex:
https://tlr.rolleigraphy.eu/snprewar.php

Rolleiflex models often have overlapping serial number ranges, and according to that page the sn 830nnn could be in the range of either a New Standard or an Automat model 3, presumably because they were making/selling both models at the same time to hit two price points. Yours looks like an Automat (maybe model 1 since I think it has a filter bayonet only on the taking lens). So it's an Automat. I don't think that SN lists are always totally reliable about the small feature differences between different iterations of the same model, that is the seeming inconsistency between SN and whether it's an Automat 1 or 3 is not significant to me (maybe to a Rollei obsessive).

Your camera has the retail packaging and so on (impressive), so I see no reason to think it's an oddball or pre-production.

 

[Emanuel Schi]

I don't know which sn list you are using but here is a serial number / model list for prewar Rolleiflex:
https://tlr.rolleigraphy.eu/snprewar.php

Rolleiflex models often have overlapping serial number ranges, and according to that page the sn 830nnn could be in the range of either a New Standard or an Automat model 3, presumably because they were making/selling both models at the same time to hit two price points. Yours looks like an Automat (maybe model 1 since I think it has a filter bayonet only on the taking lens). So it's an Automat. I don't think that SN lists are always totally reliable about the small feature differences between different iterations of the same model, that is the seeming inconsistency between SN and whether it's an Automat 1 or 3 is not significant to me (maybe to a Rollei obsessive).

Your camera has the retail packaging and so on (impressive), so I see no reason to think it's an oddball or pre-production.

Thank you for taking the time to help! So I shouldn’t obsess over the serial number? Because it just doesn’t make any sense. As you said, based on the serial, it should be a New Standard or an Automate 3 — but the body looks like an Automate 1, judging by the missing filter thread.

 

[F4U]

Wow, I bet THAT outfit is worth a nickle or 2.

 

[JensH]

Hi,

nice, that is a 1938 model, second version of the first Automat.
A K4 631. Indeed your number is higher than usual:
Camera numbers from 610646 to 804999 (so Prochnow says).

For the third version Prochnow lists no. 805000 to 1099999...

 

[JPD]

It seems to be one of the last ones that had bayonet on the taking lens only. They were all sold as the Automat and there were some changes and improvements during the production that users and collectors call "models" or "types". So yours is an "Automat, type 2" from 1938. The serial number on the taking lens is from the Zeiss 1938 range.

I have an Automat made a little later than yours (856xxx) and it has bayonets on both lenses and a 1938 Tessar.

 

[JPD]

The serial number on this camera is probably correct (the collector books are not always 100% correct, and the serial numbers overlap), but I have seen some Rolleiflexes that have had the nameplate replaced with a spare part from a donor camera. So that happens too.

 

[Emanuel Schi]

Thank you all for your help! I guess the mystery is solved now. It’s an Automat A, model K4 631 – also referred to as a Type 2 – with a late production single bayonet build and not-quite-matching serial numbers.
I will probably sell this set it in the near future. I really wanted to get a 3.5f.

Here is a little picture I took with it as a thank you

 

[baachitraka]

Keep it!!!

 

[JPD]

I have a 3,5F, but for black and white I prefer the Automat because I like the character of the Tessar, and the camera is lighter and easier to carry. The 3,5F with its coated Planar (or Xenotar) is of course better for colour.

 

[JensH]

I have a 3,5F, but for black and white I prefer the Automat because I like the character of the Tessar, and the camera is lighter and easier to carry. The 3,5F with its coated Planar (or Xenotar) is of course better for colour.

+1

The basic concept Mr. Heidecke had was a compact and light wight camera
The original Rolleiflex was even designed for small 117 film spools with only 6 exposures. Cameras are fragile, but the 4.5/7.5cm Tessar is a sweet spot among all Rollei lenses for me... works fine for color, sure a lens hood is important.

I once tried a 3,5F, sure a great camera and lens but for me two Rolleiflex Original's or the SLX are the choice "on the road".

Anyway a good Automat with clean optics is fun, too.

 

[JPD]

+1

The basic concept Mr. Heidecke had was a compact and light wight camera
The original Rolleiflex was even designed for small 117 film spools with only 6 exposures. Cameras are fragile, but the 4.5/7.5cm Tessar is a sweet spot among all Rollei lenses for me... works fine for color, sure a lens hood is important.

I once tried a 3,5F, sure a great camera and lens but for me two Rolleiflex Original's or the SLX are the choice "on the road".

Anyway a good Automat with clean optics is fun, too.

Are your Originals modified to take 120? I have a roll of Efke R100 in my Original 3,8 that I haven't finished for 20+ years, and I think I respooled the film onto a 620 spool and the take up spool is 117. I will have to unload the camera in the darkroom.

 

[JensH]

Are your Originals modified to take 120? I have a roll of Efke R100 in my Original 3,8 that I haven't finished for 20+ years, and I think I respooled the film onto a 620 spool and the take up spool is 117. I will have to unload the camera in the darkroom.

Hej JPD,

my Originals (at least those being ready to use) are taking 620 film.
In early days I was respooling onto 620 spools, now it works better for me to cut down the excessive diameter of a 120 film with scizzors. Just be sure not to cut into the paper much...
The take-up spool is still a 620.

Hmm, I wonder if a 117 spool (made for just 6 exp) is able to catch a full 12 exposure 120/620 at all?! Yes, better oben the camera in the darkroom.

Best
Jens