Pentax manual lenses on Pentax APS-C DSLRs

ektar

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
1,120
Location
Western NC
Real Name
Don
Yeah, but I need to slow down. I've been buying film cameras like a fool. To make it worse, I'm setting up a meeting with a guy that has a whole collection on CL. I don't want most of what he has but there are a few select that I would cut a deal on.
All ears on what you don't buy/keep.
 

Brownie

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
3,323
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
All ears on what you don't buy/keep.
Here's the ad if anyone's interested. I'd really love to know what that weird thing in photo #11 is.

He also has a Baby Brownie Special with the instruction book, the same model as my avatar. He says he has a Leica, out of my league. And, he also says he has a "Rollaflex". I think he means Rolleiflex. I've done several searches for Rollaflex, there were a lot of companies trying to capitalize on Rollei's success so many similar names, but no Rollaflex.

Vintage Camera Collection + Movie Equipment - photo/video - by owner... (craigslist.org)
 

Erich_H

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,807
Location
Eastern Denmark (annexed in 1658 by Sweden)
Real Name
Erik
Here's the ad if anyone's interested. I'd really love to know what that weird thing in photo #11 is.
Fotron (1960s):

Made by Traid Corporation in Glendale, California, the Fotron used 828 film in a special cartridge which had to be returned to Fotron for processing. The cartridge snapped onto the back of the camera. Kodak introduced 828 film in 1935, only a year after it introduced 135 35mm film in standard metal cassettes. 828 film is essentially 35mm film without the sprocket holes and with a paper backing. Kodak used 828 film in its Bantam cameras. 126 film is also essentially 35mm film with only one sprocket hole per frame, a paper backing and a plastic cartridge allowing for drop in loading. The Fotron film was therefore similar to 126 film in that the film was the same width and both used a cartridge. The frame size appears to be about 26mm x 26mm or similar to that for 126 film. The Fotron cartridge snapped onto the back of the camera, however, while 126 cameras had a normal film door on the back of the camera. Kodak introduced 126 Instamatic film in 1963. The Fotron cameras were sold in the 1960s although it's not certain if they were introduced before or after 126 film.

Besides the film cartridge, Fotron cameras were innovative in at least two important ways - it had a built in electronic flash and it had built in electronic film advance. It may have been the first camera with a built in electronic flash. Electronic flashes were available at least by 1953. (See, e.g., "Amazing Tower Speedlight" in 1953-54 Sears Camera Catalog, and Page 45 of 1960 Sears Camera Catalog.) Miniaturization of electronics was still progressing, however, and the units at the time were pretty big. To fit in the large battery and all the electronics resulted in the Fotron being a big camera. It was years ahead of its time, however, since the first built in electronic flash in a 35mm camera did not occur until the 1974 Konica C35 EF. It may have also been the first camera with built in battery powered electronic film advance, although several cameras by the 1960s had spring wound film advance.

Despite the innovation with the built in flash and film advance, the Fotron is often viewed with disdain. The Fotron seems to have a very small aperture lens, possibly one element. Even if the lens is any good, there is a transparent plastic cover over the lens. It appears to have perhaps two shutter speeds - one for indoors and one for outdoors. There are two shutter release buttons which appear to also change the focus range. One is for "Close" - 4 to 8 feet. The other is for "Far" - 8 feet to infinity for outdoors and 8-12 feet for indoors. Pushing on the "Close" shutter seems to push the lens mechanism out slightly further. While it looks like there might be a light meter surrounding the lens, this is just for looks and the camera does not have a light meter. Therefore, while its advertising emphasized no ASA, aperture, shutter speed or focus to set, these were not innovations. Rather, the Fotron simply didn't have many adjustments, automatic or otherwise. It only took 10 photos per roll. The flash took a long time to charge. The instruction manual is available at butkus.org.
It says to charge the flash for 18 hours for one film magazine. If more than one magazine is to be used, they recommend charging the camera for 72 hours or longer! The instruction manual recommends just leaving it plugged in all the time. As indicated above it is huge with a width of about 21cm, a height of 12cm and a depth of about 7cm not including the film cartridge. The film had to be sent to Fotron to be developed.

Perhaps the biggest complaints were the price and sales methods. The Fotron was exclusively sold door to door with prices from $150 to nearly $500. The basis for the lower figure is not known. Gustavson, Camera, page 299 (George Eastman House 2009), says it was priced at up to $415. Since it was sold door to door, perhaps the price varied depending on what the salesman could negotiate. A class action lawsuit was brought in California on behalf of over 100,000 buyers. The class was all buyers after December 31, 1966 who purchased the cameras under identical installment sales contracts for $491.60. Plaintiffs claimed the reasonable value of the camera was $40. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer to all causes of action. The California Court of Appeals in Metowski v. Traid Corp., 28 Cal.App.2d 332 (3d App. Dist. 1972) reversed allowing the action to go forward on several of the causes of action. The final outcome is not known. $491.60 was a huge amount of money in the mid 1960s, however. $491.50 in 1967 has the same buying power as $3,208.78 in 2010! (It's not known if the $491.60 included the finance charges. Even if it did, the cameras were expensive!)
A professional quality Nikon F with original Photomic metered prism and 50mm f1.4 lens was $447.50 in 1967. The Fotron was more expensive and clearly not equal to a Nikon F in photographic quality. Then again Nikon wouldn't have a built in flash and built in automatic film advance for two more decades!

Door to door sales would have likely focused on stay at home "housewives" at the time. Traid's advertising materials bear this out. As indicated in an ad in the March 8, 1968 Life Magazine shown at Marc's Classic Cameras, the Fotron was "ideal for 99 out of 100 wives who refuse to fuss with their husbands' cameras." That sounds pretty sexist even in 1968. The same slogan was used in their brochures that can be viewed at Junk Store Cameras. That site also has some photos in a Fotron photo album. The photos look similar to those produced by Kodak Instamatic and other 126 cameras.

Quote from:
http://www.mrmartinweb.com/medium.html?hcb=1

EDIT: Traid Corporation of Glendale, CA merged out on January 28, 1977.
 
Last edited:

Brownie

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
3,323
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
If I have to pick two things out of that group that I'm likely to haggle for they'd be the Argus A2 because it appears everything is there, and the Compco, mostly because they aren't very common. That's not to say they're rare, but the Argus Seventy Five is plentiful. The Compco is another pseudo TLR, from what I can tell.
 

Brownie

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
3,323
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
Nice find! I am familiar with 828 film, it's a deal-breaker for me. I am not a collector as much as a user, so if I can't use it it's a non-starter.

In other news...again with the thread hijacking...I went to the local shop to pick up some 120 film and got to talking about film cameras with my favorite salesman. He excused himself and disappeared into the backroom, remerging a few minutes later with a really nice Kodak Vest Pocket Autographic, the stylus still in place. I don't recall the finish exactly because I had no idea what to look for, but if I am recalling correctly it had the shiny paint which makes it pre-1919. It says 'parts only' on the tag but only because it's untested. We know the shutter works and the bellows appears to be in good shape. I may take a small flashlight and go back. If the bellows doesn't have more than a few pinholes I think I'll add it. It's another 127 camera, so it won't see much use due to film cost, but they want $29. I can probably get it for $25.
 

Brownie

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
3,323
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
The Olympus XA compact might be a nice buy, if it's working.
I have no interest in modern compact 35's. Tell me how much you're willing to pay for it and I'll work in into the deal. I'm sure the more I take the less I'll pay per unit. Remember it's going to cost $15 or so to ship it to you via USPS priority in a medium flat rate box.
 

Erich_H

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,807
Location
Eastern Denmark (annexed in 1658 by Sweden)
Real Name
Erik
How the BLEEP did you sort that out?
Internet search skills.

I think they finally folded in Delaware.

TL;DR litigation may be the cause of the merging out in early 1975.

Metowski v. Traid Corp.


[Civ. No. 13005. Court of Appeals of California, Third Appellate District. October 24, 1972.]
BRONISLAW METOWSKI et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. TRAID CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent

(Opinion by Keane, J., with Friedman, Acting P. J., and Regan, J., concurring.) [28 Cal. App. 3d 333]

COUNSEL

Rich, Fuidge, Dawson, Marsh & Morris, Rich, Fuidge, Dawson, Marsh, Morris & Sanbrook and Charles C. Dawson for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Steel & Arostegui, Robert W. Steel, Nossaman, Waters, Scott, Krueger & Riordan, Richard R. Mainland and Arthur R. Chenen for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

KEANE, J.

Fifty named plaintiffs sue individually and as members of a class consisting of themselves and 100,000 other purchasers of Fotron cameras. Demurrers to plaintiffs' third amended complaint were sustained. The trial court held that plaintiffs could not maintain a class action, sustained demurrers without leave to amend to that aspect of plaintiffs' pleading and entered judgment of dismissal of the class suit. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment. Thus, we are called upon to determine whether the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer on the ground the complaint did not meet the requirements of a class action. fn. 1

The complaint sets forth four causes of action on behalf of the class, based upon theories of express warranty, implied warranty of fitness, implied warranty of merchantability, and fraud or deceit. It is alleged that defendant is a California corporation which manufactures and sells Fotron electronic cameras. On and after December 31, 1966, plaintiffs purchased cameras from defendant, all members of the class entering into identical installment contracts. The time sale price on all contracts was $491.60. Identity of the members of the class can be ascertained from the books and records of defendant company. The fair and reasonable value of the cameras purchased is the sum of $40. There are common interests of fact and law which unite the named plaintiffs and all members of the class in whose behalf the action is instituted. fn. 2 [28 Cal. App. 3d 336]

The first cause of action alleges defendant expressly warranted the camera to be an "electronic color camera," that the camera was protected by a United States patent number, "that the 'strobe' light which forms part of the camera flashes at .1000 of a second" making it possible to get "excellent action pictures outdoors at night or in a darkened room," that the camera is a sturdy product, and that it is guaranteed to take "ten excellent color pictures" from a roll of color film. The warranties were made in writing to each member of the class, were relied upon by plaintiffs, were false, and by reason of the breach plaintiffs were damaged.

The second cause of action asserts that defendant knew the cameras were purchased for a particular purpose, i.e., the taking of color photographs, that defendant impliedly warranted the camera to be fit for that purpose, that plaintiffs relied upon defendant's expertise and were induced to make the purchase by reason of the implied warranty, and that because of the design and construction of the camera it was unfit for the special [28 Cal. App. 3d 337] purpose for which it was purchased. Because of this breach of implied warranty, plaintiffs were damaged.

The third cause of action alleges that defendant impliedly warranted the camera to be of merchantable quality fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used, that the camera was not suited for such purpose, and plaintiffs were damaged as a result thereof.

The fourth cause of action sounds in fraud, alleging defendant made in writing, 19 representations to each member of the class. It is further alleged the representations were false, that plaintiffs justifiably relied upon defendant's representations, were ignorant of their falsity, and were induced to enter into the contracts with defendant in reliance thereon.

The complaint prays for actual damages in the sum of $451.60 for each member of the class, this being the difference between the alleged reasonable value of the camera and its contract price, and punitive damages as to each member of the class in the sum of $1,000.

The Fraud Cause of Action

[1] We commence our review of the complaint, keeping in mind the well settled rule that a demurrer admits the truth of all material factual allegations contained in the complaint. A reviewing court may not consider the ability of plaintiffs to prove their allegations. Plaintiffs need only plead facts which indicate they may be entitled to some relief. (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 493, 496 [86 Cal. Rptr. 88, 468 P.2d 216]).

The ruling of the trial court was made prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Vasquez v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal. 3d 800 [94 Cal. Rptr. 796, 484 P.2d 964]. In Vasquez the class consisted of a group of consumers who had purchased food and freezers and were seeking rescission of their contracts upon the ground of fraudulent representations. The Supreme Court, there, held the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. A class action was proper since the members of the class were readily ascertainable; therefore, plaintiffs should have the opportunity to show that the required community of interest existed among the members of the class. It was strongly contended in Vasquez that reliance upon the representations could only be proved by testimony from all individual members of the class. However, the court concluded that an inference of reliance arises where a material false representation is made and the plaintiffs thereafter acted in a manner consistent with the representations. [28 Cal. App. 3d 338]

The Vasquez principles are controlling in the case at bench insofar as the fourth cause of action is concerned. The complaint alleges plaintiffs constitute an easily ascertainable and definite class in that all the members of the class, as purchasers of Fotron cameras, can be identified from the books and records of defendant.

On the issue of reliance, the complaint alleges 19 identical misrepresentations were made in writing to each member of the class. If the representations were in fact made in writing to each member of the class, and plaintiffs thereupon entered into the contracts of purchase as alleged, then a persuasive inference of reliance upon the representations arises without the necessity of testimony on that issue from each individual member of the class.

Falsity of the representations can be proved as to all members of the class without calling them individually to testify, since proof of the allegations as to the quality and value of the camera would be the same as to all.

No more serious problems are presented in the case at bench in the ascertainment of damages to members of the class than were presented in Vasquez. The damages to each purchaser would be the same, but the actual money amount owing each purchaser would vary in accordance with his own payments on the contract. Each member of the class, assuming the trier of fact were to decide adversely to the defendant, would have the duty to show his own loss. "... ultimately each class member will be required in some manner to establish his individual damages [but] this circumstance does not preclude the maintenance of the suit as a class action." (Vasquez v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 815.)

Defendant urges that the number and nature of the representations should preclude relief. Plaintiffs have alleged 19 misrepresentations were made to each of them, in writing, which induced their respective purchases. However, it would appear that there would be no more difficulty in proving the truth or falsity of this number of representations in a class action than in actions brought by individual plaintiffs.

It is intimated by defendant that the size of the class makes this an improper class action. Defendant does not cite to this court any authority for this proposition, and, indeed, in Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 695 [63 Cal. Rptr. 724, 433 P.2d 732], the class consisted of all those persons who had used the cab company within the preceding four years. Moreover, it seems that the salutary purposes to be served by maintenance of a class action are enhanced as the number in the class expands. [28 Cal. App. 3d 339]

We conclude the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the fourth cause of action.

The Warranty Causes of Action

Defendant's attack upon the warranty causes of action consists primarily of a two-pronged assault: First, defendant argues that timely notice to defendant of the breach, as required by California Commercial Code section 2607, can only be proved by testimony from the individual purchasers; second, defendant contends the second cause of action on implied warranty of fitness is not maintainable as a class action since such a warranty cannot be shown except by proof of the special circumstances peculiar to each individual transaction.

Commercial Code section 2607 provides that the "buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy ..." A similar notice requirement was included in former Civil Code section 1769. (And see Whitfield v. Jessup (1948) 31 Cal. 2d 826, 830 [193 P.2d 1].)

In their warranty counts, plaintiffs have attempted to satisfy the notice requirement of section 2607 by alleging that "the Defendants on or about April 1, 1969 were notified of their collective breach of warranty." [2] Notice must not only be pleaded; it must also be proved. (Vogel v. Thrifty Drug Co. (1954) 43 Cal. 2d 184, 188 [272 P.2d 1].) [3] The purpose of the demand for notice is to protect the seller from stale claims. (Whitfield v. Jessup, supra, 31 Cal.2d at p. 828.) Where the merchandise was sold under circumstances which indicate that the seller acted in bad faith and was aware of the breach at the time of the sale, demand for notice of the breach from each and every member of the class may be a meaningless ritual. [4] Nevertheless, the statutory demand for notice applies even where the breach of warranty action is framed according to a tort theory. (Whitfield v. Jessup, supra, 31 Cal. 2d 826, 829-830.) At any rate, we cannot assume that satisfied buyers of the Fotron camera will join the class suit in an attempt to get damages. [5] A more appropriate assumption is that those buyers will seek recovery who became dissatisfied with their purchases and made a prior demand for refund or other satisfaction. If made within a reasonable time, such a demand would satisfy the notice requirement of section 2607. [6] Conceivably, the statutory demand for notice might be satisfied by proof of complaints from some but not all the buyers of the product. Such an approach might be particularly appropriate where the failure of the merchandise to conform to express warranties was known to or reasonably discoverable by the seller at the time of the sales. [28 Cal. App. 3d 340]

[7] However, "[t]he ultimate question in every case of this type is whether, given an ascertainable class, the issues which may be jointly tried, when compared with those requiring separate adjudication, are so numerous or substantial that the maintenance of a class action would be advantageous to the judicial process and to the litigants." (Collins v. Rocha (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 232, 238 [102 Cal. Rptr. 1, 497 P.2d 225].)

In Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., supra, 67 Cal. 2d 695, plaintiffs, taxicab passengers, brought a class action against the cab company to recover excessive charges collected over a four-year period. The complained of practice -- overcharge of cab fares -- resulted from the uniform practice of rigging meters in the taxicabs. Thus, the only variance among members of the class was the amount of such overcharges paid which could be determined from defendant's records. The fact that each plaintiff would ultimately have to prove his separate claim for a part of any class recovery was considered only "a factor" in determining propriety of the class action, to be balanced against the benefits of such an action to the litigants and the court. The court noted: "As we are not unmindful that substantial benefits resulting from class litigation, both to the litigants and to the court, should be found before the imposition of a judgment binding on absent parties can be justified, our determination depends upon whether the common questions are sufficiently important to permit adjudication in a class action rather than in a multiplicity of separate suits." (Id. at p. 713.)

The Daar court held a class action was maintainable on the basis of finding the following substantial benefits: the principal issues to be litigated in a class action would be the same issues if individual actions were brought (id. at p. 714); multiple litigation would be avoided (id. at p. 715); and the relatively small amount of damages sought by each class member would make individual recovery economically infeasible. (Id. at p. 715.)

[8] In the case at bench, the complaint contains the following allegations establishing a well-defined community of interest in questions of fact affecting the class of purchasers described therein: each plaintiff signed an identical installment sales contract; each plaintiff was induced to purchase a camera because of warranties made by defendant; each plaintiff paid the same purchase price; each plaintiff received directly from defendant a Fotron camera identical in appearance, design, mechanical function, size, shape, and weight; each plaintiff received written warranties from defendant; each plaintiff relied upon the warranties made by defendant; as to each plaintiff there was a breach of warranty; each plaintiff sustained damage. It may easily be assumed that these issues which are common among the members of the class would be the principal issues in any individual action. [28 Cal. App. 3d 341]

It is equally obvious that in the case at bench multiple litigation is avoided by allowing a class action. Further, the complaint prays for actual damages in the sum of $451.60 and punitive damages in the sum of $1,000 -- a relatively small amount of damages sought by each member of the class, making individual recovery economically infeasible.

[9] We are not persuaded, then, of the validity of defendant's argument that because the issue of timely notice must be separately litigated as to each plaintiff a class action is improper here. After liability is established, this element of timely notice by each plaintiff could be shown in order to assess his own individual collectible damages, but as was pointed out in Vasquez, that each class member might be required ultimately to justify an individual claim does not necessarily preclude the maintenance of a class action.(4 Cal.3d at p. 815; also see Collins v. Rocha, supra, 7 Cal. 3d 232, at p. 238.)

[10a] However, defendant properly attacks the second cause of action wherein plaintiffs allege an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. [11] Such an implied warranty arises only where the purchaser at the time of contracting intends to use the goods for a particular purpose; the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know of this particular purpose; the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish goods suitable for the particular purpose; and the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know that the buyer is relying on such skill or judgment. (See Cal. U. Com. Code, § 2315 and comment thereto; Holmes Packaging Mach. Corp. v. Bingham (1967) 252 Cal. App. 2d 862, 873 [60 Cal. Rptr. 769].)

[10b] Each of these elements may be established only by testimony from each purchaser as to what his intended purpose was, whether he relied on defendant's skill and judgment, whether defendant had reason to know of his particular purpose and his reliance. There is no common method by which each class member's reliance and defendant's knowledge of this reliance and the intended purpose may be proved. The intended purposes and extent of reliance by each of the more than 100,000 class members will vary greatly. Testimony of each individual purchaser would be required to determine the degree of expertise in photography which he possesses and, therefore, the extent and reasonableness of his reliance on the skill and judgment of defendant.

Additionally, as emphasized in the comment to section 2315 of the Commercial Code, whether a seller has reason to know of the intended purpose and reliance is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances of the particular sales transaction. No common method of [28 Cal. App. 3d 342] proof has been alleged, nor could any such common method be truthfully alleged with respect to this large a group of purchasers.

As to the first, third and fourth causes of action the judgment of the trial court is reversed; as to the second cause of action, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of appeal will be borne by defendant.

Friedman, Acting P. J., and Regan, J., concurred.

FN 1. This action stands or falls without reference to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, §§ 1750-1784), which limits itself to actions filed in 1971 and thereafter. The present lawsuit was filed in August 1970.

FN 2. The common interests of facts and law are alleged to be as follows:

"1. Each plaintiff hereinabove mentioned and each member of plaintiffs' class has signed a retail installment sales contract on or after December 31, 1966.

"2. Each of the plaintiffs hereinabove mentioned and each member of plaintiffs' class was induced to purchase the Fotron 'electronic color camera', by the defendant Traid Corporation.

"3. Each retail contract stated that the payments under it shall be due and payable in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

"4. Each plaintiff hereinabove mentioned and each member of plaintiff's class were charged a time sale price of $491.60.

"5. Each plaintiff hereinabove mentioned and each member of said plaintiffs' class were charged the $10.00 down payment, receipt of which was acknowledged by and upon the retail installment contract.

"6. Each plaintiff hereinabove mentioned and all members of plaintiffs' class paid the sums of money to the defendant Traid Corporation.

"7. Each plaintiff hereinabove mentioned and all members of plaintiffs' class received a Fotron 'program' coupon book from the defendant Traid Corporation. Each Fotron 'program' coupon book bore an individual purchaser of the Fotron 'electronic color camera'.

"8. Each plaintiff hereinabove mentioned and each member of plaintiffs' class received directly from the Fotron Corporation one Fotron 'electronic color camera'.

"9. Each plaintiff hereinabove mentioned and all members of plaintiffs' class received a Fotron 'electronic color camera' which bore the inscribed notation on its upper surface: 'Traid Corporation Patent No. 3,296,940'.

"10. All of the Fotron cameras received and owned by plaintiffs herein and all members of plaintiffs' class are absolutely identical in appearance, design, mechanical function, size, shape, weight and all other respects.

"11. Each plaintiff herein mentioned and all members of plaintiffs' class received written warranties from the defendant Traid Corporation with regard to the Fotron 'electronic color camera'.

"12. Each plaintiff herein mentioned and all members of plaintiffs' class relied upon the written warranties of the defendant Traid Corporation.

"13. As to each plaintiff herein mentioned and as to all members of plaintiffs' class, there was a breach of warranties as to them and notice as to the defendant.

"14. Each plaintiff and all members of plaintiffs' class herein have sustained damage.

"15. Each plaintiff herein mentioned and each member of plaintiffs' class received the Fotron 'electronic color camera' directly from the defendant Traid Corporation in Glendale, California."
 
Last edited:

Brownie

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
3,323
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
More communication with the seller, he's trying to get more photos of other cameras. I asked him why? We already know I want some of the cameras in the group. If he's willing to sell cameras separately I can just see what else he has when I'm there. This led to a discussion of what I'm willing to pay. I told him I would need to see them, but my research shows that most of these cameras can be purchased separately for $10-15. The outlier may be the Argus A2 with the box/case/paperwork. I told him about some of my recent vintage camera purchases and their prices, none of which were over $28.00. My Baby Brownie Special was $20 with the original box and paperwork, shipped. Those two Kodaks I posted were $10 each.

So far no response. He's either researching prices (I told him he has to look at completed ebay auctions, not what people are asking), or he wants more for them and has pulled out. If the latter, once he realizes they aren't worth a fortune he may be back.

I have yet to point out that he has 16 cameras and a projector listed for $280 as a lot. That works out to a rough average of $16.50 per camera.
 

Erich_H

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,807
Location
Eastern Denmark (annexed in 1658 by Sweden)
Real Name
Erik
What he means is how did you go about it? I can't tell from the photo what the name of the camera is, so how did you start?
Google Lens. Then I found the site I quoted from. There's the case number. Then a quick search for that before I found the minutes. And the correct spelling of Traid Corp. After Traid merged out it's a bit foggy.
But they did submit their SI-100 form on January 4th, 1977, before the merger out on January 28th, 1977.
 

Erich_H

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,807
Location
Eastern Denmark (annexed in 1658 by Sweden)
Real Name
Erik
Regarding the transcript above:
1) I'm going to need a malt beverage before I start reading the rest of the way through,
and
2) Another reason I'm not an attorney.
Personally, I found the part of the minutes pertaining to Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., supra, 67 Cal. 2d 695, particularly interesting! Obviously they want to save the taxpayer some money!
 
Last edited:

agentlossing

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
4,757
Location
Oregon USA
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
I have no interest in modern compact 35's. Tell me how much you're willing to pay for it and I'll work in into the deal. I'm sure the more I take the less I'll pay per unit. Remember it's going to cost $15 or so to ship it to you via USPS priority in a medium flat rate box.
Gee, I'm sorry I missed this reply! Thanks for the offer though. I will try an XA one day, but for now they don't hold that much appeal to me.
 

Brownie

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
3,323
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
Gee, I'm sorry I missed this reply! Thanks for the offer though. I will try an XA one day, but for now they don't hold that much appeal to me.
No big deal, he disappeared once he found out what I am willing to pay. I suspect that after his ad is up for a month with no other interest he'll either contact me or decide he can't sell that cheap. I've done more research and the list of cameras I want out of his collection is even shorter than it was!
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom