The Earl GOLZ 1978 Dallas Morning News article and Mr. Lohn on MINOX snr. 27259

[Guest]

THE Earl GOLZ article and Mr. Lohn on MINOX snr. 27259 :

A lot has been written about that one...  As a Minox collector - and having an interest in the JFKA - my attention was quickly drawn to the 27259.  It was being referred to all-over the place.   But I was surprised to find some widely spread information on it, that was just way off.     As it seems most originated from 1 specific article by Earl Golz.  

B.t.w. a lot of my information comes from Mr. Hubert Heckmann (by email), a German Minox collector, author of different books on Minox, and the only one that had access to the company-archives, not a minor detail…. If there is an authority on the subject he’s is pretty much it, not me.  And yes, I did discuss the Golz-article with him (and some other issues on Minox).

PART 1 : the 1978 Golz article

When people read this article I can understand it makes the Minox 27259 kind of suspicious (to say the least…). And why wouldn’t they believe Mr. Lohn, a man that was in charge of distribution for Minox Corp (b.t.w. he was in that specific function at the earliest from 1961, NOT before) ?  So let’s see what he said first (or at least… what is printed in the newspaper...).   

DALLAS MORNING NEWS dd. 5/16/1978, from the article by GOLZ :  “The serial number of the Minox camera reportedly obtained from Mrs. Paine by the FBI was listed as 27259, which did not exist among any of the Minox cameras distributed for commercial sale in this country, according to Kurt Lohn, then in charge of distribution for Minox Corp. in New York City.   Al Minox cameras distributed in this country had six digits starting with serial number 135000, Lohn said, so 27259 is not a registered number… not a valid number”.

Now, you could ask any serious Minox collector and he/she will respond that the above statement just makes no sense at all… 

Serial numbers above 135000 were being produced and sold as from circa 1957, the above statement would imply that prior that period no Minox cameras were officially available for sale to the general public in the U.S.A. ?   

That is simply as wrong as it could be, as Minox was being sold in the USA from the very beginning in 1940 by Minox Inc. USA itself (Minox Inc. was founded in 1940) and after the war by Kling Photo, N.Y. from ca. 1949 up to 1961

Apparently, Mr. Lohn did not do his homework or what is going on here ?

  

PART 2 : the Minox USA story :  this whole story is clearly different from whatever Lohn was trying to say.     What follows is pretty much common knowledge amongst Minox collectors, so where the heck did Mr. Lohn got his numbers ? NOT from Heckmann I can tell you...   Of course it would not be the first time a newspaper article got things wrong I guess… I don’t know, so let’s go.

 

June 3, 1940 :  Minox Inc. USA is founded, an announcement in the New York Times dd. 6/20/1940  introduces the Latvian made Minox (made in the city of Riga in Latvia).   So, right after the first cameras were produced in 1939 in Latvia, the USA was interested.  By June/July there were already some plans for Minox USA to possibly co-invest in a larger production plant, as it was obvious the current plant would not be able to keep up with the US-market if things would go as planned. 

But… in august 1940 the Soviet Union incorporated Latvia (following the “Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact” with Germany the S.U. got control over Latvia).  Minox are now marked as being made in Russia (early models show “Latvia” was grinded off and replaced with a Russian engraving).

About Minox in the USA during wartime, the OSS, etc… you can find a lot of information on this website :  http://minoxriga.atwebpages.com/ Check out the left column “Intelligence Use”.  He also has more details on the early Minox USA under “Distribution”, “USA”

In  1941 the Germans took it back in “Operation Barbarossa”, the German attack on Russia.  No we see Minox made in Germany…   of course production numbers are low because of the war. But the Minox camera was already considered a luxury product and possibly of use to intelligence agencies.  German officers would receive a Minox camera with special occasions like a promotion and so on, these Minox are marked with poopoo symbols b.t.w.   

In 1944 the Soviet Union takes over control again, Minox now again made in Russia... yep…  After the war Latvia became a Soviet Socialist Republic, production comes to a stop as engineers etc. have fled the country before the Russians came in (and to stay for a long period this time). 

1948 :  Minox starts to produce in Germany in the city of Wetzlar (well know for photographic equipment companies like Leitz/Leica).   In the USA both Minox Inc. and Kling Photo N.Y. are very soon advertising and selling them (you can Google examples of advertisements, invoices, reviews, etc.  More on Kling Photo here : https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/business/paul-klingenstein-88-seller-of-photographic-equipment.html

1950 :  production moves to the city of Giessen in West-Germany, the companies HQ stays in Wetzlar, as such Wetzlar will keep being engraved on the camera’s.

1956 :  Kling Photo Corp, 257 Fourth Av., New York 10, N.Y., is still the dealer.   Minox USA has the Minox Processing Laboratories in N.Y.

1961 : Kling Photo is sold to Berkey Photo (retirement of Mr. Klingenstein, see above), Minox will take import in their own hands from now on

1961 :  MINOX TRADEMARK    Feb 09, 1961  application filed with USPTO and registered on Sep 26, 1961 

1962 :   as from april 1, 1962 MINOX CORP is the only distributor

Apparently this timing is what Lohn tried referring to BUT, as said, he might have gotten the numbers wrong (or someone interpreted him/them wrong.  In 1961 the serial numbers were up to 735000 (and not 135000)...   I know it looks pretty stupid, but that’s about the only thing we can come up with in trying to understand Lohn…  Same for the 6-digit snrs as they were alreday in use since 1956 (Minox available to everybody well before and after that..). 

So :

- 6-digt snrs. : from 1955

- snr. 135000 : in 1957

- Minox on it's own : 1961 (and snrs. now from 735000)

 

Somehow I can see him referring to 1961 where there indeed was a big change, but :

1) he got his serial numbers wrong, or someone made an error in the transcription ?

2) all sales before 1961 where as official as all the later ones... or are we denying 10 years of advertising, etc... ?   Him saying everything prior to that was unofficial is way-over-appreciating what happened in 1961, but anyway to understand him a little bit he should have said 735000 and not 135000 ...  

 

PART 3 :  will follow, there's a lot more if anyone is interested that is..., about the Minox being a II or III

PS : sorry for my bad English writings, English it is not my native tongue...

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Bill Fite]

Interesting history,  thanks.

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Bill Fite

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

Interesting history,  thanks.

 

Thank you !

[Guest]

PART 3 : serial numbers and the types A II, A III and A IIIs* :

The basis is the list made by Heckmann, it is based on the factory data and production sheets : 

http://minoxclub.de/seriennummer8x11/

As you see this list does not differentiate between the early A II, the later A II, the A III and the A IIIs.  

Many collectors have tried to be more specific in assigning the numbers to those different types, even Minox USA had a go at it.  You can find these data all over the internet, but none of them really match reality...

Why ?

A number of things happened in a relative short period of time :

1)    the design-fault of the early model A II (the first post-war model), it had a film lens that almost touched the film, when dust got stuck it could make contact and cause scratches or even block the camera.

2)    according Heckmann this early model A II was only made for a short period from the end of 1948 to max. the first half of 1949.  The company found out about the faulty design pretty soon, they decided to take back those cameras and replace the lens free-of-charge. The little later model A II got the new lens and was followed by the A III that got some more technical improvements, as did the IIIs

3)    the lens replacement was being done for a rather long time, as some early type II cameras were only returned a considerable time after their purchase date.  The company wanted to keep its reputation at a high level.  Of course, in those years things evolved pretty fast, when some camera’s came in they would be updated to the latest design (and the recent parts available). 

4)    now… something very important to note, the type A II was never marked as such with a "II" and the type A III for the USA was the first to have the  type “III” engraved (and – again - only those for the USA) – see note below*.    None of the other A-series had type-engraving either, e.g. types III for the European or Asian market would not have the III marked

5)    so, when an early type A II came in (repair/ called in / upgrade / …), it would always get the new(-est) lens (and some other small adjustments or needed repairs).  By the time the A III was the latest design (and the decision was already made to engrave the US ones**),  it would be marked with a “III”.  Some USA II got refitted to a III and stayed unmarked (simply because the decision to mark the USA III was not yet taken at that specific time !).   That is why you can find types “III” with low serial numbers originating from the time it was produced as a II...  

So… you can see it is not so easy to tie a certain serial number to a specific year of production or a certain type…   Cameras in that era were being converted, adapted, updated, you name it… Even long-time collectors have problems in dating some cameras.   No matter what scheme one makes, there is always Minox out there that won't fit in...  The exception makes the rule I guess..., but even that is not always correct...

About the 27259…  we do not have the necessary technical details on that one, BUT

a) it is very likely an (unmarked) model II that was repaired/upgraded to a (marked) III, as all the others from the same era that went back to the factory...   And there is absolutely nothing to support that it belonged to a special series not available to the general public (see previous part on that with Lohn’s statement).  I can understand Mr. Earl Golz concluded that, but his source Mr. Lohn was simply incorrect. 

b) or it was a III all along..., the problem is that the factory sheets are not clear on when they went from II to III because to them the III was just a further mechanical development, the name "III" was only later marked on cameras for the USA.  For Europe and Asia the difference between a II or III was simply not made, it was not advertised differently, it was merely the "latest version".   Even more, in advertising there is no such thing as a Model A I, A II or A III, not even Model A...  Just the Minox and that's it....  Given that and all the conversions/upgrades/etc... makes it very hard to conclude anything on serial numbers and types.   There is always a Minox out there that doesn't fit the list you want to make......

I suppose the company did everything they could to keep the link to the pre-war Riga-Minox made in Latvia, thàt was the one that had all the stories about it on spies, use in the ww II, etc...  That was their main selling point during those 10 years, it wasn't until 1958 when the name Model B was used for a new design...    

----------------------------

* the type IIIs was a type III with a connector on the side for automatic synchronisation with an external flashbulb, beside the connector (the female part) it looked totally like a III

** on the specific marking “III” for the USA market : there was a problem with grey-sales, cameras not imported directly from Minox Germany, but via other countries.  This would interfere with pricing, warranty issues, etc.    A number of measures were taken, among those was to start marking the cameras. As by that time the type A III was the latest model being produced, they got the model A “III” marking (the same marking III was given to types II that came in for upgrade/repair/... again... only when send to the USA).     

-----------------------

That's it for now, if you have more information or questions please le me know.

I could write a lot more, but I'll stick to all information to assess the 27259 as correct as possibly

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

Just some illustrations :

 

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

Found another statement by LOHN and Golz : "Minox did not sell a lightmeter in 1963" (see below)

I am totally missing the point here.... did someone say the Paine Lightmeter was from 1963 ??? 

Of course by 1963 very little lightmeters were being sold because.... the Minox B was introduced already in 1958 and that had a lightmeter build in....  

And the earlier Minox A simply needed one to make decent pictures... one could use any lightmeter.

But the Gossen-designed Minox-lightmeter was just a little better tuned with the Minox camera (Gossen in that era made the finest lightmeters available, no surprise Minox had it designed by them).    

I can only imagine Mr. LOHN did everything he could to keep Minox as far away as he could from the JFK case. 

But in 1978 he factually  could only refer to Minox USA "starting" in 1961.... and hope people would forget about everything before that),

It simply was of no influence on the 27259 (that was just a Minox like all the others from that era).

 

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

Trying to find more on the information given by Mr. LOHN.    A lot of stuff written in articles and books on the 27259, and the Lohn statement(s) was very often used, just nobody apparently questioned it until now....

So far I could only find the note below.    I can only guess Golz contacted Mr. Lohn by telephone and reported this to (?)

So, looking for more notes like this, where there is a reference to whatever Lohn actually said in 1978 ?

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans
Pictures removed to save space

[Guest]

The above report was part of an outside 3 page telephone contact report by Earl Golz and the agency. The full report can be found in the J.Armstrong Archives at the B.U. Electronic Library (W.R. Poage Legislative Librabry) in the file "Minox-camera 1964".   The digital ref. to this file = po-jfkarm-nbk_b04-n03b-t04_minox-camera_1964-01-31. 

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans
Pictures removed to save space

[Ron Bulman]

On 7/1/2022 at 12:53 AM, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Just some illustrations :

In 1957 Hoover showed up at a Photo convention (pict from Minox magazine)

And in spring 1963 J. Kennedy and Lee Radziwell appeared in the Minox magazine

 

Jean, your posts in this thread are much appreciated by at least one.  As well as your Minox expertise in them.  The picture of Jackie and her Minox in Paris-Match is priceless.  I never knew the Millionaire President's wife had in common with the lowly poor Oswald an expensive camera.

Kind of a strange paradox here in that Paris-Match helped break the story on Oliver Stone/Jim DiEugenio's documentary .Watch JFK: Destiny Betrayed - Season 01 | Prime Video (amazon.com) 

[Guest]

Thank you, I really just wanted to get the information out there. 

Edited August 12, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

n/a

Edited August 19, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Pete Mellor]

3 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Thank you, I really just wanted to get the information out there. 

Yes, I agree with the above posters, this Minox info is very interesting.

However, the nagging question is, was LHO a spy in  the Soviet Union?  When & where did LHO obtain the camera (if he did) & was it used in Russia?

The DPD claim that the Minox was found at the Paine garage and found in Oswald's sea bag.  Yet, as with most aspects of this case, where one item points in one direction, there are other facets that then point in the opposite way.  While in Minsk Pavel Golovachev states that he didn't think that Oswald was a spy.  He said that in Minsk he bought a very basic camera, a Smena-2, "which even a Soviet schoolchild could use, but he couldn't."  Doesn't sound like a James Bond to me.  If Lee had the Minox in Russia, why buy this cheap Smena-p2?

The Soviet intelligence agencies viewed Oswald as "a very simple or primitive guy, not a very interesting person."  They determined that Oswald was not working for U.S. intelligence.  KGB  wondered if he could be a programmed 'sleeper agent', so they had agents watch him, had his apartment bugged, his phone tapped and took many surveillance photos of him.   Even if Angleton's CI/SIG were using Oswald as a dangle at Langley, he certainly wasn't an active CIA agent.  Many have pointed to the suspicious easy treatment given to Oswald on his return to the U.S.  No legal action against his defection.  State financial assistance for his journey home.  No known intelligence agency interview on his arrival on American soil.  The H.S.C.A. also found this suspicious, until they checked and found that analysis of over twenty American defectors, what Oswald experienced was just not unusual or strange.  Surprisingly, that was the way the American government dealt with all defectors! 

[Guest]

n/a

Edited August 12, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

 

n/a

Edited August 12, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

n/a

Edited August 12, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans