I broke my SF so you don't have to... (2 Viewers)

[Steve C]

Zeiss could have gone about this in two ways. One was to to go about it like this.

"Dear Mr. High North,

We are in receipt of your damaged Zeiss SF binocular. We are appalled to note the apparent faulty casing. We strive to avoid issues like these, and this frame should never have escaped quality control. While we are concerned that the damage you describe seems perhaps abusive we can't over look the bad casing. We are looking into the process to see if we can identify the problem. So please accept your new SF binocular. Be aware that this type of damage may not be covered in future warranty claims. Be very careful not to drop this one please.

Zeiss"

That is doing the right thing the right way for the right reason. That is what I fully expected to be the response from Zeiss. That surprise was the basis for my response.

What they did was not what I outlined above. They told High North that the break was abuse and not covered, sorry. However you get a Zeiss good guy coupon and get a new binocular (in spite of the obvious bad cast frame). High North gets a new binocular. As far as I can see that is doing the right thing the wrong way for the wrong reasons. I was pretty surprised to see the latter response rather than the former.

What High North described was maybe exceptional, unusual, even extraordinary. However it certainly falls with the parameters of normal use. He didn't shoot it, didn't drive over it, did not put it through a torture test. He dropped the thing.

There are many companies (that many would call lesser binoculars) that would have simply warrantied the binocular. No fuss or bother, they would not have blamed High North. Vortex and Leupold come immediately to mind. I think even a high end Swarovski would have had a different response.

 

[8x60deckmount]

The problem in Norway is that mostly all dont know a clue about optics .
People do normally think that a bino at max 60 - 100$ is the best one.

They can easy buy a pair of eyeglasses at 1500-2000 $ if the brand is popular but a binocular at 1500 -2000 $ is a crazy price .

And what do they get with a pair of eyeglasses . 2 lenses and a piece of wire

 

[oetzi]

The problem in Norway is that mostly all dont know a clue about optics .
People do normally think that a bino at max 60 - 100$ is the best one.

Sharing this with 99,9% of all other people. We at BF dont count, we are obsessed.

 

[Elmer Fudd]

A good outcome HN. Enjoy!

The only issue is whether that rather flimsy-looking casting is design, or accident.

...

Mark

Thank goodness they are not in the rifle or handgun market.......

To learn more about successful casting jobs they should take some lessons at the Ruger plant.

 

[dalat]

Zeiss could have gone about this in two ways. One was to to go about it like this.

"Dear Mr. High North,

We are in receipt of your damaged Zeiss SF binocular. We are appalled to note the apparent faulty casing.

Of course there would have been the third possibility as well: You dropped it, your fault, sorry.

But as Jan said it before, Zeiss can only loose on such a case, whatever they do or say.

Imagine they would have said what you suggest, how would BF people now obsess about faulty castings and how many faulty units may be out there... (Anyway, only Zeiss really knows if the casting really was faulty or not.)

Zeiss answer is the best they could do to control the damage, and keep HN happy.

 

[SteveTS]

There are many companies (that many would call lesser binoculars) that would have simply warrantied the binocular. No fuss or bother, they would not have blamed High North. Vortex and Leupold come immediately to mind. I think even a high end Swarovski would have had a different response.

This is what counts. You've spent two grand and they've got your back, period.

 

[Troubador]

Of course there would have been the third possibility as well: You dropped it, your fault, sorry.

But as Jan said it before, Zeiss can only loose on such a case, whatever they do or say.

Imagine they would have said what you suggest, how would BF people now obsess about faulty castings and how many faulty units may be out there... (Anyway, only Zeiss really knows if the casting really was faulty or not.)

Zeiss answer is the best they could do to control the damage, and keep HN happy.

Dalat

Exactly.

Lee

 

[Pileatus]

Zeiss could have gone about this in two ways. One was to to go about it like this.

"Dear Mr. High North,

We are in receipt of your damaged Zeiss SF binocular. We are appalled to note the apparent faulty casing. We strive to avoid issues like these, and this frame should never have escaped quality control. While we are concerned that the damage you describe seems perhaps abusive we can't over look the bad casing. We are looking into the process to see if we can identify the problem. So please accept your new SF binocular. Be aware that this type of damage may not be covered in future warranty claims. Be very careful not to drop this one please.

Zeiss"

That is doing the right thing the right way for the right reason. That is what I fully expected to be the response from Zeiss. That surprise was the basis for my response.

What they did was not what I outlined above. They told High North that the break was abuse and not covered, sorry. However you get a Zeiss good guy coupon and get a new binocular (in spite of the obvious bad cast frame). High North gets a new binocular. As far as I can see that is doing the right thing the wrong way for the wrong reasons. I was pretty surprised to see the latter response rather than the former.

What High North described was maybe exceptional, unusual, even extraordinary. However it certainly falls with the parameters of normal use. He didn't shoot it, didn't drive over it, did not put it through a torture test. He dropped the thing.

There are many companies (that many would call lesser binoculars) that would have simply warrantied the binocular. No fuss or bother, they would not have blamed High North. Vortex and Leupold come immediately to mind. I think even a high end Swarovski would have had a different response.

You've made a whole bunch of assumptions you cannot prove in any way shape or form. Zeiss did not offer a No-Fault warranty and the facts speak for themselves. The owner dropped it on an unyielding surface, it broke and that's that. If and when parts are available the repair cost for that sort of damage should be the customer's. If I drive my car off a cliff the dealer doesn't make me whole, my insurance does. Zeiss offers a warranty, not an insurance policy.:cat:

 

[Hermann]

Zeiss did not offer a No-Fault warranty and the facts speak for themselves. The owner dropped it on an unyielding surface, it broke and that's that. If and when parts are available the repair cost for that sort of damage should be the customer's. If I drive my car off a cliff the dealer doesn't make me whole, my insurance does. Zeiss offers a warranty, not an insurance policy.:cat:

That's the hard facts, simple as that. So yes, I do believe Zeiss has been pretty generous in its response.

Hermann

 

[perterra]

This is what counts. You've spent two grand and they've got your back, period.

I was pretty upset about 5 years ago, bought a new Honda and within 2 months I had backed into a forklift. $3,200 in damage. I was a little less than pleased Honda didnt offer me a new one.

 

[perterra]

Zeiss could have gone about this in two ways. One was to to go about it like this.

"Dear Mr. High North,

We are in receipt of your damaged Zeiss SF binocular. We are appalled to note the apparent faulty casing. We strive to avoid issues like these, and this frame should never have escaped quality control. While we are concerned that the damage you describe seems perhaps abusive we can't over look the bad casing. We are looking into the process to see if we can identify the problem. So please accept your new SF binocular. Be aware that this type of damage may not be covered in future warranty claims. Be very careful not to drop this one please.

Zeiss"

That is doing the right thing the right way for the right reason. That is what I fully expected to be the response from Zeiss. That surprise was the basis for my response.

What they did was not what I outlined above. They told High North that the break was abuse and not covered, sorry. However you get a Zeiss good guy coupon and get a new binocular (in spite of the obvious bad cast frame). High North gets a new binocular. As far as I can see that is doing the right thing the wrong way for the wrong reasons. I was pretty surprised to see the latter response rather than the former.

What High North described was maybe exceptional, unusual, even extraordinary. However it certainly falls with the parameters of normal use. He didn't shoot it, didn't drive over it, did not put it through a torture test. He dropped the thing.

There are many companies (that many would call lesser binoculars) that would have simply warrantied the binocular. No fuss or bother, they would not have blamed High North. Vortex and Leupold come immediately to mind. I think even a high end Swarovski would have had a different response.

You have obviously seen a better cross section photo than the one north posted, and have probably seen the blue prints for the casting to be able to call it a flaw.

And would the drop have mattered if it was 300 ft, it's still just a dropped it?

 

[Pileatus]

I was pretty upset about 5 years ago, bought a new Honda and within 2 months I had backed into a forklift. $3,200 in damage. I was a little less than pleased Honda didnt offer me a new one.

Why would Honda offer you a forklift?:h?:

 

[oetzi]

What people sometimes tend to ignore:
-You damage something
-You get it replaced for free sometimes
-This doesnt mean everyone has to do it
Anyone here who likes to give his own money away?
No?
So why should any company?
If Vortex etc replace anything free of charge, thats fine. Its already accounted for in the products cost. This doesnt mean an more expensive Alpha has to be included in this game of chuck-and-replace.

HN did the sensible thing. Send it in for a repair with accepting his own responsibility from the very beginning. He got a new one, thats fine.

Having spent 25 years working retail, I have come to hate those pesky creatures: "I did nothing, it just disintergrated/broke/whatever. You must give me a new one because I am a modern customer who is used to being pampered and expects everything for free.

Rant over

P.S.
Perterra, you should have bought a very, very expensive car. With those, you dont have to pay for anxthing the rest of your life, no matter what.

 

[SteveTS]

What people sometimes tend to ignore:
-You damage something
-You get it replaced for free sometimes
-This doesnt mean everyone has to do it
Anyone here who likes to give his own money away?
No?
So why should any company?
If Vortex etc replace anything free of charge, thats fine.

Yes, I think that many who have contributed here would appreciate that.

We don't all hold the same point of view ; not everyone has HighNorth's manual dexterity, Troubador's tact & diplomacy, your style & fashion sense, or dalat's way with women. We are all different and although there are a few who espouse such views as 'if you can't see the difference get your eyes tested', or 'rolling ball only affects a tiny minority of users whose views are unimportant', everyone's contribution is important to them and just as equal as any other.

With over 11,000 views of this thread the damage has been done, wouldn't you think ?

 

[etudiant]

People do normally think that a bino at max 60 - 100$ is the best one.

They can easy buy a pair of eyeglasses at 1500-2000 $ if the brand is popular but a binocular at 1500 -2000 $ is a crazy price .

And what do they get with a pair of eyeglasses . 2 lenses and a piece of wire

Perhaps that is why Zeiss has a flourishing business making eye glass lenses, more so than its business in binoculars. The margins are better in the eyeglasses business.

Meanwhile, it is good that Zeiss stepped up to resolve Highnorth's problem.
Still, I concur with SteveC's perception, that the casting for the broken fitting looked faulty in the pictures posted.

 

[SteveTS]

The margins are better in the eyeglasses business.

Here is an emerging industry standard for reglazed / replaced eyeglass lenses quoted directly from a current manufacturer's offer :

"automatically comes with a 12 month scratch-free guarantee, so if you accidentally scratch the lenses at all in the first 12 months, we will replace the lenses free of charge to the same prescription, no quibbles guaranteed !" :t:

 

[Swedpat]

The problem in Norway is that mostly all dont know a clue about optics .
People do normally think that a bino at max 60 - 100$ is the best one.

They can easy buy a pair of eyeglasses at 1500-2000 $ if the brand is popular but a binocular at 1500 -2000 $ is a crazy price .

And what do they get with a pair of eyeglasses . 2 lenses and a piece of wire

I am sure it's not anything typical for Norway. Yes; the eyeglasses are more important than binoculars. But still; taking in consider that a binocular consists of AT LEAST 10 lenses and 4 prisms + barrels with focusing mechanism it's not strange that they should cost more than the eyeglasses for a decent quality.

 

[Steve C]

That is indeed a sorry state of affairs for Zeiss. However, I'm glad you got a new one. After this, I'd be sorely tempted to sell it new in the box and get another alpha glass. I'd not be bashful in letting them know how I felt, new binocular or not .

I should have known better, but with smiley included I did not for one instant think ANYONE would take that seriously.

I still thought maybe somebody would get it figured out when I zinged Zeiss over the "faulty casing" in my follow up post. While I think it looks like a bad case, of course I can't prove that.

So the devil-made me do it. I know myself well enough I should not have done that, but good god I never thought (obviously didn't think) that everybody would go off the deep end.

Of course I made a bunch of assumptions, figured that was obvious,

My apologies are hereby offered to any offended parties.

 

[jan van daalen]

I should have known better, but with smiley included I did not for one instant think ANYONE would take that seriously.

I still thought maybe somebody would get it figured out when I zinged Zeiss over the "faulty casing" in my follow up post. While I think it looks like a bad case, of course I can't prove that.

So the devil-made me do it. I know myself well enough I should not have done that, but good god I never thought (obviously didn't think) that everybody would go off the deep end.

Of course I made a bunch of assumptions, figured that was obvious,

My apologies are hereby offered to any offended parties.

I blamed it on my lack of English, but you certainly got me fooled:cat:.

Jan...

 

[perterra]

Got me hook line and sinker