Swarobright Coating and P-coating (2 Viewers)

[John A Roberts]

Hi Alexis (post #15),

One of the difficulties in trying to find out about older optics, is that for many things that were once commonly known,
we seem to have about a 10 year collective memory.
And while some issues can be clearly answered with a bit of careful digging here or elsewhere, not all necessarily can.


In relation to the EL's and Swarobright . . .

Some years ago my assumption was that in terms of the timing of its development, Swarobright would have been on the first EL’s in 1999
(an obvious pairing of a new premier product and technology).
However, the more I tried to find a definite statement, preferably an official one, the less certain I became.

Unfortunately, I’ve not been able to find any catalogues from the period, though considering below they may not have been helpful.

Looking at the Swarovski site at the time (via Wayback), there are references to 'absolutely natural colour reproduction',
and attribution of it to Swarotop and Swarodur, but there’s no indication of using a new prism coating.




And similarly, adverts from the 1999-2000 period are also ambiguous.
Compare an EL and SLC one - neutral colour verses truest colour, with the only mentioned coating being Swarotop.



In contrast, by the time the EL x32 was introduced in 2003, Swarobright is the key technology mentioned.




Bearing all that in mind, the other primary source information that I had access to was the labelling.
And when I tried looking back through BF, comments were mixed e.g. as in the thread that I linked to.

However, if in 2010 you were certain, I’m happy to be corrected.

And of course Tom raises an important consideration in relation to running changes (see post #19),
which is potentially relevant not only to this discussion, but also to many others on the forum.


John

 

[John A Roberts]

p.s. For context, the corresponding SLC Information:

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Henry (post #20),

Yes, the angled version does necessarily need an additional prism
- I'm going to have to give my editor a very stern talking to!


John

 

[UTGrad]

Excuse me in advance for asking what may be an elementary question but I’ve got a full time job and 5 kids so it’s difficult to digest all the posts being posted here.

Do the NL Pures have a water repellent coating similar to Zeiss? Water rolls right off the lenses of my Conquests HD so hopefully the NL Pures have similar coatings.

 

[tenex]

Compare an EL and SLC one - neutral colour verses truest colour, with the only mentioned coating being Swarotop.

The SLC copy reads: "Newest, phase-correcting, roof-prism coating and mirror technology". Perhaps they simply haven't decided to call it Swarobright yet, but it's already present across this line too? (Thanks for digging all this up...)

Do the NL Pures have a water repellent coating similar to Zeiss? Water rolls right off the lenses of my Conquests HD so hopefully the NL Pures have similar coatings.

No, Swarovski is no longer doing this for environmental reasons, as discussed in several recent threads here.

 

[GrampaTom]

The SLC copy reads: "Newest, phase-correcting, roof-prism coating and mirror technology". Perhaps they simply haven't decided to call it Swarobright yet, but it's already present across this line too? (Thanks for digging all this up...)


No, Swarovski is no longer doing this for environmental reasons, as discussed in several recent threads here.

Well, we're not sure though, are we? Swaro made that change and announcement with the intro of the NLs. As I recall they also said they were searching for an environmentally better alternative. It would seem enough time has gone by that they could have discovered something, implemented it as "running change" and haven't got round to telling us yet... Ironic as that might be. Who knows?

 

[tenex]

Well, we're not sure though, are we?

Aren't we? It's easy enough to tell from the physical properties. Has any NL owner reported that theirs has hydrophobic coating again?

 

[GrampaTom]

I have no clue.

 

[John A Roberts]

Summary of Swarobright Introductions?

One way to summarise the above discussion about Swarobright would be . . .

In 1998, Zeiss was the first to use dielectric coating, on the non-Total Internal Reflection surface found on the prisms used in most roof prism binoculars.
It had the advantages of giving more vibrant colours and a less yellow image.
Other major manufacturers soon followed; including Swarovski by late 1998, who used the brand name Swarobright.

By early 2003 at the latest - based on the information at the time from Swarovski - Swarobright was being used on all relevant product lines,
both binoculars and telescopes *

Specifically in relation to binoculars, the clear information from Swarovski indicates that, for the period from late 1998 to early 2003:
• there were staggered introductions across the various SLC models, with the 8x30 being the last in early 2003 **
• by early 2002 the EL and Pocket models also had the coating.

However, in relation to the EL x42 models that were introduced in mid 1999, there are indications from some users that,
the coating may have been present from the introduction of the EL’s.
In contrast, the new premium EL models had Swarotop coating from their introduction in mid 1999 (see posts #34 and 36 below).


* the earliest CTS 85 telescope that I’ve observed is #F7315 39110 (the number sequence is shared with the CTC 75 e.g. #F7309 38927)

** also per Gijs 'The 8x30 SLC's got Swarobright coatings in 2003 according to the info I received from Swarovski.'
see post #25 at: Would you buy a Swarovski SLC 7x42 Neu?


John

 

[GrampaTom]

Summary of Swarobright Introductions?

One way to summarise the above discussion about Swarobright would be . . .

In 1998, Zeiss was the first to use dielectric coating, on the non-Total Internal Reflection surface found on the prisms used in most roof prism binoculars.
It had the advantages of giving more vibrant colours and a less yellow image.
Other major manufacturers soon followed; including Swarovski by late 1998, who used the brand name Swarobright.

By early 2003 at the latest - based on the information at the time from Swarovski - Swarobright was being used on all relevant product lines,
both binoculars and telescopes *

Specifically in relation to binoculars, the clear information from Swarovski indicates that, for the period from late 1998 to early 2003:
• there were staggered introductions across the various SLC models, with the 8x30 being the last in early 2003 **
• by early 2002 the EL and Pocket models also had the coating.

However, in relation to the EL x42 models that were introduced in mid 1999, there are indications from some users that,
the coating may have been present from the introduction of the EL’s.


* the earliest CTS 85 telescope that I’ve observed is #F7315 39110 (the number sequence is shared with the CTC 75 e.g. #F7309 38927)

** Per Gijs 'The 8x30 SLC's got Swarobright coatings in 2003 according to the info I received from Swarovski.'
see post #25 at: Would you buy a Swarovski SLC 7x42 Neu?


John

If I may John,

"Other major manufacturers soon followed; including Swarovski by late 1998, EVENTUALLY labeling this process Swarobright." Whaddya think?

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Tom,

Swarobright is the term used on the box labels from the start in late 1998.


And since posting yesterday I did a bit more digging through the website captures on Wayback.
The earliest usage I could there is from 2002 (see the bottom of the left column).


John

 

[GrampaTom]

John, I was trying to honor Alexis point in #15. Was Swarobright on boxes from ‘98 to include ELs? Confess I’m confused between EL intro, SLC status and Swarobright. Alexis believes 99 ELs had it I think. You just found it on box from ‘02. I’m still thinking possible it was incorporated in production process before marketing announcement, whichever was introduced when…..

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Tom,

Keeping track of all the details is of course getting difficult.
For when the box labels first show the Swarobright marking see back at post #2.


John

 

[Alexis Powell]

Hi John (posts #21, 22),

I have magazines, catalogs, and optics reviews from that time period in my files, so last night I dug out a few to have a look and stroll down memory lane. What I found matches my recollections from my post yesterday and--as you found in the Swarovski online catalog of the time--doesn't definitively settle the question, but it is at least consistent with my notion that the EL has always had dielectric coatings that were later named Swarobright. In looking at those materials from around the time the EL was released, what immediately struck me was that advertising and even most reviews were not filled with specifications or technical details. No one was talking about dielectric coatings [The earliest uses of "dielectric" that I find on BirdForum were not until 2004]. In 1999, Swarovski wasn't as well known or respected amongst birders as Zeiss, Leica, and Nikon. Swarovski bins were tough and "a good value" (cheaper than Zeiss, Leica, and Nikon's best) but were plagued with a strong yellow tint to the view. The tint was really obvious when comparing my Zeiss 7x42 BGATP to my friends' Swarovski 7x42 and 10x42 SLC bins, but comparison wasn't necessary to see it. Word was that it was a benefit for hunting. I couldn't tolerate it for birding. Then, in 1999, the EL were released, and besides having a new ergonomic body shape (designed, in my opinion, to mimic the Zeiss 7x42 and to appeal to users like me) it was a big deal for two other things, (1) being the first Swarovski with neutral color, and (2) being the first standard sized birding binocular to be successfully priced well over $1000--as I recall, ~$1350 [Nikon tried to do that with the Venturer LX but it soon dropped to around $900].

I've attached a PDF copy of Steve Ingraham's review of the EL in Better View Desired. Note that he commented on the neutral color and the brightness (the transmission, not the "apparent brightness) of the EL. He also described and rightly criticized its slow focus action.

I've also attached a PDF of the Swarovski pages of the Eagle Optics Buying Guide volume 12#5 of 1999 (pp. 1-2 of the PDF), volume 13#1 of 2000 (p. 3 of the PDF), and volume 14#1 of 2001 (pp. 5-6 of the PDF). The content is, it seems, mostly borrowed from Swarovski marketing materials. Note that in 1999 the EL was described as having "absolutely natural color reproduction". For anyone in the know, those words jumped off the page. Note also that in 2001, all the SLC binoculars are described as "now coated with the same Swarobright coatings as used in the EL models" and Swarobright is simply listed as a feature of (not a new feature or update to) the EL which implied to me that the EL always had it since there was never any announcement by Swarovski or any observation by binocular enthusiasts that the EL had ever been upgraded (Nor have I ever seen evidence of such myself even though I have looked through many early and later units of the EL).

The neutral color of the EL was a big deal because it wiped away the biggest complaint that I and many other birders might have had with the binocular and with Swarovski generally. So it seems that Swarovski took the color issue seriously and over the next few years updated the lens coatings of the SLC models to give them neutral color. Consequently, Swarovski's popularity rocketed upward. Did that change to the SLC lens coatings occur simultaneously with introduction of dielectric prism coatings and with use of the trademark label Swarobright? That's how it seemed at the time. My recollection, and what I found on reviewing adverts and catalog pages, is that when the SLC models were updated to Swarobright, that the improvement was advertised as bringing them up to the standard already seen in the EL. I don't remember anyone discussing pre-Swarobright EL binoculars at the time nor afterward, but the relative desirability of pre- versus post-Swarobright SLC bins is well known. Later, when the focus speed of the EL was updated, the update was noted by Swarovski and was a well-known concern for buyers of used EL bins. It seems to me that Swarovski introduced neutral color balance lens coatings and dielectric prism coatings with the initial release of the EL, then later invented the advertising trademark Swarobright to bring attention to use of those same coatings in the updated SLC binoculars. In fact, I won't be surprised if it is the case that those improvements to the SLC were also made prior to the use of the Swarobright label. The label really did effectively advertise the change in the SLC and help Swarovski squash the notion that the otherwise-great-for-birding tough SLC bins would always (intentionally) have a yellow tint since they were really designed for hunters.

Finally, just for fun and veering somewhat from the main topic, I've attached a PDF compiling all the Swarovski advertisements from 1994-2006 in Birding, the magazine of the American Birding Association. This covers the time period when Swarovski rose from obscurity or at least a junior position in terms of prestige and brand recognition amongst birders to being the dominant brand. All in all, the adverts are quite conservative, yet it is clear that someone at Swarovski decided in about 1993 to doggedly advertise very prominently so as to get birders to take notice of the brand and build its reputation. From Aug 1994 until Dec 2003, the Swarovski advert was always a full page and always on page 1 of the magazine (Earlier, e.g. in 1993, the first page of Birding was variously a full page advert for Bausch & Lomb, Zeiss, Nikon, Leica, or Swarovski binoculars).

Sorry I'm too lazy to insert my comments within the PDF itself, but the following are my observations. Keep in mind that Birding consisted of 6 issues a year, initially coming out in Feb, April, June, Aug, Oct, Dec and later in Jan/Feb, March/April, May/June, July/Aug, Sept/Oct, and Nov/Dec.

PDF page; issue; comments
1. 1994 Aug - "New Swarovski SLC MK III Binocular. The Value Class." This advert, emphasizing the competitive price of these bins, ran on page 1 of every issue until it was replaced by...

2. 1995 Feb - "Swarovski Family Values", which also emphasized value, ran on p. 1 of every issue until...

3. 1996 Feb - "The Ultimate Ice & Water Glass" advert promoted Swaro bins as being rugged. It ran on p. 1 until...

4. 1997 Feb -"Two for the birds". This was a cooperative joint promo for Swarovski and Victor Emanuel Nature Tours. Importantly, it allies Swarovski specifically with birding. It ran on p. 1 of every issue for nearly 2 years!, finally being replaced with a return to...

5. 1998 Oct -"The Ultimate Ice & Water Glass", also on p. 1, but then two issues later, another birding alliance...

6. 1999 Feb - "Sapsuckers' delight", this time connecting Swarovski to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology on p. 1 of every issue that year until with...

7. 2000 Feb - "EL class. The ultimate hunting glass..." we have the epic announcement of the EL binoculars, but someone messed up and sent a version meant for hunters! "Neutral color transmission" were the words that caught my attention, along with the shape. This ran on p. 1 and was replaced the following issue with...

8. 2000 Apr - "EL class. The ultimate birding glass..." which was the same ad otherwise, and it ran on p. 1 for over a year until it was replaced with...

9. 2000 Oct -"Premium performance and value: newest SLC binoculars are even better" which is intriguing because besides the change in rubber armor it says these have "Newest, phase-correcting, roof-prism coatings and mirror technology..." which is suggestive of dielectric coatings, but the proprietary name in question is not used. This ran on p. 1 of every issue until the return to...

10. 2001 Aug - "EL class. The ultimate birding glass..." a slightly modified version of the earlier advert, on p. 1 for a month, then finally...

11. 2001 Oct - "Swarobright" is announced! The advert says "Like our renowned EL binoculars, the new SLC class of 42, 50 and 56 mm binoculars incorporate...Swarobright". This seems to be a retroactive announcement, naming Swarobright as being what was special about the EL all along and also suggesting that the change in the SLC occurred with the updated SLC that were the subject of the advert of October 2000 (above). This ran on p. 1 until...

12. 2002 Apr - "Swarovski ATS & STS 65 mm spotting scopes" which ran on p. 1 until...

13. 2002 Oct - "Tough choice" which goes all out with the trademarked names, mentioning Swarobright, Swarotop, and Swarodur coatings. This ran on p. 1 for a year, finally being replaced with...

14. 2003 Oct - "Fly with Swarovski" which announced the x32 mm EL bins. Something seems to have changed with Swarovski's advertising priorities after this. This advert ran on p. 1 until Feb 2004, when it moved to the back outside cover, breaking the first page tradition after 9 years. Then the same advert moved to p. 7 (June), p. 29 (Aug), p. 3 (Oct), p. 7 (Jan/Feb), p. 13 (Mar/Apr), p. 21 (May/Jun), p. 9 (July/Aug & Sept/Oct) until it was finally replaced with...

15. 2005 Nov/Dec -"Swarovski Optik..." an advert that emphasized Austrian manufacture and which ran for only one issue, on p. 3. Amazingly, after its long advertising campaign, Swarovski had no adverts in the Jan/Feb and March/April of 2006 issues. No more need for advertising, given Swaro's dominant position among premium brands by that time? But the EL returned as

16. 2006 May/June - "Companion" Note that this is an ad for the EL, not the binoculars of the later Companion series. Also note the confidence of this ad, which is so minimalist it says almost nothing. It ran on p. 9. After that, Swarovski really seems to have lost most interest in advertising in Birding. In 2007, it ran a very inconspicuous 1/2 page ad "Observe & record" about digiscoping, somewhere in each issue.

I'll stop here.

--AP

 

[NDhunter]

Alexis, a well-done summation. This must have taken you many hours or days.......
I think this may be a good way to conclude the magical mystery tour, of Swarovski coatings history.
Jerry

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Alexis (post #34),

Wow, great stuff! Love the old adverts.

In relation to the main issue of the EL's:
Steven Ingraham’s comments clearly indicate that the EL did have Swaorobright coating from its introduction.


And in terms of the greater context, there is of course a minor caveat:
The relative neutrality of the colour of the EL’s image, was superseded with the introduction of the EL SV in 2010.
See part of a table from Gijs’ 2010 test of various x42 binoculars, along with a page from the contemporary EL SV brochure.

In 2009, in preparation for the introduction of the EL SV, Swarovski gave the Swarotop anti-reflective coatings a major overhaul,
see Dale Forbes’ comments in post #29 at: Swarovski EL 42 60th anniversary coating
And this seems to have provided the additional tweak to the colour of the image.


While Swarovski was using the term Swarobright on box labels as early as late 1998, the first (or at least a very early) use in advertising,
seems to be the one that you’ve identified in October 2001 (the 11th image).

In this regard, there appears to have been a significant disconnect between production and advertising
(Tom may want to offer some comments in this regard?).

And those writing the copy, didn't make a good point anywhere near as well as they could have
e.g. 'We have a complex, never before used coating called Swarobright, that’s on the prisms to give you an unrivalled neutral image.'
Though of course such a failure was ultimately not that of the copywriters, but whoever signed off on the copy.


Again Alexis thanks for the research, I’m sure many others will also appreciate it.


John

 

[GrampaTom]

In this regard, there appears to have been a significant disconnect between production and advertising
(Tom may want to offer some comments in this regard?).

Thanks for thinking of me in this John. I was only guessing, but what Alexis describes is how stuff got, and gets done. I might add not only was this a function of the work going on in various departments, sometimes coordinated and sometimes independent of each other, with very good explanations as to why/how that happens. As well it's also kind of a cultural thing as I think Alexis describes - what companies think is important to customers at the time. That changes. My time in the associated industry that provided friends at Leupold, Zeiss and Swarovski, predates all this. I do remember what Alexis says about how stuff was described, promoted. Pardon the swithcheroo, but as an example, I learned about P* a year or so after I bought those 1040Bs, pictured above with the T* marking only, by word of mouth at SHOT. I was a price list and catalog collecting junkie, back in the day, for the industry I was in, poured over those as you both have done here. Impressive!

 

[Alexis Powell]

Thanks all, for enjoying my post. I must say that I don't think I/we really nailed anything specific down here except that it doesn't seem like there was much concern for coordination between the various departments at Swarovski. The Swarovski advertising might seem surprisingly lackadaisical by modern standards (where, unless a company intentionally remains cool, confident, and collected, we expect it to be spastically promoting new models, features, and model iterations on social media) but folks weren't on the internet or buying online as much back then, so news and rollout of new products happened more slowly, or at least the word got out over a longer period of time. Nowadays, we hear about products before they've even been manufactured (and then sometimes never materialize) and buyers are often pissed when they buy a product and then find out that a slightly "better" version will be coming out "soon". I find it interesting that the goal of the adverts was really more about promoting the brand than any specific product, even the one that might have been pictured in the advert.

Of the remaining mysteries, I think I'm most curious about whether introduction of dielectric coatings (Swarobright) to the SLC binoculars corresponded (perfectly) with the switch to the new "protein rubber" armor for each model. It seems that it might have, since (as John has noted) the trademark started being put on box labels as early as 1998. It would be nice if someone at Swarovski could say if that was the case. If so, it might help explain why there was so much love for the 10x50 SLC (e.g. by the Cornell Sapsuckers and Ken Rosenberg in particular), because the one shown in the Feb 1999 advert has the new rubber. I've read Ken Rosenberg's reviews from that time and he says nothing about a yellow tint in that model. Yet we don't see mention of Swarobright in advertising until later (e.g. the Eagle Optics 2001 buying guide and the Oct 2001 ad in Birding). I could look in my files for earlier marketing examples, but there's probably no point as it seems certain that a marketing lag occurred. This question about when, exactly, dielectric coatings (Swarobright) came to the SLC will only be established from boxes and examination of units or from Swarovski's internal records.

To John's comment (in post #36) about the color transmission of the original EL not really being truly neutral and being surpassed by the later EL Swarovision, yes, I am aware and I don't disagree. However, I do feel I should point out that it was a HUGE improvement over previous Swarovski models (which were SO very yellow), and, moreover, it was stunningly neutral and just so clean and bright compared to its competitors (esp. roof prism bins) at the time. The Zeiss 7x42 BGATP was also a standout in that regard. In fact, even today, I can take out my 1999 EL and it still wows me with those qualities--big, bright, very neutral, so clean, extremely little CA, and easy on the eyes--even though I mostly use and am thus quite accustomed to more recent and more perfectly neutral bins, such as my late-production pre-FP EL Swarovision. I chose not to have my original EL updated to the fast focus because even though the slow focus bothered me considerably, the change to fast focus seemed to entail poorer control of CA. Ironically, the original Leica 8x42 Ultravid, which I got later, in part for its refreshingly faster focus compared to the EL (but also, its superb performance against the light, and, let's face it, to feed my hunger at the time for collecting bins) has ATROCIOUSLY high levels of CA and so the view doesn't hold up as well as does the original EL, in my opinion, against the best of today's bins. I find the color bias of the original EL to be very subtle and interesting. In use, it generally goes unnoticed, but sometimes it does call attention to itself by pushing some magenta/brick-reddish objects towards a more subdued or more orange hue.

--AP

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

For those who like a summary of the effects of the improvement of Swarovski coatings in time: look at slide 57 of my powerpoint presentation of the history of Swarovski, that can be found in : "Verrekijkers testen en vergelijken"on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[GrampaTom]

This one?

https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/HISTORY-AND-QUALITY-DEVELOPMENT-OF-SWAROVSKI-OPTIK-1935-TO-THE-PRESENT-TIME..pdf

If so, slides not numbered methinks Gils...