Hi Ed,
I agree!
I try to explain my assertion with some exemples.
If I plan a production of 1000 bins, I need 2000 front lenses.
1st option (1980s): I use only perfect lenses, then I have to produce 2100 front lenses because 100 lenses (5%) don't satisfy my quality (perfection) requirements.
2nd option (today): in the past years I performed a “quality study” and I established that only 30 lenses don't satisfy my requirements because 70 lenses have a non-perceivable defect, then I can reduce the costs by using 2070 lenses instead of 2000.
Other exemple:
1st option (1980s): each mechanical part is superlative...
2nd option (today): after the “quality study” I noted that the estimated duration of the mechanics was 100 years, but the average life of a binocular is 20 years, then... why produce an over quality? I can reduce the costs by using lower quality components.
About me, I love the extra (non-perceivable) quality, then I prefer to buy a 3000 EUR binocular each 20 years than a 1500 EUR one each 10 years.
IMHO the optical performance of a Zeiss Victory is slightly better than a Dialyt, but the mechanical feeling of a Dialyt...
I'm near my fifties, but I prefer to buy a binocular with an estimated duration of 100 years, even if i don't estimate to use it for 100 years
Finally, i think that the present policy of some alpha firms is based on the "wow effect" in the comparison between an "old" and a present product.