James,
Remember, the speculations that have made here about dating the year of manufacture from SE serial numbers have never been confirmed by Nikon and the same is true for the adoption of Eco glass in the SE series and its supposed effects.
Henry
Nor have they been proven false!
I've asked Mike Freiberg to answer those questions, but he did not respond or didn't know. Or at least he didn't respond to me, but I think he did respond to someone else later on, though I can't remember which question that poster asked about, the date/digit scheme or lead free optics changeover dates, but I think Mike said he didn't know the answer to whatever the question was, correct me if I'm wrong, Mike.
I also asked Myron, a customer rep at Nikon, about this information, and he told me that information was not in his "knowledge base".
So all I have are the data I presented. Which is that Henry bought his 500xxx 8x32 SE new in 1997, and my 501xxx was purchased new in 1998 (still have the receipt somewhere, have a photo of it, in any case), and that my 505xxx sample was bought new in 2002, according to the previous owner.
In addition, I solicited dates of purchase and serial #s from six other 8x32 SE owners, and all agreed with a sequential year per
third digit correlation.
However, since that time, I have gotten other data that do not fit. I suspect the reason is that as SE's get long in the tooth, the problem with establishing correlations with dates of purchase and serial #s is that the the bins might have been sitting on the shelf for years before being purchased.
To read the frenzy over these bins now, it would seem hard to believe that Nikon didn't sell out every year it produced the SEs, particularly the 8x32 model, but as one BF member reported, who personally talked with a number of camera dealers that carry or carried the SE series, the SEs were slow movers.
If people have been reading BF for a long time, they would have noticed that roofs became all the rage and that the venerable SE got lost in the shuffle except for some occasional threads.
But then in 2007 or 2008, when Nikon reintroduced the SE series with the 550xxx 8x32 SE (check the archives for when the "frenzy" began), there was a revival of interest in the SE series and EII series, along with a growing realization that these gems, except for not being waterproof, where the equal if not the better of the latest offerings in roof prisms designs costing multiple$ more.
The momentum has slowed down a bit since then, but interest in the SE series still remains strong as evidenced by this recent thread.
I'm not sure if I actually published all those "data points" on the dates/serial #s on BF, my iMac died and along with it those figures, but I could painstakingly try to reassemble that information with another call for data, but why bother?
Until Nikon comes clean on this, people will remain a skeptical no matter how many "data points" I gather unless others are able to independently duplicate the same results. I invite that participation.
However, with pre-550 8x32 SEs now sitting on shelves for an unknown period, we would need to contact the store to find out when they originally received them... ....information they might no longer have at this point or have but might not want to share (in case they have old stock that hasn't sold).
Given the sample of data collected, and the fact that they are in agreement with the year/digit scheme I outlined, I would not call the scheme a "null hypothesis," because the data sample is small. At the very least, it shows a pattern that should be further explored.
The other thing that lends support to the date/serial number scheme is that Zeiss used a similar scheme in its bins. Someone posted that scheme on europa.com a few years ago. I no longer have that information, but someone on BF might, or it could be available in the europa archives.
As far as dating when Nikon switched over to lead glass in the SE, what throws a "zone of confusion" into this inquiry is that Nikon itself has not been consistent in its information about its changeover to "eco-glass".
One PR statement said the company had started switching over to lead free glass in 2000 and completed the changeover in 2002.
Another statement said that 70% of its glass was lead free by 2002. There was third statement that gave a figure of 40%, but I don't remember which year that was for. I've posted all this information on various BF threads over the past few years, and I probably have bookmarks for some of this, at least within the past two years before my iMac died.
So if you're waiting for Nikon to come clean about this, the fact that their own PR people don't seem to have the story straight should tell you not to hold your breath!
I also have or had a public document from OHARA, and I posted a link to it on BF awhile back, which explicitly stated that the company's earlier efforts at making lead free glass were
not on par with its lead glass, but that through continual development and trail and error, they eventually found the best combination of lead substitutes (and ones that did not add significant cost such as titanium oxide would have), such that their latest glass, as per the date of the publication, was "
nearly as good as" their older lead glass.
Yes, I know, someone posted Abbe numbers that show OHARA's
latest lead free glass is on par with lead glass, so this document was written before their latest release.
But that doesn't diminish my point, which was and continues to be, that the bins in question - the EII, the SEs, LX and LXL -- were all made years
before these latest Abbe figures were published.
So to say that those bins use the the same lead free glass as the the latest lead free glass with Abbe #s that match lead glass, and especially because, as one poster put it "Nikon engineers wouldn't release a bin with glass inferior to lead glass" is in itself "speculation" (Nikon engineers don't "release" the glass, Nikon administration tells them what or what not to do).
Think about it, have you ever been told to do something by your boss that was not quite copasetic, but you went ahead with it anyway for practical considerations (like keeping your job)? You think the engineers at Toyota wanted to release cars where the "rush to market" overrode safety considerations? You think the engineers at NASA wanted to let Challenger fly when they knew the outdoor temperatures were below the "O" rings tolerances? They didn't make those decisions, the management did.
What we do know is that there was a "follow the leader" push to use lead free glass in sports optics around the turn of the century, which could have resulted in a "rush to market" by Nikon and others (I've posted reports of increased CA by owners of other brand bins and microscopes when those companies switched over to lead free glass during roughly the same period).
However, what we don't know is if OHARA's under par lead free glass was actually used in the bins in question (Nikon does use OHARA glass, but not exclusively) or if Nikon made the glass and that their first generation lead free glass was on par with their lead glass or their lead free glass today.
The truth is out there, but for whatever reason, Nikon has it locked in the "vault". Since the Freedom of Information Act exempts private companies, it will stay in the "vault" until they choose to release it (if ever).
In any case, I know what my eyes see in comparing various Nikon models, and in my personal purchase decisions, I will use those observations.
I would advise Jim and others who have read my posts on these matters not to take them as gospel, but rather use them as a starting point for their own inquiries and comparisons.