• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Swift Holiday Mark II? (1 Viewer)

FrankD

FrankD

Well-known member
Swift historians,

Can you provide me with some information on the above mentioned model? I remember it being recommended very highly in recent 7x35 discussions. I just managed to luck into a very sweet deal on a model via the bay for an extremely modest sum.

I would like to know what to expect when it arrives. How does it compare with the Swift Sport King (1965) that I posted about in recen months?

Any info would be appreciated.

Thanks.
 
Frank,

The Model 766 Holiday goes back quite a ways, and had several versions. Some were better than others. The big selling point was its very wide angle, but mine was disappointing. I'd have to dig it out, but as I recall it has BK7 prisms even though it's shown as a Mark II.

Hope yours is better. I'd like to hear that.

Ed
 
Frank,

My experience with the Holiday is nil. Like Ed said, several versions, with FoV going from 578 to 630 ft. The one interesting thing I'm able to come up with for you as a collector is that Swift also issued a model called Panoramic Mark II, carrying the same model # as the Holiday, 766. My records tell me there were two versions, with FoV 578 and 585 ft.
Holiday and Panoramic are probably identical but why Swift chose to use different names is a mystery.

Renze
 
Thank you gentlemen. I did receive the Holiday Mark IIs today. I will leave a more well-thought out series of comments for tomorrow.

However, these appear to be Bak-4 prism and not Bk7. They have perfectly round exit pupils. Apparent sharpness is excellent but considering the weather this afternoon I am not yet going to comment on contrast, etc...

More tomorrow.
 
Moral support for Frank's Holiday

Well, it's a sunny day in Arkansas so just for moral support I took a Model 766 (322110, pre-1960, Taisei) out to the back yard. Soooo easy on the eyes. These have the wheel, which I prefer to the cylinder focus in the short-tube style of the Holiday Mark II and Sport King. This pair says 578' fov and the eyecups are twist-off.

My 1967 one, however, (twist-out eyecups, cylinder; also 578' fov) is decidedly less sharp than its predecessor--although since neither is likely to have been cleaned for decades perhaps the comparison isn't valid. Both appear to be BaK4.

My 1965 Sport King, although BK7, shows no discernible difference from the 766. It has recently been cleaned by Crista. My 1960 Sport King is the dullest of the lot.

None of these is obviously dirty, but the cleaning may be the determining factor.

All of them have tremendous pin-cushion which is annoying when you are panning. But for just lifting and holding on a bird they're pretty wonderful.

I would have said they were god-awful heavy, but my recent Audubon from this era is god-awful heavier.
 
I was really surprised by this Model 766 made by Hiyoshi in 1987 with 600' FOV.

Left: Large body Type 2 frame.

Center: Internal reflections pretty bad.

Right: Square exit pupil of BK7 prisms.

Distortion can get overpowering with very wide angle binoculars because it grows proportional to the cube of field angle (if I remember correctly).

Ed
PS. Anyone want to buy this wonderful door stopper for his collection? :-C
 

Attachments

  • swift 766 Holiday 1978.jpg
    swift 766 Holiday 1978.jpg
    101.4 KB · Views: 620
  • Swift 766 Reflections 1978.jpg
    Swift 766 Reflections 1978.jpg
    52.8 KB · Views: 438
  • Swift 766 Exit Pupil 1978.jpg
    Swift 766 Exit Pupil 1978.jpg
    37.4 KB · Views: 253
Last edited:
How much you want Ed?

;)

So, it seems, based on these posts, that earlier models were Bak-4 while newer ones were not?

Still quite impressed with the unit I have on hand. Aside from the fungus inside these bins look practically new.
 
Frankly, Frank, I'm just confused about the BK7 prisms in this 766 Holiday Mark II. The foundation of the Mark II series was their better quality prisms. For example, just 304 units later on the production line in 1978 these fantastic Model 823 7x, 50 Commodore Mark II were assembled. And these were done perfectly with BaK-4 prisms and a well thought out 525' FOV vs an unwieldy 600' FOV for the Holiday. That's an apparient field difference of 70º vs a whopping 80º.

No doorstop these babies. ;)

Ed
 

Attachments

  • Swift 823 Commodore.jpg
    Swift 823 Commodore.jpg
    103.9 KB · Views: 564
  • Swift 823 Commodore Exit Pupil.jpg
    Swift 823 Commodore Exit Pupil.jpg
    73.9 KB · Views: 287
  • Swift 823 & 866.jpg
    Swift 823 & 866.jpg
    121.2 KB · Views: 571
Last edited:
My mother and law has one, looks just like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rdmadison/5959032069/
Fully coated, BAK-4, flashy bits around the eyepieces.

It's quite good. The field of view is so huge, but the eye relief is tight, so the closer you get, the more you see, but you'll never see it all. Mechanically very tight and precise, built like a tank. Heavy yes, but the big prisms do support the wide angle view and the eyepieces have to be big too. Coatings bring it down a small notch compared to MC, but not bad at all. Lots of fun, recommended!
Ron
 
ronh said:
My mother and law has one, looks just like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rdmadison/5959032069/
Fully coated, BAK-4, flashy bits around the eyepieces.

It's quite good. The field of view is so huge, but the eye relief is tight, so the closer you get, the more you see, but you'll never see it all. Mechanically very tight and precise, built like a tank. Heavy yes, but the big prisms do support the wide angle view and the eyepieces have to be big too. Coatings bring it down a small notch compared to MC, but not bad at all. Lots of fun, recommended!
Ron
Click to expand...

Right, that's the sacrifice for ultra-wide fields, — uncomfortably short eye relief. However, my keen eye says they are post- rather than pre-1960. Why? Because the model number is stenciled on the right prism plate. When the company was Swift-Anderson, even in the late 1950s they used catalog numbers that didn't appear on the instrument. The Type 2 body should also be a tip off.

Since the serial number isn't date encoded, I would infer that they were not made by Hiyoshi Kogaku. Bob, your comments about dating also may need revision unless my Holiday is an anomaly. N. Crista thinks the prisms are original.

Renze may have some thoughts?

Ed
 
Last edited:
ronh said:
My mother and law has one, looks just like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rdmadison/5959032069/
Fully coated, BAK-4, flashy bits around the eyepieces.

It's quite good. The field of view is so huge, but the eye relief is tight, so the closer you get, the more you see, but you'll never see it all. Mechanically very tight and precise, built like a tank. Heavy yes, but the big prisms do support the wide angle view and the eyepieces have to be big too. Coatings bring it down a small notch compared to MC, but not bad at all. Lots of fun, recommended!
Ron
Click to expand...

That looks exactly like the model I currently have. I will try to post some pics of it later.
 
elkcub said:
Right, that's the sacrifice for ultra-wide fields, — uncomfortably short eye relief. However, my keen eye says they are post- rather than pre-1960. Why? Because the model number is stenciled on the right prism plate. When the company was Swift-Anderson, even in the late 1950s they used catalog numbers that didn't appear on the instrument. The Type 2 body should also be a tip off.

Since the serial number isn't date encoded, I would infer that they were not made by Hiyoshi Kogaku. Bob, your comments about dating also may need revision unless my Holiday is an anomaly. N. Crista thinks the prisms are original.

Renze may have some thoughts?

Ed
Click to expand...


Ed, I think this Holiday is pre 1960's indeed. Have a look at your 1959 catalogue please. Also, our Audubons type 0 (pre-1960's) look very much like it. See the prism housings lids with the three screws and the small groove/crease on the edge. And if I'm not mistaken there's a chromed ring on the objectives as well. Manufacturer: Tamron-Futaba I'd say.

Renze
 
Renze de Vries said:
Ed, I think this Holiday is pre 1960's indeed. Have a look at your 1959 catalogue please. Also, our Audubons type 0 (pre-1960's) look very much like it. See the prism housings lids with the three screws and the small groove/crease on the edge. And if I'm not mistaken there's a chromed ring on the objectives as well. Manufacturer: Tamron-Futaba I'd say.

Renze
Click to expand...

Hi Renze,

Ok, now my thinking cap is on. Let's forget a Type-2 body, which isn't accurate. Like you said, four screws on the prism plates make it a Type 0 body from the late-50s or very early 60's. Another identifier is the beautifully sculptured arms of the bridge assembly.

In Catalog 59 there are no chromed rings on the objectives, for the Holiday or any other S&A binoculars. But there were similar flat facits on the oculars and four screws holding down the cover plates — and the sculptured bridge arms. I'm missing Catalog 60, but by Catalog 61 (i.e., 1961), everything remained the same but three chrome rings now appeared on the Neptune, Holiday, and Audubon objectives. The 10x50 Commodore Mark II (or 10x50 Newport Mark II), however, had only one ring like that shown in Bob's "Holiday" picture. [Two 10x 50 models are mentioned in the catalog with one shared picture.]

Put that together with the model number being stenciled on the cover plate and to me the evidence suggests that Bob's Model 766 Holiday must be a first year Swift Instruments specimen that appeared in 1960. If we could ever locate Catalog 60, my prediction is that the premium models would all show single rings. Of course, I agree that Tamron-Futaba made them so the date isn't encoded.

What do you think?
Ed
 
Last edited:
Ed,

Very good, now we're on our way to dating the Mark II Swift binoculars more accurately. 1960 could very well be the year for the Holiday under discussion, as well as for our type 0 Audubons having serial numbers starting with 32.
I also see that you use the 1959 catalogue for identifying Swift binoculars as Swift vs. Swift Anderson. My reasoning was more simple: if there's Swift-Anderson stenciled on them they're S&A, if there's only the Swift bulls eye than they're Swift Instruments.
With respect to the Audubon, the oldest we've seen is the green stenciled model (in your possession) and if I'm not mistaken, this is the one pictured in the 1959 catalogue (no chrome ring(s), just a fine (green?) groove). Note that all Audubons we've seen so far are marked Swift, not Swift-Anderson.

BTW, I've just discovered that Pyser UK in their 1960's catalogue mentions a Panoramic, and no Holiday. Could it be that Pyser objected to the Holiday name and had it changed to Panoramic (after which the Americans took the hint and issued both types)? I'm pretty certain that if I were looking for a high quality wide angle 7x35 in those days, with the intention to use it for birding, I would be put off by an instrument called Holiday. I mean it's of utmost importance to be taken seriously among fellow birders.

Lastly, of course I erred on the lid's number of screws. It should be four indeed.

Renze
 
Renze de Vries said:
Ed,

Very good, now we're on our way to dating the Mark II Swift binoculars more accurately. 1960 could very well be the year for the Holiday under discussion, as well as for our type 0 Audubons having serial numbers starting with 32.
I also see that you use the 1959 catalogue for identifying Swift binoculars as Swift vs. Swift Anderson. My reasoning was more simple: if there's Swift-Anderson stenciled on them they're S&A, if there's only the Swift bulls eye than they're Swift Instruments.
With respect to the Audubon, the oldest we've seen is the green stenciled model (in your possession) and if I'm not mistaken, this is the one pictured in the 1959 catalogue (no chrome ring(s), just a fine (green?) groove). Note that all Audubons we've seen so far are marked Swift, not Swift-Anderson.

BTW, I've just discovered that Pyser UK in their 1960's catalogue mentions a Panoramic, and no Holiday. Could it be that Pyser objected to the Holiday name and had it changed to Panoramic (after which the Americans took the hint and issued both types)? I'm pretty certain that if I were looking for a high quality wide angle 7x35 in those days, with the intention to use it for birding, I would be put off by an instrument called Holiday. I mean it's of utmost importance to be taken seriously among fellow birders.

Lastly, of course I erred on the lid's number of screws. It should be four indeed.

Renze
Click to expand...

Renze,

I thought I'd include the price lists for 1958, 59, and 60. Note that before 1960 the products are referred to by Cat. No. Starting in 1960 they are referred to by Model No.

The Swift Bullseye logo, with SWIFT in the center, shows upp on every page of the '59 catalog, and I believe every model has it stenciled on the right prism cover. That includes the Holiday and Audubon. So far, no indication that Swift & Anderson (S&A) was stenciled on these binoculars.

I've also seen reference to the Panoramic in Pyser's 1966 catalog, but don't know what to make of it.

Think I'll look for a better Holiday than my doorstop.
Ed
 

Attachments

  • Catalg prices 1958, 59, 60.pdf
    891.8 KB · Views: 736
Renze de Vries said:
Ed,

Very good, now we're on our way to dating the Mark II Swift binoculars more accurately. 1960 could very well be the year for the Holiday under discussion, as well as for our type 0 Audubons having serial numbers starting with 32.
I also see that you use the 1959 catalogue for identifying Swift binoculars as Swift vs. Swift Anderson. My reasoning was more simple: if there's Swift-Anderson stenciled on them they're S&A, if there's only the Swift bulls eye than they're Swift Instruments.
With respect to the Audubon, the oldest we've seen is the green stenciled model (in your possession) and if I'm not mistaken, this is the one pictured in the 1959 catalogue (no chrome ring(s), just a fine (green?) groove). Note that all Audubons we've seen so far are marked Swift, not Swift-Anderson.

BTW, I've just discovered that Pyser UK in their 1960's catalogue mentions a Panoramic, and no Holiday. Could it be that Pyser objected to the Holiday name and had it changed to Panoramic (after which the Americans took the hint and issued both types)? I'm pretty certain that if I were looking for a high quality wide angle 7x35 in those days, with the intention to use it for birding, I would be put off by an instrument called Holiday. I mean it's of utmost importance to be taken seriously among fellow birders.

Lastly, of course I erred on the lid's number of screws. It should be four indeed.

Renze
Click to expand...

Renze,

I thought I'd include the price lists for 1958, 59, and 60. Note that before 1960 the products are referred to by Cat. No. Starting in 1960 they are referred to by Model No.

The Swift Bullseye logo, with SWIFT in the center, shows up on every page of the '59 catalog, and I believe every model has it stenciled on the left prism cover. That includes the Holiday and Audubon. So far, no indication that Swift & Anderson (S&A) was stenciled on these binoculars.

I've also seen reference to the Panoramic in Pyser's 1966 catalog, but don't know what to make of it.

Think I'll look for a better Holiday than the doorstop.
Ed
 

Attachments

  • Catalg prices 1958, 59, 60.pdf
    891.8 KB · Views: 327
Last edited:
Guys,

I have a 4x40 field glass with only the Swift bulls-eye--but it is also marked "Made in Occupied Japan." And the May-June 1958 AUDUBON magazine ad for the 804 is over the name "Swift & Anderson." You can just make out that the marking on the binocular is the full word "SWIFT," not S&A.

Serial number dating is consistent on all my Swifts with makers marks through 1967, regardless of indicated manufacturer. The only possible exception is Swift 765 10x50 Rainier #7-49439 (MOC/B32/E10), which suggest the serial number dating begins just after the makers' marks do--in 1960. The design of the instrument and case is consistent with other 1960 instruments: black wheel, thin polished facets on oculars, bayonet eyepieces; case is thin closure-strap, dark brown pebbled leather.
 
Serial number dating is consistent on all my Swifts with makers marks through 1967, regardless of indicated manufacturer. The only possible exception is Swift 765 10x50 Rainier #7-49439 (MOC/B32/E10), which suggest the serial number dating begins just after the makers' marks do--in 1960. The design of the instrument and case is consistent with other 1960 instruments: black wheel, thin polished facets on oculars, bayonet eyepieces; case is thin closure-strap, dark brown pebbled leather.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Which manufacturers other than Hiyoshi Kogaku encoded dates in their serial numbers?

Thanks,
Ed
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

M
Question about Swift 7x35 'Nighthawk' (model 770)
Replies
3
Views
479
MiguelATF
M
A
Found a Swift Vulcan 7x35 Model 718
Replies
9
Views
2K
Rokkor
R
S
Swift Osprey: Getting full field of view & Seeking to eliminate blackouts
Replies
1
Views
963
WJC
WJC
S
Swift Osprey: Getting full field of view & Seeking to eliminate blackouts
Replies
3
Views
1K
WJC
WJC
Brian Stone
Tenerife January 2024
Replies
11
Views
1K
MKinHK
MKinHK

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top