SE serial numbers (1 Viewer)

Hi,

Question: what does a SE 8x32 serial number 505xxx signify?

I've searched the threads and read too much and lost the plot entirely. Mind you, I'm not convinced anyone has the plot when it comes to SE serial numbers but all educated guesses appreciated.

Thanks

Martin Fagg said:

Hi,

Question: what does a SE 8x32 serial number 505xxx signify?

I've searched the threads and read too much and lost the plot entirely. Mind you, I'm not convinced anyone has the plot when it comes to SE serial numbers but all educated guesses appreciated.

Thanks

Click to expand...

Martin,

I thought this was common knowledge by now, but it meant that the world would end in 2010 (5+5). Didn't happen! But check the 550s, that could also be a secret code.

Okay, so here's my "educated guess," based on feedback from a half dozen 8x32 SE owners plus my own purchases of this model.

I'm trying to remember the scheme, but Kevin's and Henry's LOUD snickering is distracting me.

Okay, got it.

Based on the first iteration of this model, bought by none other than BF optics maven Henry Link, himself, in 1997 (500xx), and my first sample 501xxx in 1998, and others in sequential years, which may or may not be coincidental, and the fact that Nikon lists the model's first introduction in 1998, I came up with the following time line/serial # scheme (allowing that production runs might start in the middle of a year and extend into the next year, as they have with sequentially numbered schemes for early Zeiss models):

500xxx -1997-1998
501xxx- 1998-1999
502xxx- 1999-2000
503xxx- 2000-2001
504xxx- 2001-2002
505xxx- 2002-2003

550xxx-2007-2008

What significance this scheme has, I couldn't say, other than to report that my 505xxx SEs have upgraded coatings vs. the 501xxx model, but that they also have a bit more CA. The 501xxx shows better contrast in the gray scale.

Not to open Pandora's Lead(en) Box, but according to Nikon, they started switching over to lead free glass in 2000 and completed the transition in 2002. I've read other Nikon reports, stating 70% lead free glass in 2002, so I'm not sure what to believe or if the lead free glass they now use is any better than their first samples. Just reporting observations. YMMV.

Brock, contributor, THE NIKON NEWS SPECULATOR
Our Motto: Repetition may not mean verification, but at least it gives you something to read in the bathroom.

Thank you Brock.

Just curious because I tried some 505s yesterday. Very briefly.

Noticed some CA right at the very edge of the view but only when I went looking for it by putting overhead cables at the edge of the fov against an overcast sky.

Other than that all I can say, as many before me, is: WOW.

Focuser is fairly stiff and therefore a bit slow so maybe not the best warblers in woodland bins.

Their design, shape and build quality really does make them a thing of beauty. But unlike some product designs that are all looks and no practicality, the SEs are both. Beautiful to look at and to look through.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm!

I have tried them in the past and not got them. They didn't click some how. I have changed my glasses since then so I think the e/r is just right with them now so maybe that's why I appreciate them now.

And they are the most comfortable porro to hold ever.

I found your post saying that, in terms of contrast, the 505s are better for summer and the 501s for winter. Suits me. If I bought a pair they would be summer bins. Need waterproofing for winter here.

Thanks for the info.

Happy birding
Martin

PS- Do the numbers link in with the Mayan calendar thing that the world is going to end on 21st December this year? Best get some and make the most of them. If I put them on an interest free credit card i wont even have to pay for them before i die!

It is well understood that binocular manufacturers anticipate future cataclysms in their numbering schemes.
Zeiss Jena labeled their military EDF 7x40s alphabetically, by year of production. The state collapsed shortly before the alphabet ran out.

Brock - Useful information and probably more factual than not.I don't know whether Nikon has an archivist mentality like some corporations. I suspect that some binocular runs overlap years.

Etudiant - good humor and I had to read to the end to catch the cause and effect punch words.

John

Is there some reason the serial numbers might not simply be sequential, with an obvious jump to 550xxx perhaps signalling the switch to lead-free glass? If so, that means Nikon averaged about a thousand pairs a year, which seems about right for a cult porro, yes? The actual years may well be irrelevant. Perhaps they just made a run as supply dropped. That's what I would do.

I'm still waiting to see if the Swarovision can unseat my SE. If so, I may have to part with it (too many bloody bins laying about!). I suspect the only significant improvement is less CA, and I've never been bothered much by that in the SE--the sharpness cuts right through it somehow.

Just a thought,
Mark