Habicht 7x42 Question (1 Viewer)

I have just bought an old pair of Habicht 7x42 binoculars. I am very impressed with them and like them better than my latest version of the Habicht 8x30 W. This is probably in direct contrast to the opinion of most others and is another example of just how personal a set of binoculars can be. So impressed am I that I will now be selling my much more expensive 8x30 W set of binoculars.

Yes, the 8x30 W provides more neutral, clearer colours but strangely the yellow tinting of the 7x42 does not worry me at all. Yes, the 8x30 W is waterproof but I don't tend to use binoculars in the rain. For my eyes and in practical use, I have found the much reported narrow field of view of the 7x42 and supposed tunnel vision of the 7x42 to be somewhat exaggerated (in other words I am very lucky because it doesn't worry me). I have also found that this narrow field of vision is compensated for by the increased depth of focus found with these binoculars and the great pointing ability of these 7x42's. These properties I value more than a wide field of view. As well, the view through them is spectacularly sharp and is present for the majority of the view (at a guess probably about 80% and much better than the 8x30 W set) and I find this makes them very relaxing to use. Because they are not waterproofed (with associated stiffness of the focusing wheel) the speed of focus is fast and smooth and matches that of my Nikon 8x30 EII's. Once again, speed of focus is something I have begun to value more than being waterproof. Supposedly, these 7x42's are also better than the 8x30 W set at dawn and dusk but I haven't compared them in these conditions yet. I haven't found the difference in magnification between the 7 and 8 times to be significant. Strangely, I find the difference between 8 and 8.5 (found in my Swift 804 binoculars) magnification to be more significant.

To sum up, the properties that I treasure most are excellent clarity (first and foremost), good depth of focus, and fast speed of focusing. Colour cast, wide field of view, and waterproofing, whilst nice to have are further down the list of priorities for me.

My question - I am amazed at the view though these old 7x42 binoculars but how old are they? As seen in the below photo, the serial number appears to be 1716169. Is anyone able to give me an estimate of the year of manufacture?

Downunder, post 1,
When Swarovski started its serial production of Habicht porro binoculars the 7x42 Habicht was one of the first models produced next to 8x30 and 10x40. According t my files they started production in 1949, but if the numbering Swarovski uses now also is applied to your serial number it would be 1947 for your Habicht binocular. So there is something to find out still (you can find the Swarovski history in my powerpoint on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor in The Netherlands under the chapter : Verrekijkers testen en vergelijken". The lecture was in English so that should not be a problem.
Gijs van Ginkel

Assuming that the SN is correct and it is not a refurbished binocular and the numbering system was the same then as it is now it would have been made in 1947 after the war. The first 2 digits are 17, add 30 to it to get the year of manufacture. The next 2 numbers are the week of the year it was made.

It was made during the 16th week of 1947. The rest is the SN.

Bob

The old serial numbers don't work for dating or at least don't use the formula Bob mentioned. My 1989 8x30 has a serial number beginning with 94. It clearly wasn't made in 2024.

The one "downunder" acquired would be older than the mid 80s since it isn't waterproof, but judging from the lettering on the prism cover it probably wouldn't be much older than the mid 70s. Are the eyecups hard bakelite or soft rubber? The screw threads might be the same for both. If so you could get new eyecups.

I don't have a very high opinion of the 8x30 W either, even though I have two pairs, one with the most recent coatings. Your 7x42 is probably too old to have the early two layer "Transmax" coating that was the most seriously yellow biased of any of the Swarovski coatings. If I could pick any of the old Swarovski 7x42s it would be the SL Porro. It had essentially the same optics as the Habicht, but with a cemented prism and superior "Swarotop" coatings.

Thank you for all the information. The eyecups are hard Bakelite.

Henry, you were correct about the eyecups. I just tried the rubber eyecups from my 8x30 W set and they fitted perfectly. Once I realised the Bakelite eyecups screwed off easily I fitted a set of microscope winged eyecups to the 7x42’s. I apparently have long eyelashes that tend to leave eyelash goo on the eyepiece. The winged eyecups give me just a little more distance from the eyepiece that stops the problem. I had the same thing happen with my 8x30 W’s.

I’ve been researching Swarovski Optik’s numbering practices and also the dating of Traditional series binoculars and can offer the following:


ALPHA-NUMERIC NUMBERING
Dating the year of production by adding 1930 to the first 2 digits of a serial number only applies to Alpha-Numeric serial numbering (and only to those patterns with an alphabetic prefix).

Swarovski started using Alpha-Numeric numbering on all of its product lines from the start of 1991. Prior to that A-N numbering had been used in a limited way and in various forms starting from 1985. I’ve attached a table of the basic variations (I would add the caution that I don’t think I fully understand the use of the AA+7 pattern in relation to telescopic sights).


YOU SAY HABICHT, I SAY TRADITIONAL
I’ve come to prefer ‘Traditional’ to describe the metal bodied Porro prism series, as it’s in effect more precise. Notwithstanding Swarovski currently uses the name Habicht exclusively for these models:
- not all units were marked Habicht, and;
- as Henry has noted elsewhere, at one stage just about all Swarovski’s products were marked Habicht

As a general aid to dating Traditional models, I’ve attached a table of the major variations I’ve observed.


SOME CAVEATS
The data in the tables is correct to the best of my knowledge but it’s part of a work in progress, so any additional or corrective information is welcome.

The Traditional data, describes the great bulk of production over 70 years. But one page is necessarily not exhaustive. There are variations in markings, particularly in relation to alternative Falke/single coated units and military contract units.

My starting observation about dating any Swarovski product is that the serial number is definitive, and other indicators - especially modifiable or replaceable ones - are only indicative. This is especially so when looking at the original SLC production (prior to the all new 2010 and 2013 models). The rubber armour went through several variations and is frequently replaced when units are serviced, so appearance provides no reliable indication of age.


DOWNUNDER’S 7x42 UNIT
#1,716,169 should date to around the mid-1970’s - the middle of the long period between 1966 and 1984, when the basic pattern and markings remained the same. Good to hear he’s enjoying it.

Fantastic information, John! How were you able to find all this?

Henry

Henry,
Mostly by copying photos of units where a serial number is visible or listed. So this is mainly from sales sites, but there are also a lot of other sites with suitable photos.

At first nothing was all that clear, but after a while, with a sufficient number of units sorted by magnification into serial number order, patterns started to emerge. So with the observed numbering ranges for the Traditional units, there came a point when I could create a ‘template’ of the different markings - the flow of the markings and serial numbers over time became obvious.

Once I reached that point it was just a matter of plugging ‘better' numbers into the table when they become available (numbers closer to the start and end points for the different markings). At that point the search process sped up considerably as I could also quickly tell via the table whether a new observation was of any interest (and through experience I could also quickly tell if a unit was in any way atypical and therefore of interest).

In a real sense it was only possible due to the net (who would have thought - an actual use for the interwebs?), no collector would be able to personally acquire or see a sufficient number of specimens.

I’ve been doing this consistently over a couple of years, and it would probably average out to about a half an hour or so per day. To put that in perspective, you can spend far more time, far less productively, online. So while it’s initially tedious and laborious, with a bit of persistence it becomes doable and rewarding.
John

John, I am impressed and thank you for the information. It is always great to see how a pair of binoculars one owns fits into the history of that particular model. I am also amazed at the quality of binoculars made over 40 years ago. I shouldn't be though. Apart from being a little on the heavy side, my best set of binoculars is a Swift Audubon 804 8.5x44 made in 1989. I now see the lightweight 7x42 as my travel binocular and the 804 as my home set (I am lucky in that I live in the bush and am able to view many many species of Australian native birds from the verandah of my home). Thanks to the information you have provided, owning a particular older set of Swarovski binoculars is a more enjoyable exercise.

Congratulations on your acquisition of a fine vintage binocular, downunder. I don't know anything about serial numbers of that era, but I've had much joy from older porro binoculars. I've never seen, let alone used, Swarovski's 7x42 porro but that yellow colour cast is visible in some of mine. It can be bothersome in more marginal conditions but in bright sunlight - which I'd imagine would be the case most of the time in your area - it takes the edge of the harshest white reflections and acts almost like a lightly tinted pair of sunglasses. No idea whether that was a factor in their design - as at least one of my units, a Swift, is more colour neutral - but in practice it works quite well. Field of view is important to me and I think a 110m field of view for a 7x would seem tight to me, but I'm finding that sharpness right to the edge seems to compensate a great deal for a smaller FOV. And if you know just where to point your binoculars you don't need such a wide field of view. May your new (to you) binoculars give you many more years of service - they are certainly made to do so.

I thought I might add some information that might be useful for someone considering their next binocular purchase. I tried the Habicht 8x30 W's and the 7x42's on today's rainy dawn morning (reasonably rare in my part of the world). No doubt about it, the 8x30 W's sparkled. The colours were vivid compared to the yellow cast on the 7x42's. The Swift 840 was also very good, as was the Nikon 8x30 EII, but the 8x30 W was the standout in these conditions. The purple buds on a Jacaranda tree sparkled like gems on the 8x30 W in low light. It really did give that "ah hah" moment.

However, once there was just the smallest, tiniest amount of sun, that advantage disappeared and the other binoculars took over for viewing pleasure, particularly when viewing moving targets. The 8x30 W's stiff focusing and difficulty getting the perfect focussed view (for me) relegated them to last place. The Wallabies started coming out and were on the move and this was when the 7x42's really showed their benefits. As the wallabies bounced around it was very difficult to maintain good focus with the 8x30 W's. The yellow casting of the 7x42's no longer caused concern and surprisingly neither did their narrow field of view. This was really evident when following moving wallabies. What was of importance in this situation was the large depth of focus of the 7x42's together with their amazing clarity and ease of focusing. Keeping the moving animals in focus was child's play compared to the 8x30 W's. In this situation, the 7x42's excelled and the 8x30 W's didn't.

I can imagine (have to imagine because I have not been there) that the 8x30 W's would prove great binoculars for the many low light conditions that exist at times in parts of Great Britain and some parts of Europe and other parts of the world, particularly for stationary or slow moving subjects. For Australia, with its over abundance of brilliant sunshine, the yellow cast of the 7x42's is not normally a problem (at least for 99% of the time I use binoculars) and as noted by Patudo, could actually be beneficial. For anyone contemplating fast moving subjects, again the 7x42's excel. Surprisingly for me, that narrow field of view so often mentioned has proved inconsequential in my use.

John, thank you for documenting the Swarovski serial numbers. With it I was able to confirm a 1990 production date for 6x30M bins.

Another thank you for the hard work done by John Roberts - I don't think I'd appreciated exactly how much effort had gone into researching the history 'till I read post #9 - Cheers muchly!!

Hi,

thanks to John for his documentation - nice work! My first guess of 70s or 80s due to crystal logo and yellow tint seems correct.

Unlike some soviet bloc optics which have a yellow tint due to radiation proof glass, Swarovski did this on purpose as it supposedly is better in foggy or hazy conditions.

Joachim

I've a related question regarding my two pairs of older Habicht binoculars - it's pretty close to the original post, so I've popped it on here, instead of starting a new thread... I have 2 pairs, an early 7x42, from the '50s and a 8x30, dating from the late '60s. Both have a lot of paint loss from the bridge pieces. Both are virtually unmarked optically - lucky me! They're fab to use - so light and fine-feeling My question (which I've also put to Swarovski customer service, but haven't heard back yet) is this: What sort of alloy are the bridge pieces made from? I'm going to guess that they are magnesium alloy, 'cos of their very light weight and also because of the paint loss. I understand that magnesium alloy is (or was... modern items such as my Ricoh camera seem much better painted and I know that's mag. alloy 'cos it says so in the brochure!) hard to get a lasting paint finish on - just look at the number of clips on YouTube on the subject of refinishing car wheels! I'm proposing to refurbish the Swarovskis, as a hobby project, and it would be handy to know what the alloy is, before I contact specialist metal finishers here in Bristol, UK
PS, I have a pair of 2018 8x30s too which are just fab. to use but it's such a shame that they have swapped the nice engravings on the prism covers with very plain silkscreened print...
PPS, I thanked Mr Roberts, upthread for his work on ageing Habicht bin.s so it would be remiss of me to miss out thanking Mr van Ginkel for his interesting history of Swarovski optik Cheers, guys!!

Hi Simon,

It seems that you can easily determine definitively whether the bridge arms are aluminium or magnesium alloy! I came across a couple of simple ways to test which alloy it is, at: https://app.aws.org/forum/topic_show.pl?tid=9509

I’m interested to know your findings.

John

quite an early example... ?

Thanks John! You truly are the vintage Swarovski guru ;-) I've attached a hasty snap of the right prism box cover, which suggests this pair is quite early. There's a lot of paint missing, as you can see, but an angled view doesn't reveal any hard-to-see extra engraved numbers so I think this example really is serial number 855...

update: tried the Set Fire to the Filings thing but no flame (but for obvious reasons, there was only a very small sample...). Will try the Battery Acid Thing next

Hi Simon,

You raise an interesting point with the 3 digit serial number. The short answer is that I‘m fairly certain (note the weaselly qualifier) that it is a replacement serial number issued when the unit was serviced, and where the original numbered part needed to be replaced. So if any future servicing is done, the technician will be alerted to the unit’s history and any warranty implications.


For a lonnnnger answer . . .
As I outlined in the pdf ‘Trad Leatherette Numbering’ in my earlier post, the regular numbering sequences are all 5, 6, or 7 digit. And while that almost certainly covers at least 98% of production, there are variations.

There is a small number of Traditional units numbered within 3 digit and 4 digit number blocks. This seems to have been done for two main reasons:
- as part of an original limited production run, or;
- as I’ve indicated, where the original serial numbered part needed replacement.

Examples of the former include;
- for a particular commercial market, perhaps at the request of an importer (e.g. there are a number of EV coated units produced specifically for the British market marked ‘HABICHT-TYROL’, and a much smaller number marked ‘SIMPLON Made in Austria’), or;
- for a particular military contract, where the purchaser may want numbering and markings consistent with their usual practices (e.g. Swedish contract 7x42 rubber armoured units).

Depending on the conditions of the contract, there may be implications for warranty and servicing. Again the numbering by itself alerts a technician to the possibility.


And getting back to your unit . . .
I’ve observed a small number of otherwise regular production units that have either 3 or 4 digit numbering, and where the order of the numbering does not follow the chronology of the changes to the markings and features. So it’s clear that the numbers have been changed after initial production - on an as needed basis.

In addition, your unit has a shared feature of these units. The right hand plate lacks either:
- the ‘entwined DS’ logo standard on pre-1962 production, or;
- the crystal logo used from 1962 to 1990.
Hence my relative certainty that your number is a factory replacement one.

I’d be interested in seeing more photos of the 7x42, especially the markings on the left hand prism cover, and the eyepiece (is the eyelens the original small 11mm diameter ‘button’ or the later flat 16mm diameter?).

Also, how did you go with the chemical test?

John