Prices Then and Now (1 Viewer)

I saw an ad from 1947 with Wollensack 8x30s for $72.50.
These days, this would be $735. Having just cleaned some up,
I would say you could buy something better now for $65 (today money).
..like Nikon Acculon 211 7x35s.
For the same performance? Maybe 30$ (Bushnell Falcons now, a better view but less rugged).
So that's a huge improvement in bang-per-buck.


At a much higher quality level, a pair of Sans&Streiffe 8x30 wides
in 1950 at $150 would be $1429 now.
It would take about $150 in a porro to match that now.

So it seems that productivity in binoculars has erased inflation, practically.
At the highest prices, probably not as much. Lower quantities make
economies of scale harder to attain.

It boggles the mind, buying so-so binoculars for $735.
The grunt's binoculars in WW2 probably costed more than the guns.

OPTIC_NUT said:

I saw an ad from 1947 with Wollensack 8x30s for $72.50.
These days, this would be $735. Having just cleaned some up,
I would say you could buy something better now for $65 (today money).
..like Nikon Acculon 211 7x35s.
For the same performance? Maybe 30$ (Bushnell Falcons now, a better view but less rugged).
So that's a huge improvement in bang-per-buck.
So it seems that productivity in binoculars has erased inflation, practically.
At the highest prices, probably not as much. Lower quantities make
economies of scale harder to attain.

Click to expand...

I guess $72.50 was quite a bit back in 47, trawling the net awhile back I found this old 1972 UK price list a Swift Audubon would have been cheaper than $70 in 1972. Amazing to see that the Swifts and Zeiss Jenoptems and dialyt are going for more used now if in good condition, even allowing for inflation these top bins have all held their value.

Let's see....
$70 in 1972 would be
$384 in 2012.

I see two models at Amazon now, $329 and $429.
On EBay the oldies go for between $150 and $250 (Buy It Now)
Not bad for used value retention.
The new retail price makes me wonder if maybe a lot of the productivity
improvement happened in the 50s and 60s and early 70s... not sure.

At auction I look for the "twins":
exact or near-exact duplicates of Bushnell Customs, Swift Nighthawks, etc...
usually the same production line. And..remakes.
A performance test usually seperates out the hidden gems.

There were low-medium-high models for many makes, but only
some swifts, some bushnell, nikon nostalgia (Nippon Kogaku) fetch multiples of
the low end used. The Alphas seem to command striking prices unless it looks
like they were dragged behind a truck for 5 miles and fired from a cannon.

Hand-grinding or semi-manual would explain a lot of the high relative price
way back when. It also explains the eerily sharp images from the 40s and 50s:
they weren't spherical, they ground for the image. Modern asperical lenses help
fill the gap back in for wide-fov.

Another data point.
I have friend with some Bushnell Sportview 10x50s from 1983.
The Sportviews vary in quality of optics across the years, but these are exceptional
in coatings, irising, and mechanicals (disregarding the fast focuser, which he uses
a lot watching games and windsurfing).

Anyway, he bought them in 1983 for $225.
That would be $520 now, inflation-adjusted.
The equivalent quality of view (since that was a very good Sportview year)
could be bought now in a Nikon Acculon 10x50 at $96. That is impressive
for its price but not quite like the "Action Extremes" which are also weatherproofed.

So in the case of 10x50 good-name-starters, the 'bang-per-buck' has gotten
5 times better since the early 80s... interesting.

OPTIC_NUT said:

I saw an ad from 1947 with Wollensack 8x30s for $72.50.
These days, this would be $735.

It boggles the mind, buying so-so binoculars for $735.

Click to expand...

Eh... not really. in 1947, $72.50 bought you a pretty decent pair of 1947 binoculars, just as $735 buys you a nice pair of 2013 binoculars in the year 2013.

Or to put in another way - if you are going to scale up the money in order to make a comparison, then you would need to scale up the binoculars too....

PhilR. said:

Eh... not really. in 1947, $72.50 bought you a pretty decent pair of 1947 binoculars, just as $735 buys you a nice pair of 2013 binoculars in the year 2013.

Or to put in another way - if you are going to scale up the money in order to make a comparison, then you would need to scale up the binoculars too....

Click to expand...

To clarify,

---I completed cleaning that exact pair of 1947 binoculars
---I know the resolution, focusing, and contrast performance of that pair
---It would cost, in today's dollars, $735

---I chose a pair you could purchase today, of the same or better
performance.
---That would cost, in today's dollars, about $60.

SAME performance (or better), roughly 90% less real cost.
Scaling prices and performances at the same time does not achieve
the comparison, which is:
"In inflation-adjusted dollars, how does the value at the same performance
compare".

Apples to apples. Same dollars, same performance.

The difference is probably the most extreme example, however.
By 1950 you could buy a Sans&Streiffe made in Japan for the same money
that was vastly better then the Wollensak. It would take maybe $200 in a porro
to match that today...something above intro level.

O.N. - Your friend's claim of paying $235 in 1983 for a Sportville 10x50 may be exaggerated. Also, the claim "that was a very good Sportville year" is difficult to ascertain. Certainly, when compared to the cost of ordinary prescription eye glasses, anything Sportville seems to be relatively a bargain. With the Bushnell name, Sportville was a "budget conscious" item.

As you probably already know, Bushnell had two grades above the Sportville, Banner and Custom. Bushnell became a division of Bausch & Lomb according to my Bushnell archives, and in 1986 the Sportville still was a bargain binocular.

The Custom models in excellent condition today rarely reach $150 on eBay, which is a pretty good arbiter on inflation and value. I mention Custom models because they were Bushnell's best and comparable to anything made by the alphas back then.

Using inflation indices is tempting. But they may be misleading when comparing costs then and now. As a rule of thumb (and no more) the alphas, with Zeiss providing the most examples, usually maintain 50% of their purchase value. Not so with the Japanese quality models, particularly when Dave Bushnell was pushing them under his name, and particularly anything made by Fuji back then.

Instead, they become all time best buys for the informed purchaser. Other than the new coatings (which appear to my eyes to enhance colors - certainly not black & white resolution), most of the hype on what I call the status models is just that - hype.

In my experience the alphas have maintained the quality of construction over the years which the binocular models such as the Sportville can't match for obvious reasons. Still for the casual and careful user, the Sportville provides a good value.

John

John Dracon said:

. As a rule of thumb (and no more) the alphas, with Zeiss providing the most examples, usually maintain 50% of their purchase value. Not so with the Japanese quality models.
John

Click to expand...

I have noticed some Alpha models maintain much more than 50% of purchase value, for example, in excellent used condition, Leica Trinovid 8x32BNs are often fetching around 85% and sometimes up to 90% of original price when they come up. But as you say, not so Japanese, Nikon for example seem to lose value rapidly, perhaps because they seem to frequently bring out so many different new models.

Also, the claim "that was a very good Sportville year" is difficult to ascertain.

Click to expand...

Um...not in my den and shop shelf. I own 4 10x50s and it's the only one with the
UV-type coatings and it has the longest ribbed irising of the lot (ie, it's better than
what I have). I'm impressed with it. The focuser was solid for a fast-focus
(I don't collect fast focus so I probably passed on this basis)

In my experience the alphas have maintained the quality of construction over the years which the binocular models such as the Sportville

Click to expand...

I'm not setting out to knock that assertion down at all.
I know a lot at that level because you can buy lots of things at the lower level.
I can't see myself affording 40+ Alphas....can you? (OK, you don't have to answer)


There are others here who know differences among Bushnell Customs, for example.
Some issues were a lot more special than others. They don't find the subtlties
"difficult to ascertain.", either. In their case, they combine personal experience with
others' information on the web. This differential analysis is far more feasible
when dealing with non-Alphas.

Using inflation indices is tempting. But they may be misleading when comparing costs then and now.

Click to expand...

Depends on the purpose. I'm pondering the meaning of the purchase price to the
US middle class, which is retreating from many more expensive "rich experience' activities
now. High fidelity is of little or no interest now, for example. People go to gyms
instead of on nice hikes. They can get far more for less at the near-low end, but they don't.
Many collectibles have plummeted on the used market. Replacing the same
functionality for far less real money is interesting to me as an economic factor.
Middle class economics and technology is important to understanding the future
in a way, and investments People who watch stolen movies on 3 inch screens
and buy junky 12x50s at WalMart are replacing other people. Brave new world.


In the big picture, binoculars are a fairly "affordable luxury". Having 1 or 2 premium
binoculars might seem like an extravagence, but with limits. $2000 for a pair of
binoculars with hardly any maintainance cost is pretty low compared to , say,
restoring cars or motorcycles, or even travel, if you spend hours a day with them.
This might be your context.

One thing I don't have much information on is the inflation-adjusted prices
of Alphas. That would be a nice addition, economically.

Bencw said:

I have noticed some Alpha models maintain much more than 50% of purchase value, for example, in excellent used condition, Leica Trinovid 8x32BNs are often fetching around 85% and sometimes up to 90% of original price when they come up. But as you say, not so Japanese, Nikon for example seem to lose value rapidly, perhaps because they seem to frequently bring out so many different new models.

Click to expand...

I think you've hit on something.
At many price points, Nikon fields new models that appear to
obsolete older models constantly. They aren't in the business
of selling used, of course, but it gets in the way of a mystique.
And the many Prostaffs and Monarchs...by hitting every little niche
you generate value confusion.