• 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.

Bin Identification (1 Viewer)

The serial number does not seem to match anywhere on the Zeiss list.

Body construction and the serial # on the axle cap to me indicates early Nikon. I have repaired dozens of these sporting as many names: Manon, Town & Country, Sigma, Olympic, etc. If it is of the same ilk of which I am familiar, it is not top of the line compared to today’s most expensive binoculars. However, if collimated, it would be a fine instrument for the rest of your life. I never cease to be amazed at the guys who already own the very best binoculars in the world and are continually wetting their pants in a frenzy to “upgrade,” even though their visual acuity is way below them actually being able to ascertain the difference.

Finally, on binoculars forums today, “vintage” is a massively overused word that may be translated as “old,” junk,” or both. If we are going to use “vintage” to speak of binoculars, I think you may find that one actually qualifies. Please photograph the backplates for us. :cat:

Bill
 
Is the first number of the serial number a 5? If so, it is a Carl Zeiss Jena made in 1980. The oculars look like the longer 7 x 50 ones which would make the model either a Jenoptem or Binoctem. If the oculars are the shorter 10 x 50 ones then it's either a Jenoptem or Dekarem. Note Jenoptems were made in 7 x 50, 8 x 30 and 10 x 50 models. The Jenoptems appear identical in all respects except markings to the respective Binoctem (7 x 50) , Deltrintem (8 x 30) and Dekarem (10 x 50) models, but they were not as expensive. It may be that the only differences were that they underwent a less stringent quality control and came in soft instead of hard leather carrying cases.
 
Last edited:
I thought maybe Pentax or Yashica but the leather? finish looks a bit different.

The first two numbers are 50.

The leather strap suggested Russian, except the cutouts look like something else.
The serial number is not Soviet/Russian. So it isn't that.

A Nikon or Zeiss is possible.
 
If it is Soviet it is really early, 1950, and seems in too good condition.
But it could be.
And if so it could be very high quality at that date.
 
Hi,

my money is on a CZJ 7x50 (or maybe 10x50) but I'll have a closer look at my soviet ZOMZ 7x50 tonight.

Joachim
 
...I never cease to be amazed at the guys who already own the very best binoculars in the world and are continually wetting their pants in a frenzy to “upgrade,” even though their visual acuity is way below them actually being able to ascertain the difference...

The desire to upgrade isn't usually driven by the desire to improve resolution at the center of the view, but rather to obtain the substantial benefits of a well-corrected view off-axis (flat, low astigmatism, low CA) along with superb contrast, comfortable eye relief, good handling, quick precise focus, close focus, water proofing etc, which can be extremely useful for birding binoculars when they are pushed to their limits in rough and tumble field use.

--AP
 
The desire to upgrade isn't usually driven by the desire to improve resolution at the center of the view, but rather to obtain the substantial benefits of a well-corrected view off-axis (flat, low astigmatism, low CA) along with superb contrast, comfortable eye relief, good handling, quick precise focus, close focus, water proofing etc, which can be extremely useful for birding binoculars when they are pushed to their limits in rough and tumble field use.

--AP

Hi, Alexis:

Part of what you have addressed makes perfect sense. However, we have all seen threads go on about, say, light transmission, exclusively, with individuals wanting to blame everything they are seeing or NOT seeing on the binocular when, in fact, most of what they are seeing, or NOT seeing, should be laid at the feet of their own physiology. I realize my take is often different than most.

However, I would suggest that any person who worked in optical sales and repair every day for 21 years, would have a different perspective, too, especially if accurate information mattered to him. :cat:

Bill
 
Hi,

I have had a closer look at my russian made multicoated ZOMZ 7x50 which indeed looks quite similar to the pair shown above if one just looks at the form and screw positions.
But it has a 6 digit serial number in white in the same place as the 7 digit one on the pair shown by the original poster and the year of manufacture in a circle embossed above... like this:

http://www.astronomy.ro/forum/files/img_3696_146.jpg

Also there is no thread visible on the inside of the objective tube.

The soviet examples I used to have had a screw in the center where we see the 7 digit number on the o.p. pair and the 7 or 8 digit serial number (first 2 digits are year of production) preceded by a letter printed in a half circle at the edge like shown here:

https://www.astroforum.nl/filedata/fetch?id=1106893&d=1395918951

Also the leatherette on these examples is quite a bit coarser than what we see in the image above, there is a metal ring at the end of the objective tubes and again not thread visible.

The CZJ theory is supported by the serial 7 digit serial number and the cap it's printed on plus the thread inside the objective tubes...

See this image

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/BI0AAOSw6X1cLdxl/s-l1600.jpg

in this ebay listing

https://www.ebay.de/itm/Carl-Zeiss-...h=item3646d574c8:g:RMMAAOSwYUZcLdxP:rk:2:pf:0

Of course the o.p. could easily close the discussion by showing an image of the eyepiece side...

Joachim
 
Good job, Joachin:

Right axle cap, large focus wheel, tight objective caps. BINGO! :cat:

Bill

Hi,

I have had a closer look at my russian made multicoated ZOMZ 7x50 which indeed looks quite similar to the pair shown above if one just looks at the form and screw positions.
But it has a 6 digit serial number in white in the same place as the 7 digit one on the pair shown by the original poster and the year of manufacture in a circle embossed above... like this:

http://www.astronomy.ro/forum/files/img_3696_146.jpg

Also there is no thread visible on the inside of the objective tube.

The soviet examples I used to have had a screw in the center where we see the 7 digit number on the o.p. pair and the 7 or 8 digit serial number (first 2 digits are year of production) preceded by a letter printed in a half circle at the edge like shown here:

https://www.astroforum.nl/filedata/fetch?id=1106893&d=1395918951

Also the leatherette on these examples is quite a bit coarser than what we see in the image above, there is a metal ring at the end of the objective tubes and again not thread visible.

The CZJ theory is supported by the serial 7 digit serial number and the cap it's printed on plus the thread inside the objective tubes...

See this image

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/BI0AAOSw6X1cLdxl/s-l1600.jpg

in this ebay listing

https://www.ebay.de/itm/Carl-Zeiss-...h=item3646d574c8:g:RMMAAOSwYUZcLdxP:rk:2:pf:0

Of course the o.p. could easily close the discussion by showing an image of the eyepiece side...

Joachim
 
Not to complicate matters, but afaik there is/was a thriving business creating fake CZJ style binoculars, externally indistinguishable from the originals.

This glass has a CZJ 1980 production serial number, as recorded by Peter Abrahams here: http://www.europa.com/~telscope/binotele.htm

Of course, the serial number on a replaceable cap is not a definitive answer...
 
I am impressed with the amount of effort and sleuthing that has gone into the effort here.

Well done, now the OP needs to come back.

Jerry
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top