• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Bino Thoughts # 8, The Fakes? (1 Viewer)

WJC

Well-known member
Bino Thoughts #8

I keep seeing, on this and other forums, that people often worry about whether or not some instrument they have seen—or are planning to buy—is a “fake.”

Of course, there’s always a chance. But let’s add a drop of realism to the picture.

It costs a fortune to engineer and produce a $3,000 binocular.
It costs a fortune to engineer and produce a $200 binocular.


Which do you think is going to be a more financially sound effort?

The “vintage” (gag me with a spoon) binocular crowd, that looks for boogiemen behind every bush—and have no idea about just what it takes to produce an instrument ... great or garbage—might be easily swayed by some image they don’t recognize. But the shysters are out to make a buck and producing anything less that a really expensive binocular is counter-productive.

And too, they’re making a fortune selling their 180x60, day/night, auto-focus, military ZOOM binocular ... with ruby coatings, with a sea of ads to reel in the unwary on Eagle Bait and elsewhere. :cat:

Just a thought.

Bill
 
Last edited:

Mike C

Emeritus President at Burnage Rugby Club
It has never occurred to me that I might be purchasing a "fake" binocular or telescope.

Why ?

Because I would never consider buying anything optical which was valued at more than £50 from anywhere other than a reputable dealer. So even the plastic baby binocular I have ready for my eldest granddaughter for her Christmas box was bought from a proper shop where I was able to see the product and check the box in which it was supplied. Well worth the tram into the city centre and the conversation with the sales person.
It gives me peace of mind and supports a local business.

However, (in my case) buying Swarovski binocular and telescope from a (fairly) local shop, where I have been able to develop a relationship with the owner and staff reassures me that, should anything go wrong, I will have their support - well worth a 60 minute drive to the shop.

Of course, it's possible to buy "on-line" from a reputable business and be happy with your purchase.
Naturally the converse can be true I understand from a close friend, who saved a few hundred pounds on a genuine Ziess telescope by buying "on-line" that support was not forthcoming in his hour of need.
 

eronald

Well-known member
Bino Thoughts #8

I keep seeing, on this and other forums, that people often worry about whether or not some instrument they have seen—or are planning to buy—is a “fake.”

Of course, there’s always a chance. But let’s add a drop of realism to the picture.

It costs a fortune to engineer and produce a $3,000 binocular.
It costs a fortune to engineer and produce a $200 binocular.


Which do you think is going to be a more financially sound effort?

The “vintage” (gag me with a spoon) binocular crowd, that looks for boogiemen behind every bush—and have no idea about just what it takes to produce an instrument ... great or garbage—might be easily swayed by some image they don’t recognize. But the shysters are out to make a buck and producing anything less that a really expensive binocular is counter-productive.

And too, they’re making a fortune selling their 180x60, day/night, auto-focus, military ZOOM binocular ... with ruby coatings, with a sea of ads to reel in the unwary on Eagle Bait and elsewhere. :cat:

Just a thought.

Bill

Maybe an extended thought, that at one time two different companies, each very competent at optics, were sharing the Zeiss name, although they may in some cases even have been sharing historical designs and even components at that point.

Also, when it comes to antique whatevers there is a lot of mix and match going on in the game, sellers will put together any sort of Frankenstein object as a matter of course. There is no reason to assume that a label on any antique device means anything at all, although as you point out nobody would bother to fake the thing itself when new.

Edmund
 
Last edited:

WJC

Well-known member
Maybe an extended thought, that at one time two different companies, each very competent at optics, were sharing the Zeiss name, although they may in some cases even have been sharing historical designs and even components at that point.

Also, when it comes to antique whatevers there is a lot of mix and match going on in the game, sellers will put together any sort of Frankenstein object as a matter of course. There is no reason to assume that a label on any antique device means anything at all, although as you point out nobody would bother to fake the thing itself when new.

Edmund

Hi, Edmund,

People just don’t understand the civilian industry or military optical repair concern. My shop dealt mostly with Mk 28s, Mk 32s, and Mk 45s—with an occasional 37, 39, and 41 thrown in. [a 39 is just a 37 with a reticle in the right telescope.]

We had many drawers full of parts and when we needed one, we looked for the fit and didn’t worry about what some optical wannabe would think 50 years later. We might have one backplate engraved, one with a press on decal, or one with a raised logo. All we cared about was the screw-hole pattern and getting the instrument back into service. :cat:

Bill
 

eronald

Well-known member
Right you are Bill! And now the only one which has all-original labels will command 10x the value at auction.

Reminds me of the guy looking for a brain transplant who was offered Einstein’s brain at $1K or the french President’s at $20K. Why, he asked? Well the french president’s brain is as new ;)

Edmund
 

WJC

Well-known member
Right you are Bill! And now the only one which has all-original labels will command 10x the value at auction.

Reminds me of the guy looking for a brain transplant who was offered Einstein’s brain at $1K or the french President’s at $20K. Why, he asked? Well the french president’s brain is as new ;)

Edmund

'Can't beat the bull going on now in my country! :cat:

Bill
 

PeterPS

MEMBER
Hi, Edmund,

People just don’t understand the civilian industry or military optical repair concern. My shop dealt mostly with Mk 28s, Mk 32s, and Mk 45s—with an occasional 37, 39, and 41 thrown in. [a 39 is just a 37 with a reticle in the right telescope.]


Bill
No Mk43s? Anyways I bet that no Mk42s----have you ever seen a pair?
 

PeterPS

MEMBER
Bino Thoughts #8

I keep seeing, on this and other forums, that people often worry about whether or not some instrument they have seen—or are planning to buy—is a “fake.”

Of course, there’s always a chance.
Bill
Yes, there is always a chance.....
 

Attachments

  • FakeSwaro.jpg
    FakeSwaro.jpg
    121 KB · Views: 63

WJC

Well-known member
Yes, there is always a chance.....

Which is EXACTLY why I also said: "But the shysters are out to make a buck and producing anything less that a really expensive binocular is counter-productive." What price categpory does Swarovski fit into?:cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:

yarrellii

Well-known member
Supporter
Bill, you're going to love these ;)
Saw them this week on the local classified ads. The really worrying bit is that it didn't last long; believe it or not, it sold for 100 €
Ladies and gentlemen, enter the mighty Zeiss 30x60 7,2º FOV
Feast your eyes :D
 

Attachments

  • FakeZeiss.jpeg
    FakeZeiss.jpeg
    56.4 KB · Views: 48

PeterPS

MEMBER
Did the seller claim in the ad that these binos were made by Zeiss? If he did then that's fraud, but if he did not....
Can you please post the ad or is it gone?
 

PeterPS

MEMBER
Thanks for the link. I believe/hope nobody will
buy them; after all it should be clear that a 30x60 cannot be a pocket pair.....
 

WJC

Well-known member
Bill, you're going to love these ;)
Saw them this week on the local classified ads. The really worrying bit is that it didn't last long; believe it or not, it sold for 100 €
Ladies and gentlemen, enter the mighty Zeiss 30x60 7,2º FOV
Feast your eyes :D

Hi, Yarrilli,

The people writing these ads are just as stupid and dishonest as those who put them on the payroll and know even less about optics.

Fraud # 1 was one of the first. It is a “120x120” that came into my shop for repair. Does that look like a 4.7-inch aperture to you? Nor to anyone with a brain. And if it were, it would produce an image as dark as a black cat, in a cave, at midnight. Ah, but those big numbers really dragged in the humble, inexperienced, and trusting. Also, the opto-idiots. If you dealt with such every day for 21 years, you would be jaded, too.

Fraud # 2 is a garden variety 7x50 binocular from Asia. It’s a “Night Glass.” Does that mean it’s a Night-Vision instrument? It does not. The binocular is a good marine binocular and I know the company importing it, now. They’re great people. But once a program has proved successful, it’s hard to change. Every square inch of objective gathers the light of 9 fully dilated (young) eyes. Magic? Hardly. It’s just a 7x50 doing what the laws of physics allows it to do. Is that “night vision”? No, it is not.

Fraud # 3 is a paperweight shaped like a binocular. It’s a “180x100.” Does that look like a 4-inch aperture to you? And what would a magnification of 180 do to the image of a 50mm objective? Wow, but you can use in the day or night! Boy, I’m glad my binoculars don’t have set hours of operation. You will notice that the ad shows the bino as having the tell-tail green tint of a night vision device. FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD! And what military, for a country that has a GNP of more than $4.18, would issue a plastic, ZOOM binocular to their troops?

And yet, Eagle Bait keeps giving ad space to the licentious liars ... IN DROVES. If Theodore Roosevelt were president today, some of those fat cats would be behind bars! :cat:

Cheers,

Bill
 

Attachments

  • Fraud #1.jpg
    Fraud #1.jpg
    172.6 KB · Views: 29
  • Fraud #2.jpg
    Fraud #2.jpg
    643.9 KB · Views: 25
  • Fraud #3.png
    Fraud #3.png
    107.9 KB · Views: 26

Users who are viewing this thread

Top