• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Comparative review - Kowa 8x33 Genesis vs Swarovski 10x42 NL Pure (1 Viewer)

E_S

Active member
United States
Good day everyone -- am new here, though have been a lurker for a while. Writing this to get my thoughts off my chest -- hopefully someone will find this useful.

Intro
-----

Today I received the Swarovski NL 10x42 and thought to share my impressions, comparing it with the Kowa Genesis 8x33 I also own. Three months ago I thought I would never own a Swarovski, but something kept bugging me in the back of my head, which led to extensive research, and at some point I figured I am wasting so much time reading and watching online reviews that I probably already wasted more time (time is money!) than the ludicrous asking price of the NL Pures -- which means I might as well get the vaunted "best binocular in the world" and get over with it.

First things first -- yes, I am comparing an "alpha" (whatever that means) binocular with one that has been called "alpha-minus". Yes, the magnification is different. Yes, the objective diameter is different. However -- the exit pupil diameter is similar across these two, and both are what one might call great birding binoculars.

First impressions
----------------------------

I suppose I have been spoiled by the Kowas because I did not experience a "wow" effect holding up the Swarovskis to my eyes for the first time. They are very good, mind you, and better than the Kowas in most regards. Not sure why I expected the "wow," perhaps it's me spending too much time reading online reviews. The picture is slightly larger (as expected with 10x power), and the field is slightly wider. After several minutes holding up one binocular after the other, I started noticing that the Swaros have slightly more contrast. But one would expect that for nearly 3.5x the price (I got a very good deal on Kowas)! After more than an hour of viewing, I noticed that the Swaros may be rendering color more clearly (the Kowas appear to have a very very slight yellowish tint to them -- only visible in comparison to the Swaros, never noticed it before otherwise). But the color difference is so slight I could be fooling myself here.

Optics
----------

Sharpness: Both binoculars are very sharp. I see slightly more detail with the NLs, but one would expect that with higher magnification.

Contrast: This is one area where I am very pleased with the NLs. The Kowas are not low-contrast bins by any means, but the Swaros edge them out here. I heard the NLs are also more contrasty than the ELs. This makes me think that the Kowa Genesis series may have been a lot closer to the ELs in performance than commonly mentioned. The better contrast, together with the wider field, together with the more comfortable eyecups, results in a more immersive viewing experience with the NLs.

Color rendition: I am pleased with the rendering on both binoculars. I suspect that the NL colors are more "true to life" and that the Kowas have a barely-perceptible yellowish tint to them that somewhat affects overall color rendition, making colors slightly (very slightly!) more difficult to distinguish. But whatever yellowish tint there is in the Kowas, it is so weak that I would have never noticed it without buying the NLs and spending hours peeping through both side by side. Even after writing this, I feel the need to reiterate just how small the color difference is -- small enough that I could well be fooling myself.

Field of view: The NLs are supposed to have the best field of view in the business (aside from Nikon WX). But I was surprised that I did not exclaim "wow" looking through them. Perhaps this is the effect of taking technology for granted. The NLs have 7.6-degree FOV (incredible for a 10x) which turns into a 70-degree apparent FOV according to Swarovski. The Kowas have an 8-degree FOV, which means probably something like 63-degree apparent FOV (note that Kowas actual magnification is closer to 8.2x, if we are to trust AllBinos' measurements). So yeah, 70 degrees is better than 63, and it works well with the high contrast on the NLs to produce a more immersive image in comparison to the Kowas. However, besides the immersive effect, the large FOV is not as useful as I thought it would be because I cannot scan all the way from the leftmost edge to rightmost edge with my pupils. If I do attempt to scan with the pupils, I get "kidney bean" blackening (this happens with both binoculars, but is more pronounced with the NLs because of the larger FOV). So I am effectively limited to the center of the image. Now I would rather take the optics with the larger FOV because, when spotting animals, one can still detect movement using peripheral vision (and then re-center as needed). But the benefit of the gigantic FOV is smaller than I initially thought. This might be less of a problem with the 8x42 NLs which have a larger exit pupil and potentially allow for easier pupil-only scanning. But I haven't tried those myself, so I can't vouch for this.

Chromatic aberration: There is zero CA in the center in both binoculars. If you look off-center, you can induce CA in both binoculars by looking at any high-contrast edge (like the edge of a building lit up by the sun). And once you see CA, it actually appears more objectionable in the NLs, where it shows up as a relatively pronounced blue "blooming" effect. By comparison, the induced CA in the Kowas appears as a muted purple line, thinner than in the NLs and therefore less objectionable. Because both binoculars are nearly perfect in the center, this is not a huge deal to me. But one would expect zero CA for the amount of money Swaro is asking for the NLs! Now the NLs are known to be better in false color correction than the ELs. This again makes me think that the Kowa Genesis series was actually a closer match to the "alpha-level" ELs than it was widely known.

Low light performance: I do not see a big difference after dusk (it may be interesting to repeat this test somewhere where there are no city lights). The Swaros feel very slightly brigher, but that could just be due to their somewhat better contrast rendition. As expected with the 10x, I do see slightly more detail with the Swaros.

Rolling ball effect: The Kowas do have it (it doesn't bother me too much, however). The NL barely has it, if at all. So for all the rolling-ball-effect haters out there who were hesitant to splurge on the NLs because historically Swarovski has been bad on this matter: you can safely go ahead and buy the NLs.

Flare: Did not get a chance to evaluate.

Build quality
-------------------

Superb in both, slight edge to the Swaros. The Kowas actually feel like a $2000 bino rather than a $1000 bino. One reason the Kowas feel expensive is because of the metal focus wheel. However I actually hate metal focus wheels and find the Swaro wheel more usable (with one caveat, see below). The Kowas are also "overbuilt" and are heavier than they should be. I expected to be disappointed by the weight of the NLs, but they did not feel very heavy to me, at least compared to the overly heavy 33mm on my hands. Perhaps some of it is due to the "waist" trick or due to front/rear center-of-mass balancing.

Usability
-------------

Design: I think the NLs are a masterpiece of product design and believe they will end up in the MoMA eventually. I have not been a big fan of the EL design by comparison -- while they were a breakthrough design at the time, to me they look like two cucumbers stuck together. But even with the NLs, there is a caveat. The "wasp" waist has the effect of forcing my hands to the middle of the objectives. Now, if both of my hands are in the middle and those objectives are as slim as they are in the NLs, then my thumbs end up rubbing against each other, which is uncomfortable. And I don't even have very large hands! Aside from this, I am impressed by the NLs. The "waist" makes them feel much slimmer than they really are.

Focus wheel: The focus wheel on the Kowas is metal, while on the Swaros it is plastic. I actually like plastic! It feels more grippy to me than metal does, and it doesn't confuse my brain into thinking I am touching sandpaper. The focus wheel on the Kowas is too stiff (difficult to twist while holding with one hand). On the Swaros it feels just right, making the binos much easier to operate with one hand. However there is slippage in the NL wheel -- it is somewhat loose. You need to turn it a degree or so before the focus actually starts changing. By contrast, the Kowas have zero slippage. Their focus starts changing even if you move the wheel a hundredth of a millimeter. This is a minor gripe, but again, for the ridiculous price of the NLs one expects perfection!

Eyecups: I like the eyecups on both binos, with slight edge to Swaros. I am not sure the 6 or 7 positions on the NLs are really necessary. The tactile stops (they make little "click" noises!) on the NLs are lovely, while Kowas feel stiff. Not a real problem, however. The viewing comfort with the NLs is slightly better than with the Kowas, and this is at least partially due to eyecup design. Not that the Kowa eyecups are bad, they are good actually. But the NL eyecups feel very slightly more comfortable. Perhaps it's because they are wider.

Diopter: Some complain about the NL diopter not having a lock and that it is possible to shift it using the index finger. Well, those people must have three-inch-wide index fingers. No problems for me there. Other people claim that central diopter adjustment is superior, since most Euro optics use it. Again, I see little advantage to having it there. I find the right-objective diopter on the Kowa to be acceptable as well. No issues here with either optic.

Straps. Not sure what to think of the Field Pro system on the Swaro. Perhaps I will have a better opinion after using it in the field. For now, it seems like over-engineering to me.

Conclusion
------------------

Modern glass is very good. Differences between tiers are getting smaller. Even a breakthrough like NL doesn't pull away that much, though it is arguably the best portable binocular released so far by anybody. I will probably have more thoughts after testing the Swaro in the field (I have only been with the Kowas in the field, and had no complaints aside from somewhat stiff focus wheel). The NL Pures do provide a more comfortable viewing experience, but almost feel like an incremental upgrade over the Japanese bins. Luckily, money was no object for me here, but I can see not wanting to splurge 250% more for something like less than 50% subjective improvement.
 
Last edited:
Update -- took advantage of the overcast day here in SF and confirmed some of the findings above.

  • Yes, the contrast difference is there, it is significant, and it is particularly visible in poor weather conditions (see how much more visible the container ship is in the background). On a sunny day, it is much harder to tell the difference. The NL is the more contrastier binocular. The Genesis image appears noticeably washed out (but only if comparing side by side, it is still usable of course even in this weather).
  • Yes, the Kowas appear slightly yellowish (depending on your monitor, the photo may look greenish, but it is actually yellowish rather than greenish in real life), probably due to lower light transmission in the blue end of the spectrum (where Swaro is particularly good, even compared to Zeiss and Leica).
  • The Kowas do suppress CA slightly better than the Swaros (that was a big surprise for me).
  • The sharpness sweet spot in the NLs is larger (no surprise here), but I don't find it that usable because I always re-center binoculars if I spot something interesting.
 

Attachments

  • Genesis-8x33.jpg
    Genesis-8x33.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 311
  • NL-10x42.jpg
    NL-10x42.jpg
    2.7 MB · Views: 302
Update -- took advantage of the overcast day here in SF and confirmed some of the findings above.

  • Yes, the contrast difference is there, it is significant, and it is particularly visible in poor weather conditions (see how much more visible the container ship is in the background). On a sunny day, it is much harder to tell the difference. The NL is the more contrastier binocular. The Genesis image appears noticeably washed out (but only if comparing side by side, it is still usable of course even in this weather).
  • Yes, the Kowas appear slightly yellowish (depending on your monitor, the photo may look greenish, but it is actually yellowish rather than greenish in real life), probably due to lower light transmission in the blue end of the spectrum (where Swaro is particularly good, even compared to Zeiss and Leica).
  • The Kowas do suppress CA slightly better than the Swaros (that was a big surprise for me).
  • The sharpness sweet spot in the NLs is larger (no surprise here), but I don't find it that usable because I always re-center binoculars if I spot something interesting.
Definitely a nice in-depth initial observation of your new NL’s. I’m not sure what you were snapping those pictures with, but it is clear the NL is sharper, brighter more contrast , better DOF. I don’t see CA , maybe on the building to the right of the clock, but then I might be seeing it on the Kowa as well. I’m sure the eye discern these differences even more so.

I know what you mean about the Genesis focuser, although very smooth and precise , it’s heavy. I find that because of the central hinge design it would be difficult for one hand focus anyway. I had the Meostar also has a similar central bridge and it had a softer focus wheel, yet it was still hard to hand hold while focusing.

I do see quite a significant improvement in optics in the NL compared to the Genesis. Only my opinion, but those observations I see in your picture clearly jump out at me when comparing these two binos. I also notice that the more I use the Swarovski the more impressed I become. I feel that this incremental improvement on the EL series puts the NL at the top of the food chain on optical and mechanical performance of binoculars today. I really like the Genesis but when comparing it to the NL just in design, alone it seems dated.

The focuser on mine is gorgeous, if you have anything less than almost perfection in that focus or I would return it for replacement or send it in to Swaro. I wouldn’t accept anything less at almost $3000.

Being that we can afford what we want , may I suggest you try the Leica UVHD+, Noctivid ( I wasn’t happy with focus wheel position there) , and the Zeiss SF, you will really like the one hand focus ability on the Zeiss

Keep up these reviews, love them.

Paul
 
Thanks for the reply, Paul. I took these with the iPhone. Not ideal for judging color because iPhone performs auto-white balancing every time you take a shot. But as far as contrast goes, the photos do show what I see with my own eyes, confirming the NL contrast advantage. You are right, neither of the photos shows chromatic aberration (the red ring on the Oracle Park clock isn't CA, that's actually what the clock looks like) -- my goal was only to show the difference in contrast, which I thought was captured quite clearly. Because CA is subtle on these bins (a good thing!) and only visible off-axis, it's tricky to photograph.

Regarding handling, the NLs are surprisingly easy to use with one hand, despite the weight. Even without the forehead rest (yet to get one), I can focus them while holding with one hand and still see the subject clearly (no need to go to Zeiss for this!). I suppose that's the hidden upside of weight -- the heavier the bin, the more force is required to cause image shake.

There is no question the NLs produce the better image among the two optics I reviewed, but it is also not surprising that a latest state-of-the-art instrument with a larger objective outperforms a more compact one from 15 years ago (from a more mid-market brand at that). Doing this review helped me learn things about my own optical preferences as much as about the instruments in question. It turns out image contrast is a big deal, and that I appreciate full-spectrum color rendition. It was also interesting to learn that ultra-wide fields, while they provide an immersive image, are slightly less usable in real-life than I thought, because it is still difficult to do an edge-to-edge scan with my eyes only. Given these learnings, I am tempted to check out what Leica has on offer. There is a store nearby here, might go there with my NLs and do a direct comparison. This is just to satisfy a personal curiosity -- there is no way I will be ridding of the NLs, they are wonderful (plus I have a bit of a connection to the Swaro brand, too long to detail here).

Thanks for the tip about the focuser. I may call up Swaro about this. It doesn't hinder me in any way, so not sure if I want to send them in for service just because of this, but curious what they have to say.

Best,
E_S
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply, Paul. I took these with the iPhone. Not ideal for judging color because iPhone performs auto-white balancing every time you take a shot. But as far as contrast goes, the photos do show what I see with my own eyes, confirming the NL contrast advantage. You are right, neither of the photos shows chromatic aberration (the red ring on the Oracle Park clock isn't CA, that's actually what the clock looks like) -- my goal was only to show the difference in contrast, which I thought was captured quite clearly. Because CA is subtle on these bins (a good thing!) and only visible off-axis, it's tricky to photograph.

Regarding handling, the NLs are surprisingly easy to use with one hand, despite the weight. Even without the forehead rest (yet to get one), I can focus them while holding with one hand and still see the subject clearly (no need to go to Zeiss for this!). I suppose that's the hidden upside of weight -- the heavier the bin, the more force is required to cause image shake.

There is no question the NLs produce the better image among the two optics I reviewed, but it is also not surprising that a latest state-of-the-art instrument with a larger objective outperforms a more compact one from 15 years ago (from a more mid-market brand at that). Doing this review helped me learn things about my own optical preferences as much as about the instruments in question. It turns out image contrast is a big deal, and that I appreciate full-spectrum color rendition. It was also interesting to learn that ultra-wide fields, while they provide an immersive image, are slightly less usable in real-life than I thought, because it is still difficult to do an edge-to-edge scan with my eyes only. Given these learnings, I am tempted to check out what Leica has on offer. There is a store nearby here, might go there with my NLs and do a direct comparison. This is just to satisfy a personal curiosity -- there is no way I will be ridding of the NLs, they are wonderful (plus I have a bit of a connection to the Swaro brand, too long to detail here).

Thanks for the tip about the focuser. I may call up Swaro about this. It doesn't hinder me in any way, so not sure if I want to send them in for service just because of this, but curious what they have to say.

Best,
E_S
I’m with you, the NL’s are keepers. If I had to choose only one binocular , it would be these 10x42 NL’s. Good talk. Not to take anything away from what I believe are the best 42mm binocular made in the world today, but, you know what you and I both learned ??, how good that little Kowa is! First time I looked through them, i knew they were gems, a very underrated, extremely well built high quality optic. They are very Swarovskiesqu, if you know what I mean. I chose the Genesis over the Conquest, they’re that good.

Have a great holiday. And keep up the observations .
Paul
 
Last edited:
The Kowas do suppress CA slightly better than the Swaros (that was a big surprise for me)
Hi,

very nice comparison, thank you!;)

But especially when it comes to CA it is always difficult to compare 8x binoculars with 10x binoculars!
One example would be the Noctivids, the 10x has noticeably more CA than the 8x, I could also name other examples.
Another point is that the Kowa Genesis are at the absolute alpha level as far as CA is concerned, there is not much to improve here.

A comparison 8x to 10x is always a bit of pears and apples, the visual impression, the depth of field etc. is quite different, to get a good comparison the NL 8x32 would be suitable.

Thanks anyway,

Andreas
 
Last edited:
Hi Andreas,

Good point about 8x vs 10x. I spent some more time with both binoculars since I wrote the review, and now have the following conclusions regarding CA:
  • Under normal conditions (uniformly-lit subjects, overcast or low contrast), both exhibit about the same amount of CA. Because Kowa sweet spot is much smaller than Swaro's, its blurriness obscures any CA that appears away from the center. So the Swaros are a "victim of their own success" here -- their sharpness extends almost all the way to the edge, revealing some CA on the periphery.
  • Under very bright sunlight, when observing sharp edges with deep shadows, Swaro may produce a blue blooming that Kowa does not produce. But one has really look for this, and then specifically look at the edge -- no blooming or other CA in the center.

One other thing I did not mention -- I discovered the exact reason why the Swaros produce an overall more comfortable viewing experience. It comes down to 1) larger sweet spot size, and 2) extra eyecup stops on the Swaros -- the Kowa eyecups appear to have a missing stop -- they are either too close or too far for my eyes, which leads to either blackouts (if too close) or slight tunnel/shadow effect (if too far). So the 6-7 stops on the Swaros (compared to 3-4 on the Kowas) may not be too many after all. The larger sweet spot helps because, with the Kowas, I felt quite a few times that my diopter was misadjusted (it wasn't), while I almost never experience that with the Swaros.

I am very pleased with the better contrast, large sweet spot size, more accurate and vibrant color, and overall more comfortable viewing experience the Swaros provide. It did take me some time to "learn to appreciate" that binocular though -- which says something about the quality of the 15-year old Kowa.

E_S
 
Last edited:
I compared a Kowa Genesis Prominar 8x33 to my Swarovski NL 8x42 one day. It was no contest, the NL crushed it. You get to thinking a binocular is pretty good until you compare it to a top alpha, and you are jolted back to reality. Too bad the NL has bad glare in the bottom of the FOV! No more NL's for this bad boy!
 
I compared a Kowa Genesis Prominar 8x33 to my Swarovski NL 8x42 one day. It was no contest, the NL crushed it. You get to thinking a binocular is pretty good until you compare it to a top alpha, and you are jolted back to reality. Too bad the NL has bad glare in the bottom of the FOV! No more NL's for this bad boy!
Swarovski NL crushes Genesis, conquest, Trinovid, HG, etc. etc. and etc. Glare is overstated & over conceived.
 
Swarovski NL crushes Genesis, conquest, Trinovid, HG, etc. etc. and etc. Glare is overstated & over conceived.
The glare depends on the person and how the binoculars fits your face and your eye sockets. For me, the glare in the NL was a dealbreaker. For others, it may not be. It all comes down to personal preference. Really in all the binoculars I have had which has been over at least a 100 I have never experienced glare at the bottom of the FOV like I did in the NL. It was weird. It wasn't there all the time, just in certain situations and at certain angles.
 
I have not observed glare with the NLs so far. I avoided staring into the sun, for obvious reasons -- but I did look at very bright, reflective surfaces (ocean water, lit-up sides of buildings, cars, etc). No glare -- neither when I was wearing glasses nor without them.

There is no question that the NLs are optically superior to Kowas -- I especially enjoy the lovely high-contrast image and better color rendition -- but for me "crushing" means being better on all parameters, and clearly the NLs are not better on CA (meaning they are equal or slightly worse on that one specific metric). Some people are less sensitive to CA, but it bothers me a lot, which is why my first purchase was a Kowa.

As I spend more time with the NLs, the differences in optics become more apparent. But I wouldn't dismiss the first impression as wrong. Audiophiles will tell you that this or that piece of equipment is far superior to some other piece of equipment, and it probably really is better, but if the differences are only apparent to a highly-trained eye (or ear!), are they really that large?
 
but if the differences are only apparent to a highly-trained eye (or ear!), are they really that large?
It is up to the individual to decide whether the differences are big enough to justify a change.

It should be clear that a trained eye sees more, a trained hearing hears more and a trained nose smells more.
As a studied musician who has devoted himself to the classical guitar for over 40 years, I recognize the smallest nuances of sound between different instruments that sound the same to many people.
These small differences can mean several thousand euros.

The deeper you get into something, the further you advance.
I therefore consider the discussion to be pointless whether an Alpha binocular can be twice as expensive as a medium one if it is "only" 5-10% better.

Andreas
 
As a studied musician who has devoted himself to the classical guitar for over 40 years, I recognize the smallest nuances of sound between different instruments that sound the same to many people.

I have no doubt that your ear recognizes things mine would not be able to hear! I do have a slightly opposite experience to share though, closer to the world of optics. I have been an amateur photographer for a while. The world of photography is quite different from the world of sports optics. First, a photograph is an object more amenable to "objective" evaluation because you can gather opinions of many different people (do a blind test, for example). Second, one can take a photograph, blow it up in Photoshop, and "pixel-peep," so to speak, comparing the most minute details with an almost scientific precision. In photography, top Japanese-made glass have surpassed top German glass several decades ago already. Furthermore, there is now glass coming out of China that produces indistinguishable results from Japanese glass. Coming in to the world of binoculars with that perspective, I doubted there is anything to "alphas" at all. Now I see that is not the case yet, but who knows how long Euro dominance in sports optics will last.

But back to photography, I have actually gotten quite good at it over the years and can speak with some experience. One "myth" that I have encountered (and which persists among some photographers) is the myth of Leica glass having some magical properties ("Leica glow" I believe it's called). I was a believer in it as well early on, but at some point I realized there is nothing to it. This was quite disappointing to learn, almost like that there is no Santa! Another thing I learned was that some glass used in photography commands high prices not because it is technically better, but precisely because it has some imperfections added in according to some secret "recipe" a la Coca-Cola (see, for example, Cooke lenses in cinematography).

To cut to the chase here, there appears to exist some "point of no return" where technical perfection is achieved, and manufacturers start milking imperfections instead, capitalizing on nostalgia. It's interesting to me that sport optics is not there yet, but it may get there one day!

E_S
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your careful and considered observations, E_S. You have a great combo there - a high-quality 8x32 for close-in work and a superb 10x42 for observations over longer distances.

I'd like to see some of your photos sir! The impression I get is that there's more money to be made in photography than binoculars these days, and has been for some decades, and that key advancements have therefore first gone into camera lenses. Multi-coatings, for instance, seem to have been used in camera lenses from about the early seventies, whereas it was only towards the end of that decade that multi-coated lenses and prisms in binoculars were introduced. Nikon and Canon undoubtedly have the expertise and knowhow to be competitive in optical products of any kind with the European manufacturers - it's just a question of desire (which in turn is ultimately driven by the likelihood of sales). I think there is simply more interest in binoculars at Swarovski (who don't even do camera lenses) and Zeiss than elsewhere. In any case, just as in photography the really critical things are often the subject and the individual seeking to interpret and capture it, there are many binoculars capable of delivering a great view - but each brand has its own fans, just as Canon, Fuji, Nikon, et al all have their (often not completely rational) devotees in the world of photography.

Nostalgia binoculars are already here (see Leica's "Retrovid"). But they're so sleek, stylish and handle so beautifully well, along with being highly competent optically, that I'd hesitate to say Leica is "milking imperfections"...
 
It is up to the individual to decide whether the differences are big enough to justify a change.

It should be clear that a trained eye sees more, a trained hearing hears more and a trained nose smells more.
As a studied musician who has devoted himself to the classical guitar for over 40 years, I recognize the smallest nuances of sound between different instruments that sound the same to many people.
These small differences can mean several thousand euros.

The deeper you get into something, the further you advance.
I therefore consider the discussion to be pointless whether an Alpha binocular can be twice as expensive as a medium one if it is "only" 5-10% better.

Andreas
Andreas,

Completely off topic here, but I can't help but ask if your avatar is a photo of your Conn Naked Lady saxophone?! 6M? 10M?
 
Andreas,

Completely off topic here, but I can't help but ask if your avatar is a photo of your Conn Naked Lady saxophone?! 6M? 10M?
Exactly, you are the first one who noticed, many people associated something disreputable with the word game "Conndomat", but this is not the case, it pays homage to the once great saxophone building in the USA.
It's a tenor sax, 10M (artist) built in 1940 ...;)
But I see your home is Indiana, a place where wonderful saxophones were made so it is a little less astonishing that you notice, surely you are well acquainted with the tradition of your state ?!

Andreas
 
Warning! This thread is more than 1 year 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