Nikon EII serial number (1 Viewer)

[Sandy Leng]

I have just bought an as new Nikon EII which is every bit as good as the reviews on here say they are.

I know that Nikon stopped making them a while ago, and that they are getting increasingly harder to get hold of.

Does anybody know if the serial number can give an indication of when they were made? The number on mine is 809110

Underneath the number in gold letters is AM, any ideas what this means?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Roadbike]

I have just bought an as new Nikon EII which is every bit as good as the reviews on here say they are.

I know that Nikon stopped making them a while ago, and that they are getting increasingly harder to get hold of.

Does anybody know if the serial number can give an indication of when they were made? The number on mine is 809110

Underneath the number in gold letters is AM, any ideas what this means?

Thanks in advance.

Not sure how the serial numbers run, but I believe there are a couple of cosmetic differences between old and newer production models that Brock knows about. As far as I know Nikon still makes the EII for sale in asian markets.

 

[ceasar]

80xxxx looks like a new numbering series for the 8 x 30 EII.

My two are 500xxx and 501xxx and I think there was a 550xxx too but am not certain about it. My 10 x 35 EII is 30xxxx.

We need Brock here to analyze this!:smoke::brains:

Bob

 

[brocknroller]

Sandy,

Does your 809xxx EII have a black body (also, is it an 8x30 EII or 10x35 EII)? That could be why it deviates from the 500 series numbering for the 8x30 EII, which mirrors the numbering of the 8x32 SE>

I never gathered enough serial numbers and purchase dates to develop a scheme for the EII series the way I did for the SE series. I've had two 8x30 EIIs and three 10x35 EIIs and gathered some other numbers, but did so rather late in the game compared to the SE series, which I started collecting serial #s on from the getgo before "new" old stock starting building.

I had two 8x30 EIIs, one a 501xxx, the other a 502 or 503. Mooreorless has the second sample now, he can confirm the number.

The first production run of EIIs was during 1999-2000. I think it's safe to assume that, like the 8x32 SE, the 8x EII started with 500xxx.

The tricky part here is determining if EII production kept pace with SE production. The EII's marketing was poor at best.

At this point, I am pretty sure the first three sequential third digit serial numbers in the 8x SE series represent years of manufacture (though there are still skeptics).

I gathered enough data on those years to be fairly certain. Beyond that, I have data, but there are some anomalies in regard to serial numbers and dates of purchase not matching, but in each case, the SEs were purchased later than expected, so they may well have been new old stock that never sold.

So if the EII series followed the SE series and my assumption is correct about change in third digit representing YOM, which is similar to the scheme that Zeiss used in the past, then we could speculate on the year of manufacture of the 8x30 EII being from 500 (1999-2000) to 505 (2004-2005).

At this point in the SE series (505, 2003-2004, SE's started a year earlier, with Henry's 500xxx SE being the first recorded and the first purchased in 1997), production appears to have stopped for two or three years, and then continued in 2006-2007, with the introduction of the Eco-Glass 8x32 SE model (550xxx).

Nikon's official release date for the 8x32 SE is 1998, and being that Henry's was sold in 1997, led me to speculate, that like Zeiss, the production year is different than the calendar year, that is, it starts sometime in one year and finishes in the next.

Zeiss started their production in the fall and then continued into the spring/early summer of the following year.

When Nikon switched the 8x32 SE to Eco-Glass, it changed the second digit rather than the third digit to 550xxxx in the 8x32 SE and to 050xxx in the 10x42 SE.

It's possible that Nikon switched to lead free glass earlier w/out announcement, but the 550xxx 8x32 SE and 050xxx 10x42 SE are the first to pitch the use of "Eco-Glass" in their ads.

The EII started out with Eco-Glass, and AFAIK, was the first Nikon binocular to employ lead free glass. I think this was announced in one of their catalogs.

But there was a major change in the EII series and that was a change in the armoring and body color. The first model EII had a gray body and rather flimsy rubber armoring that tended to bubble or peel off in hot and humid weather. The second generation model has hard armoring that feels more like the original "E" series, which had a Bakelite (or similar plastic) pebbly armor. The black body EII's armoring isn't Bakelite, but its seems to be a very hard rubber-type material with a pebbly texture.

So the 800xxx series might represent the changeover to the black body and harder armoring.

Brock

 

[Sandy Leng]

Hi Brock

Thanks very much for your very detailed reply

my Nikon is an 8x30 EII with a black body.

 

[brocknroller]

Hi Brock

Thanks very much for your very detailed reply

my Nikon is an 8x30 EII with a black body.

You're welcome, and thanks for confirming the black body model. Now buyers looking for the latest EII know what sequence of serial #s to look for.

My 10x35 black body EII's serial # starts with 003xxx rather than 300xxx like the original series.

Brock

 

[LPT]

Brock,
I've found your EII and SE serial number information very interesting. However, I have a black body 10X35 EII SN 000209 AM and can't see how this SN fits your sequencing. Any thoughts?
Frank

 

[brocknroller]

Brock,
I've found your EII and SE serial number information very interesting. However, I have a black body 10X35 EII SN 000209 AM and can't see how this SN fits your sequencing. Any thoughts?
Frank

Frank,

It does fit my 10x35 EII BB number sequence. Mine starts with 003xxx, so yours must have been part of the first 10x EII BB production run to roll out of the factory.

The 10x42 SE started with 000xxx.

Since the 8x30 EII followed the scheme of the 8x32 SE, that is, 500, 501, etc., I expected the original 10x35 EII would follow the 10x42 SE, with 000, 001, etc. But, according to Bob, his gray body version starts with 300xxx, so the original 10x EIIs must have began with 300xxx rather than 000.

For some reason they did a switcheroo with the 12x50 SE series, which started with 300xxx. The latest with Eco-Glass is 350xxx.

The only conclusion I can draw is that for the 10x35 BB, they decided to start the numbering sequence from 000 like the original 10x42 SE.

Brock

 

[Sancho]

Late to this thread, but my latest Nikon EII 8x30 also start with "809..." and have the letters "AM" in gold underneath. I've no idea of the date of manufacture, and can't compare them with previous units I've owned, but they seem incredibly contrasty and flare-free.

 

[brocknroller]

Late to this thread, but my latest Nikon EII 8x30 also start with "809..." and have the letters "AM" in gold underneath. I've no idea of the date of manufacture, and can't compare them with previous units I've owned, but they seem incredibly contrasty and flare-free.

I assume it's the black body version, correct? That numbering matches Sandy's BB 8x30 EII.

<B>

 

[Brigadier]

Sandy, Does your 809xxx EII have a black body (also, is it an 8x30 EII or 10x35 EII)? That could be why it deviates from the 500 series numbering for the 8x30 EII, which mirrors the numbering of the 8x32 SE> So the 800xxx series might represent the changeover to the black body and harder armoring. Brock

Brock - My 8x30 EII (#801110) was bought in June 2001, has a black body and hard leatherette that shows no signs of peeling.

 

[ceasar]

Brock - My 8x30 EII (#801110) was bought in June 2001, has a black body and hard leatherette that shows no signs of peeling.

Now that is interesting! My well used 8 x 30 EII (#500720) was bought, as near as I can remember, in the year 2000 or so, has a gray body with a thin rubber leatherette covering which has peeled and been repaired by me with Loc-tite glue. It also has the the letters "AM" in gold underneath the SN. The Nikon name is also in gold.

Is this evidence that these hard covered black bodies have been around for a while? Possibly stored, forgotten, in a warehouse?

Bob

PS: It is also contrasty and glare free like Sancho's is.

 

[Brigadier]

Now that is interesting! My well used 8 x 30 EII (#500720) was bought, as near as I can remember, in the year 2000 or so, has a gray body with a thin rubber leatherette covering which has peeled and been repaired by me with Loc-tite glue. It also has the the letters "AM" in gold underneath the SN. The Nikon name is also in gold.

caesar - I've just unearthed the original carton and guarantee card of my 8x30 EII. The serial number is definitely #801110 and it was purchased on June 16, 2001, in Winchester UK. On my binocular, like yours, there's a gold "AM" beneath the number and a gold "Nikon" above.

Were different batches of EIIs made for the US and European markets?

 

[Sancho]

My new EII's final serial digits are 750, which places them 640 units after Sandy's (OP), if they are numbered in sequence. His were bought in March, mine in July. I don't know if this means anything. Probably not.

 

[brocknroller]

That is quite a revelation! A BB model around since 2001. I never saw one until someone from BF, Kevin? posted a photo of a BB model about three years ago.

I had assumed (and you know what Oscar says about what happens when we ass u me that the harder armoring was developed in response to complaints (and requests for repairs) about the flimsy rubber armoring. And it may have been, but if so, Nikon didn't sell the "new and improved" BB model in the U.S.

But why? Like it's hotter and more humid in Europe than it is in the U.S.? Not.

Even curiouser, my 10x35 EII BB has slightly better coatings than my gray body 8x30 EII. Of course, that could just mean that it was made more recently. Since I don't have a handle on the 10x35 EII scheme yet, it's hard to speculate about the YOM.

It's a safe bet, however, that Sancho's EIIs were made 640 units after Sandy's. After all, why bother numbering units to begin with if they are not sequential? It would make no sense otherwise.

We do know that Nikon uses different names/designations for bins in Europe than it does in the U.S. (HG=LX, HGL=LXL), but to release two different coverings on the same bin at the same time is perplexing, particularly since from the repairs and complaints on forums about the peeling coverings on the gray body model, Nikon must have known that the EIIs sold in the U.S. had inferior armoring.

Hard to know what to make of that. I can only guess that Nikon discontinued the gray body in 2001, but had a warehouse full of them, and decided to sell them off in the U.S. since it's a bigger market while they continued to make the EII in the black body version but sold them only in Europe and Asia.

Perhaps this also explains the mystery behind why Nikon stopped selling EIIs in the U.S. and why no BB models were ever released here and are just being seen in the past few years as imports from Asia.

Perhaps they didn't want us to know they kept selling Americans the inferior armored model while they continued to make and sell the BB model overseas. Well, if so, the cat's out of the bag now. Thank you very much, Nikon!

<B>

 

[David Swain]

Don't early 8x32 SEs share the same "gray" body? My early EIIs had what appeared to be an anodized gray finish, and not paint. My current SEs have a black frame, and black rubber, while a friend's early SEs have a gray frame and overall gray appearance.

I wonder if the numbering sequence has something to do with a change in production process and not (in the case of the SEs) with a switch to different glass. This is just a hunch, and based a very few samples.

David

 

[Sancho]

I can only guess that Nikon discontinued the gray body in 2001, but had a warehouse full of them, and decided to sell them off in the U.S. since it's a bigger market while they continued to make the EII in the black body version but sold them only in Europe and Asia.


<B>

Brock, I can't remember when exactly I became a bino-obsessive, but I do remember seeing advertisements in UK birding magazines, early in the century, for Nikon EII binoculars, that featured photographs and had straplines like "Is this the best binoculars available at any price?" The photos were always of the black-body type, and when I bought my first pair, about 2002 I think, they were black. I've never seen a grey-body pair, and don't know if they were ever sold this side.

 

[Pinewood]

Brock, I can't remember when exactly I became a bino-obsessive, but I do remember seeing advertisements in UK birding magazines, early in the century, for Nikon EII binoculars, that featured photographs and had straplines like "Is this the best binoculars available at any price?" The photos were always of the black-body type, and when I bought my first pair, about 2002 I think, they were black. I've never seen a grey-body pair, and don't know if they were ever sold this side.

Hello Sancho,

That advertisement reads like the one from Ace Cameras in Bath, if I recall, correctly.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

 

[Sancho]

Hello Sancho,

That advertisement reads like the one from Ace Cameras in Bath, if I recall, correctly.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

Spot on, Arthur! I'm pretty sure it was. I think the manager or owner used the EII's and reckoned they were the best binos on the planet. He wasn't far wrong, and the fact that they still hold up pretty well against SV's nowadays is interesting. (Although I know some people prefer the earlier, and IMHO inferior, SE; I await the barrage, firmly bunkered...)

 

[Pinewood]

Spot on, Arthur! I'm pretty sure it was. I think the manager or owner used the EII's and reckoned they were the best binos on the planet. He wasn't far wrong, and the fact that they still hold up pretty well against SV's nowadays is interesting. (Although I know some people prefer the earlier, and IMHO inferior, SE; I await the barrage, firmly bunkered...)

Sancho,

That manager and you are both close to the truth. Because the EII has a wider field than the SE, the EII might let you see more birds, while having enough resolution and contrast to catch fine details for identifying birds.

If I had not invested in the rather more robust Zeiss Victory FL, I would have been quite happy with the EII. I once let a co-worker look through an EII and Leica 8x32 BN. She preferred the EII but could not verbalize why. Perhaps it was that very comfortable view in a user friendly package.

I just visited Ace Camera's web site and found no Nikon bird watching binoculars advertised. Is Avian the shop's own marque?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :scribe: