Thanks guys...
You know, it's been quite difficult to call the shot on this. I have a Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 to try for the weekend. I had it out today and compared it with the Monarch HG 10x42. The Zeiss immediately impressed me with it's sharpness and resolution and contrast however, the colour balance was a little cold compared to the Nikon. I went back and forth and then some... I just cannot say if one is better than the other. I can only say that since Nikon has re-collimated this binocular, it has improved its performance in terms of perceived sharpness, even stray light performance to a degree.... this also makes it a difficult decision because I cannot be sure if a new sample of the Monarch HG would perform as good as the current one.
The Zeiss is very easy to focus (snaps in) where as with the Nikon, I sometimes have to rock in and out of focus to be sure...( I still think this is a mechanical issue rather than optical, as it used to snap into focus when new). Also, the difference in field of view is obvious between the two, however, objects appear a little closer in the Conquest HD (not sure if this is an illusion due to the slightly smaller field of view). The Monarch HG doesn't have any veiling flare where the Conquest HD has it in some conditions (viewing under a bright horizon, veiling flare at the bottom of field of view, not intrusive, but present). They both have their pros and cons, so I'm kinda going round in circles, even considering to let Nikon just fix the cosmetic issues that they've caused...
Really wish Nikon had better QC...also wish there were binocular retailers in the UK who would check their stock on a collimator before accepting it from manufacturers or shipping it to customers...
hopefully I can make a decision soon and be happy with it... It's the first time I've taken to a forum for advice and really appreciate everyone that has contributed.