Isthatascratch?
Well-known member
Recycled PET will normally fade more quickly as it has been through the recycling process which affects this.
-
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.
NL Carrying Bag Color Fading (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Spectrum805
- Start date
Recycled PET will normally fade more quickly as it has been through the recycling process which affects this.
BirderNL
Active member
Only a few users suffer from this, the majority does not experience any problems… This “footprint” will not be that big.
Spectrum805
Member
Thanks everyone for offering many interesting and valuable opinions on the fading fabric of my NL 10x42 carrying bag. I decided to reach out to Swarovski to see whether they think it is normal. It turns out the customer service has some expectation of the potential issue associated with recycled materials, but judging from the answers, may not not be aware of the severity. I do not want to misinterpret the response, so I just paste the Swarovski response below, and my reply to it. The only thing I removed is the customer service representative's name to protect people's privacy. Overall, I am disappointed by the fading and felt Swarovski should be more transparent in presenting the recycled materials as a trade-off (rather than a feature) to properly set the customers' expectation. Other than that, since it is only a cosmetic deficiency, I will just have to live with it. I do not see any benefit of getting a new bag even at a discounted price knowing four years from now it would look just as bad.
Haibo
Swarovski customer service reply:
"Thank you for your email, We'll share this information with our Austrian colleagues and design team. The NL Pure bag is certainly made of a different material than the SLC Field Bag. I'm sure that has something to do with issue but I'd also present the fact that I'm sure the SLC bag is getting far less usage. A vast majority of users are not carrying around two binoculars nor are they using the SLC field bag when using the big SLC 15x56. One could make the argument that the NL bag is more useful out in the field seeing as it fits around the waist nicely. Be that as it may 4 years (50 hours) of usage is considered a long time and quite a bit of exposure even by researched industry standards. I can say that the company has prioritized using natural sustainable materials over synthetic so that could certainly play a contributing factor. More important to us is the fact that the bag is protecting the product accordingly which seems to be the case. All of our accessories have 2-year warranty against manufacturers defects. If this problem occurred within that period and you could provide proof of purchase, we'd gladly replace the bag at no charge. Unfortunately, it seems the window for free replacement is two years overdue. If you wish to purchase a new case, I'm happy to provide you with a discount toward a new one though our website. "
My response to the reply:
"Thank you for your fast response and for sharing the info with the Austria team.
While I agree with you on many things, there are two things that you assume to be factual that is not true at all. You should not assume how a customer use the bag, every person is very different. Here is how I use it:
1) when I travel solo, indeed I only carry one of the two, but I always have the bag with me as I walk. The bino is out on my neck, the bag is carrying a bottle of water and a snack bar. This way, I do not need to carry another bag to hold these items.
2) When I travel with my family, quite often, both are carried with the bags, by different people.
3) I said both averaged to 50 hours of field used over 4 year, it is very accurate. You should not assume the SLC bag sees less sun based on its lack of deterioration in color. In fact this is the very problem I am reporting.
The main suggestion I have for the Swarovski team is that the expectation for more environmental ingredient should be more clearly communicated as a trade off rather than gain only, so that a customer’s expectation is set correctly. No one likes a bad surprise."
Haibo
Swarovski customer service reply:
"Thank you for your email, We'll share this information with our Austrian colleagues and design team. The NL Pure bag is certainly made of a different material than the SLC Field Bag. I'm sure that has something to do with issue but I'd also present the fact that I'm sure the SLC bag is getting far less usage. A vast majority of users are not carrying around two binoculars nor are they using the SLC field bag when using the big SLC 15x56. One could make the argument that the NL bag is more useful out in the field seeing as it fits around the waist nicely. Be that as it may 4 years (50 hours) of usage is considered a long time and quite a bit of exposure even by researched industry standards. I can say that the company has prioritized using natural sustainable materials over synthetic so that could certainly play a contributing factor. More important to us is the fact that the bag is protecting the product accordingly which seems to be the case. All of our accessories have 2-year warranty against manufacturers defects. If this problem occurred within that period and you could provide proof of purchase, we'd gladly replace the bag at no charge. Unfortunately, it seems the window for free replacement is two years overdue. If you wish to purchase a new case, I'm happy to provide you with a discount toward a new one though our website. "
My response to the reply:
"Thank you for your fast response and for sharing the info with the Austria team.
While I agree with you on many things, there are two things that you assume to be factual that is not true at all. You should not assume how a customer use the bag, every person is very different. Here is how I use it:
1) when I travel solo, indeed I only carry one of the two, but I always have the bag with me as I walk. The bino is out on my neck, the bag is carrying a bottle of water and a snack bar. This way, I do not need to carry another bag to hold these items.
2) When I travel with my family, quite often, both are carried with the bags, by different people.
3) I said both averaged to 50 hours of field used over 4 year, it is very accurate. You should not assume the SLC bag sees less sun based on its lack of deterioration in color. In fact this is the very problem I am reporting.
The main suggestion I have for the Swarovski team is that the expectation for more environmental ingredient should be more clearly communicated as a trade off rather than gain only, so that a customer’s expectation is set correctly. No one likes a bad surprise."
Swarovski is really getting cheap! A few years ago they would have sent you a new bag, no questions asked. I used to get all kinds of freebies from them, but no more. Maybe it is because they are having to fix so many field pro attachments and replace the armor on so many binoculars. I really think Swarovski Customer Service is going downhill.
Last edited:
laurencejackson
Well-known member
I think this is a disappointing and rambling response from a company that has always been known for going the extra mile with its customer service.
It would be far easier and simpler if they took ownership of the issue and, given that they would (hopefully?) not be seeing too many of these faded bags, just replace it gratis. For the sake of c.$70, their reputation would then be modestly restored and there wouldn't be a whole thread on BF about it along with the usual Swaro-bashing.
Anything made with Recycled PET (Ruck sacks, backpacks, trainers etc.) will fade in bright sun over time - doesn't effect the functionality. If fading bothers you (I genuinely can't understand why it would bother anyone on a binocular case) I'd look around for an alternative material, but most outdoors equipment manufacturers have moved to using recycled PET over the years, and canvas fades quite quickly too.
Resale value. The incubus that preys on the mind of all too many alpha owners/flippers here (it would seem) and elsewhere.
Maybe I am different, but if I bought a $3000 binocular, I would not like it if my binocular case faded in a short period of time. I guess you can always buy one of these to replace the Swarovski case. This case is unlikely to fade as much as the Swarovski case, and it is better looking.
Galbin Binocular Case - 10 / Sage FibreNyte / Chocolate Leather
Store your binoculars in style with the Galbin 10, fitting most 10x42 binos or many small cameras. Attach to a normal waist belt or use the included, removable shoulder sling. Made in England with 3-layer waterproof fabric and real leather.
billingham.com
Last edited:
Maybe I am different, but if I bought a $3000 binocular, I would not like it if my binocular case faded in a short period of time. I guess you can always buy one of these to replace the Swarovski case. This case is unlikely to fade and it is better looking.
Galbin Binocular Case - 10 / Sage FibreNyte / Chocolate Leather
Store your binoculars in style with the Galbin 10, fitting most 10x42 binos or many small cameras. Attach to a normal waist belt or use the included, removable shoulder sling. Made in England with 3-layer waterproof fabric and real leather.
Billingham bags fade just like any other (even in UK sunshine!) - I use their camera bags. Their canvas bags fade more than the FibreNyte ones (some people consider the fading part of the charm). Osprey bags fade too (I use their daypacks). If you can find old stock of binocular bags made from virgin plastic you might find something less likely to fade, and obviously paler fabrics tend to show fading less than darker ones. The alternative is leather which still fades, but can easily be re-coloured.
Almost everything fades to some degree over time. You are ignoring that the O.P says that it has only taken around 50 hours to get to the state it's in, 50 hours would be less than a months worth of wearing a pair of favourite trainers, you would be straight back to the seller if that happened, same for a rucksack/backpack. Cordura would have been a better choice for ruggedness and colour fastness for a top end product.
I didn't think there was sunshine in the UK. I never heard of that!
Spectrum805
Member
I agree. My primary concern is the resale value. When such a day comes, the buyer would have the wrong impression on how abrasively and expensively used my equipment. Considering the cost of the bino, I have been very careful to limit wear and tear through careful handling in normal use and storage, but fabric fading is not something I can control unless I treat it as a museum piece always kept indoor.
I understand some users questions why one would use a carrying bag while in the field. For me, there are several reasons: (1) If I am out for more than 1 hour, I would like to use it to hold a small bottle of water and a snake bar so that I am always prepared for contingency. (2) There are occasionally a stretch of inclined trail that I need to use my hand of steady myself, or if I suspect some stretch of dirt road can put me at risk of slipping, I would put the bino back into the carrying bag until I passed the stretch, so that any accidental trip does not damage the bino. (3) In urban locations, when I feel not safe (the ambient of the street and who I see at a distance) or awkward (for example, I walk into a neighborhood store to do some light shopping along the walk), I would also put the bino back into the bag. So the point is that each person has his/her own style of equipment usage. I happen to like the versatility of the NL carrying bag.
I do not have other complain about the bag other than the fading color will definitively reduce the resale value of the bino in the future. This is a case study on proper expectation setting. Had I been told that recycled plastic is good for the environment but is expected to cause quick fading, and still decided I would like to help the environment and I do not care about cosmetic degradation, I would not feel bad at all because I was given the option to consider and made a conscious and enlightened decision to help the environment. The reserse is not true from the human psychic perspective. If someone pitching some non-essential features of a product being for a nobel cause without disclosing the pitfalls that would come with it, I would imagine at least a subset of the customers would feel short-changed.
I happen to be an active user of Astromart (some users of BirdForum might be as well) where people resell used ametear astronomic equipment (which include binoculars), where a typical seller would go to great length disclosing all the minute imperfectionings. Some of the imperfectionings can be described as almost "infinitesimal", for example, a minute dent on a carbon fiber tube that is only visible when the light is shining on a grazing angle and when really zoomed in in picture taking, but a typical seller will not only take such a photo but also circle the still almost invisible blemish so that a buyer can see before making a purchasing decision. One might say why does a blemish on the tube have anything to do with the optical performance of a telescope? It does not, however, it can affect resell value. Such disclosure also has great values: To the sellers, it helps them maintaining stellar reputation through good buyer reviews, translating higher $ in future transaction to any future buyers. To the buyers, it properly set the expectation, build up trust in the transaction, and no unexpected surprise upon receiving the item. At a human level, being transparent in communication is just being honest and respectful.
So in summary, this case comes down to Swarovski should better communicate the trade-offs in their design choices so that the customer's expectation is set properly before a purchase. Such transparency would be good for both the customers and for Swarovski's business.
Thanks everyone for chipping in with their valuable opinions. I am learning a lot from others on this forum. Best wishes!
4 years was the age - it's not just the field use but storage in a well lit room that causes fading. Cordura is just a brand name - recycled PET (also used by Cordura) fades just as much as any recycled PET. If you want longer fade resistance and don't mind the environmental costs, avoid recycled PET, if you prefer an environmentally less damaging project go recycled. Bag manufacturers buy from a fairly small number of fabric suppliers who basically produce similar products - reduced fade resistance is part of the nature of recycled PET, wherever it's made or whoever uses it. There's nothing particularly different about the fabrics whatever label the bag carries.
tehri
Well-known member
At a human level, may be... But you seem to be unaware that the entire Swarovski senior management has not been human for a long time now !!!
How about some of the other binocular bags like, Zeiss, Leica and Nikon. Are they also recycled PET? So if you store your binocular bag in a dark place like a closet, it will fade less than in a well lit room?
The 2 Zeiss bags I've got are black Cordura, may or may not have recycled PET in the mix as there are different recipes such as the original and other polymer mixes.
tenex
reality-based
Well-lit room? The OP said the bag was stored inside the same file cabinet. So Bezzer is right, no excuse for fading with 50 hours' use.
So where can the buyer of a $3k+ Swarovski make that choice? They pay for the product and have to live with it, while the manufacturer basks in credit for being "environmentally friendly". And once again one has to ask whether the environmental cost of replacement bags isn't more than that of one quality bag in the first place. (Presumably they wear worse too.)
Far too much today is a matter of being thought good in the "right" circles. (Erm, I mean left.)
I like to buy top-quality stuff , when I can afford it.
I then expect whatever I buy to acctually be top quality in all respects.
Top quality items should actually last for a good long while.
Why can't the cases for a top-class binocular be made from hard genuine leather anymore.
I actually use binocular cases in the field , as I like to look after my equipment.
The "environmentally friendly" mindset is often carried to extremes.
I then expect whatever I buy to acctually be top quality in all respects.
Top quality items should actually last for a good long while.
Why can't the cases for a top-class binocular be made from hard genuine leather anymore.
I actually use binocular cases in the field , as I like to look after my equipment.
The "environmentally friendly" mindset is often carried to extremes.
forent
Well-known member
There are many ways to produce in an environmentally friendly way. For a long-lasting luxury good, the use of biodegradable and therefore intentionally short-lived materials is one of the worst IMHO.
However, we should not forget that there are also many ways to consume in an environmentally friendly way. The decades-long use of a conventionally produced and therefore really long-lasting luxury good and the avoidance of further purchases of at least partially redundant products are certainly not the worst solution [my Leica Trinovid BA enters its 33. year of service]. ;-)
Incidentally, I personally do not use the original accessories supplied with outdoor equipment, which should retain their resale value. Bags, straps, etc. - usually not to my taste anyway - remain in their original packaging in the cupboard. Instead, I use inexpensive third-party accessories: I can choose them as I wish, damage to them doesn't hurt me (so I don't pamper them), I don't advertise the manufacturer and I don't attract the attention of thieves and other unpleasant contemporaries.
However, we should not forget that there are also many ways to consume in an environmentally friendly way. The decades-long use of a conventionally produced and therefore really long-lasting luxury good and the avoidance of further purchases of at least partially redundant products are certainly not the worst solution [my Leica Trinovid BA enters its 33. year of service]. ;-)
Incidentally, I personally do not use the original accessories supplied with outdoor equipment, which should retain their resale value. Bags, straps, etc. - usually not to my taste anyway - remain in their original packaging in the cupboard. Instead, I use inexpensive third-party accessories: I can choose them as I wish, damage to them doesn't hurt me (so I don't pamper them), I don't advertise the manufacturer and I don't attract the attention of thieves and other unpleasant contemporaries.
Last edited:
