Previous Gen Alpha "Mystique" (2 Viewers)

[bluespiderweb]

I did not mean that as a negative, I was just under the impression that we were not allowed to directly mention eBay as it is another forum for purchasing, competing with the seller forums here. This is common on many of the other forums I frequent, so I just figured it was a rule here as well.

I buy many optics from eBay and that is why I am in strong disagreement with others on pricing of these older alphas as I literally check each day for my saved searches (e.g. Trinovid, 8.5x42 Swarovski, etc.) to hopefully find one at a decent price. I have no issues with using that website so long as you do it sensibly (check seller reviews, properly read conditions, etc.).

Justin

Thanks Justin, I hadn't considered that forum thing, though no one has ever called me on it, using the regular name for Ebay on forums, here and elsewhere. Though I do remember someone mentioning it some time ago, now that you've said it too on some forum. Thank you for refreshing my memory too! ; )

Yes, totally agree-you have to be aware of all that when you shop there, and I do think they police their website-it's just probably undermanned for the scope of it until a problem arises, I would imagine. Though there have been some bad scams there for sure over the years. But with caution, it's usually avoidable.

I use the saved searches too, as they come in quite handy at times when trying to find something specific. Did just find such a binocular there too that this thread is discussing. I had to give the seller a little push to ship it, but otherwise, I am glad to have that venue to shop.

 

[etc]

You always have BIN items that float out there for weeks and months without any bids.
These are asking prices. They do not indicate the selling prices.
What you want to do is check both 'completed' and 'sold' auctions. Because these indicate what the items actually sell for.

 

[etc]

Leica Trinovid 10x42 BA Black Rubber Armored Binoculars w Case 40014 - sold for $321 with free shipping

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Leitz-Leic...672356?hash=item4673de8024:g:LbIAAOSwZapZxXCa

Leica 8x32 Trinovid for $380

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-Trin...298407?hash=item25ed50ff67:g:U6AAAOSwKIdafg6Y




7x42 Trinovid BA for $441

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-vint...660235?hash=item239c54d38b:g:iDIAAOSw8LBaqbTi

Leica Trinovid 10x32 BA Binoculars - $530

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-Trin...191850?hash=item2f1402d12a:g:mwQAAOSwIBJaZjc1


Leica Trinovid 8x42 Binoculars in mint condition for $550

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-Trin...D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557



The list just goes on and on. You can score a nice Trinovid for around 500 +/- and sometimes less. It was - and still is a fabulous optic.
It's not like these binos wear out. I miss my Trinovid despite not being state of the art and far behind latest-greatest. There are tons of 'vintage' Leicas in the 300-400 range. I am sure they are equally as good.

Trinovid HD for $680

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Leica-Trin...D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557


Ultravid seems to float around 900-1500 range, some of them mint/new. Probably a better buy than Trinovid.

Similar examples for Swarovski and Zeiss. Lots of Swaro EL sub 1000 or even lower.

 

[CharleyBird]

JR, I'm not directing this at you, but since you use this practice, I really would like to know why Ebay is so disrespected at times, that they can't actually be referred to as Ebay, and acknowleged as one of today's major sources for goods? Where would we be without Ebay? They are a buying and selling source, and measure of all things that hold value for us, yet so many disrespect it and collude to refer to Ebay in so many other names, that it just doesn't make sense to me. Evilbay? And other terms that hide the true identity of Ebay, and I am wondering really, why all the effort to exclude the name from our references, even though we use them all the time? Why, really? Do references to their business actually hurt us to mention, and multiply their earnings? Could be, but I just don't see it.

All I know is that I have found so many things on Ebay that I can't find elsewhere, and often at better prices, so that is why I shop there, regularly! Is it the fact that it has become so big, that people don't want to support big business? Seems kind of silly to me, and I really don't understand why it is treated as such. Sure, every business goes through periods of adjustment, and as such is unpopular at times, but these people provide a world wide buying and selling service that you can't match anywhere else, so what gives? Why is is so popular to evade the name in our references to Ebay?

I don't get it! Can you explain?

Ever bought a "new solid beech chessboard" from Romania that arrives promptly and is made of plywood?
Ever bought an expensive old quality "Linhof tripod, excellent condition blah blah" from the Orkney Islands that arrives promptly, looks perfect, then you realise it has been dropped and the mounting platform is not level?

On the other hand, I just paid for a pair of " 9x30 Nikon 6.7 tres bon " from France. I agree it is a wonderful source. Let's see if they are tres bon

 

[bluespiderweb]

Ever bought a "new solid beech chessboard" from Romania that arrives promptly and is made of plywood?
Ever bought an expensive old quality "Linhof tripod, excellent condition blah blah" from the Orkney Islands that arrives promptly, looks perfect, then you realise it has been dropped and the mounting platform is not level?

On the other hand, I just paid for a pair of " 9x30 Nikon 6.7 tres bon " from France. I agree it is a wonderful source. Let's see if they are tres bon

Nope, I stay away from those troubled waters, I only buy perfect things on there. ; ) But if I don't, I raise Cain, and make sure I get my money back one way or the other!

Good luck with your French connection!

 

[tenex]

What do you think my Leica 8x32 BN in glorious orange red might be worth?
I am waiting for an offer I cannot refuse.

That's a lovely, special glass. Post a photo when you mention it and someone will go weak in the knees.

 

[bluespiderweb]

Most of the older alpha products I have are nowhere near obsolete IMO. I like the styling of the Leica BN. The 10X42 BN is still rated as the #23 binocular out of 85. 139 points is nothing to sneeze at! It's still well made and excellent optically and mechanically. Mine is a 7X42....I won't sell it. The SLCs....I still have my first quality 10X42, a 1997 Swarovski SLC. It has been and still is absolutely perfect functionally. The image is still very nice but of course has been improved upon. My next is a 2008 SLC 7X42 which is absolutely competitive in every way to current binoculars. I'm not really sure how old my non-Lotutec 7X42 FL is....I wouldn't take anything for it. It's just killer!

To me...the older models don't seem to have been just slopped together. Some care and craftsmanship seems to have been in place. Some thought seems to have been put into them as in "is this the best we can do?" instead of "can we get by with this?"

Could this be the difference between a high end binocular designed and manufactured by the same company as opposed to one designed by a manufacturing company and sold to rebranders by options available at various prices like we seem to see today? That would seem a logical explanation for our midprice binoculars with high end optics that we have been seeing lately. If they share a common builder, with options selected by the buyer, as opposed to a well known company manufacturing it's own under only their engineering department specs and name, it would seem to make a difference. The one who is engineering and producing the exclusive ones will be the higher priced, new or old because of the costs to both design and manufacture a unique product, as in alpha and semi-alpha bins (depending on materials and design used) and where also they are made. That would make the most sense to me. Makers with names to protect might just put more into them to guard their reputations and names in good standing in optics over the years than others that have less to lose.

But I might be just blowing smoke, from my far off understanding of how things work in the optics industry, and I would welcome hearing from those who really know, since my impressions might just be just speculations based on what I think is a common sense approach. What say you?

Personally, with discovering the qualities of the old FL's, that compete well with todays offerings of mid priced binos, I am impressed enough with them to wonder what we gain in the newer ones, even if it is lower prices for similar optical properties, though it might not be a 7x42, because not many offer that anymore. It seems a shame, as from what I've seen, it is a very viable individul, even wihout Lotutec coatings. Chuck seem to bear this out as well-they are winners, even if there is better glass or coatings out there-these still perfrom so well, it's hard to know how bad they could be in comparison to new offerings.

Though after comparing my FL's to my Tract Toric 10x tonight near sunset, I am still impressed with the Toric. So if you are looking for a standard offering in today's modern optics, there's nothing wrong with what they can deliver too. Glad we have both still to choose. Too bad more don't make a 7x42.

 

[NDhunter]

Hello all,

What do you think my Leica 8x32 BN in glorious orange red might be worth?

I am waiting for an offer I cannot refuse.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

Arthur:

You seemed to have changed your mind when I asked you about this
question a while ago.

The Leica 8x32 BN is a very nice binocular, I like its handling and very
nice ease of view.

Jerry

 

[Troubador]

Here's a couple of ideas on the subject.

Do we really think that new product development budgets are always unlimited so that the new product always pushes the boundaries of what is the best that can be done? It doesn't seem likely to me. And if the budget is not unlimited that means the new product can only be as good as the combined budget for R&D and manufacturing/training upgrades will allow it to be.
And do we really think that sports optics makers only develop one product at a time? Sometimes they do but mostly there is work taking place not only on one model of bino but on other binos, on spotting scopes, riflescope and rangefinder binos. So this budget we have hypothetically discussed already is not only limited it is shared across several products. You can't have what you can't pay for, so inevitably all of these products when launched will be a compromise between the technical ambitions of the company and the budget available.
BUT
Maybe once in a while, by sheer fluke of circumstance, maybe it just happens that only one or perhaps two products are in development and during the previous financial year sales were great and as a result the development budget for this year's product is generous.
Is this when the really plum products emerge? When all of the creative energy of the company is focused on just one or at most two products and the budget is no longer a brake on development but a facilitator?

Of course if the concept behind the new product is flawed then all you get is a flawed product developed in the best possible way, but once in a while a bino emerges that becomes the face of birding at the time: Dialyt 7x42, then Leica BA/BN, then Swarovski EL (original, not Swarovision).

I am pretty sure that the EL was the main product under development at Swaro by the team led by Gerold Dobler and Swaro certainly put the budget in place to achieve it. I don't know if something similar happened with the Dialyt or BA.

Lee

 

[PFG1]

Have enjoyed the discussion here.

Recently found a year 2000 made EL 10x42 that has seen some use, shows wear on the body, but glass appears good.

A quick google search shows these retailed around $1550 USD.

For nearly a 20 year old bino, I'm having a difficult time pricing an offer to the seller.

Suggestions?

 

[etc]

I would offer something similar to what Leicas of that vintage go for. Around $500. At most.

 

[Pinewood]

I would offer something similar to what Leicas of that vintage go for. Around $500. At most.

Hello Etc.,

I could easily refuse such an offer. If nothing else, it is an excellent loaner for a guest bird watcher.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

 

[PFG1]

I would offer something similar to what Leicas of that vintage go for. Around $500. At most.

I've done some searching, and found a few folks selling early 2000s ELs. They don't go for anywhere near $500. Much closer to double that.

If I recall, retail was about $1500-1600

 

[PFG1]

From Jan 2000:

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/bwd2000binoxtable.html

 

[cycleguy]

I still prefer the Swaro EL WB to the Swaro EL SV. Just couldn't make the change to the flat field. Also like the old style strap attachment (if it isn't broke don't fix it), the simplistic old strap without the bulky strap adjuster mechanism, and the old simplistic and minimal nylon pouch with zipper.

Guess I don't change too quickly.

CG

 

[etc]

Same here. Mine is 2008 so it falls somewhere in between latest-greatest post-SV models and the original from late 90's. I think I paid close to 1700 and now it's somewhere just south of 1000 for that particular model. Which is the reason I think I will keep it. Makes no sense to sell it at such a loss and upgrade to latest-greatest which offers a minuscule improvement that's barely measurable. 1 more percent of brightness. 1 percent of this, or that.

The pre-2008 (or pre-2004) models have to sell for less than that. The original late 90's or 2000 is almost 20 years old. I would rather spend 900-1000 for a 2008-2010 pre-SV model.

Mid 90's Trinovids are around 500 plus/minus based on the examples cited above, the 2000 EL cannot be substantially higher than that.

They had had a fabulous 2007 10x50 SLC go for about $800 just 3 days ago. I was watching that auction, thought about bidding on it. now that's a high level of performance and a fantastic deal. Of course there is no guarantee what it would have gone for had it received an additional bid, maybe the previous bidder had a reserve up to 1000 or who knows how high. Nevertheless the closing price was around 840.

when the latest-greatest scent wears off, you can pick up items for a steal. I checked the latest (2014 vintage) Zeiss SF, they are still above $2000. Perhaps that *is* the discount versus $2800 retail. if it drops to 1700, I might jump at one.

 

[Patudo]

Watching old alpha models sell has always been interesting to me. Outdated glass, such as the Trinovid BN, SLC, original EL, etc. always still seem to sell for prices nearing $1000, despite newer, lower tier models (such as the Vortex Viper, Zeiss Conquest, Etc.) having superior optical performance. These models are still competitive and solid options, but why pay $1000 when you can pay half the price for better performance?

I'm guessing it just comes down to brand reputation and general 'awe' of these models?

I've had a bit of a ponder on this, and - for what it's worth - have to agree, although I'd phrase things a little differently. I think the basis for that reputation and 'awe' is that desire to own the very best that all of us, I'm sure, have felt and which we probably can all understand - even though relatively few of us may actually act upon it. I myself can't justify the cost of something like a SF, or latest generation SV Field Pro, even though whenever I use my brother's 8.5 I often think I should sell all my binoculars and get one. The next best thing to a current alpha is either the second-tier model in the same manufacturer's line (e.g Conquest HD) or a former alpha, and I can see why many would prefer the latter for reasons that go beyond optical performance. If you own an Ultravid, the Nikon model pre-dating the EDG, a non-SV EL, or what seems the latest BF favourite, the FL, what you own was at one point the very best binocular that Leica, Nikon, Swarovski etc could make - not just in terms of pure optical quality, but in design and build quality. In some cases - the 7x42 Dialyt and Leica Trinovid BA/BN probably being the leading examples - the individual model has also built up an iconic reputation as a birders' glass, proved over decades in the field. Those, for me, are the reasons why you will pay more for the previous generation first in class than the current generation second tier.

 

[Theo98]

I've had a bit of a ponder on this, and - for what it's worth - have to agree, although I'd phrase things a little differently. I think the basis for that reputation and 'awe' is that desire to own the very best that all of us, I'm sure, have felt and which we probably can all understand - even though relatively few of us may actually act upon it. I myself can't justify the cost of something like a SF, or latest generation SV Field Pro, even though whenever I use my brother's 8.5 I often think I should sell all my binoculars and get one. The next best thing to a current alpha is either the second-tier model in the same manufacturer's line (e.g Conquest HD) or a former alpha, and I can see why many would prefer the latter for reasons that go beyond optical performance. If you own an Ultravid, the Nikon model pre-dating the EDG, a non-SV EL, or what seems the latest BF favourite, the FL, what you own was at one point the very best binocular that Leica, Nikon, Swarovski etc could make - not just in terms of pure optical quality, but in design and build quality. In some cases - the 7x42 Dialyt and Leica Trinovid BA/BN probably being the leading examples - the individual model has also built up an iconic reputation as a birders' glass, proved over decades in the field. Those, for me, are the reasons why you will pay more for the previous generation first in class than the current generation second tier.

Thought provoking...Agreed! :t:

Ted

 

[jremmons]

Patudo - those are my thoughts as well, you just wax poetic a whole lot better than me, haha.

There's certainly nothing 'wrong' with the older generation, and they are still fine optics in their own right, so if you want to pay the premium, go for it. I just have personally stopped recommending them to colleagues as I know that current second-tier/sub-alpha models are optically superior and under full warranty, etc. for the same (or practically so) price.

 

[james holdsworth]

The only ''old'' optic I know that nearly matches new, optically, is my mid-90's Zeiss 7x42 BGAT/P. Just as bright as an FL, great contrast and sharpness, great colour fidelity, great on glare. Just a bit more CA / soft edges than the best modern stuff but a wider field than almost anything out there currently.