Problem with green coating of EL SV 8x32 (1 Viewer)

[diekmann2]

Below are excerpts from my correspondence with Swaro (from Aug 2020). As one can see Swaro engineers have been aware of the problems of FP/NL armor for at least 3 years, but it seems they have not found a solution yet, or perhaps they do not consider that a change is necessary..

My questions:
I have three Swarovski binoculars, all Swarovision (SV) models, and they all look like new after a number of years of (admittedly light) use. I must admit that I am not fond of the modifications made when replacing the SV line with the Field Pro (FP) line. In particular I like the armor of the SV more than that of the FP:
-Is the FP's armor much less robust? I have seen a number of reports that seem to suggest that it deteriorates quite a bit even after modest usage (for example, see the attached photo, but I have seen even worse cases). Is it made using biodegradable materials? Anyway what's the difference from the SV's armor?
-The SV armor does not seem to need any special care (just common sense) but how about the FP's armor?----any advice as to how to prolong its life? The new NL Pure line seems to have the same armor as the FP, is this correct?

Swaro reply:
The armouring material of Swarovski binos was changed 2015 with the new FP series due to environmental, cosmetic and allergic reasons.
The new material is - on a long term perspective - biodegradable. The new NL armouring is made out of the same material.
In general the new material overall has a better resistance and performance (Temperature, UV, humidity, abrasion) than the old one of the SV, but if it deteriorates, its damage behavior differs from the older material - due to the biodegradability. The old material blisterd the new gets softer and softer until it tears.
Prolongation of the armouring is possible if you apply a good cleaning and treatment of it, like for instance for leather. For the rare case of deterioration we offer a free replacement.

Seems like a honest and reasonable reply from Swarovski. They don’t deny but the problem is rare. For those who suffer deterioration they offer free repair fixing the problem.

 

[dwatsonbirder]

A simple estimate of the age of a Swaro binocular can be obtained from the amount of paint loss on the hinge edges, which is caused by rubbing such as when the bino is used bandolier style (by this method the bino in the above pics should be at least 20y old......). I believe this issue is also unique to Swaro, but I am not sure why---maybe the layer of paint on the hinge is too thin?

Serial no. is L7038XXX - so September 2000?

 

[tehri]

Prolongation of the armouring is possible if you apply a good cleaning and treatment of it, like for instance for leather.

'like for instance for leather.'... 🤔
So what does that mean exactly ?
Cleaning, with water and soap, ok... but 'treatment like for leather' ??... what with ??!....

 

[PeterPS]

Serial no. is L7038XXX - so September 2000?

Correct! my rough guess was pretty accurate......

 

[SGBirder]

Below are excerpts from my correspondence with Swaro (from Aug 2020). As one can see Swaro engineers have been aware of the problems of FP/NL armor for at least 3 years, but it seems they have not found a solution yet, or perhaps they do not consider that a change is necessary..

My questions:
I have three Swarovski binoculars, all Swarovision (SV) models, and they all look like new after a number of years of (admittedly light) use. I must admit that I am not fond of the modifications made when replacing the SV line with the Field Pro (FP) line. In particular I like the armor of the SV more than that of the FP:
-Is the FP's armor much less robust? I have seen a number of reports that seem to suggest that it deteriorates quite a bit even after modest usage (for example, see the attached photo, but I have seen even worse cases). Is it made using biodegradable materials? Anyway what's the difference from the SV's armor?
-The SV armor does not seem to need any special care (just common sense) but how about the FP's armor?----any advice as to how to prolong its life? The new NL Pure line seems to have the same armor as the FP, is this correct?

Swaro reply:
The armouring material of Swarovski binos was changed 2015 with the new FP series due to environmental, cosmetic and allergic reasons.
The new material is - on a long term perspective - biodegradable. The new NL armouring is made out of the same material.
In general the new material overall has a better resistance and performance (Temperature, UV, humidity, abrasion) than the old one of the SV, but if it deteriorates, its damage behavior differs from the older material - due to the biodegradability. The old material blisterd the new gets softer and softer until it tears.
Prolongation of the armouring is possible if you apply a good cleaning and treatment of it, like for instance for leather. For the rare case of deterioration we offer a free replacement.

Good info! Puts to rest the comments denying the issue affecting NL too, since the material is indeed the same on both, according to Swarovski themselves.

Over the last 3 years since Aug 2020, doesn't seem that the new material has proven to have better resistance and performance, definitely not against the 4 aspects.

Hopefully they are indeed finally working on a better material, and roll it out to all models that are using it! Fingers crossed.

 

[tehri]

 

[Owlbarred]

Below are excerpts from my correspondence with Swaro (from Aug 2020). As one can see Swaro engineers have been aware of the problems of FP/NL armor for at least 3 years, but it seems they have not found a solution yet, or perhaps they do not consider that a change is necessary..

My questions:
I have three Swarovski binoculars, all Swarovision (SV) models, and they all look like new after a number of years of (admittedly light) use. I must admit that I am not fond of the modifications made when replacing the SV line with the Field Pro (FP) line. In particular I like the armor of the SV more than that of the FP:
-Is the FP's armor much less robust? I have seen a number of reports that seem to suggest that it deteriorates quite a bit even after modest usage (for example, see the attached photo, but I have seen even worse cases). Is it made using biodegradable materials? Anyway what's the difference from the SV's armor?
-The SV armor does not seem to need any special care (just common sense) but how about the FP's armor?----any advice as to how to prolong its life? The new NL Pure line seems to have the same armor as the FP, is this correct?

Swaro reply:
The armouring material of Swarovski binos was changed 2015 with the new FP series due to environmental, cosmetic and allergic reasons.
The new material is - on a long term perspective - biodegradable. The new NL armouring is made out of the same material.
In general the new material overall has a better resistance and performance (Temperature, UV, humidity, abrasion) than the old one of the SV, but if it deteriorates, its damage behavior differs from the older material - due to the biodegradability. The old material blisterd the new gets softer and softer until it tears.
Prolongation of the armouring is possible if you apply a good cleaning and treatment of it, like for instance for leather. For the rare case of deterioration we offer a free replacement.

Disclaimer: I have owned Swarovskis since 2003 (no issues whatsoever with newer SV's) but given the issue raised in this thread, do have concern about a company whose products I revere.

1. That the reputed reply from Swarovski is nearly 3-years old and even then was referencing a known problem dating back to EL's produced in 2015 is disconcerting and a bit damning. Lacking repair data from Swarovski, one can only speculate on the scope and cost of the problem.
2. Because post-2014 EL's may have armor issues, was the anticipated cost of replacing armor on EL's (and by extension future NL's since they use the same armor) a factor for the NL's lofty (unprecedented) price when first introduced? Unanswerable, but the cost of labor and materials for such replacement is not trivial.
3. Grey Zeiss SFs' had armor (and other) issues when first introduced -- Zeiss clearly responded far more rapidly than Swaroski to correct the problem.
4. The reputed response from Swarovski to PeterPS is not comforting to anyone whose binoculars are frequently/heavily used or are more than a few years old.

Obviously, there is no way to assess owner care (or lack thereof), frequency and duration of use, and climatic differences among users. Some treat binoculars as tools, others as heirlooms.

 

[diekmann2]

Probably they leave the armor as is. They really don’t need three years to improve something like a coating if there was a big problem with it. It’s a big company. According to Swarovski it is a rare problem so they choose to service those who suffer from it. No need for new armor. Other brands suffer from it as well. With environmental rules it is what it is…. Taking good care of bino’s, cleaning them once in a while using a damp cloth (with a mild detergent) and the coating will be fine for many years. Nice to know Swarovski got you covered when something does happen, even when some do not follow their care instructions.

 

[SGBirder]

Probably they leave the armor as is. They really don’t need three years to improve something like a coating if there was a big problem with it. It’s a big company. According to Swarovski it is a rare problem so they choose to service those who suffer from it. No need for new armor. Other brands suffer from it as well. With environmental rules it is what it is…. Taking good care of bino’s, cleaning them once in a while using a damp cloth (with a mild detergent) and the coating will be fine for many years. Nice to know Swarovski got you covered when something does happen, even when some do not follow their care instructions.

What basis do you have for saying that people are not following their "care instructions"?

I have spoken to those who have had this problem first-hand, and the binoculars have been well kept and cared for.

More recently, Swarovski is in the midst working on improving the materials - this has been conveyed by several Swarovski reps. Though it's not clear why it's taken and still taking so long. So why are you saying that they are leaving it as it is and not changing it?

 

[james holdsworth]

Probably they leave the armor as is. They really don’t need three years to improve something like a coating if there was a big problem with it. It’s a big company. According to Swarovski it is a rare problem so they choose to service those who suffer from it. No need for new armor. Other brands suffer from it as well. With environmental rules it is what it is…. Taking good care of bino’s, cleaning them once in a while using a damp cloth (with a mild detergent) and the coating will be fine for many years. Nice to know Swarovski got you covered when something does happen, even when some do not follow their care instructions.

Again, the insinuation that it’s a user problem..

 

[SGBirder]

Again, the insinuation that it’s a user problem..

Exactly! It seems like a small subset of users who haven't experienced the problem are dead set on attributing blame on those who are having the disintegration happen to their binos.

Never has Swarovski put the blame on the user, so what's their basis for coming up with such accusations?

 

[dries1]

"Obviously, there is no way to assess owner care (or lack thereof), frequency and duration of use, and climatic differences among users. Some treat binoculars as tools, others as heirlooms".


I think this sums this thread up.

 

[SGBirder]

"Obviously, there is no way to assess owner care (or lack thereof), frequency and duration of use, and climatic differences among users. Some treat binoculars as tools, others as heirlooms".


I think this sums this thread up.

You totally missed the point of that post.

And no, this thread is not about how peope use or care for their binoculars. Swarovski has acknowledged that it's an issue with their material. Try reading the thread again lol

 

[paddyluke]

are there any manufacturers that warranty wear and tear,i don't think so

 

[dries1]

Dude you live in a tropical rainforest with high temps and humidity, some of those photos look like they have not been serviced for a decade with heavy use, and sorry that you live far from Austria that you have to pay high shipping fees, that is your problem.

Go buy a Zeiss.

 

[SGBirder]

are there any manufacturers that warranty wear and tear,i don't think so

Yes to "defects in the materials" which this sounds like

 

[paddyluke]

Yes to "defects in the materials" which this sounds like

defects are not wear and tear!

 

[Jos Stratford]

According to Swarovski it is a rare problem so they choose to service those who suffer from it. No need for new armor.

Given the damage its doing to their reputation and the hit on sales, that would be a bad strategy

 

[diekmann2]

What basis do you have for saying that people are not following their "care instructions"?

I have spoken to those who have had this problem first-hand, and the binoculars have been well kept and cared for.

More recently, Swarovski is in the midst working on improving the materials - this has been conveyed by several Swarovski reps. Though it's not clear why it's taken and still taking so long. So why are you saying that they are leaving it as it is and not changing it?

Maybe read my post better? I believe my statement was that Swarovski also takes care of people who maybe do not follow their care-instructions, no questions asked.
Little sensitive, aren't we?

 

[SGBirder]

defects are not wear and tear!

And what "wear and tear" are you referring to?

Swarovski has acknowledged that this an issue with their material, not a wear and tear issue.