BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jan van daalen" data-source="post: 3374796" data-attributes="member: 113800">OK, understood.Foreign languages and not be able to see each other while communicating gave me this misinterpretation.This is not for the first time a (Leica) retailer has to find out novelties via public domains like BF. Sometimes it is caused by embargo, but it leaks out (mostly on BF<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />), and sometimes it is caused by lack of initiative from the brands reps. Whatever it may caused it, I did not know about this green gem. The reason why I adressed my question on that meet was, that I find it hard to explain the price difference to the potential buyer. This green gem is a good example. Airbrush this black/silverline model green and suddenly it's worth 750,00 euro's more. Another example are the pocket Ultravids. They are way more expensive in leather, in regards to te rubber design  while they are optical identical. In the 42 line it is the other way around. The black and silver line are cheaper, but suddenly the green line is much more expensive while AFAIK they are optical identical.In 32 the price difference would be explainable. It was never there in leather.So I hoped (finding myself at the source of all wisdom) for a satisfying answer from one of the decisionmakers at the scene (@ Phil: I don't think this person can/will be sacked).Jan</blockquote>

Verification