WJC
Well-known member
Oh my, where should I start. The Sound of Music teaches us that the beginning is a very good place to start. So, here we go.
1. Jerry, after being a Swarovski dealer since 1987—and a user long before that—did you really feel it was necessary to give me the history of the company or their association with Kahles? Was that really a diatribe—"a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.” Is it really a forceful or bitter attack on anything to try to, “straighten the curve of understanding”? (see the #1 attached from the repair manager at Swarovski)
And who was it, long before either visiting BirdForum, Cloudy Nights, Stargazers Lounge, etc. who stood before the firing squad to repeatedly tell observers that Celestron, Swift, Minolta, TASCO, Bushnell, Leupold, and many others did not MAKE binoculars? Yep, many birding forum members know it today. But when I first starting preaching it, it was true and I was pleased to lead that charge, being wounded in the process. But then, no good deed will go unpunished. Right or wrong, some people refuse to give up on their preconceived notions—right or wrong! Take a look at the industry. How many companies today are claiming that their binoculars are “made” in the United States when nothing could be further from the truth?
The most recent argument was that Meopta, a Czech company, was “making” binoculars in The United States—Florida to be exact. But what I knew about the matter was not good enough. It took Lee referring to an interview with a Meopta manager to reach the truth. At that point, the plant in Florida was not for MAKING binoculars but developing anti-reflective coatings.
2. Hi Richard, to show you that I am aware of all this, I attached the first page #2 of an article I wrote for Deer & Deer Hunting in 2011. Also, attached #3 is a blurb concerning Kahles early on in the article. Yes, I know about the buyout. Yes, I know that so many European products actually come from Asia. I was one of the first to thumb my nose at those who believe the country of origin—not the quality of the product—is of paramount importance (see attached #4). My concern was in the way it was intimated that the product was manufactured in AUSTRIA when it didn’t, although it cost $319 more—at that time. “Good advertising need not be accurate or even meaningful. It need only be believed.” And birding and astronomy forums are filled with believers.
3. Kimmik, You said, “experts sometimes lose perspective.” I whole heartily agree! That’s why bino forums exist. It is also why my new 8x32 SE remains in the closet and the birding bino I USE is an 8x40 Bushnell!
“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.” — Albert Einstein
4. Binocollector, You said, “I don't think anyone ever thought they were made by Swaro however, as Bill seems to imply.”
Raise your hand if you have ever been a dealer who has witnessed any of the sales literature or who has frequently spoken face to face with a factory rep about misleading words and packaging.
Huh! I didn’t think so. Please don’t get me wrong. I am a huge fan of Swarovski!
5. Peter PS said, concerning an image in post 8, “This is not true, and I am telling the truth.”
That comment came from Leif Robinson’s 1989 book, Outdoor Optics. Leif was the longest running editor of Sky & Telescope but he was an avid birder who I’ve spoken and observed with several times and he served on Bausch & Lomb’s Birding Council.
There are two things to note here. First, I placed that placard in one of my bino cases 33 years ago. Secondly, before you take a shot at my sentiments you need to provide for us the definition of both “good” and “cheap.” From my standpoint they are both subjective and change frequently. If you can’t do that you don’t have leg to stand on.
6. Tenex said, “So you can imagine except you is unaware of such absurdities and in need of enlightenment.”
Would it were so. However, it is not, except for those who have a restricted view of the workings of the optical industry.
7. Richard said, “If the above is pretty much what you mean when you use the word “aberration” you are probably correct...”
Richard, as you have probably have already guessed, I use the clinical definition of optical “aberrations” instead of the willey – nilley grab bag of terms so frequently used on birding forums. Like him or hate him, Rush Limbaugh was right ... words mean things. Glass companies use only ONE spelling for the term BaK4. But how many versions have you seen on BirdForum, Cloudy Nights and others? It matters for those who come here to learn! And “Distortion” is SO different from “Field Curvature” that it most definitely should be pointed out that it is foolish and damaging to the group to use them interchangeably. (see attachment #5) Long before the computer was on every table and desk in America, I was at work trying to correct optical fallacies.
Some people come here to increase their knowledge of optics and binoculars. But sadly others get bent out of shape when errors in their thinking is pointed out. But is that right? Does it raise the bar? Do we want to keep spinning our wheels in order not to take a chance at offending someone?
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” — Dr. Richard Feynman
More often than not, our understanding rests with the magnitude of our humble willingness to understand.
Sadly, I think this two-page explanation will be considered another “diatribe.”
“You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.” — Victor Hugo, 1845 (often attributed to Churchill)
Like it or not, I have stood for all of those who WANT to know more. Even so,
“I’m only responsible for what I say, not what you understand.” — John Wayne
Considering the 4 attachments to my original post have been downloaded 281 times, there are still some who want to know more ... on purpose.
Love to all and Merry Christmas,
Bill
Attachments
Last edited:
