I have never sold a binocular I have used in the field as open box. I don't know where eitanaltman gets his information, but he is wrong as usual. I may have had it out of the box a few times and tested it on the patio, but that is what open box means. I am glad the seller refunded your money because it sounds like the binoculars were not described accurately and that was good investigative work by Nethero to uncover it. Seeing glare in binoculars is a very personal thing and depends on your eye sockets and your eyes themselves. Some people are going to see glare in certain binoculars and others aren't going to. Here is an interesting story about glare from Allbinos, and they were discussing why some people see glare in the SV 10x50 and some people don't, and the definition of open box by eBay.
"Open box: The item is in excellent, new condition with no wear. The item may be missing the original packaging or protective wrapping, or it may be in the original packaging but not sealed. The item includes original accessories. The item may be a factory second."
"There is an unusual story behind this review. One of our Readers has bought a brand new Swarovski EL 10×50 Swarovision and, during the observations, he was unpleasantly surprised. In his opinion, the new instrument fared weaker against bright light than several other, much cheaper pairs of binoculars he owned. As the piece of equipment from a very renowned producer fell short of his expectations, he decided to send it back and complain about it. The Swarovski technical service looked at that particular specimen of the binoculars closely, and they announced everything was in perfect order and in accordance with the highest company standards. Our Reader shared his frustration on our forum, asking whether other users/owners of that model have experienced the same problems. Practically all answers were negative. People praised Swarovski EL Swarovision devices, nobody has noticed similar flaws or any flaws at all. Usually I don’t test privately owned, used instruments, but this time I decided to make an exception to the rule. Firstly, it was a new pair of binoculars, additionally tested by the Swarovski technical service, and pronounced to be in accordance with their highest standards. We could test not only a new set of binoculars which we hadn’t had an opportunity to handle before, but also the efficiency of the Swarovski technical service. Secondly, we were eager to clarify the doubts of one of our most faithful Readers. We felt it was an opportunity not to be missed. As soon as I got the said Swarovski EL 10×50 Swarovision specimen, I took it outside at night and pointed at several very bright streetlamps. For comparison’s sake I also brought along the Leica Trinovid BA 10×50, the Leica Ultravid BL 10×42 BR, the Zeiss Conquest 10×32 HD and the Swarovski EL Swarovision 8.5×42. There is an unusual story behind this review. One of our Readers has bought a brand new Swarovski EL 10×50 Swarovision and, during the observations, he was unpleasantly surprised. In his opinion, the new instrument fared weaker against bright light than numerous other, much cheaper pairs of binoculars he owned. As the piece of equipment from a very renowned producer fell short of his expectations, he decided to send it back and complain about it. The Swarovski technical service looked at that particular specimen of the binoculars closely, and they announced everything was in perfect order and in accordance with the highest company standards. Our Reader shared his frustration on our forum, asking whether other users/owners of that model have experienced the same problems. Practically all answers were negative. People praised Swarovski EL Swarovision devices, nobody has noticed similar flaws or any flaws at all.Usually I don’t test privately owned, used instruments, but this time I decided to make an exception to the rule. Firstly, it was a new pair of binoculars, additionally tested by the Swarovski technical service, and pronounced to be in accordance with their highest standards. We could test not only a new set of binoculars which we hadn’t had an opportunity to handle before, but also the efficiency of the Swarovski technical service. Secondly, we were eager to clarify the doubts of one of our most faithful Readers. We felt it was an opportunity not to be missed. As soon as I got the said Swarovski EL 10×50 Swarovision specimen, I took it outside at night and pointed at several very bright streetlamps. For comparison’s sake I also brought along the Leica Trinovid BA 10×50, the Leica Ultravid BL 10×42 BR, the Zeiss Conquest 10×32 HD and the Swarovski EL Swarovision 8.5×42. The binoculars seemed to work properly well against bright light, perhaps slightly weaker than its 8.5×42 brother, but the difference was really insignificant. Both Leicas and the Zeiss performed worse for a change, due to spikes, created most likely on the edge of the prism roof. In the case of both Swarovski devices, there were practically no spikes at all. I didn’t notice anything worrisome or any significant differences between optical paths. When it comes to overall contrast of images, I decided to compare just two 10×50 instruments in order to use binoculars with exactly the same surface brightness. Once again, there were no distinct differences. I would even say the Leica performed a tad weaker. In case of both binoculars, I noticed some slight ghosting when I moved the lamp post toward the edges of fields, but those I saw in the Leica were a bit more bothersome. I also had a peek at the interior of the tested model, an instrument, after all, carefully checked by the technical service of the producer. It wasn’t perfect - I had seen cleaner binoculars. A significant number of specks of dust on each of prisms was clearly visible. Dust can influence contrast of images a bit too. The next test I conducted during a sunny day. From my balcony I can see the sun over a distant block of flats, so I looked at it (the building, not the sun) through the Swarovski 10×50 and the Leica 10×50. Indeed, I could notice distinct light circles in images on the opposite side from the sun, and their intensity was higher than the intensity of similar circles visible in the Leica. Still, they depended on the position of the eye and the eyepiece. Personally, I could position my eye in such a way that the flares disappeared almost completely. Here, I suppose, lies the source of problems of our Reader. Different eye sockets, different position of eye cups and elements against the eye mean different effects in a form of flares. A look at photos, presented below, might also help to explain the difficulty. In a duel what area around the exit pupils looks better against contrast light, the Leica prevails without any doubts – it presents an image as close to ideal as it is possible, something you would like to see in every top-of-the-range piece of equipment. The Swarovski lags noticeably behind, and this specimen is not just an exception; similarly looking areas close to exit pupils had also the 10×42 model. An additional concern, mentioned by our Reader, concerned the fact that the intensity degree of bothersome flares changed depending on optical path. It suggested a possibility of transmission issues. Was it really the case? A picture below might answer that question. For the majority of the range in which our eyes are the most sensitive, the transmission difference between both paths amounts to about 2%. It is a level imperceptible to naked eye, so it cannot explain effects observed by our Reader. On the other hand, though, there are parts of the spectrum where differences reach 3-4%. These areas aren’t big but still we don’t think such an effect should be present in a very expensive pair of binoculars. In this class of equipment, I would allow differences no bigger than 1-2%, so barely exceeding a level of our measuring error. Have we clarified the doubts of our Reader? It’s difficult to answer that question. If I was an owner of this piece of binoculars, I wouldn’t have noticed any problems with the performance against bright light, and I most certainly wouldn’t have sent it to the service for an extra check. This example emphasizes the fact that the choice of optical equipment is a very personal matter. Of course, you can read our reviews and tests, considering them to be pointers in the right direction, allowing you to choose a group of possible candidates, but before you buy anything you must take the binoculars in your hands and use it. We have different eye sockets, a bit of different sensitivity characteristics of our light detectors, different layout of rods and cones in our retinas and also individual sight defects. All these factors can influence our choice of a pair of binoculars; that’s why a piece of equipment which fares great in our tests might be perfect for another person but not for you. We had a very good example here. After all, our Reader had bought – I don’t hesitate to say that – one of the best sets of binoculars available on the market, and yet he is not entirely satisfied with it."
