Assuming mine came repaired with the new material, it looks pretty much identical to the previous material
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Problem with green coating of EL SV 8x32 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter bittern
- Start date
A few months back, I took some photos of my x52's with the new recipe armour side by side with one of my NL's with the older recipe armour, in order to post the photos on here to show what, to me, seemed like a clear difference, and concluded they looked basically identical in the photographs, so in the end I didn't post them. But, running your fingers across the new armour, then doing the same with the old armour, the difference is immediately apparent, the new armour feeling harder (drier somehow?) and less grippy, the old armour feeling softer, with more resistance (grippier?) as you run your fingers across the armour. The old armour may be very slightly lighter in colour, but it is also more reflective, which may make it appear lighter in colour than it really is. I perceived very little difference in colour (nor did the photos pick up on a real difference in colour), but a marked difference in the texture. The grain of the new recipe armour may also be a bit finer, but that could be an illusion.
FWIW my own 'research' also suggests it'll be a while yet before new stock x32 NL's with the new recipe armour will appear on the shelves of stockists, which concurs with what has been previously reported on here.
Last edited:
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Jos,
The margin for the dealer, given by Swarovski, is big enough to give the service mentioned in my post.
Having said that, service is paid by margin.
Ofcourse I can only speak for the circumstances related to my country but according to the 'flag' Pim is Dutch, so......
This particular customer is fortunate to live in the Netherlands where the dealer does offer to handle the cost and hassle. Some other customers are fortunate in their country too, but in the many countries where this is only a dream, the frequently quoted 'armour issues are not a problem, just pop them back to Swarovski' overlooks the problem that this can be.
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Hi Jos,
Seen in the light of post 772 one could argue that Swaro should deal, for those customers you refer to, with this issue on a 'Noblesse Oblige' way.
I am on the same page with you on this matter.
Seen in the light of post 772 one could argue that Swaro should deal, for those customers you refer to, with this issue on a 'Noblesse Oblige' way.
I am on the same page with you on this matter.
I had contact with the customer service at Austria about the armor and when they start the implication of the new armor composition and the warranty of the “old” armor. This is what they stated: “
Dear Customer,
probably your NL PURE hasn't the improved armouring.
This material change takes place from time to time and from product to product.
In course of the next months mostly all new NL PURE device will delivered with the improved armouring.
Your NL PURE material contains no plasticizers or protective agents and is low in allergens.
The special properties of this material mean that under certain conditions, optical changes such as abrasion, cracks and fissures can occur in the armor. However, this only affects around 1 to 2 percent of devices.
All our products are processed with the highest quality, which we have gained over years of experience. Our devices are guaranteed for 10 years against defects in material and workmanship. Even though these defects to TPU-basedarmoring's are extremely rare, we replace our customers' TPU armoring as a gesture of goodwill after their two-year warranty period on wear parts, and we do not charge for labor within the first 10 years.”
And on my question if the NL Pures with the new TAs adapter mount have the new armor:
“ Not necessarily, as we have only been changing over the production of the devices for a certain time.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to say exactly whether and when the devices will be available at the respective dealers.”
I have the NL Pure 10x32 with the new adapter mount, but I can’t say if I have the new armor. It’s not a big deal as I trust the Swarovski warranty, but if my NL Pure armor brakes down after 11 years I have to pay for labour costs probably. It would be nice as that means I still be there to send it 😁
Dear Customer,
probably your NL PURE hasn't the improved armouring.
This material change takes place from time to time and from product to product.
In course of the next months mostly all new NL PURE device will delivered with the improved armouring.
Your NL PURE material contains no plasticizers or protective agents and is low in allergens.
The special properties of this material mean that under certain conditions, optical changes such as abrasion, cracks and fissures can occur in the armor. However, this only affects around 1 to 2 percent of devices.
All our products are processed with the highest quality, which we have gained over years of experience. Our devices are guaranteed for 10 years against defects in material and workmanship. Even though these defects to TPU-basedarmoring's are extremely rare, we replace our customers' TPU armoring as a gesture of goodwill after their two-year warranty period on wear parts, and we do not charge for labor within the first 10 years.”
And on my question if the NL Pures with the new TAs adapter mount have the new armor:
“ Not necessarily, as we have only been changing over the production of the devices for a certain time.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to say exactly whether and when the devices will be available at the respective dealers.”
I have the NL Pure 10x32 with the new adapter mount, but I can’t say if I have the new armor. It’s not a big deal as I trust the Swarovski warranty, but if my NL Pure armor brakes down after 11 years I have to pay for labour costs probably. It would be nice as that means I still be there to send it 😁
jan van daalen
Well-known member
It took some digging but our return rate for Swaro armor problems over the years is 2.8%.
Hermann
Well-known member
Thank you, Jan! Great to get some real numbers. However, Holland isn't a country known for its tough climate: Moderate temperatures, moderate humidity and so on. And from what I recall many of your customers are not, shall we say, "hardcore birders" who use their binoculars day in day out. So my guess would be that binoculars that are used a lot, especially in countries with a hot and humid climate, may have a greater failure rate.
Do you think that would be a fair guess?
Hermann
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Hi Herman,
I really have no idea if/wether those conditions in any way can be taken responsible for this issue. I have to take Swaro's word for this.
The given rate of 2% from Swaro counts for their worldwide returns and the 2.8% for the local Dutch returns.
If you read my post carefully you'll notice that I have spoken for a long period (from 2015-2024) which represents a 2.8% of a few thousand bins.
If I would take the period 2020-2024 it will climb to 5%.
Thx to COVID Swaro sales doubled in the period 2019-2021.
So in total it is 2.8 but it increases in the timetable. Logic because how older the bins get the more will come back.
Having said all this, AFAIK the only company with absolute no armor issue is Leica.
tenex
reality-based
Jan has said before that a lot of Swaros bought in NL are actually being used in Africa. But it still seems hard to draw firm conclusions about what conditions cause armor failure... and therefore whether the problem is likely to have been solved now, unless of course they simply reverted to their previous armor. 2% is such an oddly low failure rate, one would have expected more from a faulty material.
But I seem to remember he also mentioned his customers were often folk buying specifically for a safari trip etc - likely not heavy binocular users in general.
Overall percentages are probably not a lot of use to draw conclusions - if persons are light users, or indeed buying only for a single trip to some exotic location, I would expect armour failures to be highly rare. To most on Birdforum, the failure rate that is probably of more importance is that among heavy regular users. To this end, there was a poll here in the forum that pointed to a considerably higher percentage of failure.
jan van daalen
Well-known member
What we don't know is the timeperiod of the 1-2% mentioned by Swaro.
Is it 1975-2024, 2000-2024, 2015-2024??
Not saying this is so... Just to think about though. How faulty has the cover material been seems the essential question. Has it been truly faulty in scope, that is as faulty as has been reported here? Or has the reporting here, a relative closed community that likes to be critical, (admittedly my impression), created the aura of a more faulty material, than was the case? The 2-2.8% (latter Jan's) seems to suggest maybe, maybe we created a tempest in a tea pot. At least some here decrying the thing did not actually possess or report a personal experience, (maybe don't even own a bino with the potential to fail). Some of these folks did though add to the angst reported by those users who actually did experience it, as I recall.
Maybe not.
Another thought. Wasn't the change to the environmentally more friendly casing material discussed here, a couple years back? Maybe? John Roberts will know. If the data spans that period, things will look better than they have been for that material. What was the return rate for the casing from that change to the now partial fix, dribbling out?
Im still grumpy about the lack of candor from Swarovski addressing the issue. There was a real physical problem of some importance. That needed to get fixed. Too, there was a public relations problem that has created confusion and discontent around the problem, potentially making it worse than it needed to be. Perhaps though in their mind, that was only here...
Last edited:
Relating thought. Its not clear how many Birdforum members in the binocular sub group are the active users you infer. Many are collectors, with a passion to buy, own, compare, debate some pretty esoteric stuff as compared to what's needed to go look at birds with a bino. Whatever the user rate here, its pretty clear we are a small relatively closed cohort that loves to discuss things often in a critical way.
This phenomenon, the preference to criticize, is well known to Quality Management types.
An explanation of why Swaro has managed the thing in such an apparent casual way might relate to how it experiences the actual number. The low return rate Jan forwards from Swarovski, seems to explain why they chose this path. The few hardcore users from whatever environmental state, without the critical horns sounding here, were manageable to it, apparently.
Last edited:
joannec
Well-known member
It's not solved. My EL 8x32s were re armoured a year ago. They will probably need re armouring again. They are only 6 years old. According to Hikerboy''s post the EL 8x32s are not included. It is not just a tropical climate problem; mine have never been out of Europe and I've not used Deet. What happens if mine need re armouring for the second time after the 10 year warranty is up?
Last edited:
seawatcher
Well-known member
Not sure how to interpret your statement when you write "They will probably need rearmouring again". Does this mean that they already ought to go back for rearmouring just one year after they were done because the rubber is deteriorating? Or do you mean that you expect they might only last 5 more years before needing to go back, by which time they are out of warranty? If it is the first of these options then the new armouring could have used the old formula. If it is the second option, well only time will tell, but it would be unfortunate if they disintegrated after the 10 year warranty period.
SW
Nice! I also brought home an 8x42 NL, although they appear to be from last year's batch (AD13). The retailer I purchased from explained that they received this batch about a month ago. Hopefully it holds up.
I hope Swarovski has fixed this armouring issue. I have a pair of 2016 ELs, and they’re almost ready to be shipped back to Austria for the third time! The armor has consistently lasted around three years each time.
I feel like there are quite a few assumptions in this thread about the failure rates and what causes these issues. I don’t buy into the DEET, humidity issues, or the claimed failure rates (clearly, my personal failure rate is 100%, and many other Australian owners report the same). The mixed or lack of communication from Swarovski suggests to me that they don’t know the root cause either.
The climate I live in can be humid (subtropical), but it’s not humid year-round. I also never use DEET, rarely use sunscreen (I prefer to cover up), and always wash my hands after applying anything to avoid getting smudges on my glasses. I used to do a lot of pelagics but treat my binoculars very well, rinsing them after every trip.
Each time my armoring has disintegrated, it’s mostly restricted to the topside of the binoculars. To me, this strongly suggests UV damage as the cause. The underside is still like new. Surely, if humidity were the culprit, the damage would be much more widespread.
To make matters worse, Australian customer service seems to no longer exist… Maybe it’s time to switch to Zeiss?
I feel like there are quite a few assumptions in this thread about the failure rates and what causes these issues. I don’t buy into the DEET, humidity issues, or the claimed failure rates (clearly, my personal failure rate is 100%, and many other Australian owners report the same). The mixed or lack of communication from Swarovski suggests to me that they don’t know the root cause either.
The climate I live in can be humid (subtropical), but it’s not humid year-round. I also never use DEET, rarely use sunscreen (I prefer to cover up), and always wash my hands after applying anything to avoid getting smudges on my glasses. I used to do a lot of pelagics but treat my binoculars very well, rinsing them after every trip.
Each time my armoring has disintegrated, it’s mostly restricted to the topside of the binoculars. To me, this strongly suggests UV damage as the cause. The underside is still like new. Surely, if humidity were the culprit, the damage would be much more widespread.
To make matters worse, Australian customer service seems to no longer exist… Maybe it’s time to switch to Zeiss?
