Archives of an email list on the history of binoculars. http://home.europa.com/~telscope/listp150.txt home page: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/binotele.htm Lists 151-200 ==================================================== Binocular List #151: 26 January 2001 ===================================================== Subject: Buying binoculars in Europe From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de After some research I just ordered a brand new Docter 7x40 B/GA from a small Bavarian dealer. He offered a nice discount to get rid of his stock and I absolutely could not resist. I understand this is the demilitarised version of the Zeiss/Jena EDF 7x40 (roof prism) which again is the successor of the DF 7x40 (porro prism). Neither Docter nor Zeiss/Jena claimed to have put phase corrected roof prisms in their 7x40 B/GA or EDF 7x40. I however assume that later, EDF roof prism, should be better in this case. And comments on other lists were very positive. I phoned Docter in Eisfeld and the confirmed that they still make them! Soon they will even offer a 10x42 version. Docter binos are not present in many German shops and even their website is miserable. Camera shops typically have Leica and cheap Japanese stuff. Opticians have Zeiss, Steiner and cheap Japanese stuff with German brand names. The EDF 7x40 is quite common on ebay, but I find the final prices a little bit steep, given the fact that you may get heavily used military surplus without warranty. And I am not that keen on reticles, laser filters or radioactive illumination. Briefly I considered a Steiner 7x50, but I have difficulties to track down the different quality levels of coating and sealing, in particular for used gear and with different names for US and German markets. From the subjective built quality I consider them as the binocular equivalent to "Swatch" wrist wratches, excellent performance and value for money if brand new, but sort of unrepairable. Furthermore I thought about the Romanian IOR binos. I hoever could not locate an importer for Germany. US mailorder firms offer them for very decent prices, but with shipping to Germany and VAT it would not have been worth the hassle. Next month I will make a business trip to Bucharest and see whether I can locate them over there. Hans-Peter ========================================= Subject: Eyeball testing From: Arnold Cohen RE: "organoleptic" testing of binoculars-"eyeballing brightness" I think caution may be necessary when trying to compare two binoculars by looking down the barrel of one with one eye and the other with the other. As you know there is often considerable difference in refraction between eyes and there maybe differences in brightness as well. There are often subtle differences in the lenses of the eye - early cataracts, subtle changes in color probably due to UV exposure etc. When I have tried this or even checked one side of a binocular with the other a consistent perceived difference in brightness is noted but persists even with the glass turned over 180degrees!! Some sets of eyes are better that others but at least switching eyes back and forth may be a good idea. Arnie =================================== Subject: Japanese design twin telescope From: DaveTrott@___m As detailed in the Binocular list #148: 05 January 2001, many years ago Tatsuro Matsumoto suggested an innovative way to make a two-reflection right angle binocular telescope. Tatsuro Matsumoto calls it the Erecting Mirror System. The effect is nearly identical to having two giant telescopes with giant Amici diagonals with a built-in offset which delivers the images to the interpupillary separation of a human being. The idea is very attractive because you get a correct image at a right angle with only two reflections. All of these characteristics might be desirable for astronomical observations. Working from his original idea, I constructed a pair of these last year. Joe Castoro has been experimenting with them as well. Interested readers can have a look at my admitedly primitive version at http://hometown.aol.com/davetrott/page1.htm and to see the well-engineered versions at Tatsuro Matsumoto's page: http://www.page.sannet.ne.jp/mazmoto/index-e.htm. Joe Castoro's page is at http://www.binoscope.com/ Dave Trott ===== Congratulations, Dave. A very fine project. Matsumoto's S & T article used a slightly different system than shown on his web site. They both use two mirrors, and I suppose you could say that just the spacing of the mirrors changed. Dave points out that these systems are similar to an Amici prism, using mirrors instead of internal glass surfaces; and the new Matsumoto system moves the mirrors apart. ============ Dave's web page includes links to two amateur built binocular telescopes, using the system shown by Frank Szepanski in ATM Journal #14 (1999) pages 44-47. I don't know if they devised it on their own, it is a very unusual system, and there is no note about the designer on their sites. http://www.mindspring.com/~santiago41/astro1004.htm http://kw.rasc.ca/bts/bts.html ================================================== Subject: German optical designs from WWII From: Peter Abrahams Portland Oregon has a very good public library, the Multnomah County Library; where I found: Gimbel, John. Science, Technology, and Reparations: exploitation and plunder in postwar Germany. Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 1990. This book describes the systematic exportation of German technology set up after WWII as part of Allied reparations against Germany. The technology behind German military and non military production was obviously highly advanced in many cases. To recover some of the financial expenses of the war, a very large U.S. government program was set up. Privately owned American corporations were allowed to gain access to all facilities, records and patents; of many or all German companies (not limited to war related industry), along with universities and museums. This was known as the Field Information Agency, Technical (FIAT), part of the Office of Technical Services (OTS). The well known 'Project Paperclip', which brought German rocket scientists to the U.S. and started the American space program, was but a small part of the larger program. In addition, the British, French, Russian, and other Allied governments enacted their own "substantial postwar scientific and technical exploitation" (p. xi) of Germany, not detailed in this book. Gimbel was a translator for the postwar U.S. military government in Germany, and does not seem to be of the opinion that the extent of the FIAT program was justified. He repeatedly notes that the exportation of industrial secrets made it more difficult for Germany to resume a peacetime economy and thus establish a stable democracy. FIAT was paid for by U.S. taxpayers, and any benefits were reaped by U.S. industry; making it a domestic subsidy program (following the war itself, in which a massive amount of tax dollars went to industry) . The policies & duration of Allied occupation delayed the time when Germans could pay cash for food imports, rather than rely on foreign aid. These exports of technical knowledge were a 'creeping' or 'hidden' reparation, not counted in the balance book of war reparations. The program went far beyond industries that contributed to the war effort, for example the famous inventor & manufacturer of teddy bears, Steiff of Giengen, was investigated by two representatives of British competitors in the toy industry; who were quite thorough in taking samples, measuring & sketching, and inquiring into special procedures and machinery that had been secret (p165). Gimbel quotes extensively from correspondence between German industrialists and various bureaucrats, and naturally the businessmen were concerned & indignant about their secrets being shared. I do not share Gimbel's obvious indignation, but clearly this was government sponsored industrial espionage and there are two sides to this issue. I found this book to be quite interesting, but unfortunately, it has very little about optical technology. Among the German firms investigated were Zeiss, Leitz, Rodenstock, Steinheil, and other optical businesses. At Leitz in Wetzlar, 198,000 pages were 'selected for the microfilm project' (p63). C.A. Steinheil Soehne in Munich was investigated by two Americans. G. Rodenstock, Munich, was visited by U.S., British, and Czech experts; and apparently the Czech (representing a just- socialized competitor) was especially qualified & thorough, spending a week studying, photographing, and copying (p163). An employee of American Optical Company, G. E. Guellich, investigated Zeiss and Leitz in 1945 when he was an Allied consultant. He later asked to inspect microfilm related to his work, and received 140,000 frames, which he figured would take 6,000 hours to review; a task that was never undertaken. This was a very large program, which collected about 5,000 reels of microfilm, recording about 5,000,000 pages (p70). At the Berlin patent office, 1,018,000 pages were selected for microfilming, with a staff of 70 people, using 17 miles of microfilm (p63). Between 01 July 1946, and 30 June 1947, there were 4,994 investigators in 2,922 field trips to Germany (History of FIAT). Most were from the U.S., Great Britain, and France, with others from many different countries. The investigators were only the central personnel in the program, they were accompanied by military escorts & assisted by German employees; in May 1946 for example, 600 Germans were microfilming records for 100 U.S. investigators. The program had been functioning before July 1946, but no figures are available from that time (p79). The orignal plan for the program was to issue an index and make the records available to the general public, but the program was shut down before completion, and the 'compendium' was never issued; with the result that well connected industries and individuals received 'private access' to the documents. Before the microfilm was shipped to Washington D.C., it was abstracted & indexed; then in the U.S. it went through security clearance and then to the Dept. of Commerce for distribution. The OTS published a 'Bibliography of Scientific and Industrial Research Reports' every week. The program appears to have been terminated 30 June 1948 by the Dept. of Commerce. Given the size of the operation, the lack of an index, and Guellich's experience with his mass of microfilm, it seems obvious that there is a very large amount of documentation related to optical instruments that has never been inspected. Presumably, copies of these remain in Germany, where they might have received some use and be known to historians. However, there's no doubt that a gold mine awaits the person who finds where these records are kept & spends the months it would take to dig through them. I did not find in this book a clear indication of where the microfilms are currently stored. The references in the bibliography are in rather cryptic form, for example: OMGUS Historical Office, 'History of Field Information Agency, Technical (FIAT), Period 01 July 1946 - 30 June 1947', MS in RG 319, CMH, Historical Manuscripts File, NA. This is apparently in the U.S. National Archives. But the repository for the microfilms is described only as the 'Department of Commerce' (not a big help), which makes them available to those who can identify what they wish to view & who pay for reproduction. (In the 1970s, records of synthetic fuel programs were utilized.) I hope that the combined efforts of readers of the binocular list can result in more of these documents (those related to binoculars) becoming public. ============================================== ================================================== Binocular List #152: 27 January 2001 ===================================================== Subject: Zeiss and other Prismatic Telescopic Sights From: SCSambrook@___m I wonder if anyone on the list is familiar with prismatic telescopic rifle sights as made before 1914 ? I have only once handled such a Zeiss sight, made circa 1902, I think, and it looked far to flat in the body to use porro-prisms. Has anyone any idea about what sort of prism system Zeiss used for it ? In some ways it looks very much like half a Turita ... but that was the Moeller prism design, was it not? Am I correct in thinking that having acquired Moeller, Zeiss claimed that they had had a similar prism design all along ? Maybe there's a connection. Goerz also made a prismatic sight, but I've never handled one. Indeed, the only illustrations of such a sight I've found is a reproduction from an old gunmaker's catalogue. Has anyone out there any knowledge of it ? Prismatic rifle 'scopes did not seem to find favour, did they ? The Warner & Swasey 'Musket Sight' was hardly a success either, and although Bausch & Lomb were developing a prism sight around 1911, I've never seen any reference to its having been marketed. I know these aren't binoculars, but they do represent one area of prismatic instrument application which seems to have been a blind-alley. Best wishes Stephen Sambrook --------- From: Peter Abrahams > Zeiss sight, made circa 1902,.... what sort of prism system Zeiss used for it ? Seeger's red book, p57, he notes an early Zeiss 'sighting telescope' with a Sprenger Leman prism. >a Turita.....uses a variation of the Moeller prism, a roof prism with a small prism cemented to it, but the roof on an adjacent surface. >having acquired Moeller, Zeiss claimed that they had had a similar prism design all along ? Yes, but they were lacking credibility in these issues. >The Warner & Swasey 'Musket Sight' was hardly a success either http://www.m-s-co.com/sso/articles/article11.html has a good amount on the deficiences of the W-S model >Prismatic rifle 'scopes did not seem to find favour, did they ? Just possibly the combination of low power & long eye relief would require a much larger prism, very difficult to make in a roof, but I can't be sure of this. =========================================== Subject: German records From: The whereabouts of the microfilms in Germany is not that secret. There are several large archives in Germany, that holds such microfilms. Bundesarchiv to name one...try out a search on the name Bundesarchiv.de it is even after american standards fairly large...understatement of the day. Its the national german archive. They speak english as well...BUT, and this is a big But...they are not well funded, so copies can be made...at a price pr. page, which makes it an expensive place to ask. straight from the microfilms...but they have only sporadic indexes...the material is too old, and resourses are used on more important work. We have some reels here in Denmark too....it seems the US offered all western states a chance of acquiring relevant reels, but here, they are still under restrictions...somebodys granddad might be mentioned, so we have to wait until 2030, I think. ( or go to Washington, and yes, danish historians do that..easier than accessing the copy reels here in Denmark, cute huh?) Another archive would be Militärarchiv in Freiburg, but as I recall it, they are more into personalia, especially SS unit members. I went into the archives years back, on a search for danish companies delivering war material for the german army, little came from this, but the material is there, only there has been some kind of editing to prevent the most uninteresting reels to fill the availble space. And simple factory visit reports are likely to have been discarded. Apart from that, it is well known that the US army had tech rescue teams just behind the boys in the line, to prevent the fighting soldiers from smashing important new technical equipment out of ignorance. This was indeed an exploitation of german industry, and it took almost 10 years before novel german items appeared on the world market. All their R&D had been removed to the states. One item...Transistor radios ...very novel in 1947....wasn´t they?..american and all,...well, the Wehrmacht had transistors! made at philips in Holland, but it took two years to read all the papers and set up facilities to make them..therefore the transistor was born in 1947, not 45. A tip before I completely forget this is about binos...In Virginia the US still holds a lot of inventory taken from german factories, (last thing, I have heard, it is still there) The US tech teams simply swiped the tables in RD in german factories and put it in crates for later evaluation...wonder if the crate with Zeiss RD is still there? One example here is the restoration of the german rifle Gerät 06(H) or StG45. This was recently rebuild from Virginia parts for the national german army museum. It was one of the production models and you probably all know the rifle that came from it..the HK G3 used by Iranian and iraqian forces even today. The mauser RD team went to spain in 46, with the blueprint and refined the rifle, later to return to HK Germany and make it there. Any books on the US technical teams???..I, for one, is on my way to my local library within 5 minutes...thanks to Peter for the tip of that book. I could suggest the book by R.V. Jones on british technical efforts during ww2, mostly on radio and radars, but not restricted to this. Tip: A basic knowledge on radio waves and antennas are recommended. cannot recall the title. He is commenting several times on german RD efforts...like after the evaluation of a german ground radar. They stole a german Würzburg radar, AND the crew...talk about Commando raids. Any Hollywood guys looking for a new movie script??...This has it all...including the cliffhanging german luftwaffe soldier, trying to stay out of sight. Several techies went in with the commandos to disassemble the radar. ======================================================== Subject: Wartime From: Peter Abrahams I found a paragraph related to my post of last list on exporting German technology post WWII. Aalders, Gerard and Cees Wiebes. The Art of Cloaking Ownership: the secret collaboration and protection of the German war industry by the neutrals, the case of Sweden. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Univ. Press, 1996. Most of this book was not of interest to me; but on page 20, they discuss German patents registered in Sweden in 1944-5. Sweden became an 'asylum' for German companies trying to protect intellectual property, and was regarded as a safe haven. In 1944, there were 6,000 patents registered in Sweden by German companies (in 1938, there were 1,618 Swedish patents, and in 1944 the total was 10,671). In the spring of 1945, an unspecified number of patents were registered, described as 'a positive explosion', many from I.G. Farben. Zeiss-Ikon is also named as a registrar. ------------- Also found another book, part of a multi-volume history of WWII from the U.S. Army: Thomson, Harry and Lida Mayo. The Ordnance Department: Procurement and Supply. Washington: Office of the Chief of Military History, Dept. of the Army, 1960. (p96- 7). (page 95): The Army's Ordnance purchases of optical fire control instruments from 1940 to 1945 totaled over $1,000,000,000. Industry was not enthusiastic about producing the more complex instruments, which were small-run and high-risk; and they had to be persuaded to manufacture them. (page 96): The major products were binoculars & telescopes, range finders & height finders, and directors. "the quality of American fire control materiel came in for a good deal of criticism from British forces in North Africa....that was soon echoed by U.S. troops who landed in North Africa in November 1942." "Early in 1941, to meet an urgent requirement for 350,000 binoculars, Ordnance took the unusual step of standardizing for military use a commercial design of the Bausch and Lomb Optical Company. This design closely approximated the old World War I binocular, known as type EE, that was still standard. Other commercial models were also standardized and produced in quantity for shipment to Allies. But this policy soon proved to be a costly mistake. Designed for normal civilian use, the commercial binoculars failed to stand up under combat service where they were subjected to rough handling, submersion in water, and exposure to extremes of temperature. Using them was, in the words of one field commander, "like looking through two dirty milk bottles." ....a new military model was adopted early in 1943.......When the Bausch and Lomb binocular was adopted in 1941, it was understood that the Bausch and Lomb company could not be counted on for large-scale production of binoculars because its resources were needed for more critical precision optical instruments. Ordnance therefore turned to the Nash-Kelvinator Company, and the Mansfield Ohio works of the Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company. Neither firm had any experience in making optical instruments, nor any facilities for manufacture of optical elements, but plant surveys had convinced Ordnance that the two concerns could readily adapt their equipment and buildings to binocular production. Optical elements -- lenses, prisms, windows, reticles, and other parts made of optical glass -- were to be procured from optical glass manufacturers and turned over to Nash-Kelvinator and Westinghouse as government free issue materials. Production was slow to start. "We were told by old line binocular manufacturers," Westinghouse later reported, "that they questioned if we would ever be able to produce satisfactory binoculars, let alone produce them in the quantities called for under our contract." But by the first anniversary of Pearl Harbor the two contractors were producing at the rate of 8,000 binoculars each, per month. During 1943, the peak year for production, 245,672 were turned out, including both old and new models." (page 98): "The competition for optics (lenses & prisms) almost resolved itself into a 'free for all' between the Army, Navy, and Air Corps, with the British Purchasing Commission interfering with all three. Because of the shortage of optical elements, and the instrument makers' lack of experience in procuring them, Ordnance decided to procure optical elements from qualified producers and turn them over to instrument manufacturers as government free issue material. One of the most successful procurements under this policy flowed from a contract with the Optical Research Company of Long Island City. This concern produced most of the optical elements for the binoculars made by the Nash-Kelvinator Company and the Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company. As requirements for optical elements mounted after Pearl Harbor and it became necessary to bring many small manufacturers into production, Frankford Arsenal and the New York Ordnance District arranged with the Mergenthaler- Linotype Company to attempt an unusual experiment. Mergenthaler set up the U.S. Optical Supply Corporation, with an office in New York City, to provide central control of numerous contracts with small producers. Its officers were also officers of Mergenthaler, the parent company, and received no compensation for their services. Operating on a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with the government, the company placed subcontracts with many small producers, helped them get into production, provided storage space for optical pressings, and eventually delivered some $4 million of material......The Fire Control Sub-Office encouraged the optical glass industry by arranging government financing of plant expansion and administering an optical machinery pool which procured some 1,000 machines for use by optical glass producers. It arranged for Corning Glass Works to build a government-owned, contractor-operated plant at Parkersburg, W. Va., and to operate a glass depot there. In October 1943, when the coating of optics to improve the performance of instruments under poor lighting conditions was made mandatory, the Fire Control Sub-Office supervised the procurement of equipment and provided technical instruction to contractors on this difficult project. ===================================================== Subject: Romanian IOR From: Fan Tao Regarding the Romanian IOR military style binoculars, they have excellent build quality, similar to the Zeiss Jena 7x40DF(NVA). However, in a direct comparison of the IOR 7x40 vs. the Zeiss Jena DF, I prefer the Zeiss. The field of view and eye relief are about the same (about 60 degrees apparent and 20mm). The image through the IOR is nocticeably yellow whereas the Zeiss is close to neutral. Furthermore, the IOR has (to me) annoying field curvature, that is, the edge of field needs to be refocused to make it clear. The Zeiss also has some field curvature and astigmatism on the field edge but it does not seem as bad. The IOR 10x50 is similar in performance to the IOR 7x40 (plus it is very heavy to hand hold). I do not mean to make the IOR's sound bad, other than the problems mentioned, they are very fine binoculars. Fan Tao ==================================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #153: 02 / 02 / 01 ===================================== Subject: Canadian binoculars From: Peter Abrahams I put together as much as I could find on Canadian binoculars: REL and ELCAN http://home.europa.com/~telscope/canada.txt Thanks to Steve Harris, Deutsche Optik, and others, for contributing text. We need more information on this subject. ====================================== Subject: Docter / IOR From: Thomas Press Regarding the recent Binocular List references to the Docter (aka Zeiss/Jena) EDF 7 x 40 and IOR 7 x 40 BGA, I have owned both and found the IOR (at least in my samples) to be the far superior glass, with a wonderfully open and crisp view, and superb build quality. As best as I can tell, the EDF, as a roof prism binocular, is probably better able to hold its collimation in the face of rough treatment, but the view through the EDF was noticeably less sharp, with a much narrower field of view and considerably less depth of field. Both glasses have a yellow tint, although the EDF tint is dramatically more pronounced. Over time, I found the EDF yellow images increasingly annoying, and useful only for moonlight use. Hopefully, Docter Optik has also made some progress on the quality control front as, in my experience, many of the late 80's Zeiss Jena binoculars, both roof and porro, were pretty shoddily built. Regards, Tom ======== Here is the internet link for IOR: http://www.starnets.ro/ior/iore.htm Fan Tao ================================================= Subject: Repair From: gene harryman I have followed the discussion on binocular repair with some interest as I also have had problems in the past with reliable repairs. I have used five services in the past. I used the first four based on their supposed reputation. One was a binocular mfg., one an importer, one was an old reputable "they do it all themselves" firm, and the fourth was a reputable dealer that did some and farmed some. I can honestly say that the results in all four cases were poor to lousy. I could have done a better job myself (and that ain't saying much!), but some of the glass was German, and I thought I would spring to have it done expertly. Boy!, was I disappointed. Therefore, I have come to value personal recommendations, one of which I took, and I would like to share the results with those who are looking for a first class repair service. I had a pair of 1943 B&L Mark 28's rebuilt from the ground up, including re-covering, a pair of DF 7x40's re-collimated, and the lens re-cemented, cleaned and collimated on a pair of Tower 7x50 w/B&L body from the 50’s. The results in each case were first rate, and it didn’t take 3 months to get them back, either. Collimation was perfect – you can look for long periods without any strain, which is what in the end matters. The mechanical work was also flawless, and I am quite picky on this. The work was done by Suddarth Optical Repair, and I would have no reservations giving the highest recommendation for them. They can be reached at binofixer@___ink.net. Gene Harryman ==================================================== Subject: Review on Docter 7x40 B/GA From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de I just picked up my new Docter 7x40 B/GA from the post office. It comes in plain black, without reticle and IR detector, is labeled "Docter Optic", "Made in Germany", with serial no. 3090220. The packaging and the warranty card is all "Docter", but the manual is labeled "aus Jena" and "Jenoptik" with the old DDR postal address. Even the German is genuine DDR speak. I have no clue whether the binocular is from limited "new old" stock, made from a limited stock of parts or still made new from scratch. In the first place I was delighted by the excellent, but crude built quality. Very obviously it was "constructed" at a time when "designers" were supposed to work in the fashion industry of the decadent West and were not allowed to fiddle with technical products, even less with military equipment. The modular, removeable rubber armour is a brilliant idea. I saw Zeiss B/GAs with little cracks and no way to cheaply replace the galvanised rubber armour. It feels nicer than the plastic on modern binoculars. At the second look I discovered the most comfortable eye relieve I ever saw on a bincular (>20mm, according to specs). I don't have to press the binocular against my glasses to get it right. The rubber, bellows style eye cups fold down flatter and easier than those on the Zeiss Classics or Steiners. Pop up or srew eye cups are state of the art now. But for use without spectacles the bellows adapts better to face contours, you can adjust the ocular-eye distance and there is no stiff plastic tube sticking in your eye. Of course quickly folding and unfolding (for use with and without spectacles) is not possible and in the long range may fatigue the rubber (spares DM 22/pair). With rolled down rubber eye cups, the rain guard fits too tight. To get it on and off you have adjust the inter-pupil distance. The third look revealed a destinct yellow cast which is enhancing contrast and vision at dawn, but of course could be disconcerting for watching nature, birds etc.. Most probably your brain's own viewing "software" will recalculate the colour data and you won't notice it after some time. But if you put down the binocular the process of adaptation will start again. I didn't use the binocular long enough during daylight for a final evaluation. However, at the moment I simply have no adequate binocular for comparison. I own a Leica 8x20 (latest, with phase correction coatings) and a Steiner 6x30 (> 15 years, with not so great anti-glare coating and contrast, but very good eye relief for the cheap price I paid). I would like to compare it with the Zeiss 7x42 B/GA with latest T*/P* coating. It has 150 metres nominal field of view, but I wonder how much is left when used with spectacles. I saw other Docters on sale: e.g. 8x56 BG/A Nobilem, 8x50 BG/A Nobilem, 15x50 B/GA Nobilem. The collector virus has bitten me and I am tempted to buy the 8x50. I saw a very positve review on the 8x56, putting it almost in the same class as the Zeiss Dialyt. But it is heavy and at my age (36 at the moment, but growing) I may not take full advantage of a 7mm exit pupil. Any clues on the 8x50 which isn't anymore in Docter's current sales brochure (field of view, weight, size in comparison to the still listed 7x50 and 10x50)? Docter's current Noblems have a "rounded" design which I however find ugly. I would prefer the "classic" look as shown at the bottom of this site: "http://www.globalxs.nl/home/r/roskam/". But I don't know whether the cosmetic "modernisation" came along with improved optical performance or weather resistance. Hans-Peter ======= I agree that the very heavy models by Zeiss & Leitz are uncomfortable. The 7 mm exit pupil might not be any problem -- you can measure your pupils with a ruler & mirror in an almost-dark room. Also, most people find that an exit pupil that is oversize is very comfortable to use, so even if you lose some light, there is a benefit. Docter roof prism binoculars with the eyecups cut diagonally to a V shape are beyond ugly, they are about the ugliest binocular I've seen. Furthermore, when I used them, the eyecups fit tightly and so blocked all the stray light, but the eye lens was continually fogging. --Peter Here is the information found on the web page noted above, 'roskam' DOCTER/WETZLAR-JENA DOCTER produced aspherical elements for Leica and Angenieux lenses. DOCTER is the present owner of the former ZEISS/Jena division of binoculars. The CLASSIC line 7x50, 8x30, 10x50 The NOBILEM line 7x50, 8x50, 10x50, 12x60, 15x60 8x56 nighthunter ROOF-PRISM 8x32, 8x32 aspherical, 10x40,10x40 aspherical, 7x40 glass COMPACT 8x22, 8x22 aspherical, 10x25 and 10x25 aspherical. TURMON mono 8x21. http://www.globalxs.nl/home/r/roskam/ ================================================== I received the following email, which is not related to binoculars but is quite interesting. --Peter Subject: Research on Oculus Co. 02 Feb 2001 From: Bruce Bolinger As part of the work that I am doing on my family history, I am trying to document the role of my great uncle, Arthur Schrynemakers, in the Resistance in Belgium in WWII. He was a Dutch national living in Brussels. During 1943-44 he hid 10 people in his home, seven Jews; an American flier, Thomas Applewhite, who had been shot down over the Netherlands; and, later, a Belgian Intelligence officer and his wife who were on the run from the Gestapo. Through the National Archives and the Air Forces Escape and Evasion Society I was able to locate the Applewhite. He is still living, and has been very helpful in providing information. One of the many things that he told me was that there had been a young Belgian engineer who was part of forced labor at an optical lens factory in Germany. By pretending to be pro-Nazi, he persuaded the Germans to let him return to Brussels on compassionate leave. While there he told his father of the importance of bombing the factory—it was making lenses for periscopes for tanks and submarines. The man’s father relayed the information to Schrynemakers. Since it was time for Applewhite to be taken to Gibraltar, Schrynemakers gave him the information on the factory, which Applewhite passed on to Allied Military Intelligence officers during his debriefing in Gibraltar in January 1944. Before he left Gibraltar for London, he was told that the factory had been successfully bombed by the RAF. (Part of the information he provided included the best time to bomb—between shifts—to minimize casualties among the forced labor.) Applewhite understood the name of the company whose factory was to be bombed to be “Loculous Optical Co.” So far I have been unable to locate any such company. I am beginning to think that it may have been “Oculus”, a logical name for a optical lens company. If spoken by a French-speaking person I believe it might become “l’Oculus”. Since Applewhite did not speak French, I can see how there easily could have been a misunderstanding on his part. While searching the Internet for “Oculus”, I came across a Web site for an OCULUS Optikgeräte GmbH in Dutenhofen, near Wetzlar, in Germany that makes optometric equipment. Its Web site (http://www.oculus.de/english/firma.html) mentions that it was established in Berlin in 1895 and moved to Dutenhofen in 1947. I wonder if this could be what Applewhite was referring to. I came across your list “Code Letters for Name of Manufacturer from WWII German Optical Products” which includes the listing “ddv OCULUS (optometrist equipment, possibly gunsights) BERLIN GERMANY”. All this information, particularly the reference to gunsights, would seem to connect OCULUS, formerly of Berlin, now of Dutenhofen to the “Loculous” company that was bombed based on information relayed by Schrynemakers to Applewhite. I have sent an e-mail to OCULUS asking to be put in touch with anyone in the company familiar with its history. (I didn't go into the detail that I have in this message to you.) I would greatly appreciate any information that you could provide me on OCULUS and any leads that I should pursue that would help me in my research. Sincerely, Bruce Bolinger Nevada City, CA Bolinger@___et =============================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #154: 09 February 2001. ===================================================== Subject: Re: Docter From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de Yesterday I could not resist to peep through a Zeiss 7x42 B/GA T*P* at a local shop. The field of view is indeed a tad wider than on the Docter 7x40, with spectacles, almost as if there is no binocular in front of your face! In the short time I however wasn't able to make out a clear winner in optical performance. It was late afternoon and hazy. So the yellow tinted Docter seemed to have better contrast than the Zeiss which was just a little bit on the blue side. I almost believe the ugliness of the latest Docter Nobilems and aspherical roofs was required by Zeiss/Oberkochem:-) But the 7x50 Nobilems on Mr. Roskam's site, the ones with the shiny, ribbed rubber armour, are, well, classic design. Zeiss/Jena had to comply with centrally administrated production plans under adverse conditions. So product quality was a problem, a little bit less for those batches to be sold to the West for hard currency (labeled "Jenoptem"), a little but more for those to be delivered to the comrades trading in Ladas (labeled "Zeiss/Jena"). On the other hand there were clear priorites for the military, in terms of quantity of resources allocated and quality. When I was in the West-German military in the mid 1980s, we had 8x30 Hensolds from the 1960s, absolutely useless for people with spectacles and nothing near the Zeiss/Jena 7x40. According to the "History" on www.docter-germany.com, the Zeiss/Jena binocular plant at Eisfeld, with some 1000 employees in the 1980s. went down twice: for the first time in the early 1990s, after Germany's re-unification, for the second time in 1997. The company went bancrupt and then was reinstated again, under a new umbrella (Analytic Jena GmbH), but at a very low profile with less than 90 employees left. The 8x50 B/GA is not in Docter's current brochure (received last week), leaving a gap between 7x50 and 10x50. Of course there is new old stock with some dealers. Any known reason for this: quality problems, poor optical performance, to expensive to make or just running out of old parts? Response off list is welcome. Would be quicker. Hans-Peter ==================================================== Subject: Re: Zeiss Jena Nobilems From: Fan Tao I don't know if Docter has changed the optical design of the Nobilem binoculars, but my 8x50 Nobilems (SN 7372777) must have been made around the time Zeiss Jena became Docter (1991). They are marked Zeiss Jena but the box and user brochure have Docter-Optic labels stuck on them. The apparent field of view is about 56 degrees and the eye relief is around 17mm, just enough to use with my glasses (but more would be nice). The field is nearly sharp to the edge and the image doesn't have an annoying yellow cast. I like the one piece body design but not the focus knob, which is too hard to reach due its small diameter and location on the center of the bridge. I much prefer the large focus wheel near the eyepiece as found on the Nobilem Super, which, by the way, is also more compact and easier to handle. The regular 7x50, 8x50, and 10x50 Nobilems have very long bodies in comparison and are all pretty much the same size and weight. I haven't seen the 8x56 Nobilem but it has a smaller field of view (52 degrees). I was able to look through a Nobilem 10x50 at Stephan Rohan's and was impressed by its very wide field (73 degree apparent) and fairly well corrected image. I am sorry now that I didn't pick up a pair back when Deutsche Optik was clearing them out. Fan Tao =============================================== Subject: Re: Olympus From: Fan Tao Review of Olympus 8x25 WideView Olympus has a line of WideView or "Wide PC" compact reverse porro binoculars featuring a wide field of view. I picked up a 8x25 model, there are also 10x25 and 8-15x25 (zoom) models. The 8x25 has a street price of about $120. The body is made of silver plastic with gray rubber grips, much like you would find on a camcorder. The focus knob is large and easy to use and moves the objectives to focus. I was able to focus down to less than 10 feet. The field of view is 9 degrees (72 apparent), fully illuminated, and with the sliding eyecups down I was just able to make out the field edge with glasses on (the eyerelief is rated at 12mm and the eyecups are soft so they don't scratch your glasses). With such a wide field of view, I was not surprised that the field is quite blurry towards the edge. However, I was able to get the edge quite sharp by refocusing several diopters. This to me indicates that a curved field is the major culprit. The WideViews are advertised to have aspheric eyepieces, and the designers must have corrected for astigmatism but ended up with major field curvature. Also, the field curvature in my sample is not symmetrical. That is, the field edge is more sharply in focus in some directions than in others. I have also seen this anomaly in a pair of Docter 8x32 Aspheres, (not as ugly to my eyes as to Peter's) and can only attribute it to an imperfectly made aspheric surface. ==================================================== Subject: Baker Eyeshields From: Fan Tao I was able to complete my collection of Burris Fullfields with a 7x35 (no longer produced) from eBay. A previous owner was serious enough to glue down the rubber eyecups and add a Baker eyeshield. I was wondering about the history of the Baker eyeshield. It is listed on Baker Marine's website, does anyone know if they are responsible for the name? The Bausch & Lomb 7x50 Mark 41 is of course famous for having a rubber eyeshield on it. Is that its first application? Fan Tao === From: Peter Abrahams Is the eyeshield on their website very similar to the Mk 41? I don't have one to compare. I wouldn't think that just because the model on their web site is a 'Baker eyeshield', that the WWII model is a 'Baker'. Was it referred to as Baker back then? http://www.bakermarineusa.com/group2binoc.htm#eyeshield http://www.bakermarineusa.com/faceshield.htm === From: Fan Tao My Mk41 is missing the rubber eyeshield but comparing the pictures of it in Seeger's book with the ones on my Burris, they are certainly not identical. I had thought that "Baker" was a generic term for rubber eyeshields and did not know if it was a manufacturer's name. I have no idea what they called them in WWII, I was wondering that myself. Fan ======================================================== Subject: Repair From: SmashMN@___m Second the reccommendation on Cory Suddarth at Suddarth Optical. I have sent him three or four glasses in the last few months for c&c and some cosmetic touchups, and have found him fast, responsible and highly competent. Marc Norman ======= Subject: Repair There are a 6 or 7 repairmen and restorers on this list. I haven't listed them all, I think they can list themselves & that way I won't make any mistakes or list someone who'd rather keep things quiet. So, if you accept repair work, let us know. Deutsche Optik has a list of repairmen on their web site; slightly out of date but useful. http://www.deutscheoptik.com/repair_services.htm Baker Marine Instruments, Brian Osterberg, 2425 Shelter Island Drive, San Diego, Ca 92106, Phone: 619-222-8096, Fax: 222-9713, Email: bmi-r@___l.net Koehler Instrument, Herb Koehler, 630 East Rockland Rd., Libertyville, IL 60048, Phone/Fax 1-847-362-7757 Mirakel Optical Company, Dan Robino, 331 Masion Street, West Coxsackie, NY 12192, Phone: 1-888-647-2535 A & B Optical Repairs. 10475 Glenellen Ave, San Diego, CA 92126, Phone: 1-858- 693-4016, Email: Binorepair@___com Mountain Optics, Dan Baldwin, 30 Bass Lake Court, Kalispell, MT 59901, Phone: 1- 877-756-2466 Fax: 406-756-8880, Email: mtnoptic@___a.com Oceanview Instruments, Bill Hartong, 2523 West Pacific Coast Hwy., Newport Beach, Ca 92663, Phone: 949-646-3275, Fax: 949-646-3276 Osborn Optical Systems, Earl Osborn, 3507 221st Avenue SE, Issaquah, Wa 98029, Phone: 425-369-6085, Fax: 425-369-6077, Email: optical-repair@___.net , rangefinders, riflescopes, telescopes Strain Night Vision, Mark Strain, 2147 Torrance St., Simi Valley, Ca 93065, Phone: 1-805-527-2917 ================================================ From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de Subject: Re: Zeiss Jena Nobilems The current nobilems are pictured here: http://www.pmcammo.com/menu2.html http://www.waffenmarkt.ch/seiten/dofeno.htm But I also found this: http://www.scopecity.com/Products/binoculr/doc/nobil.htm Overall size and location/dimension of the focussing knob are the same, respectively, but the weight is less. And I like the tradional design. I found no reference to a "Super-Nobilem". Hans-Peter ============================================= Subject: Docter / Zeiss From: "Bill Cook" >>>Regarding the recent Binocular List references to the Docter (aka Zeiss/Jena)<<< When my mother was trying to teach me about cheaters, she said, "Billy, sometimes there is as much in keeping score as there is in playing the game." Docter Optik has done well with some Zeiss oriented nomenclature; and they DID purchase a great deal of Jena stuff some time back. However, Docter and Zeiss are no more related than Ford and Chevy. Just a thought, Bill Cook, Opticalman Chief, USNR-Ret. ================================================ Subject: Opticalmen of the U.S. Navy and other navies From: Peter Abrahams Part of the history of the binocular concerns the U.S. Navy Opticalman rating, now 'disestablished' (Navy phrase for killed off), but at one time the Navy's repair personnel for optical instruments. Many of the Navy's bases and major ships had binocular repair facilities. I do not know of a history of this rating, but I'd like to begin one by gathering information, especially on the schools & training facilities used to prepare the OMs. There is a group of ex-OMs, the OM/IM Association: http://omim.base.org/ Of course, the binocular repair corps of other U.S. military services, and of the militaries of other countries, are of equal interest. Some of the patches on the uniforms of OMs are shown at: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/ompatch.jpg 136 kb Left to right: --WWII era OM chief. --1980s dress uniform? (What's the proper name for this patch?) --Chief Petty Officer Opticalman, khaki bullion used until 1975, made by Gemsco in 1960s, .999 silver, replaced by silver thread in the early 1980s. Then we have this patch, which I was told was a US Navy rating from the late 1860s. I am not at all convinced that is accurate, but have no evidence on the question: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/usnrate.jpg =============================================== Subject: Re: Docter 7x40 From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de Regarding my yellow tinted 7x40, Docter confirmed that about until 1993 yellow tinted prisms were used, for the originally intended military use to enhance contrast. Current production 7x40s, looking at civilian users and most probably after the stock of yellow tinted prisms had been exhausted, have conventional, clear prisms (without phase correcting coatings). At a shop I compared my newly acquired 7x40 with a current Zeiss 7x42 B/GA T*P*, both handheld, at a hazy, late afternoon and looking down a street in town. The Zeiss had a noticeably wider field of view, but, at least under these conditions, could not resolve more details. And I must confess the yellow tint was sort of comfortable in that situation. Or do I try to justify my purchase ex-post? At home I repeated the comparison, but this time at a clear early afternoon, resting the binos on a solid tripod and looking at traffic signs with small print at about 200m distance. I couldn't take home the Zeiss, so I used my Leica 8x20 BCA (current, with phase correcting coatings) as the reference. I doubt that there is trade-off between size of objectives and resolution, but I stand corrected. At least it was bright daylight, Docter and Leica looked equally bright. Despite the handicap in power, 7x versus 8x, I again found that the Docter is at least not inferior. In addition the lack of flare in the 7x40 is remarkable. Hans-Peter ==================================================== Subject: Canadian binoculars From: Clive.Law@___maeci.gc.ca BOP - explained: As part of a Canadian Army standardisation programme for all manufacturers and makes/marks of No. 2 binoculars, Beaconing Optical & Precision Materials of Ganby, QC (BOP) was approached to modify three (3) binoculars, Prismatic, No 2 Mk 2, manufactured by Universal Camera (USA). These were serial numbers 11510, 14451 and 12721. The modifiations included work on; Axles, Hinges, Prism mounting plate, and; Fixing (cementing) the Prism. My documents show that the work was done for a cost of $280.00 "however the price for a quantity job will be considerably reduced". This implies that a wide-ranging programme was contemplated. My copy of the original drawing clearly shows the BOP/Canada truncated oval logo. You wrote "The rest of the markings are rather plain-jane. " C.G.B. 37 MA --- 6X30 ---70094-C on one side and Graticule 5 Mils Apart --- R.E.L./Canada 1945 on the other. The case is also marked with Z.L & T Ltd. 1943 along with the number 2103. The military stock number is F1-001765 with the description of Binocular, M12 (Canadian) 6X30." The "CGB37MA" is the Canadian Ordnance Catalog number (pre-NSN)and identifies them as "Binocular, prismatic, C No. 2 Mk. 2C with a Chinese pattern Mil scale*, separate eyepiece, manufactured by Research Enterprises Ltd., The "MA" means that it was issued without a case while a "GA" suffix would indicate issue with a case (this obviously became confusing when cases were added/lost, etc. so the suffix was later omitted.) This pattern of binocular was later modified by changing the graticule to a mil and range scale** and the model was then known as the "Binocular, prismatic, No 2 Cdn Mk 2/5". Obviously 6x30 is the power, 70094C is the serial number, R.E.L. is self-explanatory as is the date of manufacture. The case was manufactured by Zephyr Loom & Textile in 1943 The number refers to the binocular which should be mated to it. Your line "Binocular M12" should read "Binocular Mk2) * C Mil identifies the the graticule as consisting of 9 vertical lines measured in mils, no degrees. ** Mil & Range scale graticule has both a scaled horizontal grid and a scaled vertical grid Best wishes, Clive (Clive is not on the list but responded to some questions.) ==================================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #155: 12 February 2001 ===================================================== Subject: GA and MA Canadian suffixes From: SCSambrook@___m Whilst I can't be sure about GA and MA suffixes on Canadian binoculars, my understanding of their meaning on British-made instruments is that they signify the nature of the design drawings relative to the particular pattern. For example: Army optical instruments were all identified as Optical Stores ( OS ) and given a 'Number' designation. Binoculars in general service in WW2 were designated Number 2 ( 6x 30) and Number 5 (7x 50). These designations are always written in Arabic numbers. Variations were allocated ' Mark ' numbers, usually written in Roman numerals, but later in the war sometimes given in Arabic numerals. Binocs being overhauled and refinished might be seen with later-style mark numbers in place of their original markings. OS 108 MA appearing on a Kershaw-made Binocular No.2 Mk II would stand for Optical Store : Drawing number 108 showing the main arrangement of the design. OS 419 MA appearing on a Ross-made Binocular No.5 Mk V would stand for Optical Store : Drawing number 419 showing the main arrangement of the design. OS 735 GA appearing on a Ross-made Binocular No. 5 Mk IV (sic) which had been overhauled and re-marked would indicate a later drawing showing the general arrangement of some subsequently revised aspects of the earlier model - possibly relating to something so minor as the way markings were to be applied after re- finishing.. Gun sights, rangefinders and telescopic rifle sights also show similar OS numbers and suffixes, but not normally on optical items made specifically for the Air Ministry ( i.e Royal Air Force) or the Admiralty (i.e. Royal Navy). The former would carry an ' AM ' type number, and the latter an ' AP ' (for Admiralty Pattern) designation. British-made glasses for the War Office (i.e the Army) had to conform precisely to an optical specification, but less closely as to the mechanical arrangements. Drawings showing how the instrument should generally be constructed were provided, and contractors left to finalise their own detailed arrangements. Efforts were made to achieve some interchageability of mechanical components, but this seems to have been only partly successful. I can't be sure if the same applied to Canadian-made glasses, and I admit never having previously heard of the two designations refering to the presence or absence of carrying cases. However, I welcome any corrections if I am in error. Cheers Stephen ============================================ Subject: Mk 41 Eyeshield vs Baker Eyeshield From: "Oy Shalom" B&L MK 41 Eyeshield vs. Baker Eyeshield Let there be no confusion on the Baker Eyeshield, it resembles nothing of the B&L Mk. 41 Eyeshield. The Baker Eyeshield is a copy, based on the Barr & Stroud Ltd. Eyeshield, that went to the 80 cm & 100cm Rangefinders. This Eyeshield was to fit the Rangefinder, Left Eye: Read, Range Scale, Right Eye: Dialed in Range. These were "original issue" with all B&S Rangefinders. Note that few remained with the Barr & Stroud Rangefinder as they were subject to harden and breakdown from ozone, sun and petro- based oils. The Zeiss Rangefinder, 80 cm and 100 cm's had a similar Rubber arrangement, but nowhere near as functional or versatile as the Barr & Stroud Design. Naturally, Baker probably through Naval Contracts, picked up on this by adapting it to binoculars and re-entering it into production. A "bang-up" idea on their part, And to be congratulated for doing so. The B&L Mk 41, is based on a one piece, approximately 3/8" thick rubber hood, forming a "C" configuration. This was secured with screws to each prism Cover Plate. If the Baker will fit the Mk.41, even with a little help, although not "historically correct." It would be a much better arrangement and "Field Modification" than the Original Mk 41 design, that really sucked ...in the body contortions one would have make, to view with it in place. The Mk. 41 Rubber Eyeshield Hood, design engineering must have been done and submitted on a Friday or Monday, I have seen very few foreheads that it could fit and accommodate the user for any serious and long term observation. Long Term defined here, is over five minutes. ================================================ Subject: Rockwood's binocular telescopic spectroscope, 1878 From: Peter Abrahams There is a web site at the University of Michigan called the 'Making of America', where they have electronic versions of 8,500 books and 50,000 journal titles. http://moa.umdl.umich.edu/ I searched it for 'binocular' and 'binoculars', and found some good material on binocular microscopes, nothing on binoculars, but a very interesting note on a binocular telescopic spectroscope, used by C.G Rockwood at the solar eclipse of 1878 to view the spectral lines of the chromosphere. This was described by C.A. Young in 'The Recent Solar Eclipse', found in 'The Princeton Review' vol. 2 (1878), p881: "Professor Rockwood had an instrument devised expressly for the purpose, consisting of a binocular telescope with a pair of large prisms before the object glasses: with this the bright lines of the chromosphere were beautifully shown at the beginning and end of totality. -- the H lines among others, and a red line very near B, which is rarely seen; but nothing like a coronal ring could be made out with certainty. A trace of a green ring was suspected at one time, but it was not distinct enough to admit of satisfactory observation." The NY Times, in an article quoted below, described it as follows: "The other is a binocular telescope, with a pair of 30 degree prisms long enough to cover both object glasses." ====================================================== Subject: Edmund quitting consumer optics, company history Feb. 2001. Edmund Scientific Corp. of Barrington, New Jersey....after serving the amateur community for nearly a half century, the company's long involvement in consumer telescopes has come to an end. On February 1st the parent company, Edmund Optics, announced that Edmund Scientific has been sold to Science Kit & Boreal Laboratories, which supplies materials and equipment to science teachers throughout the United States. "Science Kit will continue to offer the entire Edmund Scientific product line for at least a year," says Nicole Edmund, vice president for marketing at Edmund Optics, including the 4-inch Astroscan 2001 telescope. "We'll continue to manufacture Astroscan mirrors here in Barrington." Headquartered in Tonawanda, New York, Science Kit hopes to use the Edmund line as a springboard into the consumer retail market. Norman W. Edmund, an amateur photographer, began selling war-surplus optics in 1942 and eventually turned Edmund Scientific into a large mail-order retailer. His son, Robert, took over the business in the early 1970s and attempted to become a major player in the amateur-telescope market. "We started manufacturing optics in 1976," he said during a recent interview for Photonics Spectra magazine, "because we couldn't find anyone to make the parabolic mirrors for us." But consumer sales lagged behind expectations, and the company redirected its energies toward manufacturing industrial optics. By the late 1990s virtually all of its telescopes and astronomical products, like eyepieces and mirror-making kits, had been dropped from its popular consumer catalog. (Sky & Telescope news bulletin) =============================================== Subject: Binocular Repair Add to the list of repairmen: Jim Rose jkrvanc@___m 360-882-1853 (Vancouver, Washington) Specializes in US Navy & other military binoculars, will also work on civilian & German (WWII & prior), and Japanese WWII glass. A few years ago, Jim retired as civilian supervisor for the Navy's Long Beach optical repair shop. ========================================================== Subject: OM schools From: Peter Abrahams During a phone conversation with Jim Rose, I took the following notes -- there could possibly be some transcription errors: The OM rate for opticalmen started in 1947. During WWII, instrumentmen (IM rate) repaired typewriters, etc. & optics. There were three classes of schools for OMs: A school: basic, binoculars, alidades, sextants, machinist skills. Great Lakes main school, smaller school in Pensacola Florida, later the Great Lakes school was moved to Florida. B school: rangefinders. Located at the Naval Gun Factory in Washington DC, closed in the early 1960s. Students had to be ranked 2nd class or higher. C school: periscopes. Located at New Groton Conn, where the Kollmorgen factory that made USN periscopes was sited. Students had to be ranked 2nd or 1st class. There was also training at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, on general optics for rangefinder operators; 100 operators for 4 battleships were trained. The U.S. Army optical repair school at Aberdeen would sometimes train repairmen for the Marines, who used tanks & field artillery, not utilized by the Navy. ========================================================= Subject: FDR signed letter to binocular donor From: "Launie, Kenneth J" This may be of interest to someone on the Binocular List, as it illustrates how SOME of the binoculars used by the military were acquired during WW1 (plus it includes a W&S manual as well). --Ken FDR WWI Letter. Navy Department - December 28, 1917. "Dear Sir, Your prompt and patriotic response to the NAVY's call for binoculars, telescopes, and spy-glasses, is most appreciated. The glasses will be very useful in the prosecution of Naval Operations until victory is won. At the termination of the war, if possible, every effort will be made to return them to you, when it is hoped that you will feel compensated for any evidence of wear, by the knowledge that you have supplied "Eyes for the NAVY" during a very trying period. On behalf of the NAVY, I wish to thank you most heartily. Very respectfully, [signed] Franklin D. Roosevelt Assistant Secretary of the Navy." The letter is accompanied by a brochure for Warner and Swasey Prism Field Glass. ---------- A couple of weeks ago, this same seller had another FDR signed acknowledgement for a donated binocular, this one part of a collection of papers on the binocular in question (an uninteresting Galilean field glass), with a $3,000. minimum for the auction -- it didn't sell. FDR signatures from when he was Secretary of the Navy are supposed to be very scarce. I'd have thought that the Secretary of the Navy, during a World War, would be too busy to sign courtesy letters. --Peter --------- F D Roosevelt Letter and WWI Binoculars A typed letter, on printed letterhead "Navy Department, Assistant Secretary's Office, Washington" dated "March 20, 1918", hand signed in dark ink at the bottom: "F D Roosevelt". In response to the war effort, Navy Department's "Bureau of Supplies and Accounts", Roosevelt had written: "Your prompt and patriotic response to the NAVY's call for binoculars, telescopes, and spy-glasses, is most appreciated. The glasses will be very useful in the prosecution of Naval Operations until victory is won. At the termination of the war, if possible, every effort will be made to return them to you, when it is hoped that you will feel compensated for any evidence of wear, by the knowledge that you have supplied "Eyes for the NAVY" during a very trying period. On behalf of the NAVY, I wish to thank you most heartily" Binoculars marked "Joseph Bliss & Co., New York" A typed letter "Captain, E. Mc Caulny, Jr., "U.S.S. George Washington", dated "October 20, 1919" addressed to the Manager of the donor's (binocular's) estate reads: I am returning under separate cover the binoculars which you so kindly loaned to the U.S. Navy during its emergency. These glasses have been in constant use on the ship's bridge since their receipt, during which time events have transpired which add to their value historically. They were in use on the evening of July 1, 1918, when the U.S.S. Covington was torpedoed, sinking the following day off Brest, France. This vessel was flagship of the convoy of which the Covington was a part. The President and party have made two passages on board the George Washington and the glasses are still in service at the conclusion of the voyage of the King and Queen of Belgium to The United States. This vessel has been chosen to carry most of the distinguished officials and delegations to and from Europe. With the assurance that the binoculars were urgently needed and used to great advantage, and thanking you for their use, both during the war and since the signing of the armistice, I am, with appreciation.." ================================================ ===================================================== Binocular List #156: 19 February 2001 ==================================================== Subject: Visit to the I.O.R. factory shop in Bucharest, Romania From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de This afternoon I visited the I.O.R. factory shop, located opposite the National Stadium in Bucharest (Str. Bucovina 4), to to look through their 8x30 and 7x40 binoculars. Their asking prices were USD218 and USD224, inclusive of 19% VAT which you may (or maybe not) get reimbursed at the airport, when leaving the country. Initially my interest was with the 8x30 which is, as I now do believe, a rubber armoured and water proofed version of the Zeiss/Jena Deltrentis. At least for me and on the sample I checked the eye relief was useless. Although I made clear that I have strong astigmatism (-5.25 cylindrical diopters), I want and need to use it with spectacles, the one English speaking employee did not stop trying. So I switched to the 7x40 which appears to be the sibling of the Carl Zeiss Jena DF 7x40 (the porro prismed predecessor of the EDF 7x40, mind the extra “E”). The spec sheet claimed 8° field of view (compared to some 7.5° for my Docter 7x40), but not for me. Although much better in this respect than the 8x30, with spectacles I could not see the full field of view with the black bordering mask. Moreover, I could not get the rubber eye cups to stay fold down and even then the glass of my spectacles rested on a sharp metal rim. For proper use with spectacles I would have to trim the eye cups with scissors. At least the sample in the show room had developed cracks, from folding/unfolding. But the overall image quality was excellent, pretty much in the same league as my Docter 7x40. A yellow tint was there, but less than on my pre-1993 Docter. I however had no chance to test suppression of flare, e.g. with some bright lights inside or outside the field of view. I also cannot comment on off-centre image quality, because the fov limitation with spectacles was too disturbing. The optics appeared flawless, but the exterior finish showed some “room for improvements”, e.g. few, little pieces of grid in the black paint finish, wrinkles and other imperfections in the rubber armour. Like on the Zeiss/Jena and Docter 7x40s the rubber armour is not glued or vulcanised on the metal, but is just fixed with clamps and pins. Back home in Germany, DM500 (USD230) could buy me a genuine Carl Zeiss Jena DF 7x40 in excellent condition and with all these military gimmicks to play with (rangefinder reticle, electric illumination for this, infrared detector). For DM600 (USD280) I could get the EDF. I was tempted to take home the 7x40, but as a collectible and toy I would prefer the Carl Zeiss Jena DF 7x40, as a user the Docter 7x40. Even with 19% VAT deducted and smuggled home, the I.O.R. 7x40 is a tad to expensive for an East-Block curiosity with design and quality quirks. And from outside Romania their factory warranty would be pretty much useless, not speaking of non-warranty repairs. The 8x30 is absolutely non-competitive for the asking price. Putting on oculars with better eye relief, if possible, would require some major surgery, and a substantial increase in cost of course. The 7x40, on the other hand, at least has some potential for improvements at moderate or no extra cost. After all, I.O.R.’s marketing activities are even below Docter’s. Apparently there is only that one factory shop in town. And I certainly do not understand their pricing strategy, 8x30 versus 7x40 and Bucharest factory shop versus US mail order dealers. But I understand why there is no official import to Germany. I would have liked to give a more positve comment and sypathise with the difficult economic condition of I.O.R., but facts are there. Hans-Peter, now web-mailing from Bucharest, Romania ======================================= Subject: USN OMs From: "Bill Cook" The first designation for Navy OMs was 'artificer.' Regards, William J. Cook, Opticalman Chief USNR-Ret. ======================================= Subject: Correction to your list item re Kollmorgen plant at New Groton. From: "Richard Martin" There is a Groton Ct. where the Electric Boat Company is located (and presumably where the Kollmorgan plant was also - do not remember that) and a New London CT. across the Thames river from the EB and also extending upstream where the USN Submarine Base was located on the opposite river side from the Coast Guard academy. The base Engineering & Repair Dept. had a Navy Optical & Periscope shop which I recollect from 40 years ago was called shop 66. Maybe some of your OM's retired can confirm that number. Dick Martin ======================================== Subject: Baker Eye shields From: "Richard Martin" These are perfect fit for the B&L Mark 91 Target Bearing Transmitter pressure proof, fixed bridge mounted binoculars used for surface torpedo firing on WWII Fleet type submarines. In fact they have the same appearance as original equipment. No difference at all from the pair that I have. Regards Dick ===================================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #157: 28 Feb. 2001 ====================================== Subject: Nobilem From: Thomas Press tpress@___le.edu Apropos of the recent flurry of Binocular List interest in East Bloc binoculars, I noticed a recent eBay listing for an 8 x 50 Zeiss Jena Nobilem Super (purportedly much different from later Nobilems, Octarems etc) which failed to meet the reserve dispite nosebleed bidding levels. I wonder if any of the readers of the List know anything about the binocular, what makes it special and whether it really is worth the expected reserve price (approx. $1000 is my guess). Regards, Tom =============================================== Subject: Nobilem Spezial From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de I indeed purchased the 8x50 B/GA, but it is of course the regular Nobilem from the early 1990s with the ribbed rubber armour. The dimensions and weight are similar to the Docter Classics, but the oculars are good for use with spectacles. Possibly this is the only difference to the Classic line, but very important to me and certainly worth a higher price. I find the image quality very good. Contrast and antiglare coating are not quite up to the level of my Docter 7x40, but compete very well with my Leica 8x20 BCA. 122m field of view at 1000m is not great, but seems to be in line with current, even much more expensive 8x50 glasses. Apparently 50mm objectives are generally optimised for 10x power. By choosing lower power you get a larger exit pupil, but you don’t gain much field of view. I was very much surprised how the wider spacing of the objectives is actually enhancing the three-dimensional view. The body is wider (200mm), but not heavier (1070g) than the slim 8x50 roof prisms from Leica or Swarovski which however have internal focus and claim full water pressure proofing. I also find the wider porro prism body offers a nice grip. Now I am curious how the Docter would hold up against the Leica 8x50. If I had had the choice I would have preferred a 10x50 or even 12x50, but for the moment it was a good chance to buy a new quality binocular in that range, with classic features (porro prisms, ribbed rubber armour, centre focus) and for an attractive price. The very same dealer also had a Docter 8x30 Classic which is the most classic binocular of all. The eye cups on the Docter fold down, but I believe not enough for actual use with spectacles. And I don’t want to put together collectibles for display, only. Even then it should be Zeiss/Jena and not Docter. Sadly there is no 8x30 Nobilem with proper B oculars for use with spectacles. 8x30 is such a popular size. But Docter’s 8x32 and 10x42 roof prism binoculars, with or without aspherical lenses, for their asking price are not really competitive with corresponding Leicas made in Portugal. Hans-Peter ====================================================== Subject: Manual for Zeiss rangefinder From: "jean-laurent" Please ,maybe someone could help me to find a copy of the handbook concerning the use of the OEM-2 Zeiss military rangefinder ? It is a rangefinder used by the ex ddr army, made in the seventies, base 52 cm, magnification of 14 . All informations about this optic are welcome. thanks jl Pernice ============================================= Subject: teletur 8x From: rcbibbo this zeiss glass has a very unusal conection on the objectives. have you seen anything like this? i showed this to helmut mollar. it has not been mickey moused. it's original. the top screw doesnt do anything. might be screw for attaching a bracket to objective lenseses. this is 8x not 6x. if you need more pics or info let me know. thanks bob bibb http://home.europa.com/~telscope/bnc.jpg 22 kb http://home.europa.com/~telscope/bnd.jpg 20 kb ============================================ Subject: Tasco 7 x 35 From: Dick Recently, I acquired a Tasco 7x35 with 12.5 degree field of view, a uniquely good design compared with the mass of second-rate stuff that has those same general specifications. Because the eyelenses showed surface deterioration caused by exposure to the elements and to the eye and its lashes, it seemed desirable to repolish those exterior flat surfaces. Steve Stayton was kind enough to do the disassembly, which allowed us a chance to study the optical design in broad strokes. The eyepiece configuration, from the field stop, consists of two positive singlets, a doublet with the flint facing the eye, and a plano convex lens with the flat side facing the eye. Measurement of the spacers suggest that this Tasco design is IDENTICAL to the Sans & Streiffe Model #999, older version. The Tasco frame is stamped B160/E32, while the S&S is stamped B52/E32. Note that another copy of the S&S 999 had identical stampings to the earlier version, but was a completely different and inferior optical design. The same may apply to other versions of the Tasco, so buyers are cautioned that identical stampings are no assurance that the preferred version is in hand. Regards, Dick Buchroeder ============================================ Subject: German patent numbers From: Peter Abrahams German patent numbers: Year, Patent-Number 1877, 1-3000 1878, 3001-5000 1879, 5001-8500 1880, 8501-12000 1881, 12001-16550 1882, 16551-20450 1883, 20451-25400 1884, 25401-30000 1885, 30001-34100 1886, 34101-38000 1887, 38001-41900 1888, 41901-45650 1889, 45651-50100 1890, 50101-55050 1891, 55051-60450 1892, 60451-66400 1893, 66401-72650 1894, 72651-78900 1895, 78901-84750 1896, 84751-90050 1897, 90051-95550 1898, 95551-100850 1899, 100851-107550 1900, 107551-116550 1901, 116551-126750 1902, 126751-137900 1903, 137901-147200 1904, 147201-157600 1905, 157601-166800 1906, 166801-180000 1907, 180001-193700 1908, 193701-205450 1909, 205451-217500 1910, 217501-229650 1911, 229651-242250 1912, 242251-255200 1913, 255201-268800 1914, 268801-281500 1915, 281501-289550 1916, 289551-295850 1917, 295851--302850 1918, 302851-310000 1919, 310001-317800 1920, 317801-331100 1921, 331101-346500 1922, 346501-366200 1923, 366201-387500 1924, 387501-407750 1925, 407751-423350 1926, 423351-439050 1927, 439051-454200 1928, 454201-470000 1929, 470001-488500 1930, 488501-516550 1931, 516551-541000 1932, 541001-567400 1933, 567401-590400 1934, 590401-607550 1935, 607551-623700 1936, 623701-640400 1937, 640401-654900 1938, 654901-669650 1939, 669651-687300 1940, 687301-700850 1941, 700851-715350 1942, 715351-729850 German patents start in the year 1877. The table gives the relation between patent number and year of notification until 1942. Thereafter there is obviously no simple association until approximately 1970. "Gebrauchsmuster" = registered trade mark, which has a much lower level than a patent. D.R. or D.R.P. (Deutsches Reichs-Patent) and D.R.G.M. (Deutsches Reichs- Gebrauchsmuster) stopped being issued at the end of World War II. After 1970, the first two numbers of the "Gebrauchsmuster" correspond to the year of notification. In the case of patents, you have to add 50 to the first two numbers of the patent to get the year: 33 14 234 means 1983. Werner H. Rudowski, Bochum, Germany From: The Journal of the Oughtred Society, vol. 2, no. 2, Oct. 1993, page 13. ----------- German Patent office (info@___-und-markenamt.de)in Munich have full descriptions of the "Deutsches Reich Gebrauchsmuster" (German Empire Utility Model). ======================== Subject: British patents From: Peter Abrahams Can anyone provide a more complete list than this, or clarify the meaning of 'Registration Number'? British Patent Office Registration Numbers and Dates Rd No 1 from JANUARY 1884 Rd No 19754 from JANUARY 1885 Rd No 40480 from JANUARY 1886 Rd No 64520 from JANUARY 1887 Rd No 90483 from JANUARY 1888 Rd No 116648 from JANUARY 1889 Rd No 141273 from JANUARY 1890 Rd No 163767 from JANUARY 1891 Rd No 185713 from JANUARY 1892 Rd No 205240 from JANUARY 1893 Rd No 224720 from JANUARY 1894 Rd No 246975 from JANUARY 1895 Rd No 268392 from JANUARY 1896 Rd No 291241 from JANUARY 1897 Rd No 311658 from JANUARY 1898 Rd No 331707 from JANUARY 1899 Rd No 351202 from JANUARY 1900 Rd No 368154 from JANUARY 1901 Rd No 385500* from JANUARY 1902 Rd No 402500* from JANUARY 1903 Rd No 420000* from JANUARY 1904 Rd No 447000* from JANUARY 1905 Rd No 471000* from JANUARY 1906 Rd No 484000* from JANUARY 1907 Rd No 519500* from JANUARY 1908 Rd No 550000* from JANUARY 1909 *approximate numbers ========================================================== ================================================ Binocular List #158: 01 March 2001. ==================================== Subjekt: Teletur 8 X From: l.helling@___ne.de (Helling) My Zeiss Fernrohrlupe (binocular-magnifier) 6X15 has a screw like the Teletur 8X at your list # 157. At my scan you can see how this binoculars were used as a "binokulare Fernrohrlupe". It is from the book: Dr. P. Hatschek, Optik für Praktiker, 1948. Much regards Lothar Helling http://home.europa.com/~telscope/b-lupe.jpg 66 kb ============= Subject: Zeiss Teletur From: "BINOCS" The Zeiss Teletur that Bob Bibb asked about is genuine Zeiss article. The special machined rings on the objective lens accepted a pair of close-up lenses. This allowed the binocular to be used in the field for close observation. In addition, a separate stand was available to mount the binocular as a field microscope, thus the special chrome knob at the ocular end of the instrument. I have attached a picture of the Teletur with the close-up lens in place. There is also a good picture of this in the Zeiss 1920/21 catalog on page 42. The one question that I cannot answer pertains to the 8X marking. The Teletur was a 6X glass and I cannot find anything in my literature that describes an 8X Teletur. You can also look on page 47 of the 1923 catalog for an expanded explanation of both close-up and microscope attachment lenses. Zeiss also makes reference to a flyer titled "Med. 3" for further applications of this type. It is quite possible that the specialty department of Zeiss modified a Teletur to provide 8X since the higher magnification would result in a much higher microscope power from the same set of attachment lenses. The protrusion at the objective end of Bob's glass would indicate that the glass was designed to fit into a specific mount of some kind and thus was probably intended to be used as a field or clinical microscope of higher power. Regards, Jack http://home.europa.com/~telscope/teletur.jpg ============================================== Subject: Parts From: SrsIII353@___m with regard to the m3 parts; i. miller in philly and mirakel in ny both used to have extensive stocks of spares for most us military binos. you might give them a call. =================================================== Subject: Nobilem Spezial From: SrsIII353@___m with regard to mr. press' questions about the nobilem spezial and super recently listed on ebay; those were my listings. the 12x50 spezial was sold having met reserve while the 8x50b super is still available. the difference between the super and spezial series with the later nobilems is considerable. they use a totally different design using much larger prisms, wideangle eyepieces, and an old style zeiss prism mounting system nothing like the cemented prisms used on the doctor and pre-doctor (czj) nobilems. zeiss made these in very limited numbers until the late 1980's when they discontinued production due to high cost of manufacture. at that point they renamed their octarem and dodecarem models as nobilems. i know this as at the time i owned a small company by the name of europtic which imported czj binoculars into the us under the aus jena name. the super and spezial series are very uncommon and almost never seen which is what accounts for the prices they bring. the 12x is perhaps the best high power hand held glass czj ever made. the body design is similar to the west zeiss products of the late 50's and 1960's except that the super and spezial bodies are larger to accomodate the bigger prisms. hope this helps. srsbino--steve stimson. ============== Subject: Zeiss Jena 8X50 B Super and 12X50 B Spezial From: "Steve Harris" I was offered approximately a dozen of each of these models by a German military surplus dealer in 1993. At the time, the dealer claimed that he could not give them away in Germany due to the poor reputation of Zeiss Jena products. The German retail was approx. $310 US for the 8X50 B Super and $350 for the 12X50 B Spezial. Specs provided to me indicate a FOV for the Super of 140m at 1000m and the Spezial with 95m at 1000m. Unfortunately, my offer for the lot was a bit low, and did not win the glasses. I must say it is rather interesting to see how the perceived value of these binoculars has increased over time. They both are rather nice binoculars for daily use and make very infrequent appearances on Ebay. The big oculars and reasonable eye relief on the Super make for a much more friendly glass to use over the 1957-69 Oberkochen 8X50 with its poor eye relief, small oculars, and 130m FOV. Certainly in defense of the West German design, if you can tolerate the poor eye relief and small oculars of 1957-69 Oberkochen series, take a look at the 10X50. It has a big 130m FOV (~74 AFOV) and is extremely compact due to its tele-objective construction. On a buying trip in England in 1996, I noticed a large number of the Jena binocs in the markets for rock bottom prices. One infamous binocular dealer operating on Portobello Road was somewhat swamped with Jena production binoculars that he could not sell. I was able to pick up a really nice pair of used Super's for around 100 pounds or $160 US. At the time, this dealer was also complaining of poor craftsmanship problems associated with the Zeiss Jena binoculars made in the 1980's. While the Jena factory may have had some brief quality control problems, I am more inclined to think that this was largely an incorrectly percieved image problem associated with East German products in general, especially after the reunification. The pair of Super's that I had were very well constructed and of high quality. Maybe someone on the list can elaborate on actual or perceived quality control problem that the Jena factory had in the 1980's. Regards, Steve Harris =============== Subject: 8x50 Nobilem Super From: Fan Tao The reason that the Zeiss Jena 8x50 Nobilem Super is priced so high is its rarity. In the U.S. at least, very few were imported, according to the U.S. agent I spoke to. They may have been more available in Europe, but I remember Terry Vacani saying that they also didn't sell well there. I believe that they were a premium product that Zeiss Jena only produced for a short time due to their high cost and poor sales. As for whether they are worth it, they are similar in performance to the highly regarded regular Nobilem series with the advantages of wider field (about 64 degrees apparent vs. 59 degrees) and a more compact size. The eye relief is not specified but I would estimate it at around 17mm (I would prefer a few more mm). Around $1000 may be a lot of money, but modern 8x50 binoculars from Zeiss, Leica, and Swarovksi are in the same price range and in my opinion, have not improved much in the last 20 years. In fact today's 8x50 glasses from these sources have an apparent field of view of 60 degrees or less and no better edge correction. In summary, if you wouldn't mind paying $1000 for a modern set of binoculars, or if you're interested in a collectible model, you won't be disappointed with the Nobilem Super. Otherwise, don't bother, you probably wouldn't find them anything special. Fan Tao ============================================= Subject: The List From: Peter Abrahams We now have 103 members. Keep the emails coming in. I can put out more frequent lists if desired; I've tried to balance frequency of issue with a 'critical mass' of content. I know a lot of you have questions & observations, so why not take a moment to put them out to the world? The archives of this list have become a significant resource on the web -- many times, when I search the web for the answer to some question on binocular history, the archives will appear as a 'hit'. There will be 4 or 5 list members at a meeting of amateur telescope makers in Bellingham, Washington, March 31-April 1. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~skywise/optics.html There will be a half dozen or more of us at a meeting in L.A. on May 28. Why not use the list to see if there's any other binocular collectors in your area? We can always use introductions. ================================================ ===================================================== Binocular List #159: 09 March 2001 ================================================== Subject: Zeiss Notarems From: SrsIII353@___m with regard to the quality problems of czj during the 1980's--overall the binoculars were of outstanding optical quality but of moderate mechanical quality except for the nobilem super and spezial series. the jenoptems only real problem was their prism mounting system which was pretty cheap even in the military version of the deltrintis. the 7x40, on the other hand, was built like a tank. the notarems were nice little glasses except for problems now and then with the internal focussing system-- optically they were very nice especially the edge performance. cosmetically the jenoptems--8x30, 7x50, and 10x50--could look pretty plain compared to western products. the enamel was pretty thin and rough on the metal parts. there were also products made for the east german navy which we never had access to or even were allowed to see in their product literature. we always wondered if they were still making any of the large glasses other than the 20/40x80 for the ddr navy. steve stimson. ============================================ Subject: Tests online From: Fan Tao There is now a review of the new Swift 8.5x44 Audubons at the BVD website: http://betterviewdesired.com/ This is one of the few high quality truly wide angle binoculars left in production. It looks like they have basically the same optics as the old Audubons with improved ergonomics and waterproofing. It's disappointing that the eye relief has not been improved, despite Swift's claims. Also, there is a test report of German and Austrian 8x50 & 8x56 binoculars at this web site: http://www.triebel.de/optik/fernglastest_8x56.htm It looks like it was excerpted from a German hunting magazine. For those of you who do not read German, you can use an online translator such as: http://www.systransoft.com/ Fan Tao ====================================== From: Thomas Press Thanks to Fan Tao and others for de-mystifying the Zeiss Jena 8 x 50 Nobilem Super. It's a shame the binocular has become so pricey to casual collectors as the appearance is certainly unusual - sort of a cross between the Bausch & Lomb unibody and the traditional Zeiss style body. I would be curious to know how the prism mounting is accomplished, and to what extent it differs from either the traditional B&L and Zeiss approaches. My own experience with postwar Zeiss Jena binoculars may be atypical, but is does give me some empathy with others skeptical of Zeiss Jena quality control. For example, the left telescope focus of my 10 x 40 Notarem failed 2 months after purchase, the right diopter ring refused to stay put on my 7 x 50 Binoctem, and my 8 x 30 Deltrintem seriously lost collimation after the most trivial of bumps in the field. All were new when purchased and all were interesting glasses. Had quality been better, I might have held on to some or all, but I actually enjoy using my binoculars, and these were simply too problematical. Regards, Tom ========================================== Subject: List archives From: "Robert B. Ariail" I am sure this is an 'old school quirk' coming out of me, but I for one prefer hard copy books, manuals, phamplets, etc. to disjointed e-mail for reference purposes. While I realize that there are those among you capable of loging data effectively on the computer for speedy reference; I like it all in front of me whereby several pages can be compared at once, immediate access is available from a shelf, etc. Has their been any consideration given to a hardcopy version to the Binocular List? By this, I do not mean a 'published book' as such. Rather a plastic or soft cover with quality photocopies or the like. These could be sold to list members and probably many others outside of the List purely on the basis of the sheer volume of data and expertise available in hand in a volume. A really fancy inclusion to a hardcopy volume would be a basic index which shouldn't be too difficult to prepare. Supplemental volumes could be issued every two to three years depending upon how many list were issued over a specific period. I am nearly certain this idea will meet with much resistance, but it doesn't hurt to give it a bit of thought. My premise is that a hard copy version would be quicker, easier, more effective and more often used that the process of pulling up individual lists in search of information remembered but not found. If there are List members who have solved the problem of quick and easy access to specific material within the lists on line, I would - for one - like to hear more about it. --Bob Ariail ------- From: Peter Abrahams >prefer hard copy books, manuals, phamplets, etc. to disjointed e-mail for reference purposes.< Sometimes it can be faster to find things on paper, certainly when there are many pages of images it's much easier to have them on paper. >consideration given to a hardcopy version to the Binocular List?< I have a printout of all lists. It is moderately small font, single spaced, narrow margins -- and over 300 pages. Given the disjointed nature of a discussion list, where topics are not sequentially ordered, it is really rather difficult to find material in it. If it were re-arranged by subject, a printout would be very useful indeed. >a basic index which shouldn't be too difficult to prepare.< That is the idea behind the 'subject:' headings I put on each email. However, I disagree that an index to a printed version would be easy to prepare, given that it has to point to a page. > I am nearly certain this idea will meet with much resistance< No resistance, it's an excellent idea & that's why I've written all those subject: headings, and why I've formatted the archives to be printable (many list members will note I've truncated long signatures & removed double spacing). >problem of quick and easy access to specific material within the lists on line< To get them 'off-line', download the large text files (archives) & save them. Open them in a word processor & search for the terms you need. In general.....the archives are there for the world to use, and I'm interested in any ideas to make them more useable. Peter ============================= Subject: Binocular Gregorian telescope circa 1765 I posted three images of a very beautiful binocular, made in the Gregorian telescope configuration, by James Short, circa 1765. According to Short scholar Rolf Willach, "As much as we know that is the only surviving binocular telescope from James Short, and possibly in general the only existing binocular reflecting telescope [of this great age]. One of the tubes is numbered 275/1307, the other 276/1308, the focal length of both mirrors is 9.5 inches and it was made appr. in 1765 and very probably on a special order." http://home.europa.com/~telscope/short1j.jpg 158kb http://home.europa.com/~telscope/short2j.jpg 136kb http://home.europa.com/~telscope/short3j.jpg 215kb (These images also appear in the new issue of the Journal of the Antique Telescope Society http://www.iRhino.com/oldscope/ The article on Short does not appear on the web site.) ==================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #160: 16 March 2001 ================================================== Subject: Hensoldt Pentaprism 4x18 Binocular From: Jack Kelley I just finished cleaning the Hensoldt Pentaprism 4x18 binoc. According to Seeger, this piece dates from about 1899-1900. The binocular has wide spaced objective lenses for enhanced stereo effect and was thus in violation of the Zeiss patent. Hensoldt felt that by using the pentaprism design they could avoid patent infringement but Zeiss challenged them and the model was quickly discontinued. My example is serial number 36. The glass is typically well made in the manner of the Zeiss glasses from this era. The pentaprism is mounted in a brass saddle which in turn is held in the binocular housing by a retaining ring threaded to the bottom of the saddle. The binocular is center focus which has to make it one of the earliest German center focus models. The body appears to be cast aluminum with brass hinge assembly, cover plates and ocular bridge. The ocular is a typical Kellner design. One face of the pentaprism is silvered. I have attached photos of the binoc and prism assembly along with a sketch of the prism depicting the light path. Regards, Jack Binocular: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/lugstr~1.jpg 30 kb Disassembled: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/disass~1.jpg 29 kb Diagram of optical layout: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/prismd~1.jpg 17 kb Prism with saddle & retainer: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/prismw~1.jpg 17 kb ======================================= Subject: Unidentified French twin telescope From: "Jack Kelly" Help needed identifying a typical twin erecting telescope made of aluminum,approximately 12X28. The only markings are: 'Bateman' The two circles represent the top of the eyecups with the typical lettering found engraved thereon. The R with triangle logo was found under the center bridge. The "French Made" marking is on one of the eyepiece tubes. http://home.europa.com/~telscope/unknow~1.jpg 23 kb http://home.europa.com/~telscope/unknow~2.jpg 27 kb ======================================= Subject: Tolerances for matching magnification From: Peter Abrahams Amateur made twin Newtonian telescopes are becoming more popular. One problem in fabricating these is grinding two mirrors to the same focal length. I wrote the following text to answer a question about just how exact the match needed to be. The difference in field isn't critical, but the difference in magnification between the two images is important. You can't merge two images into a binocular view if one of them is slightly larger, and tolerances for this are very tight (and can't be fixed by shifting the mirror in the tube). If one mirror is 64 inches and the other 63, using two 14mm eyepieces, you'd get 128x & 126x. There are standards for this, discussed on p740-1 of George Smith and David Atchison. The Eye and Visual Optical Instruments. Cambridge: C.U.P., 1997. 816p. One source says magnification differences of less than 0.75% are not clinically significant, between 1% and 3% symptoms appear, between 3% and 5% binocular vision begins to be impaired, and over 5% binocular vision is very poor or absent. US mil standards are 2%. Stereo resolution (perceiving distances) is linearly related to magnification differences. I think these tolerances are a bit loose for our applications. Consider binocular viewing of a globular cluster that fills a wide field eyepiece. If you change the magnification by 2% in the left eyepiece, will you be able to merge the images comfortably? Stars at the edge of the cluster would be moved out about 1/50 of the distance across the field. This could be tested with two barlows. Some people report significant differences between two 'identical' eyepieces; and there certainly are tolerances to how closely the marked focal length matches the true focal length. I have never had any problems with mismatched eyepieces, among the 20 or 30 pairs that I've tried, including pairs where one is made years after the other. But other people do have problems with this. Presumably there's a large degree of individual variation in 'sensitivity'. ======================================= Subject: Geneva Optical From: "Dan Weinstock" Living in Geneva, NY, I have been partial to Geneva Optical Company products. Though not a Zeiss or Leitz, their "Superior" glasses are of decent quality, made with Jena lenses. I have recently found a very lightweight pair of pocket Galilleans marked "Geneva Optical Company" on one of the oculars and "Geneva Special Paris" on the other. Logo of "G" in a 5 point star on the frame. Does anyone have information or catalogs/other documentary materials about the company and their binoculars they'd be willing to share? I'd be interested in seeing a scan of these pocket ones with any info about the specs. Thanks in advance, Dan Weinstock. Geneva, NY weindan@___ter.rr.com ======================================== Subject: Somet Binar From: "jean-laurent" I am looking for information about the "25 x 100 somet binar " binoculars ; i think that you must know these binoculars which are describe like "legendary " by some astronomer's contacts in slovaquie country . could you tell me if this optic has the same look than the 25 x 100 zeiss binoculars ? do you know the name of the manufactuer ? is it "meopta" ? is it "somet"?. someone in slovaquie send me a picture of the 25 x 100 meopta binoculars(i know meopta for photographic devices not for binoculars) ,made for the army and artillery ,which has the exactly same design than the 25x 100 blc (a real identical copy ) thanks for your help, regards, jean-laurent =========================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #161: 27 March 2001 ========================================= Subject: New member's web page From: nekosan@___guild.co.jp (Hayao Tanabe) My web pages: http://www.cameraguild.co.jp/nekosan/ Nippon Kogaku Binocular page: http://www.cameraguild.co.jp/nekosan/binos.htm There's little written document about Japanese optical equipment other than cameras. I have to find out a lot more. Regards Hayao =========================================== Subject: Hensoldt, French twin telescope From: *Fred Watson A couple of comments on Jack's entries: 1. Hensoldt Pentaprism 4x18 Binocular Thanks for putting these photos on the web. This lovely little instrument is identical to one I have except mine has individually-focusing eyepieces. Though I'm sure it must also have been made by Hensoldt, it's engraved with the name and address of the well-known London optical company of W. Watson & Co.Ltd. (A larger model, otherwise identical, is shown on p.17 of my binocular booklet. That engraving came from a 1901 Watson ad.) I'd be interested to know whether anyone has come across a Hensoldt-marked example of these early pentaprism binoculars that isn't centre-focus? I haven't seen one. 2. Unidentified French twin telescope Jack's sketch of the `R-within-the-triangle' is an accurate representation of Emil Busch's trademark. The R stands for Rathenow, the German town where the Busch company had their factory. It contradicts the `French made' inscription, so it's a rather interesting piece. (Usually, French binocular manufacturers were at pains to make their products look like German instruments - sometimes even resorting to false inscriptions. This one seems to have gone the other way!) All the best Fred ================================= Subject: Recovering Binocs From the salvage yard From: gene harryman Re-covering: Executing accurate patterns has always been the hard part. Paper, etc., is thick and hard to work, not to mention the adhesive problem. I have found that Contact Paper, with the new "repositionable" lite tack is very well suited to patterns. It sticks well enough to hold, is flexible enough to fit in tight corners, thin enough to cut easily and accurately with an Exacto, and will still adhere to the new covering to while cutting the new covering. Put a piece of scotch tape diagonally across the corner cuts and they will not tear any further when you remove the Contact paper from the binocs. Hope this is of some help to some. Regards, Gene ================================================= ===================================================== Binocular List #162: 08 April 2000 ================================== Subject: Re-covering binoculars; DDR, IOR From: Arnold Cohen Re: accurate patterns for recovering binocs. After watching a television show on CIA disguise techniques-eg making a templet of a scalp so a wig could be made in the US to be smuggled back in-I adapted the simple technique with very good results. Simply wrap the part in Saran wrap, then use masking tape to wrap/cover the part- when covered to a workable thickness just carefully cut a seam in the mold, remove and flatten out-voila-a perfect pattern! No residual glue on the binoc, no stretching of the pattern with removal etc. The sharp edges of the pattern are determined my the tape. Using an overlapped pattern of smaller strips-tangents to the circle of the margins of the piece gives best results. I have read with great interest the discussions of the DDR and post DDR Zeiss Jena offerings. As I have a number of the glasses in question with some West German and other competitors in the same power and objective size range I'm hoping to do some comparative testing when the snow finally melts from the corners of my yard. I've been very favorably impressed with the Jena glasses-including the controversial Notarems! From an optical standpoint I have also found the Romainian glasses and even inexpensive Russian glasses to be good performers. We'll see if I can objectify that-any Suggestions? Lastly, Valentine in Colorado who imports IOR Romanian binocs told me that the 7x40 uses the same ocular set up as the Jena 7x40 but with a porro prism geometry allowing better performance without the need for phase coatings which the Jena lacks. Is this true? I shall compare the two formally some time. Arnie ====================================== Subject: Found "new" Leitz Trinovid 8x40B From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de This Saturday I discovered a "new" Leitz Trinovid 8x40B in a local shop. It is unused, absolutely mint, new old stock from the mid 1980s, before "Leitz" became "Leica Camera". I just wonder how this binocular would perform in comparison to current models or if it is a collectors' item. The shop is asking the list price, but the one from the 1980s. Hans-Peter ================================== Subject: Circ-N mark From: Peter Abrahams On an email list devoted to sextants (sextants@___roups.com), which is a very good list, the question arose as to the meaning and dating of the common U.S. Navy acceptance mark of a hand engraved O with a smaller N through it. This mark was referred to as the circ-N mark on the sextants list. My understanding is that this was an acceptance mark given to an instrument that passed inspection. This mark is found on binoculars, sextants, and other instruments (what other instruments?). It is found on binoculars made by the US Naval Gun Factory, and on civilian instruments that were used by the Navy. Regarding dating, there are many USN instruments from the 1800s that have engraved serial numbers but not this mark. It is known to have been used in the WWI program that borrowed instruments from civilians for the duration of the war, returning them with a $1. rental fee or paying out $1. if the instrument was destroyed. It has been found on WWII sextants, and was used for some time after WWII, but it might not have been an 'inspection passed' mark all that time -- it might just be a serial number. If any list readers have an earlier or later binocular with this mark, please let us know. Was the mark used by BUORD? From the sextants list: "I suspect that it really was the mark of the Bureau of Navigation (BUNAV). When the Bureau of Ships (BUSHIPS) was formed in 1940 through the shotgun wedding of the Bureaus of Engineering (BUENG) and of Construction and Repair (BUC&R), it also took over responsibility for the matériel functions of BUNAV (which thereupon morphed into the Bureau of Personnel, BUPERS). My guess is that the N in circ-N stood for BUNAV, not Navy. Letter-in-circle marks were used by the Navy in lots of contexts (and still are). I suspect that they all come from the same time as the origins of the circle-C (copyright) and circle-R (registered trademark) marks." ======================================= ===================================================== Binocular List #163: 10 April 2001 ================================================= Subject: Translation of Koehler Some time ago, I posted an English translation of Horst Koehler (Zeiss Oberkochen), 'A New Telescope Eyepiece with Extremely Large Field of View'. I now have posted a schematic image of the eyepiece and the lens 'prescription': Diagram & Prescription for Koehler's eyepiece --140kb http://home.europa.com/~telscope/koehler.jpg The translation: http://www.europa.com/~telscope/trkohler.txt --Peter ======================================================= Subject: Twin telescope sold by Queen, Philadelphia. From: Peter Abrahams I purchased an amazing binocular; 50mm objectives, French made, marked only with two styles of stars, sold by Queen, Philadephia. It is unusual because of the physical dimensions, 26 inches closed, 35 inches fully extended. The objectives are slotted & in a cell with a retaining wire, to prevent rotation of the doublet -- this is the first time I've seen this in a binocular, which are usually too low power for this refinement to be appropriate. These are about 25 power or less, which makes me wonder why they made them so long. http://home.europa.com/~telscope/twintel1.jpg 51kb http://home.europa.com/~telscope/twintel2.jpg 57kb Objective cell: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/twintlcl.jpg 54kb Eyepiece: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/twintlep.jpg 25kb Marks: http://home.europa.com/~telscope/twintlmk.jpg 27kb =============================================== Subject: Leitz 8x40 From: HOldenburg@___m >This Saturday I discovered a "new" Leitz Trinovid 8x40B in a local shop. The "old" 8x40 are good, but not excellent by today's standards. They don't have phase-coated roof prisms, and the difference is very much noticeable - resolution of fine structures isn't quite as good as in more modern high-quality binoculars, and the contrast is somewhat lower. In my field (bird-watching) I wouldn't use non- phase-coated roofs anymore. That said, the old style Leicas were excellent binoculars in their time. The mechanical quality, especially the focussing, were far superior to most modern designs. Hermann ================================================ Subject: Re: Re-covering binoculars; DDR, IOR From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de There is a German website http://home.nexgo.de/thuernagel/katalog.htm with descriptions, pictures and a comparative review of the DF 7x40 (1st version, porro) and the EDF 7x40 (2nd version, roof). It is said the EDF has a narrower field of view, a stronger yellow tint, but better contrast and flare control. I still wonder why the East German military went for technically more demanding roof prism binoculars. Regarding phase correcting coating one Zeiss expert suspected "that the technology slipped across the border to Eisfeld in the middle 1980's, about the time the EDF was introduced." However, Docter's current sales brochure does not mention p-coatings on the current 7x40. I explicitly asked Docter whether the current 7x40 B/GA has p-coatings and the yellow tint. "No", and the yellow tinted prisms were abandoned around 1993, most probably after the old stock was exhausted. It is a matter of specualtion whether Zeiss Jena has "stolen" p-coatings from their Western sister company and of course they would remain silent of that today. A DF 7x40 from that auction site is on the way to me. So soon I can compare that one with my Docter 7x40 B/GA (which has the yellow tint and, maybe, p-coating :-). I also believe the IOR 7x40 are optically identical to the Zeiss/Jena DF 7x40. Since the DFs are easily available second hand here, there isn't really a point to go after the IORs. Hans-Peter ================================================ Subject: "N" inside Circle, = Inspected and Serialed Numbered by the US NAVAL OBSERVATORY From: "Oy Shalom" Letter "N" inside, the letter "O". Or as you say "Circle" with "N". Simply refers to the fact that the unit/drawing patterns were,Inspected by the United States Naval Observatory. Many such early items will be found engraved by hand and then followed by the Serial Number assigned by the Naval Observatory. The Letter "N" inside the Letter "O" and the following Serial Number, is the Naval Observatory's System of Property Serial Numbers. Binoculars, Instruments,Barometers that were inspected by the NO. They started this practice sometime before 1900. ============================================== Subject: IOR, Trinovid From: "Thomas Press" Some thoughts on two queries raised in the attached Binocular List: first, Arnie questions whether the prism configuration of the IOR Romanian 7 x 40 obviates the need for phase coating as used in the Zeiss Jena 7 x 40 cousin. Since both glasses are porros relying on refraction rather than reflection for their erecting systems, neither should need phase coating. Nonetheless, the Docter sales brochures for the 8 x 50 Nobilem porros recite that the Nobilem's prisms are phase coated! I assumed when I first read that description that either something got lost in the German to English translation or the ad copy writer didn't know what he was talking about. Maybe there is something to it after all. The second query relates to the performance against current production glasses of a new old stock Leitz 8 x 40 Trinovid. My guess here based on familiarity with a number of well cared for Trinovids of the same era is that the absence of phase coating on the Leitz version makes a significant difference as compared to current Leica Trinovids. Additionally, I suspect that modern multicoating will further enhance contrast and one has to wonder whether Leica abandoned the unorthodox Leitz roof prism configuration for a more conventional Schmidt approach in order to improve performance. The Leitz versions also were notable for poor close focusing capabilities and relatively narrow fields of view. Still, a new old stock Leitz Trinovid would make a great collector's piece. Regards, Tom ================================================ Subject: Circ-N mark From: "jdorris" Reference the U.S. Navy property mark article in the #162 List. I have tried to find the origin of the Navy mark without success so I followed your advice of "The history is in the instrument". I have made a record of most every example of the mark that I could find. In Jan '01 there was a telescope on ebay that had the Navy mark and also a presentation date engraved. While I know that you must be careful about inscriptions on an instrument - hope springs eternal (I know - all that proves is that there is one born every minute). The ebay description was as follows: "This is a super and unique item and one that a little research effort could prove to be very important. It is a brass telescope presented by "W.J.Jrl. to D.W.C. Dec. 25th, 1858". Closed it is 20.25" long and extended it is nearly 35" long!! Also engraved on it is "U.S. Navy, 30423". The lenses in this are still good although I did not get it to focus very well. I did not try either as I don`t know what I`m doing and don`t want it mess it up. The brass has a nice patina to it and this is a wonderful research project for someone. Someone gave old "DWC" a nice Christmas present 142 years ago!!" The bid was $191 and the reserve was not met. There was five hours to go in the auction so I do not know if the telescope was sold. The scope appears to be period (1858) with the single draw and with the tapered eye cup and the slide cover. While the narrative description does not state it, when you look at the picture, between the U.S. Navy and the 30423, is our circ- N mark (I like that designator so thanks to the sextant folks). Originally I believed that the mark originated at the Naval Gun Factory Optical Shop and the older examples were, as you stated, from the instruments loaned to the Navy during WWI. However now I don't know how early the Navy was using the mark. I guess it is always possible that the telescope was also loaned to the Navy and was used during WWI but that does not seem to be realistic (therefore it probably is). Hopefully there are even earlier and better examples out there. V/R John --------- 1. John sent an image; this mark looks more like an O with an R -- which I believe I've seen before -- what does it mean? 2. "The history is in the instrument" is paraphrased from Hans Seeger, not me. 3. I asked John if he wanted to introduce himself to the list. Hopefully others will follow suit. --Peter --------- From: "Dorris, John J61MA" First, I must apologize to Herr Doctor Seeger for the misattribution of his statement. However in my defense whenever I cannot remember who is responsible for something then my default position is Peter Abrahams. I do have an even deeper regret in that I lived in Wiesbaden for two years and did not know that Dr. Seeger also lived there. I now have two of his books (autographed) and use them constantly. No, I am not shy however there is an old saying that "It is hard to soar with the eagles when you are being held down by turkeys" and that is the way I feel when reading the Binocular List. There is so much expertise on the list that I am afraid that my comments would lower the bar or even worse take the place of something important. However at the risk of doing exactly that my background and interests are as follows. Retired from the USAF and have worked in NYC, Philadelphia, and D.C and multiple other locations worldwide in defense related jobs. Currently residing in Norfolk, VA and working for Old Dominion University as an engineering advisor to the U.S. Joint Forces Command. Absolutely no background in an optics related profession other than a user with an unmitigated interest in historical physics. If anyone needs anything (that I can legally do) from the worlds largest Naval Base please let me know. My interest in Victorian field glasses is mostly historical and if I cannot explain it to my wife or my best friend then I am afraid that I am not going to be able to explain it in this email. My best effort is that it is in the genes and leave it at that. I became hooked on the sport when I bought a Lemaire Galilean glass marked U.S. Army Signal Corps and could not find a single reference to it in any publication (nor could the Army Signal Corps Museum!). There is a great deal of information about microscopes, telescopes, Porro glasses, and astronomy available but almost nothing published about this poor stepchild of an instrument. The world's largest single depository of information that is available to the public is probably Peter's Home Page. When you consider that Kings, Presidents, Dictators, Generals, heroes and villains of every description have been repeatedly photographed holding and using these instruments and yet there is so little documentation on the subject then the contradiction becomes evident. I now have about 300 typed pages of notes mainly keyed to 19th century Galilean field glasses, their makers, retailers, and the transformation to the Zeiss / Abbe Porro glasses of the 1890's. I also have about 600 MB of photos of these glasses thanks to ebay. Some of the sources in my notes are impeachable and others would not be accepted in a casual conversation with a stranger in a bar but if I read it then it is recorded. As a parting shot I must disagree with Dr. Watson in his reply to Jack Kelly regarding the trademark on Jack's binocular telescopes. I think that Emil Busch A.G. would have rather had their collective arms cut off than stamp made in France on their product. It is my opinion that the trademark is a French "knock-off" in an effort to resemble the Busch Rathenow mark such as the rustlers did in the old West by changing or modifying the original brand on cattle. My (maybe fractured) logic for this can wait for another occasion. Now that I have probably insulted, offended or challenged four of the most knowledgeable people on this subject (and that I truly admire) I am very respectively, John Dorris ==================================================== ===================================================== Binocular List #164: 13 April 2001 ================================================= Subject: Re: Leitz 8x40B and now CZJ 12x50B From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@___ne.de I didn't wait for the answers and purchased the Trinovid. Unfortunately, box, papers and accessories got lost, but the price was attractive. Yes, close focusing is poor (5m to 6m or so), fov is not great (128m at 1000m), resolution and contrast are tad lower than current offerings. The later however is only noticeably when using a steady support and when explcitily looking fot it. Colour saturation is great and I wouldn't that coatings are inferior. But there are other aspects than image quality. What I liked about it is compactness, light weight and a tactile feel that very much resembles the Leica M cameras. In comparison Leica's current 8x32 appears heavier and bulkier. In addition I found a Carl Zeiss Jena 12x50B in a local advertising paper, again new, unused, but with box, papers and accessories, including the leather (?) case. "Regular" CZJ 7x50 and the 10x50 are very easily available second hand, the 12x50 and 15x50 less, the "B" versions much less. After the Nobilem Spezial/Super were dicontinued, I believe CZJ combined the binoctem, dekarem and dodekarem body, objektives and prism with the "B" okulars with collapsible rubber eye cups from the Spezial/Super. And the focussing wheel was located in between the prisms. I have seen 12x50Bs labled "Dodekarem" and "Nobilem". These models later were offered under the "Docter" label. The operating manual that came with my own Docter 8x50 B/GA is still labeled "aus Jena" and "Jenoptik GmbH", but has a "Docter" sticker glued over the company adress. The table with technical data shows six "Nobilem" models, with and without rubber armour: 7x50 B (/GA), 8x50 B (/GA), 8x56 B, 10x50 B (/GA), 15x60 B. The published field of view on all models is however a tad wider, the weight noticeably less than for the current "Nobilem" models. And there is no water proofing. Compare www.docter-germany.com, but be patient when downloding the nobilem.pdf file. Last year a German hunting magazine published a review of 8x56 binoculars. http://www.wildundhund.de/artikelbeitrag/artikelbeitrag_2724.html The Docter Nobilem was rated to be practically on par with Zeiss and Swarovski costing USD500 more, with the best mesured resolution. But the Docter lost in the field of bulk and weight (1.5kg!). Regarding the CZJ 7x40, there were 2 (two) versions which both are shown on www.DeutscheOptik.com, with however sort of stiff asking prices. Docter still makes the roof prsim 7x40 B/GA, now with clear prisms. Hans-Peter ====================================================== Subject: USNGF binoculars From: Peter Abrahams The U.S. Naval Gun Factory optical shop in Washington, D.C. manufactured & repaired telescopic gun sights, and was established 1917 from the existing Optical Repair Shop. The USNGF Annex in Rochester, N.Y. was formed during WWI, when the Crown Optical plant in Rochester was commandeered, in an attempt to ensure quality and increase production. The Annex manufactured binoculars in large quantity, closed immediately after WWI, replaced by a temporary glass molding facility, and the Annex equipment was moved to a new shop at the NGF. There are reports that the Gundlach plant in Rochester was also used as part of the Annex. The role of exports to the U.K. is uncertain, though Crown 6 x 30s were exported. Binoculars produced at the Annex, based on surviving examples so marked, were: --3 x 50 Galilean, amber filters in swivel mounts inside the eyecups. --6 x 30 models were made in massive quantities, and were also used by the U.S. Army, examples marked U.S. Army Signal Corps are not scarce. The standard USNGF 6 x 30 is identical to Crown Optical 6 x 30s, which are distinctively heavy, and both carry 5 digit serial numbers in tiny digits on the rear hinge lug, by the objective. (One example of a Crown 6 x 30 is hand engraved U.S. Navy A-6, a mysterious inscription.) For Mark & Mod designations, see chart below. The 6 x 30 Mark XI is a later model, introduced in the late 1920s, waterproof, with an aluminum upper prism housing cover with sloped cutaway outer edge, 7 screws attaching the flat lower cover, and large rubber eyecups. One example is marked: 6 x 30, Mark XI No. 31, US Navy Bur of Ord, NGF, 1927. --10 x 40 Mark XII resembles the 6 x 30, with 7 screws through the bottom housing cover, waterproofed, and a sloped shoulder like the Mk XI. One example is marked: Mark XII No. 9, US Naval Bureau Ordnance, NGF 1931; and another example reads Mark XII No. 89. Note that the 1944 Schedule of binoculars copied below describes the Mark XII as a 10 x 45. --10 x 45 binoculars were made by the NGF in 4 or 5 styles, some experimental. One model used the Crown 6 x 30 body with 45 mm objectives (and possibly redesigned eyepieces), one example is marked Bureau of Navigation. Another 10 x 45 resembles the old B & L 10 x 45, with widely spaced objectives, and distinctive upper prism housing covers in a teardrop shape. Two examples are marked Bureau of Navigation, and one has the acceptance mark (NO) 6323. Another is marked 10 x 45 Mk VI Bureau of Ordnance. --The Mk 37 is a 9 x 63, modified at the NGF from a standard 7 x 50. --The Mk 1-1 is a pier mounted giant binocular, probably 20 x 120, with 45 degree offset eyepieces using rhomboid prisms. One example is marked Bureau of Ships, and has a stamped acceptance mark (not engraved, and assuming it is an acceptance mark), of a large N with an O around it, followed by 232. ------- SCHEDULE OF BINOCULARS, NAVY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF SHIPS, FILE NUMBER S2407 - 533074. 8|2|44. MK | MOD | GENERAL ARRANGEMENT | CONTRACTOR | MAGNIFICATION | APERTURE | FIELD (DEGREES) | EYE RELIEF, MM | TRANSMISSION % | BUREAU | STATUS (1944) | REMARKS 6 | 0 | 68816-O | N.G.F. | 10| 45 | 4.2 | ---- | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | 6 | 1 | 68826-O | N.G.F. | 10| 45 | 4.2 | ---- | ---- | SHIPS | OBS. | 6 | 2 | 68839-O | N.G.F. | 10| 45 | 4.2 | ---- | ---- | SHIPS | OBS. | 6 | 4 | 68816-O | N.G.F. | 10| 45 | 4.2 | ---- | ---- | SHIPS | OBS. | 7 | - | 56588-O | N.G.F. | 6 | 30 | --- | ---- | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | 7 | 0 | 66673-O | N.G.F. | 6 | 30 | 8 | ---- | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | 7 | 1 | 66674-O | N.G.F. | 6 | 30 | 8 | ---- | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | 7 | 2 | 66675-O | N.G.F. | 6 | 30 | 8 | ---- | ---- | ARMY | ----- | 9 | - | 66686-O | N.G.F. | 3 | 50 | --- | ---- | ---- | SHIPS | OBS. | GALILEAN 10| - | 119666-O | N.G.F. | 4 | -- | 10 | 22 | ---- | AERO. | OBS. | 11| 0 | 119683-O | N.G.F. | 6 | 30 |8d40'| 15 | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | WATERPROOF 11| 1 | 119683-O | N.G.F. | 6 | 30 |8d40'| 15 | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | WATERPROOF 11|2-3| 141890-O | N.G.F. | 6 | 30 |8d40'| 15 | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | WATERPROOF 12| 0 | 132869-O | N.G.F. | 10| 45 |5d12'| 14 | ---- | ORD. | OBS. | WATERPROOF 12|