Evening,
Over the last few months I’ve read as many of the posts regarding this type of binocular as possible. A common theme of discussion I’ve repeatedly come across attempts to explain / discuss / ‘authenticate’ those examples with ‘low’ 1 - 60’000 serial numbered items.
Some threads argue that these examples originate from a simultaneous / dual production run at another facility for private purchase / export. Other threads argue that they are ‘parts bin’ sets assembled after the war (for px sales). Others argue that those sporting the BMJ code are wartime (irrespective if marked Dienstglas or D.F. 10x50) and those marked Hensoldt Wetzlar are post war.
Whilst conducting ever widening searches on this type of optic (largely due to much needed repair to a loose focus collar) I’ve come across this :-
http://veteransfootlocker.com/cgi-bi..._item.asp?1524
/
I thought that the capture document provided with this set may contribute somewhat to the debate. The papers say that the set were obtained prior to VE Day. The actual document is dated March ‘46. I do accept that papers don’t quote the serial number and ‘type’, nonetheless thought it interesting enough to post given what I have previously read.
Over the last few months I’ve read as many of the posts regarding this type of binocular as possible. A common theme of discussion I’ve repeatedly come across attempts to explain / discuss / ‘authenticate’ those examples with ‘low’ 1 - 60’000 serial numbered items.
Some threads argue that these examples originate from a simultaneous / dual production run at another facility for private purchase / export. Other threads argue that they are ‘parts bin’ sets assembled after the war (for px sales). Others argue that those sporting the BMJ code are wartime (irrespective if marked Dienstglas or D.F. 10x50) and those marked Hensoldt Wetzlar are post war.
Whilst conducting ever widening searches on this type of optic (largely due to much needed repair to a loose focus collar) I’ve come across this :-
http://veteransfootlocker.com/cgi-bi..._item.asp?1524
/
I thought that the capture document provided with this set may contribute somewhat to the debate. The papers say that the set were obtained prior to VE Day. The actual document is dated March ‘46. I do accept that papers don’t quote the serial number and ‘type’, nonetheless thought it interesting enough to post given what I have previously read.
Comment