Own a binocular from Seeger's book!!

[MOLEHUNTER]

A Rare chance to own a Df7x shown in Seeger's blue book - but not as originally pictured. DF7x Nr 610704 rand nr 152093

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1622701149...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

In the book (page 674 Abb 1741, 1742 and 1743) the binocular shows normal paint wear on the top and bottom prism plate edges and hinge washer but in the Ebay listing there's none.

Strange that the Eagle with IV/1 shown on the Ebay listing, isn't pictured in the book. Something about the part visible on the listing doesn't look right to me...

[nickn]

It clearly states that the plates were refinished

[RodA]

I joined this forum specifically to respond to somewhat rude and inaccurate personal comments in another thread with the intention of not continuing the rather immature banter. However, this latest posting requires a response to help vindicate myself and a recent previous owner. Records show that the now deceased owner who is also mentioned in Hans Seeger’s book purchased these binoculars in February 2006 with the eagle already on them and corrosion taking place. I do not intend to discuss the validity or otherwise of the eagle here, that is for others to form their own opinion from the evidence. However, from the deliberate wording in the posting, the inference could be drawn that either myself or the recent owner had applied the eagle. This is most definitely not true. What is true and clearly stated in the listing is that the surface corrosion had deteriorated even further over the last 10 years and the plates have been refinished.

[MOLEHUNTER]

Dear Rod - ther was no intention to libel or accuse you or the previous owner - sorry if I hurt your feelings.

I merely stated that it was unusual for Seeger not to comment on the Eagle when he specifically mentions another WW1 Zeiss reworked with Eagle on the next page.

The little shown in your listing does look unusual though and I note that others have contacted you via Ebay to warn of the Eagle...

The binoculars are well-known - it is in the blue book of Dr. Hans Seeger. However, without the eagle - I suspect the eagle is a fake and was later applied

Others may wish to comment - the lust for Eagles is well known in our hobby and some can catch the unwary out.

[RodA]

Dear Mike. Thank you for your apology. Yes the implications in your comments did offend me and by association, I feel sorry for the relatives of the deceased collector. Whilst I respect any opinion, when publicly quoted it seems only fair that both sides of the argument be outlined. For example you quote other ebay comments (there was only one) re the ‘fake’ eagle that I posted to balance opinion, but you neglected to quote the previous opinion believing it to be genuine and supporting that with his own examples. I personally have no idea and rely on you experts. But be fair Mike, balance the argument and don’t just quote what you believe.

These particular binoculars appear to have been through the hands of at least two very well respected collectors. If you are correct about the photos in Seeger’s book not showing the eagle, then some time between when Hans either had them or was given photographs, and when these were on ebay in 2006 and purchased by the deceased collector, somebody added the eagle. I have been open and honest in this ebay listing, I don’t know what else I could have done to reflect both sides of the argument. I have not hidden any comment and I have stated they have been refinished. All I ask is that if you wish to have this as a forum thread, as well as containing your opinion, please balance the argument in a constructive manner. Lets just end this here Mike.

[Sgt Bilko]

Better for the seller to learn of any doubts now - if someone on the other side of the world bought it with Paypal, posted it on a forum and became unsure of the markings, Paypal and Ebay require it to be destroyed before a refund is issued;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...unterfeit.html

A costly mistake and a shame for all concerned...

[nickn]

I don't have the blue book in front of me but I seem to remember you can just see the eagle in the photo
Could someone post the photo?

[RodA]

Gentlemen. I am far less experienced than you but I have to contest your interpretation of the photos in Seeger’s blue book. As far as I can see, there is just one photo that shows the left hand plate, Abb. 1743. The top plates are on a very acute angle, but on close examination I would argue that it does in fact show something of similar clarity beyond the CZJ logo.

As I am new to this forum, I am not yet familiar with how to insert photos, so I have sent them to one of you whom I do know and asked him to upload them for me. One is a photo of how the binoculars are now, taken in a very similar manner to compare how the book version and the refinished version appear to be very similar if not identical.

I have also posted photos stored in records from the ebay listing in 2006.

It would appear that the comment made that it was ‘unusual for Seeger not to comment on the Eagle’ is making an incorrect assumption about fact from a simple omission on the part of the author, intentional or otherwise. Because he did not mention it does not mean that it was not there. In fact, the photos definitely show something being there. Not mentioning it is more an indication of complete acceptance as being nothing unusual.

There is perhaps only one person now who could confirm or otherwise the presence of the eagle. Hopefully there are other photos in his possession that will show it more clearly. Being as the eagle was definitely on the binoculars in 2006, my theory is that they were bought by the previous owner and bearing in mind the special relationship he had with Hans, he provided photos for inclusion in the book. There was no confusion then about the markings and as such the photos were included in the book with no need for any reference to the markings as they were totally acceptable.

[Sgt Bilko]

I thought the IV/1 markings were official Zeiss markings and all I've seen have a line above and below the IV and the 1 has a slope at the top - the Ebay listed one has no slope and no lines above or below the IV.

The Eagle M VI/1 may have been on the listed binocular long before the deceased owner bought it - I have a Leitz KM 7x50 that's been re-engraved to resemble a Zeiss Binoct - supposedly a common scam in the 1950's. But it's still a Leitz...

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8235/8...d08e5767_b.jpg

http://cdn04.trixum.de/upload2/11240...7982071b75.jpg

http://www.army-store24.de/WebRoot/S...26_-_Kopie.JPG

[RodA]

As I have said before on the this subject, I respect and welcome any knowledgeable opinion but photos of a different eagle, of different size, engraved at different times, on different models, do little to support the argument. However, the validity of the engraving in question has been discussed at length in another thread and is not appropriate to repeat here.

This particular thread started specifically relating to photographs within Seeger’s blue book stating that ‘the Eagle with IV/1 shown on the Ebay listing, isn't pictured in the book’. It would seem that your second comment contradicts this statement and perhaps supports the fact that it can be seen in one photo. It would be courteous of somebody to upload a photo of Abb 1743 as nickn has requested. Readers can then form their own opinion.

[Sgt Bilko]

photos of a different eagle, of different size, engraved at different times, on different models, do little to support the argument

When trying to confirm the valididy of suspect or unusual markings, it's normal to compare them with accepted markings.

My second comment (The Eagle M VI/1 may have been on the listed binocular long before the deceased owner bought it) doesn't contradict any other but attempts to illustrate that fake markings on German binoculars were around long before 2006.

Did no-one notice the IV/1 differences in the other thread you refer to? It would be interesting to see the other thread as I'm always keen to expand my knowledge on optical matters.

[MOLEHUNTER]

Dear Rod - it would be courteous if you could post a link to the other thread. Did the Kriegsmarine binoculars with unusual marking you sold last week have the same markings as this threads Df7x? ie the Carl Zeiss Jena test department stamp IV/1.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Zeiss-D-F-...0AAOSw-CpYBz~A

[RodA]

Mike. You and your colleague started and have been the main contributors to the only two threads that I have responded to. If you don’t remember what you write then please don’t expect me to remind you. As for courtesy, another member who disagreed with your opinions asked for somebody to upload the photo from Seegers book. He has been ignored. Is that because the photo will prove you wrong? You started this particular thread by stating that the eagle symbol in question was not shown in the book and with very measured wording was implying that it had been added later. You have very carefully avoided responding to my subsequent comments and proof that the eagle was on the binoculars when Hans photographed them in September 2006. Hans is respected for not only being highly knowledgable but also for being very forthright. If he had considered there to be a problem with the inscription, he would have mentioned it or not used the photos. Despite me providing this opposing evidence to your argument, instead of conceding and perhaps apologise, you have chosen to change tack and avoid your initial reason for starting this thread.

I am all for open and honest discussion and agree that there could be doubt about the eagle, but your vendetta seems at odds with the rules of the forum. Private contact with me from other members confirms that they do not wish to enter into the tone of such comments. It is sad that these well respected and highly knowledgable people find themselves making comments such as ‘…. obnoxious man who revels in wasteful arguments …….. out to spread half truths at best and venom at worst’. ‘…. accusing you of engraving eagles!!!! …. what these idiots don't understand ...’. These are the sorts of reactions you are generating with the way you post your opinions.

I will state one last time, and then let you play on your own, I did not, and have never engraved any inscription on any item that was not already there. I freely admit, and have mentioned in appropriate listings, that I have had existing inscriptions tidied up where they have been maliciously damaged, and will continue to do so.

[Mikedenmark]

I haven´t looked in the book to check the photo´s, so I have no opinion of the matter.

But as far as I have read this thread, no-one has accused anyone of meddling with the eagle.
To claim that such an accusation has been made here, cannot, in my opinion, be based on what was written/said in this thread.

What is disputed, is the eagle. Rightfully, or not. Nothing more.

I believe the only interesting point anyone could make in this matter would be to tell, they did in fact do something about the eagle.

Anything else would be pure speculation.
Denial should not be taken as more than a statement.

Accusation would only have merit, if someone either saw it happen, or heard about it from someone who saw it being done.

( I actually had such a second source in an unrelated case, not bino related. The person being present, when a fraud was being prepared in a toolroom. Worked splendid by the way. Someone made a lot of money. But my suspicions were confirmed the only way I could trust. An extremely unlikely actual eyewitness. I happened to meet the man yesterday at a militaria fair, and even saw one of his creations for sale from a dealer too. They will live a long and prosperous life. )

In this thread, I have taken note of the vehement defense we see.



Update. Now, I did check the book.
This may be a misunderstanding. In the book, it has an eagle. Molehunter did not say it didn´t. He referred the comment from someone else. (as far as I read him here)
What molehunter wondered about, was why Dr. Seeger did not mention the eagle. I think Dr. Seeger was focused on the technical details on this binocular, rather than the markings.

I agree with molehunter in his doubts regarding the eagle details seen in the ebay listing.

Dr. Seeger and RodA may both have a photo that would enlighten us all.

I would have bid on an item like this to get the bino variant. Not the eagle.
The refinishing work is, in my personal opinion, deplorable. Especially on such a rare piece.

[MOLEHUNTER]

Dear Rod - I didn't accuse anyone of anything - merely pointed out that the binocular isn't now as pictured in Seeger (which you freely admit) and that it was strange the Eagle M IV/1 wasn't mentioned when another WW1 / WW2 Kriegsmarine 7x50 was- on the very next page.

There is no vendetta and I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings - the intricacies of Kriegsmarine engravings is a subject that interests many and I would have thought it of interest that your Df7x engraving differs from every other.

Like you, I'm not an associate member and can't post photos but nickn can. It may well be that everyone else is correct and I'm wrong to have concerns about the engraving - apparently nickn, the expert who mentions in your listing it being a KM Depot engraving and the other members who've contacted you think nothing is amiss.

Perhaps the pictures you've sent to another member to post (including the 2006 Ebay pictures) or the link to the thread where the Eagles validity was discussed (which you are able to post) will clear it up. I await them with interest.