Own a binocular from Seeger's book!!

[Sgt Bilko]

Thanks for sending the picture Rod and posting them Clarkey. Regardless of one's view on the restoration of rare binoculars, Rod is to be commended on his fine workmanship.

My own view of the markings (which I've now seen) is that the binocular was marked like this when the previous owner bought it and was probably pictured in Seeger's book solely to illustrate the rare extra ring on the objective tube.

No mention of the Eagle was made as both probably doubted it (another, more realistically marked DF7x is shown on the opposite page).

Rod then expertly restored it, unaware of the suspicions about the markings. No shame in that - many on this forum will have been caught out (as I have).

This entire scenario could happen tomorrow ie I've been named in Seeger's book, I have a vast collection (and heirs who know little of it) and I have a Zeiss Smooth Ocular with fake Kustenartillierie and Eagle markings (bought from an honourable and reputable expert named in Seeger's book who, when shown the problem, made immediate amends).

If I pass away in my sleep tonight, the Smooth ocular Kustenartillierie 7x50 wil eventually appear for sale - I know it's dodgy but other's may not.

No-one's done wrong (apart from the original Kustenartillierie engraver) and all have acted with honour. But the marking's still fake...

[Sgt Bilko]

I am sorry it has been put on a binocular as rare as this. Can´t be helped.

Don't worry Michael - it turns out the binocular isn't as rare as thought;

In Seeger's book, he mentions the extra metal ring visible just as the objective cone joins the body and the serial indicates this binocular came from a batch of 200 made in 1916. It appears to be included solely to illustrate the extra ring considered rare.

Spurred on by this thread, I've discovered I have a DF7x50 773939 from a batch of 200 made in 1917 which also has the extra ring. The serial (perhaps taken from Ebay) is listed in his book as the only one of this batch he's aware of. Interestingly, it has the 0 -20-40-60-80 reticle in the left side divided into 100/16 with a vertical line through the middle.

Mine has normal wear and tear and totally original markings.

[RodA]

Thank you very much Bilko for your valued comments. All I ever wanted was to not feel that I might have been regarded as having applied the inscription. I had my suspicions from the outset which is why I sought expert advice before listing them and mentioning the doubt in the description. I also attempted to balance opinion by posting opposing comments. What else could I have done other than to scrap the item which would have been criminal? Lets hope that we can put this sorry situation behind us and move on. Unfortunately I have two other items with malicious damage that I will be listing which may also attract comments. I will not scrap them. I hope that they do not cause the same amount of controversy.

[Sgt Bilko]

Hi Rod - I fiddle with optics myself and realise the quality of your craftmanship. And of course you're correct that no good binocular should be scrapped because of dubious markings.

The reason I keep my dodgy Kustenartillierie Zeiss is because it's the best one I've looked through. If I ever get another left prism plate I'll return it to original.

The problem with forums and the written word is that it's often difficult to know if someone's being sarcastic or genuine. If we were sitting in a pub talking binoculars, you'd realise I meant no sarcasm and I'm sure no-one reading this thread will feel you were suspect.

To me it's all about the binoculars and how we, as a group of collectors, advance our knowledge. Take care and enjoy this forum - there's a lot of good eggs on here.

[MrZeiss]

Note for Sgt Bilko

My records show that DF7x50 #773939 appeared on eBay in July 2010.

There is another one with #773989 on www.historicacollectibles.com (page 5 of binoculars) . The rim number seems to be the same as the one you mention but the image is not clear.

Mr Zeiss

[Sgt Bilko]

Hi MrZeiss - many thanks for that. It seems the extra ring at the objective to plate join wasn't throughout the batch as my one (773939) has the ring but our esteemd Italian collector's (773989) from the same batch doesn't. So maybe the extra ring versions are indeed rarer than I thought.