Where does the glass come from? Binoculars

[WRO]

Great information from all. I do have to hand it to Kowa’s marketing department “pure synthetic fluorite” has a nice ring to it, but could mean just about anything. Companies are in the business of selling things so I’m not casting shade.

It would be fun to be a fly on the wall as boxes of optical glass are unpacked at different factories to see what language the cardboard boxes are printed in.

It’s like when hd was the rage


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spiral Horn]

There have been numerous previous threads about place of manufacture. Below is basically a re-post of my previous response.

Would recommend diminishing the importance of inferences drawn about place of manufacture. This comes up time and again - my guess it is quite often inspired by something someone read on some internet blog or thread. Although rarely confirmed or examined in-depth, these claims are often stated and repeated with deep conviction, and all manner of inferences about product performance and quality drawn from speculation about where optics are made. Fact is most complex optical devices involve materials, components, sub-assemblies, etc, from multiple sources. For example, many optics manufactures tout “Schott Glass“ and heavily market that in their product advertising. However, Schott began manufacturing optical glass outside Germany as early as 1967. Today, Schott glass is made in over 30 countries, and when glass is ordered Schott will source it based on the specified grade and performance characteristics. So, the highly touted “Schott HT” glass used in someone’s favorite binocular or scope could just as easily be coming from a Schott plant in China or Indonesia as from Germany or Austria. But that glass is made to the same Schott-controlled manufacturing process and performance specifications regardless of where it is coming from. Also, folks love to throw around OEM names like LOW & Kamakura. But it is naive to think those OEM manufacturers are not also using worldwide sourcing. It just makes economic sense. That‘s just reality in today’s global economy.

Point is - we would all be better served by drawing conclusions via actual direct comparison and field performance rather than speculation about where they are made.

Another point is OEM manufacturers fabricate, build or fully assemble optical products based on contract specification. So, even if one could determine with certainty that two different brands contain components or are wholly manufactured in the same country or plant, that wouldn’t mean they are basically the same product. Compare Maven B Series to Zeiss Conquest HDX and it will be obvious that even though they are both mostly sourced from Japan (maybe even the same plant) they are very different products.

 

[Spiral Horn]

Great information from all. I do have to hand it to Kowa’s marketing department “pure synthetic fluorite” has a nice ring to it, but could mean just about anything. Companies are in the business of selling things so I’m not casting shade.

It would be fun to be a fly on the wall as boxes of optical glass are unpacked at different factories to see what language the cardboard boxes are printed in.

Agree that Kowa markets this pretty heavily, but viewing through Kowa spotters containing their pure Flourite Crystal convinces me that it’s more than just hype. The glass in their spotters is simply spectacular. The result is incredibly accurate colors and minimal CA - to my eyes this enhances apparent resolution.

 

[Hunt30]

Great information from all. I do have to hand it to Kowa’s marketing department “pure synthetic fluorite” has a nice ring to it, but could mean just about anything. Companies are in the business of selling things so I’m not casting shade.

It would be fun to be a fly on the wall as boxes of optical glass are unpacked at different factories to see what language the cardboard boxes are printed in.

I think pure fluorite crystal means pure fluorite crystal. Pure fluorite crystal is a very specific thing. I’m not sure what you mean by it could mean anything? Please give an example of what else it could be. And if Kowa was as good at marketing their products as they are at making them, we wouldn’t have all these silly discussions about which spotting scope is the best optically.

 

[Spiral Horn]

The alpha guys will come after me with their pitchforks, but truly I think the only big advantage the alpha glass brands has going for it is resale value, when compared to the top offerings from the companies like Tract, GPO, and Maven.

I can see why someone might feel that way as mid-grade binoculars significantly improved over the past decade or so and have certainly closed some of the gap with the alphas. But after owning numerous optics over many years I get to compare them side-by-side very often. IME there are several areas where the alphas still shine above the mid-grades - 1) prolonged glassing sessions - like on a sheep hunt when glassing for hours. There will be far less eye fatigue with a Zeiss Victory or Swarovski NL than with a Maven or Tract; 2) when looking at all of the binocular’s features as a complete device. Let’s compare my Maven B6 to my Victory SF - while I like my B6, the Victory has a wider FOV and an overall easier view, more accurate colors and deeper saturation, much smoother focus mechanism, much better handling/balance/ergonomics, and the SF feels better in the hand. Although the SF is only slightly better in many categories, when all the advantages are added up it offers a more satisfying overall viewing experience.

 

[TaperPin]

I think pure fluorite crystal means pure fluorite crystal. Pure fluorite crystal is a very specific thing. I’m not sure what you mean by it could mean anything? Please give an example of what else it could be. And if Kowa was as good at marketing their products as they are at making them, we wouldn’t have all these silly discussions about which spotting scope is the best optically.

When someone is selling a product and they fib about one thing, it casts doubt on what else they have said. In the video above the Kiowa guy said no fluorite is mined, which is obviously not right since it has to come from somewhere. It’s my junior high level of understanding mined fluorite is referred to as fluorspar. If it’s the same material used in their top scopes since the 1980s, it does make me wonder why they don’t own the category. Would anyone know except the engineers if they mixed in enough stuff to get what Schott calls fluorine crown? I don’t know and I don’t get the impression it matters or if they did anyone would notice or fess up to it. What processes or trace minerals makes the difference between crappy fluorite and something usable? iDK. The microscope info shows a mixture of different types of lens materials even when - does it matter if they all aren’t fluorite? It’s like marketing pure water. It sounds good, but we all know unless it’s distilled, there are traces of all sorts of things from dinosaur and whale pee to minerals in there.

I’m sure Kowas are great. Like I said it’s a catchy line to focus on the pure fluorite. The penny pincher in me wants to buy one of their older fluorite scopes to check it out.

 

[RockAndSage]

I can see why someone might feel that way as mid-grade binoculars significantly improved over the past decade or so and have certainly closed some of the gap with the alphas. But after owning numerous optics over many years I get to compare them side-by-side very often. IME there are several areas where the alphas still shine above the mid-grades - 1) prolonged glassing sessions - like on a sheep hunt when glassing for hours. There will be far less eye fatigue with a Zeiss Victory or Swarovski NL than with a Maven or Tract; 2) when looking at all of the binocular’s features as a complete device. Let’s compare my Maven B6 to my Victory SF - while I like my B6, the Victory has a wider FOV and an overall easier view, more accurate colors and deeper saturation, much smoother focus mechanism, much better handling/balance/ergonomics, and the SF feels better in the hand. Although the SF is only slightly better in many categories, when all the advantages are added up it offers a more satisfying overall viewing experience.

Excellent points. And they're points that can only really come from experience, that can only really come from having the money to have that experience, over time.

The "jUst aS goOd!!" people never seem to still say that nonsense, after they've improved their financial circumstances and actually invest in the higher quality experiences. And have had time to genuinely evaluate those qualitative differences.

This doesn't mean that lesser-quality gear can't be used very effectively. And it certainly doesn't mean twice-as-expensive makes something twice as effective. There are diminishing returns on all the high-performance and luxury-grade products, where double the cost might only get you an additional 10-20% improvement on performance, or only help in one angle of extreme performance you may never need. But the fastest way to tell me you've never really spent time with two different products pushing the limits of either's capability, is to say "jUst aS goOd."

 

[JGRaider]

There have been numerous previous threads about place of manufacture. Below is basically a re-post of my previous response.

Would recommend diminishing the importance of inferences drawn about place of manufacture. This comes up time and again - my guess it is quite often inspired by something someone read on some internet blog or thread. Although rarely confirmed or examined in-depth, these claims are often stated and repeated with deep conviction, and all manner of inferences about product performance and quality drawn from speculation about where optics are made. Fact is most complex optical devices involve materials, components, sub-assemblies, etc, from multiple sources. For example, many optics manufactures tout “Schott Glass“ and heavily market that in their product advertising. However, Schott began manufacturing optical glass outside Germany as early as 1967. Today, Schott glass is made in over 30 countries, and when glass is ordered Schott will source it based on the specified grade and performance characteristics. So, the highly touted “Schott HT” glass used in someone’s favorite binocular or scope could just as easily be coming from a Schott plant in China or Indonesia as from Germany or Austria. But that glass is made to the same Schott-controlled manufacturing process and performance specifications regardless of where it is coming from. Also, folks love to throw around OEM names like LOW & Kamakura. But it is naive to think those OEM manufacturers are not also using worldwide sourcing. It just makes economic sense. That‘s just reality in today’s global economy.

Point is - we would all be better served by drawing conclusions via actual direct comparison and field performance rather than speculation about where they are made.

Another point is OEM manufacturers fabricate, build or fully assemble optical products based on contract specification. So, even if one could determine with certainty that two different brands contain components or are wholly manufactured in the same country or plant, that wouldn’t mean they are basically the same product. Compare Maven B Series to Zeiss Conquest HDX and it will be obvious that even though they are both mostly sourced from Japan (maybe even the same plant) they are very different products.

Good post, agree 100%