The first two were sent to me by a long-term and highly respected collector when I queried the markings with him. They came from his extensive records that show these were sold in February 2006. He has also stated that Hans photographed these binoculars for his book in September of the same year. The first photo is very similar to the one in the blue book that prompted the initial forum posting by Molehunter. The corroded left hand plate with the usual inscription and the other one further away is clearly obvious. The original seller covered the swastika in the close up for his ebay listing but the characters below are still visible albeit that the M has suffered from corrosion.
The next photo is one that I took from the blue book which is the one Molehunter said did not show the inscription, or words to that effect. Not very well reproduced here and perhaps not appropriate for your website. I photographed it at the request of somebody who did not not have a copy of the book but he did say that he has seen such inscriptions in the past. The original in the book is almost identical to the 2006 ebay photo above. This was my only original point of argument when it was intimated that it was not on the photos and that Hans would have commented on it had it have been there. The counter argument could be that Hans did know that it was there and in his forthright nature found nothing wrong with the binoculars or the inscription and as such did not specifically mention it. Only Hans can answer this. It is not for us to assume what Hans thought when he is available to ask.
This is a photo supplied by the previous owner's family taken some time between 2006 and October this year. The corrosion does look not as bad as it actually was.
This one is from the refinished and sold pair. Once again, not a very clear photo of the inscription in question as it was not taken specifically to counter such arguments.
I have nothing else that I can add other than what I have said in my ebay listing and my endless retorts to what I consider insinuations.
Whilst writing, as I will not be posting any more comments on the forum, may I take the time to explain what I meant about engineering which Bilko has taken the wrong way. My simple opinion is purely from an engineering perspective is that Bilko and co are comparing large engraved symbols with this very much smaller one. It is logical that if an image needs to be smaller, every aspect of it must be smaller in proportion or lose some of the detail. If the small version was to have top and bottom lines as Bilko quite rightly pointed out were missing, the whole character would become indistinct with a mass of quite wide and deep engraved lines. If the lines were made finer and shallower, they would be too fine for such an item. This logic would also explain why there is only one circle around the swastika, with less detail in the eagle such no claws etc., normally found on larger eagles.
Once again, thanks for your help. I hope that this situation resolves itself. It is a pity that some very knowledgeable collectors will not add their experience to the discussion as they do not wish to enter into the tone of the debates. It is a shame because I feel sure that their input would greatly increase the overall knowledge in situations like this. For my part, I can only comment on and if necessary defend what I know, which in this case is very little other than that I did not and would not add fake inscriptions to anything.