Had a customer ask me the other day what "leatherette" meant in reference to a
binocular. This is not surprising, given the fact that the preponderance of today's binoculars are covered with rubber "armor" rather than
leatherette. When I explained what leatherette was, he wondered why anyone would want such a covering on their
binocular.
Okay, good question. About the only technical advantage leatherette has over rubber armoring is its lighter weight. That is one of the reasons, I suppose, that Leica offers their Ultravid in both leatherette and rubber armored. Indeed, the
Leica Ultravid 8x42 BL (L for leatherette) shaves some 2+ ounces over its stable mate armored version, the
Leica Ultravid 8x42 BR (R for rubber).
For old rationalists like me, going leather also has some aesthetic appeal. It not only looks and feels elegant, it also has an appealing smell. For me, an astronomy binocular just wouldn't be the same for me without that smell of leather. It's been a feature I've had on nearly all of my
astronomy binoculars. Would my
Nikon 10x70 Astro Luxe be better protected against scratches if it was covered in rubber? Yes, I suspect so. Would it be the same binocular? On the inside, yes, of course, but it just wouldn't offer that look and feel, not to mention smell that I have come to associate with my astronomy binoculars. Long live leather.