Arc4+, imperfections? (pics)

[yclo]

I am very happy to have just received my #344 Arc4+ First purchased on B/S/T!

It is everything that I have read about, and you can see the nice stainless set screws (Thanks Lux!) in this picture:

Bigger picture

But after studying it for a while I have found that there seems to be a smuge or fingerprint of some sort on a portion of the reflector, I have attempted to photograph it but it is hard to see. So the light is turned on at a lower level to aid seeing it on camera:

Bigger picture

Bigger picture

Bigger picture

Bigger picture

Bigger picture

Bigger picture

Actually on that last one you can also see clearly there are some bubbles (farkle? epoxy residue?) at the base of the reflector around the emitter dome too.

Also around the same region, there seems to be a mark/dent on the reflector. Again I have attempted to photograph it, apologies for the quality (or lack of) of the photos as I am still learning to master my camera. They have been pointed out with green arrows:

Bigger picture

Bigger picture

There are other smaller dents on the reflector that seem to be the result from the reflector coating process, but this one seemed to quite large and maybe could be avoided? Anyway I do not know the acceptance levels of these coatings so I took a photo anyway.

Steering very clear of that "cosmetics" thread, it seems to have a minimal impact on the performance of the light itself. But I would like to know everyone's opinions regarding these slight imperfections:

1. smuge/fingerprint on reflector
2. farkle/epoxy residue at base of reflector
3. dent on reflector (there are other minor ones that seem to be the result

Do any of you have one or more of these characteristics on the Arc4+'s you own or have seen?

If not, would you deem that these are sufficient reasons to make noise because this is a $180 light?

-YC

 

[Gransee]

YC, those are normal. The smudge pattern in the lens is a change in the how the aluminum adhered to the base layer during manufacturing. Some people have surely mistaken these for fingerprints. Ideally, this effect would not be there but quite a few lenses had this detail. I tested them and made seconds of any that noticably affected the beam.

The farkle is still there with the Arc4 as it was with previous generations since it comes with the LED. It is less visible now because there is not a lens manifying the chunks and making them seem larger than they are. They are pretty static though and I am yet to see one move. If you open the reflector cavity to clean it I suggest you be very careful since the reflector is easy to damage.

I have seen the dent repeatidly in the reflectors. I am not sure what causes them. It may have something to do with the base coats. Of course, they are too small to have any noticable affect on the output.

Because the reflector is smooth, it is more likely to show character than a stippled design. A reflector made from a solid piece of alumininum is more likely to have extra character than a plastic base because of heat conduction and surface smoothness.

Overall, I am pleased with the efficiency, blending, heatsinking and smooth beam this reflector produces. I also believe our cosmetic index has improved with the direct appeareance although it is still far from perfect.

Peter

 

[yclo]

Many thanks Peter, those were very detailed explainations. I support you in your decisions to the current QC levels, but also understand why it would be annoying to some.

There was one more thing, when I shake the light there was a rattle. I found the source of the sound and it turned out to be the rivet-shaped metal right under the rubber switch.

I had to double-sided tape it to the rubber switch for it to not rattle when I shake it, is this normal?

-YC

 

[CalgaryGuy]

Yclo, can you leave your pics up so I can compare it to my Arc 4+ Second? Thanks.

Edit: I clicked the link under the pics and it bring up the pics.

 

[jtice]

My Arc4+ first, has that exact same place on the reflector.
Just looks like the reflective coating is kinda rough, and not smooth in that spot.

If I hold my Arc4+ about a foot from a surface, and spin it, I can see that slight smudge. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif Though just ever so slightly.

Cant notice it at all over about 5 feet though.

 

[NewBie]

Personally, I'd feel the stuff you showed in your pictures would surely merit a replacement, especially in a premium.

I take it that these bad defects are common in ARC premiums then?

Gransee, I take it you work for Arc. Do you figure they will get these issues worked out soon?

 

[Radagast]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif

Gransee is the main man.

It would be nice to know why a particular second is a second. Kinda makes me a little obsessive.

 

[PaulW]

[ QUOTE ]
jtice said:

. . . looks like the reflective coating is kinda rough, and not smooth in that spot.

If I hold my Arc4+ about a foot from a surface, and spin it, I can see that slight smudge. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif Though just ever so slightly. . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

On the whole, I believe the reflectors are probably pretty good. Six Arc4+s have passed through my hands. I inspected the reflectors closely on each of them. Five were perfect. Only one had such a "smudge." It was slight and almost unnoticeable. (Interestingly, the smudged one was the one I selected as a keeper.)

Paul

 

[Fastlane]

I'd rather see beamshots and runtime charts than reflector shots. Who sits around staring at the reflector anyway?
That's rhetorical, I really don't want to know. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ohgeez.gif

These are tough little lights, get out and use them.

 

[Mark_Larson]

[ QUOTE ]
Fastlane said:
I'd rather see beamshots and runtime charts than reflector shots. Who sits around staring at the reflector anyway?
That's rhetorical, I really don't want to know. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ohgeez.gif

These are tough little lights, get out and use them.

[/ QUOTE ] Thank you for belittling those who are looking for quality in a light they just paid their hard-earned money for.

I have a slightly dented car i can sell you. Who sits around looking at the back end anyway?

 

[Fastlane]

Oh come on, no need to thank me. It was supposed to be a funny visual of guys staring into their lights./ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ohgeez.gif

My Arc4+ exudes quality and is a very useful tool. Every light I have seen from Arc has impressed me similarly. You might be able to find an insignificant blemish on any of them and even at 10x it still has no effect on brightness, tint, or runtime. When I hand someone the 4+, their eyes usually light up and I don't mean by staring into the reflector. I mean their intial impressions often show by the looks on their faces and generally verbalized with a "whoah" or "wow". If there ever was a serious defect, I'm sure it would be handled by the company. The best way to appreciate the quality of these light is to use them.