Re: so called new approach to design doublet APOs. ;>)
From: RichA (none_at_none.com)
Date: 11/22/04
- Next message: Sketcher: "Re: Small Scope Observing/Thoughts"
- Previous message: CLT: "Re: Celestron's dubious claim"
- In reply to: Jon Isaacs: "Re: so called new approach to design doublet APOs. ;>)"
- Next in thread: Tom Davis: "Re: so called new approach to design doublet APOs. ;>)"
- Reply: Tom Davis: "Re: so called new approach to design doublet APOs. ;>)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:45:36 -0500
On 21 Nov 2004 23:08:10 GMT, jonisaacs@aol.com (Jon Isaacs) wrote:
>To Tom Davis and the rest...
>
>It was my understanding that Burgess Optical and various folks with connections
>to BO were going to avoid commenting on products that were not yet available to
>the public.
>
>In the past this has caused Burgess Optics and others a large amount of grief
>including yours truly. I was suckered in to the predessor to this scope, the
>102F6 nearly 2 years ago by glowing reports of Prototype performance and
>assurances of Burgess Optics customer care and quality assurance and of course
>a very attractive price.
>
>So far, this story has just been one of disappointment and disaster. (The
>upside is that I did have an extra 2 inch diagonal to lend to Howard Lester to
>use with his Orion ED80.)
>
>The downside is that I have been on a roller coaster of ups and down, promises
>followed by failure, after all my scope was supposed to be shipped within a
>month of the order date which was in March of 2003. What I ended up with was
>a scope 10 months later that even by my lax standards was unusable. Now
>nearly a year later, again I have been hopeful numerous times, still nothing...
>
>I hope that Burgess Optical is able to pull this one off.
>
>But at the same time, I hope that no one here mistakes a glowing review of a
>Proto-type as an indication that soon a similar scope will available to the
>general public.
Shades of Vernonscope and one of their 80mm apos. Prototype kicked
ass, production model a disaster which became an overpriced achro
called, the "Master Birder" that couldn't even support over 50x. They
were able to produce a real apo after a time, but the one I was able
to test was absolutely terrible, and it was being sold for almost $800
used, to some poor fool.
Given your description of this, it sounds like a company financing
production via up front payments by customers, a very dangerous
situation for a company to be in.
But what would be interesting to know is if the Burgess scopes are
Burgess scopes? Meaning are their other sources of the same
telescope, since the Chinese don't really seem inclined to keep single
sources when it comes to product? Dealer exclusivity is not a halmark
of the Oriental production scheme since the primary goal of the mass
market there is to move numbers off a production line, as many as
possible and the way to do that is with multiple dealers and branding.
If they release the little apo, I'm wondering if we'll see the same
scruitiny applied to it by other well-known opticians that has been
applied to other apos?
-Rich
- Next message: Sketcher: "Re: Small Scope Observing/Thoughts"
- Previous message: CLT: "Re: Celestron's dubious claim"
- In reply to: Jon Isaacs: "Re: so called new approach to design doublet APOs. ;>)"
- Next in thread: Tom Davis: "Re: so called new approach to design doublet APOs. ;>)"
- Reply: Tom Davis: "Re: so called new approach to design doublet APOs. ;>)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|