Re: Speaking of Ritchey-Chretien Scopes
From: Gil (gilbertviolette_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 01/12/05
- Next message: George Normandin: "Re: New MEADE scope: RCX400 RITCHEY-CHRETIEN"
- Previous message: Ben Bradley: "Re: Did we ever go to the moon???"
- In reply to: Bob Schmall: "Re: Speaking of Ritchey-Chretien Scopes"
- Next in thread: John Savard: "Re: Speaking of Ritchey-Chretien Scopes"
- Reply: John Savard: "Re: Speaking of Ritchey-Chretien Scopes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 12 Jan 2005 09:52:29 -0800
Have a sense of humor, please.
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Mollise, I just don't like it when he
(or anyone else) incorrectly reports information about Criterion. I
remember Mr. Mollise talking about "cardboard" tubes with the Dynamax
scopes, a charge that was frequently made by our competition at the
time. ( I contacted him personally to try and correct that
mis-statement.) Only scope Criterion ever made with a cardboard tube
was that little hand-held black scope that was sold in the 1950's.
Every Newtonian and SCT had a phenolic resin tube. I know this because
I was one of the people who placed the purchase orders to the tube
vendor (the Budd company).
I have frequently read reports about how the Dynamax line was an
inferior scope. It is a little annoying to me, especially since I was
so deeply involved in the company operations.
I figure someone out here has to defend the company and it's management
- it might as well be me because I know as much about this particular
scope as anyone alive today.
Like I said in my previous post, think what you like. But I was there
for six years, and I can tell anyone that will listen as much about the
product line as they would like to know. I try to refute it when people
badmouth the company and the product with incorrect information. Your
statement about the assembly and testing of Criterion optics was wrong.
Each piece was tested individually, and as a set.
We were a small company dedicated to producing the best product
possible with limited capital. Trash the product all you want, I can't
do anything about that.
No matter what Mr. Mollise (or any other so-called SCT "expert") may
tell you, if I contradict postings here it is because I was there.
Oh, and by the way, Criterion didn't have any "dealers". We only sold
the product direct to the public. That dealer thing didn't happen until
Bausch and Lomb took over.
The company closed a year after I left, so what Bausch and Lomb did
with the product I cannot comment on. The 4" scope was quite probably
just slapped together, it was damned near impossible to correctly align
the optics of the thing anyway. Large scale production of the 4" SCT
was just getting started when I left. That scope is a great telephoto
lens, but a lousy telescope. I had one of the best set of optics in my
4" SCT and it was marginal at best (although I did see the comet impact
sites on Jupiter with it, but that was a difficult object with that
scope).
Now c'mon, that line about advertising was funny, even if it might have
hit close to home!
Gil
- Next message: George Normandin: "Re: New MEADE scope: RCX400 RITCHEY-CHRETIEN"
- Previous message: Ben Bradley: "Re: Did we ever go to the moon???"
- In reply to: Bob Schmall: "Re: Speaking of Ritchey-Chretien Scopes"
- Next in thread: John Savard: "Re: Speaking of Ritchey-Chretien Scopes"
- Reply: John Savard: "Re: Speaking of Ritchey-Chretien Scopes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|