did we buy a lemon??
PD Cornish
J&A Atkinson wrote in message <368707ab...@n2.idirect.com>...
>
> After very little research, my husband bought me a telescope for xmas
> - a Meade 4495C 4.5" equatorial reflector - and after doing some
> Any advice would be greatly appreciated. It may well be
>able to suit our needs but we feel ripped off.
I think you were. Any shop selling such a scope knowing it was for an adult
was ignorant to say the least.
Upgrading this scope is an expensive exercise in futility. March directly
back to the shop you got it and demand - not ask for- a refund. Your proper
scope must have 1.25 " eye pieces and as steady a mount as you can afford.
It continues to astound and appall me that Meade would put their name on
these abominations. Were this not enough, there are several cheaper models
with Meade's name on them which make the 4495C look like an engineering
marvel. In Canada, at least, be prepared to spend at least $500.00 for even
a very basic, but serviceable scope. Educate yourself about scopes. It is
the uninformed that these trashy scopes are aimed at.
David Lee
Janine, it sounds for all the world like you didn't have Jupiter in
focus. Could this be the case?
dave
ps. You can upgrade the focuser to accept 1.25 inch eyepieces, but
folks in the newsgroup with more telescope building experience than
me can give you more specific advice.
J&A Atkinson wrote:
> After very little research, my husband bought me a telescope for xmas
> - a Meade 4495C 4.5" equatorial reflector - and after doing some
> reading, we think we may have a lemon. It came with three eyepieces
> - SR4mm, H12.5mm, H25mm and a 3 X Barlow - all .965". He is
> devastated and thinks he was duped. What should we do? Almost all
> our viewing will be done in our light polluted back yard, but we hoped
> to take the scope along on trips. Will the telescope accept the
> better 1.25" eyepieces or can it be upgraded to accept these? We had
> a terrific time viewing the moon last night, but had trouble with
> Jupiter. We were able to locate it but it appeared as a disc with a
> shadow of crosshairs or something similar in the center of the disc.
> Actually, it more closely resembled the three sided figure found
> looking into the top of the tube of the telescope. Can you tell we
> are amateur? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. It may well be
> able to suit our needs but we feel ripped off.
>
> Janine Atkinson
--
Drop the 'SpamFree' in my email address - but I bet you figured that out.
J&A Atkinson
Brian Murphy
eyepieces, finder and mount you would be much better off starting with
something else. Can you return it?
Brian
PD Cornish wrote:
> J&A Atkinson wrote in message <368707ab...@n2.idirect.com>...
> >
> > After very little research, my husband bought me a telescope for xmas
> > - a Meade 4495C 4.5" equatorial reflector - and after doing some
> > Any advice would be greatly appreciated. It may well be
> >able to suit our needs but we feel ripped off.
>
Ken Beard
David Lee wrote in message <3687174F...@SpamFree.ix.netcom.com>...
>Re: Attached
>
>Janine, it sounds for all the world like you didn't have Jupiter in
>focus. Could this be the case?
>
>dave
>
>ps. You can upgrade the focuser to accept 1.25 inch eyepieces, but
>folks in the newsgroup with more telescope building experience than
>me can give you more specific advice.
>
In another thread I discussed my experiences with a very similar scope. All
that should be required should be an adapter ring for the focuser, unscrew
the one that's there and screw the 1.25" adapter on, no major modifications
needed (for this anyways <g>).
--
Ken
Go #43 and #44
"If I went 'round claiming I was Emperor because some
moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away" - anonymous
peasant
volksy (at) geocities (dot) com
volksy (at) yahoo (dot) com
S Alexander
and didn't get any replies! Why the heck are we seeing the telescope
crossbars when we look at anything other than the moon? It doesn't appear
to be anything to do with focusing. Surely someone else has gone through
this rigmarole. I'm glad I only borrowed the telescope. The person I
borrowed it from has never used it so he doesn't know. It's annoying to say
the least. Anyway, I've decided I want something a bit better than this
4.5inch Tasco. I really would like to actually see something other than the
moon!
Sue Alexander-----Original Message-----
From: J&A Atkinson <atki...@idirect.com>
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Date: Monday, December 28, 1998 5:28 PM
Subject: did we buy a lemon??
>
> After very little research, my husband bought me a telescope for xmas
> - a Meade 4495C 4.5" equatorial reflector - and after doing some
> reading, we think we may have a lemon. It came with three eyepieces
>- SR4mm, H12.5mm, H25mm and a 3 X Barlow - all .965". He is
>devastated and thinks he was duped. What should we do? Almost all
>our viewing will be done in our light polluted back yard, but we hoped
>to take the scope along on trips. Will the telescope accept the
>better 1.25" eyepieces or can it be upgraded to accept these? We had
>a terrific time viewing the moon last night, but had trouble with
>Jupiter. We were able to locate it but it appeared as a disc with a
>shadow of crosshairs or something similar in the center of the disc.
>Actually, it more closely resembled the three sided figure found
>looking into the top of the tube of the telescope. Can you tell we
>are amateur? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. It may well be
>able to suit our needs but we feel ripped off.
>
>Janine Atkinson
J&A Atkinson wrote in message <368707ab...@n2.idirect.com>...
>
> After very little research, my husband bought me a telescope for xmas
> - a Meade 4495C 4.5" equatorial reflector - and after doing some
> reading, we think we may have a lemon. It came with three eyepieces
>- SR4mm, H12.5mm, H25mm and a 3 X Barlow - all .965". He is
>devastated and thinks he was duped. What should we do? Almost all
>our viewing will be done in our light polluted back yard, but we hoped
>to take the scope along on trips. Will the telescope accept the
>better 1.25" eyepieces or can it be upgraded to accept these? We had
>a terrific time viewing the moon last night, but had trouble with
>Jupiter. We were able to locate it but it appeared as a disc with a
>shadow of crosshairs or something similar in the center of the disc.
>Actually, it more closely resembled the three sided figure found
>looking into the top of the tube of the telescope. Can you tell we
>are amateur? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. It may well be
>able to suit our needs but we feel ripped off.
>
>Janine Atkinson
bro...@my-dejanews.com
David Lee <de...@SpamFree.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Re: Attached
>
> Janine, it sounds for all the world like you didn't have Jupiter in
> focus. Could this be the case?
>
> dave
>
> ps. You can upgrade the focuser to accept 1.25 inch eyepieces, but
> folks in the newsgroup with more telescope building experience than
> me can give you more specific advice.
>
>
> > After very little research, my husband bought me a telescope for xmas
> > - a Meade 4495C 4.5" equatorial reflector - and after doing some
> > reading, we think we may have a lemon. It came with three eyepieces
> > - SR4mm, H12.5mm, H25mm and a 3 X Barlow - all .965". He is
> > devastated and thinks he was duped. What should we do? Almost all
> > our viewing will be done in our light polluted back yard, but we hoped
> > to take the scope along on trips. Will the telescope accept the
> > better 1.25" eyepieces or can it be upgraded to accept these? We had
> > a terrific time viewing the moon last night, but had trouble with
> > Jupiter. We were able to locate it but it appeared as a disc with a
> > shadow of crosshairs or something similar in the center of the disc.
> > Actually, it more closely resembled the three sided figure found
> > looking into the top of the tube of the telescope. Can you tell we
> > are amateur? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. It may well be
> > able to suit our needs but we feel ripped off.
> >
> > Janine Atkinson
>
> Drop the 'SpamFree' in my email address - but I bet you figured that out.
>
>
It is possible that they may not be able to bring Jupiter into focus with
those eyepieces. Those .965" eyepieces and barlow are pure and simple junk.
I also suspect that the mount is grossly inadequate as well. If the focuser
will accept 1.25" eyepieces, than you could buy a couple of decent quality
Plossls and a decent 1.25" barlow for around $50 each. I personally feel
that trying to upgrade a scope such as this is not money well spent, although
others may have a different opinion. My suggestion would be to return it and
purchase a 6" dobsonian from Orion, Meade, or Celestron, again with an
additional decent Plossl eyepiece or two, a decent barlow, and a telrad. It
will probably cost somewhat more money, but will be a far more useful scope.
--
Kevin Brown
Burke, VA
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
hey friend
you can check with astronomics: http://www.astronomics.com - they have
that screw in adapter for $20. telescope warehouse on astromart may also
have them (see if the holder for the eyepiece comes off). this type of
scope should have cost about $200. i've seen these Mead scopes and they
aren't that bad. if you had bought a similar one from Orion you would
have paid $300+ (and no one would have said anything). for that, you get
two slightly better 1.25" eyepieces (their inexpensive ones) and a
marginally better finderscope.
re: those "crosshairs" you see on jupiter, if they look like the spider
vanes that hold up the secondary mirror then you were out of focus. use
the lowest power first - you should see jupiter and the 4 main moons even
with that...
Pjoules1
In article <767i4k$1ir$1...@titan.xtra.co.nz>, "S Alexander"
<crea...@hooked.net.nz> writes:
> Why the heck are we seeing the telescope
>crossbars when we look at anything other than the moon? It doesn't appear
>to be anything to do with focusing.
That is what I see when looking at Jupiter slightly out of focus, perhaps your
telescope has the same problem as mine, whatever that is - see my post
elsewhere in the group about focussing problems.
Regards
Pete
Harry Pulley
>
>
> After very little research, my husband bought me a telescope for xmas
> - a Meade 4495C 4.5" equatorial reflector - and after doing some
> reading, we think we may have a lemon. It came with three eyepieces
> - SR4mm, H12.5mm, H25mm and a 3 X Barlow - all .965". He is
> devastated and thinks he was duped. What should we do? Almost all
> our viewing will be done in our light polluted back yard, but we hoped
> to take the scope along on trips. Will the telescope accept the
> better 1.25" eyepieces or can it be upgraded to accept these? We had
> Jupiter. We were able to locate it but it appeared as a disc with a
> shadow of crosshairs or something similar in the center of the disc.
> Actually, it more closely resembled the three sided figure found
> looking into the top of the tube of the telescope. Can you tell we
> are amateur? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. It may well be
> able to suit our needs but we feel ripped off.
I borrowed a 4495 for a while and it is not completely useless scope,
but it is not a good one either. That said, if you can exchange it for
a 6" dobsonian with 1 good quality eyepiece in place of 3 cheap ones, I
would do so right away.
If you can't exchange it, don't despair, as you can see a lot of things
with the telescope -- I had a lot of fun while I borrowed it before
buying a 6" dob (and have now moved on even from that).
First, I'd get some books like Terrence Dickenson's Nightwatch or The
Backyard Astronomer's Guide, plus I'd see if there are any astronomy
clubs around. Club members can show you how to use the scope, they can
help you learn the sky and you can try some equipment out before buying
it next time.
For now you can probably use the 12.5mm and 25mm eyepieces as they are.
With perfect alignment of the mirrors, the 4mm may show something but it
is going to be a blurry image you won't like. The barlow is very poor
but may be of some use on the Moon.
This scope with the 12.5mm and 25mm eyepieces will show the Moon well,
many clusters and some galaxies and nebulae. If you think you'll upgrade
to another scope some day, you can buy a simple ring to screw on the
tube which will allow you to use 1.25" eyepieces, which are generally of
much better quality and which you'll be able to use in the next
telescope you buy. I would NOT buy better quality .965" eyepieces as
you won't be able to use them in another scope you buy.
It sounds like you had Jupiter out of focus there. Every time you view
a star or a planet out of focus you will see a shadow of the
"three-sided figure" called a spider in your scope. Try focusing on a
star and then move the scope over to Jupiter. Jupiter is not a point so
you may be having difficulty getting it to the correct focus.
--
<:-{} Harry C. Pulley, IV, member RASC, ALPO, IOTA, TPS
\ mailto: hpu...@home.com
http://members.home.net/hpulley
Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 43.55N, 80.26W
Mike Stebbins
low end designs that will show a narrow field of view and color at the
edges, they are very inexpensive to make, and are included with starter
scopes bacuse the price would be out of reach for most if 'good' eye
pieces were included. The barlow would be (my best guess) useless. Th
SR4mm would be near useless, the 12.5 and 25 would give 'reasonable'
views. I had a 4.5" scope for years, they have very simple to make
optics and usually the optics are fine. It sounds like the mirrors may
be out of collimtion or the scope is too warm to use, the optics require
cooling to the outside air temp. Both of the above will give double or
(mulitple)images overlapping in some cases. Ther are no cross hairs on
Jupiter, but there are bands, two quite dark ones. The mounts on these
scopes are the usual issue, there should be no shaking or wobble in the
mount 'except' when you are pointing it (and very lttle then).
I would advise moving on to a 6" Dob mounted scope for the same or less
money. The choice of a small apreture scope for a light polluted area
was a good idea. Going to a 6" will not change it much, but I think you
might enjoy it more. As far as travel, the 6" Dob would require a
little more room, but sets up faster and is easier to use.
Hope this helps,
Mike Stebbins
PS, duped may not be the right word, I'm sure the scope performs as best
it can. The market for these scopes is driven by cost. As long as
people buy them they will be supplied. The problem is most people think
products are sold 'fit for purpose', in the case of telescopes this is
not at all true. Sadly, telescope optics cannot be mass produced, they
require hand figuring, this makes the final product just as good as the
company can afford to build, and sell to whatever market they can get.
In truth, a good wood worker can always build a better telescope than is
commercially available (with a few very high end expceptions).
M
Chris Willis
purchased recently. The 4500 I bought is, like yours, a 4.5" newtonian
reflector, but it is different in that it takes 1.25" eyepieces and has an
equatorial mount that seems quite steady to me.
With my 4.5" scope, I am able to get absolutely great images of Jupiter and
Saturn, and I can always make out the two main cloud bands on Jupiter, and
sometime I see (or imagine I see?) the Cassini division in Saturn's rings.
The Orion Nebula, M42, is also a treat. When I actually figure out what I'm
doing, I'm hoping to see a lot more! I have recently purchased some color
filters and I have a nebula filter on the way, each of which should improve
viewing somewhat.
Now, I have some slight regret that I bought this EQ-mounted telescope when
I could have taken the same money and bought a 6" dobson-mounted one. That
really means a tradeoff between a complex, but very convenient mount, and
some additional portability, and a larger aperture, which is always better.
The EQ mount is noce, because I can follow objects by simply rotating one of
the slow-motion control cables, but Dobson mounts are supposed to be easy to
deal with too, and the additional aperture is probably worth it.
Since your telescope apparently takes only the smaller eyepieces, and may
have a less-than adequate mount, I'd return it if you could and purchase one
of the 6" dobsonians recommended by others in the group. As for me, I'll
stick with my 4.5" until I'm ready for my next scope -- a Meade 10" LX-200.
Regards,
Chris Willis
Stephen Tonkin
> but had trouble with
>Jupiter. We were able to locate it but it appeared as a disc with a
>shadow of crosshairs or something similar in the center of the disc.
>Actually, it more closely resembled the three sided figure found
>looking into the top of the tube of the telescope.
Sounds like it was out-of-focus and you were seeing the secondary and
spider. Try refocusing inwards.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | <http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk> +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
To send email, substitute "aegis1" for "nospam"
R.D. Elliott
Atkinson) wrote:
-
- After very little research, my husband bought me a telescope for xmas
- - a Meade 4495C 4.5" equatorial reflector - and after doing some
- reading, we think we may have a lemon. It came with three eyepieces
- - SR4mm, H12.5mm, H25mm and a 3 X Barlow - all .965". He is
- devastated and thinks he was duped. What should we do?
[snip]
Well, the scope may not be spectacular, but with a little investment of
time and money you may be able to get some decent results out of it.
First of all, you want to take the 4mm eyepiece and the Barlow down to
the nearest dock, duct-tape them to a brick or old boat anchor, and fling
them as far off the dock as you can.
Next, go to the Telescope and Binocular Center's website at
www.oriontel.com, and look for their .965" eyepieces; they make some decent
quality ones. Other posters have given advice about upgrading the focuser
to accept 1.25" eyepieces; you might want to follow it.
Another important step is to check the scope's collimation. This refers
to the proper alignment of the mirrors. Properly collimating the scope
might make a huge difference in the quality of the views. Since I've never
owned a newtonian, I'll leave it up to somebody more familiar with this
process to describe it to you.
Stiffening the tripod is another good idea that other posters have
already raised. It's worth a shot.
You should both realize that what you bought is not the Hubble Space
Telescope. However, with a little work, _and a little observing
experience_ (!), you might very well get some very nice views indeed out of
it, if you don't decide to exchange it for a Dob.
R.D. Elliott
Tim Tanzak
$200 US (4400). If you paid more than this, I would
be dissatisfied and would try to exchange it.
There have been quite a lot of posts about this scope, mostly
recommending against purchasing it. I bought it anyway
for my kids, but have had a great deal of fun using it myself.
The finder is a piece of crap, but it works. The supplied
eyepieces are inferior, but I was able to see Saturn's
rings with the 12.5. The 4mm is useless. The mount works
best if you don't extend the legs. It is shaky, but damps
out after 3 seconds or so. (5 seconds with legs extended).
A friend of mine has a high quality mount that damps out in
about 1 second. So, it's not that good, but I did not find it
frustrating. The focuser is not that smooth, but it works.
I went ahead and bought a 2x barlow, and 9.5 and 30 mm
high quality plossl eyepieces. Astronomics sells an adapter
to convert the focuser to accept 1.25" eyepieces ($20).
So, I sunk another $170 into the scope. The better eyepieces
(Meade series 3000, about $50) really make a difference.
I have used the 2x barlow with the 9.5mm and can easily
see cloud bands on jupiter. Saturn looks great. This is
backyard, light polluted viewing.
For $370, you can get Celestron's first scope 114 which looks
likes it has the same mount and tube. It comes with a better
finder, 1.25" focuser, and one good eyepiece instead of
3 crappy ones. So, the route I took I end up with a crappy
finder but with a quality barlow and an extra quality eyepiece.
(Plus 3 junk ones).
I ended up getting it because I wanted to let my kids use it
whenever they want (9&10 years old). So, I keep the crappy
eyepieces in it and let them use it unsupervised. They can
find the moon and enjoy using it. When we watch together,
I bring out the better eyepieces. Plus, I was planning to
build a dob when the kids get older so I didn't mind investing
in the eyepieces now.
I think the scope is fairly priced. If I were just going to use
it myself, I would have spent $700 and got a 6" reflector
with a better mount and better eyepieces. But I think it is
a good way to go if you have kids and are eventually going
to get another scope. The crappy eyepieces come in handy
when you just want to show 6 year olds views of the moon.
They think it's cool, and you don't have to worry about sliming
or scratching an expensive eyepiece.
Tim Panczak
atki...@idirect.com (J&A Atkinson) wrote:
>
> After very little research, my husband bought me a telescope for xmas
> - a Meade 4495C 4.5" equatorial reflector - and after doing some
> reading, we think we may have a lemon. It came with three eyepieces
>- SR4mm, H12.5mm, H25mm and a 3 X Barlow - all .965". He is
>devastated and thinks he was duped. What should we do? Almost all
>our viewing will be done in our light polluted back yard, but we hoped
>to take the scope along on trips. Will the telescope accept the
>better 1.25" eyepieces or can it be upgraded to accept these? We had
>a terrific time viewing the moon last night, but had trouble with
>Jupiter. We were able to locate it but it appeared as a disc with a
>shadow of crosshairs or something similar in the center of the disc.
>Actually, it more closely resembled the three sided figure found
>looking into the top of the tube of the telescope. Can you tell we
>are amateur? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. It may well be
>able to suit our needs but we feel ripped off.
>
>Janine Atkinson
Jay Reynolds Freeman
telescope -- like your reflector, it appears as a sharp image with
long "rays" radiating out from it, in a pattern which is kind of like
the pattern of struts that support the diagonal mirror in the center
of the tube. Is that what you are seeing?
To test, look at Jupiter or Saturn again, and be *sure* the focus is
as sharp as you can get it ('cause your description did sound a lot
like simple out-of-focus, too), and then see if there aren't long
rays, about as wide as the planet itself, radiating out from it. If
your diagonal mirror has four support arms, there will be four rays,
90 degrees apart. If the diagonal mirror has three arms, there will
be six rays, 60 degrees apart. A one-arm diagonal support will make
two rays going in opposite directions. (Each arm makes one ray, but
it goes in two directions, opposite to one another.)
What causes all this has to do with the physics of light -- those
support arms cause those rays in perfectly normal and understandable
ways; the rays aren't a desirable feature, but they are part of the
package when you buy a Newtonian (and the good part of that package
is a whole lot of performance for the price).
The rays are more commonly called "diffraction spikes". You won't see
them on faint stars because they are too faint.
--
Jay Reynolds Freeman -- freeman at netcom dot com -- I speak only for myself.
J&A Atkinson
helpful advice. It has been well appreciated!
My husband and I just returned from a "proper" telescope dealer and we
were given some of the same advice as we found here. He basically
told us that we had purchased a "department store" telescope and if we
could return it we should. He has recommended, as many other have, a
6" Dob reflector. Unfortunately, this DOUBLES the cost of the first
one we bought but as we were reminded, "you get what you pay for".
Now we have a whole new set of questions. Firstly, is it just me or
does the Dob mount seem very unstable? It's as if you could easily
bump it with your arm and lose the object in view. There have been
many complaints about the stability of my cheap Meade Equ. but surely
the mount is more stable? Also, is it possible to adapt a 6" Dob
reflector for photography? What about the 4.5" equ reflector we have
now? Im not sure if I feel better or worse, more informed or more
confused! This is a BIG outlay of money for us and $600 CDN is a lot
of money but if thats what it takes to get a good scope, then we will
pay.
Once again, thanking you in advance for all your good advice,
Janine Atkinson
On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 04:28:34 GMT, atki...@idirect.com (J&A Atkinson)
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> were given some of the same advice as we found here. He basically
> told us that we had purchased a "department store" telescope and if we
> could return it we should. He has recommended, as many other have, a
> 6" Dob reflector. Unfortunately, this DOUBLES the cost of the first
> one we bought but as we were reminded, "you get what you pay for".
>
> Now we have a whole new set of questions. Firstly, is it just me or
> does the Dob mount seem very unstable?
A good Dobson mounting is actually very stable. Its design makes
it resistant to bending, and the wood of its construction damps vibration
easily.
> It's as if you could easily bump it with your arm and lose the
> object in view.
Yes, but the concern for "stability" is for resistance to
vibrations. The fix to the "bump with your arm and lose the object"
problem is, don't bump it with your arm. There is no comparable fix
to the "jiggles when the wind blows" problem, or the "shakes like
crazy whenever I adjust the focus or touch the slow motions" problem.
> There have been many complaints about the stability of my cheap
> Meade Equ. but surely the mount is more stable?
Not in the sense just discussed.
> Also, is it possible to adapt a 6" Dob reflector for photography?
The photography experts will have the final say here, but I think
the answer is "technically, yes, but practically, no" -- in that it
would vastly raise the total cost of the system to do so. Better
you should put the money into a whole better telescope when you get
around to it.
Perry
J&A
Please, if you found a 'proper' telescope dealer, did he tell you about the closest astronomy club? It always helps to 'try before you buy' and most members of astronomy clubs will welcome you to their star parties and let you use their scopes.
I just browsed over to the Royal Bank of Canada and learned that $314.04 CDN would get me $200 US so I'm tempted to agree that you paid full retail for a telescope that may arguably be considered a toy. But it's NOT a toy, at least in my opinion; I'd have to play with it before I'd paint it with that brush. If you enjoyed looking and the moon and saw what looked like 'the shadow of cross hairs' on Jupiter (weather bands?), well, go for the Great Nebula in Orion with the 25mm eyepiece and let me know what you see.
--
Bob Perry ~ 40 N 90 W, on my son's computer and my wife's account,
with < b i t b u c k e t . > faked into my address for the .S.P.A.M.bots,
just don't use it yourself.
J&A Atkinson <atki...@idirect.com> wrote in article <3687f6e8...@n2.idirect.com>...
> First of all, I'd like to thank you all for your insightful and very
> helpful advice. It has been well appreciated!
>
> My husband and I just returned from a "proper" telescope dealer and we
> were given some of the same advice as we found here. He basically
> told us that we had purchased a "department store" telescope and if we
> could return it we should. He has recommended, as many other have, a
> 6" Dob reflector. Unfortunately, this DOUBLES the cost of the first
> one we bought but as we were reminded, "you get what you pay for".
>
> Now we have a whole new set of questions. Firstly, is it just me or
> does the Dob mount seem very unstable? It's as if you could easily
> bump it with your arm and lose the object in view. There have been
> many complaints about the stability of my cheap Meade Equ. but surely
KDaly10475
>likes it has the same mount and tube. It comes with a better
>finder, 1.25" focuser, and one good eyepiece instead of
>3 crappy ones. So, the route I took I end up with a crappy
>finder but with a quality barlow and an extra quality eyepiece.
>(Plus 3 junk ones).
Actually, I just bought my father-in-law the Celestron Firstscope 114 Deluxe
for Christmas. This scope includes 2 decent ep's (25mm and 10mm SMA) a decent
mount (not the rock of gibralta, but adaquate for visual use). The only
drawback I have with the scope is the 5 X 24 finder. The price is right
though, $228 (+$15 shipping) from Eagle Optics. Quite honestly, I can't see
how Meade can charge $399 for their closest competitor to this scope (the
4500). I looked at one of the Meades in Costco, and was quite disappointed
considering what is available (if you do your homework) for only a little more
money.
Kevin Daly
Mattatuck Astronomical Society
http://members.aol.com/kdaly10475/index.html
James
>
>Now we have a whole new set of questions. Firstly, is it just me or
>does the Dob mount seem very unstable? It's as if you could easily
>bump it with your arm and lose the object in view. There have been
>many complaints about the stability of my cheap Meade Equ. but surely
>the mount is more stable? Also, is it possible to adapt a 6" Dob
>reflector for photography? What about the 4.5" equ reflector we have
>now? Im not sure if I feel better or worse, more informed or more
>confused! This is a BIG outlay of money for us and $600 CDN is a lot
>of money but if thats what it takes to get a good scope, then we will
>pay.
I can tell you from experience that a 6" dob is far more stable than any
cheap dept. store scope on a tripod. Vibrations dampen out very quickly and
there is very little if any backlash at all. In other words, the scope goes
exactly where you point it and stops right when you stop applying pressure.
The commercialy produced dobs from Orion, Meade, and Celestron could stand a
little upgrading on the mount design by using ebony star formica and teflon
pads on the azimuth mount but are way better than cheap tripod mounted
scopes.
James
Robin R. Wier
>
> First of all, I'd like to thank you all for your insightful and very
> helpful advice. It has been well appreciated!
>
> My husband and I just returned from a "proper" telescope dealer and we
> were given some of the same advice as we found here. He basically
> told us that we had purchased a "department store" telescope and if we
> could return it we should. He has recommended, as many other have, a
> 6" Dob reflector. Unfortunately, this DOUBLES the cost of the first
> one we bought but as we were reminded, "you get what you pay for".
>
> does the Dob mount seem very unstable? It's as if you could easily
> bump it with your arm and lose the object in view. There have been
> many complaints about the stability of my cheap Meade Equ. but surely
> the mount is more stable? Also, is it possible to adapt a 6" Dob
> reflector for photography? What about the 4.5" equ reflector we have
> now? Im not sure if I feel better or worse, more informed or more
> confused! This is a BIG outlay of money for us and $600 CDN is a lot
> of money but if thats what it takes to get a good scope, then we will
> pay.
>
>
> Janine Atkinson
>
> On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 04:28:34 GMT, atki...@idirect.com (J&A Atkinson)
> wrote:
>
> >
> > After very little research, my husband bought me a telescope for xmas
> > - a Meade 4495C 4.5" equatorial reflector - and after doing some
> > reading, we think we may have a lemon. It came with three eyepieces
> >- SR4mm, H12.5mm, H25mm and a 3 X Barlow - all .965". He is
> >devastated and thinks he was duped. What should we do? Almost all
> >our viewing will be done in our light polluted back yard, but we hoped
> >to take the scope along on trips. Will the telescope accept the
> >better 1.25" eyepieces or can it be upgraded to accept these? We had
> >a terrific time viewing the moon last night, but had trouble with
> >Jupiter. We were able to locate it but it appeared as a disc with a
> >shadow of crosshairs or something similar in the center of the disc.
> >Actually, it more closely resembled the three sided figure found
> >looking into the top of the tube of the telescope. Can you tell we
> >are amateur? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. It may well be
> >able to suit our needs but we feel ripped off.
> >
> >Janine Atkinson
J&A,
Hello again. Just a short list of sites
http://atmpage.com/platform.html
http://home.att.net/~fieldsj/platform.htm
http://home.neo.lrun.com/imaging/altaz.html
http://merlin.com/
http://pw1.netcom.com/~tlsystem/cablet1.html
http://users.penn.com/~greg/bigdob.html
http://www.accnorwalk.com/~tddi/tech2000/
http://www.ghgcorp.com/cshaw/platform.htm
http://www.murni.com/opt_0.htm
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~kircher/index.html
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~mbartels/altaz/altaz.html
that may relate to the Dob/Photography question.
Robin
David Nakamoto
Some will say to use the scope as best you can, and with a lot of effort
you might be able to aqueeze something out of it, but I believe life is
too short and observing time is too precious to waste on a piece of
equipment that is too poorly made to do the job. If it's true for cars,
microwaves, and TVs, why not with a telescope?
Send that thing back to the store and get your money back. Spend around
$500 to get a 6 inch Newtonian reflector on a Dobsonian mount, or spend a little more and get an 8 inch scope of the same type. Pick up an issue
of Sky and Telescope and scan the ads for dealers. Or visit the Orion
telescope website at http://www.oriontel.com for information on this type
of scope as well as prices.
Another good dealer is Starsplitter scopes at
Good Luck!
Dave
======================================================================
J&A Atkinson wrote:
>
> After very little research, my husband bought me a telescope for xmas
> - a Meade 4495C 4.5" equatorial reflector - and after doing some
> reading, we think we may have a lemon. It came with three eyepieces
> - SR4mm, H12.5mm, H25mm and a 3 X Barlow - all .965". He is
> devastated and thinks he was duped. What should we do? Almost all
> our viewing will be done in our light polluted back yard, but we hoped
> to take the scope along on trips. Will the telescope accept the
> better 1.25" eyepieces or can it be upgraded to accept these? We had
> a terrific time viewing the moon last night, but had trouble with
> Jupiter. We were able to locate it but it appeared as a disc with a
> shadow of crosshairs or something similar in the center of the disc.
> Actually, it more closely resembled the three sided figure found
> looking into the top of the tube of the telescope. Can you tell we
> are amateur? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. It may well be
> able to suit our needs but we feel ripped off.
>
> Janine Atkinson
--
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
I'm goin' where the sun keeps shining
Through the pourin' rain.
Goin' where the weather suits my clothes.
Banking off of the Northeast winds,
Sailin' on a summer breeze,
And skippin' over the ocean like a stone.
--- Harry Nilsson
David Nakamoto
d...@blankreg.jpl.nasa.gov
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Bart Gilbert
some people are buying these telescopes as a gift and do not have the time
(or desire) to investigate and research the proper telescope purchase. So
these people are at the mercy of the sales staff which are usually ignorant
also. Blind leading the blind :) .
There is no need to spew "venom". This helps no one, and is
counterproductive to this news group. It is a shame people are wasting their
money, but the shame should also be placed on the telescope companies for
not finding a better way to accomidate there customers with less money to
spend.
Clear skies - B.Gilbert.
AndersonRM <ander...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19981228215054...@ngol07.aol.com...
>
>In article <368707ab...@n2.idirect.com>, atki...@idirect.com (J&A
>Atkinson) writes:
>
>> After very little research, my husband bought me a telescope for xmas
>> - a Meade 4495C 4.5" equatorial reflector - and after doing some
>> reading, we think we may have a lemon. It came with three eyepieces
>>- SR4mm, H12.5mm, H25mm and a 3 X Barlow - all .965". He is
>>devastated and thinks he was duped. What should we do?
>
>He duped himself by NOT doing proper research.
>You have three choices; Return it and spend about $1000 for
>a 4 inch refractor on a reasonable equitorial mount, or replace
>the eyepieces with 1-1/4" units. The best solution is to replace
>the whole scope for a Meade 4500, which has the same optical
>tube, but a better (real) finder, and American (1-1/4") sized
>eyepieces. There is NOTHING inherently wrong with a basic
>4.5" reflector. It's a decent instrument typically hampered
>by the garbage, cheap accessories that ignorant "Joe Public" feels
>he has to have with it. The typical appeal to the ignorant is a "500
POWER"
>sign emblazoned on the box the scope comes in.
>
>I point out to you that it isn't the telescope companies that are at
>fault; It's the pig-ignorant public. Inititially, when Meade and
>Celestron started offering the 4.5 inch reflectors, they offered them
>only with 1-1/4" eyepieces and reasonable 6x30 finderscopes.
>But, "Joe (ignorant) Public" refused to pay the $500
>required to obtain a decent version of the scope and opted to
>go after the $300 CRAP versions being sold by Bushnell, Tasco, Jason
>and other disreputable purveyors of TRASH telescopes.
>Meade and Celestron had a choice; Sell nothing or sell the same packages
>Tasco and Bushnell are selling. Economically, they had no choice but to
follow
>suit and offer the $300-$350 packages.
>Consider this; In 1978, a 4.5 inch reflector with 1-1/4" inch eyepieces
>sold for about $375 Can. Today, its sells for around $475. A car in
>1978 cost $6000 while today it costs $25,000. Is it logical or reasonable
>to expect to get a good telescope package for LESS now than in 1978??
>I don't think so, and IF the average member of the public bothered
thinking,
>they'd DO some homework and make BETTER decisions. The average
>person probably investigates their @$$%@ $50 cell phone purchase
>more than a telescope purchase.
>You get what you pay for, both in dollars and effort expended.
>-Rich
>
>
>
>
> "If you can't tear yourself from your couch
>to go out and observe, set the couch on fire..."
Robin R. Wier
> Hello again. Just a short list of sites
>
> http://atmpage.com/platform.html
> http://home.att.net/~fieldsj/platform.htm
> http://home.neo.lrun.com/imaging/altaz.html
> http://merlin.com/
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~tlsystem/cablet1.html
> http://users.penn.com/~greg/bigdob.html
> http://www.accnorwalk.com/~tddi/tech2000/
> http://www.ghgcorp.com/cshaw/platform.htm
> http://www.murni.com/opt_0.htm
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~kircher/index.html
> http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~mbartels/altaz/altaz.html
>
> that may relate to the Dob/Photography question.
>
> Robin
All,
After reading the general viewpoint of others, let me respond to my own
post by stating: "Dob/Photography," hopefully not "out of the question."
Robin
Harry Deal
AndersonRM wrote:
> Consider this; In 1978, a 4.5 inch reflector with 1-1/4" inch eyepieces
> sold for about $375 Can. Today, its sells for around $475. A car in
> 1978 cost $6000 while today it costs $25,000. Is it logical or reasonable
> to expect to get a good telescope package for LESS now than in 1978??
> I don't think so, and IF the average member of the public bothered thinking,
> they'd DO some homework and make BETTER decisions. The average
> person probably investigates their @$$%@ $50 cell phone purchase
> more than a telescope purchase.
> You get what you pay for, both in dollars and effort expended.
> -Rich
Not everything appreciates in value like automobiles.
About 10 years ago, I bought an IBM PS/2 PC for $4,000. It was a 10 MHz machine,
with 2 MB RAM. It also had a 20 MB hard drive. Know what you can get for $4,000
today?
Harry
Blandp1
You are in luck - the Stargazer Steve Deluxe reflector, a 4.25" dob mounted
reflector is only $299 CDN, $373.85 CDN delivered to your door, if yoy door is
in Ontario. (includes GST & PST and S&H - I know what S&H is but have no clue
as to the others).
This telescope has gotten great reviews for it's optics, ease of assembly,
stability of mount and durability. Plus it's made in Canada! The web page is
http://stargazer.isys.ca/ and is very informative. The scope is sold as a
"kit", but it's basically no more so than many scopes sold complete. You can
assemble it in an evening - all you need is "A hammer, screwdrivers (straight
and Phillips), a 7/16" wrench (or adjustable wrench, or pliers), a small
utility knife, and 7 lbs of sand ".
This is probably your best bet for an inexpensive, good quality telescope. I
know of no better value.
-Philip J. Blanda III
In article <3687f6e8...@n2.idirect.com>, atki...@idirect.com (J&A
Atkinson) writes:
>He has recommended, as many other have, a
>6" Dob reflector. Unfortunately, this DOUBLES the cost of the first
>one we bought but as we were reminded, "you get what you pay for".
PGP Public key available
AndersonRM
In article <368707ab...@n2.idirect.com>, atki...@idirect.com (J&A
Atkinson) writes:
Consider this; In 1978, a 4.5 inch reflector with 1-1/4" inch eyepieces
sold for about $375 Can. Today, its sells for around $475. A car in
1978 cost $6000 while today it costs $25,000. Is it logical or reasonable
to expect to get a good telescope package for LESS now than in 1978??
I don't think so, and IF the average member of the public bothered thinking,
they'd DO some homework and make BETTER decisions. The average
person probably investigates their @$$%@ $50 cell phone purchase
more than a telescope purchase.
You get what you pay for, both in dollars and effort expended.
-Rich
JosephB41
- a Meade 4495C 4.5" equatorial reflector - and after doing some
reading, we think we may have a lemon. >>
Your scope is probably not a "lemon" in the sense that it's a bad example of
its breed, but the breed itself is not that great. My advice to you is to
return it if possible, then do the research, go out and get something that will
suit you better.
Joe Bergeron (JABer...@aol.com)
JosephB41
does the Dob mount seem very unstable? It's as if you could easily
bump it with your arm and lose the object in view. There have been
many complaints about the stability of my cheap Meade Equ. but surely
the mount is more stable? Also, is it possible to adapt a 6" Dob
reflector for photography? What about the 4.5" equ reflector we have
now? >>
Don't confuse ease of motion with instability. Yes, you can bump the dob with
your arm and lose the view. Cure: don't bump it. It's a good thing that it
moves easily. That's what makes it feasible to track things. No way is the
cheap 4.5" more stable. Forget about doing any photography with a toy like the
4.5" either. You need a much more solid and expensive scope to have a shot at
that. The Dob is pretty much useless for photography as well. Forget about
astrophotography entirely until you know 20X more about astronomy and
telescopes than you do now.
Ken Beard
KDaly10475 wrote in message <19981228185850...@ng128.aol.com>...
Meade's pricing in general is fairly wacked at times, at least looking in
the ads in the Dec. Astronomy. Like the LXD-500 series, where they have a
4.5" EQ Newt for $595!! They then have the chutzpah to charge an extra $100
for the extra 0.5" of aperture on the 5" model!! Of course, turning the
page shows you the Starfinders, where you can get a 6" EQ with drive for
$650 - LESS than the 5" 500, and with a better EP. Not to mention that for
a bit more than the 4500 you could get the 8" Dob, for the 5" LXD-500 you
could get the 10" Dob!
About the same in SCT's, where they have the 203SC/500, for $1295, about the
same as an LX-10 Deluxe w/field tripod, which seems the better mount, 8x50
finder and motor drive. I do understand the 203SC/500 has dropped to ~$900,
which is more reasonable. Maybe they've dropped the other 500 series too.
But before these drops, I couldn't figure out who in the hell they were
trying to target with the 500 series, as they were more expensive than the
better models, unless that is one awesome mount, which doesn't seem to be
the case from what I've read of it.
--
Ken
Go #43 and #44
"If I went 'round claiming I was Emperor because some
moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away" - anonymous
peasant
volksy (at) geocities (dot) com
volksy (at) yahoo (dot) com
Harry Pulley
> My husband and I just returned from a "proper" telescope dealer and we
> were given some of the same advice as we found here. He basically
> told us that we had purchased a "department store" telescope and if we
> 6" Dob reflector. Unfortunately, this DOUBLES the cost of the first
> one we bought but as we were reminded, "you get what you pay for".
Why not see if you can get one used? I got my 6" dob used for $295 Can$
and it is a really nice scope.
> Now we have a whole new set of questions. Firstly, is it just me or
> does the Dob mount seem very unstable? It's as if you could easily
> bump it with your arm and lose the object in view. There have been
> many complaints about the stability of my cheap Meade Equ. but surely
> the mount is more stable?
A dob will be much more stable than all but very expensive equatorial
mounts. You can move things out of view by bumping the scope but you'll
find it doesn't vibrate like a tuning fork after you move it or adjust
the focus like an equatorial mount. Equatorial mounts are good when you
have a clock drive on them to track the sky automatically, but for
stability a heavy dob base is hard to beat.
> Also, is it possible to adapt a 6" Dob
> reflector for photography? What about the 4.5" equ reflector we have
> now? Im not sure if I feel better or worse, more informed or more
> confused! This is a BIG outlay of money for us and $600 CDN is a lot
> of money but if thats what it takes to get a good scope, then we will
> pay.
You should just think about doing visual astronomy for now. You could
do quick Moon shots with either telescope but long exposure stuff like
you see in magazines will require a much more expensive mount and a lot
of time, patience and learning on your part. You should enjoy viewing
the sky with your eyes for now and if you find, later, that you want to
move into photography then you can re-evaluate your budget.
scope nut
have to spend at least another $300 - $600 to get a "really stable mount".
so here's a couple of things - tighten all the screws on the mount. replace
the r.a. slo-mo cable with a 25 cent radio knob from radio shack. some
people suggest hanging a gallon jug of water from the middle of the tripod,
i just put about 10 lbs of dumbell weights on the accessory tray. and
finally, set up on grass instead of your patio - this makes a world of
difference!
if you are able to return it and are considering options - look at the 80mm
WA EQ made by Celestron. Eagle Optics sells it for $248 with an equatorial
mount. http://www.eagleoptics.com/eagle/telescopes/celestron/eotele03.html
also, read the reviews on http://www.scopereviews.com
before you make the leap with a DOB, try it out first and see how you feel
about the manual adjustments on the axes you have to make to track an
object.
>Now we have a whole new set of questions. Firstly, is it just me or
>does the Dob mount seem very unstable? It's as if you could easily
>bump it with your arm and lose the object in view. There have been
>many complaints about the stability of my cheap Meade Equ. but surely
>the mount is more stable? Also, is it possible to adapt a 6" Dob
Harry Pulley
> I point out to you that it isn't the telescope companies that are at
> fault; It's the pig-ignorant public. Inititially, when Meade and
> Celestron started offering the 4.5 inch reflectors, they offered them
> only with 1-1/4" eyepieces and reasonable 6x30 finderscopes.
> But, "Joe (ignorant) Public" refused to pay the $500
> required to obtain a decent version of the scope and opted to
> go after the $300 CRAP versions being sold by Bushnell, Tasco, Jason
> and other disreputable purveyors of TRASH telescopes.
> Meade and Celestron had a choice; Sell nothing or sell the same packages
> Tasco and Bushnell are selling. Economically, they had no choice but to follow
> suit and offer the $300-$350 packages.
I agree. My local camera shop, a good place to get camera stuff, has
one 'real' telescope, an ETX, and the rest are all 675-875 POWER crap.
Guess how long the ETX has been in the store? Months and months and
months. A tiny little refractor is what people expect of a telescope
these days. The owner would love to sell good quality telescopes but no
one will even buy an ETX so why should he bother? Retailers have to
sell what people want to buy.
When people come by my driveway for a look through my scope they are
often amazed at the 'low' power I'm using with such a large telescope.
"But the little one in the window will do 675?" I try to educate them,
one at a time or in groups, but it is an uphill battle. Once the
"magnification isn't what counts" story starts, the eyes start to roll
as they are taken back to their high school days when paying attention
in science class wasn't cool. Oh well, the hobby isn't for everyone.
Sue and Alan French
It is always a shame when someone buys a poor quality telescope that may
well discourage them from continuing the hobby, but I think these poor
decisions are quite understandable.
Most of the products we buy are items we have grown up with and are familiar
with. Take a color television as an example. Most of us probably had one
in our home when we were young, and we know how a color television should
behave. It should give a sharp picture and the colors should be realistic,
for example. If we went and bought a set that showed purple people we would
have no hesitation about returning it.
The companies that market televisions know that they can not get away with
selling sets that do not work reasonably well. Such is true of any product
that the majority of people have some experience with. People also expect
that products are going to do what they are supposed to do - and although
some television obviously work better than others, they all work reasonably
well.
When someone sets out to buy their first telescope they probably have the
same expectation - it may not be the best, but it should work reasonably
well. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Lots of entry level scopes
can't even be pointed properly. Companies can get away with this with
telescopes because most people are not familiar with telescopes. They do
not know what to expect from a telescope, and they often suspect the problem
is with them and not with the telescope.
Clear skies, Alan
Bart Gilbert wrote in message <769irv$5g9$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
>[SNIP] But do try to understand that
>some people are buying these telescopes as a gift and do not have the time
>(or desire) to investigate and research the proper telescope purchase. So
>these people are at the mercy of the sales staff which are usually ignorant
>also. Blind leading the blind :) . [SNIP]
Bart Gilbert
Nicely put.
Sue and Alan French <sue_and_a...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:eKFGTA0M#GA....@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net...
dcim...@oz.net
<b.gi...@erols.com> wrote:
> I share some of your opinions, Anderson,R.M. But do try to understand that
> some people are buying these telescopes as a gift and do not have the time
> (or desire) to investigate and research the proper telescope purchase.
right on rich!
but bart:
anyone that is willing to spend $300 on a gift and is not willing to take
an hour to figure out ahead of time if it is junk, either (pick two):
a. is stupid.
b. thinks the recipient is stupid.
it is frustrating, especially at christmas time, to hear all the moaning
about how crappy the 775X dept store scope is. you get what you pay for,
both in terms of money paid and time spent researching. if you have money
to burn on crap, don't come crying when the crap starts to stink.
the manufacturers sell crap to tens of thousands of people every year,
most of which give up on astronomy after a few futile attemps to see
saturn. too bad the manufacturers don't realize that they might make more
money in the long run, selling decent scopes (at a lower profit margin)
initially, and then cashing in on the sale of eyepieces, filters,
accessories, etc. to happy scope owners.
ho ho ho to all...
-dan
AndersonRM
>Not everything appreciates in value like automobiles.
>
>About 10 years ago, I bought an IBM PS/2 PC for $4,000. It was a 10 MHz
>machine,
>with 2 MB RAM. It also had a 20 MB hard drive. Know what you can get for
>$4,000
>today?
>
>
But, at the time it was "state of the art." Unlike some of these telescopes
people squander $100-$300 on today.
AndersonRM
>I share some of your opinions, Anderson,R.M. But do try to understand that
>some people are buying these telescopes as a gift and do not have the time
>(or desire) to investigate and research the proper telescope purchase.
Yes, it all makes sense. They buy a gift as an expedient way of
"buying off" someone's affection. However, if they really gave a damn,
or were motivated to do anything but watch tv or wander malls with
a glassy stare, they would do some homework and find out what they were
spending their money on, instead of crying about it after the fact.
Everytime I hear about today's "increasingly sophisticated and
educated shopper," I laugh. The dissatisfaction associated with
this laziness is going to get WORSE now internet shopping has arrived.
AndersonRM
In article <dcimbora-291...@sense-sea-pm4-18.oz.net>, dcim...@oz.net
writes:
>right on rich!
Thank you!
>
>but bart:
>anyone that is willing to spend $300 on a gift and is not willing to take
>an hour to figure out ahead of time if it is junk, either (pick two):
> a. is stupid.
> b. thinks the recipient is stupid.
My thoughts exactly.
Mike Witters
Newtonian reflector from Orion. I paid 289.00 for it. I already have my
sites on a Shmidt Cassegrain for the near future, but I am not positive. I
wrestled with the fact that I could get a 6" or 8" Dob for not too much
more cash. I am not saying that it is not true about Dobs as I have never
actually used one...It was just hard for me to imagine such a simple mount
working well, but from all of the reviews I will have to reconsider my next
purchase.
My biggest question with Dobsonians is how do you track objects? I get my
EQ mount pretty closely polar aligned and can track any object with the
turn of one slow motion control. When I look at Jupiter with my Plossl
7.5mm EP it is really moving fast across the field of view. I just don't
see how a Dob can track without a slow motion control. If anyone can tell
me I'd like to know to help my next buying decision.
Here is the reason I replied to this post. I realize that you may be
returning this scope. I have heard that any scope with a .965" focuser
isn't worth much. But, the object that you said you saw when looking at
Jupiter was your primary mirror with the light blocked from the secondary
mirror and its spider wires. I had this same problem the first time I
looked through my barlow lens a couple weeks ago. All I did was focus the
scope all the way out and it came into view. Then i could fine tune it and
see it really well, stripes and all.
Sorry if this is too late and if I posed more questions than I helped with.
Mike Witters
Software Engineer
OCG
Clive Gibbons
AndersonRM <ander...@aol.com> wrote:
>I point out to you that it isn't the telescope companies that are at
>fault; It's the pig-ignorant public.
Ho ho ho!
Nice to see you're in the "holiday spirit", Rich. ;)
You seem completely oblivious to the fact that it takes *three* parties to
complete a telescope sale-- the manufacturer, the dealer and the consumer,
so to put all the blame on the "pig-ignorant public" is silly.
Not surprising coming from you though, who has previously opined that "Joe
Average" consumer is foolish and idiotic. Do you tell this to customers
who wander in to your friend's scope store? :)
Consider that many, if not most, prospective scope buyers are pretty much
on their own (apart from the advice they *might* get from a dealer) when
it comes to buying a scope. Chances are they don't have friends who are
knowledgable about scopes, aren't a member of a local astronomy club (if
one exists) and can only rely on what a dealer or manufacturer's ad has to
say about the product. If the dealership is populated by ignorant clerks
and the ads misrepresent the product, how is the "pig-ignorant public"
supposed to know what they are buying is crap?
Rich, you've been in the hobby a loooooong time and have the experience
many people don't, for whatever reasons. Some folks are lazy and will
never learn for lack of effort. A few are genuinely "slow on the uptake".
But a great many are new to the hobby or not as well connected as you, so
it's quite reasonable that they might fall prey to low, low prices and
misleading advertising claims when they purchase a scope. It's those
people who get taken advantage of by some manufacturers and some dealers.
Cheers,
--
Clive Gibbons * *
Technician, McMaster University, * "Good, Fast, Cheap... *
School of Geography and Geology. * ...pick any two." *
jim.buono
the hobby don't know where to get information so their expectation is set by
the pictures on the box or in the ad.
If I see a picture of Jupiter on the box or in the ad, do I have the right
to expect that the instrument is capable of giving me that view with the
supplied equipment, eyepieces and mount?
I think its false advertising and the only reason the FTC doesn't stop it is
there aren't enough complaints, the market isn't that large.
If Ford ran an ad campign showing a Taurus crushed to the ground by an 18
wheeler and the occupants of the car standing next to it without a scratch,
'implying' this was expected performance the hew and cry would be immediate
and the ads would be stopped.
Showing "Hubble Grade" photos with any amateur telescope strikes me as a
similar deception. Make the advertisers show the image the consumer can
expect to get and see how many of these cheap scopes get sold.
Jim
dcim...@oz.net wrote in message ...
>In article <769irv$5g9$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>, "Bart Gilbert"
><b.gi...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> I share some of your opinions, Anderson,R.M. But do try to understand
that
>> some people are buying these telescopes as a gift and do not have the
time
>> (or desire) to investigate and research the proper telescope purchase.
>
>
>right on rich!
>
>but bart:
>anyone that is willing to spend $300 on a gift and is not willing to take
>an hour to figure out ahead of time if it is junk, either (pick two):
> a. is stupid.
> b. thinks the recipient is stupid.
>
Dusty Bleher
post. Still and all, I confess that I too must agree with you. Just think,
here we're commenting upon the typical "Joe (ignorant) Public's" view of
telescopes..., and you wonder why we see the results we do. We should all
shudder when that same guy is asked about current political events, current
world events, the "justice" of our judicial system, the economy, taxes,
honesty, lying under oath, social services, and on, and on, and on... Too
be so ignorant of telescopes, that's sad. To be so ignorant of those other
issues, now that's scary!
Nothing strikes me as more laughable then the pervading "man-on-the-street"
interview. A microphone is thrust in the face of someone who in all likely
hood can't even balance his checkbook. Next he's asked some weighty
question about, <fill_in_your_crisis_event_here>. As long as we permit the
marketing artists (read: spin doctors) to feed us, "sound bites", as our
sole contact to daily events, we're all at risk of being controlled by those
that manage both the crises and their media spawn.
I've been interested in astronomy for decades. I have some experience to
fall back on. I learned early on that there is--and always will be--a vast
gulf between what someone tells me that I should believe, and what my own
innate senses and (somewhat loose) grip on reality tell me. It wasn't until
recently that I found out that mere mortals can actually make some pretty
good devices. And I didn't have to be a brain surgeon to read this group
and quickly figure out who's worth listening to, and who's here for comic
relief. But for that, I'd just about be able to fill, "Joe (ignorant)
Public's", shoes too.
Preparing to grind my little fingers to the bone,
Dusty Bleher
Campbell, CA
AndersonRM wrote in message
<19981230035323...@ngol07.aol.com>...
>
>In article <769irv$5g9$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>, "Bart Gilbert"
><b.gi...@erols.com> writes:
>
>>I share some of your opinions, Anderson,R.M. But do try to understand
that
>>some people are buying these telescopes as a gift and do not have the time
>>(or desire) to investigate and research the proper telescope purchase.
>
>Yes, it all makes sense. They buy a gift as an expedient way of
>"buying off" someone's affection. However, if they really gave a damn,
>or were motivated to do anything but watch tv or wander malls with
>a glassy stare, they would do some homework and find out what they were
>spending their money on, instead of crying about it after the fact.
>Everytime I hear about today's "increasingly sophisticated and
>educated shopper," I laugh. The dissatisfaction associated with
>this laziness is going to get WORSE now internet shopping has arrived.
Martin Tom Brown
<19981228215054...@ngol07.aol.com>
ander...@aol.com "AndersonRM" wrote:
> In article <368707ab...@n2.idirect.com>, atki...@idirect.com (J&A
> Atkinson) writes:
>
> > After very little research, my husband bought me a telescope for xmas
> > - a Meade 4495C 4.5" equatorial reflector - and after doing some
> > reading, we think we may have a lemon. It came with three eyepieces
> >- SR4mm, H12.5mm, H25mm and a 3 X Barlow - all .965". He is
> >devastated and thinks he was duped. What should we do?
>
> He duped himself by NOT doing proper research.
Unfortunately this is true, but all too common a problem.
> You have three choices; Return it and spend about $1000 for
> a 4 inch refractor on a reasonable equitorial mount, or replace
> the eyepieces with 1-1/4" units. The best solution is to replace
> the whole scope for a Meade 4500, which has the same optical
> tube, but a better (real) finder, and American (1-1/4") sized
> eyepieces.
Japanese (probably Chinese made) eyepieces are better value
there are some excellent no-name 1.25" eyepieces about now.
BTW which low cost eyepieces are still made in the US ?
> There is NOTHING inherently wrong with a basic 4.5" reflector.
> It's a decent instrument typically hampered
> by the garbage, cheap accessories that ignorant "Joe Public" feels
> he has to have with it. The typical appeal to the ignorant is a "500 POWER"
> sign emblazoned on the box the scope comes in.
As a strong defender of free market forces you have to grant that
this is a classic situation where giving the public what they want
is not in their own best interests. But it is *very* profitable!
> I point out to you that it isn't the telescope companies that are at
> fault; It's the pig-ignorant public. Inititially, when Meade and
> Celestron started offering the 4.5 inch reflectors, they offered them
> only with 1-1/4" eyepieces and reasonable 6x30 finderscopes.
Remember that the customer is always right ;-)
> You get what you pay for, both in dollars and effort expended.
Sometimes there are a few bargains to be had.
Usually second hand or as govt surplus kit.
Regards,
--
Martin Brown <mar...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> __ CIS: 71651,470
Scientific Software Consultancy /^,,)__/
Gary Griffin
but I'm going to make an exception here.
From the original post, it sounds like the the telescope was intended as an
entry into what we know is an interesting hobby. It is unfair to call the
purchaser of a gift like that "Lazy" or "Ignorant". I think that it was a
very nice thing to do, and it's just unfortunate that he was taken in by
clever advertising. Like any hobby, it may or may not be a lasting thing.
Should he have invested in a $5000 APO? Obviously not.
Tasco, Meade, et al flood the general consumer market with substandard
equipment for one reason - to make money. The advertising is carefully
crafted to make you want to buy it, not to educate you that something else
is better. The person who buys that product may be "ignorant" by
definition, but I think "unaware" is probably a much better term. Yes, they
will research a cell phone purchase more, but there are many more sources
for input. The next time you are at a cocktail party, ask people how
satisfied they are with their telescope!
I think she should give the guy a big hug, thank him for being so nice, and
return the telescope. Spend the money on a good set of 10x50 binoculars and
a good guide, or maybe an Orion short tube 80. Then they will have
something with multiple uses and who knows - next year she might want the
APO!
Just my opinion.
Gary
waterr...@my-dejanews.com
Mike Witters <mikew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello. I, too am new at all of this telescope stuff. I just bought a
> Newtonian reflector from Orion. I paid 289.00 for it. I already have my
> sites on a Shmidt Cassegrain for the near future, but I am not positive. I
> wrestled with the fact that I could get a 6" or 8" Dob for not too much
> more cash. I am not saying that it is not true about Dobs as I have never
> actually used one...It was just hard for me to imagine such a simple mount
> working well, but from all of the reviews I will have to reconsider my next
> purchase.
>
> My biggest question with Dobsonians is how do you track objects? I get my
> EQ mount pretty closely polar aligned and can track any object with the
> turn of one slow motion control. When I look at Jupiter with my Plossl
> 7.5mm EP it is really moving fast across the field of view. I just don't
> see how a Dob can track without a slow motion control. If anyone can tell
> me I'd like to know to help my next buying decision.
Mike,
Remember that a Dob moves in alt-az MUCH more smoothly than a mediocre EQ
mount when just pushing on the tube (with the friction knobs slightly
tightened). The simplicity of the mount has nothing to do with its
performance.
Go to a star party! I didn't believe anything anyone told me about Dobs a few
months ago. I had my heart set on an equatorial, but would be pushing it to
budget for a 6" (as a first scope in a new hobby). I followed the advice of
everyone on this newsgroup and went to a couple of star parties. I'm a changed
man.
I helped some folks set up 10" equatorials, which takes some time and effort.
I watched in amazement as a guy set up a 13" Dob in as much time as it takes
to stack two boxes on the ground.
Surely, I thought, tracking must be a pain. I went over to the 13" home-built
(optics and all) Dob and the owner let me track Saturn at 200X for a few
minutes. While I did have to pay attention, I didn't have to move it very
often, and his mount was silky smooth, so there was little or no vibration.
200X was perfectly comfortable. I've heard of plenty of folks scanning the
Moon at 400X, and I certainly believe this is possible, and probably not too
much work.
The equatorials, once set up, were always on their targets. This does seem
quite convenient. The thing is that you pay for the convenience with cash,
setup time, and portability.
I ended up with an 8" Star Hopper and no regrets. At this point in my
astronomy "career," I'd rather have 2 more inches of aperture than an EQ.
I'll bet I can carry it around almost as easily as a mounted 4.5" EQ (I
screwed some handles onto the box), and surely much easier than a mounted 6"
EQ.
I have some neighbors accross the street with a cheap 4.5" (department-store
Meade), and they are going to build a Dob mount for it so their kids will be
able to use it without assistance. They also are going to get some decent
.965" EPs (they do exist...).
I'll say it again: GO TO A STAR PARTY! You'll learn more than you expect.
Two possible "equatorializing" Dobsonian enhancements are an equatorial
platform, or add some rings, a mount, and a tripod.
-Mike
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
AndersonRM
In article <76dgl5$4...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA>, gibb...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA
(Clive Gibbons) writes:
>But a great many are new to the hobby or not as well connected as you, so
>it's quite reasonable that they might fall prey to low, low prices and
>misleading advertising claims when they purchase a scope. It's those
>people who get taken advantage of by some manufacturers and some dealers.
Sad to say, misrepresentation is the heart of most sales. Unless you are
talking about selling decent equipment to the rare, educated consumer.
In order to sway a consumer to take the plunge, the telescope companies,
retailers have to use effusive descriptions of their equipment and it's
capabilities while still holding the price point down. Please note that this
applies to the lower level of telescope sales and NOT the higher level.
It's unusual for the buyer of an 8 inch LX200 or Tele Vue 101 not to
know pretty much what they are getting into or are going to see with
their new instrument.
Consumers (again!) due to their ignorance expect too much. They want
Hubble shots, not little colourless views of planets. Very, very few
consumers have the faintest clue about how telescopes really perform.
Unless they are willing to take the time to learn, there's nothing that can
be done. Trying to educate them exactly as to telescope performance on
a salesfloor is like pouring water on a fire. Bad for them (if they could
possibly
have stayed in the hobby) and bad for the retailer who tries to educate
them.
AndersonRM
In article <76dgl5$4...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA>, gibb...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA
(Clive Gibbons) writes:
>
>You seem completely oblivious to the fact that it takes *three* parties to
>complete a telescope sale-- the manufacturer, the dealer and the consumer,
>so to put all the blame on the "pig-ignorant public" is silly.
>Not surprising coming from you though, who has previously opined that "Joe
>Average" consumer is foolish and idiotic. Do you tell this to customers
>who wander in to your friend's scope store? :)
Sure, I go up to them and say "You really should consider spending
$500 on a scope rather than $300 to get something decent" Honest! :)
Telling someone they are making a mistake doesn't make any difference.
In order to get the point across, you have to go into a half-hour dissertation
every time you meet someone who doesn't understand telescopes. In those
cases, maybe 1/5th will listen and buy what is needed, the rest will simply go
to Black's Cameras and purchase a piece of junk at the $300 price point.
Trust me on this; Joe Public 1) resents being told they are about to make
a mistake and 2) they simply don't CARE if the scope works well or not.
Their most common justification? "What if Johnny isn't really interested in
the hobby? I'll have spent $500 for nothing!" The idea that spending to
get something decent might make the hobby more attractive doesn't
register in the brains of most of the G.P.
BTW, To show you it's all price driven, Sears and Cosco purchased
something like 25,000 low-level 4.5" reflectors from MQP-(Meade's rep in
Toronto) for Canada in 1998. How many good 4.5" do you think the
telescope stores bought?
>Consider that many, if not most, prospective scope buyers are pretty much
>on their own (apart from the advice they *might* get from a dealer) when
>it comes to buying a scope.
We have the internet. It takes a few minutes to gain something of
an understanding on nearly every subject out there. 75% of
Torontonians at least are now on-line. There are also resources
such as "Nightwatch" at bookstores and libraries. Any way you
slice it, people who jump blindly do so at their OWN risk.
There is no reason for ignorance.
AndersonRM
In article <kCsi2.152$z21....@news.cwix.com>, "jim.buono"
<jim....@internetMCI.com> writes:
>If Ford ran an ad campign showing a Taurus crushed to the ground by an 18
>wheeler and the occupants of the car standing next to it without a scratch,
>'implying' this was expected performance the hew and cry would be immediate
>and the ads would be stopped.
Funny you mention Ford. They ran some ads showing a Ford truck
climbing a moutain of rock. The ad was later changed with the disclaimer
at the bottom that read: "Minor stuctural damage sustained doing this"
or some such thing.
AndersonRM
In article <76dn6o$c20$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>, "Dusty Bleher" <du...@fsinc.com>
writes:
>While, "on-target," Rich, I think you were just a tad harsh in your initial
>post. Still and all, I confess that I too must agree with you. Just think,
>here we're commenting upon the typical "Joe (ignorant) Public's" view of
>telescopes..., and you wonder why we see the results we do.
Take this from someone whose seen hundreds of them:
Here's a psychological assessment of the average telescope buyer.
This represents about 60% of the person buying for someone else.
-They resent being told they have to spend $100's more to get
a decent scope.
-They gravitate to the skinny little white tubes because that's what a
scope "looks like."
-They take it as an insult if you try to dissuade them from buying a
rickety 60mm refractor.
-They believe the box pictures most of the time (score one bad point for
the mfgs)
-They don't really give a s--- about astronomy and just want to get a
present for someone who has expressed a true interest.
-They don't do research, yet they lament bad purchases they've made.
-They fail to see how buying quality and getting someone interested
in astronomy is more beneficial than letting them rot in front of a video
game.
-They will simply not buy if they do believe you, rather than expend the
money to get a good scope.
-They will go to another store where the salesmen will assure them they
will "love" their new scope, regardless of what they've been told
by you.
-Everything that happens to them that's bad isn't their fault.
When I help out my friend, and I see someone who might be able to
understand good from bad, I simply let them hold a 6mm 0.96" Huygens
up to their eye and then I give them a 25mm 1-1/14" Kellner. I then
ask them, "Which would you rather look through?"
Am I being a little evasive (using a 6mm vrs a 25mm)? Of course, but
it's one strong way of getting them to expend what is required to
get a well-equipped scope rather than a piece of junk.
Consider it false advertising for the good of the people.
Dave Storey
scope (or car, or houses below the water line, or whatever). Doing the
basic research should be a requirement (and I think is half the fun).
I wouldn't buy a 300$ ANYTHING without at least checking a magazine or
book to see what the specs and prices were like.
However I have a lot of sympathy with the unlucky recipient, if they
didn't get a chance to direct the gift, or do any research or whatever.
Some poor kid who maybe gets put off because someone else made a lazy
job of the purchase decision - it's a bad deal.
We can all help a bit, by replying to the (horribly repetitious!) 'What
shall I buy' queries on this, and other, NG's. We can also express our
displeasure at the companies who supply this stuff (at least any of them
who purport to also serve the market we buy in. Hey Meade, I'm talking
about y'all!) We can also buy our cameras and toys from places that
don't sell the worst trash, and let the trash-sellers know why we aren't
shopping there. Some of the toy retailers actually don't know that these
scopes are absolutely useless - few of them majored in Astronomy or
optics.
I guess Tar-&-Feather the salesmen is no longer an option, since we got
civilised and all. 150 years ago, you could probably just have shot
them.
D.
In article <19981230144543...@ngol04.aol.com>, AndersonRM
<ander...@aol.com> writes
>-Rich
>
>
>
> "If you can't tear yourself from your couch
>to go out and observe, set the couch on fire..."
Rgds
Dave Storey
Russell Martin
>
snipped
>
> I guess Tar-&-Feather the salesmen is no longer an option, since we got
> civilised and all. 150 years ago, you could probably just have shot
> them.
>
> D.
>
Keep your hands on the counter where I can see 'em, shopkeep.
If you reach for that Tasco, I'm a slappin' leather! :-)
Clear skies,
Russell Martin
Bart Gilbert
>Nice to see you're in the "holiday spirit", Rich. ;)
>
>You seem completely oblivious to the fact that it takes *three* parties to
>complete a telescope sale-- the manufacturer, the dealer and the consumer,
>so to put all the blame on the "pig-ignorant public" is silly.
>Not surprising coming from you though, who has previously opined that "Joe
>Average" consumer is foolish and idiotic. Do you tell this to customers
>who wander in to your friend's scope store? :)
>
>Consider that many, if not most, prospective scope buyers are pretty much
>on their own (apart from the advice they *might* get from a dealer) when
>it comes to buying a scope. Chances are they don't have friends who are
>knowledgable about scopes, aren't a member of a local astronomy club (if
>one exists) and can only rely on what a dealer or manufacturer's ad has to
>say about the product. If the dealership is populated by ignorant clerks
>and the ads misrepresent the product, how is the "pig-ignorant public"
>supposed to know what they are buying is crap?
>
>Rich, you've been in the hobby a loooooong time and have the experience
>many people don't, for whatever reasons. Some folks are lazy and will
>never learn for lack of effort. A few are genuinely "slow on the uptake".
>But a great many are new to the hobby or not as well connected as you, so
>it's quite reasonable that they might fall prey to low, low prices and
>misleading advertising claims when they purchase a scope. It's those
>people who get taken advantage of by some manufacturers and some dealers.
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>--
> Clive Gibbons * *
> Technician, McMaster University, * "Good, Fast, Cheap... *
> School of Geography and Geology. * ...pick any two." *
I could not have put it better myself, Clive. What is ignorant is the
thinking that the everyday "Joe" would be able to research every gift he
gets for every person. The average Joe only knows the person he is getting
the gift for (and hopefully a couple of his/her hobbies and interests). For
example, does everyone know that Furbies come from sweat shops in which
there is only a pit for the workers to go to the bathroom in? And of course
there is no facility to wash ones hands afterward. I'll bet everyone
thoroughly researched those, RIGHT? I am one of those who does research
almost everything I buy (most often focussing on the product preformance,
not usually on where its made, but the furbie is a good example
non-the-less). Our society places too much emphasis on gift giving for
holidays. SOOO MANY GIFTS to get in such LITTLE PRECIOUS TIME! There is no
time to research any purchases, only buy, buy, buy!
Ok - so I went off on a tangent.
It is not that I do not agree with Rich, it is just that I can sympathize
with "Joe Public" also.
After all, they are getting duped by sales people and telescope makers
everyday. Just as it is anywhere,
when you buy anything! KEEP SMILING. WE WILL HELP THESE PEOPLE! ONE BY ONE!
:)
PD Cornish
Bill, I have to concur with Rich on this one. Up here in the Great White
North there is just not enough population to support really full service
shops like the one you describe without jacking up overhead through the
roof. Simply put, we just don't have time to give Astro 101 to every person
who strolls in. Factor in the general level of ignorance on any subject
(except perhaps hockey) displayed by average people here and soon one
becomes very tired of the same utterly uninformed questions fielded on the
shop floor. Years of having everything handed to our generally indolent
populace has produced a breed of people unable or unwilling to expend time
on anything that smacks of effort. As a result, sales people are treated
like just another resource, to be used to satisfy idle curiosity. Any real
attempt to educate is, in many cases, beyond the ken of some customers (tire
kickers, actually - real customers buy things) and is genuinely wasted
effort. This sounds rather cynical to those who don't know life in a big
city here. I assure you it is no exaggeration. The same refrain echoes from
most , if not all, retailers here.
If you have the time to educate and demonstrate to everyone who walks into
your shop, I envy you. Really.
As an aside, I guess I just respect the hobby too much even want to sell
cheap scopes, but damn it to hell, they keep on selling.
Rich N.
dcim...@oz.net wrote in message ...
>
>> I share some of your opinions, Anderson,R.M. But do try to understand
that
>> some people are buying these telescopes as a gift and do not have the
time
>> (or desire) to investigate and research the proper telescope purchase.
>
>
>
>but bart:
>anyone that is willing to spend $300 on a gift and is not willing to take
>an hour to figure out ahead of time if it is junk, either (pick two):
> a. is stupid.
> b. thinks the recipient is stupid.
Many people are too trusting. They trust if they see something
in writing that what is said must be true. They trust the sales
person is giving them good information. Many people who
buy these telescopes are grandmothers and grandfathers
who mean well. They feel if they spend $100 for a a telescope
that it should work well. It would be nice if people took more
time look into what they are buying but again many of these
people are just too trusting.
Rich
Mike Fowler
>
> Rich Anderson wrote:
> >>Take this from someone whose seen hundreds of them: Here's a psychological
> assessment of the average telescope buyer. This represents about 60% of the
> person buying for someone else.<<
>
> generalizations are far from those I would make.
>
> >>-They resent being told they have to spend $100's more to get a decent
> scope.<<
>
> months out of the year, it's the other way around. Many Christmas shoppers are
> parents looking for a present for a child. Understandably, most parents don't
> want to spend more than $75-100 for a telescope that might get less attention
> than the box in which it arrives. I never had one customer who resented being
> advised of the weakness of the inexpensive scopes we carried. In fact, I would
> characterize most customers as appreciative that I had helped them to avoid a
> purchase that would have to be returned, anyway.
>
> >>-They gravitate to the skinny little white tubes because that's what a scope
> "looks like."<<
>
> prominently displayed. We had Dobs, equatorial Newts, SCTs and refractors out.
> All got the once over. Parents tend to gravitate to the small refractors
> because their sixth senses tell those are the scopes that don't require a
> second mortgage. Ding, ding, ding, they're right!
>
> >>-They take it as an insult if you try to dissuade them from buying a rickety
> 60mm refractor.<<
>
> >>-They believe the box pictures most of the time (score one bad point for the
> mfgs)<<
>
> inventory. Most customers do ask, "What can you see?" or some variation on
> that them. That's where good salesmanship comes in. Use books, staff sketches
> or words to illustrate how a particular telescope will perform.
>
> >>-They don't really give a s--- about astronomy and just want to get a present
> for someone who has expressed a true interest.<<
>
> preparation of sushi. However, my wife wanted a sushi knife for Christmas so I
> went out and found the best one I could afford. I went to three stores until I
> found a salesperson who struck me as knowing what he was talking about. The
> knife he recommended wasn't the most expensive they carried but the best suited
> to my wife's intended use. That's the one I bought. She loves it and making
> her happy was the whole point of the purchase.
>
> >>-They don't do research, yet they lament bad purchases they've made.<<
>
> good sale is listening to the customer to determine his interests and needs.
> The second key is knowing your inventory well enough to be able to recommend
> the product that best meets those interests and needs. If you do those two
> things, you make the sale, earn your commission and the customer walks away
> with a purchase that likely will not be returned or exchanged. In the optics
> biz, you've also laid the groundword for a relationship with that customer that
> will likely result in return business and referrals.
>
> Certainly, the customer should research a purchase to avoid getting stuck with
> a lemon. However, as a salesperson, one needs to keep in mind that a wrong
> purchase is likely to come back as an exchange or, even worse, as a return. A
> return means you've lost money for your employer. As much as the customer
> should take an interest in finding the right product, the person behind the
> counter needs to take a greater interest.
>
> >>-They fail to see how buying quality and getting someone interested in
> astronomy is more beneficial than letting them rot in front of a video game.<<
>
> used. I was given a small reflector as a child. In a fit of rage I stomped on
> the optical tube, crushing it. I forget why I was upset. Being upset about
> something was my general job description at six years of age. However, I do
> know this: Astronomy wasn't a serious interest at the time and it wasn't the
> telescope's fault. Naturally, my parents were upset, too, and they did not
> replace the telescope until many years later.
>
> When I was 13, they gave me a 60 mm Jason refractor as a Christmas present. It
> was, with its wobbly mount, 5x24 finder and .965-inch eyepieces, the
> prototypical department store telescope that takes so much heat in this
> newsgroup. I loved that scope. I used it to look at craters and mountains on
> the Moon; Jupiter and his four brightest satellites; the rings of Saturn; and
> the polar caps of Mars. The interest in astronomy was within me long before
> that telescope showed up beneath the Christmas tree. The scope just allowed me
> to explore that interest.
>
> >>-They will simply not buy if they do believe you, rather than expend the
> money to get a good scope.<<
>
> with my assistance, find and buy the right telescope. If not that, the person
> might end up getting binoculars that were priced more reasonably but still of
> good quality. The third possibility was that the person would leave without
> making a purchase. In any of those three instances, if I had done my job
> properly, the customer was able to make a decision in his best interest and was
> pleased to have had my assistance.
>
> >>-They will go to another store where the salesmen will assure them they will
> "love" their new scope, regardless of what they've been told by you.<<
>
> destination. Therefore, I have no idea how many drove over to the mall or to
> Sam's Club so they could spend $100 bucks on a scope of questionable parentage.
> Rich, neither do you.
>
> >>-Everything that happens to them that's bad isn't their fault.<<
>
> downsizing and natural disasters to name a few. Rich, sounds like Santa left a
> lump of coal in your stocking.
>
> >>When I help out my friend, and I see someone who might be able to understand
> good from bad, I simply let them hold a 6mm 0.96" Huygens up to their eye and
> then I give them a 25mm 1-1/14" Kellner. I then ask them, "Which would you
> rather look through?"<<
>
> telescope is cheap and crappy. You won't like it. The only one you'll like is
> this $400 telescope over here." People are naturally and understandably
> suspicious of that kind of tactic. Also, people don't like to be made to feel
> like idiots.
>
> Let them look through a 1.25-inch eyepiece and a .965-inch eyepiece in a
> side-by-side test. Have them grab and shake the mount of the cheap refractor.
> Let them try to aim the telescope at something in the store. People aren't
> stupid, they know when a product is going to do nothing but frustrate a child.
>
> Then, give the customer the information he needs to make a decision: Spend
> more on a better qualtiy scope? Buy those binocs that are both decent and in
> my price range? Or go hunt down that Furbee?
>
> Bill Ferris
> Flagstaff, AZ
Very Well Said,
If you ever need a job please come and see me.
Mike Fowler
Manager
Oceanside Photo & Telescope http://www.optcorp.com
1024 Mission Ave.
Oceanside CA 92054
1-800-483-6287 1-760-722-3348
BillFerris
AndersonRM
In article <76drmd$ahj$1...@remarQ.com>, "Gary Griffin" <ggri...@eznet.net>
writes:
> It is unfair to call the
>purchaser of a gift like that "Lazy" or "Ignorant". I think that it was a
>very nice thing to do, and it's just unfortunate that he was taken in by
>clever advertising. Like any hobby, it may or may not be a lasting thing.
>Should he have invested in a $5000 APO? Obviously not.
Snip
> The next time you are at a cocktail party, ask people how
>satisfied they are with their telescope!
The above arguments make no sense whatsoever.
AndersonRM
In article <2PkQ4KA2$oi2...@quik.demon.co.uk>, Dave Storey
<da...@quik.demon.co.uk> writes:
>However I have a lot of sympathy with the unlucky recipient, if they
>didn't get a chance to direct the gift, or do any research or whatever.
The good thing is, most stores allow returns at Christmas and
are generally more lenient about it than at other times. A customer
who wants to rectify their mistake can do so.
AndersonRM
In article <76e862$gso$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>, "Bart Gilbert"
<b.gi...@erols.com> writes:
> For
>example, does everyone know that Furbies come from sweat shops in which
>there is only a pit for the workers to go to the bathroom in? And of course
>there is no facility to wash ones hands afterward. I'll bet everyone
>thoroughly researched those, RIGHT? I am one of those who does research
>almost everything I buy (most often focussing on the product preformance,
>not usually on where its made, but the furbie is a good example
The average Joe doesn't CARE about sweatshops. If they did,
they'd all be walking around half-naked. Get it?
The people who do research are another subject again. Some
actually absorb and can process information to the point where
they can make a good decision. Others write their little books,
amass lots of info and still haven't got the smarts to make a
good decision. But some effort is worth more than no effort.
AndersonRM
In article <19981230195536...@ng139.aol.com>, billf...@aol.com
(BillFerris) writes:
>As someone who earned a living selling optics for a couple of years, Rich's
>generalizations are far from those I would make.
Optics? Why don't you say telescopes?
> Understandably, most parents don't want to spend more than $75-100 for a
>telescope that might get less attention
>than the box in which it arrives. I never had one customer who resented
>being advised of the weakness of the inexpensive scopes we carried. In fact,
I
>would characterize most customers as appreciative that I had helped them to
>avoid a purchase that would have to be returned, anyway.
That type of altruism from a salesperson must come from the
Twilight Zone.
How many sales a week do you turn away? How many simply went
elsewhere, listened to another salesperson and bought the Jason
anyway? Since you point out the weaknesses, I guess you never sell
60mm refractors outfitted with cheap accessories?
>They take it as an insult if you try to dissuade them from buying a
>rickety 60mm refractor.<<
>Only if you are insulting to them.
Sure. I'd guess they LOVE being told they have to think of another gift
or ante up another $200!
>Due to limited display space, we kept most of our packaged telescopes in
>inventory. Most customers do ask, "What can you see?" or some variation on
>that them. That's where good salesmanship comes in. Use books, staff
>sketches or words to illustrate how a particular telescope will perform.
Pray tell which books let a person know what objects look like
in a 60mm refractor? Messier Album, Burnhams, even Nightwatch?
None of them.
>However, my wife wanted a sushi knife for Christmas so
>I went out and found the best one I could afford. I went to three stores
until
>I found a salesperson who struck me as knowing what he was talking about.
A sushi knife isn't exactly a automatic transmission. Someone could
probably divine what it does simply by looking at it. I'd say a telescope
is slightly more complex and requires a bit more effort to choose.
>This is where good salesmanship comes into play. The first key to making a
>good sale is listening to the customer to determine his interests and needs.
>The second key is knowing your inventory well enough to be able to recommend
>the product that best meets those interests and needs. If you do those two
>things, you make the sale, earn your commission and the customer walks away
>with a purchase that likely will not be returned or exchanged. In the optics
>biz, you've also laid the groundword for a relationship with that customer
>that will likely result in return business and referrals.
You'll get just as much return business (or more) supplying the wrong thing
to customers as they will trade-in their first purchase or try (by
accessorizing)
to make it into something it isn't. The idea that you can automatically and
cleanly specify a telescope for a customer based on their first-visit perceived
needs is long discredited. Many times, a customer has very little idea
of what their "needs" are going to be, either at the moment or in the
future.
>When I was 13, they gave me a 60 mm Jason refractor as a Christmas present.
>It
>was, with its wobbly mount, 5x24 finder and .965-inch eyepieces, the
>prototypical department store telescope that takes so much heat in this
>newsgroup. I loved that scope. I used it to look at craters and mountains
>on
>the Moon; Jupiter and his four brightest satellites; the rings of Saturn; and
>the polar caps of Mars. The interest in astronomy was within me long before
>that telescope showed up beneath the Christmas tree. The scope just allowed
>me
>to explore that interest.
My experience to a tee, but I was much younger when I became interested.
It leads into the "born to the hobby" idea that I feel I was imbued with, but
that's another argument, who is meant for the hobby and who isn't.
>Three things would happen when I worked with a customer. That person would,
>with my assistance, find and buy the right telescope. If not that, the
>person
>might end up getting binoculars that were priced more reasonably but still of
>good quality. The third possibility was that the person would leave without
>making a purchase. In any of those three instances, if I had done my job
>properly, the customer was able to make a decision in his best interest and
>was
>pleased to have had my assistance.
I don't really subscribe to the idea of having binoculars first, then a
telescope. If a person has a strong interest in amateur astronomy,
they will learn the sky and benefit from a telescope right off. If they lack
any of the needed capabilities or desires, binoculars won't help them.
Unless you own the company, walking people out the door without
allowiing them to purchase anything (and that's essentially what you've
done since they've placed their trust in you) is a disservice to your
employer.
>
>>>-They will go to another store where the salesmen will assure them they
>will
>"love" their new scope, regardless of what they've been told by you.<<
>
>Well, I didn't make a habit of following customers to their next shopping
>destination. Therefore, I have no idea how many drove over to the mall or to
>Sam's Club so they could spend $100 bucks on a scope of questionable
>parentage.
> Rich, neither do you.
You should give it serious thought, because i'm pretty sure based on
your ideas so far that you've done that to more customers than you know.
Selling a less than perfect telescope to someone isn't a crime, but
letting business walk because of outmoded sales ideas is not a good
way to do the best job you can for your firm.
>>>When I help out my friend, and I see someone who might be able to
>understand
>good from bad, I simply let them hold a 6mm 0.96" Huygens up to their eye and
>then I give them a 25mm 1-1/14" Kellner. I then ask them, "Which would you
>rather look through?"<<
>
>That's good salesmanship. You don't make sales by lecturing, "This $100
>telescope is cheap and crappy. You won't like it. The only one you'll like
>is this $400 telescope over here." People are naturally and understandably
>suspicious of that kind of tactic. Also, people don't like to be made to
>feel like idiots.
But I think you've mistake something about what i've said. My original
message was an assessment of customer behaviour, not a blueprint for
how i'd approach them about telescopes.
>Let them look through a 1.25-inch eyepiece and a .965-inch eyepiece in a
>side-by-side test. Have them grab and shake the mount of the cheap
>refractor.
>Let them try to aim the telescope at something in the store. People aren't
>stupid, they know when a product is going to do nothing but frustrate a
>child.
>
>Then, give the customer the information he needs to make a decision: Spend
>more on a better qualtiy scope? Buy those binocs that are both decent and in
>my price range? Or go hunt down that Furbee?
Low end telescope customers need a ton of information like a hole in the
head. Your qualification and education of the customer causes more of
them to leave without making a purchase than not, any good salesperson
will see that would be the case. Customers in that end of the market
require a directed approach, using visuals (look through the scope)
but the offerings should be kept as narrow as possible. If not, you will
simply flood them with info about a subject they know nothing about,
they will leave, more confused than ever. And, you'd have wasted far
too long to achieve a "no sale" result. One of the most successful diamond
sales organizations in Canada has one rule: 1/2 and hour per customer,
if they don't purchase at that point, the greater and greater their chances
of leaving without making a purchase. You don't have to misdirect them
into buying something they shouldn't have, but you want to control the
sale from the very beginning.
Mike Fowler
I understand each point you have made. I think the best way to sell
telescopes is honestly. If you have to take 45 minutes to make your
point and not sell a telescope then so be it. But when a friend of that
customer says "WOW look at the Milky Way" guess where that friend sends
his friend. Only been in business for 53 years now, and will gladly
waste 45 minutes to not make a sale. It is a long term idea that we
made long ago that serves us well. I hope you have a Very Happy New
YEAR!
p.s. "Turn Left At Orion" has great illustrations as to what can be
seen in a telescope.
Clear Skies,
Mike Fowler
Manager
Oceanside Photo & Telescope http://www.optcorp.com
1024 Mission Ave.
Oceanside CA 92054 USA
1-800-483-6287 or 1-760-722-3343 or 1-760-722-8133<fax>
Stephen Tonkin
>We have the internet. It takes a few minutes to gain something of
>an understanding on nearly every subject out there.
I disagree, Rich. It takes a few minutes to gain *information* on a
subject; it is part of the disease of modern society that you decry in
earlier posts (and in the subject line) that a majority of people are
unable to distinguish between information and understanding and, even if
they were able, are probably too lazy to do the mental work required to
get the latter from the former.
Cue one of my favourite aphorisms:
To gain knowledge you must study
To gain wisdom you must observe
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | <http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk> +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
To send email, substitute "aegis1" for "nospam"
gemf...@my-dejanews.com
ander...@aol.com (AndersonRM) wrote:
>
> In article <76dgl5$4...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA>, gibb...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA
> (Clive Gibbons) writes:
>
> >it's quite reasonable that they might fall prey to low, low prices and
> >misleading advertising claims when they purchase a scope. It's those
> >people who get taken advantage of by some manufacturers and some >>dealers.
>
What happened to the ignorant and lazy "Joe Public" being responsible for not
making the right choice on their first purchase in your opinion? Are you
changing sides now for the sake of continuing this thread or giving credence
to the theory that sales persons are partly responsible? : ) No answer
required to my attempt at humor, but probably forthcoming.
> Unless you are talking about selling decent equipment to the rare, educated >consumer. In order to sway a consumer to take the plunge, the telescope >companies, retailers have to use effusive descriptions of their equipment and >it's capabilities while still holding the price point down. Please note that this
> applies to the lower level of telescope sales and NOT the higher level.
> It's unusual for the buyer of an 8 inch LX200 or Tele Vue 101 not to
> know pretty much what they are getting into or are going to see with
> their new instrument.
I have heard of one obviously experienced and knowledgeable amateur
purchasing or owning over one hundred scopes. Evidently he didn't make the
right decision the first time, nor the second, ad nauseum.... Definitely
cannot be blamed on a severe case of "aperature" fever. It just depends on
one's perspective of whether a mistake was made and whose fault. : )
>Consumers (again!) due to their ignorance expect too much. They want
> Hubble shots, not little colourless views of planets. Very, very few
> consumers have the faintest clue about how telescopes really perform.
> Unless they are willing to take the time to learn, there's nothing that can
> be done. Trying to educate them exactly as to telescope performance on
> a salesfloor is like pouring water on a fire.
On a serious note, I think this entire thread points out problems that
everyone in amateur astronomy should seek to solve. Encouraging manufacturers
to more accurately portray their scope's capabilities, educating "Joe Public"
(don't forget "Josephine Public") and encouraging retail stores and
salespersons to be more customer and astronomy oriented.
>Bad for them (if they could possibly have stayed in the hobby) and bad for the >retailer who tries to educate them.
If a retailer shows no tact or "looks down" on the customer for being
ignorant, seeks to deceive, or otherwise does nothing to further amateur
astronomy, I don't think enough bad things can happen to them. Hopefully,
it will get them out of business sooner before more damage can be done.
Still the consumer is at a loss.
> -Rich
>
> "If you can't tear yourself from your couch
> to go out and observe, set the couch on fire..."
BTW, telescope optics do not follow the experience/knowledge the majority of
folks have had with other optics. With binoculars (for terrestrial objects),
microscopes, and magnifying glasses, MORE power is better. Most folks have
seen the results of having MORE power with their own two eyes and assume the
same relationship works with telescopes . Most folks do not stop to think
that after magnifying a pinpoint object a million light years away it will
still look like a pinpoint. I have had some success converting folks with
this fact and by relating that light needs to be concentrated by using a
bigger "funnel", not by trying to magnify the object. My ha'pence worth, Jim
Pjoules1
In article <19981230230120...@ngol05.aol.com>, ander...@aol.com
(AndersonRM) writes:
>A sushi knife isn't exactly a automatic transmission. Someone could
>probably divine what it does simply by looking at it. I'd say a telescope
>is slightly more complex and requires a bit more effort to choose.
>
Sorry to drift off topic, but the is just as much difference between a good and
bad knife as a good and bad anything else. The considerations where knives
are concerned are such things as which particular steel they are made from, how
it has been tempered, the length and profile of the blade, the type of handle
and the use.
I spent 10 years in the meat trade and I can assure you that a good knife will
hold a razor edge for some time, be easy to use and comfortable to hold all
day, a cheap knife will lose its edge and you will cut yourself. The knives
which I used 10 years ago cost, on average, 50 UK pounds each - not many people
would buy those for use in their kitchen ;-)
The point of this is that, there will be many on this list to whom the
differences, however subtle, between telescopes and lenses etc are obvious and
this is expertise without which newbies like myself would be lost but at the
same time a knife is a knife is a knife. To the general public outside the
astronomical community a telescope is a telescope and the difference between a
200 pound one and a 2000 pound one is the cost. To bring in the car analogy
again whether it is a Ford Fiesta or a Rolls Royce it will still go from one
end of a motorway to the other at a steady 70mph.
There is a strong arguement that a salesperson's job is to sell the right
product for the job and those who do will see that customer again,
unfortunately the chain stores can rely on the fact that there are so many
people around that it doesn't matter if a particular customer doen't buy from
them again.
Regards
Pete
Martin Tom Brown
da...@quik.demon.co.uk "Dave Storey" wrote:
> I do not have a lot of sympathy with people who buy themselves a bad
> scope (or car, or houses below the water line, or whatever). Doing the
> basic research should be a requirement (and I think is half the fun).
> I wouldn't buy a 300$ ANYTHING without at least checking a magazine or
> book to see what the specs and prices were like.
Since it is getting a bit too one sided against these scopes.
I am going to change sides ;-)
Apart from getting landed with a duff scope the next thing that
is likely to turn someone off astronomy completely is being told
that they are stupid and their scope is useless (even if it is).
> However I have a lot of sympathy with the unlucky recipient, if they
> didn't get a chance to direct the gift, or do any research or whatever.
> Some poor kid who maybe gets put off because someone else made a lazy
> job of the purchase decision - it's a bad deal.
What you have to remember is that even a bad 4" reflector or one
of those horrid 60mm refractors will still give magnified views
of planets and the moon that most people will otherwise
*never* get to see for themselves.
My friends outside of astronomy that have seen through my scope are
somewhat bemused at looking through the end of a waste-paper bin.
We expected a big long tube...
> We can all help a bit, by replying to the (horribly repetitious!) 'What
> shall I buy' queries on this, and other, NG's. We can also express our
> displeasure at the companies who supply this stuff (at least any of them
> who purport to also serve the market we buy in.
Actually you should check the back cover of Astronomy Now (Jan)
before making rash statements. BC&F has a full page ad for the
Meade 4.5" and 60mm starter scopes as ideal Christmas presents.
They are so price sensitive that the advertised prices in the UK
are equivalent to US $ prices converted to GBP at exchange rate.
(Instead of the usual 1 GBP == US $1 for hitech goods)
To be fair they will also tell you they are toys, but
youngsters can get a lot out of cheap scientific toys.
They may be optically poor, but they are cheap and available
and their bulk sales subsidise our hobby.
The only other group of hobbyists I know of that will pay
reallistic prices for top quality optics are bird watchers.
They have slightly different requirements to us though.
In the end you get pretty much what you pay for.
AndersonRM
In article <76eno4$r93$1...@newsmaster.pathcom.com>, "PD Cornish"
<mpc...@pathcom.com> writes:
>Bill, I have to concur with Rich on this one. Up here in the Great White
>North there is just not enough population to support really full service
>shops like the one you describe without jacking up overhead through the
>roof.
But there is a telescope shop where the clerks dress like they just
stepped out of a Beastie Boys video. :)
AndersonRM
In article <VLa2mNAr...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Tonkin
<s...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
> that a majority of people are
>unable to distinguish between information and understanding and, even if
>they were able, are probably too lazy to do the mental work required to
>get the latter from the former.
Good point. Reading is one thing, understanding is another.
AndersonRM
> With binoculars (for terrestrial objects),
>microscopes, and magnifying glasses, MORE power is better. Most folks have
>seen the results of having MORE power with their own two eyes and assume the
>same relationship works with telescopes .
That's another argument. Although all the birding people out there trying
to swap 7x binos for 10x binos should think long and hard as to whether
the extra detail available due to increased magnification isn't simply
negated due to magnified body shake. Another area where even
experienced birders show typical ignorance.
AndersonRM
-Joe Public knows very little about anything.
-It's hard to educate them and not the SOLE job of a salesperson.
-Most telescopes will perform well, given proper accessories.
-People who "tough it out" with a 60mm until they can get something
better deserve to be in the hobby and undoubtedly have the drive to
educate themselves.
-Telescopes are better gifts than pets.
-People who order double-cream and double-sugar in coffee will never
understand telescopes :)
-Those unwilling to learn, don't deserve to.
Steve and/or Tiffanie Sackinger
AndersonRM wrote:
> <snipping was utilized>
> -Telescopes are better gifts than pets.
>
> -Rich
*laughing* I have 2 cats and 4 fish tanks, yet I could not agree with
you more.
Regards,
Steve
>
>
>
Dave Storey
<Mar...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Wednesday, in article <2PkQ4KA2$oi2...@quik.demon.co.uk>
> da...@quik.demon.co.uk "Dave Storey" wrote:
>
>> We can all help a bit, by replying to the (horribly repetitious!) 'What
>> shall I buy' queries on this, and other, NG's. We can also express our
>> displeasure at the companies who supply this stuff (at least any of them
>> who purport to also serve the market we buy in.
>
>Actually you should check the back cover of Astronomy Now (Jan)
>before making rash statements. BC&F has a full page ad for the
>Meade 4.5" and 60mm starter scopes as ideal Christmas presents.
>They are so price sensitive that the advertised prices in the UK
>are equivalent to US $ prices converted to GBP at exchange rate.
>(Instead of the usual 1 GBP == US $1 for hitech goods)
>
Yes, I saw that ad. Colour me 'unimpressed'. (I was equally unimpressed
that BCF apparently can't spell 'carraige' (sic)). In their defence, at
least these two 'starter scopes' probably have the aperture claimed (not
masked down to 25mm), take 1.25" EPs, and are NOT supplied with 4mm EP
and 3x Barlow. They also had the decency to advertise decent EP's (at
£51, i.e. just under half the price of the 60mm refractor) on the same
page.
So .. I'm moderately unimpressed at BCF. I'm equally unimpressed at
Meade sticking their name on a 60mm refracting nasty. Still, I guess
they'll get theirs if/when the lucky recipient goes to buy scope #2.
<snip>
Rgds
Dave Storey
BillFerris
-Joe Public knows very little about anything.
To paraphrase Pogo, you have met Joe Public and he is you.
Bill Ferris
Flagstaff, AZ
JOHN PAZMINO
DL> Subject: Re: did we buy a lemon??
DL> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 21:29:51 -0800
DL> Organization: ICGNetcom
DL> . . .
DL> ps. You can upgrade the focuser to accept 1.25 inch eyepieces, but
DL> folks in the newsgroup with more telescope building experience than
DL> me can give you more specific advice.
With severe vignetting! And the adaptor may push the 31mm eyepiece
beyond the focusing limit of the scope.
---
þ RoseReader 2.52á P005004
JOHN PAZMINO
JA> Subject: Re: did we buy a lemon??
JA> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 21:34:59 GMT
JA> Organization: "Internet Direct Usenet User"
JA>
JA> First of all, I'd like to thank you all for your insightful and very
JA> helpful advice. It has been well appreciated!
JA>
JA> My husband and I just returned from a "proper" telescope dealer and we
JA> were given some of the same advice as we found here. He basically
JA> told us that we had purchased a "department store" telescope and if we
JA> could return it we should. He has recommended, as many other have, a
JA> 6" Dob reflector. Unfortunately, this DOUBLES the cost of the first
JA> one we bought but as we were reminded, "you get what you pay for".
JA>
JA> Now we have a whole new set of questions. Firstly, is it just me or
JA> does the Dob mount seem very unstable? It's as if you could easily
JA> bump it with your arm and lose the object in view. There have been
JA> many complaints about the stability of my cheap Meade Equ. but surely
JA> the mount is more stable? Also, is it possible to adapt a 6" Dob
JA> reflector for photography? What about the 4.5" equ reflector we have
JA> now? Im not sure if I feel better or worse, more informed or more
JA> confused! This is a BIG outlay of money for us and $600 CDN is a lot
JA> of money but if thats what it takes to get a good scope, then we will
JA> pay.
If you end up not using the junkascope you lost in the entirely
its purchase price. Period. The advice from others to get a 6 inch
Dobson scope is basicly sound. The design is simple and the better
brands are of quite satisfactory quality. The mount is on the whole
stable in that when you get the target in the field its image sits
still for you to inspect in comfort. Yes, you can bump the instrument
with your arm and lose the target being that there are no pistive
locks on the mount. In about ten minutes you'll learn to keep your
arms away from the tube after you get the object in view.
A Dobson scope can not be easily adapted for photography. However,
it is possible to take a picture thru the eyepiece by suspending the
camera over the eyepiece, lined up with it, on a separate tripod. It
is a bit tricky but it can be done for the Moon and planets. It really
helps if the camera is a thru-the-lens viewing and focusing type (old
SLR).
Now most stock models of Dobson have no finder. You'll have to get
that separately, altho the dealer my include it with the sale at a
discount. Or the scope may have an accessory package that includes a
finder. It's a matter of preference whether you get an oprical
finderscope or a nonoptical pointing device like a Telrad.
Questions like the ones you ask are the exact ones your astronomy
club can handle within weeks at its meeting. And you see and handle
instruments that illustrate the problems and solutions.
---
ţ RoseReader 2.52á P005004
JOHN PAZMINO
JA> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 04:28:34 GMT
JA> Organization: "Internet Direct Usenet User"
JA>
JA> - a Meade 4495C 4.5" equatorial reflector - and after doing some
JA> reading, we think we may have a lemon. It came with three eyepieces
JA> - SR4mm, H12.5mm, H25mm and a 3 X Barlow - all .965". He is
JA> devastated and thinks he was duped. What should we do? Almost all
JA> our viewing will be done in our light polluted back yard, but we hoped
JA> to take the scope along on trips. Will the telescope accept the
. .
The scope is not only a lemon, but a rotten and sour one. Being that
it's so new just bring it back for a full refund. You can recoup your
Christmas disaster by both of you joining your local astronomy club
(you don't note where you're from). Quite apart from the castly
cheaper cost, prhaps $50 for the two of you as singles or $30 as a
'dual' or 'family' membership, you gt a support sustem for your
astronomy. They the club you'll see a variety of instruments and try
them out. After a year or so, you'll be far better able to choose a
scope. In the meanwhile you'll be learning astronommy and the sky at
club meetings.
JOHN PAZMINO
K > Subject: Re: did we buy a lemon??
K > Date: 28 Dec 1998 23:58:50 GMT
K > Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
K >
K > Actually, I just bought my father-in-law the Celestron Firstscope 114 Deluxe
K > for Christmas. This scope includes 2 decent ep's (25mm and 10mm SMA) a decent
K > mount (not the rock of gibralta, but adaquate for visual use). The only
K > drawback I have with the scope is the 5 X 24 finder. The price is right
K > though, $228 (+$15 shipping) from Eagle Optics. Quite honestly, I can't see
K > how Meade can charge $399 for their closest competitor to this scope (the
K > 4500). I looked at one of the Meades in Costco, and was quite disappointed
K > considering what is available (if you do your homework) for only a little more
K > money.
You summed it up nicely. Meade (and others) know that the target
victim can not 'do his homework'. That person is disenfranchised from
astronomy. The companies know that for the most part the prospective
customer is not allied with an astronomy club, which is where the
homework is easiest, qucikest, and cheapest done.
Eddie Trimarchi
for about 6 years and loved it.
I got a dog for christmas last year and know very little about a lot of
things.Most times I learn things even though I am unwilling.
Call me Mr Public.
AndersonRM wrote in message
<19981231193815...@ngol05.aol.com>...
>
>-Joe Public knows very little about anything.
>-It's hard to educate them and not the SOLE job of a salesperson.
>-Most telescopes will perform well, given proper accessories.
>-People who "tough it out" with a 60mm until they can get something
> better deserve to be in the hobby and undoubtedly have the drive to
> educate themselves.
>-Telescopes are better gifts than pets.
AndersonRM
In article <19990101123521...@ng-cd1.aol.com>, billf...@aol.com
(BillFerris) writes:
>Rich Anderson wrote:
>-Joe Public knows very little about anything.
>
>To paraphrase Pogo, you have met Joe Public and he is you.
>
>
Consider yourself in the same boat as Joe Public. Just don't
put me in it unless you have some examples to prove it.
However, I realize there are some salespeople who like ingnorant
customers so they can force them to do what they want.
-Rich
ed_turco
>Rich Anderson wrote:
>-Joe Public knows very little about anything.
>To paraphrase Pogo, you have met Joe Public and he is you.
>Bill Ferris
>Flagstaff, AZ
Don;t we all start out as Joe Public? I think the problem here is
that too many Joe publics don't care to learn anything. But this is
the result of the human condition.
Larry Robinson
>
> In article <19990101123521...@ng-cd1.aol.com>, billf...@aol.com
> (BillFerris) writes:
>
> >-Joe Public knows very little about anything.
> >
> >To paraphrase Pogo, you have met Joe Public and he is you.
> >
> >
>
> put me in it unless you have some examples to prove it.
> However, I realize there are some salespeople who like ingnorant
> customers so they can force them to do what they want.
> -Rich
>
>
>
Larry Robinson
>
> billf...@aol.com (BillFerris) wrote:
>
> >Rich Anderson wrote:
> >-Joe Public knows very little about anything.
>
> >To paraphrase Pogo, you have met Joe Public and he is you.
>
> >Flagstaff, AZ
>
> Don;t we all start out as Joe Public? I think the problem here is
> that too many Joe publics don't care to learn anything. But this is
> the result of the human condition.
and probably a little too much spoon feeding via TV, Ed.
Dave Majors
>-Most telescopes will perform well, given proper accessories.
>-People who "tough it out" with a 60mm until they can get something
> better deserve to be in the hobby and undoubtedly have the drive to
> educate themselves.
>-Telescopes are better gifts than pets.
>-People who order double-cream and double-sugar in coffee will never
>understand telescopes :)
>-Those unwilling to learn, don't deserve to.
>
>-Rich
>
Joe Public's ignorance and laziness,etc. is nothing new, whether in
Astronomy,Politics, or juries.
Whining about it accomplishes exactly nothing except maybe to vent steam.
The solution is to educate these people yourself.
A frustrating experience but sometimes you do get to see a light come on.
Dave M.
S Alexander
just about decided to give up. Now I'm going to join a group instead and go
out on some night trips skywatching. As a beginner, I need all the help I
can get!
S Alexander
Pjoules1 wrote in message
<19981228090651...@ngol07.news.cs.com>...
>
>In article <767i4k$1ir$1...@titan.xtra.co.nz>, "S Alexander"
><crea...@hooked.net.nz> writes:
>
>> Why the heck are we seeing the telescope
>>crossbars when we look at anything other than the moon? It doesn't appear
>>to be anything to do with focusing.
>
>That is what I see when looking at Jupiter slightly out of focus, perhaps
your
>telescope has the same problem as mine, whatever that is - see my post
>elsewhere in the group about focussing problems.
>
>Regards
>Pete
gemf...@my-dejanews.com
ander...@aol.com (AndersonRM) wrote:
>
> In article <76gac4$ve7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, gemf...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
>>Most folks have seen the results of having MORE power with their own two >>eyes and assume the same relationship works with telescopes .
>
> That's another argument. Although all the birding people out there trying
> to swap 7x binos for 10x binos should think long and hard as to whether
> the extra detail available due to increased magnification isn't simply
> negated due to magnified body shake. Another area where even
> experienced birders show typical ignorance.
Hello Rich, Experienced birders I have watched overcome their "typical
ignorance" by using a tree, wall, fence post etc. as a brace to minimize the
increased vibrations of higher power binos. Try it sometimes on a nearby
bridge abuttment. : ) Jim
> -Rich
>
> "If you can't tear yourself from your couch
> to go out and observe, set the couch on fire..."
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
JOHN PAZMINO
A > Subject: Re: Sick of the ignorance and LAZINESS of "Joe Public."
A > Date: 30 Dec 1998 08:53:22 GMT
A > Organization: AOL Canada http://www.aol.ca
A >
A > >Not everything appreciates in value like automobiles.
A > >
A > >About 10 years ago, I bought an IBM PS/2 PC for $4,000. It was a 10 MHz
A > >machine,
A > >with 2 MB RAM. It also had a 20 MB hard drive. Know what you can get for
A > >$4,000
A > >today?
A >
A > But, at the time it was "state of the art." Unlike some of these telescopes
A > people squander $100-$300 on today.
There are at sale what amounts to 'toy' computers for $100 to $300!
These look like laptops or unitized consoles with a cheap video
screen, clumky keyboard, some ROM ethced programs. And apparently they
are selling! One model I saw in a department store had a 'modem'. Not
a real one but some sound thing that made modem noises when a certain
(fake) web browser was started.
JOHN PAZMINO
A > Subject: Re: Sick of the ignorance and LAZINESS of "Joe Public."
A > >it's quite reasonable that they might fall prey to low, low prices and
A > >misleading advertising claims when they purchase a scope. It's those
A > >people who get taken advantage of by some manufacturers and some dealers.
A >
A > Sad to say, misrepresentation is the heart of most sales. Unless you are
A > talking about selling decent equipment to the rare, educated consumer.
A > In order to sway a consumer to take the plunge, the telescope companies,
A > retailers have to use effusive descriptions of their equipment and it's
A > capabilities while still holding the price point down. Please note that this
A > applies to the lower level of telescope sales and NOT the higher level.
A > It's unusual for the buyer of an 8 inch LX200 or Tele Vue 101 not to
A > know pretty much what they are getting into or are going to see with
A > their new instrument.
A > Consumers (again!) due to their ignorance expect too much. They want
A > Hubble shots, not little colourless views of planets. Very, very few
A > consumers have the faintest clue about how telescopes really perform.
A > Unless they are willing to take the time to learn, there's nothing that can
A > be done. Trying to educate them exactly as to telescope performance on
A > a salesfloor is like pouring water on a fire. Bad for them (if they could
A > possibly
A > have stayed in the hobby) and bad for the retailer who tries to educate
That's why it is crucial for us as the connected astronomer to
make known our services and support for the newcomers into our
profession. Astronomy is NOT a privileged endeavor reserved for an
in-crowd. It is, by its nature under the open ad free sky, a pursuit
available to any one.
It is when the new person feels isolated, without friend or
patron, with no organized advocate for him that he falls prey to the
strategies you cite. And, one of the cruel facts of amateur astronomy
in general in the United States is that it is made of thousands of
segregated walled-off individuals.
Onluy in a few truly cockeyed situations is there a strong
infrastructure that the new astronomer can turn to and get relief from
ignorance and avoid being abused and cheated. These places are where
the various sectors of the profession work in harmony with each other,
refer newcomers to the proper resource, speak up for him in case of
mistreatment, lobby before consumer authorities for him.
In the US there seems to be only one such place, altho thre are
many in other countires. If you are an astronomer within the commuting
zone of New York, chances are excellent that you are allied with the
Amateur astronomers association. The dealers and manufactureres know
this. They learned the hard way and their scars still hurt. That's why
they try hard to keep a New York customer satisfied and to remedy
problems quickly and completely. The resolution of even one purchasing
problem by membership in the AAA pays for several years of dues!
OK, the AAA is a queer bird in amateur astronomy, I can admit
that. (Or you will tell me that!) But it exists and it works. And
astronomers within it are proud of it.
I supposed when I was newly a traveller for my office and for
astronomy that 'every town had an AAA for itself'. It took many long
years to realize that this is plain not so. Members who move from the
City and take up membership in the local club routinely call or write
(or now email) there, yes, the new club is fun and the members are
nice and the observing site is good. But there is no AAA out here.
I can not be so naive to say, well, go and look after the
profession in your town. It takes a lot of blood and sweat and toil
and tears. There will be casualties, lots of them. Yoou'll be mocked
and vilified by astronomers from surrounding counties.
But you'll have a good public stature as the just and proper
representation of astronomy in your town. And the scope companies will
redline your twon on their marketing maps with the annotation, 'Be
nice to these people'.
JOHN PAZMINO
A > Subject: Re: Sick of the ignorance and LAZINESS of "Joe Public."
A > >wheeler and the occupants of the car standing next to it without a scratch,
A > >'implying' this was expected performance the hew and cry would be immediate
A > >and the ads would be stopped.
A >
A > Funny you mention Ford. They ran some ads showing a Ford truck
A > climbing a moutain of rock. The ad was later changed with the disclaimer
A > at the bottom that read: "Minor stuctural damage sustained doing this"
A > or some such thing.
Maybe you folk area a bit young to remember the scandal in the
1960s with toy advertising. It was routine for the ads to exagerate
the performance of the toy, its size, expected product, ease of
assembly, and so forth. Things got too much out of hand. The FTC and
local AGs banned such ads.
We had a real funny episode in the 1970s with the New York
consumer affairs department, one of the nation's nononsense protectors
for the public. There was an ad by one of the airlines thaat worked
Newark Airport. This airport is in New Jersey (in Newark and
Elizabeth) and requires a bus or taxi ride to get to. (Soon there will
be direct rail service from Penn Station.)
The ad procalimed 'Thirty minutes to St Louis', 'Thirty minutes to
Dallas'. A reasonable person could ignore this claim, not really.
There were busloads of people actually bdelieving that this airline
had a supersonic (hypersonic!) plane that whisked them to Dalas in a
halfhour. Of course they had no such pplane. The time referred to the
tracvel time from Manhatttan to Newark airport by bus or taxi. Then
you had the dilly-dally time in the sirport and the regular several
hour flight time to St Louis. XOnsumer Affairs didn't gofor this
silliness. It rodered the ads stopped.
JOHN PAZMINO
DS> Subject: Re: Sick of the ignorance and LAZINESS of "Joe Public."
DS> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 20:41:26 +0000
DS> Organization: Heap, rather than Stack.
DS>
DS> I do not have a lot of sympathy with people who buy themselves a bad
DS> scope (or car, or houses below the water line, or whatever). Doing the
DS> basic research should be a requirement (and I think is half the fun).
DS> I wouldn't buy a 300$ ANYTHING without at least checking a magazine or
DS> book to see what the specs and prices were like.
DS>
DS> However I have a lot of sympathy with the unlucky recipient, if they
DS> didn't get a chance to direct the gift, or do any research or whatever.
DS> Some poor kid who maybe gets put off because someone else made a lazy
DS> job of the purchase decision - it's a bad deal.
DS>
DS> We can all help a bit, by replying to the (horribly repetitious!) 'What
DS> shall I buy' queries on this, and other, NG's. We can also express our
DS> displeasure at the companies who supply this stuff (at least any of them
DS> who purport to also serve the market we buy in. Hey Meade, I'm talking
DS> about y'all!) We can also buy our cameras and toys from places that
DS> don't sell the worst trash, and let the trash-sellers know why we aren't
DS> shopping there. Some of the toy retailers actually don't know that these
DS> scopes are absolutely useless - few of them majored in Astronomy or
DS> optics.
DS>
DS> I guess Tar-&-Feather the salesmen is no longer an option, since we got
DS> civilised and all. 150 years ago, you could probably just have shot
DS> them.
Next time you come to New York I'll show a sight that will make
you weep. You will fall to your knees and worship it. It's the
International Darksky Shrine, right next to Penn Station. It takes in
20,000 visitors a weekday (likely more on weekends, I don;t know for
sure). Actually this is IDS#1 'coz we have a second and larger one
near Greenwich Village, IDS#2.
I will take you inside -- I'll even give you a starter supply of
crying tissues, OK? -- and let you walk around. Bye and byr I'll steer
you to the phot-electronics department. What's missing from the
shelfs and counters? Look closely. Compare this with a similar
establishment back home.
No trashy telescopes.
That's right. This place is a K-Mart, the third largest in the
chain, 3-1/2 metric acres, but it does not sell those horrible
sickeningly awful telescopes. Binouclars it has, yes. Cameras, yes, No
telescopes. Why?
Partly thru the advocancy of the astronomy union here, duuring the
public review of the project. The company listened to all the
commentary when it applied for the permits and went thru the review
process. Among the issues raised was the quality and relevance of the
merchandise.
The similar thing happened at IDS#2, the world's second largest
K-Mart at 4 metric acres. No junk telescopes.
This is the sort of power that a strong and established astronomy
club can wield in the protection of its members and the public.
(Why are these stores routinely known as Internatinal Darksky
Shrines? A long story. A good and wisely darksky leader can better
expalin this to you.)
---
ž RoseReader 2.52į P005004
JOHN PAZMINO
A > Subject: Re: Sick of the ignorance and LAZINESS of "Joe Public."
A > >some people are buying these telescopes as a gift and do not have the time
A > >(or desire) to investigate and research the proper telescope purchase.
A >
A > Yes, it all makes sense. They buy a gift as an expedient way of
A > "buying off" someone's affection. However, if they really gave a damn,
A > or were motivated to do anything but watch tv or wander malls with
A > a glassy stare, they would do some homework and find out what they were
A > spending their money on, instead of crying about it after the fact.
A > Everytime I hear about today's "increasingly sophisticated and
A > educated shopper," I laugh. The dissatisfaction associated with
A > this laziness is going to get WORSE now internet shopping has arrived.
It isn't laziness at all; it's lack of resources at hand to turn to.
How many of you actually dissected a water heater or read the tech
manuals for a microwave? You don't. You ask knowledgeable people about
possible buying choices. You read consumer reviews about the products.
The point is that these resources are at hand and consumer articles in
the magazines and newspapers refer you to them. Many newspapers have
a regular column for consumer education. In the case of astronomy in
most places there simply are no known support structures the man in
the street can turn to. Oh, of corse, your town has an astronomy club.
How many ordinary folk know about it? Does the consumer editor of your
newspaper know about it? Does the local telescope shop know about it?
Unless the walkin buyer is told about the astronomy expertise I can
discuss things with he will not come to your club. It's really that
simple. Bear in mind, too, that the organization of competent consumer
information for telescopes is pretty lousy. Read the stuff that flies
around on this newsgroup. And that is tossed about by astronomers!
JOHN PAZMINO
BG> Subject: Re: Sick of the ignorance and LAZINESS of "Joe Public."
BG> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 17:10:37 -0500
BG>
BG> I could not have put it better myself, Clive. What is ignorant is the
BG> thinking that the everyday "Joe" would be able to research every gift he
BG> gets for every person. The average Joe only knows the person he is getting
BG> the gift for (and hopefully a couple of his/her hobbies and interests). For
BG> example, does everyone know that Furbies come from sweat shops in which
BG> there is only a pit for the workers to go to the bathroom in? And of course
BG> there is no facility to wash ones hands afterward. I'll bet everyone
Sounds like Chatham Square!
BG> thoroughly researched those, RIGHT? I am one of those who does research
BG> almost everything I buy (most often focussing on the product preformance,
BG> not usually on where its made, but the furbie is a good example
BG> non-the-less). Our society places too much emphasis on gift giving for
You can always tell when some new hot fad toy is coming down the
track. You see and hear the steam machinery in the sweatshops running
all night long. many people think the sweatshops are a ting of the
past. They aren't. In many places in New York there are veritable
'towns' made of them. the coolies are locked in the factories with
little conveniences or comforts. They work long hours and often are
expected to sleep in the faactories to avoid the commute to home.
When I worked in Federal Plaza, north of City Hall next to Chinatown,
I personally saw these places. I see them, too, now in the Garment
District near Macy's and Manhattan Mall. the clothes are litterally
wheeled along the streeets by the roustabouts from the factory to the
stores.
JOHN PAZMINO
PC> Subject: Re: Sick of the ignorance and LAZINESS of "Joe Public."
PC> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 21:30:10 -0500
PC> Organization: Pathway Communications
PC>
PC> Bill, I have to concur with Rich on this one. Up here in the Great White
PC> North there is just not enough population to support really full service
PC> shops like the one you describe without jacking up overhead through the
PC> roof. Simply put, we just don't have time to give Astro 101 to every person
PC> who strolls in. Factor in the general level of ignorance on any subject
PC> (except perhaps hockey) displayed by average people here and soon one
PC> becomes very tired of the same utterly uninformed questions fielded on the
PC> shop floor. Years of having everything handed to our generally indolent
PC> populace has produced a breed of people unable or unwilling to expend time
PC> on anything that smacks of effort. As a result, sales people are treated
PC> like just another resource, to be used to satisfy idle curiosity. Any real
PC> attempt to educate is, in many cases, beyond the ken of some customers (tire
PC> kickers, actually - real customers buy things) and is genuinely wasted
PC> effort. This sounds rather cynical to those who don't know life in a big
PC> city here. I assure you it is no exaggeration. The same refrain echoes from
PC> most , if not all, retailers here.
PC> . . .
Why aren;t you referring indecisve customers to the local RASC
chapter or other stronomy club? You don;t have to teach Astronomy 101
in twenty minutes. That's what the club is for.
The dealers in New York generally (altho not always) send novices
to the Association for a very good reason. If the customer is
dissatisfied, out of ignorance or misguidance, he'll only be back in a
couple days to eaise hell and demand a refund. Sure, the dealers in
the City are gratious about returns and the customer is made whole.
But it's a additional complication of the business, extra paperwork,
diversion of crew, hassling with the manfacturer, chekcing and
repacking the scope, and all that.
They avoid most of that niusance by letting the buyer get some
astronomy into him thru the Association and coming back with a better
notion of what he wants and needs. Often this results in a binocular
or book purchase. But the customer thinks better of the store and will
return to it for later putchases.
JOHN PAZMINO
A > Subject: Re: Sick of the ignorance and LAZINESS of "Joe Public."
A > Date: 31 Dec 1998 04:01:20 GMTA > >As someone who earned a living selling optics for a couple of years, Rich's
A > >generalizations are far from those I would make.
A >
A > Optics? Why don't you say telescopes?
I don;t know his partcular store but 'optics' shops sell cmareas,
video equipment, binoculars, magnifiers, and telescopes.
A > > Understandably, most parents don't want to spend more than $75-100 for a
A > >telescope that might get less attention
A > >than the box in which it arrives. I never had one customer who resented
A > >being advised of the weakness of the inexpensive scopes we carried. In fact,
A > I
A > >would characterize most customers as appreciative that I had helped them to
A > >avoid a purchase that would have to be returned, anyway.
A >
A > That type of altruism from a salesperson must come from the
A > Twilight Zone.
A > How many sales a week do you turn away? How many simply went
A > elsewhere, listened to another salesperson and bought the Jason
A > anyway? Since you point out the weaknesses, I guess you never sell
A > 60mm refractors outfitted with cheap accessories?
Wrong, unless you yourself live on the south pole of Mercury. The
salesman, as a part of good business, has to help the customer make a
wise choice. It is, for my situation, the norm for a salesman to lay
out several items of the sort I'm considering and explain the
differences between them.
I bought the other day a pocket radio for my laylove (stop that!)
and went to, what the hell, Radio Shack. There were several models on
the shelfs. I asked for a simple battery powered unit with AM and FM
bands. The ones he showed me ran from AA's or square (9V) batteries.
Some had a whip antenna other had a telescoping one. One had tiny dial
marking in gray on black background, the other had larger light gray
markings. One had four channels: AM, FM, low TV, and high TV. And so
on. After about twn minutes of fiddling with the various mdoels I
settled on one and bought it.
The clerk was helping me by showing the different features and I
felt happy that I got the proper one. (So did ladylove.)
A > >They take it as an insult if you try to dissuade them from buying a
A > >rickety 60mm refractor.<<
A >
A > >Only if you are insulting to them.
A >
A > Sure. I'd guess they LOVE being told they have to think of another gift
A > or ante up another $200!
Happens all the time. Clerks will tell me, 'No, don't get that
computer stand, it's too rickety. Look at these over there'. 'No, you
can't get a decent VCR for $50; that one you're looking at only PLAYS
tapes, not records. You have to spend at least $120 or so for a
recording VCR.' 'This jacket looks fine but the fleece compresses too
quickly. The air is not trapped in it and you feel cold.'
A > >Due to limited display space, we kept most of our packaged telescopes in
A > >inventory. Most customers do ask, "What can you see?" or some variation on
A > >that them. That's where good salesmanship comes in. Use books, staff
A > >sketches or words to illustrate how a particular telescope will perform.
A >
A > Pray tell which books let a person know what objects look like
A > in a 60mm refractor? Messier Album, Burnhams, even Nightwatch?
A > None of them.
This is the tradegy of our profession. Even the 'most respected'
authors are clueless if you judge by their books. That's why you
better look thru scopes at the astronomy club meetings. Authors INSIST
on including the Hubble, NASA, Palomar pictures.
On the other hand, based on my experience in the printing arts, it
is recoltingly difficult to get realistic small scope illustrations to
come out properly in print. If too delicate (as the scenes really are)
you end up with muddy circle (the eyepiece field) with printing
blemishes all over it. The way to fairly illustrate the telescope view
is by carbon engraving and WHO today knows how to do that anymore?
A > >However, my wife wanted a sushi knife for Christmas so
A > >I went out and found the best one I could afford. I went to three stores
A > until
A > >I found a salesperson who struck me as knowing what he was talking about.
A >
A > A sushi knife isn't exactly a automatic transmission. Someone could
A > probably divine what it does simply by looking at it. I'd say a telescope
A > is slightly more complex and requires a bit more effort to choose.
You will be amaxed at the arcane engineering taht goes into making a
knife for a particular purpose. There's inertia, vectors, hardness
Continued in next message.
JOHN PAZMINO
A > Subject: Re: Sick of the ignorance and LAZINESS of "Joe Public."
A > >purchaser of a gift like that "Lazy" or "Ignorant". I think that it was a
A > >very nice thing to do, and it's just unfortunate that he was taken in by
A > >clever advertising. Like any hobby, it may or may not be a lasting thing.
A > >Should he have invested in a $5000 APO? Obviously not.
A >
A > Snip
A >
A > > The next time you are at a cocktail party, ask people how
A > >satisfied they are with their telescope!
A >
A > The above arguments make no sense whatsoever.
Good thing they wren't aimed at me! I did go to a cocktail party the
other day and, ta-TAH!, many of the attendees conversed about
telescopes. Uh, it was a party with astronomy guests.
JOHN PAZMINO
tests, edge profile, lots of neat stuff. A astrobuddy in New York is
right now going thru a major study on a weed whacker
[supposedly] better than the usual ones sold in the US. Even a
millimeter shift in the edge prgile can make the difference in a clean
swift cut and several hacks that raise nothing but sweat.
A > >This is where good salesmanship comes into play. The first key to making a
A > >good sale is listening to the customer to determine his interests and needs.
A > >The second key is knowing your inventory well enough to be able to recommend
A > >the product that best meets those interests and needs. If you do those two
A > >things, you make the sale, earn your commission and the customer walks away
A > >with a purchase that likely will not be returned or exchanged. In the optics
A > >biz, you've also laid the groundword for a relationship with that customer
A > >that will likely result in return business and referrals.
A >
A > You'll get just as much return business (or more) supplying the wrong thing
A > to customers as they will trade-in their first purchase or try (by
A > accessorizing)
A > to make it into something it isn't. The idea that you can automatically and
A > cleanly specify a telescope for a customer based on their first-visit perceived
A > needs is long discredited. Many times, a customer has very little idea
A > of what their "needs" are going to be, either at the moment or in the
A > future.
That's why the competent dealer will offer, 'Tell you what. I'll be at
the Parc Debris de Femme stargaxing session this coming Friday
evening. I'll have three of these scopes and you'll see others that I
sell or can order for you. Here's the directions; be sure to take bus
route 13, not 31, OK?'
A > >When I was 13, they gave me a 60 mm Jason refractor as a Christmas present.
A > >It
A > >was, with its wobbly mount, 5x24 finder and .965-inch eyepieces, the
A > >prototypical department store telescope that takes so much heat in this
A > >newsgroup. I loved that scope. I used it to look at craters and mountains
A > >on
A > >the Moon; Jupiter and his four brightest satellites; the rings of Saturn; and
A > >the polar caps of Mars. The interest in astronomy was within me long before
A > >that telescope showed up beneath the Christmas tree. The scope just allowed
A > >me
A > >to explore that interest.
Jason actually makes passable scopes for the price. We in New York had
an 80mm Jason refractor we used for our public session on Manhattan.
We bought it from a local dealer who picked out a better model. It was
cheap enoughs owe never feared it being bumped around as we carried it
to and from the site. It did give nice, tho not totally perfect, views
of the planets and Moon and double stars.
A > My experience to a tee, but I was much younger when I became interested.
A > It leads into the "born to the hobby" idea that I feel I was imbued with, but
A > that's another argument, who is meant for the hobby and who isn't.
You never played with a Harry Ross StellaScope!
A > >Three things would happen when I worked with a customer. That person would,
A > >with my assistance, find and buy the right telescope. If not that, the
A > >person
A > >might end up getting binoculars that were priced more reasonably but still of
A > >good quality. The third possibility was that the person would leave without
A > >making a purchase. In any of those three instances, if I had done my job
A > >properly, the customer was able to make a decision in his best interest and
A > >was
A > >pleased to have had my assistance.
A >
A > I don't really subscribe to the idea of having binoculars first, then a
A > telescope. If a person has a strong interest in amateur astronomy,
A > they will learn the sky and benefit from a telescope right off. If they lack
A > any of the needed capabilities or desires, binoculars won't help them.
A > Unless you own the company, walking people out the door without
A > allowiing them to purchase anything (and that's essentially what you've
A > done since they've placed their trust in you) is a disservice to your
A > employer.
Sorry, it is almost always better to start with binoculars when ewn in
astronomy. One of the biggest hurdles the new telescopist faces is
sheer ignorance of the stars and constellations. Binoculars are an
amazingly effective way to learn the constellations, follow the
planets (with the dimmer stars around them), appreciate the meaning of
Moon phases, spot comets and brighter asteroids. And they are ideal
for star browsing when you can not get the scope out. Or to check out
the sky before bringing out the scope.
A > >>>-They will go to another store where the salesmen will assure them they
A > >will
A > >"love" their new scope, regardless of what they've been told by you.<<
A > >
A > >Well, I didn't make a habit of following customers to their next shopping
A > >destination. Therefore, I have no idea how many drove over to the mall or to
Continued in next message.
JOHN PAZMINO
A > Subject: Re: Sick of the ignorance and LAZINESS of "Joe Public."
A > >example, does everyone know that Furbies come from sweat shops in which
A > >there is only a pit for the workers to go to the bathroom in? And of course
A > >there is no facility to wash ones hands afterward. I'll bet everyone
A > >thoroughly researched those, RIGHT? I am one of those who does research
A > >almost everything I buy (most often focussing on the product preformance,
A > >not usually on where its made, but the furbie is a good example
A >
A > The average Joe doesn't CARE about sweatshops. If they did,
A > they'd all be walking around half-naked. Get it?
Washington Square in August!
JOHN PAZMINO
A > >Sam's Club so they could spend $100 bucks on a scope of questionable
A > >parentage.
A > > Rich, neither do you.
A >
A > You should give it serious thought, because i'm pretty sure based on
A > your ideas so far that you've done that to more customers than you know.
A > Selling a less than perfect telescope to someone isn't a crime, but
A > letting business walk because of outmoded sales ideas is not a good
A > way to do the best job you can for your firm.
If you habituate in a shopping district you WILL have massive
store hopping. I work near Herald Square, the very busiest by far
shopping district on the planet. I don;t know how many individual
stores there are, many of which sell optics, but the sales floor area
is at least one full square kilometer, or something like 250 metric
acres.
On a busy daym like the days before Christmas, quirw easily you
can have 500,000 shoppers per day in the district. (I could hardly
make way down the street during the week before Christmas.) All these
people are not going to a one store and buying the first thing they
see. They are, well, SHOPPING!
They are cruising from store to store. They are looking for
selection, price, features, return (for rejected gifts), wrapping,
delivery, all of that. It's part of the merchandising business.
A > >>>When I help out my friend, and I see someone who might be able to
A > >understand
A > >good from bad, I simply let them hold a 6mm 0.96" Huygens up to their eye and
A > >then I give them a 25mm 1-1/14" Kellner. I then ask them, "Which would you
A > >rather look through?"<<
A > >
A > >That's good salesmanship. You don't make sales by lecturing, "This $100
A > >telescope is cheap and crappy. You won't like it. The only one you'll like
A > >is this $400 telescope over here." People are naturally and understandably
A > >suspicious of that kind of tactic. Also, people don't like to be made to
A > >feel like idiots.
A >
A > But I think you've mistake something about what i've said. My original
A > message was an assessment of customer behaviour, not a blueprint for
A > how i'd approach them about telescopes.
Isn't this the normal and mature way to help with a selection? The
lousy method is to show the outer box and say, 'This one is bigger and
costs more; this other one has prettier labels.' 'We got that one
there on the upper rack for this-&-such dollars and over there by the
fan is the other-&-such dollar model'. Or, worse, 'If I get the
display model down so you can look at it, you;re buying it, aren't
you? I don't want to go thru that trouble just so you can nod and say
"uh-huh"!'
A > >Let them look through a 1.25-inch eyepiece and a .965-inch eyepiece in a
A > >side-by-side test. Have them grab and shake the mount of the cheap
A > >refractor.
A > >Let them try to aim the telescope at something in the store. People aren't
A > >stupid, they know when a product is going to do nothing but frustrate a
A > >child.
A > >
A > >Then, give the customer the information he needs to make a decision: Spend
A > >more on a better qualtiy scope? Buy those binocs that are both decent and in
A > >my price range? Or go hunt down that Furbee?
A >
A > Low end telescope customers need a ton of information like a hole in the
A > head. Your qualification and education of the customer causes more of
A > them to leave without making a purchase than not, any good salesperson
A > will see that would be the case. Customers in that end of the market
A > require a directed approach, using visuals (look through the scope)
A > but the offerings should be kept as narrow as possible. If not, you will
A > simply flood them with info about a subject they know nothing about,
A > they will leave, more confused than ever. And, you'd have wasted far
A > too long to achieve a "no sale" result. One of the most successful diamond
A > sales organizations in Canada has one rule: 1/2 and hour per customer,
A > if they don't purchase at that point, the greater and greater their chances
A > of leaving without making a purchase. You don't have to misdirect them
A > into buying something they shouldn't have, but you want to control the
A > sale from the very beginning.
So what's new? Of course the more you dawdle with a customer the more
time is taken from others waiting for assistance. The halfhour rule
seems fair, altho for diamond purchases you really should go to 47th
Street.
JOHN PAZMINO
A > Subject: Re: Sick of the ignorance and LAZINESS of "Joe Public."
Simply because there is far more to learn than one can ever go and
learn. Here's a fable I don;t know where it comes from but you may
relate to it. An old and declining Indian chief wants to pick a
successor torun his tribe. He arranges a test for the yound braves to
qualify to be the new leader.
He gathers the contestants around him and notes that he's at the
end of his life, learned all there is to learn, and now wnats to turn
over the tribe to a new younf leader. He hs a fire built in fornt of
him and places several rocks in it. After a few minutes the rocks are
good and hot.
He asks the braves one by one to step forward and retrieve a rock
from the fire. The one who can hold it the longest in his hands wins
the leadership. Brave after brave tries and, of course, all drop the
rock immediately because of the searing heat.
One brave, however, pocks up a rock and holds it high over his
head for many seconds, then tosse sit to the ground in front of the
chief. The chief is amazed. But he sees something wrong.
'What is that stuff on your hands?' 'That's a layer of damp mud,
sir.' 'Why do you have mud on your hands?' 'That protects my hand from
the heat so I can hold the stone.'
The chief stood up, 'Go home, the whole bunch of you. I have a lot
more in this world to learn.'
A > -It's hard to educate them and not the SOLE job of a salesperson.
The remedy is that you do not. That's why there are astronomy clubs.
A > -Most telescopes will perform well, given proper accessories.
Get enough accessories and you no longer have the original scope!
A > -People who "tough it out" with a 60mm until they can get something
Is this the entree into our hobby? So the purpose of a new crappy
telescope is to filter out aspiring entrants?
A > better deserve to be in the hobby and undoubtedly have the drive to
A > educate themselves.
A > -Telescopes are better gifts than pets.
But poorer ones than computers, books, astroclub memberships, scarfs,
fruitcakes.
A > -People who order double-cream and double-sugar in coffee will never
A > understand telescopes :)
But isn;t that how you prevent your blood from crystallizing in the
Canda cold?
A > -Those unwilling to learn, don't deserve to.
Not an issue for telescope buyers. Essentially all want to learn. they
just think mistkenly think that a telescope will somehow teach them.
JOHN PAZMINO
G > Subject: Re: Sick of the ignorance and LAZINESS of "Joe Public."
G > Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 16:56:36 GMT
G > Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
G > >
G > > >But a great many are new to the hobby or not as well connected as you, so
G > > >it's quite reasonable that they might fall prey to low, low prices and
G > > >misleading advertising claims when they purchase a scope. It's those
G > > >people who get taken advantage of by some manufacturers and some >>dealers.
G > >
G > > Sad to say, misrepresentation is the heart of most sales.
G >
G > What happened to the ignorant and lazy "Joe Public" being responsible for not
G > making the right choice on their first purchase in your opinion? Are you
G > changing sides now for the sake of continuing this thread or giving credence
G > to the theory that sales persons are partly responsible? : ) No answer
G > required to my attempt at humor, but probably forthcoming.
I think he knows he struck out.
G > > Unless you are talking about selling decent equipment to the rare, educated >
G > consumer. In order to sway a consumer to take the plunge, the telescope >comp
G > anies, retailers have to use effusive descriptions of their equipment and >it's
G > capabilities while still holding the price point down. Please note that this
G > > applies to the lower level of telescope sales and NOT the higher level.
G > > It's unusual for the buyer of an 8 inch LX200 or Tele Vue 101 not to
G > > know pretty much what they are getting into or are going to see with
G > > their new instrument.
G >
G > I have heard of one obviously experienced and knowledgeable amateur
G > purchasing or owning over one hundred scopes. Evidently he didn't make the
G > right decision the first time, nor the second, ad nauseum.... Definitely
G > cannot be blamed on a severe case of "aperature" fever. It just depends on
G > one's perspective of whether a mistake was made and whose fault. : )
We all did. It's STILL cloudy in Florida.
G > >Consumers (again!) due to their ignorance expect too much. They want
G > > Hubble shots, not little colourless views of planets. Very, very few
G > > consumers have the faintest clue about how telescopes really perform.
G > > Unless they are willing to take the time to learn, there's nothing that can
G > > be done. Trying to educate them exactly as to telescope performance on
G > > a salesfloor is like pouring water on a fire.
G >
G > On a serious note, I think this entire thread points out problems that
G > everyone in amateur astronomy should seek to solve. Encouraging manufacturers
G > to more accurately portray their scope's capabilities, educating "Joe Public"
G > (don't forget "Josephine Public") and encouraging retail stores and
G > salespersons to be more customer and astronomy oriented.
Exactly the mission for the astronomy club.
G > >Bad for them (if they could possibly have stayed in the hobby) and bad for the
G > >retailer who tries to educate them.
G >
G > If a retailer shows no tact or "looks down" on the customer for being
G > ignorant, seeks to deceive, or otherwise does nothing to further amateur
G > astronomy, I don't think enough bad things can happen to them. Hopefully,
G > it will get them out of business sooner before more damage can be done.
G > Still the consumer is at a loss.
We have our share of these charlatans in the City. They play loud
music from speakers in the street, have junk laid out in front of the
store, line the ceiling wall to wall with fluorescent lamps (so many
that you actually get warm from them!), have air fresheners in their
vests, the whole lot.
G > folks have had with other optics. With binoculars (for terrestrial objects),
G > microscopes, and magnifying glasses, MORE power is better. Most folks have
G > seen the results of having MORE power with their own two eyes and assume the
G > same relationship works with telescopes . Most folks do not stop to think
G > that after magnifying a pinpoint object a million light years away it will
G > still look like a pinpoint. I have had some success converting folks with
G > this fact and by relating that light needs to be concentrated by using a
G > bigger "funnel", not by trying to magnify the object. My ha'pence worth, Jim
There are the awdul magnifiers that warp the image or have wild coma.
There are the microscopes with sloppy stage controls, erratic
illuminators, brittle fragile stands, watered down chemicals. There
are binoculars with tinted lenses (everything looks yellow or green),
stiff and burred focus knobs, 10 micron exit pupils, squared off field
of view, built to military specs (of Togoland). Oh, you haven't lived.