Let's face it, mass production or excellence, your choice!

I think that it is just silly to think that a mass produced scope made with just machines will produce as fine an instrument as one that has had time and expertise applied.

The type of glass is important to be sure, but more important is the skill that is applied to the glass and design.

One is just fooling themselves if they think they can buy a scope for 40-50% the cost and compare with the more expensive scope, providing of course that the cost is due to quality and excellence in manufacture.

There is always a chance that a small percentage of the mass produced scopes will come out rather nicely. But there is a very small percentage of chance that a quality scope will not be excellent. This is the way it really is in my opinion.

If you demand cheap prices and excellence, I think you are asking too much, because they do not go hand in hand.

Yes, it is too bad that the hand figured optics take so long and require so much time to make. This makes it hard to produce too many of them in a year and this causes long lines and waiting periods to obtain one. But I just don't see any way around it either.

Remember too that glass is only one component in the scope. The rest is also very important and expensive to manufacture when held to a degree of excellence. Something as simple as a focuser can be a major difference between one and another scope. Especially for imaging purposes, the focuser is a big concern. Plus the lens cell, which is overlooked so often, must be of the highest quality or else even the best of glass will not make a difference.

Scopes are a marriage of skill, design and materials and when the marriage is done properly, excellence and longevity is the result.

Let us just hope that this is not lost in the shuffle as manufacturers crank out the units with their mass production machines.

I agree, but there are many, many people (especially on another site) arguing that their lower priced mass produced scope performs as well as the higher priced models. I long ago tired of replying in such threads. It is too tempting to believe that one is getting a bargain that performs the same as a higher-end scope. I even notice that some people argue that their mass produced scope gave similar views to a higher quality scope set up next to theirs. If you dare counter such statements the vitriol unleashes.

I have a LOMO triplet and a Takahashi refractor. I've viewed through some of the mass produced scopes and yes there is a difference. However, in the end result people will believe what they want to believe and no amount of logic or evidence will change that. I found that it is more fun to watch the debates from the sidelines. When people start arguing that their 3" APO gives better views than 8" and larger scopes I sometimes cannot restrain myself however.

Floyd, you make dead on, logical, sense. Unfortunately when people simply want to believe something, the above does not apply. In my case I own a mass produced refractor and I am happy with it. This is not because I believe it is anywhere near as good as what Roland can achieve. It is because it is good enough to provide the views I want now as a casual observor. As I stated in another post, when my three children graduate college and time and money constraints are gone I may well think differently. I sure hope Roland and Starmaster are still making telescopes at that time though!

Remember "Proverbs 18:2" A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

Floyd you are a 100% right. I have to laugh when someone wants to know if there cheap, mass produced scope is going to be as good as a quality hand built scope.

Best, John

Floyd Blue said:

I think that it is just silly to think that a mass produced scope made with just machines will produce as fine an instrument as one that has had time and expertise applied.

I agree, and I don't know that I've heard anybody saying that's possible. I will say that a mass produced 16-inch scope will show you far more than a fine four-inch scope--and cost less. But that is kinda beside the point. Some people like and appreciate fine things--otherwise Questar would have gone belly up long ago--and I appreciate that.

Ah, I agree. But Floyd, the skies cannot belong to the wealthy alone. Mass produced scopes allow the poor huddled masses to gaze upon the stars. If cheap mass produced scopes weren't available, people of poor and modest means would have to wait until after the revolution to get their hands on a telescope. Meanwhile, a mass produced scope might just spark enough interest to start people saving for a finer instrument. 8)

This thread illustrates why Amart shines as a discussion forum, common sense. Floyd's original point:

"I think that it is just silly to think that a mass produced scope made with just machines will produce as fine an instrument as one that has had time and expertise applied..."

is valid, otherwise why would expert craftsman waste their time and why would there be any support in the market for such an endeavor.

Roland has explained multiple times that a true high-quality APO is necessary for photography and also explained that many people may not require the same standard for visual use, for a variety of reasons. Therefore, many of us can enjoy mass-produced optics for casual, visual surveys of the night sky and not threaten our family financial health. For those with more means there is always better and I am proud to say that many of you are willing to share what you have during public star parties giving the rest of us a chance to use these fine instruments.

In summary, discussions that make people feel inadequate about their equipment no matter what it is are as counterproductive as those that imply that excellence is not necessary or that mass-produced is just as good as the finest that skilled hands can make. Let's hope this puts this issue to rest so those involved already can enjoy what they have and those newly interested can make informed decisions about what they buy, based on what they want to do.