Jump to content


Photo

Dynamax 8

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#26 Rfriedman

Rfriedman

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2013

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:24 PM

Los Angeles

#27 BigC

BigC

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3107
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2010
  • Loc: SE Indiana

Posted 25 January 2013 - 10:58 AM

The last Dynamax 8 I noticed on ebay sold for $300 a couple weeks ago.one with the Golden Pyramid tripod brought $675.

Not sure if the buyers are users or collectors. An item of not-so-wonderful usefulness can still be a valuable collectors item.

#28 wander3

wander3

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2011
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:28 PM

Just saw your list with my scope, serial No. 2048. The ring number is 760172. I am definetly keeping mine and going to attempt removing the corrector for cleaning. Seems to have some mold. A few years back I had someone who rated optics on some of the Russian scopes look at it and he said it was good. Guess I got lucky!

#29 Masvingo

Masvingo

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2012
  • Loc: Ayrshire, Scotland

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:54 PM

Thanks for the ring number, I'll add it to the list. Does your 'scope have the long declination arm? What colour is the mount? It's good to hear you are keeping yours.

James

#30 wander3

wander3

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2011
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:27 PM

Hi James

My scope looks exactly like Rfriedman's - dark grey mount, short dec arm and the blue case too! Have a few Criterion eyepieces all marked AR. I did purchase the Golden Pyramid tripod seperately. Its as sturdy as they say. Thanks for starting records on them. I hope more will add to it.

Steve

#31 Karl Fabian

Karl Fabian

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 167
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2011
  • Loc: Illinois

Posted 24 February 2013 - 11:18 PM

That makes a lot of sense. Lawyers brought a company down when Criterion was forbidden to produce consistently decent correctors using a method that in my opinion Celestron could never prove they invented or had exclusive rights to. I read some parts of the lawsuit and in my opinion it was a crock on the part of Celestron. Sometimes I wonder if there may have been some industrial sabotage involved as well as a well orchestrated bashing campaign invoked at that time (cardboard tubes, no bearings on either axis,...and later fantastic and ridiculous stories about plain common window glass installed instead of correctors etc etc") During the lawsuit stage the optics had to suffer, but most of the other claims are IMHO gross exaggerations, half truths and in some cases total fairy tales. Criterion produced superb Newtonians and was fully capable of producing good SCTs until the Celestron lawsuit wrecked the company. Dynamaxs were selling well with no tales about unusable optics until the lawsuit hit home. Even during the lawsuit stage and after the Dynamax had a full warranty just like the Dynascope. Wouldn't you think a well known and established company like Criterion would like to know about a window glass non corrector and would immediately replace the scope and investigate the matter? Of course they would. But we are supposed to believe stories like that without the slightest amount of evidence or documentation.





IOW, the ones before their chickens came home to roost in the form of a Celestron lawsuit. ;) [/quote]

#32 bob midiri

bob midiri

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2725
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2004
  • Loc: pa 19320

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:54 AM

Interesting stuff Karl. Why did Celestron just pick on Criterion and not Meade? Did they feel that Criterion was a bigger threat to them. I know there is some years in between here, but thought they would have the same mentality (Celestron that is) in the early 80's. bob

#33 Karl Fabian

Karl Fabian

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 167
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2011
  • Loc: Illinois

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:23 AM

Interesting stuff Karl. Why did Celestron just pick on Criterion and not Meade? Did they feel that Criterion was a bigger threat to them. I know there is some years in between here, but thought they would have the same mentality (Celestron that is) in the early 80's. bob


Its a good question Bob why the lawsuit did not involve Meade. Just speculation of course but I wonder about the possibility of a behind the scenes agreement between C and M that there was only enough room for two manufacturers in the very lucrative SCT market. Criterion did extremely well with the Dynascope line and were cranking out those very good Newtonians at an affordable price. Being a well known and respected company, Criterion without a law suit and the problems that entailed, may have been in a position to dominate the SCT market or a least hurt Celestron (and Meade) in a big way. Not enough room for 3 manufacturers. That's the real reason why law suits are made. Celestron saw them as a real threat so the earlier Dynascopes at least were good enough that they (Celestron) were concerned with big inroads into their sales. If the Dynascope was total rubbish and no threat at that time it would not make much sense to embroil your company in a possibly very costly legal battle.

#34 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15370
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:46 AM

Interesting stuff Karl. Why did Celestron just pick on Criterion and not Meade? Did they feel that Criterion was a bigger threat to them. I know there is some years in between here, but thought they would have the same mentality (Celestron that is) in the early 80's. bob


Well, for one thing, Meade was not making SCTs at the time. Anyway, the court decided, and it was pretty clear to most of us at the time, that Celestron, in the person of Tom Johnson, had most assuredly invented and patented their master block process, which was different from what had been done before. AND that Criterion had infringed. ;)

#35 Karl Fabian

Karl Fabian

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 167
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2011
  • Loc: Illinois

Posted 25 February 2013 - 01:32 PM

Interesting stuff Karl. Why did Celestron just pick on Criterion and not Meade? Did they feel that Criterion was a bigger threat to them. I know there is some years in between here, but thought they would have the same mentality (Celestron that is) in the early 80's. bob


Well, for one thing, Meade was not making SCTs at the time. Anyway, the court decided, and it was pretty clear to most of us at the time, that Celestron, in the person of Tom Johnson, had most assuredly invented and patented their master block process, which was different from what had been done before. AND that Criterion had infringed. ;)


Didn,t the legal battle drag on for ten years and end up in an out of court settlement? Correct me if I am wrong but Meade came out in 1980 with their first SCT and I think the dispute did not end until 1981? In any case I wonder if Meade was using the Celestron process in 1980 and if so got away with it because of a big out of court agreement.

#36 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15370
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 25 February 2013 - 01:43 PM

If I recall, a judgment was issued in that case some years before 1980. Regardless of what Meade did or didn't do, the courts agreed that Criterion had infringed.

#37 orion61

orion61

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4471
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:22 PM

I read the Lawsuit, interesting reading,
here it is
http://www.leagle.co...3_1970.xml&d...

from what I got out of it, The Judge pretty much said Celestron used the process first, but did not protect themselves by a copyright.
(it was partially about putting a thin cloth under the corrector during grinding to get a better seal)
The Judge also chastised Celestron for trying to say it was in experimental stages, but the Defense showed ads stating the tried and true guaranteed procedure.
After dragging on Celestron got a partial settlement,
both spent WAAY more on legal fees than it was worth!
That will teach you all to invent something cool then not protect it..
Read the lawsuit it is interesting.
I do have a Dynamax, the Blue and Grey one NOT made during that time. I keep it and set it up just to watch people's jaw drop that usually bash the product! It really has fine optics, remember it was made in the 70's by pretty much a Mom and Pop company and this design wasn't produced commercially except for them and Celestron at the time.
Amaxing if you think about it! SCT's are a Dime A Dozen now and common place.
It is too bad that they were not better with their quality. I have owned 2 that were every bit as good as my C8 I owned back then. I also owned 1 that wasn't worth the time to tear it down for parts I did like their finders and had the best tripod of ANYONE back then, It was the basis of the superb Meade Field tripods for the 2080 and up.
I also had one that was OK, Kind of like the B&L 4000
I have had both *BLEEP* and birds (if they bleep me it rhymes)
Unless you get one from an original owner, and you buy it off the internet, you are probably going to get one that
has very poor optics, has been sold and resold. One bad scope will sell 30 times and leave a bad taste, a decent scope will sell once, and you will never hear anything else about it!
Dynamax are kinda like old Dodges ya love em or hate em...
I love them..

#38 GeneT

GeneT

    Ely Kid

  • *****
  • Posts: 12624
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008
  • Loc: South Texas

Posted 25 February 2013 - 06:35 PM

200 US$ or so in good condition. Lot of accessories? Maybe a little more.


Too many had poor optics--including mine.

#39 tim53

tim53

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9193
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Highland Park, CA

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:51 AM

Your scope is on The la craigslist? I couldn't find it.

#40 orion61

orion61

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4471
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk

Posted 26 February 2013 - 07:14 PM

PM sent to ya Bud!

#41 tim53

tim53

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9193
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Highland Park, CA

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:58 PM

To me?

I think this was the one I saw about a month ago on CL. I inquired, but was told that it was sold.

-Tim.

#42 orion61

orion61

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4471
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:36 PM

OOPS sorry Tim I sent the PM to the OP
someone on A-Mart is looking for one.. Had one wishes he could find another..
I finally did it, pulled the trigger on a C14..
Has anybody ever died from a bent back LOL...
take care bud.. Nice work on the Rover..

#43 GeneT

GeneT

    Ely Kid

  • *****
  • Posts: 12624
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008
  • Loc: South Texas

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:14 PM

Your scope is on The la craigslist? I couldn't find it.


No--I sold it about 20 years ago.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics