Jump to content


Photo

Question about Celestron/Meade posts

  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#1 moynihan

moynihan

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2315
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2003
  • Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed

Posted 11 March 2013 - 07:32 AM

My interaction on CN kind of pulses, increasing when looking for new equipment, then dropping, etc. I check this CAT forum primarily MAK related info. But in the past i was a SCT user for awhile.
But, i have noticed of late the the majority of posts here are re Celestron SCT's rather than MEADE SCT's. Are folks with the Meades just so busy using them, they do not have time to post? :tonofbricks:
Kidding
Why the preponderance of Celestron posts?
:question:

#2 George Methvin

George Methvin

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1351
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2006
  • Loc: Central Texas

Posted 11 March 2013 - 09:37 AM

Not sure I have owend both Meade and Celestron SCT and they are fine scopes. For the last year or so the Celestron HD has been the big thing. Maybe Meade needs to do like every one else and jump on the ( HD ) band wagon. HD tv, HD sound, HD sunglasses and HD vision. LOL. You might try the Meade forum, lots of things there about Meade SCT there. I have a Meade 10 LX200 classic and I use it often and it is a very good scope. I don't write about it because it always works and gives very good images, I don.t spend my time trying to compaire it to othere scopes no reason to so theres nothing to really talk about. :lol:

#3 gustavo_sanchez

gustavo_sanchez

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2010
  • Loc: Puerto Rico, US

Posted 11 March 2013 - 11:22 AM

Not sure I have owend both Meade and Celestron SCT and they are fine scopes. For the last year or so the Celestron HD has been the big thing. Maybe Meade needs to do like every one else and jump on the ( HD ) band wagon. HD tv, HD sound, HD sunglasses and HD vision. LOL. You might try the Meade forum, lots of things there about Meade SCT there. I have a Meade 10 LX200 classic and I use it often and it is a very good scope. I don't write about it because it always works and gives very good images, I don.t spend my time trying to compaire it to othere scopes no reason to so theres nothing to really talk about. :lol:


Meade has the ACF Optics that are comparable to the Celestron Edge HD. In my opinion, Meade SCT telescopes are better than Celestron's, but they are more expensive. But that's just my opinion, of course. Both brands are excellent in any case.

#4 moynihan

moynihan

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2315
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2003
  • Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed

Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:44 PM

You might try the Meade forum, lots of things there about Meade SCT there.

Wow, never noticed that forum. So, different SCT types/brands can get their own forum, but Maks cannot? As Spock used to say, fascinating. :tonofbricks:

#5 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33885
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 11 March 2013 - 01:04 PM

So, different SCT types/brands can get their own forum, but Maks cannot? As Spock used to say, fascinating. :tonofbricks:


The various SCT optical tube variants, as well as MCT and variants and Cassegrain reflectors and variants are generally discussed here. The brand-specific fora are primarily for discussions of mount-related issues, due to the great variance in mounts and controllers between the major vendors.

#6 WesC

WesC

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2129
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Loc: La Crescenta, CA

Posted 20 March 2013 - 07:23 PM

As soon as Meade gets on the "HD" bandwagon, Celestron will have moved on to the "3D" bandwagon and Meade will be behind again! :roflmao:

#7 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12966
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 21 March 2013 - 08:51 AM

My opinion and my opinion only.

First, I prefer Celestron because over the years, I think their quality has been more consistent.

Meade has put some real barkers on the shelf. Astro-Foren tested one Meade that was worse than department store scopes.

But that was a while ago, and I think they have stepped up.

Now, it appears that Meade is trying to differentiate itself by biasing their newest (and most expensive) designs a bit more toward imaging. This is a good strategy because of Celestron's dominance in the general purpose market.

But here is where I think Meade really falls behind. For years, they remained married to the fork mounted SCT for most of its larger offerings, and the Meade fork mounted scopes are really stinking heavy.

As an example, Celestron abandoned the fork mounting for the C14 maybe 20 years ago, and when they did, I think C14 sales improved, and in the last decade, have exploded. C14s used to be rare, but now they are extremely common with a large percentage of CN forum members owning them and many more considering purchasing them.
The comparable Meade takes two people to get on to the wedge.

Celstron moved quickly to offer a choice of mounts starting with the SPs a very long time ago, and has since continued to improve its mounts.

Meade never really stepped up after the LXDs (though I have one and like it well enough and to be fair, it was super-advanced when it first came out, and is easily the biggest payload carrier I have, being better at my 6" APO than my CGE).

As a result, Meade simply could not sell to people that were looking for a scope package with GEM mounting.

And while Meade sold OTAs, many had a counterweigt in the rear that was just dead weight for GEM usage.

This is a marketing failure. Meade sould have judged from the market that a GEM mount was an important option for their larger scopes and they failed to follow up with larger mounts.
So, a lot of reasons I think, but mostly a marketing mess-up.

You have to be watching trends carefully and responding aggressivly.

I think Celstron did this with the EdgeHDs. They could see that their 40 year old designs were not up to the challange of modern wide field eyepieces and the growing trend to large chip imaging, and while Meade came out with the ACF first, they missed on field curvature.

I think that was a critical miss for them.

#8 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33885
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:00 AM

But here is where I think Meade really falls behind. For years, they remained married to the fork mounted SCT for most of its larger offerings, and the Meade fork mounted scopes are really stinking heavy.


The LX600 addresses that by adapting the split forks scheme from their 16" LX200 to the new line.

#9 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12966
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:24 AM

Now...

But for 15 years, Meade left the big GEM packeging market to Celestron.

I believe it cost them momemtum in the marketplace.

Just my opinion, but after 31 years doing business around the globe, I think I have a pretty good eye for market goofs. I think they missed the trend to GEMs in large SCTs and that hurt them.

After all, we had Celestron and Losmandy both selling large GEMS, and my bet is that 80% of the telescopes riding on those GEMS are Celstron SCTs.

Until a few years ago, Meade would not even offer OTA only sales. Only complete units.

#10 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33885
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:33 AM

Now...

But for 15 years, Meade left the big GEM packging market to Celestron.


Yes, the CGE was a big win for Celestron; it and the followup CGE Pro and CGEM went too long without a response from Meade. Now that they are making a GEM effort, they are trying some cool new things with forkmounts as well.

I don't get out for outreach as frequently as I once did, but when I dragged a 10" LX200 and/or an 11" Nexstar GPS around I'd have been pretty excited about a removable rig like the LX600.

#11 Greg Boynton

Greg Boynton

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: 29 May 2009

Posted 21 March 2013 - 10:38 AM

I hope Meade has great success with their new products. Yes, they made some bad mistakes in the market, but losing Meade would be a disaster. Meade is why Celestron has made the effort to bring good new products to market. Also, one of the things I miss in Celestron's lineup is larger heavy duty fork mounts. Yes, forks are a drag to transport and set up for imaging. On the other hand, I really like a fork on a pier for visual. My old C-14 fork (with Byers mod) is so comfortable to sit under for anything near zenith. There is a larger range of view from a single seated position, covering more of the most desirable part of the sky. I love the quality of my C14, but I'm sure there are M14s out there that are just as good and for my particular preferences, the Meade forks are a plus.

#12 jgraham

jgraham

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13849
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Miami Valley Astronomical Society

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:20 AM

It ebbs and flows. A few years ago it was the other way around.

Variety is the spice of life!

#13 Robo-bob

Robo-bob

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 261
  • Joined: 02 May 2005
  • Loc: Central Alberta

Posted 21 March 2013 - 01:41 PM

I hope Meade has great success with their new products. Yes, they made some bad mistakes in the market, but losing Meade would be a disaster. Meade is why Celestron has made the effort to bring good new products to market.


I do not understand this logic. This implies that if Meade tanks, Celestron will respond by ceasing innovation and turning out *BLEEP*. This is absurd. If Celestron took this approach they would also wither and die and some other innovator would begin manufacturing SCTs.
If Meade cacks, they have no one to blame but themselves. We would miss them initially but eventually the "free market" cream would rise to the top and the void would be filled. In any market where there is money to be made, it indeed will be made.
If someone had told me even 10 years ago that offshore manufacturers would be cranking out decent quality 5" apos for under $2K, I would have laughed. The SCT void of a Meadeless market place would be short lived.

#14 Greg Boynton

Greg Boynton

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: 29 May 2009

Posted 21 March 2013 - 02:35 PM

The logic is that Meade is already here, providing competition in developing mass market scopes of good quality and it has whole lot of product out in the market that would be orphaned. The Meade & Celestron competition has given us the ACF and Edge optics most recently. I think it would take a lot longer to get more major innovations from Celestron if they didn't have a similar large scale manufacturer nipping as their heals. Heck, I'll bet Tom Johnson and Co could have introduced the Edge design in 1970 if there had been market pressure.

#15 LivingNDixie

LivingNDixie

    TSP Chowhound

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 18706
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Trussville, AL

Posted 21 March 2013 - 04:07 PM

My opinion and my opinion only.

First, I prefer Celestron because over the years, I think their quality has been more consistent.

Meade has put some real barkers on the shelf. Astro-Foren tested one Meade that was worse than department store scopes.

But that was a while ago, and I think they have stepped up.

Now, it appears that Meade is trying to differentiate itself by biasing their newest (and most expensive) designs a bit more toward imaging. This is a good strategy because of Celestron's dominance in the general purpose market.

But here is where I think Meade really falls behind. For years, they remained married to the fork mounted SCT for most of its larger offerings, and the Meade fork mounted scopes are really stinking heavy.

As an example, Celestron abandoned the fork mounting for the C14 maybe 20 years ago, and when they did, I think C14 sales improved, and in the last decade, have exploded. C14s used to be rare, but now they are extremely common with a large percentage of CN forum members owning them and many more considering purchasing them.
The comparable Meade takes two people to get on to the wedge.

Celstron moved quickly to offer a choice of mounts starting with the SPs a very long time ago, and has since continued to improve its mounts.

Meade never really stepped up after the LXDs (though I have one and like it well enough and to be fair, it was super-advanced when it first came out, and is easily the biggest payload carrier I have, being better at my 6" APO than my CGE).

As a result, Meade simply could not sell to people that were looking for a scope package with GEM mounting.

And while Meade sold OTAs, many had a counterweigt in the rear that was just dead weight for GEM usage.

This is a marketing failure. Meade sould have judged from the market that a GEM mount was an important option for their larger scopes and they failed to follow up with larger mounts.
So, a lot of reasons I think, but mostly a marketing mess-up.

You have to be watching trends carefully and responding aggressivly.

I think Celstron did this with the EdgeHDs. They could see that their 40 year old designs were not up to the challange of modern wide field eyepieces and the growing trend to large chip imaging, and while Meade came out with the ACF first, they missed on field curvature.

I think that was a critical miss for them.


I have had good results with both companies and I have heard horror stories about both companies. I know that website where people post tests of their optics. I generally don't use it to judge a scope or company.

I personally think that Celestron is where Meade was in the 1990s. To me Meade is truly the innovator of the two, they made the goto SCT a market success with the LX200. Celestron has just made it a little better with SkyAlign. I do agree about the C14s being on a GEM. Meade dropped the ball tying the scope to the LX200 forks.

Right now Celestron is doing well leading, but these two companies are always challenging each other.

#16 rcdk

rcdk

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2010

Posted 21 March 2013 - 06:02 PM

I am not trying to be argumentative, and I know I will be blasted for saying this, but peruse the forum and judge for yourself: Celestron owners are more vocal in general and more negative about Meade. I would even go so far as to say that it seems more Celestron owners have a bit of an inferiority complex regarding Meade than Meade owners do concerning Celestron.

I really have no idea why that should be the case, since Celestron products are every bit as good as Meade, and Celestron has some great strong points. I don't own a Meade because I feel it is better, but because it fit my requirements better. Maybe more Celestron owners truly feel their product is superior, and that is great, but it can mean it is harder for them to be objective.

#17 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15693
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 21 March 2013 - 06:12 PM

I am not trying to be argumentative, and I know I will be blasted for saying this, but peruse the forum and judge for yourself: Celestron owners are more vocal in general and more negative about Meade. I would even go so far as to say that it seems more Celestron owners have a bit of an inferiority complex regarding Meade


Even if this were true, which in my opinion it is most assuredly NOT, what possible good could come from saying it do ya think?! :gramps:

#18 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14815
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 21 March 2013 - 06:35 PM

I am not trying to be argumentative, and I know I will be blasted for saying this, but peruse the forum and judge for yourself: Celestron owners are more vocal in general and more negative about Meade. I would even go so far as to say that it seems more Celestron owners have a bit of an inferiority complex regarding Meade


Even if this were true, which in my opinion it is most assuredly NOT, what possible good could come from saying it do ya think?! :gramps:


Hey! Who are you, and what have you done with Rod?!?

#19 rcdk

rcdk

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2010

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:06 PM


Even if this were true, which in my opinion it is most assuredly NOT, what possible good could come from saying it do ya think?! :gramps:


I am just trying to satisfy my curiosity. If no one else has observed this, then there isn't anything to discuss.

But I have been of this opinion since I did my research to make my own purchase decision. When I went through as many posts in Cats & Casses as I could four years ago, I came away with an overwhelmingly negative view of Meade. A fellow astronomer challenged that view and pointed out a majority of our club are Meade owners who are happy with their scopes.

Nothing I have seen in the four years I have been following this forum has done anything but confirm my original observation.

I should qualify that by saying that I have only observed the different Meade/Celestron owner perceptions of competing products here (CN) -- but the sample size is a lot bigger here as well. Lopsided rivalries exist in a lot of markets. Usually there is some disparity driving it, such as market share (PC vs Mac) or just a different class of user (Windows vs Unix).

#20 Qwickdraw

Qwickdraw

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1729
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2012
  • Loc: Ann Arbor, MI

Posted 22 March 2013 - 05:40 AM

I hope Meade has great success with their new products. Yes, they made some bad mistakes in the market, but losing Meade would be a disaster. Meade is why Celestron has made the effort to bring good new products to market.


I do not understand this logic. This implies that if Meade tanks, Celestron will respond by ceasing innovation and turning out *BLEEP*. This is absurd. If Celestron took this approach they would also wither and die and some other innovator would begin manufacturing SCTs.
If Meade cacks, they have no one to blame but themselves. We would miss them initially but eventually the "free market" cream would rise to the top and the void would be filled. In any market where there is money to be made, it indeed will be made.
If someone had told me even 10 years ago that offshore manufacturers would be cranking out decent quality 5" apos for under $2K, I would have laughed. The SCT void of a Meadeless market place would be short lived.



It is not "absurd" it is just that you are reading to much into Greg's post. Have you never heard that competition is good for the consumer? If Meade folded, Celestron's incentive to bring their prices down, improve quality and new products would naturally be affected. To what degree is always dependant on what the marketplace lets them "get away with"

#21 moynihan

moynihan

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2315
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2003
  • Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed

Posted 22 March 2013 - 05:58 AM

...If Meade cacks, ... The SCT void of a Meadeless market place would be short lived.


If Meade came upon financial troubles, it would be purchased, probably by some company on the Rim, for its brand alone (not making any comment on the quality of its products, myself).
:imawake:

#22 Footbag

Footbag

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6092
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Scranton, PA

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:56 AM

I don't see people bashing Meade. I do see a lot of people, including myself, advocating for Edge scopes. They are really great and Celestron hit it out of the park.

If I thought the Meade ACF scopes were better then the Edge, I'd own one.

#23 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15693
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:32 AM


I am just trying to satisfy my curiosity.


Funny way of doing that, muchacho. If I didn't know better, I'd say you are a pot-stirrer in your day job. :lol:

And I've observed just the opposite---SO THERE! :roflmao:

#24 rmollise

rmollise

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15693
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:34 AM


Hey! Who are you, and what have you done with Rod?!?


OLD FATHER TIME DONE GOT ME AT LAST...! :gramps:

#25 Geo.

Geo.

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2951
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 22 March 2013 - 02:17 PM

Well, for years Meade was the 600# gorilla having pushed C into bankruptcy. Now that Synta's Asian sources and capital is available to Celestron, the foot is on the other shoe. Additionally, IME, Meade made (and continues to make) several expensive mistakes in product development. This resulted in harsher terms and worse service to resellers. This gave Celestron an opening. My old dealer has dropped Meade entirely as Celestron is just better to deal with.

Frankly, I doubt Meade's Chinese suppliers are going to let it go away. They just picked up the Explorer Scientific brand and Meade could be had pretty cheaply. With 1.3 million shares outstanding and an opening bid of $1.76 this morning, you can probably own it for $3-4 million. I note it's trading a lot closer to its 52 week low than its high, and well under book value. This counter to the stock market as a whole, but the last 10-Q shows a $2.73 million dollar loss for the 9 months ending Nov. 2012.

More worrying is the burn rate. Meade went throught $3.62 million in cash in the 10-Q period and only had $282,000 cash on hand. Meade's reporting is not very current, so we're two quarters down the road with not much finacial information to go on. I see Bill Vorce has purchased several LS-6 returns. Meade usually lets these go for about $0.10 on the dollar if you buy 50+. One way ro raise cash, if you have to.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics