Good point! I thought of this, but OTOH there is (I would hope at least) likely no one who is not by now aware of the highly non orthoscopic character of the Nagler's and Panoptics, and this certainly has not stigmatized their very well deserved reputations. I therefore rapidly concluded that there is simply no valid stigma associable with being either orthoscopic or not orthoscopic, so I completely discounted this potential.

Regarding the term orthoscopic (or the misnomer, Ortho with a capital 'O'), my belief is that a quite high percentage of eyepiece buyers who desire this feature do not even realize that the feature itself has little (to perhaps nothing) to do with what they think it does. In making this statement I am assuming that the average uninformed eyepiece buyer who desires an "Ortho" does so because they believe that the term orthoscopic implies sharpness, contrast, transmission, color purity, etc..., when in fact the term orthoscopic has zero relationship to these optical qualities. I.E. they haven't got a clue.