Telescope Reviews: Modified Lapides Teegul Mount

Stuart, I have had the pleasure of owning a DM-6 (just sold a few weeks ago), a Tak Lapides Teegul and a HH. I still own the Teegul and the HH and, in fact, I have a second HH (Mark 2) version with encoders on its way. That should tell you something right there about how I feel about the HH.

But let me address a few of your questions and offer my 2 cents. The DM-6 is a great mount and I am quite certain so is the DM-4, which fits more in line with the capacity specs of the Teegul and the HH. The Teegul and HH work great with nearly all of the refractors I own (e.g., from 50mm through 105mm) as does the DM-6, but only the DM-6 can handle my 140.

So why don't I still own a DM-6? It really is a personal decision that was based on need, the way I like to view these days, and having been finally introduced to slo-mo controls (first via the Teegul and after that the HH). Even so, it still killed me to part with the DM-6. Originally, I was thinking I'd keep the DM-6 for the 140 specifically. But, the 140 and the DM-6 are hardly grab and go and I really ended up simply asking myself why not spend an extra few minutes setting up a GEM for the 140. So, in the end, I decided the 140 is more GEM worthy than Alt-Az worthy. YMMV, however - as I said, it is a personal decision.

The Teegul has been the mount of choice for my 105 Traveler and it also really got me to appreciate the presence of slo-mo controls. I know all the arguments for why nudge/nudge/push-to is all you really need but in fact, I simply now prefer slo-mo. The Teegul is a nice smooth mount and when paired to a quality tripod (I can't stress enough the importance of quality legs for all of these mounts - I've learned the hard way over several years and many $s) the damping characteristics are fantastic with a 4" refractor - and I would assume, pretty acceptable for 5" scopes like an NP127. My only criticisms of the Teegul is weight (still kind of beefy and heavy but light in comparison to the DM-6) and some backlash in the Slo-Mo, which is unavoidable given the design but certainly not a big problem.

I was curious about the HalfHitch the first time I saw photos of it posted on CN. This summer I had a chance to get a protype version of the mount from Charles Riddel, designer of the mount and owner of HH. It was a great deal for a mount with maybe 80% of the performance (guessing here) of the current Mark II version. I figure I could dedicate it to a fly weight set-up on a medium duty Gitzo carbon fiber tripod, primarily for H-alpha with my SV50. I was smitten with the design, quality of the materials and workmanship, the weight and most important - the performance. It is a rigid little mount and the "Slo-Mo" controls (not really fair to call them slo-mo) exhibit ZERO backlash. It is such a pleasure to keep Sol in the FOV with these controls even at high mag - and with surprisingly little jitter.

I was impressed enough to order a Mark II (expected next week) with the built-in DSCs. Charles has made a number of tweaks and improvements to this version, chief among them the mount is now capable of easily handling refractors like the 105. It can certainly handle anything below that and who knows, maybe even some 5" scopes. Add to that the fact that I believe Charles himself is "value added" here in the sense that he is responsive to his customers and clearly a perfectionist. No doubt, the price is off putting - and I really don't mean this in a negative way with regard to the Teegul - but compared to the HH, the Teegul seems almost crude by comparison. To see a HH up close is to appreciate the costs involved - I'd daresay it is a bit of a bargain given the volume of mounts that Charles produces.

If it works as well as I expect it will, I may even consider parting with the Teegul after testing out the Mark 2 HH. As it is, I am going to keep the prototype HH as a stripped down, lighter weight version for my small refractors. My hesitancy to part with the Teegul has more to do with knowing I'm very happy with how it performs with the 105 already - plus, I know I'll never get anything approaching what I paid for that eyepiece tray if I tried to sell (duh, I should have gone with the DIY option)!! I fully expect the Mark II to perform even better with the 105 so I might revisit the Teegul decision in future.

Finally, you simply can't go wrong with a Discmount, the Lapides Teegul or the HH in terms of raw performance - and I mean this sincerely. But on balance, when also considering features, weight to performance, and aesthetics - the HH just does it for me like no other in its class.