Quote:

---

I have one on the way. Can't remember, but I think I signed up in late 1995!

---

Now that's a long wait! You must have the patience of Job. Congrats, and also welcome to CN!

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The offer letter from AP says the first will ship in July and they will continue to ship throughout the year. They are offering the scope to the 180 f7 and 180 f9 interest list first, this list dates from 1995-2001.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I have one on the way. Can't remember, but I think I signed up in late 1995!

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Question? Do people (like yourself) update their personal information to Televue and If so how?
I don't see ever wanting to get on a 20yr list, but I'm sure If I did, I probably wouldn't have the same contact Info as I do know. Heck, back in '95, those that did have the Internet had "dial up". I'm sure people's emails have changed over the years and with the influx of Cell phones, a lot of "land lines" are becoming obsolete as well.
Just Curious?

Mike

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Interesting for sure. When was his 180 made?

What are they charging for these?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I'm wondering how AP arrived at the 175's price of $19.8k? Did he use his usual manufacturing formula or is there an added premium to take away a fast reselling profit? I'm sure this scope would resell immediately at a 50% premium.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Roland told me these were a one run and done- then back to making AP130s.

-Rich

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Roland told me these were a one run and done- then back to making AP130s.

-Rich

---

Any idea how many scopes?

---

Yes, not enough.

Best, Joe

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Vahe, I'd agree if these scopes were going to be available as a production item. However, to my knowledge this is a "very" limited run and when the blank are gone, he's done with these. Someone correct me if the know different. That said, I still agree and very much respect that these interments are being made at all and are priced where they are.

At this point used AP180's can fetch between 25-30k. Even 26-27k bids are not meeting current reserve prices. I expect the first AP175 to be sold used will go for 35-40K. Perhaps higher in an auction. However, most of the folks on that list that are still into this hobby and are interested enough to come up with an unexpected 20k for something the ordered 18 years ago, are most likely NOT going to part with it for the time being. Which, is a good thing. I know of one, who said - "this is a lifetime scope, I waited a lifetime and that's how long I'm keeping it."

Best, Joe

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

so we have 4 people on this thread getting 175's? very exciting! TEC has said there is strong demand for their 180's as well. These are amazing amateur telescopes! To me it's like seeing a famous artist cranking out more masterpieces. Even if I'll never have one, I might get to enjoy one at some point, just like seeing an art exhibit.

---

I agree! Too rich for my blood, but at least I can enjoy living vicariously through the experiences of some of these folks! Now, they do realize that they need to post their "first light" experiences, complete with pictures, don't they?

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The AP wait lists have been good to me. I have a last model run of every telescope since and including the Stowaways.
This will plug the gap nicely between the 160 and the 180 EDF

---

There's a gap between your AP 160 and 180? Seriously? I'm just picking on you, but in all reality I'm very happy for you and your good fortune! I don't know if you've ever seen an AP175 in person before, but I saw one of these at NEAF in April, and it's quite a looker!

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

As far as AP 130's I think someone posted a photo of serial #300-and-something recently, I would assume they've made 300+

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

In the 175EDF offer letter mailed to me it asks that a receiver of a new 175EDF not resell it for quick profit.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In the 175EDF offer letter mailed to me it asks that a receiver of a new 175EDF not resell it for quick profit.

---

Has Mr Christen commented on his reasoning for this? Im just curious as to why he cares. If I waited almost 20 years for a scope Id like to think I could do whatever I wanted with it once it was mine. (not that Id let something like that go, but if someone who didnt wait on the list wanted it bad enough to pay more than 20K, why shouldnt they get to?)

---

I would think it is because you didn't really wait. It isn't like an investment. You paid no money, no deposit, did nothing, nada, other than say at some point 20 or so years ago "Hey that sounds nice, let me know if you make one."

I personally don't know why that ancient dusty list still exists. In my opinion, it is a joke with worthless notification lists going back 10, 15, 20 years.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Because perhaps he feels that as these are the last big scopes he will make, he wants to ensure they are going to folks that waited and now will enjoy them. Not exploit them to make money. He could just as easily have asked the market value they are worth and had people pay 35-40k for them new. He didn't even if it is his ability and attention to detail that warrants the high hight. Maybe it's because he cares about his work and wants it to be affordable so people can enjoy it. Maybe because he feels if he isn't going to exploit his talent you shouldn't.

IDK, it is your money........Joe

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

There's probably a handful of people around the world that would bid up a 175mm to the sky, but how long would it last? TEC has announced another run of 180's, that is probably enough for vast majority of people. It's already f/7 for imaging and has a reasonably-priced flattener. I see that the 180 is quite a bit lighter as well, which is attractive to many buyers.

so we have 4 people on this thread getting 175's? very exciting! TEC has said there is strong demand for their 180's as well. These are amazing amateur telescopes! To me it's like seeing a famous artist cranking out more masterpieces. Even if I'll never have one, I might get to enjoy one at some point, just like seeing an art exhibit.

As far as AP 130's I think someone posted a photo of serial #300-and-something recently, I would assume they've made 300+

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In the 175EDF offer letter mailed to me it asks that a receiver of a new 175EDF not resell it for quick profit.

---

Has Mr Christen commented on his reasoning for this? Im just curious as to why he cares. If I waited almost 20 years for a scope Id like to think I could do whatever I wanted with it once it was mine. (not that Id let something like that go, but if someone who didnt wait on the list wanted it bad enough to pay more than 20K, why shouldnt they get to?)

---

I would think it is because you didn't really wait. It isn't like an investment. You paid no money, no deposit, did nothing, nada, other than say at some point 20 or so years ago "Hey that sounds nice, let me know if you make one."

I personally don't know why that ancient dusty list still exists. In my opinion, it is a joke with worthless notification lists going back 10, 15, 20 years.

---

In my case, I didn't carelessly put my name on the notification lists. I had specific plans for each instrument, and purchased them when I was told I had the chance (I still have the OTAs). I believe the lists are the fairest way to distribute a relatively scarce commodity, and it's up to AP how it conducts business.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In the 175EDF offer letter mailed to me it asks that a receiver of a new 175EDF not resell it for quick profit.

---

Has Mr Christen commented on his reasoning for this? Im just curious as to why he cares. If I waited almost 20 years for a scope Id like to think I could do whatever I wanted with it once it was mine. (not that Id let something like that go, but if someone who didnt wait on the list wanted it bad enough to pay more than 20K, why shouldnt they get to?)

---

Who knows? However, I respect AP's desire to not see their rare scopes immediately flipped for a profit. Had I lost interest in the OTAs I originally wanted, I'd have passed up my spots on the notification list when contacted by AP.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Because perhaps he feels that as these are the last big scopes he will make, he wants to ensure they are going to folks that waited and now will enjoy them. Not exploit them to make money. He could just as easily have asked the market value they are worth and had people pay 35-40k for them new. He didn't even if it is his ability and attention to detail that warrants the high hight. Maybe it's because he cares about his work and wants it to be affordable so people can enjoy it. Maybe because he feels if he isn't going to exploit his talent you shouldn't.

IDK, it is your money........Joe

---

Well he should obviously let the people who waited have the first chance at them. And yes, he could have charged more, not that 19.8k is "affordabe", Im sure hes gearing up for retirement and making more GP than ever on this run. Once he sets the price, a customer cant be accused of "exploiting" his talent, especially if hes waited patienly for 20 years then pony'd up 20 grand for a scope that cost less than 6 when he signed up for it. You seem like a free market guy, Im still confused as to why he cares. Hes done his part, produced and distributed his labor of love. What happens next shoudnt concern him.

---

I guess you're not idealistic.

Roland sells his scopes below market value so more amateurs have access to fine equipment. If he didn't care about those who buy his scopes he would have priced the 175 at $35-40K and still sold them all. It has nothing to do with the 175, AP has always looked askance at people who get on the list just to flip the scope for profit; it allows someone to buy their way over others who have been on the list for a long time. There were long discussions about it on s.a.a. One thing is for sure, if AP finds someone bought a scope with the intention of flipping (SN, etc.) the flipper goes on quite a different list.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I have a pretty good idea of how many Stowaways were made, especially F5's; Don't know anything about the 175's - even if there aren't many they will probably get through more of the list then one would think initially - deaths, illnesses, old age, loss of interest, and cost will eliminate or dissuade many.
By the way does any one know how many 160's are out there? - I have only come across 1 other in person

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In the 175EDF offer letter mailed to me it asks that a receiver of a new 175EDF not resell it for quick profit.

---

Has Mr Christen commented on his reasoning for this? Im just curious as to why he cares. If I waited almost 20 years for a scope Id like to think I could do whatever I wanted with it once it was mine. (not that Id let something like that go, but if someone who didnt wait on the list wanted it bad enough to pay more than 20K, why shouldnt they get to?)

---

I would think it is because you didn't really wait. It isn't like an investment. You paid no money, no deposit, did nothing, nada, other than say at some point 20 or so years ago "Hey that sounds nice, let me know if you make one."

I personally don't know why that ancient dusty list still exists. In my opinion, it is a joke with worthless notification lists going back 10, 15, 20 years.

---

In my case, I didn't carelessly put my name on the notification lists. I had specific plans for each instrument, and purchased them when I was told I had the chance (I still have the OTAs). I believe the lists are the fairest way to distribute a relatively scarce commodity, and it's up to AP how it conducts business.

---

Yes, some people pass up on scopes they do not require, others, likely the vast majority, do not. What is sad about this scenario is that while Roland professes to put out instruments into amateurs hands at a reasonable price for a super-premium optic, the notification lists fail miserably at allowing anyone prior to signing up 15 plus years ago access to any of these items. Why are we who signed up, so many years back so blessed? Were production keeping up with interest in even a remote manner, this would be different, but it patently is not. At this point, such interest lists are a farce and I know of many people whom discuss it disparagingly. While Astro-Physics can and will do as it pleases, and has the complete right to operate as it pleases, I personally feel such adherence to these lists actually hurts their image at this point. That is my personal opinion and I personally don't care one way or another as I have absolutely no vested interest, but I am being an advocate for those whom have entered the amateur astronomy field within the past 20 years, hear about and possibly even see such telescopes at star parties, but whom have absolutely no hope of ever being able to purchase one. Just my possibly skewed point of view, but I retain my right to speak it.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

>>>>Make that five folks getting the AP175.

Nice!!!! Also, in terms of Roland Christen, I suspect he's not planning for this retirement, remember, this IS his retirement. He's written before that a successful career in the high-end optics biz is what enabled him to "retire" early and start his own company.

It sounds like he really likes to see people using his current apos for imaging. This scope is presented as an astrograph and includes the flattener as standard equipment, I think he's hoping that active imagers will take them and use them.

The old list is probably a good method for this run because in the mid-90's there weren't many "collectors" of AP scopes, things seem to have taken off around 1999. Now you have some folks collecting multiple copies of the same AP scope just for the heck of it.

I never realized just how big the "collecting" thing is. Just watch a few episodes of "American Pickers", a lot of the people seem totally crazy to me.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In the 175EDF offer letter mailed to me it asks that a receiver of a new 175EDF not resell it for quick profit.

---

Has Mr Christen commented on his reasoning for this? Im just curious as to why he cares. If I waited almost 20 years for a scope Id like to think I could do whatever I wanted with it once it was mine. (not that Id let something like that go, but if someone who didnt wait on the list wanted it bad enough to pay more than 20K, why shouldnt they get to?)

---

I would think it is because you didn't really wait. It isn't like an investment. You paid no money, no deposit, did nothing, nada, other than say at some point 20 or so years ago "Hey that sounds nice, let me know if you make one."

I personally don't know why that ancient dusty list still exists. In my opinion, it is a joke with worthless notification lists going back 10, 15, 20 years.

---

In my case, I didn't carelessly put my name on the notification lists. I had specific plans for each instrument, and purchased them when I was told I had the chance (I still have the OTAs). I believe the lists are the fairest way to distribute a relatively scarce commodity, and it's up to AP how it conducts business.

---

Yes, some people pass up on scopes they do not require, others, likely the vast majority, do not. What is sad about this scenario is that while Roland professes to put out instruments into amateurs hands at a reasonable price for a super-premium optic, the notification lists fail miserably at allowing anyone prior to signing up 15 plus years ago access to any of these items. Why are we who signed up, so many years back so blessed? Were production keeping up with interest in even a remote manner, this would be different, but it patently is not. At this point, such interest lists are a farce and I know of many people whom discuss it disparagingly. While Astro-Physics can and will do as it pleases, and has the complete right to operate as it pleases, I personally feel such adherence to these lists actually hurts their image at this point. That is my personal opinion and I personally don't care one way or another as I have absolutely no vested interest, but I am being an advocate for those whom have entered the amateur astronomy field within the past 20 years, hear about and possibly even see such telescopes at star parties, but whom have absolutely no hope of ever being able to purchase one. Just my possibly skewed point of view, but I retain my right to speak it.

---

I don't see how the notification lists hurt AP's image. AP is a small business, and as such, it can operate however it pleases, subject to limits imposed by state and Federal laws, and my needs.

I also don't see how the lists are unfair or worthless. I've been waiting over 16 years for AP to make a scope like this (that I can purchase), and I let AP know that back then. I would have purchased a 180 f/7 EDF and/or a 205 f/8 from them long ago had they not stopped production. I've also traveled far and wide to test AP products. Would a lottery that circumvents my long and clear interest in a mid-size apo astrograph be fairer? Not from my perspective.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In the 175EDF offer letter mailed to me it asks that a receiver of a new 175EDF not resell it for quick profit.

---

Has Mr Christen commented on his reasoning for this? Im just curious as to why he cares. If I waited almost 20 years for a scope Id like to think I could do whatever I wanted with it once it was mine. (not that Id let something like that go, but if someone who didnt wait on the list wanted it bad enough to pay more than 20K, why shouldnt they get to?)

---

I would think it is because you didn't really wait. It isn't like an investment. You paid no money, no deposit, did nothing, nada, other than say at some point 20 or so years ago "Hey that sounds nice, let me know if you make one."

I personally don't know why that ancient dusty list still exists. In my opinion, it is a joke with worthless notification lists going back 10, 15, 20 years.

---

In my case, I didn't carelessly put my name on the notification lists. I had specific plans for each instrument, and purchased them when I was told I had the chance (I still have the OTAs). I believe the lists are the fairest way to distribute a relatively scarce commodity, and it's up to AP how it conducts business.

---

Yes, some people pass up on scopes they do not require, others, likely the vast majority, do not. What is sad about this scenario is that while Roland professes to put out instruments into amateurs hands at a reasonable price for a super-premium optic, the notification lists fail miserably at allowing anyone prior to signing up 15 plus years ago access to any of these items. Why are we who signed up, so many years back so blessed? Were production keeping up with interest in even a remote manner, this would be different, but it patently is not. At this point, such interest lists are a farce and I know of many people whom discuss it disparagingly. While Astro-Physics can and will do as it pleases, and has the complete right to operate as it pleases, I personally feel such adherence to these lists actually hurts their image at this point. That is my personal opinion and I personally don't care one way or another as I have absolutely no vested interest, but I am being an advocate for those whom have entered the amateur astronomy field within the past 20 years, hear about and possibly even see such telescopes at star parties, but whom have absolutely no hope of ever being able to purchase one. Just my possibly skewed point of view, but I retain my right to speak it.

---

That fact that their lists persist suggests AP's reputation isn't harmed at all by allocating scarce products to those who expressed interest first. High end products from the hands of a master craftsman in other fields have long waiting lists as well. Musical instruments are but one example. Some have longer waiting lists than AP. That some people weren't old enough, interested enough, or prescient enough to get on the list at an appropriate time is really their problem, not the manufacturer's. They can always buy it used and pay the premium for getting it now.

AP has tried other avenues, they drew names from a hat for the f5 Stowaways but that generated even more angst. First come first served is a long standing method of distributing scarce items.

How would you propose to do it?

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

What is sad about this scenario is that while Roland professes to put out instruments into amateurs hands at a reasonable price for a super-premium optic, the notification lists fail miserably at allowing anyone prior to signing up 15 plus years ago access to any of these items.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

... He could just charge what the market will bear but he has chosen this model....

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In the 175EDF offer letter mailed to me it asks that a receiver of a new 175EDF not resell it for quick profit.

---

Has Mr Christen commented on his reasoning for this? Im just curious as to why he cares. If I waited almost 20 years for a scope Id like to think I could do whatever I wanted with it once it was mine. (not that Id let something like that go, but if someone who didnt wait on the list wanted it bad enough to pay more than 20K, why shouldnt they get to?)

---

I would think it is because you didn't really wait. It isn't like an investment. You paid no money, no deposit, did nothing, nada, other than say at some point 20 or so years ago "Hey that sounds nice, let me know if you make one."

I personally don't know why that ancient dusty list still exists. In my opinion, it is a joke with worthless notification lists going back 10, 15, 20 years.

---

In my case, I didn't carelessly put my name on the notification lists. I had specific plans for each instrument, and purchased them when I was told I had the chance (I still have the OTAs). I believe the lists are the fairest way to distribute a relatively scarce commodity, and it's up to AP how it conducts business.

---

Yes, some people pass up on scopes they do not require, others, likely the vast majority, do not. What is sad about this scenario is that while Roland professes to put out instruments into amateurs hands at a reasonable price for a super-premium optic, the notification lists fail miserably at allowing anyone prior to signing up 15 plus years ago access to any of these items. Why are we who signed up, so many years back so blessed? Were production keeping up with interest in even a remote manner, this would be different, but it patently is not. At this point, such interest lists are a farce and I know of many people whom discuss it disparagingly. While Astro-Physics can and will do as it pleases, and has the complete right to operate as it pleases, I personally feel such adherence to these lists actually hurts their image at this point. That is my personal opinion and I personally don't care one way or another as I have absolutely no vested interest, but I am being an advocate for those whom have entered the amateur astronomy field within the past 20 years, hear about and possibly even see such telescopes at star parties, but whom have absolutely no hope of ever being able to purchase one. Just my possibly skewed point of view, but I retain my right to speak it.

---

That fact that their lists persist suggests AP's reputation isn't harmed at all by allocating scarce products to those who expressed interest first. High end products from the hands of a master craftsman in other fields have long waiting lists as well. Musical instruments are but one example. Some have longer waiting lists than AP. That some people weren't old enough, interested enough, or prescient enough to get on the list at an appropriate time is really their problem, not the manufacturer's. They can always buy it used and pay the premium for getting it now.

AP has tried other avenues, they drew names from a hat for the f5 Stowaways but that generated even more angst. First come first served is a long standing method of distributing scarce items.

How would you propose to do it?

---

The thing that rubbed me the wrong way about the Stowaways, was that the names who were drawn for the them were not just random people, it was people who had bought at least one product for them. Considering Roland knew he wasn't going to make the Traveler at that point, he should have given those folks first shot.

I admire Roland and his craft, even own a nice star diagonal his company makes.

When I was younger I really wanted an AP scope, but today considering the market and the quality of other scopes out there, I would rather buy something that is actually available then hope and dream for something that will probably never be a reality.

The best thing Roland could do is shut down the scope line and just focus on mounts. If he wants to makes scopes, he needs to get serious and start charging deposits and show he is really in business to make them and get rid of the lookyloos who make these lists insane.

However being Roland has chosen his business model, it has made room for other companies to produce products that people can actually buy... and that is a good thing.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Gus,

I would suggest they ramp up production to meet demand. Astro-physics is throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in lost sales.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Gus,

I would suggest they ramp up production to meet demand. Astro-physics is throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in lost sales.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

And the rejection rate - 10-50% - per Roland. That's a scary operating margin.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

AP has tried other avenues, they drew names from a hat for the f5 Stowaways but that generated even more angst. First come first served is a long standing method of distributing scarce items.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Gus,

I would suggest they ramp up production to meet demand. Astro-physics is throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in lost sales.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

AP business model is primarily a mount manufacturer!

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Yes, some people pass up on scopes they do not require, others, likely the vast majority, do not. What is sad about this scenario is that while Roland professes to put out instruments into amateurs hands at a reasonable price for a super-premium optic, the notification lists fail miserably at allowing anyone prior to signing up 15 plus years ago access to any of these items. Why are we who signed up, so many years back so blessed? Were production keeping up with interest in even a remote manner, this would be different, but it patently is not. At this point, such interest lists are a farce and I know of many people whom discuss it disparagingly. While Astro-Physics can and will do as it pleases, and has the complete right to operate as it pleases, I personally feel such adherence to these lists actually hurts their image at this point. That is my personal opinion and I personally don't care one way or another as I have absolutely no vested interest, but I am being an advocate for those whom have entered the amateur astronomy field within the past 20 years, hear about and possibly even see such telescopes at star parties, but whom have absolutely no hope of ever being able to purchase one. Just my possibly skewed point of view, but I retain my right to speak it.

---

OK, Roland has a lot of people who want his scopes so he has them put their names on a list. Assuming when their name comes up they do not want the scope, the HONORABLE thing to do is bow out and offer the scope to the next guy on the list - not buy it with no intention of using it and sell it to an opportunist!

And this is not democratic why?? There could be nothing more American than this list. How can you not see that the HONORABLE, FAIR thing to do is let the next guy on the list have it if you don't want it?!

And even so, incredible scopes from AP are available daily on Astromart to the highest bidder... they are available. But circumventing the list is somehow your concern? Your concern is that the new amateur astronomer cannot immediately step ahead of the long established protocol and get these wonderful scopes, because of this confounded list?

How does an "amateur" or first-timer rate getting the new AP175 over someone who wanted one twelve years ago and signed up to get one? You want to snatch that away from that poor guy at the last second after he has waited twelve years WHY? Because now suddenly YOU want it? So did he - TWELVE YEARS AGO!

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

OK, Roland has a lot of people who want his scopes so he has them put their names on a list. Assuming when their name comes up they do not want the scope, the HONORABLE thing to do is bow out and offer the scope to the next guy on the list - not buy it with no intention of using it and sell it to an opportunist!

And this is not democratic why?? There could be nothing more American than this list. How can you not see that the HONORABLE, FAIR thing to do is let the next guy on the list have it if you don't want it?!

And even so, incredible scopes from AP are available daily on Astromart to the highest bidder... they are available. But circumventing the list is somehow your concern? Your concern is that the new amateur astronomer cannot immediately step ahead of the long established protocol and get these wonderful scopes, because of this confounded list?

How does an "amateur" or first-timer rate getting the new AP175 over someone who wanted one twelve years ago and signed up to get one? You want to snatch that away from that poor guy at the last second after he has waited twelve years WHY? Because now suddenly YOU want it? So did he - TWELVE YEARS AGO!

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

AP business model is primarily a mount manufacturer!

---

It may be that way now but certainly that was not how it began.

Jon

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Because perhaps he feels that as these are the last big scopes he will make, he wants to ensure they are going to folks that waited and now will enjoy them. Not exploit them to make money. He could just as easily have asked the market value they are worth and had people pay 35-40k for them new. He didn't even if it is his ability and attention to detail that warrants the high hight. Maybe it's because he cares about his work and wants it to be affordable so people can enjoy it. Maybe because he feels if he isn't going to exploit his talent you shouldn't.

IDK, it is your money........Joe

---

Well he should obviously let the people who waited have the first chance at them. And yes, he could have charged more, not that 19.8k is "affordabe", Im sure hes gearing up for retirement and making more GP than ever on this run. Once he sets the price, a customer cant be accused of "exploiting" his talent, especially if hes waited patienly for 20 years then pony'd up 20 grand for a scope that cost less than 6 when he signed up for it. You seem like a free market guy, Im still confused as to why he cares. Hes done his part, produced and distributed his labor of love. What happens next shoudnt concern him.

---

I am a degreed and 'sometimes' professional artist. I feel the same way that I imagine Rolando feels - that if I created true masterpieces of the painter's art (as he does in the optical 'art') then I'd want them to go to people who love and appreciate them, not to investors. The reason is that when I paint I paint not as a businessman trying simply to earn money but also as an artist. If I made iron fences or did body work or made some other kind of utilitarian object I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't care what people did with my work after I sold it to them, even if they sold it for twice my price...but as an artist (like Roland is) there is a whole other dimension to his work: there is a desire to have people appreciate his telescopes and to enjoy them for somewhat 'spiritual' and aesthetic reasons, which are counter to the desire to buy such art objects simply to see how much one can profit from them.

Of course, it is my right to sell a painting or a telescope at any time and for as much as I can get (for one thing, I might really need the money for a serious reason) but I think Roland /hopes/ that his customers don't buy his telescopes simply with the /intention/ to sell them as they might sell a car or a boat just to make a huge profit on them. That's my take on it.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Gus,

I would suggest they ramp up production to meet demand. Astro-physics is throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in lost sales.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Gus,

I would suggest they ramp up production to meet demand. Astro-physics is throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in lost sales.

---

It seems he doesn't want to do that. So, that leaves the other method. Raise the price. If he's doing a run of fifty, he could do a dutch auction. Fifty highest bidders get the scopes. No waiting list required.

---

People don't realize how generous Roland is, I think. There is a similar situation among the best classical guitar makers. They often only produce very limited numbers of instruments, since, like Roland, they make these by hand with a lot of individual attention to the final product, kind of like Roland's hand figuring.

These makers charge $~12 to ~20K for these guitars, and there are often similar waiting lists to AP's, in some cases going for ten years. These makers charge what they can get for these instruments, because, as far as I know, there is no 'flipping' of guitars, even though they are very hard to get and very much in demand. The people who buy them are either professionals or serious amateurs who really use them. The new price more clearly reflects the real value, I think, or else one might tend to see flipping of new, unused super high-end classical guitars, but I never see it or hear of it.

Roland could charge almost ridiculous prices for his scopes, and he'd still sell them all. There would be little flipping because the new price would already be so high that the seller would have little chance of earning a profit. There'd be sales due to changes in life circumstances, health reasons, etc. but not to make a quick buck. I think it's amazing that Roland doesn't just 'charge what the market will bear' and I applaud him for it since it makes his scopes available to more than just the richest of amateur astronomers (or investors).

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Well said.

---

Now if only someone wrote a song about Roland

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Well said.

---

+1


Jon

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Well said.

---

Now if only someone wrote a song about Roland

---

Le Chanson de Roland is a classic of world literature, but I didn't think our optical friend was quite that old.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

TEC 180s might be planned but how long will the waiting lists be? Looks like TEC cannot follow the demand...

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Roland Roland Roland
the list has gotten swollen
keep them scopes a rollin'
Rawhide!:

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Oh, and when it comes to Roland grinding and polishing his objectives lovingly. Doesn't happen. He has a machine, or machines that is/are programmed and grinds and polishes the objectives, if I remember correctly, to around 1/8 wave. All that Roland does is the final figuring.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

With one exception I actually use my different AP OTAs. No, nowhere near 40 OTAs, darn it.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

For example Rolex. They are living on a reputation that they built a long time ago. They spend ungodly sums on advertising, and I actually believe that they are screwing the people who buy their products.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

And finally, Roland, nor any other manufacturer can sell their products at collector prices unless they are unethical.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

It is my opinion (and possibly Roland's as well based on his reported statement) that gouging people is unethical when it comes to reselling his scopes at ridiculous prices.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

It is my opinion (and possibly Roland's as well based on his reported statement) that gouging people is unethical when it comes to reselling his scopes at ridiculous prices.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It is my opinion (and possibly Roland's as well based on his reported statement) that gouging people is unethical when it comes to reselling his scopes at ridiculous prices.

---

If I purchased a stock that rose in value by a factor of 100x and decide to sell it, should I sell it for the original price or should I sell it for it's current market price?

If I purchased a Astro-Physics refractor and lovingly used it for 15 years and then decided to sell it, what should I do, sell it for the original price or should I sell it for the current market price?

The key word here is "gouging". It is not an objective word free of judgment, it is a word used do describe raising the price of a necessity when the supply is short and the demand high. Gouging is raising the price of gasoline when people are fleeing a hurricane.

Price Gouging

Astro-Physics telescopes are not a necessity, no one needs a telescope, the buyer can choose not to buy, the buyer can buy an other product.

Personally, if owned an A-P telescope, I would probably keep it. If I decided to sell it for some reason I would sell it for the market price.

jon

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It is my opinion (and possibly Roland's as well based on his reported statement) that gouging people is unethical when it comes to reselling his scopes at ridiculous prices.

---

If I purchased a stock that rose in value by a factor of 100x and decide to sell it, should I sell it for the original price or should I sell it for it's current market price?

If I purchased a Astro-Physics refractor and lovingly used it for 15 years and then decided to sell it, what should I do, sell it for the original price or should I sell it for the current market price?

The key word here is "gouging". It is not an objective word free of judgment, it is a word used do describe raising the price of a necessity when the supply is short and the demand high. Gouging is raising the price of gasoline when people are fleeing a hurricane.

Price Gouging

Astro-Physics telescopes are not a necessity, no one needs a telescope, the buyer can choose not to buy, the buyer can buy an other product.

Personally, if owned an A-P telescope, I would probably keep it. If I decided to sell it for some reason I would sell it for the market price.

jon

---

I agree Jon. In fact, there are many options for those choosing NOT to purchase A-P. Roland has often recommended Tak TOA instruments to folks complaining they will never get one of his scopes new. He said they are at least as good as his. Also the TEC's are available at reasonable wait times.

I have bought and sold MANY scopes and many A-P's. Some A-P's have sold for low and others I've sold have recorded record auction prices. I use the auctions as I feel it more fair to allow any to have a shot to get it. The market will determine the final price and I generally don't use a reserve, or I set it lower than I paid. As these are "luxury items", as you said, nice not need to have, I see nothing wrong with this process. However, I do ask friends in advance that I feel may be interested and always offer it to them at the cost I paid. I don't "have" to do that, I want to do that.

I will say this however, I grow tired of those that complain about the prices stating they can't afford to buy them. Do they tell the Mercedes dealer to lower the price because the only have the money for a Honda? Should I sell below market value because some are offended? How does that ensure they will get it? In that case it's the first person to see the ad. How is that helpful.

At the end of the day we are talking about one of two things when it comes to A-P scopes that is driving folks desire.

-Status
-The last 5% of performance

Both of them are nice but not need and if you want them - you gotta pay...as I've said many times before, folks don't have to like it, that's just how it is.

Joe

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Jon,

I think Roland was addressing 'flipping' rather than selling an A-P scope after owning it and using it for a while.

---

Exactly...

Flipping and gouging are two quite different things, Roger was addressing the high prices that collectable A-P bring, Roland is addressing those who buy the scope only to sell it. I have watched those auctions, there is not a lot of money made doing that.

Jon

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I will say this however, I grow tired of those that complain about the prices stating they can't afford to buy them.

---

Post Extras: