"There seems to be people with very strong opinions that this is not print-through. I would love it to be true, so please give me an alternative theory."
I seem to be the lone hold-out for an alternative theory. You make a good argument, having looked at the additional jpegs, it's pretty easy to count twelve lines, zones or lobes in those images. I'm still not convinced you have print-through, however, because there is a lot of irregularity in the location and size of these features depending on how far from focus you are. I accept that the defect is in the primary, but maintain that the appearance of twelve lobes may be a coincidence. That is not to say 12 lobes aren't there, just that the regularity is not sufficiently striking for me to conclude it represents an image of the mirror structure.
The jury is still out in my mind because the images you present still appear to be ringers for the ones Harold Suiter saw fit to publish as definitive for roughness. His commentary also emphasized the similarity between the signatures of roughness and turbulance. He states it is nearly impossible to detect roughness using the star test in the presence of turbulence. This mirrors your remarks.
Your last two images have a fine shadow of the spider, no controversy there. But, of course, no bearing on the subject of print-through. I see the bands, but they're not in the same location in both photos.
Also, in my mind, Suiter is "The Man". I don't discount his guidance lightly.
Finally, it seems moot what the defect is, you have optics that don't measure up and the manufacturer needs to make you whole. I reckon that means a replacement mirror at minimum.
Obsession doesn't advertise, they don't need to. Word of Mouth. If you don't buy advertising space, don't hold your breath for a review of your product. Furthermore, if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all. Not rocket science.
Edited by vhinze, 12 April 2018 - 06:19 PM.