"Fluorite -- everything else is just glass."
I'm not trying to knock the decision or desire for a fluorite refractor, but I'm admittedly among the uninitiated and puzzled considering the economics involved here. What EXACTLY is it about fluorite that makes it desirable enough to spend FAR in excess of a comparably-sized FPL-53 doublet or triplet?
And if it's "fluorite or nothing", why settle for merely a fluorite objective? Why not have a top-notch 2"-fluorite prism diagonal + fluorite-lensed eyepieces? Aren't those components made out of g---...gl....that...OTHER material?
There is a special finesse and technique in "pushing"/figuring fluorite - Roland Christen describes it aptly in various articles. The Chinese don't seem to have this finesse - yet - hence don't seem interested in making fluorite scopes, rather sticking to easier to figure glasses. Tak doesn't even make their lenses - Canon-Optron does. Tak rejects MANY - hence also why the price is higher. GENUINE QC costs. TEC also still do fluorite, as does, I believe Agema (seeing their optician is former-TEC, that is no surprise).
The differences between fluorite and ED is noticeable to many, but not to others. Some see the "fluorite magic", others can't. I certainly think I do, after owning many fluorite scopes, so my decision is made. ED glasses to me seem pallid. Some say fluorite is a more vivid, but flase colour. I don't think so. ED is COLD.
It's more what you prefer. Takahashi obviously sees the benefits of fluorite not only in a marketing way but seemingly in an optical way. They went to "Eco-glass" ED, but now are switching back to fluorites. Why? Ask them
As to the SW120, they CAN be good, they CAN be mediocre. I've looked through a couple good ones and several so-so. You roll the dice. With Tak, I don't have to.