Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

The New AP Stowaway is Coming Along

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1228 replies to this topic

#76 Traveler

Traveler

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3121
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2007
  • Loc: The Netherlands

Posted 07 September 2018 - 09:04 AM

Is a Rolex watch better then say a Casio for showing the time?

Is an AP giving better views as for example SkyWatcher?

 

 

In other words, i really don't understand the comparing...but that is just me i guess.brick.gif


 

#77 George9

George9

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1520
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2004

Posted 07 September 2018 - 09:11 AM

Thanks for posting the updates. Recent $6000 used Stowaway prices don't pull in 200 buyers; they need volume. Under $3000 would turn into a flipping frenzy. Sounds like $3000 was a little optimistic, and that 3000-4000 is the most likely range.

 

George


 

#78 SandyHouTex

SandyHouTex

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3987
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 07 September 2018 - 09:14 AM

I'm surprised no one has posted the projected price for the 92mm Stowaway that Marj Christen was telling people at NEAF this year.  (They hope to keep it around 3K)

 

I don't think it's a secret since she told me quite willingly when I asked.

 

If nothing has changed in that projection, I believe most potential buyers will be in for a pleasant surprise unless they decided not to sign up...

 

Mike

If that’s the case I’m still in the game.


 

#79 Alan French

Alan French

    Night Owl

  • *****
  • Posts: 5626
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 07 September 2018 - 09:14 AM

My $25 Timex shows the time, as does my phone, my iPad, my laptop, my stove, my car, my cable box, and my microwave.

 

Never understood the draw or need for expensive watches. The correct time is widely available.

 

Essentially perfect telescopic views are not nearly as common.

 

So, yes, I agree - it's an odd comparison.

 

Clear skies, Alan 


 

#80 elwaine

elwaine

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2006
  • Loc: Jupiter

Posted 07 September 2018 - 09:15 AM

Is a Rolex watch better then say a Casio for showing the time?

Is an AP giving better views as for example SkyWatcher?

 

 

In other words, i really don't understand the comparing...but that is just me i guess.brick.gif

 

This hobby falls into two main categories when it comes to equipment: cake and icing. Many people are perfectly happy with a nice piece of delicious cake (Skywatcher) while others "need" to have the icing (Astro-Physics) with their cake. 

 

Personally, I like icing. But during the years that I had to go without any astronomy equipment, I would have cut off an arm for just a few stale crumbs. grin.gif


 

#81 t.r.

t.r.

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6040
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 07 September 2018 - 09:23 AM

My $25 Timex shows the time, as does my phone, my iPad, my laptop, my stove, my car, my cable box, and my microwave.

Never understood the draw or need for expensive watches. The correct time is widely available.

Essentially perfect telescopic views are not nearly as common.

So, yes, I agree - it's an odd comparison.

Clear skies, Alan


Some would say they same of AP scopes...the sky is readily available at far less cost in a simple diffraction limited achromatic or newt! Why own an AP?...and yet you do!
 

#82 crixt

crixt

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 273
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2011
  • Loc: St. Pete, FL

Posted 07 September 2018 - 09:26 AM

Rolex’s tell decent time for a mechanical watch. But any cheapo quartz watch will tell better time. A better comparison would be an “art” type telescope that looks fantastic, but only has a decent, not great, objective. A good portion of the Rolex wearers in my industry (finance) have gone the way of the dodo, replaced by things like Fitbits. I appreciate the art and the mechanical precision, but they are for decoration mainly. 


 

#83 CSG

CSG

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Dark Sky, Idaho

Posted 07 September 2018 - 09:44 AM

With regards to fine mechanical watches, as the old saying goes, if I have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand.


 

#84 Traveler

Traveler

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3121
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2007
  • Loc: The Netherlands

Posted 07 September 2018 - 09:47 AM

Or your explanation is not correct ;-)


 

#85 Markab

Markab

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 15 Dec 2012
  • Loc: Space Coast USA

Posted 07 September 2018 - 09:52 AM

I'm thinking $4799-$5199 for the new Stowaway. Given used prices for such are more, and used Travelers are generally at or slightly above that range, this seems reasonable for a new, best-in-class 92mm from Roland. My humble opinion is that anybody thinking these babies are going to be priced from $2500 or even $3500 is gonna be sorely disappointed. And make no mistake...all 100 of them will be paid for within days even with some leakage from the original list.


 

#86 rkaufmann87

rkaufmann87

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Folsom, CA

Posted 07 September 2018 - 09:56 AM

 

 

Never understood the draw or need for expensive watches. The correct time is widely available.

 

Essentially perfect telescopic views are not nearly as common.

 

So, yes, I agree - it's an odd comparison.

 

Clear skies, Alan 

My dad (he's gone now) taught me as a young man, that if a man was going to wear one piece of jewelry it should be a nice watch. Of course that is a personal thought but it is why I like to wear a nice watch. I don't care if someone wears a Casio, Rolex, Tag, or iWatch...the choice is personal.


 

#87 t.r.

t.r.

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6040
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 07 September 2018 - 10:30 AM

And along with that our generation was taught to wear a nice/clean pair of shoes...for right or wrong, society judges on first impressions.
 

#88 Traveler

Traveler

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3121
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2007
  • Loc: The Netherlands

Posted 07 September 2018 - 10:39 AM

So an AP telescope is for a first impression? ...i (still) don't understand why this subject is on topic...

confused1.gif confused1.gif


 

#89 daveCollins

daveCollins

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 06 May 2011
  • Loc: Washington DC

Posted 07 September 2018 - 11:08 AM

I'm thinking $4799-$5199 for the new Stowaway. Given used prices for such are more, and used Travelers are generally at or slightly above that range, this seems reasonable for a new, best-in-class 92mm from Roland. My humble opinion is that anybody thinking these babies are going to be priced from $2500 or even $3500 is gonna be sorely disappointed. And make no mistake...all 100 of them will be paid for within days even with some leakage from the original list.

We have been discussing the Astro-Physics prices, but I'd guess anyone who really wants one will have opportunities on the secondary market to purchase a new scope. On this market, we will probably see the high prices, such as the ones that I posted earlier.


 

#90 t.r.

t.r.

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6040
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 07 September 2018 - 11:36 AM

So an AP telescope is for a first impression? ...i (still) don't understand why this subject is on topic...
confused1.gif confused1.gif

Didn't say that...Didn't imply that!
 

#91 Alan French

Alan French

    Night Owl

  • *****
  • Posts: 5626
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 07 September 2018 - 11:38 AM

Some would say they same of AP scopes...the sky is readily available at far less cost in a simple diffraction limited achromatic or newt! Why own an AP?...and yet you do!

Quite true. I spent many years observing with an 8-inch f/8 Newtonian, built around a commercial mirror, and just barely affordable at the time. We still have Newtonians and use them often. Newtonians remain, by far, the best value for the money. 

 

I am also a casual birder. A fast 90mm apochromat provides incredible views of birds, something I wouldn't try with a Newtonian. It also provides a low power, wide field view unavailable in any of my Newtonians. That's one realm that is worth embracing even without a general interest in apochromats. A nice very portable bridge between binoculars and telescopes. 

 

Clear skies, Alan


 

#92 Magnetic Field

Magnetic Field

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 777
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2017
  • Loc: UK

Posted 07 September 2018 - 12:30 PM

Half a cue. Yes, Roland is producing some of the finest scopes in the world just as Rolex produces some of the best mechanical watches you can buy. So in terms of putting out a great product, I agree.

 

I think where this comparison doesn't follow, is that Rolex charges a high price for what you get. They squeeze every dime out of their watches. This has made a lot of money for the company. I don't believe the philosophy at Astro-Physics is to make as much money as possible with their scopes. I see Roland as quite different in this regard.

 

If you don't care anything about Roland and his telescopes, I am surprised you would click on the link about his latest creation.

Off topic:

 

Rolex watches are mass produced and fall off from an assembly line robot in Switzerland.

 

Rolex produces 1 million watches a year.

 

Buying a Rolex is similar to buying a Hambugrer from McDonald's and trick yourself into believing you bought something special.


 

#93 daveCollins

daveCollins

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 06 May 2011
  • Loc: Washington DC

Posted 07 September 2018 - 12:52 PM

Off topic:

 

Rolex watches are mass produced and fall off from an assembly line robot in Switzerland.

 

Rolex produces 1 million watches a year.

 

Buying a Rolex is similar to buying a Hambugrer from McDonald's and trick yourself into believing you bought something special.

On Topic:

 

After thinking about it, I believe that Chris Greene may have been referring to the fact that Rolex plays games with their stainless steel Daytona. They cut back the production way below their capabilities and this causes watch enthusiasts to go nuts trying to get these limited watches. The result is that there are years long wait lists for the watches, and when they do come up for sale, the prices are much higher than new. In a superficial way, it may look similar to the Astro-Physics situation with years long wait lists and high prices on the secondary market.

 

The difference, in my opinion, is that Roland is not artificially cutting back on production. We have one craftsman who has chosen to build high quality, time intensive scopes and this results in a limited production and a demand that is much higher than the supply. I don't think the comparison with Rolex is valid in this regard. I don't know whether or not Chris meant this.

 

Off topic:

 

I completely agree with the characterization of Rolex as a robotic factory. Sure they have assemblers, but everything is primarily robotic. Look at the Hodinkee article on the Rolex facility. Also, if you do the math, there couldn't possibly be a workforce at Rolex capable of artisan craftsmanship where every watch is hand made by an individual spending significant time on the watch. Rolex builds millions of watches a year. If you run a simple numbers simulation, the numbers don't add up to a supportable workforce.

 

Edit: By the way, I am a Rolex fan and I have a complete collection of 1950s Rolex watches. I have in excess of 10 Rolex watches, as well as many other fantastic vintage watches (16 in total). so I have nothing against Rolex. I think they produce some of the finest mechanical watches available anywhere in the world. When I talk about a Robotic Rolex, I am not making a superficial speculation. I have looked into Rolex as a company in some detail and highly respect the company and what they do.


Edited by daveCollins, 07 September 2018 - 12:58 PM.

 

#94 Magnetic Field

Magnetic Field

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 777
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2017
  • Loc: UK

Posted 07 September 2018 - 01:15 PM

On Topic:

 

After thinking about it, I believe that Chris Greene may have been referring to the fact that Rolex plays games with their stainless steel Daytona. They cut back the production way below their capabilities and this causes watch enthusiasts to go nuts trying to get these limited watches. The result is that there are years long wait lists for the watches, and when they do come up for sale, the prices are much higher than new. In a superficial way, it may look similar to the Astro-Physics situation with years long wait lists and high prices on the secondary market.

 

The difference, in my opinion, is that Roland is not artificially cutting back on production. We have one craftsman who has chosen to build high quality, time intensive scopes and this results in a limited production and a demand that is much higher than the supply. I don't think the comparison with Rolex is valid in this regard. I don't know whether or not Chris meant this.

 

Off topic:

 

I completely agree with the characterization of Rolex as a robotic factory. Sure they have assemblers, but everything is primarily robotic. Look at the Hodinkee article on the Rolex facility. Also, if you do the math, there couldn't possibly be a workforce at Rolex capable of artisan craftsmanship where every watch is hand made by an individual spending significant time on the watch. Rolex builds millions of watches a year. If you run a simple numbers simulation, the numbers don't add up to a supportable workforce.

 

Edit: By the way, I am a Rolex fan and I have a complete collection of 1950s Rolex watches. I have in excess of 10 Rolex watches, as well as many other fantastic vintage watches (16 in total). so I have nothing against Rolex. I think they produce some of the finest mechanical watches available anywhere in the world. When I talk about a Robotic Rolex, I am not making a superficial speculation. I have looked into Rolex as a company in some detail and highly respect the company and what they do.

 

Off topic again:

 

I haven't logged on to watchuseek (the biggest watch forum on the internet: https://forums.watchuseek.com/) for some time now (I think I have more than 1000 posts on watchuseek).

 

 

I personally cannot understand why anyone would buy a Rolex.**

 

 

**I am also a strong believer now in quartz instead of automatic is a waste of money especially in light of the regular servicing costs and you pay through the nose.


 

#95 jeremiah2229

jeremiah2229

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1482
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Illinois, USA N 37° W 89°

Posted 07 September 2018 - 01:24 PM

You know, it's kind of ironic that Rolex would enter into this discussion...back story...

Last year, when I turned 50, I had promised myself a Rolex to celebrate both age and career. I was so sick, that my birthday came and went without so much as a card and I simply put the purchase on the back burner. Then, back in April I was on the hunt for an air portable apo to take with me on trips and use at home as grab and go. I had settled on the TV 85 when out came the AP announcement at NEAF for the Stowaway. I got on the list in hours and gave up on the TV for the past months waiting for word on the Stowaway. About a week ago, I decided to follow up on a promise I made when I turned 50 and buy myself my first Rolex, the new Air King. Made the appointment with the AD for this weekend and then right on cue, AP interrupts my budgeting plan and announces pricing and notification to follow! Gives me pause for my watch purchase. While one has nothing to do with the other, spending that much at the same time just makes me shake my head?! Regardless of the hype, hoopla or horsechit, these two brands, Rolex (Breitling too) and AP do belong in the same context IMHO though. And this buying spree is a good conundrum to have!

So you have received communication from A-P on the price?

 

Thanks...


 

#96 t.r.

t.r.

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6040
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 07 September 2018 - 01:46 PM

No...this statement is in reference to their postings and the topic here only.
 

#97 kkt

kkt

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2155
  • Joined: 01 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Seattle

Posted 07 September 2018 - 02:54 PM

Off topic again:

 

I haven't logged on to watchuseek (the biggest watch forum on the internet: https://forums.watchuseek.com/) for some time now (I think I have more than 1000 posts on watchuseek).

 

 

I personally cannot understand why anyone would buy a Rolex.**

 

 

**I am also a strong believer now in quartz instead of automatic is a waste of money especially in light of the regular servicing costs and you pay through the nose.

At the risk of continuing what should be in the Off-Topic Observatory, I see some reasons why people buy Rolexes.  1. The hold their value quite well.  You plunk down a bunch of money to buy them, sure, but barring accidents you'll probably be able to sell it for more after a decade or two, should you or your survivors wish.  It's widely speculated that they're a way of storing or moving money around for people who don't want to involve banks.

2. They really are good watches.  Not necessarily the best, but quite well made.  The semi-mechanized assembly line is better than hand work at producing highly repeatable small parts and highly accurate movements.

3.  They do impress some people, like a nice suit.  Maybe that's shallow, but it does happen.

 

Quartz are cheaper than mechanical, but a good mechanical watch is a beautiful thing.  Most quartz watches are nowhere near as attractive.  Obviously tastes vary.  But quartz watches haven't been all that reliable in my experience.  Maybe they should be, but they feel the price pressure much more strongly than mechanical watches that are expensive anyway.  I've had them that are very inaccurate +/- anywhere from 3-5 minutes per week... flaky enough to miss my bus.  I've had them die after a couple of years, or their buttons become too stiff to use.  A mechanical is repairable, quartz are throwaway.  Cost aside, I don't want to shop for a new one every year or two.


 

#98 dr.who

dr.who

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 13796
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 07 September 2018 - 03:07 PM

OK. Enough about the Rolex watches compared to AP scopes. Or for that matter the difference between Rolex and any other watch. Keep it on topic please. 


 

#99 CSG

CSG

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Dark Sky, Idaho

Posted 07 September 2018 - 04:03 PM

Deleted out of respect for an admin request to get back on topic.


Edited by Chris Greene, 07 September 2018 - 04:06 PM.

 

#100 Scott in NC

Scott in NC

    Refractor Fanatic

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 31412
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2005
  • Loc: NC

Posted 07 September 2018 - 04:14 PM

Deleted out of respect for an admin request to get back on topic.

 

Thanks, Chris--I appreciate that.  I've already removed two posts placed by other members after dr.who kindly asked everyone to get back on topic.  Let's respect his wishes, please.  Thanks!


 


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics