Okay, to summarize:
1. Planet views look smudged every time I went out. The few times I used the 5" refractor or 8" Dob, everything was sharp.
2. Defocused image was concentric, believed that meant the collimation was good.
3. Apparently, that's not enough to check for good collimation.
4. Also, likely still having thermal problems.
5. SCTs are lousy planet scopes, also SCTs are great planet scopes.
6. SCTs are really good with photos, which predicts their visual performance. Also, photographic ability is irrelevant to visual performance.
7. Some samples of a SCT models are better than others--an allowance I will not concede. (QC is the manufacturer's responsibility, not mine).
8. Test results something something Rochi Strehl something something.
9. People seem to think that I owe Celestron a degree of deference. I don't. My subject title is all singular (not 9.25s, not "they ain't..."). I said nothing about the whole line of 9.25s. I really don't feel I should have to explain plain language to people who are somehow offended by a criticism of hobby equipment. On the other hand, I had no reason to think mine was not representative. And if it has a defect that is atypical of the line, that's still on Celestron. (Note the use of the conditional "if.")
10. I will collimate it and test it on the moon, Uranus, and whatever else is out before selling it to make sure I don't sell someone a lemon, because ethics. Honestly, it looks good on DSOs as it is.