Stepping back a second: If conditions are good enough that 320, 360, or 525x are even tolerable, then I would far prefer the view through the 16" or a 10", 12" or my 20", or my 8" SCT. The sort of conditions that favor the best seeing are mild ones where cooling the optics has essentially been a non-factor--the sort I didn't even bother with a fan on the 20". That has been my experience in different locations. The commonality has been when the conditions are showing that last bit of detail available to my 110ED, the others show more planetary detail every time (talking about the 8, 10, and 20" that I have) and are what I will end up looking through. The difference with a 120 to 110 is trivial...about 20x.
And remember, Dave is suggesting 525x or even 850x as an "aesthetic" choice. Looks like an example of Fonzie not only jumping a shark, but following it up with an orca and a blue whale. But this is the refractor forum, where it always seems to be "Jump the Shark Week".
At 320x it would already be on the wrong side of optimum for detail or aesthetics to my eye in perfect seeing, so 525x offers only negatives. I guess after having tried these sorts of things as a novice and for years after in 10/10 seeing, and since then in various conditions, my impression remains the same: other than novelty I have not seen value in it. The novelty wears off quickly.
And back to the point gwlee made which I responded to and you disagreed with...which is why we are still having this discussion. Refractors run out of exit pupil too soon because of their aperture. The point has already been effectively surrendered by admitting that there is nothing being gained as regards to image detail and that if anything the quality of the image is not as crisp as the image scale increases. You and others can go on about how huge image scale is worth it, but it is providing nothing other than making the image bigger. Diffraction always wins...because its the law.
And there you go again - claiming I said things I never said. I never said refractors do not face issues due to smaller exit pupils at lower magnifications. I said in my area, where seeing conditions most of the time limit maximum magnifications to ~140x but often less, the refractor does not run out of exit pupil on most nights because the seeing conditions do not allow it.
The reason this discussion is still going on is not because of any shark jumping, but because you have showed a lack of ability to conceive of experiences beyond your own personal preferences. I've lived my entire life observing in upstate NY - where nights that allow high magnifications are exceedingly rare, and many times when those conditions do arise I probably have missed them due to needing to get enough sleep for my job.
So as I said originally, when I actually had a chance to see the Moon at 525x on that night a couple years ago, I liked the image scale provided and found the view sharp enough to be an enjoyable viewing experience. We are still discussing this because you are rigidly demonstrating a severe lack of ability to see this from another person's point of view.
Think about it - you are actually trying to insist that I am a fool for having enjoyed viewing the image scale of the Moon at 525x with a 120mm APO. This is very reminiscent of another person that has written angry rants about people choosing to own APO's because of the cost-aperture difference vs a dob.
I've tried to explain this to you from a personal point of view - you know that whole thing where this is a hobby and people have things they like and don't like. As you get older you would benefit from developing more flexibility in understanding that varying personal circumstances have a big impact on circle 3 and therefore what constitutes an acceptable observing experience.