Question for this (probably biased) audience - what's the consensus about .965 eyepieces in the modern world?
I don't think there is a consensus. My 6336 came with a bundled set of eyepieces (plus prisms, Sun & Moon filters, & Barlow) that's about average for the complete package retail price at that time. Simple designs, very narrow fields, & almost no eye-relief. Typical, really. Can't blame the Japanese makers entirely, as the importers and/or retailers had a price point they thought they could sell at.
The best bundled set I have came with a 1958 Goto -- but it was a more expensive telescope. Same traits as the 6336, but better optics & hardware.
42 years ago (Ouch!!), I saw potential in my 1978 Tasco (Towa) 80mm F15, and upgraded it to 1.25" accessories, and bought Meade (Tani) Modified Achromatic (low power) & Research Grade Orthoscopics (high power) eyepieces -- and really saw the difference. Ditto for this better-grade 1964 Astro Optical refractor, except I lucked-out and got the set of spectros .965" Kellners & Plossls. My reason for adapting the Vixen Barlow piece to the 6336, and thus using 1.25" stuff, is to use more modern eyepieces & diagonals. My Baader Prism + Televue eyepieces bring out about all this old refractor can show -- but that's still quite a lot.
If you're asking: Should the .965" format be a big negative factor in buying a vintage telescope? That's an individual decision. Some make great Displays, whether they're ever used or not. I have 3 sets of great to outstanding .965" accessories (almost 4 sets, counting the Zeiss), so the small accessory size isn't a factor for me. If I had no .965" eyepieces, it still wouldn't be a factor, as most of these scopes can be adapted to standard 1.25" format.