87 replies to this topic

[Jon Isaacs]

I can understand how you are interpreting, but it seems at best ambiguous since "designated" could mean "fits a Tak OTA" or it could mean "labeled as a Tak accessory," which is how I read it. And apparently many others read it the same as I did based on a number of posts on the first page.

 

 

I don't think it is at all ambiguous.  

 

It says:

 

"Imagine if you saw a set of generic telescope rings retailing for $200.00. They fit various scope tubes. Then, a dealer gets a pair of these rings from a maker, and the maker, who designated a generic ring for Takahashi."

 

It is the maker who designated the generic rings for Takahashi, it never says anything about Takahashi being involved with item. 

 

Those brake pads, they were designated by the manufacturer to fit a Honda, Honda had nothing to do with it.

 

The fact that people read this they way they did, figure Rich A. pushed your buttons. 

 

Jon

[Ihtegla Sar]

I don't think it is at all ambiguous.

It says:

"Imagine if you saw a set of generic telescope rings retailing for $200.00. They fit various scope tubes. Then, a dealer gets a pair of these rings from a maker, and the maker, who designated a generic ring for Takahashi."

It is the maker who designated the generic rings for Takahashi, it never says anything about Takahashi being involved with item.

Those brake pads, they were designated by the manufacturer to fit a Honda, Honda had nothing to do with it.

The fact that people read this they way they did, figure Rich A. pushed your buttons.

Jon

Jon, I disagree but I'm not going to debate further, I will just refer to my prior posts on the issue.

But I will ask, if that's what Rich A meant, have you ever seen an off brand accessories marked up just because it happened to fit a Tak?

[t-ara-fan]

T-ara-fan's Primaluce rings look to be machined.

 

They appear to be machined from solid blocks of aluminum.
 

[LDW47]

Jon, I disagree but I'm not going to debate further, I will just refer to my prior posts on the issue.

But I will ask, if that's what Rich A meant, have you ever seen an off brand accessories marked up just because it happened to fit a Tak?

I think that is very possible to cash in on that little extra $’s, the average unsuspecting astronomer would not stop to figure it out ! I will never use the word unscrupulous in these forums, its just not right.

Edited by LDW47, 27 February 2021 - 11:54 PM.

[LDW47]

I don't think it is at all ambiguous.  

 

It says:

 

"Imagine if you saw a set of generic telescope rings retailing for $200.00. They fit various scope tubes. Then, a dealer gets a pair of these rings from a maker, and the maker, who designated a generic ring for Takahashi."

 

It is the maker who designated the generic rings for Takahashi, it never says anything about Takahashi being involved with item. 

 

Those brake pads, they were designated by the manufacturer to fit a Honda, Honda had nothing to do with it.

 

The fact that people read this they way they did, figure Rich A. pushed your buttons. 

 

Jon

I think you are very close to the .... !

[Jon Isaacs]

Jon, I disagree but I'm not going to debate further, I will just refer to my prior posts on the issue.

But I will ask, if that's what Rich A meant, have you ever seen an off brand accessories marked up just because it happened to fit a Tak?

 

I am open to other interpretations, I see no possible other interpretation.  It is clearly said that the generic manufacturer of the rings was the one who designated the rings as suitable for a Takahashi.  There is no mention that Takahashi has anything to do with these rings. It's all generic.  

 

I don't follow Takahashi prices, I have no interest in Takahashi telescopes.  But I did post a link to a manufacturer who stated the rings were suitable for a Takahashi.

 

Have you seen Takahashi "designate" a third party set of generic rings as suitable for a Takahashi? 

 

I asked Rich for an example of generic rings that were more expensive because they were designated Takahashi, I got a vague response but I never got a clear answer.  

 

Bottom line:  We've all been sucked into the thread.  Rich could have provided a link to document his first post but has avoided specifics.  

 

As far as i know, no one has provided examples of third party rings that are designated by Takahashi as suitable for their scopes, I have not seen examples of generic rings labeled by a manufacturer as suitable for Takahashi that are double the price of exact same generic ring. 

 

I am not sure either one exists.  

 

Jon

[csrlice12]

So I take it Takahashi bungie cords didn't sell well....

[noisejammer]

Here is an example of a set of Parallax rings that are designated for a 150 TOA.

 

https://telescopes.n...-refractor.html

Just to comment on that link - my set of (2008) Parallax rings is quite definitely machined from billet aluminium - the machining marks are visible. At a guess it would be 6061 grade (because that's the most common.)
 

Although castings are usually fine, I am leery of them - especially when hanging a $13k5 piece of glass on them.

 

Re t-ara-fan's comment on the paint. I totally agree. The paint job on my rings is horrible. One of these years I'll strip them down. sand blast them then have them powder coated. Let's be fair though, the paint on Tak scopes is pretty low grade too, besides having that ick-green paint on the focuser.

 

The ick-green is supposed to be the colour of Japanese tea. Having visited Tokyo, and having drunk a fair quantity of Japanese tea, I am fairly confident that the person who initiated this myth must be colour blind.

[Ihtegla Sar]

I am open to other interpretations, I see no possible other interpretation. It is clearly said that the generic manufacturer of the rings was the one who designated the rings as suitable for a Takahashi. There is no mention that Takahashi has anything to do with these rings. It's all generic.

I don't follow Takahashi prices, I have no interest in Takahashi telescopes. But I did post a link to a manufacturer who stated the rings were suitable for a Takahashi.

Have you seen Takahashi "designate" a third party set of generic rings as suitable for a Takahashi?

I asked Rich for an example of generic rings that were more expensive because they were designated Takahashi, I got a vague response but I never got a clear answer.

Bottom line: We've all been sucked into the thread. Rich could have provided a link to document his first post but has avoided specifics.

As far as i know, no one has provided examples of third party rings that are designated by Takahashi as suitable for their scopes, I have not seen examples of generic rings labeled by a manufacturer as suitable for Takahashi that are double the price of exact same generic ring.

I am not sure either one exists.

Jon

Jon,

I do agree with your last sentance. I don't believe any such example exists. I would also comment on the rings you linked earlier. The website with the rings you posted has a lot parallax rings of various sizes and prices and there are some slightly larger (6.5") rings for an off brand Newtonian that are $500 and some slightly smaller rings that fit a Takashi FS 152 that are only $195, some rings for a FS 128 that are $210, and some for an FSQ-106ED that are $175. I'm not sure why the rings you linked happen to be $325 but given the price of the other parallax rings listed on the same website as fitting a Takahashi, there doesn't appear to be any type of plot to gouge Takahashi owners.

[LDW47]

If the gouge is even $25 its still $25 too much ! Just something to think about even when it is well hidden in maybe a recognizable name or ..... !

[Chucky]

It must be cloudy out.

[DavidNealMinnick]

I think that is very possible to cash in on that little extra $’s, the average unsuspecting astronomer would not stop to figure it out ! 

 

You have a rather low opinion of the "average unsuspecting astronomer".

 

Good thing you're here to set everyone right.

[LDW47]

You have a rather low opinion of the "average unsuspecting astronomer".

 

Good thing you're here to set everyone right.

There are many unsuspecting astronomers but not all, many just forge ahead and buy oblivious to it all, its not just in astronomy, it hasn’t changed in my 73 yrs. ! If I have set you right, maybe boosted your confidence, I am happy !  PS:  As my old gramma used to say ‘ life is not always a bowl of cherries ‘ ! And she was right, lol !

Edited by LDW47, 01 March 2021 - 01:00 AM.