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

New Celestron CPC Deluxe chipped secondary

  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1 Jpurknz

Jpurknz

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 09 May 2021

Posted 10 May 2021 - 02:44 AM

I posted this topic in star gazers lounge about my new Celestron Hd Cpc deluxe and it's chipped secondary mirror. I am hoping to get some further feed back from this forum, as I have had no advances in a resolution from Celestron thus far. Your help would be appreciated.

On the thread you will see pictures and a description of the issue.

https://stargazerslo...pped-secondary/

#2 maroubra_boy

maroubra_boy

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,290
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 10 May 2021 - 03:47 AM

If you bought it in NZ, then check your local consumer law protection. There may only be recourse if the image the scope produces is deficient.

The other issue is that can be counter claimed is did you cause this damage yourself?

This is the minefield that comes from products that are delicate and have end-user care requirements.

Celestron is not who you should be addressing this with, but the retailer you bought it from. They are who you paid, not Celestron. They are the responsible party for warranty issues. They have the ear of the NZ Celestron distributor, who in turn has the ear of Celestron. This is the order of the food chain.

Alex.
  • ewave likes this

#3 pyrasanth

pyrasanth

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,606
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2016

Posted 10 May 2021 - 03:52 AM

The chip will have no impact on performance as it has not reached the mirror surface.

 

The mirrors are matched sets of optics with the secondary being configured to smooth out any irregularties seen- it is unlikely that just replacing the secondary mirror would be an option on the table. I think you can live with that damage however should you for a new telescope is a different question. You can only be honest about any subsequent resale.


  • Jpurknz likes this

#4 Jpurknz

Jpurknz

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 09 May 2021

Posted 10 May 2021 - 03:55 AM

Thank you Alex. I am currently exploring all avenues. I am curious if there are any other people in the online community who have had brand new Celestron edge hd scopes with chipped secondary mirrors. If this is a manufacturing defect, then just how common is it?



#5 Jpurknz

Jpurknz

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 09 May 2021

Posted 10 May 2021 - 03:59 AM

The chip will have no impact on performance as it has not reached the mirror surface.

 

The mirrors are matched sets of optics with the secondary being configured to smooth out any irregularties seen- it is unlikely that just replacing the secondary mirror would be an option on the table. I think you can live with that damage however should you for a new telescope is a different question. You can only be honest about any subsequent resale.

That is partly my question and concern. This is a new telescope and appears to be a rare fault. Given that the scope itself was around $8500 nzd (not including another 5k approx of accessories) it begs the question that should these large defects be acceptable at this level of (advertised) premium optics?


Edited by Jpurknz, 10 May 2021 - 04:00 AM.


#6 astrokeith

astrokeith

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,094
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Surrey, UK

Posted 10 May 2021 - 04:02 AM

I think the reason you aren't getting anywhere with Celestron is that there is nothing materially wrong with the mirror. Unless you can prove it is effecting optical performance (very unlikely) I believe you have no case. Indeed why worry? 


  • sevenofnine likes this

#7 Jpurknz

Jpurknz

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 09 May 2021

Posted 10 May 2021 - 04:08 AM

I appreciate your view. But what is materially wrong with the brand new mirror is that it has a number of large chips on it. 



#8 Jpurknz

Jpurknz

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 09 May 2021

Posted 10 May 2021 - 04:12 AM

I do have to say that is is in fact a Celestron support representative who has suggested persuing a replacement or remedy due to their shock at the presented images and their understanding of the rarity of the issue. What I would be interested in is knowing just how rare, or common this issue is with other end users.



#9 pyrasanth

pyrasanth

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,606
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2016

Posted 10 May 2021 - 04:13 AM

That is partly my question and concern. This is a new telescope and appears to be a rare fault. Given that the scope itself was around $8500 nzd (not including another 5k approx of accessories) it begs the question that should these large defects be acceptable at this level of (advertised) premium optics?

I would be concerned as well however it will be almost impossible to establish who is at blame but ultimately the law may be on your side. Certainly in my Country, the UK, we have a right to reject goods that are deemed to be of inferior quality- however the defect will not affect the quality as it is nothing more than cosmetic. You may wish to explore trying to get a good will discount from the dealer instead of going down a painful and often protracted legal route.


  • sevenofnine likes this

#10 Jpurknz

Jpurknz

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 09 May 2021

Posted 10 May 2021 - 04:24 AM

I would be concerned as well however it will be almost impossible to establish who is at blame but ultimately the law may be on your side. Certainly in my Country, the UK, we have a right to reject goods that are deemed to be of inferior quality- however the defect will not affect the quality as it is nothing more than cosmetic. You may wish to explore trying to get a good will discount from the dealer instead of going down a painful and often protracted legal route.

Thanks. I appreciate the reply. The distributors have thus far been great to deal with in terms of communication. I believe there will be a great deal of backwards and forwards before we reach a resolution. At least that is how I see it playing out, unfortunately. A shame, as by comparison, I wouldn't pay that much for a new car and just accept that it has a cracked wind screen because it does not affect my view through it or it's driveability. I guess the true measure of service will be the upcoming responses in garnering a solution, which I will keep you posted of here. In the meantime I would appreciate hearing from like affected customers.



#11 astrokeith

astrokeith

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,094
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Surrey, UK

Posted 10 May 2021 - 04:25 AM

I appreciate your view. But what is materially wrong with the brand new mirror is that it has a number of large chips on it. 

I used the term 'material' to reflect a formal/legal interpretation. The function of the mirror is to reflect and focus light. The chips do not appear to have any impact on that. You had to dismantle the telescope to really see them.

 

The chips are internal, do not affect performance and will not affect the environmental durability. I can see you are upset, but I really dont think you have a case. 

 

The fact that you have dismantled the scope I would suspect makes all discussion of claims against the retailer or manufacturer moot.

 

If you bought a piece of furniture, turned it upside down and found tool marks underneath, it would be normal.


Edited by astrokeith, 10 May 2021 - 04:31 AM.

  • tturtle and dcaponeii like this

#12 Jpurknz

Jpurknz

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 09 May 2021

Posted 10 May 2021 - 04:44 AM

I used the term 'material' to reflect a formal/legal interpretation. The function of the mirror is to reflect and focus light. The chips do not appear to have any impact on that. You had to dismantle the telescope to really see them.

 

The chips are internal, do not affect performance and will not affect the environmental durability. I can see you are upset, but I really dont think you have a case. 

 

The fact that you have dismantled the scope I would suspect makes all discussion of claims against the retailer or manufacturer moot.

 

If you bought a piece of furniture, turned it upside down and found tool marks underneath, it would be normal.

As I am sure you are aware, the fastar secondary mirror system is designed to be removed, therefore, I did not have to dismantle the telescope. And you're right. I am upset. Not crying upset. But more disappointed that, in my country at least, we pay many thousands of dollars for optical equipment that is advertised as being top of the line, but arrives with shocking defects, from Celestrons customer support representatives perspectives anyway. Don't get me wrong. I think they are a great company. But no company is perfect in their manufacturing processes. Where they can excel is in how they handle issues once presented with one.



#13 junomike

junomike

    ISS

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 21,783
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Ontario

Posted 10 May 2021 - 06:08 AM

IME that's acceptable QC, however  IMO It's not.

Either way I don't think it's enough to worry about.

Enjoy the SCT and try not to let it bother you.


  • sevenofnine likes this

#14 Maritime

Maritime

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,074
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2020

Posted 10 May 2021 - 07:10 AM

As I am sure you are aware, the fastar secondary mirror system is designed to be removed, therefore, I did not have to dismantle the telescope. And you're right. I am upset. Not crying upset. But more disappointed that, in my country at least, we pay many thousands of dollars for optical equipment that is advertised as being top of the line, but arrives with shocking defects, from Celestrons customer support representatives perspectives anyway. Don't get me wrong. I think they are a great company. But no company is perfect in their manufacturing processes. Where they can excel is in how they handle issues once presented with one.

I agree with your legal, moral and practical positions. In many US jurisdictions, express warranties are made by manufacturers, and implied warranties by retail sellers. They can be limited, and sometimes excluded. Merchantability is an implied warranty. To be merchantable, goods must pass without objection in the trade. Also, many US jurisdictions have consumer protection acts which provide claims for EITHER deceptive or unfair trade practices, with scienter being irrelevant. I’ve been to beautiful NZ but know nothing of its law. 



#15 ewave

ewave

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,124
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Loc: northwest NJ

Posted 10 May 2021 - 07:41 AM

I think you should demand a replacement from the dealer first, then try Celestron.  That chip that other posters here say there is nothing to worry about is where I disagree, and would they be saying the same thing in your shoes?  I doubt it..  That chip can turn into a larger crack down the road and then you have more than a serious defect, but a something much more.  My opinion is return, return, return.  Get what you pay for and demand nothing less. 


  • nemo129, 2Barrel, Old Speckled Hen and 1 other like this

#16 Maritime

Maritime

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,074
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2020

Posted 10 May 2021 - 07:44 AM

I wonder what a lawyer in NZ would opine?  Experts here often disagree on what would, or would not pass, and the test is usually not just functional, but rather aesthetic for consumer goods.



#17 Migwan

Migwan

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,792
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Meeechigan

Posted 10 May 2021 - 08:16 AM

My CPC has a flaw that looks just like your first picture and it has no effect on the image.  I would hold a bright LED light at different angles close to the glass and carefully look for internal cracks.  Try your red light too.   

 

If there is no internal cracks and your image is good, I wouldn't be worried.  


  • Glass Man likes this

#18 luxo II

luxo II

    Skylab

  • ****-
  • Posts: 4,349
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 10 May 2021 - 08:21 AM

I wonder what a lawyer in NZ would opine?  Experts here often disagree on what would, or would not pass, and the test is usually not just functional, but rather aesthetic for consumer goods.

It's actually up to Celestron to decide, not lawyers or anyone else, and that won't happen until the OP actually pops the question to them.

 

Hence there's really no point pontificating here about it for another 5 pages as is customary here.


Edited by luxo II, 10 May 2021 - 08:24 AM.

  • MortonH likes this

#19 Old Speckled Hen

Old Speckled Hen

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 598
  • Joined: 18 May 2020
  • Loc: 56.4451° N, 3.1670° W

Posted 10 May 2021 - 08:37 AM

My CPC has a flaw that looks just like your first picture and it has no effect on the image.  I would hold a bright LED light at different angles close to the glass and carefully look for internal cracks.  Try your red light too.   

 

If there is no internal cracks and your image is good, I wouldn't be worried.  

I don't think that is the point.

 

There is a witness mark on the mirror back plate leading to the "chip" how did that get there?

 

IMG20210502115809.thumb.jpg.ae16f85bb868

 

In your venture so far, has your official complaint actually "left" NZ????



#20 Maritime

Maritime

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,074
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2020

Posted 10 May 2021 - 08:43 AM

Thanks for your opinions, Luxo. No one is pontificating as the op invited comments. 
 

pon·tif·i·cate
verb
verb: pontificate; 3rd person present: pontificates; past tense: pontificated; past participle: pontificated; gerund or present participle: pontificating
/pänˈtifiˌkāt/
1.
express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic.
"he was pontificating about art and history"
Similar:
hold forth
expound
declaim
preach
lay down the law
sound off
spout (off)
dogmatize
sermonize
moralize
pronounce
lecture
expatiate
preachify
mouth off
spiel
perorate
2.
(in the Roman Catholic Church) officiate as bishop, especially at Mass

 

 

Is pontification conclusory dismissal or genuine discussion of merits?


Edited by Maritime, 10 May 2021 - 08:47 AM.


#21 Maritime

Maritime

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,074
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2020

Posted 10 May 2021 - 08:44 AM

I posted this topic in star gazers lounge about my new Celestron Hd Cpc deluxe and it's chipped secondary mirror. I am hoping to get some further feed back from this forum, as I have had no advances in a resolution from Celestron thus far. Your help would be appreciated.

On the thread you will see pictures and a description of the issue.

https://stargazerslo...pped-secondary/

If your retail seller nor Celestron do anything but pontificate, please let us know. 



#22 Maritime

Maritime

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,074
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2020

Posted 10 May 2021 - 08:50 AM

https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz

 

Acceptable quality
This means that products must be:

fit for their normal purposes
acceptable in finish and appearance
free from minor defects
safe
durable.

 

 

If a business sells you a faulty consumer product, you can ask for the good or service to be fixed under the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA). If a product fault is minor and can be fixed, the retailer can choose to repair the item, replace it, or refund your money.


Edited by Maritime, 10 May 2021 - 09:00 AM.


#23 astrokeith

astrokeith

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,094
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Surrey, UK

Posted 10 May 2021 - 09:01 AM

I'll add one more comment, from my perspective.

 

I was technical director of a military optics manufacturing company for 12 years.

 

Optical components are specified in many ways, Surface finish is usually 'digs and scratches' but only on the optical surfaces. Edges are specified in purely mechanical tolerances and concentricity, plus tilt etc.

 

I have never seen a piece part manufacturing drawing that this item would not pass a QC against.

 

The damage almost certainly occurred when the mirror was mounted upside down in the coating chamber. (It is upside down to stop spluttered aluminium and silicon dioxide 'falling' on the surface). The chamber is a high temperature vacuum type.

 

Such damage isn't 'normal' but not uncommon. 

 

I strongly believe you only have recourse to 'goodwill' by your retailer or Celestron.


  • Kenny V. likes this

#24 Maritime

Maritime

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,074
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2020

Posted 10 May 2021 - 09:11 AM

There you have it, OP: some of us think you have meaningful remedies, whereas others appear to believe you should smile, and take it since you have nothing, factually or legally, to negotiate with-the choice is yours, and good luck either way. There, the homily ends. 


Edited by Maritime, 10 May 2021 - 09:13 AM.


#25 pyrasanth

pyrasanth

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,606
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2016

Posted 10 May 2021 - 01:45 PM

When you odered your new telescope did you implicitily ask for a telescope with a chip in the secondary mirror?- if not then you will be able to clam a new telescope that does not have this defect. There should be no arguement as to where the issue happened. Even if you dropped the mirror and are not telling the truth who is able to prove that?- the law is on your side and the longer you argue the more dilute your case becomes in respect of getting what you ordered.

 

I've had a number of issues with Celestron RASA's that were resolved by firm but sensible discussion. I suggest you go down that route with the dealer you bought from- do not be afraid to stand up for your rights. The decisions made by some people to just accept second rate goods is ultimately bad for us and for the industry as a whole- you paid for quality goods and it is not unreasonable to receive what you paid for- unblemished and free of known defects.


  • nemo129 and Old Speckled Hen like this


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