405 replies to this topic

[CHASLX200]

True, but admittedly I started around June 1978, and production was already under way.  I had been a customer before then, buying eyepieces and stuff from John Diebel himself before I found out about the job availability.  I do recall asking if there were jobs on the visit previous to the one I was offered a job.  Ron Ezra had just filled the position.  Wish I could remember exactly when that was.  I don't seem to think it was in 1977, though it might have been.

 

Edit:  Also, I've been wondering if anyone who had an early 628 or 826 had one with the cast aluminum clock cover?  The first were aluminum.  The die cast plastic covers came sometime in 78 or 79 while I was there.

 

-Tim.

Mine came with no drive.Never saw one for sale without a drive.

[Kasmos]

There's a completely obsolete, largely incomplete, and possibly somewhat incorrect article about the Orion/Meade closing in the new (Nov 2024) Sky and Tel that just came out. (P. 8).

I suppose it's another case of old fashion publishing not being able to keep up.

[Mitrovarr]

I'm of mixed mind.

On one hand, they have a lot of historical importance to the hobby and it makes me sad for that reason.

On the other hand, Meade has been rocking a reputation for staggeringly bad customer service and not good QA for like fifteen years. And when your main products are expensive, complicated electronic telescopes, that just doesn't work.

So, it's kind of disappointing they're gone, but it was almost a complete certainly I was never going to buy any new product from them ever again, barring almost total change in the company.

[salt2001]

Meade's web site (Meade.com) is up, and I see dealers selling Meade Products.  Does this mean Meade continues?  As for Orion, Amazon Canada is selling their products with "Orion Telescopes" as a "new" seller.  I wonder if some Chinese company has bought up the product branding.

[Michael Covington]

Meade's site still lacks the texts of the manuals and documentation, which went away soon after the shutdown was announced.  I wouldn't view this as a sign of new life just yet.

[deSitter]

I'm of mixed mind.

On one hand, they have a lot of historical importance to the hobby and it makes me sad for that reason.

On the other hand, Meade has been rocking a reputation for staggeringly bad customer service and not good QA for like fifteen years. And when your main products are expensive, complicated electronic telescopes, that just doesn't work.

So, it's kind of disappointing they're gone, but it was almost a complete certainly I was never going to buy any new product from them ever again, barring almost total change in the company.

I only needed support once and it resulted in a new OTA. They were very nice to me. Most of my gear other than eyepieces was bought used however (it all works).

 

Yesterday I fixed a tracking problem with my ETX105. It involved delicate placement of the altitude motor box and the worm gear block/drive gear clearance. The structural guts of the ETX105 are cast aluminum - most of the plastic is just skin. So like all cast aluminum mounts, adjusting the worm clearance is ultra important to smooth operation. Well, the amount of adjustment required is ridiculously small, but the configuration of the 3 elements is very slack. And the elements are connected - the drive gear meshes with the worm block, and the worm block pivots in divot on the motor box. If two are OK the third may be way out. Finding the right configuration was annoying, and it took a good hour.

 

Well, whoever put this scope together in the factory didn't have a spare hour. So s/he got it all installed but WAY out of spec. Result, it lurched every 17 seconds. So here's a really decent design, but it is hampered by silly problems like this. There is no reason for the worm block to be so sensitive to exact placement. It should be able to ride around the drive gear along a range of chords yet still result in acceptable results. The final configuration depended on a ridiculously tiny adjustment of a set screw. How would customer service be able to diagnose something like this? The only way to deal with it is to rip it all apart and mess with it at random until it all fits together right.

 

Of course the optics are just amazing. The only complaint is smoothness. I'm sure boutique scopes are much smoother but they are not significantly more capable. This 4" scope produces a very bright, very well corrected image and comes in just a tiny package.

 

So, that's Meade. Amazing idea, mostly realized, but with enough oversights and rough edges to overwhelm tech support.

 

Yeah, I hope they come back strong. The scopes are fun to work on in a strange way

 

-drl

[RichA]

My "laughable" 127ED showed albedo features on Ganymede. The optics were designed by Robert Buchroeder, who does adaptive optics or major observatories now.

 

APO? As much as any 2-element ED scope can be said to be an APO. There is no color to speak of, even on Venus. None at all on Jupiter, Mars, and the Moon.

 

edit: Richard not Robert

 

-drl

The 4 and 5 inch apos were nice.  I had five of them.  The only scope I had that was better was a Takahashi.

[Mcloud]

Even though I was one of the Mesde quality control victims with a not so inexpensive SCT I really will be sad if they're truly gone. Superficial reasons mostly. I lived for the day the excellent glossy color catalog arrived in the mail & so prefer the blue tube aesthetic. I don't care for black telescopes, wish Celestron had stayed in the orange. Also some really good eyepieces came out of Irvine California, I believe one particular 14mm is still highly regarded on the used market.
And just to throw in a wild card I wish B&L would have made it. I really had a Jones for them and understand that the 8 inch Pro model was competitive with the big 2.

[deSitter]

Even though I was one of the Mesde quality control victims with a not so inexpensive SCT I really will be sad if they're truly gone. Superficial reasons mostly. I lived for the day the excellent glossy color catalog arrived in the mail & so prefer the blue tube aesthetic. I don't care for black telescopes, wish Celestron had stayed in the orange. Also some really good eyepieces came out of Irvine California, I believe one particular 14mm is still highly regarded on the used market.
And just to throw in a wild card I wish B&L would have made it. I really had a Jones for them and understand that the 8 inch Pro model was competitive with the big 2.

Yes the 14mm Series 4000 UWA (82 deg) is a very superior eyepiece. People keep them. Oddly, the Series 5000 14mm UWA is the weak point in that series in fast scopes, because of very slight field curvature, which becomes a problem near the edge - none of the rest of that series has this problem. It's fine at f/10 or slower.

 

My big Celestron is silver! It's the 180mm Synta Mak. The other Celestron is black, and yes, i would prefer orange - or silver.

 

-drl

[Michael Edelman]

In the early days Meade was a maker of quality gear. Their Newtonian scopes had a reputation for excellent construction and optics.  

 

I too had a Meade 127ED, and it gave me excellent views of DSOs and good photos of comets Hale-Bopp and Hyakatuki. 

Edited by Michael Edelman, 21 November 2024 - 11:41 AM.

[RichA]

Even though I was one of the Mesde quality control victims with a not so inexpensive SCT I really will be sad if they're truly gone. Superficial reasons mostly. I lived for the day the excellent glossy color catalog arrived in the mail & so prefer the blue tube aesthetic. I don't care for black telescopes, wish Celestron had stayed in the orange. Also some really good eyepieces came out of Irvine California, I believe one particular 14mm is still highly regarded on the used market.
And just to throw in a wild card I wish B&L would have made it. I really had a Jones for them and understand that the 8 inch Pro model was competitive with the big 2.

Not according to most who had them.  They didn't know how to grind a corrector, apparently.

[CHASLX200]

The 4 and 5 inch apos were nice.  I had five of them.  The only scope I had that was better was a Takahashi.

I had the 5 and it was good but not like my FS128 good or my AT125 EDL good.

[Terra Nova]

Meade's site still lacks the texts of the manuals and documentation, which went away soon after the shutdown was announced.  I wouldn't view this as a sign of new life just yet.

Meade is gone! Anyone still seeing it, clear your cache! :poof:

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[JohnH]

I think the thing is that Mead and Celestron and other companies feel to realize how the industry and the hobby has changed over the years.

[Michael Covington]

I think Celestron, with the RASA and then the Origin, is keeping up with change.

[deSitter]

Meade is gone! Anyone still seeing it, clear your cache! :poof:

Well, it only means meade.com is down. Today I couldn't load my ClearSky chart. Fortunately, the atmosphere is still here

 

-drl

[grif 678]

I mentioned earlier how sad it is that Meade is gone, but there are other businesses that are gone also, that I miss. Hands on Optics, Roger Tuthill, I know these are not manufacturers, but they were a part of that era. It makes you realize how fast time is going by, and it seems just a couple years ago I was reading ads about the 2080 Meade SCT. And the 310 and 320 blue refractors. I think at that time, Meade may have been bigger than Celestron?

[luxo II]

You're just getting old and sentimental.

Edited by luxo II, 24 November 2024 - 06:48 PM.

[Don W]

How do I feel about Meade’s demise?

 

meh!

 

DonW

[RichA]

I had the 5 and it was good but not like my FS128 good or my AT125 EDL good.

Tak superiority is a no-brainer, and I suspect most name-brand newer refractors are just inherently better owing to better technology used to make them.

[RichA]

Feel is subjective.  Too much about it smacks of partisanship, oddball brand loyalty, lack of familiarity and not objectivity.

[deSitter]

I mentioned earlier how sad it is that Meade is gone, but there are other businesses that are gone also, that I miss. Hands on Optics, Roger Tuthill, I know these are not manufacturers, but they were a part of that era. It makes you realize how fast time is going by, and it seems just a couple years ago I was reading ads about the 2080 Meade SCT. And the 310 and 320 blue refractors. I think at that time, Meade may have been bigger than Celestron?

HoO isn't gone, Gary Hand retired. Isn't he photoracer-something here? He did his part! And thanks to him!

 

-drl

[RichA]

I only needed support once and it resulted in a new OTA. They were very nice to me. Most of my gear other than eyepieces was bought used however (it all works).

 

Yesterday I fixed a tracking problem with my ETX105. It involved delicate placement of the altitude motor box and the worm gear block/drive gear clearance. The structural guts of the ETX105 are cast aluminum - most of the plastic is just skin. So like all cast aluminum mounts, adjusting the worm clearance is ultra important to smooth operation. Well, the amount of adjustment required is ridiculously small, but the configuration of the 3 elements is very slack. And the elements are connected - the drive gear meshes with the worm block, and the worm block pivots in divot on the motor box. If two are OK the third may be way out. Finding the right configuration was annoying, and it took a good hour.

 

Well, whoever put this scope together in the factory didn't have a spare hour. So s/he got it all installed but WAY out of spec. Result, it lurched every 17 seconds. So here's a really decent design, but it is hampered by silly problems like this. There is no reason for the worm block to be so sensitive to exact placement. It should be able to ride around the drive gear along a range of chords yet still result in acceptable results. The final configuration depended on a ridiculously tiny adjustment of a set screw. How would customer service be able to diagnose something like this? The only way to deal with it is to rip it all apart and mess with it at random until it all fits together right.

 

Of course the optics are just amazing. The only complaint is smoothness. I'm sure boutique scopes are much smoother but they are not significantly more capable. This 4" scope produces a very bright, very well corrected image and comes in just a tiny package.

 

So, that's Meade. Amazing idea, mostly realized, but with enough oversights and rough edges to overwhelm tech support.

 

Yeah, I hope they come back strong. The scopes are fun to work on in a strange way

 

-drl

One of the reasons the C5 never sold in the numbers that the C8 did was that it was impossible to make the prices wide enough between the two to entice people to buy the smaller scope.  If they'd really upped the build and drive of the ETX's, they'd have had a near Questar with a price to match.  Not in their game plan.  ETX90s sold in the thousands.  So their plan worked.

Edited by RichA, 25 November 2024 - 02:27 AM.

[MikeHC8]

I have mix feelings, they seemed to be on a death spiral for a long time.  I never had a Meade but many people are very loyal to the brand.  I have Celestron and they have left me long ago, I am using 20 plus year old scope.  Everyone who has a Meade and wants to keep it will find a way to fix modify and others who want new will find a new brand.  The only thing is DIY will come back due to companies going out of business and not embracing changes to our hobby, like photography which seems to be the most popular at this time.  For myself visual all the way. 

[CHASLX200]

Never had a bad Meade scope out of over 150 or more other than the 7" ED.