405 replies to this topic

[dave253]

I have never owned (or even looked through) any Meade product.

 

When I was working in the business in the mid 80s, they were not being imported into Australia afaik.

We sold mainly Celestron, Vixen, and our own in house eq newts. Later the company changed hands, began importing Meade, and folded in about 2017.

[Victory Pete]

What company was that?

[ccwemyss]

A lot of dealers soured on Meade when they opened their own mail-order retail front, Crown Optics. Imagine a retail shop having invested in the considerable inventory that Meade would make you buy up front to be an official dealer, and then the manufacturer starts competing with you via national advertising and mail, without the overhead of a storefront. So they force you to cut your margin to get rid of their stuff.

 

Chip W. 

[tim53]

A lot of dealers soured on Meade when they opened their own mail-order retail front, Crown Optics. Imagine a retail shop having invested in the considerable inventory that Meade would make you buy up front to be an official dealer, and then the manufacturer starts competing with you via national advertising and mail, without the overhead of a storefront. So they force you to cut your margin to get rid of their stuff.

 

Chip W. 

IIRC, there was a storefront in Costa Mesa or Newport Beach.  But it was a long time ago, and I never saw it in person.  I do remember that we made both "brands" at the same place, with the same people and the same tools.

 

-Tim.

[Gert]

I still have some of the 1.25 26mm Plossl that came with some old Meade scope (the scope is longgone). So much fun to plop into the scope and enjoy the views.

Digging back in my old S&T's, I found that the Meade ad in the January 1992 issue still showed a picture of the "smoothies". March 1992 Meade ad first showed the second generation rubber eyecup version however the Super Plossls were still the 5 element design like the "smoothies" (5 element design was noted in the ad). The Meade ad in the March 1994 issue of S&T stated that the Super Plossls were now a 4 element. Those early rubber eyecup versions were still made in Japan. Not sure when production shifted away from Japan.

[RichA]

 

You knew it wasn't an R-C, I knew it wasn't an R-C, Meade knew it wasn't an R-C. It was false advertising and got them into trouble. It would be like selling a gasoline engine as a diesel.. 

 

The irony of it is that after years of copying TeleVue eyepieces and Celestron SCTs, Meade finally had a new idea all their own. Unfortunately, they didn't know how handle an actual innovative idea. 

 

Jon ok

They never carbon-copied TV.  All you have to do to claim a new eyepiece design is change one surface of one element.  They introduced an extra element, reducing kidney-bean and improving the wide-field design.  I had TVs Naglers and sold all but the (then) 7mm for Meades because of that.  TV meantime didn't invent the multi-element, wide field eyepiece, designs existed before they went to market.  There have been some very interesting eyepiece designs that either ended up as military one-offs, experimental or didn't reach production at all. 

[Victory Pete]

IIRC, there was a storefront in Costa Mesa or Newport Beach. But it was a long time ago, and I never saw it in person. I do remember that we made both "brands" at the same place, with the same people and the same tools.

-Tim.

Who is we and what 2 brands at what place?

[NinePlanets]

tim53 worked in the Meade factory when they were building nice equatorial Newtonians.

[SandyHouTex]

...sans shareholders, please.

Whomever bought the remains of Meade probably doesn't have any shareholders.

 

If they really bought over 400 telescopes, I would expect them to be offered for sale soon.

Edited by SandyHouTex, 15 January 2025 - 06:08 PM.

[CHASLX200]

I have never owned (or even looked through) any Meade product.

 

When I was working in the business in the mid 80s, they were not being imported into Australia afaik.

We sold mainly Celestron, Vixen, and our own in house eq newts. Later the company changed hands, began importing Meade, and folded in about 2017.

Ouch. I had at least 150 Meade scopes and only one dud the 7" ED.

[abe]

It appears that more than once he copied and then strived to put someone out of business.

I never thought I'd defend this, but there's the "great artists steal" thing.  Meade may not have been so much of an innovator as a refiner.  The first movers / innovators get the glory but there's something to be said for the refiners, too.

 

I think Meade's overall market strategy was to seek out the best ideas and designs and to figure out a way to bring them within range of the average buyer while making a few improvements along the way.  I prefer my Meades to my Celestrons and my Series 4000 eyepieces to the Televues that I've had or tried (heresy, I know).

 

As far as servicing, there will probably be a ton of Meade GOTO gear going into landfills in the coming years but the non-computerized scopes, eyepieces etc. will continue to do just fine. 

Edited by abe, 15 January 2025 - 09:17 PM.

[Kasmos]

IIRC, there was a storefront in Costa Mesa or Newport Beach.  But it was a long time ago, and I never saw it in person.  I do remember that we made both "brands" at the same place, with the same people and the same tools.

 

-Tim.

Didn't they once have a second brand and maybe a store called California Telescope Co.? maybe I'm confusing it with Crown.

Edited by Kasmos, 16 January 2025 - 02:54 AM.

[Kasmos]

I never thought I'd defend this, but there's the "great artists steal" thing.  Meade may not have been so much of an innovator as a refiner.  The first movers / innovators get the glory but there's something to be said for the refiners, too.

 

I think Meade's overall market strategy was to seek out the best ideas and designs and to figure out a way to bring them within range of the average buyer while making a few improvements along the way.  I prefer my Meades to my Celestrons and my Series 4000 eyepieces to the Televues that I've had or tried (heresy, I know).

 

As far as servicing, there will probably be a ton of Meade GOTO gear going into landfills in the coming years but the non-computerized scopes, eyepieces etc. will continue to do just fine. 

That doesn't sit that well with me.

 

In my college art classes I would sometimes hear the term borrow. Now I read where somehow that's looked down on and stealing is good.

[Chris MN]

A lot of dealers soured on Meade when they opened their own mail-order retail front, Crown Optics. Imagine a retail shop having invested in the considerable inventory that Meade would make you buy up front to be an official dealer, and then the manufacturer starts competing with you via national advertising and mail, without the overhead of a storefront. So they force you to cut your margin to get rid of their stuff.

 

Chip W. 

Thanks for the history on Crown Optics.  Didn't know any of that. 

 

When Crown Optics was still around, I managed to get one of their catalog "kits" which I still have.  All kinds of price lists and Meade documentation but with the Crown Optics label.

 

I find it funny that on the bottom Crown states that they are an "Authorized Meade Dealer".  Considering Meade owns you, I would hope you are an authorized dealer!

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by Chris MN, 16 January 2025 - 07:44 AM.

[CHASLX200]

Thanks for the history on Crown Optics.  Didn't know any of that. 

 

When Crown Optics was still around, I managed to get one of their catalog "kits" which I still have.  All kinds of price lists and Meade documentation but with the Crown Optics label.

 

I find it funny that on the bottom Crown states that they are an "Authorized Meade Dealer".  Considering Meade owns you, I would hope you are an authorized dealer!

That was another Meade train wreck scope.  They had a few like the Failed GEM SCT in 1987.

Edited by CHASLX200, 16 January 2025 - 07:04 PM.

[starman876]

Thanks for the history on Crown Optics.  Didn't know any of that. 

 

When Crown Optics was still around, I managed to get one of their catalog "kits" which I still have.  All kinds of price lists and Meade documentation but with the Crown Optics label.

 

I find it funny that on the bottom Crown states that they are an "Authorized Meade Dealer".  Considering Meade owns you, I would hope you are an authorized dealer!

I had both the DS16 and the DS10 at the same time.   The 16 made the 10 look tiny,  

Edited by starman876, 16 January 2025 - 10:56 AM.

[tim53]

Thanks for the history on Crown Optics.  Didn't know any of that. 

 

When Crown Optics was still around, I managed to get one of their catalog "kits" which I still have.  All kinds of price lists and Meade documentation but with the Crown Optics label.

 

I find it funny that on the bottom Crown states that they are an "Authorized Meade Dealer".  Considering Meade owns you, I would hope you are an authorized dealer!

That is Brian Holdcroft in the picture.  He was an interesting character.  I got along with him well enough, though he was rather a stickler of a shop foreman.  He was an avid cyclist and a devout Christian.  I managed to avoid butting heads with him on both subjects, probably because he had a good sense of humor.  

 

I remember him telling me not to put my coffee cup on the lathe headstock after the morning break.  I moved it, but then he told me of an experience he had at another machine shop years before, that he clearly didn't need to tell me.  The story was that the foreman told a lathe operator that he couldn't put his coffee cup on the headstock.  Instead of leaving it to the lathe operator to move it himself, he swatted the cup (styrofoam) off the lathe, splattering coffee on the floor.  The lathe operator responded instantly, by decking the foreman!

 

Brian was one of several former Cave employees that Diebel hired over in 1978 or thereabouts, to start up his Newt manufacturing and to help accelerate Cave's demise.  About 10 or 15 years ago, I came across an ad for a 16" Newtonian at the swap tables at RTMC.  There were several pictures of the scope on the seller's table of other parts.  The mount was clearly Optical Craftsmen, but the OTA was ATM.  When I asked about the builder, he showed me a picture of the engraving on the back of the mirror "Brian Holdcroft".  It might also have had the date, which I seem to remember put it in the mid to late 60s, while Brian was at Cave.  When I knew him, he wasn't in the hobby anymore, so it was interesting to see this bit of info from his past.  I didn't buy the scope, but I did think about it.  I wonder if the owner still has it?

 

I heard Brian had retired and died of a heart attack sometime in the 90s.

 

-Tim.

P.S.  Found a pic of that scope with the seller, when he'd friended me on FB about that same time: 

Edited by tim53, 16 January 2025 - 12:36 PM.

[25585]

From an eyepiece perspective, I like Meades. Their Plossls are fine, I have four SWA, and one UWA, several HD-60s, and a pair of Cemax. 

Orion introduced me to Long Perng's LHD LER UWA eyepieces, and the Trimag 3x Barlow.
 

Edited by 25585, 16 January 2025 - 12:50 PM.

[Jon Isaacs]

They never carbon-copied TV.  All you have to do to claim a new eyepiece design is change one surface of one element.  They introduced an extra element, reducing kidney-bean and improving the wide-field design.  I had TVs Naglers and sold all but the (then) 7mm for Meades because of that.  TV meantime didn't invent the multi-element, wide field eyepiece, designs existed before they went to market.  There have been some very interesting eyepiece designs that either ended up as military one-offs, experimental or didn't reach production at all. 

 

 

 

Meade did not duplicate the design of the Naglers but they copied them and made that one small change. And they copied the Wide Fields as well.  Without the Naglers and WideFields, the Meade UWAs and SWAs would not have existed.  And of course it was Meade, they advertised an 84 degree field but when I measured the 14mm, it was ~79 degrees. 

 

And it happened all over again with the Panotics, the Type 5 and Type 6 Naglers as well as the Ethos..  The Meade Series 5000 SWAs and UWAs are derivatives of the Naglers and Panoptics.  Meade never developed 100 degree eyepieces but their primary supplier JOC did and sold them under their Explore Scientific label.

 

TeleVue did not invent the Wide field eyepiece but they did invent the ~82 degree AFoV eyepiece that was sharp to the edge in a fast scope.  To say otherwise would be revisionist history.  

 

Again, it is interesting that the one piece of optics that Meade did develop, the ACF, they didn't know how to market it.

 

Jon

[NinePlanets]

That is Brian Holdcroft in the picture. 

Thank you for that interesting history lesson Tim!

[deSitter]

 

 

Meade did not duplicate the design of the Naglers but they copied them and made that one small change. And they copied the Wide Fields as well.  Without the Naglers and WideFields, the Meade UWAs and SWAs would not have existed.  And of course it was Meade, they advertised an 84 degree field but when I measured the 14mm, it was ~79 degrees. 

 

And it happened all over again with the Panotics, the Type 5 and Type 6 Naglers as well as the Ethos..  The Meade Series 5000 SWAs and UWAs are derivatives of the Naglers and Panoptics.  Meade never developed 100 degree eyepieces but their primary supplier JOC did and sold them under their Explore Scientific label.

 

TeleVue did not invent the Wide field eyepiece but they did invent the ~82 degree AFoV eyepiece that was sharp to the edge in a fast scope.  To say otherwise would be revisionist history.  

 

Again, it is interesting that the one piece of optics that Meade did develop, the ACF, they didn't know how to market it.

 

Jon

They knew exactly how to market it - if Meade understood ANYTHING it was marketing! They marketed it as an advanced RC design, which it was - a Schmidt-sphere system that mimicked a fast hyperbolic primary with a hyperbolic secondary - apparently still in use as the ACF. That is in fact a Schmidt-RC, the same way a flat secondary scope is a Schmidt-Newtonian when the Schmidt-sphere system replaces the parabolic primary. The whole point is that Schmidt systems are easy to mass produce to high tolerance.

 

So yes, RCX was not only accurate, it was good marketing.

 

-drl

[Jon Isaacs]

They knew exactly how to market it - if Meade understood ANYTHING it was marketing! They marketed it as an advanced RC design, which it was - a Schmidt-sphere system that mimicked a fast hyperbolic primary with a hyperbolic secondary - apparently still in use as the ACF. That is in fact a Schmidt-RC, the same way a flat secondary scope is a Schmidt-Newtonian when the Schmidt-sphere system replaces the parabolic primary. The whole point is that Schmidt systems are easy to mass produce to high tolerance.

 

So yes, RCX was not only accurate, it was good marketing.

 

-drl

 

We all know that it was not a R-C, I don't know what you keep trying to claim it was. It might have mimicked an R-C but an R-C has hyperbolic primary and secondary mirrors and no corrector.   I don't see how it was wise marketing, they made a spectacle/fool of themselves and lost the law suit. And we are still taking about it, the suit was filed almost 20 years ago.  

 

They should have been proud of the ACF design instead of trying to pass it off as something it wasn't.

 

By the way, I have a dog named Rover, it's really a cat but since I named it Rover, I call it a dog. 

 

Jon

[Victory Pete]

We all know that it was not a R-C, I don't know what you keep trying to claim it was. It might have mimicked an R-C but an R-C has hyperbolic primary and secondary mirrors and no corrector.   I don't see how it was wise marketing, they made a spectacle/fool of themselves and lost the law suit. And we are still taking about it, the suit was filed almost 20 years ago.  

 

They should have been proud of the ACF design instead of trying to pass it off as something it wasn't.

 

By the way, I have a dog named Rover, it's really a cat but since I named it Rover, I call it a dog. 

 

Jon

I actually had a cat named Rover, or was it a skunk? Does using L'Oreal on its back make it one?

[deSitter]

We all know that it was not a R-C, I don't know what you keep trying to claim it was. It might have mimicked an R-C but an R-C has hyperbolic primary and secondary mirrors and no corrector.   I don't see how it was wise marketing, they made a spectacle/fool of themselves and lost the law suit. And we are still taking about it, the suit was filed almost 20 years ago.  

 

They should have been proud of the ACF design instead of trying to pass it off as something it wasn't.

 

By the way, I have a dog named Rover, it's really a cat but since I named it Rover, I call it a dog. 

 

Jon

I had a cat that thought it was a dog. I called it a cat It was low and stocky chunky, and I should have named it Dob.

 

-drl

[CharLakeAstro]

I don't feel any emotion, but there is a sense of loss in any long standing American company going dodo.

 

My first "brand new scope" and my first SCT was a Meade LX-10, around 1997. Before that, I had only used my binocs and a little 80mm scope which was more forgiving with the shorter focal length... Dickinson's Nightwatch book was my "sky guide", and that was all I had at the time.

 

That LX-10 and it's views continue to be memorable for me to this day... not because Meade was so great, but this was my first "larger than 80mm" scope, my time machine that transported me to places far away.

 

I left the scope setup behind the house with the front cap on, and the eyepiece cap on my only eyepiece, 26mm. Each time our (first) child was up for his feeding, mom got up to feed while dad offered moral support, then went outside, took off the caps for another peek through the scope... Once in a while, I found something (other than M42) through the scope from the Nightwatch book sky charts.     Eureka!!   which is a good memory.