18 replies to this topic

[grif 678]

My guess would be the C-8, second would be maybe the C-80, maybe the C-90 mak third?

I know that some people know for sure, how far am I off.

[JohnBear]

I would guess the '(in)famous ' Powerseeker 127 EQ (aka, the "Beginning Astronomer's Horrible Mistake") would be the most sold Celestron telescope. Not only do a lot of beginners buy them, they also very quickly try to resell them - and at a significant discount!

 

The various versions of the C8 are probably the most 'popular' telescopes purchased by the experienced astronomers.  

[CarolinaBanker]

I would guess the '(in)famous ' Powerseeker 127 EQ (aka, the "Beginning Astronomer's Horrible Mistake") would be the most sold Celestron telescope. Not only do a lot of beginners buy them, they also very quickly try to resell them - and at a significant discount!

 

The various versions of the C8 are probably the most 'popular' telescopes purchased by the experienced astronomers.  

I’d also add the Astromaster refractors, Firstscope, Powerseeker refractors. All of the under the Christmas tree scopes probably vastly outsell the big boy SCTs and the wonderful high end fluorites by leaps and bounds. Maybe the C90 cracks the top 5?

[RichA]

My guess would be the C-8, second would be maybe the C-80, maybe the C-90 mak third?

I know that some people know for sure, how far am I off.

Celestron never wallpapered Costco like Meade did with cheap ETX refractors, but they have well distributed the crappy 60-80mm alt-az refractors and the tiny 76mm Dob on the table top mount.  They are likely the largest selling of the scopes.

[deSitter]

Celestron never wallpapered Costco like Meade did with cheap ETX refractors, but they have well distributed the crappy 60-80mm alt-az refractors and the tiny 76mm Dob on the table top mount.  They are likely the largest selling of the scopes.

The money made from those 1st telescopes made it possible to produce the LX200 and the Edge. All the inexpensive Meade scopes I've looked through had decent to excellent optics and would give satisfying views to a complete beginner or just a dabbler. The computers in the ETX are enough to keep a tech nerd entertained. The one telescope in my experience from Meade or Celestron that was inexcusable was a 5" f/5 Celestron Newtonian with a spherical mirror. It had at least 2 waves of SA, maybe more. It could not be focused at any power. I was physically angry that anyone would sell such a scope.

 

-drl

[CarolinaBanker]

Celestron never wallpapered Costco like Meade did with cheap ETX refractors, but they have well distributed the crappy 60-80mm alt-az refractors and the tiny 76mm Dob on the table top mount.  They are likely the largest selling of the scopes.

The ETX has a soft spot in my heart, an everyman’s Questar. Low cost, decent GoTo, good optics, much of which was Made in the USA (the optics). What’s not to love?

[Joe Cepleur]

At a star party this past Saturday night, a new member of my club told me that he had purchased a Celestron First Scope, the 3" f/4 tabletop Dob, which was bad. I kept my mouth shut, wishing he'd asked for help before buying, figuring we'd loan him a better scope soon enough. 

 

But then, he announced that he found the comet in it, which was good! Miracles occur! Whatever gets 'em started...

 

I'd have guessed that the C8 was the top seller, but I'll agree with the insight that, overall, junk to beginners has likely outsold C8s to those with more experience. 

[Kasmos]

Are we talking only the classcs (25years or older)?

Without parameters (what years, decades, or all time) how can we say or guess?

 

I know there were older ads with similar statements, but here's two C8 ads from 1983 I happen to have.

 

These are further reaching statements than the OP is asking,

but taking these into consideration and all of the years they were produced, one would probably guess pre-2000, it was the C8.  

It also seems reinforced by the amount of their ads in the 70's and 80's that focused most heavily on the C8.

 

Jumping to Today's Used Market, the number of listings for used C8s also implies it was the #1 seller.

The C90 also seems to pop up so often that at one time it might have been their biggest seller.

Edited by Kasmos, 28 October 2024 - 03:43 PM.

[deSitter]

The ETX has a soft spot in my heart, an everyman’s Questar. Low cost, decent GoTo, good optics, much of which was Made in the USA (the optics). What’s not to love?

I love them too! All of them. Even with failures and usage issues. They are saved by the optics. They are like a football team with a great QB but with teammates who may lack skill, but are made better by being around him. You know, it's like the ETX105 is the Patrick Mahomes of telescopes!

 

-drl

[CHASLX200]

The money made from those 1st telescopes made it possible to produce the LX200 and the Edge. All the inexpensive Meade scopes I've looked through had decent to excellent optics and would give satisfying views to a complete beginner or just a dabbler. The computers in the ETX are enough to keep a tech nerd entertained. The one telescope in my experience from Meade or Celestron that was inexcusable was a 5" f/5 Celestron Newtonian with a spherical mirror. It had at least 2 waves of SA, maybe more. It could not be focused at any power. I was physically angry that anyone would sell such a scope.

 

-drl

After having around 100 Meade scopes only 4 were bad. Three 2045's that were not even made by Meade and a 7" ED that was really a bad cell and not the lens.

[CHASLX200]

The ETX has a soft spot in my heart, an everyman’s Questar. Low cost, decent GoTo, good optics, much of which was Made in the USA (the optics). What’s not to love?

The mounts. 

[deSitter]

The mounts. 

They have a lot of plastic - like a modern camera. Light weight is a valid parameter. The ETX is like a pro-sumer Nikon camera. My ETX90 complete kit can go anywhere on Earth with me on an airplane, never leaving my side. It has more in common with my camera kit than my telescope herd.

 

-drl

[Exnihilo]

I have to agree with post #8. 

[RichA]

The money made from those 1st telescopes made it possible to produce the LX200 and the Edge. All the inexpensive Meade scopes I've looked through had decent to excellent optics and would give satisfying views to a complete beginner or just a dabbler. The computers in the ETX are enough to keep a tech nerd entertained. The one telescope in my experience from Meade or Celestron that was inexcusable was a 5" f/5 Celestron Newtonian with a spherical mirror. It had at least 2 waves of SA, maybe more. It could not be focused at any power. I was physically angry that anyone would sell such a scope.

 

-drl

The ETX refractors came after the LX200s.  The ETX90 Maks were big sellers as well though.

[RichA]

The mounts. 

Agreed.  I never had much use for the Goto models, I liked the first ETX's with the basic RA drive mounts with the DEC slow motion.  Worked much like a Questar, if not as nice at that.

[Kasmos]

9 out of 15 posts are about Meades. For some reason I thought the topic was about Celestron? 

[starman876]

It's called follow that shiny thing

[deSitter]

9 out of 15 posts are about Meades. For some reason I thought the topic was about Celestron? 

Well the point is, likely both Meade and Celestron funded their moonshots with sounding rockets, so to speak.

 

-drl

[CHASLX200]

Had a 100 at least of each M and C. I would rate M having a much better ave than C on optics. At least all the  made by Vixen line of C was all very good.