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

Meade 178ED for sale!

  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#26 Rick-T137

Rick-T137

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,992
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Central Ontario, Canada

Posted 29 January 2025 - 08:53 PM

Gotta be local. I never buy anything that has to be shipped and for sure would need a few weeks to test out. If someone has mint OTA gents that can hold center and is near like what  AP can do i gots 5k for the OTA ready to go. 

Does it gotta be local? Okay, you enjoy yourself then.

 

Also... it's "bruh", not "bra". A bra is something completely different. (referring your your later posts)

 

Later gator!



#27 YourNotSirius

YourNotSirius

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,137
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Somewhere in New Hampshire

Posted 29 January 2025 - 10:11 PM

Does it gotta be local? Okay, you enjoy yourself then.

 

Also... it's "bruh", not "bra". A bra is something completely different. (referring your your later posts)

 

Later gator!

Yep! A "bra" is something that one puts on the front of a sports car to keep stones from chipping the paint! Everyone knows that! Don't they? BWAHAHAHAHA!

 

Q


  • tim53 and Rick-T137 like this

#28 RichA

RichA

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,797
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 30 January 2025 - 12:07 AM

That must have been the ultimate bummer.

 

-drl

Well, it turned out ok.  The 2nd delivery of the scope back to me saw the deliverer drop the box off the back of the truck, driving the secondary through the corrector.  So, i asked Celestron for an Ultima 11, C90 and Advanced Astromaster in exchange and they agreed.  the Ultima was very good.


Edited by RichA, 30 January 2025 - 12:17 AM.

  • deSitter likes this

#29 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 42,941
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 30 January 2025 - 06:45 AM

Well, it turned out ok.  The 2nd delivery of the scope back to me saw the deliverer drop the box off the back of the truck, driving the secondary through the corrector.  So, i asked Celestron for an Ultima 11, C90 and Advanced Astromaster in exchange and they agreed.  the Ultima was very good.

I use bra bro's.  I would never ship a 14.



#30 Rick-T137

Rick-T137

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,992
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Central Ontario, Canada

Posted 30 January 2025 - 07:08 AM

Yep! A "bra" is something that one puts on the front of a sports car to keep stones from chipping the paint! Everyone knows that! Don't they? BWAHAHAHAHA!

 

Q

That's exactly what I was thinking of! Here's my 1990 Z24 that I used to haul my C8 around the countryside in back in "the day"...

 

My 1990 Cheverolet Cavalier Z24 - 5 spd - Sunroof
 
Note the beautiful bra and the lack of paint chips. SWEET!

  • RogerRZ and ericb760 like this

#31 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 42,941
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 30 January 2025 - 07:18 AM

Gotta be local to test at best. No way i am gonna take another chance unseen.



#32 bobhen

bobhen

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,578
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2005

Posted 30 January 2025 - 08:50 AM

Meade thought they would capitalize on Astro-Physics' success and came out with their own line of apochromatic refractors. But in typical Meade fashion, they made their apos cheaper by employing a doublet with FPL 51 or similar glass instead of a triplet. To get the same level of color correction as in a FPL 53 triplet, the curves on the doublet lens elements had to be steep and with a larger air space. The lens cell was not designed correctly for that design and the lens elements would decenter, even just by shipping the scope. Not go out of collimation mind you but decenter.

 

Unless you are well-versed in lens assembly or lens cell design, you might want to skip over these Meade 7" doublets. Even by adding lens element adjustment screws to the cell, do you really want to have to adjust lens centering on a 7" F 9 refractor, which is a 2-man job. One of the reasons to buy a refractor, of any size, is because they don't need collimation and never need lens element centering, if designed correctly.

 

I'm sure that if everything is aligned correctly the scope performs admirably, not like a high end 7" but admirably. However, like so many of Meade's products, the corners cut in order to increase profitability can really impact enjoyment of many (not all but enough) of their products.

 

IMO, and for most who just want to observer and want their equipment to get out of the way, the Meade 7" apo doublet is a hard pass. 

 

Bob


  • YourNotSirius likes this

#33 YourNotSirius

YourNotSirius

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,137
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Somewhere in New Hampshire

Posted 30 January 2025 - 09:04 AM

 

That's exactly what I was thinking of! Here's my 1990 Z24 that I used to haul my C8 around the countryside in back in "the day"...

 

 
 
Note the beautiful bra and the lack of paint chips. SWEET!

 

Also when Big Brother was not yet so integrated into the automotive world that real and reliable cars were everywhere and affordable, too! So unlike the garbage heaps offered today.

 

Q



#34 Airship

Airship

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: Dayton, Ohio

Posted 30 January 2025 - 10:47 AM

Bob, good thoughts. I have lost count how many scopes that I have ‘fixed’ by zeroing in the collimation and alignment. I have a 152ED which I believe has a similar design as the 178 and yes, when I received it the performance was okay, but not exceptional and not what I was expecting from a large ED. The original owner was happy with it and it wasn’t wacko out of alignment so I can see being happy with it for general observing, but not high resolution work. Collimating it was easy and that helped. I then tackled the lens centering, taking it one teeny tiny baby step at a time. I’m not a huge fan of the design, but it works if you make small adjustments and use a light touch. I have done this type of work with high power laser systems on an optical bench so I’m used to it and enjoy watching a system blossom as it gets close. I’m _really_ close to finishing with the 152 and it is starting to perform as expected. I hope to finish the process this spring. It would be interesting to tackle a 172ED if the price were right and either close enough to pick up or the seller would ship it.

 

One project at a time…

 

Enjoy!


  • deSitter and Rick-T137 like this

#35 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,889
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 30 January 2025 - 10:58 AM

Meade thought they would capitalize on Astro-Physics' success and came out with their own line of apochromatic refractors. But in typical Meade fashion, they made their apos cheaper by employing a doublet with FPL 51 or similar glass instead of a triplet. To get the same level of color correction as in a FPL 53 triplet, the curves on the doublet lens elements had to be steep and with a larger air space. The lens cell was not designed correctly for that design and the lens elements would decenter, even just by shipping the scope. Not go out of collimation mind you but decenter.

 

Unless you are well-versed in lens assembly or lens cell design, you might want to skip over these Meade 7" doublets. Even by adding lens element adjustment screws to the cell, do you really want to have to adjust lens centering on a 7" F 9 refractor, which is a 2-man job. One of the reasons to buy a refractor, of any size, is because they don't need collimation and never need lens element centering, if designed correctly.

 

I'm sure that if everything is aligned correctly the scope performs admirably, not like a high end 7" but admirably. However, like so many of Meade's products, the corners cut in order to increase profitability can really impact enjoyment of many (not all but enough) of their products.

 

IMO, and for most who just want to observer and want their equipment to get out of the way, the Meade 7" apo doublet is a hard pass. 

 

Bob

This is not true. The design is by Richard Buchroeder, a very seriously high-ranking optical expert who usually works with large observatory instruments. See below for some recent citations. The flaw in the 178 was the mechanics. But we never hear from those owners were were happy with the instrument, we just hear that "Meade cynically did this or that.." from those who got one with the flawed cell. Meade weren't competing with AP - they were trying to provide a series of large, affordable, mostly color-free refractors with outstanding performance in their own right, and they succeeded. My 127 is an absolutely outstanding telescope and I will only sell it if forced to by infirmity. The 127 held its own against Tak and AP 5" scopes.

 

So the ED design is not some cynical attempt to steal thunder from AP. It set a bar that was quickly followed up by other ED doublet makers, and now they are common and inexpensive. In short Buchroeder's design was an excellent use of glasses that could be easily sourced and figured with exactness. If they had stopped with the 152, the series might be remembered as groundbreaking. The 178 was too much for the cell design. But even those likely have many more excellent examples than basket cases.

 

Buchroeder - https://www.research...eder-2005500665

 

-drl


  • RichA and Rick-T137 like this

#36 RichA

RichA

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,797
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 30 January 2025 - 01:39 PM

I use bra bro's.  I would never ship a 14.

When I got my 12inch Meade LX200s, they were shipped in high strength cardboard boxes with 4 inches of high-density foam.  Celestron shipped the C14 in one of their old steamer trunks with 1 inch of soft (cheap) foam on the corrector end.


  • Rick-T137 likes this

#37 RichA

RichA

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,797
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 30 January 2025 - 05:19 PM

Bob, good thoughts. I have lost count how many scopes that I have ‘fixed’ by zeroing in the collimation and alignment. I have a 152ED which I believe has a similar design as the 178 and yes, when I received it the performance was okay, but not exceptional and not what I was expecting from a large ED. The original owner was happy with it and it wasn’t wacko out of alignment so I can see being happy with it for general observing, but not high resolution work. Collimating it was easy and that helped. I then tackled the lens centering, taking it one teeny tiny baby step at a time. I’m not a huge fan of the design, but it works if you make small adjustments and use a light touch. I have done this type of work with high power laser systems on an optical bench so I’m used to it and enjoy watching a system blossom as it gets close. I’m _really_ close to finishing with the 152 and it is starting to perform as expected. I hope to finish the process this spring. It would be interesting to tackle a 172ED if the price were right and either close enough to pick up or the seller would ship it.

 

One project at a time…

 

Enjoy!

How much more "right" than $1200?  Some dunce on Facebook isn't likely to offer one up for $100.



#38 ericb760

ericb760

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 997
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Palm Springs, CA

Posted 30 January 2025 - 06:34 PM

bra
(brɑ)
US
noun
an undergarment worn by women to support the breasts or give a desired contour to the bust

 

brah
(brɑː IPA Pronunciation Guide )
noun
informal
a male friend, often used in direct address


  • Rick-T137 and Weisswurst Josef like this

#39 Airship

Airship

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2014
  • Loc: Dayton, Ohio

Posted 30 January 2025 - 06:50 PM

"How much more "right" than $1200?"

 

Ahah! I missed that this was in CAD. Tempting, but I don't see an option for delivering other than a meet-up.

 

Ugh.



#40 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 42,941
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 30 January 2025 - 06:51 PM

This is not true. The design is by Richard Buchroeder, a very seriously high-ranking optical expert who usually works with large observatory instruments. See below for some recent citations. The flaw in the 178 was the mechanics. But we never hear from those owners were were happy with the instrument, we just hear that "Meade cynically did this or that.." from those who got one with the flawed cell. Meade weren't competing with AP - they were trying to provide a series of large, affordable, mostly color-free refractors with outstanding performance in their own right, and they succeeded. My 127 is an absolutely outstanding telescope and I will only sell it if forced to by infirmity. The 127 held its own against Tak and AP 5" scopes.

 

So the ED design is not some cynical attempt to steal thunder from AP. It set a bar that was quickly followed up by other ED doublet makers, and now they are common and inexpensive. In short Buchroeder's design was an excellent use of glasses that could be easily sourced and figured with exactness. If they had stopped with the 152, the series might be remembered as groundbreaking. The 178 was too much for the cell design. But even those likely have many more excellent examples than basket cases.

 

Buchroeder - https://www.research...eder-2005500665

 

-drl

Face facts jack. 2 many were bad. They got a bad rep and no way to fix that.



#41 starman876

starman876

    Nihon Seiko

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 26,531
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 30 January 2025 - 07:44 PM

Face facts jack. 2 many were bad. They got a bad rep and no way to fix that.

Would be nice to hear from the folks who had a good one.    Then check to see the data of what percentage was bad.  In all the years I only heard of about a handful of people who had a bad 178ED.


  • RichA likes this

#42 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 42,941
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 30 January 2025 - 07:47 PM

Would be nice to hear from the folks who had a good one.    Then check to see the data of what percentage was bad.  In all the years I only heard of about a handful of people who had a bad 178ED.

Start a thread in fracts and get it going.



#43 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,889
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 30 January 2025 - 09:27 PM

Start a thread in fracts and get it going.

Negatory. Don't go anywhere NEAR that circus!

 

-drl



#44 tim53

tim53

    James Webb Space Telescope

  • *****
  • Posts: 17,322
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Highland Park, CA

Posted 30 January 2025 - 11:34 PM

Yep! A "bra" is something that one puts on the front of a sports car to keep stones from chipping the paint! Everyone knows that! Don't they? BWAHAHAHAHA!

 

Q

No, a bra is what my late big sister used to call "the over-the-shoulder boulder-holder"

 

-Tim.


Edited by tim53, 30 January 2025 - 11:34 PM.

  • clamchip, YourNotSirius and Rick-T137 like this

#45 YourNotSirius

YourNotSirius

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,137
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Somewhere in New Hampshire

Posted 31 January 2025 - 08:44 AM

No, a bra is what my late big sister used to call "the over-the-shoulder boulder-holder"

 

-Tim.

Dad says that they used to say that the German word for brassier was Keepsumfromfloppin!

 

I just know that one of the mods is going to have kittens over that but is a really good description and funny joke!

 

You older guys had really good jokes. So unlike my generation and later.

 

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

Q


  • Rick-T137 likes this

#46 bobhen

bobhen

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,578
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2005

Posted 31 January 2025 - 08:45 AM

This is not true. The design is by Richard Buchroeder, a very seriously high-ranking optical expert who usually works with large observatory instruments. See below for some recent citations. The flaw in the 178 was the mechanics. But we never hear from those owners were were happy with the instrument, we just hear that "Meade cynically did this or that.." from those who got one with the flawed cell. Meade weren't competing with AP - they were trying to provide a series of large, affordable, mostly color-free refractors with outstanding performance in their own right, and they succeeded. My 127 is an absolutely outstanding telescope and I will only sell it if forced to by infirmity. The 127 held its own against Tak and AP 5" scopes.

 

So the ED design is not some cynical attempt to steal thunder from AP. It set a bar that was quickly followed up by other ED doublet makers, and now they are common and inexpensive. In short Buchroeder's design was an excellent use of glasses that could be easily sourced and figured with exactness. If they had stopped with the 152, the series might be remembered as groundbreaking. The 178 was too much for the cell design. But even those likely have many more excellent examples than basket cases.

 

Buchroeder - https://www.research...eder-2005500665

 

-drl

Everything I said was true. Throughout Meade's history they have made cheap knockoffs of other company's hard-won designs that were "already proven" and "successful" in the marketplace. None of the Meade's below were first to market. They were all introduced after other company's designs had proven themselves in the market. 

 

Should I list a few...

Meade's 3.5 and 7" Maks. Exactly the same size as Questars's. Meade could have at least made different sizes.

Meade's copy of the original Tele Vue Naglers.

Meade didn't stop a their 7" apo because Astro-Physics was offering a 7" apo and Meade wanted people to believe they could gat Astro-Physics' quality for less. 

Meade offered a digital imaging camera after SBIG cameras were becoming popular

And of course, there's Meade's copy of Celestron's SCT design. 

 

Copying was Meade's operating procedure long before Astro-Physics apos became popular. Meade tried to jump on the Astro-Physics's apo bandwagon and piggyback off of Astro-Physics reputation just as they did with the other examples above. If the Meade refractors were such a great design, why are they not being made? Those Meade refractors had a very short market lifespan. Agema makes high-quality apo doublets but they are doing it right. 

 

Bob


  • tim53 and Kasmos like this

#47 tim53

tim53

    James Webb Space Telescope

  • *****
  • Posts: 17,322
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Highland Park, CA

Posted 31 January 2025 - 08:51 AM

Everything I said was true. Throughout Meade's history they have made cheap knockoffs of other company's hard-won designs that were "already proven" and "successful" in the marketplace. None of the Meade's below were first to market. They were all introduced after other company's designs had proven themselves in the market. 

 

Should I list a few...

Meade's 3.5 and 7" Maks. Exactly the same size as Questars's. Meade could have at least made different sizes.

Meade's copy of the original Tele Vue Naglers.

Meade didn't stop a their 7" apo because Astro-Physics was offering a 7" apo and Meade wanted people to believe they could gat Astro-Physics' quality for less. 

Meade offered a digital imaging camera after SBIG cameras were becoming popular

And of course, there's Meade's copy of Celestron's SCT design. 

 

Copying was Meade's operating procedure long before Astro-Physics apos became popular. Meade tried to jump on the Astro-Physics's apo bandwagon and piggyback off of Astro-Physics reputation just as they did with the other examples above. If the Meade refractors were such a great design, why are they not being made? Those Meade refractors had a very short market lifespan. Agema makes high-quality apo doublets but they are doing it right. 

 

Bob

And before all that, Meade took apart a Dynascope as a model for the 628 and 826 scopes.  Then, the RGs were not just copies of Cave mounts, the prototypes were made from Cave mounts.

 

-Tim.


  • Rick-T137 and Kasmos like this

#48 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,889
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 31 January 2025 - 09:03 AM

Everything I said was true. Throughout Meade's history they have made cheap knockoffs of other company's hard-won designs that were "already proven" and "successful" in the marketplace. None of the Meade's below were first to market. They were all introduced after other company's designs had proven themselves in the market. 

 

Should I list a few...

Meade's 3.5 and 7" Maks. Exactly the same size as Questars's. Meade could have at least made different sizes.

Meade's copy of the original Tele Vue Naglers.

Meade didn't stop a their 7" apo because Astro-Physics was offering a 7" apo and Meade wanted people to believe they could gat Astro-Physics' quality for less. 

Meade offered a digital imaging camera after SBIG cameras were becoming popular

And of course, there's Meade's copy of Celestron's SCT design. 

 

Copying was Meade's operating procedure long before Astro-Physics apos became popular. Meade tried to jump on the Astro-Physics's apo bandwagon and piggyback off of Astro-Physics reputation just as they did with the other examples above. If the Meade refractors were such a great design, why are they not being made? Those Meade refractors had a very short market lifespan. Agema makes high-quality apo doublets but they are doing it right. 

 

Bob

So Chrysler and Chevrolet just copied Ford etc.etc. What you describe is called competition. Make something good in the same space and sell it for less. The Meade SCTs were superior to Celestron's in the 1980s. Anyone can independently make an eyepiece like the Nagler, just like they can make and sell Kellners and Plossls. The Meade UWAs are arguably superior to their antecedents. Marketing the ETX as a competitor to the Questar was both legitimate and good business. They are excellent scopes optically. Design flaws in the original were identified and corrected. BTW there was no 7" ETX. It was an LX200. It was 7" because that's about the biggest hunk of meniscus glass easily found and affordable.

 

There is an aspect of this hobby which involves almost intolerable snobbery and one-upmanship. No one is arguing that AP doesn't produce some of the finest refractors ever made. If that's your bag, to spend $10,000 on a 5- or 6-inch telescope OTA, that's fine. But the fact that the Meade ED doublets are not AP triplets is like saying a Ford Mustang GT is not a Lamborghini. It's an empty comparison. Meade were looking to a larger market. I am fully capable of testing optics down to the 1/8th wave level. I know what I am looking at and where something falls short. There is not one Meade product I own which does not give excellent performance. Bashing them even after death - I don't know what to say. I've been in the game a long time. I saw the positive effect on the community at large. And I'm a proud owner of my Meade gear.

 

-drl


Edited by deSitter, 31 January 2025 - 09:05 AM.

  • ericb760 and Traveler_82 like this

#49 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,889
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 31 January 2025 - 09:17 AM

And before all that, Meade took apart a Dynascope as a model for the 628 and 826 scopes.  Then, the RGs were not just copies of Cave mounts, the prototypes were made from Cave mounts.

 

-Tim.

It's a Newtonian reflector. What did Criterion do? Clean sheet a new telescope design? No, they used the commercial models at hand, and found ways to lower the price while maintaining excellent performance.

 

-drl



#50 bobhen

bobhen

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,578
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2005

Posted 31 January 2025 - 10:08 AM

So Chrysler and Chevrolet just copied Ford etc.etc. What you describe is called competition. Make something good in the same space and sell it for less. The Meade SCTs were superior to Celestron's in the 1980s. Anyone can independently make an eyepiece like the Nagler, just like they can make and sell Kellners and Plossls. The Meade UWAs are arguably superior to their antecedents. Marketing the ETX as a competitor to the Questar was both legitimate and good business. They are excellent scopes optically. Design flaws in the original were identified and corrected. BTW there was no 7" ETX. It was an LX200. It was 7" because that's about the biggest hunk of meniscus glass easily found and affordable.

 

There is an aspect of this hobby which involves almost intolerable snobbery and one-upmanship. No one is arguing that AP doesn't produce some of the finest refractors ever made. If that's your bag, to spend $10,000 on a 5- or 6-inch telescope OTA, that's fine. But the fact that the Meade ED doublets are not AP triplets is like saying a Ford Mustang GT is not a Lamborghini. It's an empty comparison. Meade were looking to a larger market. I am fully capable of testing optics down to the 1/8th wave level. I know what I am looking at and where something falls short. There is not one Meade product I own which does not give excellent performance. Bashing them even after death - I don't know what to say. I've been in the game a long time. I saw the positive effect on the community at large. And I'm a proud owner of my Meade gear.

 

-drl

Selling for less is one thing. Selling something for less that is of the same design and has the "same quality"  is another. Meade never did that.  

 

Point to one of the items that I listed that Meade invented and came out with "first". They did not and that's the point. 

 

You like Meade products, okay, that's fine – so what. Lots of people bought Corvairs and liked them. There are even Corvair clubs. That doesn't make the Corvair a good car – it wasn't. Just because the Corvair has a rear, air-cooled engine and is less expensive than a Porsche doesn't make the Corvair a Porsche. At best it's a cheap knockoff. There are no more Corvairs being made for the same reason there are no Meade doublets being made. The general wider market (not just a few Corvair lovers) said the product just wasn't good enough. On the other hand,  Porsche's are still being produced. And by the way, so are Astro-Physics refractors. The market has spoken. 

 

There were many high-quality doublets produced "before" Meade's doublets. Takahashi comes to mind. But, at the time, Takahashi's doublet refractors were even more expensive than AP's triplets. There are also many high-quality and value-priced doublets being produced today. It's not the doublet design that is in question, it's Meade's doublet design that is in question. The marketplace has embraced these other doublet refractors. But the market gave up on Meade's doublets long ago, and pretty quickly.

 

This isn't about snobbery (why you would think so might need some self-reflection) this is about Meade's business model and Meade's repeated pattern of offering products that mimicked competitors' offerings along with the marketplace's general (and pretty quick) rejection of Meade's doublets – and for very good reason. 

 

Bob       


  • Kasmos likes 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