375 replies to this topic

[Dave Novoselsky]

“The bad was from a few who actually had one and had issues, but most of the bad comments were from people who just had heard there were issues and kept repeating those comments over and over.”

 

Really?  Where did you get that stupidity from?

 

im sorry I promised myself to ignore your nonsense but this is an absolute and complete fabrication.  Its 100% contrary to the contemporary posting listing actual issues encountered by actual owners and statements made at the time Meade made to its dealers who were getting barraged by disappointed customers demanding solutions.

 

So  I’m a liar, so is Chas and the other former owners? No, your rewriting of fact is simply an effort by a malicious troll to mislead the gullible to just assume everything that is out there to read for themselves is a lie.

 

want to take odds on just who is prevaricating here?  Let’s see facts backing up your persistent claim that this garbage is gold not simply your ‘word’ as a substitute for fact.

Edited by Dave Novoselsky, 08 February 2025 - 04:00 PM.

[starman876]

And those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Have fun,

is that original?  I thought I heard it before.  

[Dave Novoselsky]

I don’t find your efforts to mislead people into embracing one of the most notorious disasters in the history of amateur astronomy, one which managed to embarrass Meade itself, to be worthy of a smiley face nor a subject for anything other than my contempt.  

[starman876]

I don’t find your efforts to mislead people into embracing one of the most notorious disasters in the history of amateur astronomy, one which managed to embarrass Meade itself, to be worthy of a smiley face nor a subject for anything other than my contempt.  

sorry to hear you feel that way.  Sorry to hear you has a bad experience with a 178ED.   I did not have a bad experience and really enjoyed using the scope.    I will leave it at that.  

[Dave Novoselsky]

Good

[Bomber Bob]

Some Meade 178ED Owner Reports:

 

- "First off, Meade had no right to call this an apochromat--it is a semi-apo.  Now, about the scope: this thing was a major disappointment from Day 1.  It gives beautiful images and so on, but for the price I paid for the scope and for the league it is supposed to be in, it wasn't up to scratch. Fantastic lunar views, but the planets somehow won't settle down into steady focus, and a bit of a blue fringe on the outside corner---hard to describe."

 

https://astromart.co...d-apo-refractor

 

- Meade 178ed Lens cell Collimation / Centering/ Refurbishing and Baffle Reattachment.  "I’m sure you have read all the horror stories about the 178ED…  With a little work, I have corrected all the issues. I re-glued all the baffles(easy), put a 2.5″ Moonlite focuser on it(easy), and took apart the lens cell to clean it all out and redo the tape shimming that these optics need to stay aligned(somewhat tedious and took a few attempts)."

 

https://avt-astro.co...e-reattachment/

 

- "When you pay almost $7000 for a refractor, you expect it will provide excellent views of the planets and double stars.  This one doesn't.  Meade agreed, and made arrangements to take the OTA back for a third time.  Meade had kept the scope, on and off, for almost 10 months now."

 

https://www.scoperev....com/178ed.html

Edited by Bomber Bob, 08 February 2025 - 05:26 PM.

[starman876]

Some Meade 178ED Owner Reports:

 

- "First off, Meade had no right to call this an apochromat--it is a semi-apo.  Now, about the scope: this thing was a major disappointment from Day 1.  It gives beautiful images and so on, but for the price I paid for the scope and for the league it is supposed to be in, it wasn't up to scratch. Fantastic lunar views, but the planets somehow won't settle down into steady focus, and a bit of a blue fringe on the outside corner---hard to describe."

 

https://astromart.co...d-apo-refractor

 

- Meade 178ed Lens cell Collimation / Centering/ Refurbishing and Baffle Reattachment.  "I’m sure you have read all the horror stories about the 178ED…  With a little work, I have corrected all the issues. I re-glued all the baffles(easy), put a 2.5″ Moonlite focuser on it(easy), and took apart the lens cell to clean it all out and redo the tape shimming that these optics need to stay aligned(somewhat tedious and took a few attempts)."

 

https://avt-astro.co...e-reattachment/

 

- "When you pay almost $7000 for a refractor, you expect it will provide excellent views of the planets and double stars.  This one doesn't.  Meade agreed, and made arrangements to take the OTA back for a third time.  Meade had kept the scope, on and off, for almost 10 months now."

 

https://www.scoperev....com/178ed.html

and I have found just as many good reviews.  So I guess this will never end

 

https://www.cloudyni...od-meade-178ed/

 

I forgot I have been down this road before

Edited by starman876, 08 February 2025 - 05:30 PM.

[Bomber Bob]

These aren't reviews - they're Incident Reports from a lousy cell design.  There are many more.  These are a sample from Owners who took the time -- many months & phone calls with Meade -- to make Meade correct the issue...

 

Boeing tried ignoring Reports, too... until pressurized doors popped off mid-flight...

 

If I'd paid $7000 back in 1998 [$13,670 today] for one of these clunkers, I'd have sent it right back for a Refund.  Honestly!  Meade actually advised buyers to re-shim the brand-new cell with tape...  What.  A.  Joke.

[RichA]

The issue wasn't only having the provision for centring the optics but the size of the optics (related to the cell)  as well.

If you got lucky and had a tighter fitting (tolerance) lens/cell combo then once the Meade Mod was done the lens would hold and all was well.

 

Unfortunately many were made with the lens far too small for the cell, thus it flopped around within the cell and would go out of alignment when you moved the OTA (or slewed it around on a Mount).

 

The 178ED I had as well as a friends was exactly like this, however my 152ED doesn't even have the Meade Mod and stays in place (and collimation).

 

Some people have had luck wrapping the lens in tape to achieve a better tolerance, however IMO the only real way to fix a 178ED properly would be to house a new cell or add the plastic screws to hold the outer most lens secure as seem in the pic below (which is a 152ED)

 

 

152ed modified cell.JPG

That system will work fine since it's only a 2-lens optic.  No reason any issues can't be fixed that way, provided the optic is decent in the first place.

[RichA]

Meade 178? Better a tax audit than the Meade.  The one I had was impossible for Meade to fix back then and no doubt hardly any better now. The encounter Chas had with this piece of misdesign and poor build was hardly unique.  Putting lipstick on this pig will still leave it a pig.

Such a problem needs people who can think about adapting the lens cell to fix it, which wouldn't include Meade (who would hardly start drilling holes and adding little screws to it because it would be admitting there was a fault in the design), or yourself since you don't strike me as the DIY type of owner.  But doing a little work (IF needed) on a 7 inch that costs (the ad) a paltry $1200 U.S. seems a small price to pay.  I paid more for 2 Meade 127mms.  My concern would be the lenses themselves, are they decent and if not, it's likely dead weight.

[Bomber Bob]

But doing a little work (IF needed) on a 7 inch that costs (the ad) a paltry $1200 U.S. seems a small price to pay.

 

It seems the glass was good; so, sure!  If I could nab a used 178ED OTA for $1200, I'd gladly put work into restoring it.  I spent a year+ restoring my antique Mogey 3 -- made my own brass screws for it.  Ditto for my Tinsley 6 Cass.  But... my much cheaper brand new 2017 APM 152ED did not require any "fixes" after delivery...

[Dave Novoselsky]

I’m not in the market for a big refractor anymore but if I was, putting lipstick and band aids on a pig no matter how good your DIY effort will just leave you with a nicer pig.  And when it’s time to sell it you’ll recover less than zip for your time and costs as nobody really wants to buy someone else’s project or rely on their skill.

[Bomber Bob]

Yeah, I buy without the intention of re-selling my Big Restores:  Got 2 of my 5 TAKs for dirt cheap -- the 2 with Hazy Flint Elements.  Took a lot of sweat-equity to get them clean & clear -- from Krap to Keepers.  No Way anyone would pay me what they're worth Now...

[Steve Allison]

For me, DIY efforts can be a source of pleasure and fulfillment in and of themselves. They can be a lot of fun.

[CHASLX200]

Speculation??? Not hardly.

 

Okay. I had one, sent it back, Meade said it was fixed, returned it, still no good, sent a replacement, which was just as bad. If you search the Net you will find a flood of similar reports, culminating in Meade withdrawing the 178 from the market and refunding disappointed owners.  Yep, we were just a bunch of whiners, a whole lot of us.

 

Good enough or do you want egg in your bee? I respectfully suggest that acting as a belated fanboy for this disaster of an “APO” is hardly a service to this community.

 

And feel free to bash me for saying so. It won’t be a novel experience for me!

 Can't tell him anything he will just harp about his being good and i don't even trust what his eyes say vs mine. Just cuz one person says it is good don't mean it is. Until i get to test it.  Everytime someone says they had a bad 7" ED he will go on and on with the same old thing.

Edited by CHASLX200, 08 February 2025 - 07:18 PM.

[CHASLX200]

I went to excelsis telescope reviews. Out of the 19 reviews of the 178ED, 3 were negative and 16 were positive. Now there were problems with the centering, but some owners were able to master the centering and then loved the scopes, or they sent them back to Meade for the repair/fix.  If I would have purchased one of these new and paid the full price, I would be upset if I would have to send it back to Meade several times for centering or whatever. But on the used market these scopes can provide you with a great deal and if you can tweak it some it can be a great telescope. 

 

Martin 

This poster is lost also. Saying it will beat my 826. Good luck with that. A $120 scope being beat by a Meade 7" ED will never happen.

[starman876]

I was wondering where Chas had been this whole time. Welcome to the party Chas my man

[CHASLX200]

I was wondering where Chas had been this whole time. Welcome to the party Chas my man

Speaking of party i was on a party boat 40 miles offshore on a 12 hour trip. We died as the water temps are too cold.

[Martin]

You know Chas you are funny. Chas please tell us again about your experience with the Meade 178ED. I am kidding, please don't. I have only read it about 179 times here on Cloudy Nights. You tried one, you did not have the aptitude to fix the centering yourself. Now I would agree with you that it should not have been that way but most people would say, I wonder if the centering is getting knocked out because of the shipping and then they would try the centering themselves. But not you Chas, you just want to **** and ****. I can only wonder how miserable you must be to drag that with you all these years. Let it go Chas, I am tired of your broken record. Let it go. 

And as far as me being lost. Any average 178ED will blow your 826 out of the water. If you do not know that by now you have not learned anything over the years. I have 2 of the 826's and I like them and they have great optics, but they won't beat a 7 inch refractor. Wake up dude. 

 

Ok Chas. Now go on and on about how you got cheated and how bad your 178ed was. 

 

Martin

[CHASLX200]

You know Chas you are funny. Chas please tell us again about your experience with the Meade 178ED. I am kidding, please don't. I have only read it about 179 times here on Cloudy Nights. You tried one, you did not have the aptitude to fix the centering yourself. Now I would agree with you that it should not have been that way but most people would say, I wonder if the centering is getting knocked out because of the shipping and then they would try the centering themselves. But not you Chas, you just want to **** and ****. I can only wonder how miserable you must be to drag that with you all these years. Let it go Chas, I am tired of your broken record. Let it go. 

And as far as me being lost. Any average 178ED will blow your 826 out of the water. If you do not know that by now you have not learned anything over the years. I have 2 of the 826's and I like them and they have great optics, but they won't beat a 7 inch refractor. Wake up dude. 

 

Ok Chas. Now go on and on about how you got cheated and how bad your 178ed was. 

 

Martin

Why should i fix something i paid many K for?  So if you buy a new Vette and the trans goes are you gonna fix it yourself?  Nothing will touch the 826 once you throw in the money factor.

 

$120 826 vs a scope costing 5 to 20k will always favor the 826. I mean sure a 7" AP is gonna be better but it is worth 20K better?

 

Plus how could i fix something that i had no clue what was going on and even Meade had no clue in 1999?  All i knew was after a 2 sec peek is a star looked like a line.

Edited by CHASLX200, 08 February 2025 - 08:18 PM.

[Dave Novoselsky]

I find it remarkable that a telescope that became legendary as a disaster and was so poorly designed that it’s own manufacture finally gave up trying to fix it and repurchased them from their customers and took them back from their dealers has caused some of you to try to rewrite history.  To me that’s just silly.  However to suggest that Chas and others like myself who bought one and gave Meade every chance to fix a terrible design are delusional  has become personally offensive.

 

Garbage is garbage and the continuing efforts to rewrite history makes this forum look like those for conspiracy theorists. If you want to go and play with one yourself have at it but stop trying to get others to praise you for trying to resurrect an abomination that was buried long ago by its own parents.

[jragsdale]

I find it remarkable that a telescope that became legendary as a disaster and was so poorly designed that it’s own manufacture finally gave up trying to fix it and repurchased them from their customers and took them back from their dealers has caused some of you to try to rewrite history.  

Clearly there is a spectrum of experiences, yours being on the far edge of the bad side. But you still represent a single data point, no matter how loud or emphatically you scream it.

 

As a semi-ATM user, a lens cell with poorly machined tolerances that can decenter the lens seems like a minor inconvenience. A fixable flaw. Yes, a $10k scope shouldn't have any flaws, but this was the first model of its type, so was essentially a prototype. They didn't know shipping the scope was going to be the undoing of many of these scopes that left their test bench in good order. But I digress, never having owned one and watching this play out, I have no horse in the race.

[Steve Allison]

Er, it is just a telescope…

[starman876]

This is really starting to be a strange thread.   Never saw a moment in where people were mad because you said a scope they had was great when they had one that was bad.  I would be happy for the guys that had good ones and be sad for the ones that had the bad ones.   You do not see many of the 178ed for sale.   Maybe because once people have one they like they hang on to them.   

[RichA]

But doing a little work (IF needed) on a 7 inch that costs (the ad) a paltry $1200 U.S. seems a small price to pay.

 

It seems the glass was good; so, sure!  If I could nab a used 178ED OTA for $1200, I'd gladly put work into restoring it.  I spent a year+ restoring my antique Mogey 3 -- made my own brass screws for it.  Ditto for my Tinsley 6 Cass.  But... my much cheaper brand new 2017 APM 152ED did not require any "fixes" after delivery...

I've not seen a six inch non-achro anything sell for under $2k used recently and the last used seven inch scope I was involved with a deal with was cheap at $6000.00.  If a decent seven inch scope can be had for $1200, it's pretty amazing.