17 replies to this topic

[PlanetNamek]

So I was looking around at some scopes, just bored before bed and not REALLY trying to buy anything but I notice a Celestron C6 on an Advanced VX mount going for $1,749 USD and next to it I see a C9.25 OTA only going for $1,899.95. How can they possibly justify charging more just for an OTA over an OTA and a Mount with the C6? Maybe I am not understanding something but it seems kind of ridiculous to me.

[ris242]

A 9.25" has almost 2.5x the light grasp of a 6"

 

I would have thought a C6 is a little underpowered.

[therealdmt]

Coupla thoughts:

 

First, in a market economy, the price reflects demand. I mean, why do you care if a C9.25 OTA costs almost 2 thousand dollars? Probably because you want 9.25 inches of aperture, not 6.

 

Another: bigger versions of things tend to cost more in general. More materials, higher shipping costs, take up more space in inventory, more expensive servicing if/when needed, etc. There’s also lower volume — how many people have 2 grand lying around just to spend on an OTA? Some of course, but less people than have more like 1,750 to spend on a pretty complete system and they’ll be good to go (and, if budgeting 2 grand, they’ll still have around $250 left for an eyepiece or two and a heated dewshield). Accordingly, operating costs and a profit have to be divided among fewer items sold when it comes to bigger, more expensive equipment.

 

Finally, if the market doesn’t agree with their pricing strategy here, the business will be inefficient (they’ll be stuck holding onto inventory, thereby incurring inventory carrying costs on what will eventually be a depreciating asset). Then, in a cutthroat retail environment with many online retailers as alternatives just a click away, they’ll either have to adjust their prices, operate more efficiently elsewhere, provide a perceived value add somehow somewhere, or… eventually go out of business

[kgb]

Prices scale quickly with aperture and some designs scale more dramatically than others. Personally, I think the C9.25 is a good value namely because it is a known good performer. You can also find good deals in the used market.

[PlanetNamek]

Coupla thoughts:

 

First, in a market economy, the price reflects demand. I mean, why do you care if a C9.25 OTA costs almost 2 thousand dollars? Probably because you want 9.25 inches of aperture, not 6.

 

Another: bigger versions of things tend to cost more in general. More materials, higher shipping costs, take up more space in inventory, more expensive servicing if/when needed, etc. There’s also lower volume — how many people have 2 grand lying around just to spend on an OTA? Some of course, but less people than have more like 1,750 to spend on a pretty complete system and they’ll be good to go (and, if budgeting 2 grand, they’ll still have around $250 left for an eyepiece or two and a heated dewshield). Accordingly, operating costs and a profit have to be divided among fewer items sold when it comes to bigger, more expensive equipment.

 

Finally, if the market doesn’t agree with their pricing strategy here, the business will be inefficient (they’ll be stuck holding onto inventory, thereby incurring inventory carrying costs on what will eventually be a depreciating asset). Then, in a cutthroat retail environment with many online retailers as alternatives just a click away, they’ll either have to adjust their prices, operate more efficiently elsewhere, provide a perceived value add somehow somewhere, or… eventually go out of business

Thanks for the breakdown there. So what I'm getting is basically it's more aperture so automatically more expensive and there are enough people willing to spend that money on the 9.25 to the point that they don't need to lower the price. Funny enough, I have a C9.25, but mine is the Nexstar Evolution "package".

[therealdmt]

Thanks for the breakdown there. So what I'm getting is basically it's more aperture so automatically more expensive and there are enough people willing to spend that money on the 9.25 to the point that they don't need to lower the price. Funny enough, I have a C9.25, but mine is the Nexstar Evolution "package".

So, basically you’re looking at where prices are these days and are not satisfied (perhaps a bit dismayed)? I feel ya. There was a 5" refractor I could have bought for less than $1,500 a few years ago and which I was on the fence about buying but thought, "Ehh, just use what I have for now (I’d just bought a 4") and I’ll get the 5" later". But "later" the price went up. "Well, it’ll come back down eventually", I thought.   The price kept slowly going up and up, and now I can’t justifiably afford it…

[Jon Isaacs]

So I was looking around at some scopes, just bored before bed and not REALLY trying to buy anything but I notice a Celestron C6 on an Advanced VX mount going for $1,749 USD and next to it I see a C9.25 OTA only going for $1,899.95. How can they possibly justify charging more just for an OTA over an OTA and a Mount with the C6? Maybe I am not understanding something but it seems kind of ridiculous to me.

 

Bigger scopes cost a lot more to make. A C-6 cost $660..   a basic 102 mm ED refractor, you can buy one for around $650. A basic 6 inch ED is around $2500. 

 

If you look at a 4 inch side by side with a 6 inch, it will be quite obvious why the cost is so different.

 

Jon

 

 

[ausastronomer]

Let me put it like this, in very simplistic terms.

Would you expect a Dodge RAM without a spare tyre, to cost more than a Toyota Corolla with a spare Tyre ?   Obviously !    Why?  You're getting a lot more car.

Similarly, a C9.25 is a lot more telescope and costs a lot more to make than a C6.

 

Cheers,

[TOMDEY]

So I was looking around at some scopes, just bored before bed and not REALLY trying to buy anything but I notice a Celestron C6 on an Advanced VX mount going for $1,749 USD and next to it I see a C9.25 OTA only going for $1,899.95. How can they possibly justify charging more just for an OTA over an OTA and a Mount with the C6? Maybe I am not understanding something but it seems kind of ridiculous to me.

Prices are what they are and generally settle at what serious buyers are willing to pay and serious sellers are able to make it worth their while to offer. That really and accurately describes about 90% of established markets. If you do a bit of homework / research you will rather quickly notice what are the going prices. At that point... it becomes what it's ~worth to you~. Languishing over the nebulous concept of "fair price" is on the metaphysical side of the fence. All that practically matters it's "worth it" to the potential buyer who is lusting over the choices.   Tom

[triplemon]

 How can they possibly justify charging more just for an OTA over an OTA and a Mount with the C6? Maybe I am not understanding something but it seems kind of ridiculous to me.

The AVX mount is quite a piece of technology in the one package, likely more than half of the cost. To compare apples to apples you'd have to price in a mount suitable to hold the C9.25 as well.

And yes, volume, weight and and cost goes up close to about the 3rd power of aperture diameter. So by that the c9.25 is 3.7x what a c6 is.

 

If any of that is worth it for you and your particular needs - thats an entirely different story. That is why its not a charge, something you have to pay no matter what. You can always choose to not buy what is not worth the price for you, welcome to the free market economy.

Edited by triplemon, 28 March 2025 - 01:09 AM.

[bobzeq25]

So I was looking around at some scopes, just bored before bed and not REALLY trying to buy anything but I notice a Celestron C6 on an Advanced VX mount going for $1,749 USD and next to it I see a C9.25 OTA only going for $1,899.95. How can they possibly justify charging more just for an OTA over an OTA and a Mount with the C6? Maybe I am not understanding something but it seems kind of ridiculous to me.

Because the value of the larger OTA is higher than the combined value of the smaller OTA and the low end mount.

You can't see how that would be the case? Let me try another example.

What if the standalone OTA was a 5 inch Takahashi, like the one referenced below.

Now they'd be selling a 6 inch telescope with a mount, for less than ONE THIRD the price of a 5 inch scope without a mount. Does that make sense to you?

It should, because it's sensible. Not ridiculous at all. <smile>

https://agenaastro.c...ch-focuser.html

Edited by bobzeq25, 28 March 2025 - 01:05 AM.

[james7ca]

I believe that Celestron's 9.25" SCTs have the largest price jump or gap (percentage wise) between the previous and smaller model than any other size. They also have a slightly different optical formula from the other SCTs made by Celestron. The latter has lead some to believe that they are optical superior to other SCTs. In fact, I think this claim originated at Celestron as a justification for the change in the optics. But, maybe someone at Celestron came up with that idea just so that they could charge more for their newly designed 9.25" SCT. However, because of this price difference I suspect that the 9.25" models are less popular and that means fewer are likely being made.

 

Contrast the above with the C6, since that scope is probably the most popular SCT that is made by Celestron. The C6 optical tube use to go on sale for about $400, so a bundle with the AVX at $1749 leaves plenty of room to charge full price for the mount (and then some). That said, prices generally continue to go up so it may not be correct to suggest that you can occasionally find a new C6 for just $400 (i.e. I don't know what the recent sale prices have been, I bought mine many years ago).

 

Basically, I think Celestron treats the C6 and C8 as their relatively cheap mass market models, while the C9.25 is the first in their lineup of more "premium" SCTs.

 

Lastly, here is a CN post/link that I wrote back in 2015 that compared the price of a new 9.25" EdgeHD to the other EdgeHDs made by Celestron. The numbers back then suggested that the 9.25" EdgeHD was somewhat expensive compared to the other models (again, on a percentage basis to aperture).

 

  https://www.cloudyni...dpost&p=6611387

[Spaceman 56]

Second hand is the solution to the pricing problem.

 

you can get good scopes for reasonable prices if you look around and wait for them to come up.

[PJBilotta]

It's a classic sales strategy. You're looking to buy a new telescope, and they package a scope, mount, tripod and accessories set at one package price - let's say $2,199 for a Evolution 8 ($1,699 pre-tarriff, by the way). It's a gateway drug.

However, if you are looking for just an 9.25" OTA or 8" OTA, that means you are now either addicted, and they can charge you more, or you need a replacement, and replacements always cost more.

It's non-sensical because there is no sense to it. Because it's all about maximizing profit. That's the reason Cloudy Night exists . . . to make upgrading and enjoying our hobby more a bit more sensical.

[quilty]

Honest answer
I gave up since long trying to understand price levels. Unless you have full insight to all circumstances of matter you can't find any sense in them
There's much more but just this:
What's the worth of a scope (in USD)? Compared to washing machines, beer or anything. Can you tell? you can't
What's the cost to produce, trade and ship a scope? Can you tell? I can't and I suspect nobody really can.

Thus we must concede to be most uncertain about the two major price setting contributions. Everything in between is trademanship which I never understood but which is, that's for sure not any more certain

But what I DO know is:

The Skymax 6 purchased used for 200€ was my best purchase ever. Best performance/price ratio. Performance close to the C9

Edited by quilty, 07 April 2025 - 08:27 AM.

[Eddgie]

Because it's all about maximizing profit. 

Yes, this is the most fundamental characteristic of the free enterprise system.  This is a hobby to us, but to every other person in the supply chain, it is a source of revenue and profit. Everyone that touches the design, the parts and materials that go into the scope, the packaging, the shipping, the warehousing, the distribution, the advertising, the sales, and the shipping to the consumer makes a profit off of this telescope, and when any of the costs go up for any of the vast amount of components of the supply chain, the price to the consumer goes up because everyone passes their increased costs along to the consumer, one way or the other.  

 

I would guess that the materials and the cost to manufacture a C8 are probably less than $150.  Everything else is supply chain costs and taxes.  (In China, the company pays a 25% business tax on their profits. In the US, it is $21%. 

 

Also, in the US, a small business owner will typically pay between $9000 (single employee) and $23000 a year for health insurance for their families. How many telescopes does a retailer like the former Orion Telescopes have to sell to even break even? (Their fate was likely tied to the bad business decision to buy Meade Instruments.)  

Bottom line is that when you buy a telescope, there are a lot of people that have to make money, and considering the high cost of doing business, you definitely need to value price your goods. If the consumer thinks they want more, and they will pay extra to get it, and the seller desperately needs to get as much more as they can. The will likely sell more C8s than C9.25s, so they have to get the many they need, they need to charge much more for the scope that they will sell fewer of. 

 

I did business in China for about 5 years. I can assure you that the manufacturing costs of telescopes is a small fraction of the retail cost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will just put the company in there as a single unit and not bother breaking down all of the people in the company, but when the company sells the telescope to the distributor, they add there own profit to that $200 and maybe that is 20%.

 

Next, they have to get that telescope to the distributor. The distributor does the Freight on Board (FOB). This means that if the distributor is in some place like Oklahoma, they have to get it shipped too the US, through customs, pay any tariffs, then get it shipped to their warehouse. 

[SandyHouTex]

$150 to manufacture a C8 is too low.  I would estimate 1/2 the cost is materials, labor, employee benefits, tooling, the factory, etc..  Once you have the C8 in a box ready to sell, then you have to pay for advertising and shipping to the vendor. The wholesale cost to the vendor is probably around 75% of the MSRP, which contains the Celestron profit. Once sold, the vendor pays the cost of boxing it up and shipping it to the customer, making roughly a 20% profit.

[maniack]

$150 to manufacture a C8 is too low. I would estimate 1/2 the cost is materials, labor, employee benefits, tooling, the factory, etc.. Once you have the C8 in a box ready to sell, then you have to pay for advertising and shipping to the vendor. The wholesale cost to the vendor is probably around 75% of the MSRP, which contains the Celestron profit. Once sold, the vendor pays the cost of boxing it up and shipping it to the customer, making roughly a 20% profit.

I'm familiar with electronics, and the retail price is typically about 4x the manufacturing cost. Storage, shipping, returns, warranty repairs, duties, and channel margin eat up most of the rest of the cost. Then the company has to pay its workers, marketing costs, rent, etc. so there's not much left for profit.