Kevin Conville:
"Paul, Tom-
Then, taking this from the reverse direction based on your premises...
Since the Pentax XWs and XOs sell for the same price and what dictates that price is the level of polish, coatings, precision, etc. than one can/should conclude that the XWs are of inferior build quality to the XOs.
This is accounting for the extra, larger elements, and polishing and coating them.
If they are built to the same price point than apparently the larger eyepiece is dumbed down.
I don't think this is the case, and I don't think this has much to do with it at all. It's marketing and market share.
In the case of TMB one can probably make an argument for them being boutique, with a garage band budget as compared to a giant like Pentax.
Same with AP.
These companies make and sell boutique scopes and really have no other choice but to sell boutique eyepieces at boutique prices if they make them at all. After all they're TMB and AP, not Celestron or Meade.
Understand that I'm not questioning the quality of these eyepieces or even if they're worth it. That's up to you to decide. I'm pointing out that these cost as much or more (in some cases) than larger, more complex designs of very high repute and that it may be primarily market driven."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I'll bet if you were to take a Monocentric, change the cosmetics a bit and re-badge it, then sell it for $400. there would be people who would buy it and convince themselves and others it is superior.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I once had a friend who had a business re-lining brake shoes for vintage/collectable motorcycles. He was lamenting to me his mediocre sales and so-so profit.
I told him to double his prices.
The logic being that people who collect expensive motorcycles WANT to pay more as this means it is of better quality.
It took a bit of convincing but he did it.
His sales grew dramatically and the company expanded.
Same materials, same process, different perceptions.
"Paul, Tom-
Then, taking this from the reverse direction based on your premises...
Since the Pentax XWs and XOs sell for the same price and what dictates that price is the level of polish, coatings, precision, etc. than one can/should conclude that the XWs are of inferior build quality to the XOs.
This is accounting for the extra, larger elements, and polishing and coating them.
If they are built to the same price point than apparently the larger eyepiece is dumbed down.
I don't think this is the case, and I don't think this has much to do with it at all. It's marketing and market share.
In the case of TMB one can probably make an argument for them being boutique, with a garage band budget as compared to a giant like Pentax.
Same with AP.
These companies make and sell boutique scopes and really have no other choice but to sell boutique eyepieces at boutique prices if they make them at all. After all they're TMB and AP, not Celestron or Meade.
Understand that I'm not questioning the quality of these eyepieces or even if they're worth it. That's up to you to decide. I'm pointing out that these cost as much or more (in some cases) than larger, more complex designs of very high repute and that it may be primarily market driven."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I'll bet if you were to take a Monocentric, change the cosmetics a bit and re-badge it, then sell it for $400. there would be people who would buy it and convince themselves and others it is superior.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I once had a friend who had a business re-lining brake shoes for vintage/collectable motorcycles. He was lamenting to me his mediocre sales and so-so profit.
I told him to double his prices.
The logic being that people who collect expensive motorcycles WANT to pay more as this means it is of better quality.
It took a bit of convincing but he did it.
His sales grew dramatically and the company expanded.
Same materials, same process, different perceptions.