Posts Made By: Peter Petrone III

I have read that bagging or covering the corrector plate on an SCT or lens on a refractor (while still outside) can prevent moisture from forming as the scope warms up inside after a viewing session. Since the thermal mass of the scope is large compared with the volume of the trapped air inside the bag, I do not see this working well. The theory is that the cooler air will act as a buffer allowing the scope to gradually warm up, thus preventing the moisture from forming on the optics. Any thoughts?

From the Burgess Optical Group (Yahoo):

"The 40mm was sent back to China for a re-work. The original model did not have a wide enough field to suit Bill. He is having them produce a new 40mm with a revised design. They should be coming in shortly according to Bill. I put myself in for a set myself."

After reading yet another "Burgess excuse" I can not help but ponder the following. It seems that each time Bill Burgess slips schedule he needs to "redesign" his optical components. If the problem were with manufacturing, wouldn’t he focus in on the production process? Why did the 1026f lenses have to be "redesigned"? In addition to the lenses, does anyone else find it curious that the focuser units and eyepieces also have to be "redesigned". You can not blame the Chinese if Burgess does not know what he is doing. I will bet that many of the delays relate more to blunders originating in the USA and not China.

Since the price of used equipment (especially the premium stuff) is often close to the price of buying new, what is the incentive for buying used? I realize that there are exceptions to this assertion, but more often than not I see people paying up for the used stuff. Does it make sense to buy a several year old premium refractor (likely without warranty) to save several hundred dollars over the cost of a new unit. I guess the answer is that to some it does. Just thinking out loud. What are your thought on this topic?

I could not help but post this little "gem" from the Burgess Optical Web Site. The price for the 102f6 is $398.00. At 5X the competition would be priced at $1990.00 and at 10X we are looking at a cool #3,998.00. I guess that at $3998.00 we could only match but not exceed the Burgess "build quality".

"This is the first in a series of fine achro refractors. If you have been looking for a high quality Achro for a reasonable price your search is over!!! You could pay 5-10 times as much and still not match the construction. OTA shown on the GEM 1 mount (available separately)."

Are you sure they were not made in a secret TV or TAK factory. I doubt this, since the build quality looks quite good!

If there was not an expensive alternative - what is the purpose of having large amounts of money. After all, Rolex is still in business. It is not about how good it is, but rather about segregrating yourself from the masses.

"Just seeing if the 1026's have shipped or if there has been any sort of sign of life from BO...?"

Are you kidding? Bill is still trying to work out the details involved with reinventing the achromat lens. I believe that he already has a "working design" for the optical tube assembly and is on his way to reinventing the focuser hardware. Since other humans have muddled in this field he at least has a model to work from. Within the next year or so, he may deliver a no compromise 1026f (or not).

Hi Mike:

It may not be that easy. Quality is an elusive and ill defined metric. To many, it is the fit and finish of the exterior of the telescope. Others, get off on the "feel" of the focuser and knowing they paid more than most for their "treasure". Most consider optical performance as the chief consideration but then argue over hardware components. For example, a specific refractor is good but it's long focal length makes it difficult to mount. Now we can spend the next several months discussing which mount can survive a nuclear blast. I find that having a few telescopes of various f/#s is a safe way to avoid the trap. Since I do not have unlimited funds, I select a telescope (usually not a premium scope) that seems meet a specific viewing objective. Is there something better out there ....sure. There is always something better - but if you are happy with the views, what is the point?

Curiously, much of this concern could be easily be resolved by a few words from Bill Burgess. As someone once said "the silence is deafening".

I wanted to say:

What are your thoughts on this topic?