Jamespnz

On 09/05/2021 at 20:56, Shimrod said:

If you are on linkedin, you could try a direct message there Corey Lee - Celestron

Had a response from Celestron via TASCO Australia. Basically the defects are within current manufacturing tolerances. So just live with it. They did reiterate that it is rare and unusual. But tough luck. No matter how rare and unusual a defect is, if it is within tolerances from a manufacturing perspective, the consumer will have to suck it up, no matter how much money crosses palms. But on the bright side they will guarantee that particular defect to be trouble free for 10 years. So hey that's a bonus *sarcasm*. Strangely this experience has not sullied my view of the company as a whole. I would buy the same scope and accessories again tomorrow if I had the opportunity, though hopefully defect free and with better after care support. There are lessons to be learned, in this case, on all sides I believe.

36 minutes ago, Shimrod said:

If you are on linkedin, you could try a direct message there Corey Lee - Celestron

I will go down that track but don't hold out hope on a reply. I am surprised no one else on this forum has had similar experiences with Celestron.

On 04/05/2021 at 04:23, kirkster501 said:

I would not be happy with that on a brand new scope and I would be seeking either a replacement secondary and/or a significant credit on the cost of the scope if you have to live with it to cover your resale loss that will ensue when someone notices it - as they will since it is a Fastar and is removable for Hyperstar.  If they come out with the "manufacturing tolerance" BS, tell them that the nature of this defect, cosmetic or not, will effect your pocket when you come to sell the scope and it is unbecoming of a market leader such as Celestron to subject a customer to this.  It is not acceptable you should have to put up with this, even if the secondary works perfectly, as I am sure it does.  I would not accept a brand new scope with that defect.

Any BS then go straight to Corey Lee, the head of Celestron.  You can find his email on the web.

Kirkster. I can't seem to find Corey Lees email.  CEO @ celestron.com and Corey Lee @ celestron.com bounce back. Does anyone know a direct contact for getting a actionable response?

Does any one else have pictures of their fastar secondary mirrors to compare?

Yes. The OTA is an edge hd. I guess the finishing is not that high quality in the US compared to other models.  Based on this evidence.

The same as above is the reply just received from Celestron as oasted below. However they do state that is uncommon, and do not offer a real solution. Resale value is a consideration here. Seems sloppy to me, especially for the price paid. I wouldnt accept a car with such cosmetic defects and just say, hey I paid $10000 for this, my new car is dented, but that one over there is okay, but I'll live with the dented one because sometimes that happens.

Are I'd the reply from Celestron.

Your photos have been evaluated and although it is not common, the edge chips seen on the edge of the secondary are from the manufacturing process which can be normal. Each individual mirror is inspected and tested by our master opticians to make sure that the optical surface is unaffected or compromised in any way. The edge chips seen in your photos will not affect the optical performance at all. If the primary mirror or secondaries have stress fractures, then that can be a problem with temperature changes over time and in those cases the primaries and secondaries are not used. It is common to see bubbles in the mirror substrates, small glass chips on back of the mirrors and secondaries but since the primary purpose of the mirrors is to reflect the light rather than to transmit the light through the glass( as with refractor lenses), as long as the front surfaces are perfect and there are no coating problems, the optics will perform as intended. There is nothing wrong with your telescope optics. It is up to the dealer's discreation if they want to replace the product. 

Similar OTA I have seen do not either. That's the worry I have. Does any one have a suggestion as to how they would approach this? When I emailed photos to the dealer he said it was normal, as it would have occurred when it was taken out of the mould. That didn't seem quite right to me. I am still awaiting a response from Celestron.

I like your analogy. It makes sense. Just curious to know if other people with the same or similar scope have similar issues. It appears it is in the minority, as a google image search and asking here does not appear to have turned up with people who have had a similar fault. Seems to be a bit sub standard for a product that is meant to be top of the line and costs many thousands of dollars (in New Zealand at least).  

I do love Celestron, don't get me wrong. Infact if I wasn't in my current job then I would be a salesman for them. In this instance I am just very disturbed to discover these faults, have limited answers as to why it occurred and if it has happened to others, especially at this level of cost point, it's a worry.

Thanks for your response.

Thanks. How do you think it would have happened? I was told it could have happened when taken out of the mould.

Still interested to see if other hd deluxe owners have similar experiences.

Just considering the whole setup cost in excess of 12000nzd, and is meant to be top of the line for what's avaliable over here, I would have expected better manufacturing tolerances from a company like Celestron. So any people with similar fastar secondary mirrors would be interesting to see. Is this the norm for this company? Just wanting to put my mind at ease either way.

Thanks for your replys. Yes it is fastar, so meant to be removed. Does any one else have feedback on what their secondaries look like and whether this is an acceptable norm for Celestron?

Hi everyone.

NZ based observer. I recently purchased a new CPC 1100, removed the secondary and discovered these chips on the side. Is this normal? If so it's quite surprising for a nearly $9000 NZD scope. The mirror appears fine. But the chips look a bit worrying, the large one is almost the whole side of the mirror. Is this an acceptable manufacturing tolerance for Celestron? Does anyone else have a secondary that looks like this?

Thanks in advance