Oh dear talk about well... the add says it all

[Cornelius Varley]

Quote:

We would like to indicate, that a lot of astronomic instruments are still being equipped with a simple and a bit dated focusers 0,98"(24,5mm), for which there aren't many accessories available these days, and which don't provide a long lasting observation fun. Opticon products are equipped with focusers 1,25"(31,7mm), which compared to the smaller ones 0,98"(24,5mm) guarantee an optimal use of full range of capabilities of the offered product

This part of the original listing has been removed because it implied that the telescope had a 1.25" focuser, contradicting early information, and that only cheap and nasty e-bay telescopes had 0.98" focusers.

Peter

[Cornelius Varley]

From another of the sellers listings

"Warning:

We would like to indicate, that a lot of astronomic instruments are still being equipped with a simple and a bit dated focusers 0,98"(24,5mm), for which there aren't many accessories available these days, and which don't provide a long lasting observation fun. Opticon products are equipped with focusers 1,25"(31,7mm), which compared to the smaller ones 0,98"(24,5mm) guarantee an optimal use of full range of capabilities of the offered product. I WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE THAT MOST OF CHEAP PRODUCTS PROMOTED ON EBAY ARE EQUIPPED WITH AN OLD FOCUSERS 0,98". We don't recommend this type of instruments because of the poor quality of the obtained picture!"

See what I mean.

And 24.5mm = 0.965" not 0.98"

Peter

[Deneb]

It would make a nice cheap guide scope though...

[Earl]

It would make a nice cheap guide scope though...

I did ponder that.. but getting an adapter from .96 to 1.25 could be an issue.

[sbooder]

Actually no quality producer of telescopes would display such a flagrant misrepresentation of the scopes abilities by showing a Hubble type image on their box and because the image is on this add, it most certainly dose imply that very ability.

[garethmob]

lol my ETX 70 does have them pictures of hubble images on its box....... and ok meade has seen better days but it is basacally one of the big 3 (skywatcher, celestron, meade) ((and i do know sky and celest is the same.....)

[661-pete]

I agree it isn't going to be a great scope, and knowing what I know now, I would not buy it for a child, but unless they have changed the ad since you posted all of the above, am I missing something? It's a telescope, with a tripod, a 2 year guarantee if it breaks, a 15 day money back no quibble, a moon filter, a moon and solar system map, some pdfs to help you get started. For £30. Looks like a great way for some parent to get their child interested in the night sky. Not everyone can afford the £100 or more that may be required for a 'decent' starter scope.

I do agree the claim about being able to see nebulas, and about easy upgrades could be misleading. But I don't see the problem with them including a nice nebula image. It doesn't say you will be able to see it with the telescope, it doesn't even really imply it - plenty of respectable telescope sellers use such images to brighten up their adverts - Telescope House currently have on their home page a banner for starter scopes with wacking big Jupiter and Saturn photos. I trust you will be complaining to them as well?

I also think that accusing them of fraud is a tad libelous. You might want to edit that comment in case they cotton on to this assassination of their product

Sorry that this probably sounds like a grumpy post , but I started with a telescope that was probably of lesser quality than that one, and if I hadn't, I wouldn't be a member of this forum today.

Actually no quality producer of telescopes would display such a flagrant misrepresentation of the scopes abilities by showing a Hubble type image on their box and because the image is on this add, it most certainly dose imply that very ability.

I'm inclined to agree with Julian here. Come on guys, are you going to say, you've never seen exaggerated hype in an advert? Look on the box that any telescope comes in, there's guaranteed to be a picture that's beyond that telescope's capability.

I'm somewhat reminded of the famous scene in the movie Falling Down - you know, the one where Michael Douglas goes into a hamburger bar and then has a gripe because the hamburger doesn't look like the one in the picture on the wall! Actually: more than a gripe - he starts shooting up the place! I hope at least you guys are not about to walk into a telescope shop and open fire!

[cotterless45]

Pity is that anyone buying this will probably be put off for life. I was unlucky enough to experience the view through a National Geographic clone scope.....not pretty. Thought there was something badly wrong with my eyes!

[JamesM]

Iamjulian, if you care to read my post carefully, I actually used the word 'almost' in describing what many would could interpret as misrepresentation. The advertisement infers that the scope is of sufficient quality to satisfy both the, "...new starters and advanced astronomy" clearly misleading those who have not done their research. My argument is not that this scope doesn't work or that it is over priced but rather that the technical description is misleading in describing its capabilities.

However, I totally agree with you on the flagrant use of deep sky images to inaccurately suggest a scope's potential capability, not just this scope but nearly all scopes and I have said so many times on this forum. In fact I have even gone further and criticised the use of uncredited images to illustrate monthly observation sections in all of the astro magazines. It is not right and it is misleading especially for those starting out, who claim they can't find the object but they did notice something else that was a bit fuzzy!.

For yourself and many others, this level of scope provided your only route in to astronomy. Conversely, I know of many, though the true overall true figure would be impossible to calculate, who have been put off astronomy by some of the scopes out there that are not fit for purpose or whose expectations were raised unrealistically. Some of the major brands have been brilliant in producing not just affordable kit but excellent kit which has opened astronomy's door to so many. It's just a shame that there will always be some that misrepresent and ultimately mislead beginners be it with poor kit or descriptions.

James

[Imp_Perfect]

Oh wise ones, look at the price. £30. Is it not worth that amount of money to get the interest of those who have never even seen a scope, let alone looked through one?

This is the sort of thing that can get things moving in a beginners mind.

Yes to us it looks and probably is pretty poor fair, but folks do have to start somewhere. Imagine the delight on a young child's face as he takes his first look at the moon through something other than his own wonder filled eyes.

No I don't want one either, but there may be someone out there who will one day be an Astronomer Royal who will look through one of these.

[JimStan]

The whole premise of purchasing a 30 pound scope and expecting it to deliver Hubble-like imaging is SO WRONG that it should be considered "false advertising". And yet, when it comes to selling cheap junk telescopes, it is one of the most over-utilized tools of the advertising business.

Many of these scopes are advertised as being "70mm refractors", and yet, if you look down the barrel of one of these atrocities, you will find a field stop that blocks the light from over 50% of the area of the objective.

Once upon a time, 70mm refractors actually had GLASS dual element objectives, and if they were fit with a decent eyepiece ( which almost NEVER WERE ) they actually could deliver a fair image of the moon, Jupiter and Saturn ( you could actually make out the moons and rings of the two planets ! )

But the quality of most of these dime-store telescopes now days, makes me wish for the "better" scopes of those days gone by !

Take your 30 pounds ( or dollars, or dracmas, for that matter ) and go purchase a fair pair of binoculars instead. You will find much more satisfaction with your cash outlay in that manner, than you EVER will by buying a cheap scope ! Learn your way around the sky with a pair of binocs, and then when you are ready, purchase a scope of decent quality ! By then, you should understand what is involved in such a purchase.

Jim S.

[sbooder]

Meade, Quality, I don't think so?

[iamjulian]

Iamjulian, if you care to read my post carefully, I actually used the word 'almost' in describing what many would could interpret as misrepresentation.

James, using the word 'almost' isn't going to help when in the same breath you accuse them of ripping people off and call their product into question. Something is classed as defamatory if it spoils their reputation and makes people want to avoid them. You are entitled to your opinion about the company, I am just saying you should be careful what you say online

[Doc]

The telescope assembly is easy and intuitional, although the storage of it can be as easy as putting it in the wardrobe or under your bed.

Under the bed is where most of them will end up.

[ScubaMike]

It's all well and good offering "full satisfaction" and "money back", but when they charge £9.99 P&P (which will NOT be refunded), and you have to send back at your own expense, they will make £5 on each item they send out, even if it is returned.