Misleading telescope advertising: ASA complaint

[BinocularSky]

- still think scope title with 'X' implies magnification NOT focal length eg a novice will think '70x600' magnifies x600

Unfortunately, this has almost become the norm for advertising budget scopes targeted at beginners. It's even worse with binoculars: I've seen a Sakura 15x22 described as a 30x60. However, the ASA is unlikely to act if the small print states that it refers to the aperture and focal length. At the moment I want to concentrate on the more blatant abuses of reality -- once that is settled, we can start getting more picky. I want to establish precedents, preferably a couple of formal rulings, with the ASA first and that will be easier to do with the more outrageous stuff.

[fredster]

I take it Harrison Cameras have nothing to do with Harrison Telescopes? That would be very disappointing and surprising if they were connected. Guessing not though.

Well done for the hard work so far. We've had some real junk telescopes turn up with members and we do our best to let them down gently. And if possible find ways of still getting something out of it for them. But most are beyond help. All we can do is point them in the direction of a decent starter scope.

[BinocularSky]

I take it Harrison Cameras have nothing to do with Harrison Telescopes?

Nothing at all in common.

We've had some real junk telescopes turn up with members and we do our best to let them down gently. And if possible find ways of still getting something out of it for them. But most are beyond help.

I've come to the conclusion that, unless its a child, it is kinder in the long run to be absolutely frank. (With children, I have a quiet word with the parents.)

Also just noticed this from earlier:

It'd be pretty tough to go for eBay sellers tbh. I sell on eBay (not astro stuff) and provided you read the seller rules you can pretty much get away with anything, as long as you sell what you say you sell and do it on time.

Where the ASA is concerned it's not a matter of whether or not eBay seller rules are being breached; it's a matter of whether the CAP Code is being flouted. The main difficulty I foresee with some eBay peddlers of pseudoscopes is that it is not always easy to find out who is doing the advertising. Ultimately it may mean taking on eBay (which is no bad thing) but it would need, I think, a precedent to have been set with a formal ruling.

[DeepThought]

I've come to view eBay as a sort of lawless post-apocalyptic wasteland these days.

I've had people cash my cheque (before I had PayPal) and then never send the item, send me counterfeit goods advertised as genuine, and most recently drag me out on a 45 mile round trip to pick up a telescope that had been left outside for a month under a bin liner with no mention of this on the description.

In every case the site does nothing about complaints.

Their lawyers seem to have perfectly advised them on how to provide the absolute minimum amount of consumer protection required by law and frankly the place needs a major clean up.

If you can take them on, and win, then I applaud you.

[BinocularSky]

Update:

Just had a letter from ASA hit the doormat. They are investigating my complaint against Argos, but say they do not have the resources to investigate the same issue with Harrison Cameras, but say that I should contact them again re Harrison after the Argos investigation is complete. (I can understand this resource thing and, as I have said before, misleading claims for telescope magnification is small beer compared to false health claims for pseudomedicine.)

I have responded to the ASA by outlining the widespread nature of misleading advertising for telescopes, telling them that I have a list of several tens of misleading adverts, and asking their advice on how best to proceed. (And shoved letters after my name in the hope that it might add some perceived authority. )

As ever, I shall report any response here.

[E621Keith]

I had the misfortune to encounter one of those at one of our Stargazing Live events. With the Barlow in it was impossible to use. With some difficulty, I managed to get the Moon in it -- it was a case of aiming it above the Moon and then letting it "sag" down to the Moon. It took a while to get the right amount of "sag allowance". The image, even with the 25mm eyepiece, was awful. My cheap 10x50 (which is actually a 10x44) binocular was showing more detail. I note that Amazon reviewers think it is good because you can see craters on the Moon -- but you can do that with one of those cheap 4x20 plastic binoculars that come in "Commando" kits for 5-yr olds and free with part-works like WildLife Fact File.

I'll get onto it today. Thanks for the heads-up.

Now done. I have a number of Amazon-peddled junkscopes in my sights, but the others can wait until my current round of complaints against Argos and Harrison Cameras have filtered through. Also have some Asda stuff in the pipeline.

Steve, thanks for doing it. I'm surprise how far some of these junk scope manufacturer goes to mislead unsuspecting consumers.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Great work Steve.

[Naemeth]

Really great work. It may be possible that a precedent is set by this. Perhaps, ASA will force the equipment to be tested in the country where it is sold, or just not advertise any magnification claims of greater than 2x per mm of aperture (although really good quality APOs and SCTs, and any good quality optics might be able to get 3x per mm, on a very good night!)

[BinocularSky]

Thanks for your positive comments, folks. Greatly appreciated.

Really great work. It may be possible that a precedent is set by this.

I hope so, but we must also be prepared for the possibility that the complaints aren't upheld if they are contested.

Perhaps, ASA will force the equipment to be tested in the country where it is sold

Beyond their remit, I'm afraid.

[Naemeth]

Thanks for your positive comments, folks. Greatly appreciated.

I hope so, but we must also be prepared for the possibility that the complaints aren't upheld if they are contested.

Beyond their remit, I'm afraid.

We could quite easily prove that it isn't the case that these telescopes aren't up to the job of 500x+. Just need a clear sky.

It's a shame on the testing side, but they can at least stop the claims being made, and this would stop so many people from being discouraged by their scope not being able to get to 500x+

[Rossco72]

Keep up the good fight!

Cheers

Stuart

[BinocularSky]

Update:

This morning I received a letter from ASA, saying that they will implement a formal investigations procedure into Argos's misleading advertising of the "Danubia" telescopes. If Argos contests the complaint, then it will go to formal resolution (I will be invited to comment on their response and on the recommendation of the investigation team). If there is a formal resolution in our favour, a precedent will have been set and it should be easier to get more misleading advertising removed. However, if Argos changes its advertising voluntarily, this will be an "informal resolution" and no precedent will have been set.

One way or another, I really want to reduce the amount of outrageous advertising claims for pseudoscopes. The moral support that I have received on this thread makes all the effort worthwhile, so thank you all!

[reddoss]

Well done.

[Naemeth]

One step closer .

[earth titan]

Fantastic news. Good luck on this one. Shall be following it closely.

Typed by me on my fone, using fumms... Excuse eny speling errurs.

[bomberbaz]

I found one the other day on Amazon but the description of scope power was magnification available of *** using the barlow and x eyepiece. So statistically not wrong. I had a good look through but that was where the ad left it.

[stephen_usher]

I had the misfortune to encounter one of those at one of our Stargazing Live events. With the Barlow in it was impossible to use. With some difficulty, I managed to get the Moon in it -- it was a case of aiming it above the Moon and then letting it "sag" down to the Moon. It took a while to get the right amount of "sag allowance". The image, even with the 25mm eyepiece, was awful. My cheap 10x50 (which is actually a 10x44) binocular was showing more detail. I note that Amazon reviewers think it is good because you can see craters on the Moon -- but you can do that with one of those cheap 4x20 plastic binoculars that come in "Commando" kits for 5-yr olds and free with part-works like WildLife Fact File.

I'll get onto it today. Thanks for the heads-up.

Actually, I have one of these, badged by "Draper", the well know maker of high precision plumbers tools :-)

It was given to me as a Christmas present a few years ago...

Other than the mount being tragic and the supplied plastic lensed eye pieces and barlow being useless and the finder being chocolate-teapotish, if you put a good eye-piece in the focuser the mirrors aren't bad at all! You can most certainly see the cloud bands on Jupiter (though merely as bands) and you can see the Galilean moons. It's a pretty fast Newtonian 'scope so you can see some deep sky objects too.

I've recently been given an old EQ2 mount with a mounting ring which is too large for this 'scope but I'm sure I can fix that and it'll make a nice little pick-up and go, very light weight 'scope.

I notice that Bresser have the same 'scope with the tragic Hammerite coated mount on the front page of their catalogue!

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Actually, I have one of these, badged by "Draper", the well know maker of high precision plumbers tools :-)

................

Weeerrllll, tubes is tubes, innit?

[BinocularSky]

<offtopic>

Weeerrllll, tubes is tubes, innit?

A bit like when I worked as a telecomms engineer in the '70s -- our union, the EETPU, was the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union. The only connection I could see with the plumbers was that we all used solder to join bits of copper.

</offtopic>

[BinocularSky]

Just got pointed to this in the Getting Started forum

http://www.amazon.co...w/dp/B004QGXOHA

Further to my earlier comment, I have today heard back from the ASA. They will follow it up under their formal investigations procedure, which effectively gives the advertiser of removing the bits that I've complained about or providing evidence to support their claims. If they contest it by providing evidence, I will be asked to comment on that evidence and on the recommendation that the ASA investigator makes to the ASA Council.

[JamesF]

Should be very interesting to see what they come back with should they choose to contest it.

James

[mdstuart]

Another approach to saving folks buying an unsuitable scope would be to post honest brutal reviews of these scopes on the sites. We could get a scope and get say ten folks to carry out a review. That would ensure purchasers are more able to make educated choices.

mark

[BinocularSky]

Another approach to saving folks buying an unsuitable scope would be to post honest brutal reviews of these scopes on the sites. We could get a scope and get say ten folks to carry out a review. That would ensure purchasers are more able to make educated choices.

If a group was to get together to do this, I would happily be part of it. We would need to be sufficient in number to swamp the glowing reviews posted by people who are impressed that lunar craters or Jupiter's moons become visible (as they do in a 4x20 plastic-lensed opera glass).

[Naemeth]

Another approach to saving folks buying an unsuitable scope would be to post honest brutal reviews of these scopes on the sites. We could get a scope and get say ten folks to carry out a review. That would ensure purchasers are more able to make educated choices.

mark

If we were going to do this, the best way to do it would be either at a star party or an observatory meeting on a clear night, with everyone giving it a good test of what it can and can't do .

[Treeden]

Just got pointed to this in the Getting Started forum

http://www.amazon.co...w/dp/B004QGXOHA

Overstated magnification claim or having some fancy graphics on the box is one thing, having high resolution photo of Jupiter and a wide angle shot of the Milk Way is very different. Both image is physically impossible for a scope of that size regardless of quality. It's extremely misleading and close to fraud.

Any idea how to contact ASA or Amazon to get those Jupiter and Milky Way pictures removed.

This isn't directly related to the great work that Steve is doing, but I couldn't help noticing that one of the reviewers on Amazon that gave the scope a 5 star review, has also been giving some rather scary advice...

Question:

"Hello JB,

how much detail can you see with this telescope? Can you see Jupiter's bands or moons? What about other planets?

thanks!"

Answer:

"Hi there

You can see the main band (in 1/3 of height) you can spot GANYMADE, CALLISTO, IO and EUROPA, Saturn, sunspot (moon filter required, and sunglasses). Do not expect Hubble telescope quality (different price and different technology, combination of infrared, x-ray, visible light and Photoshop). This is my first telescope (I've used binoculars before) in my opinion, with this telescope, clear sky is all you need.

regards

John"

Really scary stuff. I just hope that was missed by anyone reading the response.