Did we all just miss the bargain of a lifetime??

[cygnusx1]

Saw this a few days back, wasn't sure how old or good this scope is, looks similiar to the Celestron C9.25....

Anyway, was watching it tonight, and completely forgot about it ( as you always do when u really want an item ) !!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=230239548177&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=013

It went for a paltry £360 :shock:

I'm cursing here....

[thing]

Crikey, that went for a song. I think I might have had a punt at that.

[barkis]

Meade SCT 10" F6.3 Wide Field. Looked very good Kevin. You did miss a goody there. £360 was a gift,

electric focuser too. A .5 reducer would have given you a hell of a fast camera lens. for those DSO's

Ron.

[canuck]

This looks familiar...

http://www.astrobuysell.com/uk/propview.php?view=18851

[George]

This looks familiar...

http://www.astrobuysell.com/uk/propview.php?view=18851

Same name as the guy who won it on ebay, bought for £360 selling for £600

[russ]

He's gonna make a few hundred quid on that.

Russ

[zero]

don't get too exited, they were never as good as the f10 and a pig to collimate.

[Paxo]

I did read somewhere to avoid this Meade variation.

Steve..

[zero]

BC&F only bought a handful into the country. Back in those day's, every sct from Meade was checked and collimated at Telescope House as it arrived. They soon decided not to bother too much. And of course, an f10 with a reducer is a better combination anyway, you get the best of both worlds and a flatter field.

[jcm]

Yep , this was never a popular variant. I seem to remember 2 issues , collimation problems and the quality of the final image. I doubt using an ordinary focal reducer would produce a very flat field.

John

[zero]

agreed, but the Meade 6.3 is also a field flattener by desing, so an f10 running at 6.3 should be better than the old 6.3 standard.

[jcm]

Bit of confusion - I meant using a 0.5X focal reducer with the Meade F6.3 making F3.15 would not be a good idea. After getting my brain into gear , it wasn't the poor image of the F6.3 that was the problem it was the large variation in image quality from scope to scope - I think

John

[zero]

sound about right