Celestron Quality Control - Or Lack of!

[Carbon Brush]

I recently got hold of a Celestron SLT127 Mak on the Alt/Az goto mount.

I was a new 'opened box' offer at a really good price.
Basically I know two pople who are in the market for a 127 mak, with or without mount.
I thought I might have a use for a lightweight mount for weekends away.
So although the kit split was a little uncertain, I took the plunge.

Today the kit arrived.

At first I thought it was one of those returns where someone had not realised size and weight.
However, looking at the OTA I got a big shock.

The inside of the corrector plate had several marks. Stains of some sort.
After a bit of torch work I established the centre tube had blobs of red grease around the edge.
Some had dropped onto the corrector plate.
Presumably there is more grease on the inside of the corrector plate mirror, but I have not opened up to check.
Looing inside the OTA, I could see greae stains where the main mirror had contacted the tube on assembly.

So Mr Celestron - or his bargain price chinese assemblers - made several errors.

1/ They used far too much grease on assembly and could not be bothered to put it right.

2/ Despite grease being obvious to the assembler on the centre tube, and the inside of the main tube, it was not pulled from the line.

3/ Despite the obvious defect on final test/inspection it was not pulled.

This thread is not about what the retailer should do, or should have done. It is about Celestron's low quality of assembly.
Like many items handled by proper astro retailers as well as department stores, it was drop shipped.

I realise the '127 kit is not a top of the range model. But it is not a cheapie toy to be thrown out with the Christmas wrapping paper.

So when a manufacturer, who you think makes good equipment, tells you about his trading relationship with a chinese factory......

Tomorrow I will try to post a few pics before the scope is returned to the supplier.

[FLO]

55 minutes ago, Carbon Brush said:

I recently got hold of a Celestron SLT127 Mak on the Alt/Az goto mount.

I was a new 'opened box' offer at a really good price.
 

... This thread is not about what the retailer should do, or should have done. It is about Celestron's low quality of assembly.

Like many items handled by proper astro retailers as well as department stores, it was drop shipped.

I have recieved a couple of PMs pointing me to your post so want to mention FLO is not the retailer ? 

Steve 

[johninderby]

Doesn’t sound like a new scope at all. More like one that someone has messed about with and then returned. I’ve had a couple of Celestron Maks and none had this grease problem. Will be interested to find out what the full story turns out to be. 

[Cjg]

I bought an ‘open box’ Celestron 5SE from FLO a few years ago, scope, mount and accessories were mint, just the box was a bit ‘tatty’ which is exactly how they described it.  

At least with Celestron there is a 2 year guarantee, so you shouldn’t have any issues getting your scope sorted. 

Good luck in getting sorted.

[Carbon Brush]

Thank you for your interest.

I will be naming and shaming the retailer (who is not one of the well known astro retailers) in a separate thread once return has been completed.
There are retailer failures that I beleive are worthy of mention.
This will be posted in Supplier Reviews.

To reply to John. The scope is definitely brand new. There are no tool marks on any OTA fasteners. No paint damge at all.
If the OTA was dismantled by the end user, then it was by someone with exactly the right tools and tool handling skills.
This contradictory to the amount of grease in there.

This scope left the factory in the greasy state.

I will be adding a couple of photos later today.

 

[Carbon Brush]

Photos at last. Quality to reassure anyone thinking I am going to be entering the SGL imaging challenges.

Photo - 473. Looking from the front of the scope. The 'solar limb' shape is the edge of the corrector plate silvering. The assorted smudges are on the inside of the corrector plate.

Photo -247. Looking into the beast with a USB microscope stuck in the eyepiece holder. The well focussed ring is the tube in the centre of the scope. The red artefacts are surplus grease.
Plenty left to drop onto other parts.

Taken along with the condition of the remainder of the scope, and the accessories. I firmly believe it left the assembly factory in this (well greased) state.

[FLO]

17 minutes ago, Carbon Brush said:

Taken along with the condition of the remainder of the scope, and the accessories. I firmly believe it left the assembly factory in this (well greased) state.

I disagree. 

You say you bought a heavily discounted open-box telescope from a lesser known retailer who then ‘drop-shipped’ it to you. There is nothing normal about that transaction. I don’t think you can draw any conclusions about Celestron’s quality control from this telescope. 

My advice is return it to your supplier for refund. 

Steve 

[Chris]

I don't think you can draw any conclusion regarding a company based on one sample. 

I can assure you as someone who has owned a load of Celestron kit over the years, this isn't typical, and going one further, I really don't know how Synta (Skywatcher and Celestron) knock out scope so cheaply.

E.g. a 200p Dob costs £280. Where as I've spent multiple times this money, plus dozens and dozens of hours, just trying to grind and polish an 8" mirror for a Dob! It really is amazing they can produce diffraction limited scopes for the price they do.

You've been unlucky. You've taken a chance on a cheap discounted scope and it didn't pay off.  

As said, just return it. Celestron have a two year warranty and will sort it out for you  

 

[Carbon Brush]

Thanks Steve & Lockie for your comments.

I think the supply chain issues will become clearer once the return for refund has been completed. Collection from me is booked for tomorrow.

The particular retailer has not done his job properly and by using computer responses instead of real people reading ... well wait for the full story in supplier reviews.
It will show the value of dealing with a proper astro retailer.

Having owned and used Celestron products, I am aware of their build quality and their policy of making a wide range scopes for the £100 to £10K buyers.

If I did not know Celestron products and this was my first experience with this manufacturer, it would definitely make other manufacturers more likely to get my money for future purchases.

However, I am still of the opinion that this OTA has not been dismantled by a user.

I realise that when a manufacturer chooses to use a sub contractor, he is reliant on their standards to maintain his reputation.
I am also aware that when a sub contractor has left over parts, and orders have been completed, it can be tempting to make a few dollars selling the leftover parts or completed items.
Was this a shoddily assembled scope made after hours using leftovers? Or even on a kitchen table?
Actually I doubt it because of the obviously original packaging, parts and complete set of parts.

I think that if Celestron and others restricted their products to specialist suppliers, rather than maximising sales through anyone online, department stores and the like, we would not be having this discussion.

Thanks, David.

 

[Carbon Brush]

To complete the story:

 

[Freddie]

In your first post above, you say you bought “a new open box” item yet in your supplier review you say  “Recently I purchased a Celestron 127Mak on Alt/az goto mount.
This was described as a good used item in original package with damage, and cosmetic damage on the accessories.”

It was therefore obviously a used item (as clearly described by the advert) and therefore I think you are stretching it a bit to blame Celestron for the corrector plate issues.

[Carbon Brush]

Hi Freddie.

Thank you for your comment.

In my work, I often have to determine whether there have been meddling fingers in equipment, so I am familiar with looking for the evidence that is usually left behind.

I don't think I am wrong in blaming Celestron. The OTA contained far too much grease on the mirror mechanism.
There were no tool marks at all, or other evidence of tube opening by the original purchaser.
The grease was definitely not pushed in through the eyepiece hole.
I firmly believe that the scope left the factory in that state.

In my 'supplier review' post I quoted the Amazon description of condition. Which always comprises generic statements.
I have in the past bought 'used' items that were unopened, as well as others broken beyond use. Always with this sort of description.

I was trying to show how the description and actual condition of a 'warehouse' item are often completely different.
Further, the warehouse send out items unchecked.

The actual condition was:
Boxes opened and incorrectly closed or damaged. Indicating no inspection by Amazon warehouse before selling on.
No evidence of the OTA being fastened to the mount. The unavoidable clamp screw marks.
No evidence of the mount being fastened to the tripod.
No evidence of the tripod being used outside. Dirt, scratches on feet from concrete, etc.
No evidence of eyepeices being screwed into the OTA. Barrel marking.

Even if a purchaser thought a mirror mechanism needed greasing, why on earth would he try to do this before even mounting the scope or using eyepieces?
If he was so daft as to try, and leave a mess, do you really think he would have the skills to go into the OTA and leave no marks?

I strongly believe that I have made a fair assessment of the equipment.
I am not out to take a swipe at either Celestron or Amazon.
I am simply reporting what I found, for the benefit of SGL members.

At the end of the day, the experience would not stop me from buying a Celestron product. I have used, and still own some of their equipment. I know the standards they usually produce.
Neither has the experience stopped me from using Amazon Warehouse. The items are always a gamble but the returns process is argument free.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

David.