New Celestron CPC Deluxe chipped secondary

[Jamespnz]

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

Edited May 10, 2021 by Jamespnz
Adding some further pictures

[Andy ES]

Hi James

I'm by no means an expert, but was it working correctly before you dismantled it?

Also why did you dismantle it?😁

Ive got a CPC 925 and I must admit I wouldn’t expect to have chips on the mirror like that.

im sure someone here with more experience will know what’s going on.

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by Andy ES

[CraigT82]

Well I reckon you're going to have to live with it seeing as you have almost certainly voided the warranty. Were the views OK when you used the scope or were there any issues? What prompted you to remove the secondary? 

[Sunshine]

You may have used that scope for a lifetime without knowing of such chips, as mentioned above, I fear you may have voided the warranty, I am curious about why you were compelled to remove the secondary

considering it is brand new?.

[Robindonne]

I also removed it on my c8.  Just to have a look at the hyperstar system.  They made that mirror easy removable for that purpose so i dont think you have voided the warranty.  

[CraigT82]

Ah ok, hadn't considered that you can easily remove the secondary to fit hyperstar system, In that case the warranty must be ok. 

I wouldn't have thought the defects in the glass would have any effect of the mirrors performance ( @Peter Drew?) but its probably worth checking with Celestron to be sure. They may just ask to send the secondary back and not the whole scope which would be much easier that sending the whole lot back

[dweller25]

As long as the mirror surface is not affected I don’t think it will be an issue - does not look nice though.

[Jamespnz]

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?

[Jamespnz]

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.

[Peter Drew]

I certainly don't think it will have any effect now or later on the performance.  Sometimes blanks do not completely "clean up" when ground to a diameter leaving a cosmetic "defect".  As long as it's not on the active optical surface the manufacturer would deem it acceptable.  Had there been glass chips inside the telescope that would be a cause for concern..  However, If I was the manufacturer of an optical component that is intended to be removed as necessary, I would choose a better looking item.  If the telescope works well it's not worth risking an inferior replacement IMO.     

[Jamespnz]

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.

 

 

[Robindonne]

Im no mirror maker. More woodworking. And when i have a nice peace of wood selected for some stairs, i often have a situation where there is a damaged or thinner area on the wood.  After putting through all sorts of planing and sanding machines, it sometimes still shows a fraction of that bigger spot.  When its not in sight/visible and causes no harm, why throw it away?    The same might have happened with this mirror.  Maybe they couldn’t make the diameter smaller to hide the damage.   I think its less visible when you blacken/paint it in some matte black

Edited May 3, 2021 by Robindonne

[Jamespnz]

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.

[dweller25]

I have had three Celestron SCT’s and none of the secondary mirrors showed signs of edge unevenness like yours.

[Jamespnz]

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.

 

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by Jamespnz

[Cosmic Geoff]

I have to say that this reminds me of when I was selling a used electronic organ. I hauled it round to the buyer's house, and he then refused to accept it because there was a chip out of a wood frame on the back, so I was obliged to refund his money and haul it back. 😦

A star test might set the OP's mind at rest.

[dweller25]

3 hours ago, Jamespnz said:

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.

 

 

It may affect resale value as a buyer could be as concerned as you are.

If you feel uncomfortable about it I would suggest asking for a replacement.

Edited May 3, 2021 by dweller25

[kirkster501]

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.

Edited May 3, 2021 by kirkster501

[dweller25]

Take a look at the photo of the side of the secondary on the celestron webpage…

https://www.celestron.com/pages/fastar-technology

It’s perfect - yours should be just as Celestron advertise in the photo.

Edited May 3, 2021 by dweller25

[Robindonne]

One thing i noticed once while reading a description of a telescope, i thought it was william optics, was about the amount of acceptable errors in the coating for example.  It showed basically that imperfections which dont have any influence on the performance are accepted 

 

But i admit i would prefer a perfect unharmed telescope myself.   The chips shown on your pictures are maybe bigger than Celestron policy on imperfections.  Im not sure where Celestron shows it in its description

Edited May 3, 2021 by Robindonne

[Jamespnz]

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. 

[Cosmic Geoff]

I am wondering if the secondaries of recent Celestron SCTs are interchangeable, or are they part of a matched set of optics?

Is "Deluxe" the same as "Edge HD"? - as I have read somewhere the suggestion that the Edge HD models work somewhat better as visual scopes because they get special finishing in the USA, while the regular ones don't.

[Jamespnz]

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.

[Jamespnz]

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

[Jamespnz]

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?