What was your worst astronomy purchase?

[John]

I've had a few (mercifully few) bits of kit that have been notably underwhelming for me. The ones I can recall include:

- A Meade AR5 127mm F/9.4 refractor, which was very mediocre at best. A Bresser branded version that I had owned previously was excellent.

- A Tele Vue Gibraltar mount and ash wood tripod which bore no resemblance, in stability, to the rock that is is named after.

- A really awful William Optics 8-24mm zoom.

- A baffling Meade LXD55 GOTO EQ mount. Supposedly the same as an EQ5 but the Skywatcher EQ5's that I've owned have been better. 

- Back in the early 1990's, some Meade 4000 series plossls and SWA eyepieces. Made in Japan and really quite expensive but they certainly did not impress me.

Of the few under-performing items I've owned (briefly, usually !), the majority have, unfortunately, been branded by Meade. I'm sure Meade do have some good products but I've not had much success with them.

[GalaxyGael]

Now I remember what it was.

A purchase of an 84mm single tube ring, without no ota's of that diameter at home. Utterly useless, I read the sale ad incorrectly, expecting two rings of 85 mm!!

 

[Stu]

I could add a ‘near miss’ to this topic. In my early days of astronomy, heady with complete ignorance, I coveted a Cape Newise 8” scope as advertised in Astronomy Now, I guess. Fortunately funds would not stretch to it, so I escaped that particular nightmare!

[sojourneyer]

Now for another one.  This one is a tie with the Explore Scientific Twilight 1

I was one of the first people to receive the Svbony MK105 Mak in the USA. Apparently I was sent test scopes and not new ones. WTH?

The dust you see is inside the meniscus.. and the scrratches and fingerprints?

This came directly from Svbony not Amazon...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by sojourneyer
smaller size pics

[DirkSteele]

3 hours ago, John said:

Of the few under-performing items I've owned (briefly, usually !), the majority have, unfortunately, been branded by Meade. I'm sure Meade do have some good products but I've not had much success with them.

Masters of advertising though.  Those ads in Sky and Telescope in the late 90s and early 2000's were something else.  I remember having a copy of S&T on a flight to the US in my teens, and spent most of the flight just staring at the adverts and dreaming of what might be (possibly a nightmare as it turns out!).

[DirkSteele]

2 minutes ago, sojourneyer said:

Now for another one.  This one is a tie with the Explore Scientific Twilight 1

I was one of the first people to receive the Svbony MK105 Mak in the USA. Apparently I was sent test scopes and not new ones. WTH?

The dust you see is inside the meniscus.. and the scrratches and fingerprints?

This came directly from Svbony not Amazon...

What oin earth were the testers doing to get dust inside the scope?  When I have received scopes for review, I treat them like my first born!

[GTom]

My house: far too North, far too cloudy and being remote still Bortle 4-5.

[sojourneyer]

10 minutes ago, DirkSteele said:

What oin earth were the testers doing to get dust inside the scope?  When I have received scopes for review, I treat them like my first born!

It beats me what they were doing.. In fact after the first one they said someone would personally inspect it before being shipped.   I guess he gave a thumb up on the lens.

Two scopes like that and both donated to a a church.  Fortunately I got my money back and since then Svbony provides a dust blower..LOL

[sojourneyer]

with bated breath number 1 is coming... and it is from

.

.

.

Amazon

[JeremyS]

But why on Earth would you buy a scope from Amazon?

[Peter Drew]

1 hour ago, JeremyS said:

But why on Earth would you buy a scope from Amazon?

Have you never read Amazon telescope reviews?     🙂

[Mr Spock]

One I almost forgot about. Many years ago, before I knew anything about scopes and before SGL existed, I had a Helios 150mm Newt. It was useless. It was of course a Bird-Jones. I had no idea what they were - I do now!

[sojourneyer]

2 hours ago, JeremyS said:

But why on Earth would you buy a scope from Amazon?

I know that I will get a full refund.

[sojourneyer]

26 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

Have you never read Amazon telescope reviews?     🙂

Are you referring to a review of Amazon or scopes? I just do not go by reviews on Amazon. When you are the first to get a new product there is no review. You base your decision on prior products the company makes.  The price I got was about 35% under retail.  and a full refund. Again nothing to lose.

[sojourneyer]

11 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

One I almost forgot about. Many years ago, before I knew anything about scopes and before SGL existed, I had a Helios 150mm Newt. It was useless. It was of course a Bird-Jones. I had no idea what they were - I do now!

My gosh yes, all the bird-jones scopes and sadly Celestron is notorious for continuing to sell them.

[JeremyS]

7 hours ago, sojourneyer said:

I know that I will get a full refund.

Any reputable dealer will give you that. And the support and service that goes along with it.
And these astro dealers support the astro community. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by JeremyS

[markse68]

10 hours ago, Stu said:

I could add a ‘near miss’ to this topic. In my early days of astronomy, heady with complete ignorance, I coveted a Cape Newise 8” scope as advertised in Astronomy Now, I guess. Fortunately funds would not stretch to it, so I escaped that particular nightmare!

Funnily (🤔) enough a Newise was actually my worst and most frustrating purchase  I struggled for ages to collimate the scope- it hinted at wonderful views but couldn’t make points for stars. I ended up sending the secondary assembly to a seemingly very helpful and enthusiastic Newise expert owner in the US to see if he could remove the secondary mirror which i suspected wasn’t flat. In the meantime I found the real problem was the primary- a large chip on the concealed back surface had rendered it pringle shaped. I found an optics expert who could grind me a new mirror for a seemingly reasonable price (8” f3 spherical is hard to find) and was contemplating going for it but in the meantime things got strange with the US guy- he still has my secondary assembly and keeps “forgetting” to return it more than a year later. I’ve given up now. It almost killed my astro mojo completely. But the planets are back, cobwebs dusted off my simple trusty Tal newt and life goes on. 

Mark

[michael8554]

A Skywatcher Guidescope mount:

In the mistaken belief that the guidescope needed to be pointing at the same star as the imaging scope.

Very heavy, so increased the balancing issues as well.

Michael

[SiD the Turtle]

Oh I have plenty:

• Those yearly guides to what's in the sky. My time is so weather and personal life dependent, it's more a matter of Googling what's up on the rare nights those two parameters align.
• Similarly, a star wheel. Apps replaced that instantly.
• Fancy eye pieces before realising that what I really wanted to do was astrophotography.
• Celestron wi-fi adaptor. Barely worked and annoyed with myself that I never tried to get a refund at the time.
• Polemaster. Wicked bit of kit but no longer needed now astro software can do it with the primary scope.
• A house with a neighbour who loves his leylandii trees being tall enough to rival the Shard.

If I were to call our my best purchases it's not a telescope, mount or other piece of pricey hardware: it's velcro. The best thing for cable management!

Edited September 21, 2023 by SiD the Turtle

[ollypenrice]

On 20/09/2023 at 11:06, Tomatobro said:

Daystar quark. Having seen images taken with this device on the internet I just had to have one. Try as I might it just never lived up to the hype. Thankfully the supplier took it back. My 500 year old  second hand Coronado PST out performed it in every way. I know some have had a good experience with quark's but I was not one of them.

The net is packed full of problem Quarks. When they work they're great but I'm not inclined to risk it.

Olly

[lawsio]

My worst purchase is probably going to happen soon if I switch my 8" dob for 10". I know deep down I shouldn't, the weight and bulk will be prohibitive, I'll never use it, etc. But I'm sill bloody gonna.

Still bloody gonna.

[lawsio]

9 minutes ago, lawsio said:

My worst purchase is probably going to happen soon if I switch my 8" dob for 10". I know deep down I shouldn't, the weight and bulk will be prohibitive, I'll never use it, etc. But I'm sill bloody gonna.

Still bloody gonna.

@bosun21 You may laugh but your 'get the StellaLyra one' response in my Dob thread means it's going to be £100 more of a mistake than the mistake I was going to make anyway! 🤣🤣

[bosun21]

4 minutes ago, lawsio said:

@bosun21 You may laugh but your 'get the StellaLyra one' response in my Dob thread means it's going to be £100 more of a mistake than the mistake I was going to make anyway! 🤣🤣

It’s your choice of course. If you can handle the physical size difference then go for it. Just to make you aware I’ve never ever mentioned the 12” 🤣.

[Stu1smartcookie]

13 minutes ago, lawsio said:

@bosun21 You may laugh but your 'get the StellaLyra one' response in my Dob thread means it's going to be £100 more of a mistake than the mistake I was going to make anyway! 🤣🤣

I've just bought a 10" FlexTube ... its a bad buy that i am literally over the moon with  ... you gotta luv a dob !

[John]

A 2 inch aperture increase does not make a lot of difference to the views with newtonians in my experience. The 4 inch step gives a more obvious boost to the views but a 12 inch is a substantially larger instrument of course. That said, for deep sky observing ANY additional aperture is welcome of course.

I found a 12 inch dob was the largest instrument that I could handle on my own, transport occasionally while retaining relatively quick setup / tear down times. Mine was an Orion Optics 12 inch dob though and they weigh about the same as one of the chinese 10 inchers.

Back on topic, I once purchased a Helios branded 150mm F/8 refractor which came on an EQ5 mount on an aluminium tripod 🙄

The scope was good but it was totally un-useable on the alu tripod, even at low magnifications. This was the stock spec of the early chinese 150 F/8 refractors - it seems daft to market a scope / mount combination that was so badly matched but it's not the 1st time that has been the case of course.