OO Coatings / mirror problems

[haitch]

It would all depend how deep the defects run. Shallow ones should polish out with perhaps a few small ones left. I hear that the Hilux coatings should last about 25 years.

When I spoke to OO about having a Lightbridge 16" mirror redone last year they quoted about £500.00 for polishing, recoating and Hilux. And while it would improve the performance of the LB mirror a lot there would probably be a few small defects left. I ended up selling the LB and getting a 14" OO dob 1/10PV 99 Strehl and have never regretted it.

It would be intersting to see how the mirror does perform though even with the defects. I suspect it will be much better than you expect.

Anyway here's a photo of my OO 14"mirror.

John

I just love those stickers - I think I might cut a hole in the side of the tube to view mine in situ

Actually, considering how much coating was missing, it didn't behave to badly up to about 150x magnification before the recoat.

I'm itching to give it a try but as I've built a shed for it I need to make end caps for the tube and a few other minor modifications (such as adjusting balance properly for the 2" focuser) before I put it back together.

[barkis]

Can I just add that it is not simply a question of polishing out the defects, which may be too ingrained in the surface for polishing to remove. Fine grinding and polishing may need to be done.

May I also add, that the precise figure has to be put back.

too, a process that can be lengthy and time consuming.

AND costly.

Ron.

[adamsp123]

I personally think the big mistake by OO was not to show up front the defects when the mirror was collected, explain what they are and the the effect, if any, on the performance of the mirror.

In fact I would in their shoes make sure the punter knows what might happen during the ordering process.

Haitch IMO has been extremely fair with his postings and I feel he was quite right to ask for advice from this forum, thats the way it is and the good businesses understand this and deal with it in the right way even in public.

Pete

[nitram100]

Maybe they assumed that you knew the mirror wouldn't have come out perfect, given the state it was in.

They still could have played it better, a bit more communication wouldn't have gone a miss.

[haitch]

Maybe they assumed that you knew the mirror wouldn't have come out perfect, given the state it was in.

They still could have played it better, a bit more communication wouldn't have gone a miss.

It had crossed my mind that there could have been a scratch or something hidden by the coating imperfections but I, and I guess most lay people, wouldn't have known about glass corrosion before this thread.

TBH I was a little relieved when it came out the other end with nothing reported by OO. Then I found out that nothing reported didn't mean nothing wrong.

Anyway I've got an offer from OO to try it again so if it were a problem with the process, as some early posts suggested, it would be resolved by that.

Being pragmatic it's been an expensive lesson but if the mirror turns out useable it won't be a total loss.

[oceanheadted]

Haitch,

Like practically everybody else who's read this thread I would have at least expected a heads up from Orion Optics that there could be problems before the coating took place (and do you really want to go ahead), plus a report when you picked up the mirrors - but maybe they were too embarrased by then(?).

This poor communication doesn't serve them well in the long term.

I do hope the marks on your mirror end up making no difference to your viewing in the when the mirror's in your scope,

cheers

Alan

[George]

I went to OO in person about 20 years ago when I was first starting out for some advice on a potential purchase and a look first hand.

I found Barry not very helpful and quite arrogant and off the cuff.

Needless to say I purchased my first scope of Beaconhill telescopes who bent over backwards to help.

Enough said.

BTW there's another re-coater here think they were formaly known as Vacuum Coatings IIRC

[albedo0.39]

I think the phrase that comes to mind when looking at OO's reponse to your (excellent) letter is "weasel words" ;-

Surely, they know that a reputation is won and lost in a few moments ? Like many, I have considered OO as a potential next scope (20" was on my mind) but now, it's way off my radar screen.

[johninderby]

This thread is now in danger of deteriorating into vendor bashing and that sort of thing doesn't belong on SGL. There are other forums that good at that anyway.

Yes OO was wrong in assumng that the customer would know that some defects on such a badly worn mirror wouln't be cured by recoating, but they did offer to recoat the mirror again if the customer wasn't satisfied. So I'm waiting to hear how it performs when actually used in a scope.

John

[haitch]

It's such a shame because, as I understand, they have the technology behind them to potentially be the UK's flagship company in telescope optics.

There is no doubt they have the ability to produce some real top notch gear. The trouble is they seem to forget that whilst an order might seem a relatively small insignificant order to them it is a great deal of money and very important to their customer. A lot of small orders add up to a substantial amount and if that revenue turnover isn't coming through the door any more I just hope I manage to pick up their mirror making equipment in a bankrupt stock sale!

Yes I think all that needs to be said has been said. I just hope OO bother to come and read this thread to understand their client base better.

[TheThing]

This thread is now in danger of deteriorating into vendor bashing and that sort of thing doesn't belong on SGL. There are other forums that good at that anyway.

Yes OO was wrong in assumng that the customer would know that some defects on such a badly worn mirror wouln't be cured by recoating, but they did offer to recoat the mirror again if the customer wasn't satisfied. So I'm waiting to hear how it performs when actually used in a scope.

John

Actually it seems to be a well informed debate, providing constructive criticism on OO and their customer service. If it was 'vendor bashing' then people would simply be ranting about them. As it is, there are justified complaints and experiences about OO, their levels of service and the quality of their work.

As, for most people, astronomical equipment represents a sizable investment, it is helpful, if not imperative, that forum members are made aware of potnetial problems with a particular retailer or manufacturer, before having made a, potential, financial loss with them.

SGL is the largest UK based Astronomy forum on the web. OO seem to have upset a number of the members here and have the oppotunity of correcting their mistakes. Certainly, their actions in this, and other cases, has made me think twice about using them in future and I applaude those who brought it to our attention. OO appear to have done nothing to improve themselves in spite of previous problems and complaints, which is really their own fault.

Out of interest, which wesites do you believe are better for this kind of thread?

[narrowbandpaul]

lets just get one thing straight here.

Orion Optics are the UKs best amateur optics telescope company. No doubts. Want proof:

heard of ASA astrographs? guess who make the mirrors. Guess who dont complain!

And I would neve call celestron or meade big hitters. In terms of marketing budget yes, but when it comes to optics, a 1/4PV OO mirror would outperform most celestrons or meades.

And I own a 10" 1/10PV OO scope, and I damn proud of it. Yes I wiah their customer service was better, buts thats it.

I was very kindly given a tour by John last year, enroute to collecting one of the first carbon fibre astrographs. What they do in there is fantastic.

The talk of going to trading standards is ridiculous.

Why not ask them for a free zygo test, that will confirm that they behave of the mirror as a whole will be pretty food. The vast majority of the mirror area is blemish free.

They even offered to repolish the mirror, which should sort out the blemishes.

everyone is always so keen to vendor bash orion optics, mostly by people with no experience.

lets look at this more level-headed:

You took in a mirror that was in a bad state, you now have a mirror that is for the large part blemish free, and the blemishes that are there will have a minor impact on performance. After some haggling, you managed to get an offer of a repolish if required.

Yes, I agree that customer service should be better, but they can easily work on that.

And Paul I really do hope yopur mirror is fine, and that it will bring you hours of enjoyment, should the skies clear. I think you and your mirror will get on just fine :-)

Best Wishes, good luck on the project

Paul

[George]

everyone is always so keen to vendor bash orion optics, mostly by people with no experience.

Paul

I was speaking from first hand experience

Actually David Hinds when he was making mirrors were probably the best UK mirrors you could buy.

There's been much debate in the past about spending huge amounts on OO reflecters when far cheaper alternatives Skywatcher etc can do the job equally well in the UK's poor seeing conditions.

[daz]

lets just get one thing straight here.

Orion Optics are the UKs best amateur optics telescope company. No doubts. Want proof:

heard of ASA astrographs? guess who make the mirrors. Guess who dont complain!

Erm, don't quite see how this is proof TBH!

If they were the best UK amateur optics company, then this thread would not exist would it??

If we started a "OO - excellent service thread" then I would expect to see as many people praising their service, as there are on here lamenting it.

[narrowbandpaul]

its pretty good proof in my mind. The ASA are fantastic scopes, and take fantastic images.

they have customer service issues, but thats it. We cant doubt their optics, and thats why they are the best manufacturer, not neccessarily the best to deal with

[George]

Obviously Joe Bloggs with only a grand or so is treated differently than ASA.

[TheThing]

(You can't have a 'best' when more than two are involved, only a 'better').

They may be a good manufacturer, but this thread certainly shows their shortcomings. They are not big hitters in the way that Meade or Celestron are - they simply don't sell as many scopes. Why might that be?

One reason is quite possibly their lack of customer service?

You might have the best product in the world, but if you don't back it up with customer service and you fail to act on constructive criticism...well, you fill in the blanks!

The point here, is that OO should, perhaps, have bought the problems to haitch's attention before going any further and spending his money?

[haitch]

The latest from OO (arrived yesterday but I was whizzing round the country). Apart from getting mixed up between a 12" and a 14" mirror I get his point and I certainly feel more cared about as a customer than I did a few days ago. This isn't in response to another message from me - John did this without further prompt.

One other thing - does anyone know if they could cause any noticeable diffraction?

Hi Paul,

I have just spent a few minutes doing a quick calculation as to the efficiency drop with the glass blemishes on your mirror.

Basically, 6 roughly circular blemishes of 5mm amount to approximately 120 square mm. The total area of your mirror amounts to over 70,000. So, in percentage terms, the blemishes cut the reflectivity down by less than 1/5th of 1%. I know cosmetically its not a perfect mirror but, in performance terms, it grasps as much light as a pristine 300mm mirror, less 0.2%.

If you are passing us in the near future and can call in, give us a little bit of notice and we can show you the processes involved and, the critical inspection methods use.

Hopefully, we can show you some 'invisible' glass surface faults which are very obvious when coated. This will give you a greater appreciation of the critical surface quality criteria we apply to perfect, new mirrors and, a glimpse into what a blemished, but apparently flawless mirror can show when coated.

Best Regards

John

[haitch]

Actually David Hinds when he was making mirrors were probably the best UK mirrors you could buy.

I've got my fingers crossed that mine is one of his (apparently the manufacturer used his mirrors) but I've not really been able to try it out to determine the quality yet.

Didn't OO buy his mirror making equipment when he quit?

[johninderby]

They may be a good manufacturer, but this thread certainly shows their shortcomings. They are not big hitters in the way that Meade or Celestron are - they simply don't sell as many scopes. Why might that be?

One reason is quite possibly their lack of customer service?

You might have the best product in the world, but if you don't back it up with customer service and you fail to act on constructive criticism...well, you fill in the blanks

Yes I think there are some things thay need to improve and their customer service isn't as slick as some others, but I think that it has more to do with a rapidly expanding company being run off their feet with work. For me the bottom line is that if there is a problem OO will do whatever it takes to sort it out. This isn't just subjective opinion but fact based on real experience. I don't have that level of confidence in Meade or Celestron.

I do know that OO's order books are absolutely full and their biggest problem right now is keeping up with demand despite increasing their manufacturing capacity. On some lines they have had to stop taking new orders until they can catch up.

John

John

[haitch]

I for one (the important one, I guess, as far as this thread goes) feel a lot happier than when I first posted.

Once I understood that the blemishes actually weren't OOs fault the only shortcoming in the process was informing me of the issues with my mirror.

I think we tend to forget that OO are, first and foremost, a manufacturer and we are comparing them to retailers that are set up (hopefully) with customer service as a priority.

As John points out, none of the other manufacturers would likely be as helpful as OO but they operate in a different way by selling purely through retailers.

Perhaps what OO need to do is appoint a retailing agent for their scopes and services who could provide a more enhanced interface between customer and manufacturer. That would also allow OO to get on with what they do best - manufacturing great British made optics.

Imagine sticking FLO's customer service levels on the front of OO's manufacturing. That would be a force to be reckoned with!

[TheThing]

Now that is a stonking idea!

[johninderby]

Now that would be a great idea. FLO's expertise in dealing with the public and OO's technical expertise in optics.

As I mentioned before OO does actually have great after sales service, but they do shoot themselves in the foot a lot (so to speak) by not communicating better with customers in the first place and preventing misunderstandings.

I think they urgently need a dedicated customer services rep to deal with the public.

John

[daz]

Haitch

Good to see a positive response from OO and you are now feeling much happier. Surprising how little it often takes for this situation to be arrived at!!

I also own an OO - 12" Newtonian - and on the two occasions I have managed to look through it, its a knockout!! It will be the prime imaging rig for this season, and I can't wait to see the results.

Incidentally OO have joined SGL although not yet posted. I really hope they do and that they can contribute to these discussions. After all, it is only with feedback and listening that companies can improve their customer facing skills, but also, they can tell us if WE are doing something wrong. I am a firm believer in the "The customer is not always right" - it has to be a two way communication so that both parties come away from the transaction feeling satisfied.

[adamsp123]

Incidentally OO have joined SGL although not yet posted. I really hope they do and that they can contribute to these discussions. After all, it is only with feedback and listening that companies can improve their customer facing skills, but also, they can tell us if WE are doing something wrong. I am a firm believer in the "The customer is not always right" - it has to be a two way communication so that both parties come away from the transaction feeling satisfied.

Good news OO have joined, I agree absolutely with "The customer is not always right", the main failing IMO is bad communication, better to communicate fully even, or more importantly, if there is bad news, much grief or misunderstanding can be eliminated by good comms.