TMB Planetary Eyepieces: A Warning...

[great_bear]

A brief warning about TMB Planetary Eyepieces.

No - not about the eyepieces as such, but about the use of the phrase "TMB Planetaries".

Using the phrase "TMB Planetaries" on a certain [ahem...] American astronomy forum (and some other forums too, apparently) can get you into rather hot water - as I discovered myself during the peculiar development of my thread on that forum last night.

I posed a simple question: "What's the performance of the longer-length TMB Planetaries like?"

What happened next was very odd indeed. Firstly I was told they didn't exist, then I was told anyone selling them was violating the rights of the the designer and finally the owners of the whole Cloudy Nights forum asked me to go elsewhere (!)

When I complained about this being somewhat heavy handed for an innocent eyepiece performance question, someone else started on me... It was a very bizarre experience. Someone requested that the thread be "locked" and then one of the moderators had to go back editing posts to allow it to continue. I wondered what on earth was going on. Finally I got a PM today from an administrator today to say that during the day, the whole thread has had to be taken offline for examination (I don't know what was said), and would only be made visible again if the moderators could find some way to edit it back into an on-track discussion, and that wasn't looking very hopeful. This was totally bewildering for me. Fortunately, before the thread was pulled, someone placed a link to a previous discussion on the forum which revealed why the subject of "TMB Planetary Eyepieces" is such a political hot potato.

Here's the background as best I can understand it (since we've all been talking about these eyepieces so much recently): Basically, the factory that makes the "Designed by TMB" eyepieces had some kind of bust-up with the company which commissioned them originally. This means that there are two sources of these eyepieces currently available. There are the "TMB Planetaries" as sold by Astronomics <here> , and then there's... Well... All the others including the unbranded ones from Sky's The Limit and the ones from Teleskop-Service as "HR Planetaries". The cheaper, widely-available ones offer more focal lengths, but only the type sold by Astronomics earns money for the original design company, TMB Optical.

To some, this poses a moral dilemma: Some feel that it's wrong to buy the cheaper factory-direct ones, since no money goes to TMB Optical. Others assert that the factory has a contractual right to sell them in order to recoup the (no doubt substantial) investment in production tooling before the business relationship went sour. Anyway, please let's not get into that debate here (especially since the precise details are somewhat sketchy). What is important is that people should know that referring to these generic units as "TMB Planetaries" clearly causes a lot of anger and resentment in some quarters and should probably be avoided. Even the phrase "TMB Designed" is problematic, since the longer focal lengths of the factory-direct ones allegedly have no TMB heritage at all.

I think that the best one can do is refer to them by brand, or (where no branding is present) as "TMB-style Planetaries", and hope that no-one on the forums got out of the wrong side of bed that day...

[Jamie]

Its obvious that you have innocently stumbled upon this hornets nest......(having just read the thread on CN)

Keep yer head down matey....

[John]

It's worth knowing that this sensitivity exists on that forum. I suspect things have got even more sensitive since Thomas Back of TMB passed away. I believe the original design was a collaboration between him and Bill Burgess of Burgess Optical - the original EP's are often referred to as "TMB / Burgess Planetaries" as well.

I guess Skywatcher Nirvana's and other similar clones could be referred to as UWAN-style ultra-wide's to play safe !.

[stev74]

The funny thing is I'm sure there are lots of people who have pondered this question but weren't sure about the ins and outs -

Thanks for sharing and if I'm honest I've had the same questions about my Willaim Optics EP's. Basically I've decided to just enjoy the views instead of worrying about if they are the same as 'Sky Rover' etc or not (clones of). As it is I bought my EP's second-hand so for the money I'm happy.

For planetary views if I was going to replace my Baader Ortho it would probably be with a TV Radian rather than a SPL anyway.

Cheers

[great_bear]

(having just read the thread on CN)

Oh you're right - they've re-instated it (with slightly changed title!)

It was invisible all afternoon...

Keep yer head down matey....

Yes, good advice I think...

(although I do hope someone answers my genuine question - I want to buy some more of these EPs next week...)

[AndyH]

Yeah, I've always called the other eyepieces 'TMB/Burgess clones'.

I've noticed these TMB badged ones that have come out recently and wondered about it. Especially when there was FL's above 9mm. There was never going to be any in that range. Bill Burgess and Tom Back actually held a naming competition for the new range of eyepieces in the 10-20mm range. Stellar, they were to be called. A 10 and 20mm have had a short run, but there were coating issues and it looks like the project has been shelved. This all happened when TMB died. This stellar range have zero similarities with the planetaries.

There have for many years now been a couple of types of planetary clones, but I must say these new ones with the TMB badge, disturb me somewhat. I find that a rather blatant rip off. Especially as the 10mm and longer ones had hee-haw to do with Tom Back.

I wonder if there are legal issues/things going on in the background and that's why the thread was pulled. Astronomics sponsor/run cloudy nights and they are involved with the TMB estate. Didn't the Paradigm eyepieces sold in the UK have to have a name change because of similar issues??

Andy.

ps: edit....basically they should be sold without the TMB branding IMHO.

[AndyH]

Hehehe.

Just had a look in at the cloudy nights thread in question. Fun and games.

I think a lot of folk are understandably, uber sensitive when it comes to Tom Back. He was by all accounts a real nice guy as well as being a brainiac optical designer. Died terribly young and out of the blue.

Cheers,

Andy.

[GazOC]

Although they are generally "hands off" with stuff like this it maybe worth noting the Cloudynights/ Astronomics/ TMB connection....

[AndyH]

Indeed Gaz, which was why I brought up the Paradigm name change(to BST explorer, here in the UK?). Astro-Tech also have a tie-in to Astronomics or rather, Astronomics I think, are involved/partners with A-T. Paradigms were a an Astro-Tech brand. Wonder if they got the chinese factory to change the name. It's all a bit muddy and murky.

Cheers,

Andy.

[Capricorn]

Being fair unless the eyepiece in question says TMB on it then calling it a TMB is incorrect. Even saying TMB designed could be shaky ground as someone may be claiming it without it being correct. Good marketing ploy until forced to change, also if not a real TMB and if substandard it impacts on the TMB brand.

If you had the money and bought a Porche would you be happy instead to get a "Porche shaped car" with say a Korean badge on it?

More relevant would you be happy to buy a TV Nagler that didn't say TV or Nagler on it? But just looked the same externally and was claimed to be the same?

Since Thomas Beck died the estate will now, I suspect, be run by accountants and lawyers. Not so easy going as T Beck himself, who may himself have had arrangement with other producers.

The US tends to like US products and from other threads in CN there is a bit of dislike/distrust in Chinese clones/copies. So mention of a TMB eyepiece that isn't actually one is likely to cause a patriotic outcry. When WO had a presence in the US it was OK, since they have removed that you can tell that the level of confidence in WO products has dropped.

Also remember that you are not posting on a UK site. The culture is different.

[yeti monster]

Cloudy nights forumeer play set now available:

[TheThing]

Reminds me why I very rarely visit Cloudy Nights, have never registered there and much prefer SGL!

Maybe they've had too many 'cloudy nights'?

[brianb]

you be happy to buy a TV Nagler that didn't say TV or Nagler on it? But just looked the same externally and was claimed to be the same?

That's fine ... but marking it with the TV brand name or the word "Nagler", or describing it as such rather than making a claim that it's the same, is not OK.

There is of course the question of the intellectual property ownership of the design.

I really don't see the issue here, though - why make a (possibly inferior) "clone" rather than computing the design yourself, optimized for whatever glasses you have to hand, which probably aren't the same as the designer specified?

[barkis]

They can be a little tetchy over there.

I rarely go there directly, only as a result of any link I click on.

[great_bear]

Being fair unless the eyepiece in question says TMB on it then calling it a TMB is incorrect.

Not really - the London Eye is a Ferris Wheel even though it wasn't constructed by George Ferris. An Archimedes Screw is so called, even though they're not made by Archimedes. Still - at least we haven't started turning nouns into verbs: "I'm going to Nagler the moon tonight..." Oh actually, that's not true thinking about it. One does "Barlow an eyepiece".

Even saying TMB designed could be shaky ground as someone may be claiming it without it being correct.

Bear in mind that (apparently) these really are fundamentally the same eyepieces as the "Genuine TMB", but sold directly from the original factory that produced them. As I understand it, that's precisely what the politics is about - the original factory selling product directly to importers, cutting out the designer from the profits. The counter-argument being that this is OK since the factory was allegedly allowed to do this legally under contract clauses in order to recoup costs when the business agreement broke down.

But all of this tale contains too many "allegedly"s and "apparently"s for it to be appropriate for us to speculate on - I was just reporting that it's because people are saying such things, that merely referring to the generic EPs in a forum as "TMB Planetaries" ends up lighting the blue touchpaper...

As for the alleged trademark infringement, I say leave it to the lawyers and stand well back...

[great_bear]

Cloudy nights forumeer play set now available

- are you sure you want a career in international diplomacy?

[johninderby]

A while ago when getting some info on the availability of the Astro-Professional 80mm f/11.25 achromatic refractor, which had a genuine TMB lens and cell which was actually marked as TMB. I found out from the manufacturer that it was the people that controlled the Thomas Back estate that wouldn't allow them to advertise it as having a TMB lens. They then pulled the plug on the production of the lenses anyway.

Funnily enough when testing the TMB type clones and originals, if anything the quailty control on the clones was better. Hmmmm.....wonder if I should post that comment on CN?

[Euan]

Lol at the Cloudy Nights play set

SGL > CN

[yeti monster]

Funnily enough when testing the TMB type clones and originals, if anything the quailty control on the clones was better. Hmmmm.....wonder if I should post that comment on CN?

I feel it to be your duty to post you opinions, especially where they may stir up a little controversy............

[the_laughing_crow]

Such a shame people jumped down your throat so readily.

[AndyH]

Such a shame people jumped down your throat so readily.

A patient and calm reply to g-b's question and a link to previous discussions at the begining of the thread would have helped stop the mobbing. You should never presume someone knows all the facts.

Patience goes a long way in this world.

Andy.

[argonaut]

I have had the same problem on CN when defending a new disributor (Istar actually).

On the whole I think that most of the people on CN are very helpful.

I was a little surprised that they jumped on this very quickly and were a little over the top for sure. It was after all a simple question on which you needed a answer.

Thomas Back was a really nice guy and brilliant with it. I believe he had a cycling accident and never fully recovered.

Sometimes we are a common people seperated by the same language. Well,something like that.

[Capricorn]

these really are fundamentally the same eyepieces as the "Genuine TMB"

Same holds true for GSO plossl's and TV plossl's, 2 achromats back to back. If GSO said that "TV Plossl" was a generic term none here, or very few, would consider them equal, if GSO's were advertised as a generic TV plossl.

Wonder if Tom Beck liked the idea of a generic term of "TMB Planetaries" named after him? He may have been in favour of such a term, the lawyers etc aren't, don't understand, or more likely cannot get money out of whoever uses the term.

The far east approach is more along the lines of copying anything is fair game.

Thing is this gets into the realm of US litigation, which seems to be as much based on fantasy as reality at times.

CN should have had an easier way of calming things down. It seems that it could have been handled a lot better then it has been. Mind you I have seen more "warning" messages on the "sticky" bit of the eyepiece section then on just about all the others combined. Seems that eyepieces are a "touchy" area there.

Try a post questioning the quality of Brandons. :evil6: Old design and many newer designs are better and cheaper but another US Home eyepiece.

Hope Newton has no traceable direct descendants in the US, could have to cough up for using the term Newtonian.

[Capricorn]

Argonaut, Istar is a good example. They make a good range of lens for DIY scopes. Ales seems to keep an eye on CN for problems, similar to FLO here.

However Istar is not US, but D&G are. I have read several posts of people deciding on a D&G lens in preference to Istar yet the D&G offering is a lot more expensive. Think I have seen similar specifications at 6x the Istar cost. Also I think the delivery time is often more as well.

When the D&G option is picked they always get congratulated on picking a US home grown product, never seen anyone saying it's crazy, more cost and longer lead time.

[great_bear]

Same holds true for GSO plossl's and TV plossl's, 2 achromats back to back. If GSO said that "TV Plossl" was a generic term none here, or very few, would consider them equal, if GSO's were advertised as a generic TV plossl.

Not quite the same thing: When I say they're "fundamentally the same" I mean they've rolled off the same production line machines operated by the same people working in the same building that the originals were made in.

So they're not "copies" or "clones" as such. Just originals without the name badge added at the end of production.