In a message dated 97-12-31 22:31:49 EST, you write:

<< The thing that has always made me wonder is why the 16" LX200 is so much
more expensive then the 14" Celestron which goes for only $6350 with the
fine Losmandy G11 mount. The Meade is 1.3x more aperture for 2.5x the
price; the LX200 electronics aren't worth that much (after all, their
virtually identical to what you get with the $2500 8" version). The CG-14
may be my next scope. >>

The CG-14 is certainly the "light bucket of SCTs" in the sense of curing
aperture fever for the least money if you must have an SCT. The good news (if
you can think of it as that) is that they're always available used. The
largest of the "get that thing out of the garage and sell it" scopes. Try
finding a used LX200 16" sometime. I tried and heard from nobody selling one,
instead several C14 owners even though I said I didn't want one.

A few thoughts:

1. Comparable opto-mechanical devices built in comparable quantities often
have prices scaling by approximately weight, or the cube of size. In some
cases, fixed costs (electronics, software, hand controller, etc.) must first
be subtracted or the exponent slightly adjusted from 3 to whatever. In other
words, raise the price per pound. If it's a car, make sure you're comparing a
Chevy to a Chevy and I don't mean a Chevy Cavalier to a Chevy Corvette.

I like moderately good stuff. My car cost about $9/pound. My scope with
tripod cost maybe $40/pound or $50/pound if you neglect the weight of the
tripod. Try finding a 20mm Nagler for under $150/pound, the smaller ones much
more. Anything over $1000/pound I try to buy very light. Stop me before I
weigh everything in the house. ;-) But $50/pound or whatever for the 16"
isn't outrageous if it's good stuff.

2. There are a LOT fewer LX200 16" scopes made than 7, 8, 10, 12 so really,
adjust the exponent upward (raise the price per pound) when doing a ratio for
the 16 vs. 10 as compared to the 12 vs. 8. Also, there comes a breakpoint
where the exponent just naturally rises due to technical difficulty (beyond
the material costs and volume of material removed in grinding, etc.) You
certainly couldn't just say "here's $120K, I'd like a 32 incher"

3. Do a similar comparison of Celestron 8, 9.25, 11, 14.

4. In cases where one size looks like a bargain compared to another for no
reason, it might be a marketing ploy, it might be a ripoff, it might be the
different production quantity, age of the design, something doesn't scale, or
there might be any number of reasons. When I did this analysis on the Meade
ED "APO" refractors I first concluded the 6" was a ripoff. In fact, it has
the same bigger mount as the 7" and may be the best of the bunch. The 5"
looked better on paper but has the smaller mount.

5. Consider that the 16" has REAL bearings, BIG gears, REAL BK-7 corrector
glass, preprogrammed PEC, home-pulse acquisition (true remote operation), and
who knows how many other things missing on our smaller scopes. Maybe the
derotator even works at the zenith, I'm not sure.

6. Customers of 16" scopes create corporate image, often via public viewing
programs and such that the scopes are used for. They therefore get
preferential treatment, like it or not. They also don't leave the scope in a
closet and forget about it if it breaks. For these reasons, Meade could
easily have decided to either subsidize them or charge them extra, depending
what they were thinking at the time they priced it.

7. Where do you get $16,000? I see $14,950 in my 2/98 S&T, including
supergiant field tripod.

Personally, I wish they were $8950 but it's hard to say the $14,950 is out of
line, after you subtract off what they obviously put into this scope above and
beyond their smaller ones beyond just scaling it up, then allow for the low-
quantity production and higher level of quality and service which probably
exist. I've searched high and low and found no complaints and only praise
from the lucky few who own or use them.

John

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: RE: [M]: F- reduser, color corrector for Meade's scopes.Was 7" woes., Email address hidden
Next message: [M]: Re: CG14 vs LX200 16", Bill Arnett