Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

New Marketing Strategy

Expand Messages
  • Dan Kaplan
    In the now I ve seen everything category, Markus just put a CNC 105 on Astromart auction where the price you pay for the scope dictates how high the Strehl
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In the now I've seen everything category, Markus just put a CNC 105 on
      Astromart auction where the price you pay for the scope dictates how
      high the Strehl will be. Interesting....

      http://www.astromart.com/auctions/details.asp?auction_id=1506

      Dan
    • starzkey
      ... on ... What a concept; you get what you pay for! Although Galaxy optics has done this for years with parabolic mirrors, I haven t seen any other Telescope
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 31, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Kaplan" <dkapla12@c...> wrote:
        > In the now I've seen everything category, Markus just put a CNC 105
        on
        > Astromart auction where the price you pay for the scope dictates how
        > high the Strehl will be. Interesting....
        >
        >

        What a concept; you get what you pay for! Although Galaxy optics has
        done this for years with parabolic mirrors, I haven't seen any other
        Telescope manufacturer adopt this strategy (at least not
        consistently). I'm not sure that consumers are used to the idea of a
        variable pricing structure for manufactured goods sold under the same
        brand name or trademark. The price point usually changes across
        brands, even if both are made by the same firm.

        Scott Milligan
      • Donald Rosenfield
        What a concept; you get what you pay for! Although Galaxy optics has done this for years with parabolic mirrors, I haven t seen any other Telescope
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 31, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          What a concept; you get what you pay for! Although Galaxy optics has
          done this for years with parabolic mirrors, I haven't seen any other
          Telescope manufacturer adopt this strategy (at least not
          consistently). I'm not sure that consumers are used to the idea of a
          variable pricing structure for manufactured goods sold under the same
          brand name or trademark. The price point usually changes across
          brands, even if both are made by the same firm.

          Scott Milligan
          **********************
          Hi Scott,

          Many of the folks on this board came over from the Questar newsgroup when the Sooper-Dooper-Pooper-Scooper monocentrics were announced. (I bought the 6mm, the 10mm, and the 25mm TMB/Zeiss aspheric orthoscopic oculars and am now getting the BO/TMB oculars in pairs for my BO binoviewer.) All of we Questar owners, presumably including Markus, are familiar with the above concept as for the last 35 years you could pay more for your Questar and get better optics.

          That came about when the aluminized spot in the center of the meniscus lens was moved from the R1 to the R2 surface. That meant that Questar was able to cut down the surface accuracy from the 1/64-wave P.V. that my 1967 R1 model has to the 1/50-wave P.V. of the R2 models without affecting the system accuracy. That remained at 1/8-wave as there were two fewer surfaces to contend with. But the capability of figuring to 1/64-wave sirface accuracy remained and was available at a higher cost, generating the superb 1/15-wave system accuracy Questars.

          So, Scott, Galaxy has not been the only company selling better optics for more money.

          Donald A. Rosenfield

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Dan Kaplan
          But Questars have certain options, for mirror substrates, coatings, 1/15 wave accuracy rather than the guaranteed 1/8, etc. Presumably, you get something more
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 31, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            But Questars have certain options, for mirror substrates, coatings,
            1/15 wave accuracy rather than the guaranteed 1/8, etc. Presumably,
            you get something more for your money by opting for certain
            enhancements over the standard. With Galaxy optics, I would assume
            each level of accuracy would be treated like a different model of
            the mirror with different prices. I think the problem starts, as
            Donald pointed out, where you have just one model scope and you're
            introducing the notion that some of that same model happen to be
            better than others. There's no way to tell them apart other than by
            a test report. I think it makes people think twice before buying the
            scope because the notion of variable quality is introduced. Most
            people would think that a high end apo should be consistent from one
            to the next. I believe that that is the perception with Questars
            (unless you buy the 1/15th wave as a separately identifiable model)
            and certainly with APs. Maybe the demand for AP is so high because
            they have a reputation for consistently high quality, rightly or
            not. IMO, with ads like this one, TMB scopes will never be held in
            as high an esteem (which is a shame, since they certainly should be).

            --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Rosenfield" <cardar@c...>
            wrote:
            >
            > What a concept; you get what you pay for! Although Galaxy optics
            has
            > done this for years with parabolic mirrors, I haven't seen any
            other
            > Telescope manufacturer adopt this strategy (at least not
            > consistently). I'm not sure that consumers are used to the idea
            of a
            > variable pricing structure for manufactured goods sold under the
            same
            > brand name or trademark. The price point usually changes across
            > brands, even if both are made by the same firm.
            >
            > Scott Milligan
            > **********************
            > Hi Scott,
            >
            > Many of the folks on this board came over from the Questar
            newsgroup when the Sooper-Dooper-Pooper-Scooper monocentrics were
            announced. (I bought the 6mm, the 10mm, and the 25mm TMB/Zeiss
            aspheric orthoscopic oculars and am now getting the BO/TMB oculars
            in pairs for my BO binoviewer.) All of we Questar owners, presumably
            including Markus, are familiar with the above concept as for the
            last 35 years you could pay more for your Questar and get better
            optics.
            >
            > That came about when the aluminized spot in the center of the
            meniscus lens was moved from the R1 to the R2 surface. That meant
            that Questar was able to cut down the surface accuracy from the 1/64-
            wave P.V. that my 1967 R1 model has to the 1/50-wave P.V. of the R2
            models without affecting the system accuracy. That remained at 1/8-
            wave as there were two fewer surfaces to contend with. But the
            capability of figuring to 1/64-wave sirface accuracy remained and
            was available at a higher cost, generating the superb 1/15-wave
            system accuracy Questars.
            >
            > So, Scott, Galaxy has not been the only company selling better
            optics for more money.
            >
            > Donald A. Rosenfield
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • erdmanpe
            This is indeed a bad idea. It reinforces the notion that you only get good quality if you pay more than is normal. Confusion over what the TMB brand means is
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 31, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              This is indeed a bad idea. It reinforces the notion that you only get
              good quality if you pay more than is normal. Confusion over what the
              TMB brand means is already bad enough.

              Peter

              --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Kaplan" <dkapla12@c...> wrote:
              > But Questars have certain options, for mirror substrates, coatings,
              > 1/15 wave accuracy rather than the guaranteed 1/8, etc. Presumably,
              > you get something more for your money by opting for certain
              > enhancements over the standard. With Galaxy optics, I would assume
              > each level of accuracy would be treated like a different model of
              > the mirror with different prices. I think the problem starts, as
              > Donald pointed out, where you have just one model scope and you're
              > introducing the notion that some of that same model happen to be
              > better than others. There's no way to tell them apart other than by
              > a test report. I think it makes people think twice before buying the
              > scope because the notion of variable quality is introduced. Most
              > people would think that a high end apo should be consistent from one
              > to the next. I believe that that is the perception with Questars
              > (unless you buy the 1/15th wave as a separately identifiable model)
              > and certainly with APs. Maybe the demand for AP is so high because
              > they have a reputation for consistently high quality, rightly or
              > not. IMO, with ads like this one, TMB scopes will never be held in
              > as high an esteem (which is a shame, since they certainly should be).
              >
              > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Rosenfield" <cardar@c...>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > What a concept; you get what you pay for! Although Galaxy optics
              > has
              > > done this for years with parabolic mirrors, I haven't seen any
              > other
              > > Telescope manufacturer adopt this strategy (at least not
              > > consistently). I'm not sure that consumers are used to the idea
              > of a
              > > variable pricing structure for manufactured goods sold under the
              > same
              > > brand name or trademark. The price point usually changes across
              > > brands, even if both are made by the same firm.
              > >
              > > Scott Milligan
              > > **********************
              > > Hi Scott,
              > >
              > > Many of the folks on this board came over from the Questar
              > newsgroup when the Sooper-Dooper-Pooper-Scooper monocentrics were
              > announced. (I bought the 6mm, the 10mm, and the 25mm TMB/Zeiss
              > aspheric orthoscopic oculars and am now getting the BO/TMB oculars
              > in pairs for my BO binoviewer.) All of we Questar owners, presumably
              > including Markus, are familiar with the above concept as for the
              > last 35 years you could pay more for your Questar and get better
              > optics.
              > >
              > > That came about when the aluminized spot in the center of the
              > meniscus lens was moved from the R1 to the R2 surface. That meant
              > that Questar was able to cut down the surface accuracy from the 1/64-
              > wave P.V. that my 1967 R1 model has to the 1/50-wave P.V. of the R2
              > models without affecting the system accuracy. That remained at 1/8-
              > wave as there were two fewer surfaces to contend with. But the
              > capability of figuring to 1/64-wave sirface accuracy remained and
              > was available at a higher cost, generating the superb 1/15-wave
              > system accuracy Questars.
              > >
              > > So, Scott, Galaxy has not been the only company selling better
              > optics for more money.
              > >
              > > Donald A. Rosenfield
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Terry L Tuggle
              Peter, All of this brings a question to mind, from all I have read on the group about Strehl ratio, .95 is the limit in which the human eye can no longer
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 31, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Peter,

                All of this brings a question to mind, from all I have read on the
                group about Strehl ratio, .95 is the limit in which the human eye can no
                longer distinguish improvement. The numbers in the add were, .96 to .98.
                What would be the difference? Would a CCD be able to take more detailed
                images at .98 vs. .96?

                Terry



                _____

                From: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tmboptical@yahoogroups.com] On
                Behalf Of erdmanpe
                Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 8:52 PM
                To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [tmboptical] Re: New Marketing Strategy



                This is indeed a bad idea. It reinforces the notion that you only get
                good quality if you pay more than is normal. Confusion over what the
                TMB brand means is already bad enough.

                Peter

                --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Kaplan" <dkapla12@c...> wrote:
                > But Questars have certain options, for mirror substrates, coatings,
                > 1/15 wave accuracy rather than the guaranteed 1/8, etc. Presumably,
                > you get something more for your money by opting for certain
                > enhancements over the standard. With Galaxy optics, I would assume
                > each level of accuracy would be treated like a different model of
                > the mirror with different prices. I think the problem starts, as
                > Donald pointed out, where you have just one model scope and you're
                > introducing the notion that some of that same model happen to be
                > better than others. There's no way to tell them apart other than by
                > a test report. I think it makes people think twice before buying the
                > scope because the notion of variable quality is introduced. Most
                > people would think that a high end apo should be consistent from one
                > to the next. I believe that that is the perception with Questars
                > (unless you buy the 1/15th wave as a separately identifiable model)
                > and certainly with APs. Maybe the demand for AP is so high because
                > they have a reputation for consistently high quality, rightly or
                > not. IMO, with ads like this one, TMB scopes will never be held in
                > as high an esteem (which is a shame, since they certainly should be).
                >
                > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Rosenfield" <cardar@c...>
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > What a concept; you get what you pay for! Although Galaxy optics
                > has
                > > done this for years with parabolic mirrors, I haven't seen any
                > other
                > > Telescope manufacturer adopt this strategy (at least not
                > > consistently). I'm not sure that consumers are used to the idea
                > of a
                > > variable pricing structure for manufactured goods sold under the
                > same
                > > brand name or trademark. The price point usually changes across
                > > brands, even if both are made by the same firm.
                > >
                > > Scott Milligan
                > > **********************
                > > Hi Scott,
                > >
                > > Many of the folks on this board came over from the Questar
                > newsgroup when the Sooper-Dooper-Pooper-Scooper monocentrics were
                > announced. (I bought the 6mm, the 10mm, and the 25mm TMB/Zeiss
                > aspheric orthoscopic oculars and am now getting the BO/TMB oculars
                > in pairs for my BO binoviewer.) All of we Questar owners, presumably
                > including Markus, are familiar with the above concept as for the
                > last 35 years you could pay more for your Questar and get better
                > optics.
                > >
                > > That came about when the aluminized spot in the center of the
                > meniscus lens was moved from the R1 to the R2 surface. That meant
                > that Questar was able to cut down the surface accuracy from the 1/64-
                > wave P.V. that my 1967 R1 model has to the 1/50-wave P.V. of the R2
                > models without affecting the system accuracy. That remained at 1/8-
                > wave as there were two fewer surfaces to contend with. But the
                > capability of figuring to 1/64-wave sirface accuracy remained and
                > was available at a higher cost, generating the superb 1/15-wave
                > system accuracy Questars.
                > >
                > > So, Scott, Galaxy has not been the only company selling better
                > optics for more money.
                > >
                > > Donald A. Rosenfield
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                SPONSORED LINKS


                Tmb
                <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Tmb&w1=Tmb&w2=Astronomy+software&w3=Ast
                ronomy+magazine&c=3&s=57&.sig=ECRzDYUg029vbpzCfOx18A>

                Astronomy
                <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Astronomy+software&w1=Tmb&w2=Astronomy+
                software&w3=Astronomy+magazine&c=3&s=57&.sig=Pi3twtcxH1LmtHlKrhUj3w>
                software

                Astronomy
                <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Astronomy+magazine&w1=Tmb&w2=Astronomy+
                software&w3=Astronomy+magazine&c=3&s=57&.sig=BwRKZk4y4Vl7WkPQI5mCSQ>
                magazine



                _____

                YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



                * Visit your group "tmboptical
                <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tmboptical> " on the web.

                * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                tmboptical-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                <mailto:tmboptical-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

                * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



                _____



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Donald Rosenfield
                Another way to look at it, Peter, is that for one sum of money you can get an Orion refractor and for a higher sum you can get a TMB refractor that has more
                Message 7 of 11 , Aug 1 1:43 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Another way to look at it, Peter, is that for one sum of money you can get an Orion refractor and for a higher sum you can get a TMB refractor that has more correction and a better figure. I'll let you figure out (pun intended) where AP and BO fits into this panoply, save that the BO/TMB refractors won't be priced in any relation to anybody else's on the market. (Is that enough "any" words for you?)

                  Donald





                  This is indeed a bad idea. It reinforces the notion that you only get
                  good quality if you pay more than is normal. Confusion over what the
                  TMB brand means is already bad enough.

                  Peter
                  > There's no way to tell them apart other than by
                  > a test report. I think it makes people think twice before buying the
                  > scope because the notion of variable quality is introduced. Most
                  > people would think that a high end apo should be consistent from one
                  > to the next.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • APM-Telescopes Markus Ludes
                  Scott my add is for the very last available classical silver CNC Tube, such offer we dont make for our new line tubes , but for this equisit product Markus ...
                  Message 8 of 11 , Aug 1 3:31 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Scott

                    my add is for the very last available classical silver CNC Tube, such offer we dont make for our new line tubes , but for this equisit product

                    Markus
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: starzkey
                    To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 6:22 PM
                    Subject: [tmboptical] Re: New Marketing Strategy


                    --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Kaplan" <dkapla12@c...> wrote:
                    > In the now I've seen everything category, Markus just put a CNC 105
                    on
                    > Astromart auction where the price you pay for the scope dictates how
                    > high the Strehl will be. Interesting....
                    >
                    >

                    What a concept; you get what you pay for! Although Galaxy optics has
                    done this for years with parabolic mirrors, I haven't seen any other
                    Telescope manufacturer adopt this strategy (at least not
                    consistently). I'm not sure that consumers are used to the idea of a
                    variable pricing structure for manufactured goods sold under the same
                    brand name or trademark. The price point usually changes across
                    brands, even if both are made by the same firm.

                    Scott Milligan





                    SPONSORED LINKS Tmb Astronomy software Astronomy magazine


                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

                    a.. Visit your group "tmboptical" on the web.

                    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    tmboptical-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • erdmanpe
                    It s probably even less important for most imaging due to the long time averaging that takes place. The atmosphere then becomes limiting. Peter ...
                    Message 9 of 11 , Aug 1 8:27 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      It's probably even less important for most imaging due to the long
                      time averaging that takes place. The atmosphere then becomes limiting.

                      Peter

                      --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Terry L Tuggle" <tlt284@v...> wrote:
                      > Peter,
                      >
                      > All of this brings a question to mind, from all I have read on the
                      > group about Strehl ratio, .95 is the limit in which the human eye can no
                      > longer distinguish improvement. The numbers in the add were, .96 to .98.
                      > What would be the difference? Would a CCD be able to take more detailed
                      > images at .98 vs. .96?
                      >
                      > Terry
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > _____
                      >
                      > From: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tmboptical@yahoogroups.com] On
                      > Behalf Of erdmanpe
                      > Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 8:52 PM
                      > To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: [tmboptical] Re: New Marketing Strategy
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > This is indeed a bad idea. It reinforces the notion that you only get
                      > good quality if you pay more than is normal. Confusion over what the
                      > TMB brand means is already bad enough.
                      >
                      > Peter
                      >
                      > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Kaplan" <dkapla12@c...> wrote:
                      > > But Questars have certain options, for mirror substrates, coatings,
                      > > 1/15 wave accuracy rather than the guaranteed 1/8, etc. Presumably,
                      > > you get something more for your money by opting for certain
                      > > enhancements over the standard. With Galaxy optics, I would assume
                      > > each level of accuracy would be treated like a different model of
                      > > the mirror with different prices. I think the problem starts, as
                      > > Donald pointed out, where you have just one model scope and you're
                      > > introducing the notion that some of that same model happen to be
                      > > better than others. There's no way to tell them apart other than by
                      > > a test report. I think it makes people think twice before buying the
                      > > scope because the notion of variable quality is introduced. Most
                      > > people would think that a high end apo should be consistent from one
                      > > to the next. I believe that that is the perception with Questars
                      > > (unless you buy the 1/15th wave as a separately identifiable model)
                      > > and certainly with APs. Maybe the demand for AP is so high because
                      > > they have a reputation for consistently high quality, rightly or
                      > > not. IMO, with ads like this one, TMB scopes will never be held in
                      > > as high an esteem (which is a shame, since they certainly should be).
                      > >
                      > > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Rosenfield" <cardar@c...>
                      > > wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > What a concept; you get what you pay for! Although Galaxy optics
                      > > has
                      > > > done this for years with parabolic mirrors, I haven't seen any
                      > > other
                      > > > Telescope manufacturer adopt this strategy (at least not
                      > > > consistently). I'm not sure that consumers are used to the idea
                      > > of a
                      > > > variable pricing structure for manufactured goods sold under the
                      > > same
                      > > > brand name or trademark. The price point usually changes across
                      > > > brands, even if both are made by the same firm.
                      > > >
                      > > > Scott Milligan
                      > > > **********************
                      > > > Hi Scott,
                      > > >
                      > > > Many of the folks on this board came over from the Questar
                      > > newsgroup when the Sooper-Dooper-Pooper-Scooper monocentrics were
                      > > announced. (I bought the 6mm, the 10mm, and the 25mm TMB/Zeiss
                      > > aspheric orthoscopic oculars and am now getting the BO/TMB oculars
                      > > in pairs for my BO binoviewer.) All of we Questar owners, presumably
                      > > including Markus, are familiar with the above concept as for the
                      > > last 35 years you could pay more for your Questar and get better
                      > > optics.
                      > > >
                      > > > That came about when the aluminized spot in the center of the
                      > > meniscus lens was moved from the R1 to the R2 surface. That meant
                      > > that Questar was able to cut down the surface accuracy from the 1/64-
                      > > wave P.V. that my 1967 R1 model has to the 1/50-wave P.V. of the R2
                      > > models without affecting the system accuracy. That remained at 1/8-
                      > > wave as there were two fewer surfaces to contend with. But the
                      > > capability of figuring to 1/64-wave sirface accuracy remained and
                      > > was available at a higher cost, generating the superb 1/15-wave
                      > > system accuracy Questars.
                      > > >
                      > > > So, Scott, Galaxy has not been the only company selling better
                      > > optics for more money.
                      > > >
                      > > > Donald A. Rosenfield
                      > > >
                      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > SPONSORED LINKS
                      >
                      >
                      > Tmb
                      >
                      <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Tmb&w1=Tmb&w2=Astronomy+software&w3=Ast
                      > ronomy+magazine&c=3&s=57&.sig=ECRzDYUg029vbpzCfOx18A>
                      >
                      > Astronomy
                      >
                      <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Astronomy+software&w1=Tmb&w2=Astronomy+
                      > software&w3=Astronomy+magazine&c=3&s=57&.sig=Pi3twtcxH1LmtHlKrhUj3w>
                      > software
                      >
                      > Astronomy
                      >
                      <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Astronomy+magazine&w1=Tmb&w2=Astronomy+
                      > software&w3=Astronomy+magazine&c=3&s=57&.sig=BwRKZk4y4Vl7WkPQI5mCSQ>
                      > magazine
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > _____
                      >
                      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > * Visit your group "tmboptical
                      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tmboptical> " on the web.
                      >
                      > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > tmboptical-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > <mailto:tmboptical-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                      >
                      > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                      > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > _____
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Wayne G
                      SM: What a concept; you get what you pay for! Although Galaxy optics has done this for years with parabolic mirrors, I haven t seen any other Telescope
                      Message 10 of 11 , Aug 1 10:03 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        SM: What a concept; you get what you pay for! Although Galaxy optics has
                        done this for years with parabolic mirrors, I haven't seen any other
                        Telescope manufacturer adopt this strategy (at least not
                        consistently).

                        WG: I believe you are mixing apples and oranges here Scott: in the case of
                        Galaxy, I expect that they are intentionally figuring a SINGLE surface to
                        varying degrees of accuracy, the better naturally coming at a higher cost.
                        But in the case of a TMB, the customer has always gotten what he has paid
                        for, which is a system performance which was at least .95 strehl or HIGHER.

                        The difference here is that LZOS or LOMO is shooting for (and performing)
                        the same work each time. Sometimes they end up with a .95 or .96 lens, and
                        other times they are lucky enough that it ends up being actually closer to
                        .98 or .99. Luck of the draw.


                        SM: I'm not sure that consumers are used to the idea of a
                        variable pricing structure for manufactured goods sold under the same
                        brand name or trademark. The price point usually changes across
                        brands, even if both are made by the same firm.

                        Scott Milligan

                        WG: Again, I do not think this would apply here. TMB certainly cannot
                        lower the price on their apos at .95 strehl, and so this would require that
                        they raise their prices higher for all that test even better. The end
                        result would be a lot of expensive TMB's sitting around very hard to sell
                        and a lot of burnt customers unhappy about the much longer delivery times
                        while they await another .95 strehl telescope to come their ways, which they
                        either ordered, can only afford, or are willing to pay for.

                        Further, what if you wanted to sell your apo? For the longest time, TMB has
                        eschewed sending test reports with their telescopes to avoid people fighting
                        over wanting one with a .9999 strehl. You were guaranteed a minimum high
                        level of quality, which is as good as 99% of the people will ever come to
                        really appreciate anyway. Now what if you were to pay 1.5X normal price for
                        a .99 strehl telescope? The fellow from a few years ago only paid 1X your
                        price for the same quality. Ouch. And if you never got a test report or if
                        you lost it, what basis would you have to charge a high premium upon
                        reselling on AstroMart?

                        Also, as someone else said, very, very few people actually have both the
                        seeing quality, visual acuity, AND the sufficient star test training to even
                        be able to see the difference between a .97 telescope and a .99 telescope,
                        let alone in focus or at the image plain.

                        Besides, in light of recent discussions on testing accuracy, there is no
                        basis to think that a telescope which LZOS tested and certified as .95
                        strehl cannot actually be a BETTER lens than one which tested at .98. So
                        now all are REALLY confused as to what they should charge or pay if one were
                        to try to set each telescope at a different price point, based on strehl
                        value alone.


                        **********************


                        Hi Scott,

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tmboptical@yahoogroups.com]On
                        Behalf Of Donald Rosenfield
                        Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 3:48 PM
                        To: tmboptical@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [tmboptical] Re: New Marketing Strategy



                        DAR: That came about when the aluminized spot in the center of the meniscus
                        lens was moved from the R1 to the R2 surface. That meant that Questar was
                        able to cut down the surface accuracy from the 1/64-wave P.V. that my 1967
                        R1 model has to the 1/50-wave P.V. of the R2 models without affecting the
                        system accuracy. That remained at 1/8-wave as there were two fewer surfaces
                        to contend with. But the capability of figuring to 1/64-wave sirface
                        accuracy remained and was available at a higher cost, generating the superb
                        1/15-wave system accuracy Questars.

                        WG: Donald,

                        Did Questar *DROP* their prices when they redesigned the Q to lower surface
                        accuracy for the R2 configuration? That only seems natural since they are
                        charging a higher price to go back up to the original 1/64th surface
                        standard they started with.

                        Wayne
                      • Donald Rosenfield
                        WG: Donald, Did Questar *DROP* their prices when they redesigned the Q to lower surface accuracy for the R2 configuration? That only seems natural since they
                        Message 11 of 11 , Aug 2 4:02 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          WG: Donald,

                          Did Questar *DROP* their prices when they redesigned the Q to lower surface
                          accuracy for the R2 configuration? That only seems natural since they are
                          charging a higher price to go back up to the original 1/64th surface
                          standard they started with.

                          Wayne
                          *********************
                          Wayne,

                          No, Questar prices have only gone up along with inflation, though not nearly as much as inflation or many other things. Remember that in 1967, which is when I got my Q a Ford Mustang cost $2000 new and gasoline was around 27 cents/gallon. Since then Qs have done what, doubled in price? Tripled? So what. Salaries now are around 8-10 times what they were then for the same work.

                          With the R1 Qs they promised/advertised a 1/8-wave system. With the R2 Qs they promised/advertised a 1/8-wave system. It is just that as they always had the capability to work to 1/64-wave that they are able to offer the 1/15-wave system Qs.

                          Of course there's the other direction. We came across a city in Brazil where teachers earned around twenty cents a month. Hardly paid to go to college. . . .

                          Donald

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.