I can't believe the rubbish Meade puts out now days

[KG8]

$80 I spent on a polarizing moon filter. A bit much I though, but hey, you expect to get charged for those odd little items. It was a big affair, like a barlow and I wondered why they needed to make it so flipping long since it's essentially just filters. Perhaps they wanted to justify the price I mused. Then on use I noticed that the screws that lock the EP and the movable polarizer filter were sloppy. Very sloppy like they had put the wrong threads on them or in the holes. Then it fell apart, luckily I caught it when it did. On inspection I find that the two halves are held together by a single grub screw and there was no recess for the screw to sit in. I had come a bit loose and the inner barrel had simply slid off the outer. Also there were score marks where it had ben rotating under the lose screw. Have a look at it in the pic below. Yes, that's RUST you see on it. Can you imagine that rust working it's way down onto the surface of your $400 dilectric diagonal? I can. A cheap mild steel screw and they haven't even finished the end off.

I drilled out a little depression for the grub to sit in but it's not satisfactory. I will have to drill another hole, tap both for proper grub screws and put countersunk depressions into the inner barrel before this thing is safe to use again. Mind you it is really a wasted effort since the optics on my $15 flea market plorized sunglasses are clearer than the rubbish Meade has put into this thing. It will be the last Meade purchase I will ever make I can assure you of that! :mad2:

[casstony]

They market the whole range from rubbish through to very decent gear; you need to do some research before buying from these middle tier companies though.

[Adrian-H]

heh, i have allways disliked meade's way of advertisement and the way it presents its products..

like for instance, anyone seen that meade add where it goes something along the lines of, "watch out for cheap chinese knock off's buy a meade mak?"

pathetic advertisment like that really puts me off.

[CoombellKid]

I hear ya's, they turned me off a long time ago. I refuse to buy any of
their products. After spending $140.00 on an apo barlow and it's coatings
went to crap within months.

regards,CS

[allan gould]

Having purchased an LX50 in the mid-90s that not only advertised the unit as being suitable for astrophotography but had the gall to put an autoguider port in it, I dont buy Meade any more. Apart from the optics the total unit an the overall concept of what they put together was crap. Then they advertise the Magellan II unit for push to which didnt have southern stars to align on and was programmed like a schizophrenic with a flickering fluoro light in it. Total waste of effort.
Meades mantra is release it now and well fix it later if the suckers complain loud enough. I really hope a Meade rep reads this but I bet they have read worse - far worse.

[casstony]

I'm feel I need to step in to balance the argument here, even though I've had my problems with Meade in the past. If you're about to make a Meade purchase read the forums to see what others think of that particular item. For example, the current LX goto scopes and the Lightbridge truss dobs seem to be well liked. Celestron and Skywatcher sell good and bad stuff too - you need to do your research before purchasing.

[rumples riot]

I once owned a Meade scope 10' LX200. Software was lovely and it pointed perfectly. I defended the optics of their scopes but now having owned my second Celestron I would never buy any of their older style SCT's again. I don't know what the R's are like, but it is little wonder very few great planetary images (I have never seen one) come out of any Meade scope. In my opinion all their gear is let down by their optics. I would like to see what the newer scopes are like though.

Yes Meade do produce some substandard stuff.

[KG8]

Below is a pic of the $120 dollar Meade plossel I bought new some months back, the same day I got the filter above. I took this one back and quired it, figuring that the factory must have forgot to put some 'glue' on it or something. Here is what I was told.
"Oh they all come up like that, the caps are too tight. Just push it back down." Oh! I said. And I walked out, not wanting to cause a fuss because they were good guys and had given me a terrific price on my EQ6. I really only bought the EP for collimating my SCT, so if the eye guard comes away, because the only thing holding it on is another rusty little grub screw, it won't be so bad.
In case anyone thinks otherwise, no it's not your typical press on eyecup, it's sides are flush and it's held on by some mechanism on one side

[mick pinner]

l don't agree with the comment as an across the board statement although when looking at the build quality between the early LX200 Classic and the newer GPS versions you can see a downward trend in assembly and all around finish.

[mill]

Meade sells crap AND good stuff, the whole problem with Meade is "i think" that they are gone too big and sell too many different products.
Quality control goes down the drain when you want to sell a lot and too many product lines.
Just my opinion.

[silvinator]

I own a meade at the moment and I have had my share of problems with it for the three (4? who's counting) years of ownership, but it's the only scope I have and I love it to bits (as it falls to bits :p).

I sympathise with KG8's gripe regarding quality and workmanship in meade - one of the screws that holds the plate in place on the mount head has recently broken off. It became stuck after an extremely cold night of observing, the mount head must have slightly contracted, making the screw impossible to unscrew. Also, when I first got the scope, and did some fine adjustments to the underside of the dovetail(? I can't remember what it's called anymore) plate (what meade calls the axis alignment procedure), all the washers that held the adjustment screws in place broke and fell to pieces. My meade barlow has also recently had it's screw broken off as well (the important part that holds the eyepiece in place!).

That being said, I am happy with the optics of the scope, even if the parts that hold it together aren't particularly great. However, I have had many, many nights of wonderful observing time with this fine telescope. I don't want any prospective meade buyers to be put off by our gripes because I'm sure, as Tony said, every manufacturer has their good crop and bad crop. I don't think we should make sweeping generalisations though about one particular brand. I haven't had experience with all of meade's product range so I can't say that all their stuff is crap, and even with my not so great experiences, I won't say that all their gear is total crap.

Cheers,
Silvie

[KG8]

Very true Silvie, they do have good optics in a lot of their scopes. I posted my experiences so that others might not get duded on the items I was duded on, not to trash all Meade gear. I think that in this day and age we need to really scope out any purchases we intend to make because there are so many defective products in the market place. It's one reason I like to hold things in my hand before I spend, so I can check them out for myself. I didn't do this with my Meade purchases because they were spur of the moment ones and I guess I still had a sort of "blind trust" in the Meade brand. Something a lot of us are prone to do I guess. But, having been burnt, twice now! I wouldn't go back again at all.

The root of the problem is inflation of the money supply, which has pushed prices up 5 fold or more over the last 20 years. Hi quality telescopes can still be bought but they will cost us $20 or $30 thousand dollars, yet Meade scopes, and Celestron scopes, are the same price or cheaper than they were 20 years ago. They are manufacturing to a price point, and when you think about that for a moment it's obvious why there are problems. The trick I think is to just minimize the problems.

[casstony]

I'd encourage posting about defective products to warn others (it's getting harder to sort out the good gear from the bad) but we do need to be cautious not to give the impression that problems are isolated to one company. I imagine quality control is going out the door as competition becomes more fierce.

[Neilzstar]

I have Meade filters, Meade astrometric eyepiece, and Meade DSI now 2 1/2 years old. The eyepieces are fine but the DSI has been changed a lot. Not likely to repeat purchases other than eyepieces. So, 50/50 maybe. Telescope is C8, from Bintel, then Celestron, now Meade. V.pleased with C8 - excellent optics. Cheers.

[robin]

Ive had a 10" meade LX200 close to 4 years now & its been fabulous & has given me much pleasure. Mostly deadly accurate pointing & has worked flawlessy as advertised. Not all their stuff is great but by the same token, not all Fords, Holdens, Nikons, Canons, IBM's, Apple-Mac's etc etc(speaking from experience here) work flawlessly. Theres some real crap amongst mass produced consumables for sure & unfortunately, every so often for some reason or another, a piece of junk gets through. I had a recommended-to-me plumber that plumbed my house several years ago, charged $10,000 & it all stank. Shoddy, lazy workmanship, dripping taps and crappy installation.
My point is that in this day & age with mass produced consumables, there's going to be some rubbish amongst it as the " churn it out & worship the almighty the $$$ & blow the quality control" capitalistic mentality continues.There are many many happy meade owners out there & unfortunately you only ever hear the negative aspects. I will only upgrade my meade when it virtually falls apart or the electronics all die.(Which they will given time)....my two cents

[Outbackmanyep]

Do you notice that Meade and Celestron both have stuff made in China marketed as top of the line products now?
I use Celestron, but i always make sure that eyepieces etc are made in Japan or USA,:thumbsup:
A lady i know bought a Meade Telestar GOTO telescope, and its been nothing but trouble! Its impossible to collimate for one, and the drive mechanisms are very sloppy, has plastic everything (i'm surprised the batteries aren't plastic), the manual is all scrolling in the hand controller and it hurts the eyes to read, its a very cheap and nasty set-up, likewise the Celestron scopes that you see in Australian Geo Shops and Dick Smith outlets have very poor mountings.

These days you get what you pay for!!


Like riflescopes, ANYTHING made in JAPAN, GERMANY or the USA are first quality!

[radu5er]

:D

I was "made in the USA"...

...does that mean I'm first quality? :cool:

[wavelandscott]

It depends on which part...there is a wide variance in the quality control implemented from state to state across the US...:P

It was once commented by my "friends" that when I moved from one state to another that the average IQ was raised in both places from my move...:whistle:

[MarkN]

So far, I can't really complain too loudly about my LX90. I replaced the focuser mechanism with a Peterson kit which is a great improvement.

The layout of the LNT unit does leave a bit to be desired however. Replacing the battery for this part is unnecessarily contrived.

Surely it was an afterthought, which is a pity because I find the red dot finder useful.

Mark.

[§AB]

these days basically everything is made in Taiwan or China. Even your $600 TV Panoptics are Taiwan-made these days. My Meade Series 5000 Plossl is made in China.

Finding Japanese/U.S products is becoming harder and harder.

[Stephen65]

Vixen and Pentax EPs are still made in Japan.

[cydonia]

Doesn't Celestron and Meade make thier SCT OTAs in their US factories? I have owned SCTs OTAs from both and find the Celestron better in both optics and mechanics. The Celestron focusers have less image shift from my experience and the coatings were slightly more smooth. However, I might have just got a Bad Meade example. Both companies can produce lemons.

From playing with both companies bottom range scopes in Camera stores, I believe they are crap. You have to be suspicious when the boxes have images taken by Hubble on them!!

[Louwai]

The last time I was at the ExtraVision warehouse in Capalaba, there were a hell of a lot of boxes with "Made in China" printed on them.
All were in plain view from the service counter.

I was there due to a problem with my C8 OTA.
I'm not sure what the problem was & I don't think they really did either, but they replaced it with a new OTA on the spot.

Has been great ever since.

[mill]

Hmm didn't those boxes say Meade in China by any chance? :P

[Louwai]

Nup..... Nice big CELESTRON for all to see.......

[KG8]

The only way the fly hey

[citivolus]

I just got my new Meade 9mm battery powered illuminated reticle eyepiece, and wow, Meade really has taken a high dive into the shallow end of the pool. The LED is on even when the pot is in the off position, there is glue all over the illumination module, and it randomly turns its self off and on. One quick check after assembly at the factory would have caught this, but apparently even that is too much to ask.

I'm sure the vendor will make everything right for me, but he shouldn't have to. I should have just gone for the "cheaper" option to start with.

No more Meade for me, thanks.

[Lee]

Yep - my Meade illuminated reticle eyepiece is rubbish too - same problems as yours - I have to tap mine to get the LED to come on!

My Meade CCD RGB filters aren't much better - hold the rim of the filter and shake - you can hear the glass rattling in the metal rim.... :rolleyes:

[citivolus]

I had a peek in the LED end and it explains why you need to tap yours - the LED makes contact with half of the circuit using just one of its leads, with no solder connection, just friction. A cleaning of the surface in there may help yours to make better contact.

Unfortunately, the other end is sealed so it isn't quite as quick a "fix".

[beren]

Sorry to hear the troubles but for some balance the 9mm unit I have works well

[norm]

Thats an interesting comment Tony and a valid one. But I would also have thought that as competition gets more fierce and margins getting tighter, I'd be asking myself how can I make my products more attractive than my competitor and better quality control would have to be up there high on the agenda.
Given this hobby relies, expects and uses precise instruments and accessories, you'd think making high end quality gear would be one of their mission statements.

Many companies, not just astronomical ones, cheapen their name these days by selling out and cashing in on the lower end of the market. Some do it well, others have a long way to go.

[Dennis]

I have a Meade #647 Flip Mirror which I purchased from BinTel and I think it was made in Japan? It is a very nicely engineered unit and the quality, fit and finish are superb. This unit really does stand out from the other cheaper, mass produced accessories.

Cheers

Dennis

[jjjnettie]

Chris Thomas had spent a lot of money on a 4mm plossl from Meade.
We had a show down on Saturn a while back, his good Meade compared to my $5 Astrofest special.
Mine won hands down.
The poor bloke was rather upset.

[Dennis]

Ouch – did he cry?

Cheers

Dennis

[Outbackmanyep]

I share your pain, i got one from a reputable eastern sydney telescope supplier and when i received mine i encountered the same problems with the illuminator. It looked like it was a faulty unit (perhaps a recirculated factory 2nd) and someone had tried to repair it and did a really crap job on it, like a kid tried to solder the internal connections, im currently getting a replacement CELESTRON illuminator from Adorama in the US, Its the ONLY Meade product i use and im less than impressed, the reticle is quite ok although sometimes it wont hold the focus of the reticle whilst guiding, my illuminator switch now rotates completely around and i have had to "feel" the switch to make sure its turned off properly, my finder scope on the Celestron Ultima has a very good illuminator, i can switch it on with one finger without bumping the scope at all, and its smooth and reliable! Only problem is it doesn't have a screw fitting to put in the Meade reticle......

I will eventually look at the Celestron 12mm fixed crosshair guiding eyepiece as the microguide one is a bit too expensive, the 12mm eyepiece has the thread to put the optional reticle on.
Don't get me wrong though, Celestron do have issues as well, but mainly from the Chinese manufactured variety of Celestron....but if its Japanese made it won't give ANY hassles!!!

Cheers!

[Omaroo]

It's heartbreaking to read all all of this negativity toward Meade - which seems to becoming more generalised as it goes on. While it is possibly true that some of their lower-end material is being made in places other than the USA, and that its quality control is probably poor in those countries, let's not tar and feather everything they've made in the past or make now.

Their large telescopes and parts associated with them are, in my opinion, great quality for consumer-grade gear. It isn't ultra-high quality stuff, but then neither is your wallet eight feet thick to pay for it. The only bit of Meade gear that I have is my trusty 12" LX200GPS - and mechanically it has been excellent - nary a single problem with it. With a couple of minor upgrades (RA gear set) it is as smooth as they come and pin-point accurate to boot. Optically it is as good as any SCT I've seen through of similar size. In comparison to my Celestron C8 I'd say the Meade is better built. Just for one example - the corrector plate flange is made of machined aluminium instead of stamped plastic that the Celestron uses. Optically they are both about the same to my eyes. I don't get mirror flop on the Meade yet do on the Celestron - a constant and silly problem that seems to go unpunished.

Not everything Meade makes is bad - please remember that. I gather that their recent financials are probably driving them a road they didn't want to travel, and I hope that they pay heed to peoples' complaints and rectify the quality issues soon.

[beren]

I'd agree with that, the fit and finish of the LX200 OTA {assuming the meade SCT OTA's alike} I used was better then the C9.25 that I currently have. The phillip head screws that are used on the Celestron to hold the fore and aft sections to the inner tube look pretty ordinary. Overall the Lx's OTa looked cosmetically superior and sealed better at connection points, dew cap/visual back cap/finderscope and focuser knob are finished nicely. Optics wise thats up for debate ;)

[jjjnettie]

I totally agree with you Chris.
I'd love to own a Meade LX200. I'm sure most people would. It's just a pity that quality control is not as good as it should be on some of their branded products.

[citivolus]

I was never unhappy with the quality of the LX200GPS that I had, or the LX200 before it, or the LX90 before that.

However, with the upcoming complete relocation of all production to Mexico and China, I fear those scopes and their related quality control could be a thing of the past, unless Meade takes the necessary steps to prevent that downward spiral from continuing.

The problem is not that the Chinese or Mexicans are inherently sloppy, it is more that the factories are forced to save costs at every corner in order to win the contracts from the US corporations.