Bill,

Jon was offered a refund on more than one occasion. He chose to wait
for the new semi-apo which is a TMB design, and will be out soon.

Tom:

As long as you want to discuss the 102F6 and other issues I am available. It's
a knee jerk thing with me.

As long as you concentrate on the $150 and not the nearly 2 years wait for a
promised one month delivery I will be disappointed and feel I have not
communicated. I don't see how the production of the scope could have been even
started when that promise was being made.

It is true I was offered a refund. However at that point (a year into this
experience), I had just gotten the scope was still hopeful that there was
something wrong with the assembly rather than the objective itself.

(I might note that I got more help about what might be wrong with this scope
from Roland than from BO.)

As far as the wait for the semi-APO lens, in January of 2004, that lens was
supposed to be delivered in April of 2004, a three month wait and $100 didn't
seem too bad,...


I
wish Jon had gotten one of the better ones, but his was clearly the worst
of the batch Bill sold. It was not representative of the typical 1026.

Again: I have challenged the members of the Burgess Optical Astromart forum to
come forward with the performance of a "good" 102F6. So far I have not seen
anyone who has gotten the sort of performance I believe possible with the
average Orion 100mm F6 scope (splitting the double-double) and in fact Tom
Davis himself has stated on that forum that he believes the average 102F6 is
out performed by his ST-80.

Since the 102F6 was shipped with an approximately 80mm aperture stop, this does
not say much for the 102F6.

I might note the reason for my challenge was to establish that indeed there
were "good" 102F6s out there. At this point it is not clear whether I am the
only one who had enough experience to tell that my optics were poor or that
mine was one of the worst...


Jon