Several have asked for additional information. ?Here it is. ?I cannot say what the tube is made out of 100%. ?However, it feels like aluminum and is painted to look like the color of the C11 Carbon model. ?Supposedly, this is the new color that Celestron is going to. ?Actually, it does not look bad. ?If anyone likes I will email them a picture directly.
Ok.. fit and finish. ?My Meade 12" is finished better than the C14. ?As I indicated there are some very small digs to the metal on the back of the OTA. ?These look like they were there and then painted over as there is no exposed metal underneath like they were new scratches. ?I must clarify that these are very small for the most part but visible if you look. ?I don't have anything like this on the 12". ?In addition, the crackle paint is is botched in some places. ?It is not super visible but again is there if up look for it. ?Another thing that I thought was odd is that for the corrector cover they only use three small pieces of felt to hold it in place. ?It is like they cheaped out and didn't spend the extra $1 to make it go all the way around the cover. ?I see a potential that this could cause as scratch on the metal over time if you are not careful putting it on and taking it off. ?I added some to fix this. ?The Meade already had this. ?Overall the scope is VERY good cosmetically. ?These are just things I notice as I am a perfectionist with my equipment.
The optics are superior to the Meade. ?Period. ?Understand that I have owned a Meade 8" (2080B), two Meade 10" (2120B and LX200) and a 12" LX200. ?I was already very biased to Meade. ?However, I must concede that the C14 star images are sharper and star test was nearly perfect. ?This is due to the optics and not the additional light gathering power the C14 has.
Any other questions please ask.
Paul
.
