Intentionally taking the topic off "Diagonals" and onto "Value for Money"
This argument brings to mind a comment by John Ruskin on false economy. Ruskin was a friend of William Morris at the time he was founding the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and Monuments. To paraphrase:
“The wise buyer knows that to pay too little is false economy. If you pay too much for an article all you are loosing is a little money. The article will be of good quality. Pay too little for an article and you loose not only what you have paid, but it will fail to live up to expectations and you will loose what little you have paid on resale, and if you choose to replace it with a similar article of better quality, you will have to pay more anyway. It always pays in the long run to save up for the best you can afford rather than go for a bargain. Good quality workmanship is an investment, not an expense, you will always recoup what you have paid on resale, and the pleasure it will have given you will have cost you nothing.”
There is a more pithy, modern equivalent by Warren Buffett:
"Price is what you pay, value is what you get."
& on the same theme:
“Good things are not cheap and cheap things are seldom good” - anon; Which basically is saying, "You only get what you pay for".
Their is an immutable rule in commerce sometimes referred to as "Philosophy X" or the "Impossible Value for Money Triangle"
It is a natural human tendency to demand three basic things when purchasing, renting, acquiring just about anything that is sold, packaged, delivered by almost any possible vendor, supplier, manufacturer of anything.
The customer/ client wants it:
1. Good
2. Fast
3. Cheap
Or any combination of the above. Perhaps it is price over anything then its:
1. Cheap
2. Fast
3. Good
Whatever the priority, achieving all three in any sort of consistency is virtually impossible.
From the public relations perspective it is downright silly. This is why we call it the “impossible triangle”
Since almost all clients want everything “good”, we put that at the top.
Now, here is the rule:
You can have two out of three only!
You can have it:
1. CHEAP and (maybe?) good but you won’t get it fast
2. GOOD and Fast, but you won’t get it cheap
3. FAST and Cheap, but you won’t get it good!
Two out of three ain’t bad. If you demand all three, you’ll most likely end up with only one, which usually means not GOOD and not FAST. And if “Cheap” is the only consideration, you can forget “GOOD” and/ or “FAST” completely!
The relationship between what a product (or service) is worth and the cash amount spent on it, is by definition relative to the purchaser. What is in my experience frequently overlooked when assessing value for money is the true cost of the product, which is not just what you had to pay in order to get it. There are two other equally salient factors, one easy to measure, the other only the purchaser can put a price on. What you get for it when you come to sell it (assuming you eventually sell it before you die - or what it becomes worth to whom you bequeath it), and the value the pleasure it gives whilst you own it.
There are notable exceptions to resale value vs product quality, computers and digital cameras being two that spring to mind. Top quality refractors on the other hand tend to hold their value fairly well, as do top quality telescopes generally. The true cost becomes purchase price minus resale price (corrected for inflation). Given that some apo's fetch more second hand than new, their purchase becomes an investment. But when you stop to think about it, the purchase of any quality telescope is an investment. You may not recoup your outlay, but the net cost will in all likelihood be easily offset by the value you place on the pleasure it gives.
The response often illicited by this economic argument revolves around affordability. If you don't have the spare cash to buy a top quality telescope you're obliged to either do without or buy a cheaper telescope that is within your budget. This counter-argument has a philosophy rooted in the here and now, the "I want it now" culture. What you have to do is stop and ask yourself what you really want, and determine a legitimate means of getting what you really want. So if you really want a top quality triplet apo, but at present can only afford an el-cheapo achromatic, resist the temptation - do without for the time being and save up. It may well take you years to save the amount needed. But at least you'll end up getting what you really want, not something you will always consider second best. And the other counter-argument, I'll but a cheap telescope now so I can get started, and buy something better when I can afford doesn't really hold water either. That's why the classifieds are filled with junk 'scopes, and why so many are turned off the hobby from the outset.
Chris Lord
