Oh boy! Now you've kicked the Hornet's Nest! LOL!!! People have been fighting over this since they first came on the scene. Those who paid the extra $$$ swear they make all the difference in the universe. Those who did not swear they are a rip-off. Imagine that! I will attempt, as a non-UHTC owner, to be as objective as I can and stick to what impartial people/reports have stated.

From those who have used UHTC side by side with non-UHTC scopes visually, there does seem to be a notable degree of brightening on planets. As well as some higher contrast. On DSO's(deep sky objects like nebulae, galaxies, etc.)this amount of light gain is said to be imperceptable to all but the most experienced and sharp-eyed observer. And only then under true dark sky conditions. Which would rule out North Attleboro, MA(I'm from Cambridge originally).

However if used in connection with a CCD imaging system the difference is notable and, according to the experts, well worth the extra money. Of course if you can afford a CCD rig, $300 is what you find in the lint trap of your washer.

So what it boils down to is what and where are you going to be observing, and with what equipment? Visual or CCD? And how hard are you going to kick yourself later on if you didn't buy the UHTC v. How hard are you going to kick yourself if you did?

Why Meade is charging big $$$ for a spray of titanium dioxide - which is what UHTC essentially is - is beyond me. It has caused more battles than any other innovation I have ever seen! Have fun.

Dave