Anecdotal accounts are interesting but they hardly replace "science". There is only so much light that can pass through glass or be reflected from a mirror. There are various processes of cutting, shaping, polishing, treating, and coating that determine the quantity and clarity of light that is transmitted through the tube and to the eye. There are degrees of the performance of these processes and there are varying degrees of quality control measures that all affect the performance of the typical finished product. All these steps cost money. The more these steps are performed the more money it costs to make the scope. The more times these steps are performed the more money it costs to make the scope. The more technical engineers and R&D expenses the more the scope will cost. The more they spend on advertising and warranty commitments the more the scope will cost. If a scope retails for $100 you can bet the farm that it is in some way scientifically, measurably inferior to the $1000 scope. Even if half of the price is due to the brand name, the advertising expense and the R&D dept, it is still a better scope in some application that is important to someone. If your "cheap" scope is adequate, and it does seems that they are better than a few years ago, it is largely because they are using materials, processes and technololgy that the expensive scope companies have spent millions to develope. They don't need MIT and GT engineers staffing an R&D dept. They often use "dollar a day" Asian labor for assembly and have few or no QC points along the assembly process. But if they work for you, why not save money, right? In "perfect" conditions it may not matter. But consider the factors that often ruin "perfect" conditions. Temperature, altitude, extreme distance, light conditions, change of background, recoil, etc all lurk nearby. Unless you feel confident that you have full control over all those factors, you may someday wish you had bought an better scope.
