Optically, the Powerseeker 114 holds its own when compared with my Celestron Firstscope 114EQ. Using the K20 eyepiece included as standard equipment, about 45x magnification, it's easy to see the Andromeda Galaxy and its smaller satellite galaxy M32. When compared to 60mm refractors, the Powerseeker 114 brings out much more detail in the Orion Nebula, reveals many more stars in Perseus' Double Cluster and even brings out a few individual stars in globular clusters like M13. Saturn looks quite small at 45x with the K20 eyepiece, but using my own 7.5mm eyepiece (120x) I can easily detect the shadow cast by the planet on the rings, and even glimpse the ring's Cassini Division. When the mirrors are properly lined up or "collimated," the images are reasonably sharp up to magnifications of 225x. I find a collimation tool helps get this fine tuning just right.
As good as the optics are, however, the effect of cost-cutting shows up in the mechanical components. The focuser is plastic, the finder scope is plastic, the rings that attach the telescope to the tripod are plastic. Even when the tripod legs are clamped at their shortest setting, the telescope wobbles when I try to focus at higher magnifications. Celestron's instruction manual correctly recommends that most viewing be done in the range of 40x to 130x. So what about that 675x magnification proclaimed on the box? I'd say it's not worth the trouble.
Overall, the Celestron Powerseeker 114 is a budget priced telescope with good optical performance, especially when using the low power K20 eyepiece. If you're willing to spend a little more money, either Orion's SkyQuest XT4.5 or Celestron's Firstscope 114EQ will give you a sturdier mount, an improved finder scope, and better eyepieces. Also, for about the price of the Powerseeker 114, I like the dependable refractor design of Celestron's Firstscope 70EQ. --Jeff Phillips