Hi, Pete. Thanks for your reasoned response. I happen to have the Uranometria Atlases so I do, in fact, know what preceded what. I also have a few other Wil Tirion Atlases and am completely familiar with the progression of his marvellous work. As for the Millennium being merely a copy of the Uranometria I would say that the Mill is a complete re-thinking of the Urano from the ground up. A patient reading of the preface, foreword etc. of the Millennium will prove this. And for the notation of doublestars it is absolutely NOT a copy. Urano does not indicate separation or P.A. of double stars or the number of components if multiple like the Millennium does - it merely puts a horizontal line through stars to indicate they are not single. Hardly a copy. I will continue to gush.
Clear skies, Dave

Dave - there are some useful things going on in MSA. I know what you mean and I'm there with you on the usefulness of the symbols on doubles and stuff. From a graphic standpoint however, the complete rethinking is merely warmed over Urano with new hubcaps, decals and headlights. A complete RETHINK is really the difference between an old Nortons and Star Atlas 2000. THATS redesigned top to bottom. Now they might have RETHOUGHT MSA top to bottom, what they came out with was recycled urano with extra bells and whistles.

From a graphic arts stand point it's the status quo. Does it have more useful information than URANOMETRIA? With out a doubt. Its served in the same manner however. And by the way, I'm aware of the standard symbols for globulars and such as well as other objects. You could argue that this is why its OK for MSA. From a commercial/graphic arts stand point its merely lame recycling with a pretty finish with the glitter of useful extras.

I shrug and dont care about MSA.

Pete