Craigslist, ebay and other vintage scope ads.
#101
Posted 20 April 2013 - 11:34 PM
#102
Posted 21 April 2013 - 02:28 AM
With the Parks it was a general overall improvement. I forget if the lenses had collimation screws, which I would want any scope I wanted to keep to have. Other than that, nice optics, and nice mounts. The mounts may look like a typical EQ mount, appropriate for the size of the scope. Well, I never liked the EQ 1, 2, & 3 mounts. Compared to say a Vixen Polaris, they are all wobbly and lack precision motions. But, within the class of mounts, the Parks EQ 1 for the 60 and EQ 2 or was it a 3 for the 80mm had some evolutionary improvements. They were sturdier, less backlash, less prone to vibrations that you typical vintage scope of the same size.
Now, value? Consider you could by a pretty good vintage scope, make that 5 vintage scopes for a fraction of the Parks price. But, looking only at functional value, setting aside any cache or collectible value of a vintage scope, I would value the Parks as slightly but definitely 'better" than you typical vintage refractor. I would compare them with 1990's Vixen, always good quality. But, in real life, they usually sell at a discount. Maybe some new-old-stock will start showing up for sale? If not, this post may increase the value. (I gotta stop doing this! Or at least wait until I stock up on what I praise!).
Littlegreenman
* How can you tell if a mount is and EQ 1, 2, or 3? It's easy to tell between a 1 and a 3, but between a 1 and 2 or a 2 or a 3??
#103
Posted 21 April 2013 - 10:30 AM
It came with a Parks hybrid diagonal and a Parks 1.25" K12mm which is a nice feature. It may have come with 3 eyepieces since it has places for 3 in the Styrofoam, I only have one with it. Its missing many parts, and a few of the missing parts would make it difficult or impossible to use.
The cell has no collimation screws and the lens has the ring style spacer as far as I can tell.
Robert
#105
Posted 24 April 2013 - 09:02 AM
 #106
Posted 24 April 2013 - 09:32 AM
that was only $100 a couple of days ago. That will teach all of us in this area to email that guy at once.
#107
Posted 24 April 2013 - 09:33 AM
#111
Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:57 PM
 #112
Posted 25 April 2013 - 09:59 PM
-Tim.
#113
Posted 25 April 2013 - 10:07 PM
#114
Posted 26 April 2013 - 05:19 AM
Chas
#115
Posted 26 April 2013 - 06:57 AM
#117
Posted 26 April 2013 - 07:21 AM
Don't see many of these:
http://kansascity.cr...3767025018.html
I've heard these combination Newt/Cass models had optics that could be, shall we say, somewhat less than perfect. Even with superb optics, though, $2500 is much too high a price.
#119
Posted 26 April 2013 - 08:12 AM
#120
Posted 26 April 2013 - 09:01 AM
#121
Posted 26 April 2013 - 09:09 AM
#122
Posted 26 April 2013 - 09:13 AM
#123
Posted 26 April 2013 - 10:26 AM
#124
Posted 26 April 2013 - 10:32 AM
#125
Posted 26 April 2013 - 10:46 AM