Very nice Quantum 6' on Ebay
Posted 23 March 2007 - 10:32 PM
Posted 23 March 2007 - 10:39 PM
Posted 23 March 2007 - 10:47 PM
Sounds a little risky to me.
Regards and clear skies,
Posted 23 March 2007 - 10:57 PM
Posted 23 March 2007 - 11:03 PM
Does anybody know the history of this company? Is it true that some Questar executives left that company and formed Quantum? If so how are the optics on this scope? Anybody in here have one?
The history you describe is pretty much correct. Company 7 has a detailed write-up about them. Mostly correct, but they are a little diplomatic in describing OTI's downfall. Things were a getting a little nefarious towards the end. The optics were made by the same company that made Questar's. Dad was OTI's Eastern Sales Rep.
Posted 24 March 2007 - 01:03 AM
Although when I bid on this scope for the first scam I never sent the money( I was told near the end it was a scam). Then, a few weeks later, someone who actually had a Q6 in my area contacted me having seen I had bid on the fake Q6. I did end up buying that Q6.
Posted 25 March 2007 - 10:11 PM
Posted 25 March 2007 - 11:49 PM
Posted 26 March 2007 - 11:32 AM
The optics were made by the same company that made Questar's.
Yup, that would be Cumberland Optical.
A couple of things to consider about the Q6.
The silver coated optics might be getting a bit long-in-the-tooth, for a scope of that vintage. Worth checking the mirrors for any signs of corrosion, tarnishing or other discoloration before buying.
The Q6's single fork arm mounting was prone to vibration. Very elegant form.... less than ideal function.
Posted 26 March 2007 - 12:50 PM
However, Enid is right down the road from me... Hmm.
Posted 26 March 2007 - 04:08 PM
Posted 28 March 2007 - 01:21 AM
Although optically identical to a Questar (I'll have to check that '1/20th wave at the EP' stat though, I'm not so sure about that) mechanically there is a wide gap in construction. If I remember correctly, a Quantum is baffled with the standard baffle tube and flocking paper, the Questar uses something like 17 knife edge baffles. The Quantum 4 and 6 use the focusing belt, while the Questar 7 uses roller bearing focus and has NO image shift (the control box in the 3.5" was too small to incorporate that, though). Optically the Quantum 4 outperformed the Questar 3.5 due to the extra 0.5" aperture. I remember being one of the first to witness the side by side testing...great fun for an 11 year old.
All that aside, would I still want a Quantum? U betcha.
Posted 28 March 2007 - 06:12 AM
The real question is why hasn't ebay pulled the auction. (Unless of course no one has notified them)
Posted 28 March 2007 - 06:17 AM
Posted 28 March 2007 - 08:59 AM
Interesting explanation for the bidding we were seeing. Makes sense.
Posted 28 March 2007 - 10:35 AM
Posted 28 March 2007 - 01:44 PM
Apparently antique telescopes are a favorite target of scammers. Alvan Clark refractors especially. I have seen the same Clark refractor on 4 or 5 bogus auctions. As soon as someone notifies ebay, the auction will be pulled, just as what happened in this case.
Posted 01 April 2007 - 11:09 PM
From a guy who sold them...the Quantums were not specifically spec'ed for a certain wavefront at the image plane, but Zygo interferometer testing usually showed 1/10th wave. OTOH, during the same round of testing, a 1971 Questar 3.5" showed 1/20th wave at the EP. Also, although the optics were both made by Cumberland, the primaries on the Q 4 was f2.5 and on the Q 3.5 is f2.0, so the Quantums weren't just bigger versions of the Questars.