1720 replies to this topic

[flyboyu777]

I believe you have a Super C8, with a fairly typical finder for that model.

 

I suggest that perhaps the diagonal on your main OTA originally belonged to the finder. If this is correct, swapping the diagonal in for the extension tube presently in the finder should allow the eyepiece to focus.

 

It would also match then pretty closely with catalog photos of the model.

 

By serial number, 1982 would be an excellent guess. We have very few optics numbers [distinct from unit serial number] for scopes in this era of production, so further refinement of manufacture date is difficult.

 

However, Celestron lore has it that the Super C8 was only in production for 2 years when it was "replaced" by the Super C8 Plus, which yours definitely is not. So, that's about as close as we can get.

 

Your example appears "mint" and having all the contemporary literature is great to see, especially the Optics Cert - who's Numbers could be matched to those from the scope, should it ever be disassembled to see them. [not recommended] 

 

Thanks for registering a great addition to your stable.

Thanks for the info on the scope.  I'm awaiting receiving the 2 plossl eyepieces and 2 diagonals (1 1/4, .965?).  There might be a barlow and camera adapter with it also.  I'll post those pictures when they arrive (he forgot to give them to me yesterday).  I don't think this scope saw much outside time-the crinkle paint looks like new, as does the tripod, other than some dust.  It also came with the footlocker!  No power cord, but I recently ordered a surplus one for another Byers drive unit.  Looks like I'll be ordering another of those cords now. . . .
 

Edited by flyboyu777, 29 July 2024 - 08:46 AM.

[flyboyu777]

I should have commented before...

 

To my knowledge, this is the first posting of a Double-CAT telescope to the registry.

 

Congratulations!

Well there were a couple of more CATS messing with that Cat. . . . . then they found something else to mess with. . . .

[pierce]

....  I'm awaiting receiving the 2 plossl eyepieces and 2 diagonals (1 1/4, .965?). .....
 

 

Almost certainly 1.25" ...  0.965 eyepieces were mostly used on old small refractors from the 1970s and before

[flyboyu777]

Almost certainly 1.25" ...  0.965 eyepieces were mostly used on old small refractors from the 1970s and before

Yes, the boxes even say 1 1/4" Plossl.  the pictures show orange boxes.

[flyboyu777]

Yes, the boxes even say 1 1/4" Plossl.  the pictures show orange boxes.

I finally got the eyepieces and diagonals that the seller forgot to give me on Sunday.  All I can say is they are even better than I expected, I'm not sure if they were actually used.  And there was a bonus eyepiece not shown in the pictures, a Celestron 7mm Orthoscopic!  Plus a camera prime adapter.  Outstanding deal for $500!

 

[jimeh]

I don't know where the full registry is, so I don't know if this scope is in it yet, but I picked this up yesterday. Serial # 364646

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[RSX11M+]

I don't know where the full registry is, so I don't know if this scope is in it yet, but I picked this up yesterday. Serial # 364646

I can't comment on your actual scope without additional photos.

 

I can tell you what it should include based upon that serial number alone, so if it does not match what you see - please speak up.

 

That serial number dates to 1976 early Diecast era production. Matching fork-arms will have a solid web rather than the "holes" of the earlier sand-cast era.

 

Among other differences, these models RA bases should have 3-pin power chord sockets on the bottom of the base, rather than 2-pin on the side.

 

Original motors in the RA base will probably have dates in late 1975, but SN 467936 records dates of 9/76, so there is a range. We occasionally see replacement motors with newer out-of-era dates, but it's unusual.

 

The model did include a finder, typically rear cell mounted 6x30mm. (sometimes noted "Circle-T") Others were optional.

 

Secondary holders in this era were still metal 4-screw type. The keen observer will be able to visually distinguish these from earliest production "Tri-Color" units by slightly rounded edges.

 

It does happen that scopes' parts get dissociated from their original base. So it's not impossible these features might not match. We would probably attribute such to an original OTA removed and base with fork-arms being repurposed. Other variations are also possible and it's always interesting for us to see into a unit's earlier life through these differences. -but it's an uncommon tale-

 

Your scope was not previously known to the registry, so thank you for joining.

[Isaac M.]

about two years ago bought this orange tube C8 from my local club. Not sure if it was previously entered into the registry, but here are the serial numbers: 370026. Any idea what year or number made based on the serial numbers? Then I found a drive corrector on ebay in mint condition and hopped on it. It may have even been new old stock, the nobs and everything were in original plastic, 

 

Edited by Isaac M., 08 September 2024 - 01:24 PM.

[TheGreenMan]

No purchase history but here is one serial number 800412. Comes with original transit case and various attachments.

 

I've been trying to decide if I want to by it but it looks like it has mold on the inside of the corrector lens.

 

 

[BrushPilot]

Looks like a '78 just a bit older than mine.

[Kasmos]

Mold like that will usually clean off without a trace, but the question is, do you want to open it and do it.

 

That said, that C8 is likely from early 1979 and when they are that old, they often have a bit of haze on the inside of the corrector that will need to be cleaned anyway.

 

BTW, Dating is based on my own '79 #800783.

[Astrokhan]

I dont see a link to access or view the registry. Please advise. 

Edited by Astrokhan, 24 September 2024 - 03:46 AM.

[GalaxyPiper]

I dont see a link to access or view the registry. Please advise. 

I had to go all the way back to page #38 post #756 to get this:

 

https://www.summers1...erialnumber.jpg

 

Keep in mind...this may not be updated...which it needs to be.

So consider it out of date...it's only version 20.6 dated June of 2020.

Edited by GalaxyPiper, 24 September 2024 - 09:59 AM.

[Kasmos]

I had to go all the way back to page #38 post #756 to get this:

 

https://www.summers1...erialnumber.jpg

 

Keep in mind...this may not be updated...which it needs to be.

So consider it out of date...it's only version 20.6 dated June of 2020.

A month ago I was in communication with the keeper of the C90, C5, and C8 registries he gave me links to what I think were the last publically updated versions. While they may not be completely up to date they are dated a year later.

 

I think (hope) it's OK to share them in 2 formats

 

C8 jpg.

http://heartvalvepat...2RegistryC8.jpg

 

C8 pdf.

http://heartvalvepat...2RegistryC8.pdf

Edited by Kasmos, 24 September 2024 - 03:17 PM.

[NinePlanets]

Why JPG's?

[Kasmos]

Why JPG's?

I'm just the messenger. Maybe for whatever way you prefer to store it

[pierce]

I'm just the messenger. Maybe for whatever way you prefer to store it

the problem is, a JPG is just a picture of the text.  a HTML or other format text document would be much better.

[RSX11M+]

Registry Format - the Maytag Repairman's choice:

 

JPG was the original format offered by Masvingo, the thread starter. PDF was added later. We keep JPG in accordance with the promise that he could resume registry upkeep should he desire to at any point.

 

HTML would be a valid alternative, but would necessitate changing the appearance and would not be something Masvingo could take back easily.

 

I suppose at some point these choices will be revisited.

 

BTW: JPG has the attribute of needing no additional software reader, other than the browser it takes to read the thread anyway. PDF, DOC, XLS and NUMBERS all require specific additional software. PDF has become the default compatibility standard for many, so I added it. DOC and DOCX change so often it's just annoying to keep up, besides never achieving universal compatibility.

[billmalona]

Please add my C8 Powerstar model serial number 845782, purchased recently for $300. Seller told me he was 3rd owner, and that he thought it was originally purchased in 1987. My purchase included the handcontroller, black tripod, wedge with latitude adjuster, 26mm silvertop Plossl, 1 1/4" 90 degree Vixen mirror diagonal, weight bar with two 3 lb. weights, Celestron focuser and declination motors, piggyback camera mount, 9 VDC transformer, 9 VDC adapter and six AA battery pack  cables. Also the molded foam lined storage case. Very dirty, but cleaned up nicely non the less.

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 

[billmalona]

Why are my photos rotated?

[pierce]

Why are my photos rotated?

JPG files have some bits in the header that says how they should be viewed, rotated or whatever.   Its a lot easier to just set those bits than it is to actually rotate the image, so many apps and cameras just set those bits.  some web software, probably including whatever is running on this site, doesn't seem to respect those bits and pass them through to the client browser intact.

[Astrokhan]

A month ago I was in communication with the keeper of the C90, C5, and C8 registries he gave me links to what I think were the last publically updated versions. While they may not be completely up to date they are dated a year later.

 

I think (hope) it's OK to share them in 2 formats

 

C8 jpg.

http://heartvalvepat...2RegistryC8.jpg

 

C8 pdf.

http://heartvalvepat...2RegistryC8.pdf

It would be great if registry is maintained publicly in a spreadsheet and allow people to add their scopes using a form. I see google forms has option to add files and it generates a spreadsheet in backend that store all the responses. I created a sample form with the link to response sheet if Masvingo like to have a look at it. A sample record from post #1559 by TheGreenMan was added. Masvingo can create the form with his Google ID and share it with the group. It will simplify maintaining and keeping the registry updated.

 

https://forms.gle/AZ3MeQ28WxvvYjin6

Edited by Astrokhan, 26 September 2024 - 02:34 AM.

[GalaxyPiper]

It would be great if registry is maintained publicly in a spreadsheet and allow people to add their scopes using a form. I see google forms has option to add files and it generates a spreadsheet in backend that store all the responses. I created a sample form with the link to response sheet if Masvingo like to have a look at it. A sample record from post #1559 by TheGreenMan was added. Masvingo can create the form with his Google ID and share it with the group. It will simplify maintaining and keeping the registry updated.

 

https://forms.gle/AZ3MeQ28WxvvYjin6

Hmm...interesting.

[VA3DSO]

the problem is, a JPG is just a picture of the text.  a HTML or other format text document would be much better.

When I decided to start the Meade LX Registry, I had the same conundrum. Initially I thought of doing the same as what is happening here for the C8 Registry, but ultimately I decided to just host the Meade version on my website as HTML is easier to work with, and is searchable. I still add the entries manually, but frankly I rarely get any submissions. I could easily add an online form if I wanted, however.

 

I've thought about moving it into the Cloudy Nights forums several times, but frankly doing it in a thread like this is a lot more cumbersome (in my opinion).

 

https://deepskies.com/lx/registry

[NinePlanets]

A downloadable XLS spreadsheet would sure be nice - or even a PDF that could be converted at the user's convenience.