23 replies to this topic

[madeline]

I just picked up that Selsi that's been on Craig's List now for a couple of weeks.   That got listed with an hour after that Quantum 4 was listed.    After I got the Quantum the Selsi was a second thought.   What ever, so today I called the guy again and went and picked it up for $10.00.   It came with 2 eyepieces, metal front cap, tripod & mount.   

 

Is anybody familiar with that TN trademark?

 

I have not had the mirror out yet but it looks like somebody may have tried to clean and left some scratches on it.   I'll take it out tomorrow and check.  Everything else looks to be in good shape.

 

Any one know when this one might have been made?

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

[madeline]

More pics

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 

[madeline]

Pics

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

[madeline]

No mice or rats found in the box.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

[Stargoat]

I just picked up that Selsi that's been on Craig's List now for a couple of weeks.   That got listed with an hour after that Quantum 4 was listed.    After I got the Quantum the Selsi was a second thought.   What ever, so today I called the guy again and went and picked it up for $10.00.   It came with 2 eyepieces, metal front cap, tripod & mount.   

 

Is anybody familiar with that TN trademark?

 

I have not had the mirror out yet but it looks like somebody may have tried to clean and left some scratches on it.   I'll take it out tomorrow and check.  Everything else looks to be in good shape.

 

Any one know when this one might have been made?

With respect to a time frame, it could very well be late 1950s. I"ll PM you with an ad listing a 4 inch Selsi reflector from 1961 with the same 700mm fl, but with different fl eyepieces. Other late 1950 or very early 1960 brands of telescope used this same style of markings on the top of their eyepieces.

[Bomber Bob]

I agree.  The label style looks like late 50s.  It's definitely not like the 70s Towa version.

[RootlessAgrarian]

Hi

 

I am just returning to stargazing after a bit of a hiatus.  Used to work at Lick Observatory (now retired) so I had quite enough astronomy in my life for a few decades, but now it appeals again as a pastime.

 

Anyway, I picked up an old Selsi at a yard sale for $30.  Have no idea if it was even worth that, but it seemed worth a gamble.  I know little about small backyard telescopes, strangely enough :-)  so I'm not sure what I have here.  It looks like a cat;  the barrel is mustard yellow and the tube is made of crimped sheetmetal not an extrusion.  It shows its age, but the spotting scope and regular eyepiece are still attached and the tripod looks usable.

 

I've been Googling around trying to find an image of a similar Selsi, to make a guess at the year and build quality, but so far haven't found much.  So I thought I'd ask the experts!

 

Hmm, don't see how to attach pics...  I'll link to Flickr (below).  If you can help me ID this scope (or is it just a TSO?) I'd be most grateful.  

 

https://www.flickr.c...157657613585280

 

I fear it's kind of a cheapie, but WTH, may still be good enough for casual planet-watching.

 

t.i.a.

[Bomber Bob]

It's a Tanzutsu catadioptric / bird-jones modified Newtonian with a Barlow type lens inside the secondary.  The mount is either a Towa or a Diamond Z clone of a Towa EQ2.

[oldscope]

I'm not that familiar with Selsi, but they also imported French telescopes from E. Vion - Paris, starting I think before WWII.

 

Bart

[RootlessAgrarian]

It's a Tanzutsu catadioptric / bird-jones modified Newtonian with a Barlow type lens inside the secondary.  The mount is either a Towa or a Diamond Z clone of a Towa EQ2.

 

Thanks!  Any guess as to the year?  The font on the label screams "late 60's, early 70's" but if it's made in Japan then my typographical sense may be way off.

 

Can I still get eyepieces (match the thread)?  Would Edmund's Scientific still be the go-to hobbyist shop for small telescope optics or has everything changed since I was young?

 

Was it a decent instrument in its day?  I don't require much, as you can tell;  I'll be happy if I can see Saturn's rings fairly clearly.

[roscoe]

Greetings, and welcome to our little addiction, RA!

 

Your scope almost definitely uses standard (the old standard) .965  barrel diameter eyepieces, so more can be gotten, though that size is falling from popularity.

 

Edmund, though still around, is no longer the only source in town, (or the cheapest) .....inexpensive eyepieces that'll fit can be had at a place called the Surplus Shed, somewhat better ones can be had from several sources, made by Antares Optical (Google Antares .965 EP for suggestions), better and really good ones pass through the classifieds here now and then - but be prepared to pay $50 or more for a good one, and $100 or more for the really good stuff.  Many folks purchase .965 - to - 1.25 adapters, so as to use the much more widely available current diameter gear, another option might be to change your focuser to accept modern diameters, but the accurate restoration set will wince at that thought.....  Eyepieces with an H, SR, or R beside the number are generally of lesser quality, and offer a very narrow viewing window, K's are better, Or's are pretty much the best of the old stuff (unless you stumble on a bargain on a Zeiss) because they offer a clearer and somewhat wider view.

 

I'm sure others will post with suggestions also, but be warned----- if the vintage bug bites, this will be the first of a dozen vintage scopes you'll own within a couple of years..... forearmed with a little knowledge of what to buy and what to avoid (available by the bucketful right here on CN) you can find, if you watch for them for a while, superb optical packages for a very modest investment.

 

Welcome to stargazing with scopes you can carry!

[RootlessAgrarian]

@curmudgeon, thanks for the succinct yet substantive response!  as shown in the photos I posted on Flickr, the eyepiece is 6mm with a "diamond Z" logo, and it does have an "OR" on it.  From what you say that sounds like a Good Thing.

 

The tripod seems fairly serious (for its day).  The fine-adjust controls (flexible rod/spring with large plastic knob for turning) seem to move smoothly.  The primary mirror silvering looks a little tired around the edges but probably 95% of its surface is still clean... so, if we ever get to see the sky (several days of heavy rain and cloud cover here) I have hopes of actually being able to observe something with it.

 

Sounds like I can restore it a bit if I do get hooked on sky-watching again.  Idle curiosity (just in case I do get into restoration at some point) -- do you serious vintage scope fans send your mirrors out for re-silvering, or just buy new mirrors?  I will of course be off to visit Antares Optical's web site as soon as this is posted :-) 

 

Many thanks to all for your courteous and helpful responses to the Clueless N00b.

[roscoe]

Most everyone sends their mirrors out, recoating is reasonable in price, the difference in performance is often dramatic, and as the scope is all set up for the actual focal length of the mirror (or objective lens)  replacing it requires finding one with both the right diameter and correct focal length.  Getting a mirror back in and the scope re-tuned can be a bit of a chore, but folks here familiar with your scope model can give advice if needed.

 

In your search for more eyepieces, you might consider some with less magnification (a larger number on them).  Not knowing the specs on your scope, I can't tell you the exact magnifications that an eyepiece will provide, but normally, something around 25mm will be a good low-power 'looking around' size, something around 10mm will be good for lunar and deep sky observing, and your 6mm will work best for close-up lunar and planetary observing - but use of high-magnification, as I bet you already know from your ex-career, depends on clear and stable sky conditions, and also the overall quality of your whole optical system.

[roscoe]

Those Antares eyepieces are a Plossl design, a newer and very capable lens configuration.  Antares builds them (likely from parts sourced overseas, but that's not a bad thing) and is a wholesaler, several retailers offer their eyepieces - and scopes - for sale.

[Terra Nova]

I would star test it before spending a lot on it. For the most part the Jones-Bird design has been quite 'problematic' in most of the smaller, amateur-grade scopes of this size. You might have a good one, but don't get over your head in expense before you find out.

[roscoe]

Yeah, Terra makes a good point.....  back before computer-controlled grinding/polishing equipment, there was more variability in performance than nowadays, and even among the better brands, there were less-than-perfect performers, and less-than-perfect designs.  After an initial cleaning, Terra's suggestion of testing it (or getting an experienced visual observer to test it, at the local astronomy club's monthly meet or someone at Lick, for instance) before you spend much on it, might save you from frustration.

[CharlieB]

Those Antares eyepieces are a Plossl design, a newer and very capable lens configuration.  Antares builds them (likely from parts sourced overseas, but that's not a bad thing) and is a wholesaler, several retailers offer their eyepieces - and scopes - for sale.

The Antares are good eyepieces, but you may not have enough inward travel with your Selsi.  Certainly stay away from the 20mm, as it needs quite a bit of extra inward focus.  I even have trouble with the 20mm on many refractors unless they have dual drawtubes.  Here's a full set.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[mikenoname]

Certainly stay away from the 20mm, as it needs quite a bit of extra inward focus.  I even have trouble with the 20mm on many refractors unless they have dual drawtubes.

 

According to Sherry at Hands on Optics, Antares has stopped making the 20mm. She had to refund some of my money when I tried to buy the full set a few weeks agoe.

[CharlieB]

 

Certainly stay away from the 20mm, as it needs quite a bit of extra inward focus.  I even have trouble with the 20mm on many refractors unless they have dual drawtubes.

 

According to Sherry at Hands on Optics, Antares has stopped making the 20mm. She had to refund some of my money when I tried to buy the full set a few weeks agoe.

 

Not surprising.  It's still a good eyepiece, but I suspect many were returned for the focus issue.  Not a lot of other 20mm eyepieces out there in .965, though unless you try a 12.5x microscope eyepiece or find one of those rare 20mm Kellner yellow eyepieces from a Sears scope.

[roscoe]

Yeah, don't remind me about those yellow ones...... I gave one away a couple of years ago with a refurbished scope, that I don't think has been outdoors since the night I delivered it.  You can lead a child to the stars, but you can't make 'em look....... 

At least the parents are aware that the scope has value, so it may go live in an attic, but at least it won't do the dumpster dive.....

[Bomber Bob]

I wound up with two of the funky KE22 eyepieces in puke green and glossy black.  Very good glass!  Both are equal quality to my Vixen Kellners from about 20 years later.  I use the black one on my 50mm spotter guide scope, and the resolution and FOV are a sight to behold.

[Terra Nova]

The Sears yellow 20mm and the green 22mm eyepieces (mine is not a puke green mind you but a nice pure green like the Hooker's green of Grumbacher water colors) are esteemed members of my 0.965" eyepiece collection.

[Messierthanwhat]

 

It's a Tanzutsu catadioptric / bird-jones modified Newtonian with a Barlow type lens inside the secondary.  The mount is either a Towa or a Diamond Z clone of a Towa EQ2.

 

Thanks!  Any guess as to the year?  The font on the label screams "late 60's, early 70's" but if it's made in Japan then my typographical sense may be way off.

.  .  .

 

Was it a decent instrument in its day?  I don't require much, as you can tell;  I'll be happy if I can see Saturn's rings fairly clearly.

 

Font nothwithstanding, I'm guessing 80's. That's just based on Tasco's importing the same scope in red livery. Here is an example, and another, with just a litte bit different clamshell for mounting. If I'm recalling correctly (questionable, at best), Tasco's red tubes appeared sometime in the 80's, and I'm assuming yours was from the same time.

 

As for quality, we're waiting to hear from you. I've read mixed reviews, none very thorough at all.

[RootlessAgrarian]

Hello again all.  I have been playing with other toys for the last few weeks and have just now got around to checking out the sad old yard-sale Selsi.  I am not really a good reviewer, because I have zero experience with backyard telescopes, and my first viable observing night in the last week (tonight) was not really idea (heavy dew, yuck).  But I'll share my experience so far.

 

So... first off, I thought the scope had been dropped or otherwise broken because I couldn't see anything at all recognisable as a starfield.  The spotting scope seemed useless (remember I don't have a manual or anything other than common-sense to guide me, so I could be missing some basic setup);  in daylight I could see the reticle against blue sky, but after dark I could see nothing at all in the spotting scope, not even a hint of light.  So I just pointed the thing by guess and by golly at the Milky Way, hoping to see *anything* in that crowded field.

 

It took me forever to see anything at all.  The difficulty was that the focus mechanism has enormous travel, but the range in which the focus actually works, i.e. delivers visible objects, is tiny.  So I was running the focus in and out too rapidly, passing right through the infinitesimal sweet spot where an object could be seen.  Finally I figured this out and, with much cussing, delicately coaxed the focus to where I could see slightly fuzzy stars.  Why they were fuzzy I am not sure -- could be my ageing eyes, or the dew which kept fogging the protective glass, or the telescope optics.

 

Despite all the challenges I had some fun sweeping the sky, looking at fuzzy unfamiliar starfields, without a clue as to my magnifying power.  The fine position adjustment mechanisms on the tripod work very well.  I didn't bother trying to orient the tripod correctly, I didn't bother trying to find any particular object;  all I wanted was to see if I could get some light from the sky to the eyepiece, and in that I did succeed.  It was fun, and nostalgic, to see objects sweeping majestically through my field of view w/the earth's rotation :-)

 

I don't care for the main eyepiece -- it seems finicky (eye position is very critical) and imho could do with a soft eye cup and more forgiving alignment of eye and lens.  Right now I am torn between (A) buying a better eyepiece, if I can get some advice on which one to get and where -- and (B) keeping the (rather good!) tripod with its excellent gears and adjustment mechanisms and putting some modern, clean, same-diameter newtonian on it.  Would anyone like to advise on these two paths forward, or to recommend a same-size newtonian to use with the equatorial mount tripod?

 

Best wishes and clear skies to all