Well since he hasn't received it yet he doesn't know if he is happy with it. His story relates well enough to the Stowaway to give some interest here so let's not stone him to death just yet. I already have my Stowaway (number 28) and understand his excitement in getting a scope very similar to a Stowaway ( and I think even more expensive) and I for one look forward to seeing some photos of the scope set up in his living room, some first impressions and maybe eventually a friendly shootout with a Stowaway.
Thank you for reading and understanding the post. When the scope arrives I will start another thread. The relevance here is that this is just an AP customer who applied the advice given by AP's owner once upon a time for the GT130, to the Stowaway. It was good advice then, and good advice now. And that's all I have on this topic, which I rescued from page 3 where it had disappeared. The cost will be less than what I understand to be the Stowaway price, FWIW, and since there are very few top of the top 92s out there, this one is worth a look.
So we can talk a little bit about Stowaways?
I will have the opportunity to do a comparo with a Stowaway when the CFF comes because a club member has one of the original f/4.9's. But the focal lengths are so radically different that I'm not sure what that will show other than that one has a wider field and the other gets up to higher power more easily. The current CFF will have a better focuser than the *old* Stowaway, which if I remember right, was a pre-dual focus era scope. The *new* Stowaways will of course have superb contemporary focusers.
The *new* Stowaways at f/6.65 won't be far from the CFF f/6.9. My understanding is that in the early 00s there was briefly an f/7.0 Stowaway which became an f/6.60 in production. So the f/7s may be the rarest of the lot? I don't know, but the new ones are to be f/6.65 so slightly tweaked (in focal length) from the earlier 00s line. I expect the glass is varied at least a tad across models but I'm sure someone here knows more about it than me. So the f/6.9 CFF is bracketed by the f/6.6 (early '00s) and the f/7 (limited production) and is a tad longer than the current generation of f/6.65s.
There apparently is no f/6 Stowaway. I'm getting a lot of this history from Company Seven.
Now, I have ordered a Stowaway but have no idea when/if my name will come up. So, such comparison as will be within grasp in this neck of the woods is between the CFF f/6.9 (still not here,and that will be a separate thread) and the f/4.9. And this sort of proves my thesis that rare scopes are common, because here we have an f/4.9 hanging with one of our club members and 'nary an f/6 or f/6.65 in sight, even though these last two are more common (and so, in practice, rare!).
It would appear that comparisons of Stowaways will encounter a fair amount of variation *among Stowaways*, for which there are four focal ratios of which I am aware. So the CFF f/6.9 is sort of in the zone but not matching any particular one. It's somewhat disappointing that there is no f/6.60 or f/6.65 Stowaway in my neighborhood because the obvious and overwhelming difference between the f/4.9 Stowaway and the CFF f/6.9 is their fields, one knows that without even looking through either. Thus one comparison which would be even more interesting than AP f/6.65 92 mm versus any other make scope is AP f/6.65 vs AP f/6.60. The Roland of the 00s versus the Roland of the 'teens. Somewhere, some enterprising individuals may be able to pull off that comparison.
Edited by gnowellsct, 05 March 2019 - 07:54 AM.