219 replies to this topic

[Matty S]

I followed this thread early on but didn't have a "Tiny Tak" to contribute.

Now I do.

Here's my TS 50. There are better photos available of this venerable scope and mine is in need of some cleaning and paint.

BTW, I can't seem to find a paint match in the forums for a Tak of this vintage. Should I repaint or, like the one Dave Trott recently sold, just leave it be?  

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Lappe Lad]

I’m firmly in the camp of leaving scopes with scratches and scuffs be.  Kind of like the exposed brass on old cameras; it signifies a device that has been used heavily because it’s been heavily appreciated (blatant abuse notwithstanding).
Even though a telescope is a tool, I can see it also as a thing of beauty; a beauty of a utilitarian nature that a touch-up job on the paint can detract from.

That sure is a nice looking Tak. I hope it gives you much pleasure in use!

 

 

Robert

[Bomber Bob]

I followed this thread early on but didn't have a "Tiny Tak" to contribute.

Now I do.

Here's my TS 50. There are better photos available of this venerable scope and mine is in need of some cleaning and paint.

BTW, I can't seem to find a paint match in the forums for a Tak of this vintage. Should I repaint or, like the one Dave Trott recently sold, just leave it be?

Looks very good to me, but I know from experience that photos don't show all the dings, scratches, nicks, etc.

 

IF you can't find a rattle-can match (or, make a match the way Chris / Kasmos does), lots of shops can make pix of the scope, or use pix you provide, and let a computer create a match.  I did that with my antique Mogey 3, only to figure out later that it was never painted...

[godelescher]

I’m firmly in the camp of leaving scopes with scratches and scuffs be.  Kind of like the exposed brass on old cameras; it signifies a device that has been used heavily because it’s been heavily appreciated (blatant abuse notwithstanding).
Even though a telescope is a tool, I can see it also as a thing of beauty; a beauty of a utilitarian nature that a touch-up job on the paint can detract from.

I'm sorry, but I just completely disagree with this statement, and this is coming from someone who owned an antique store. There is a form-follows-function element here that people who think everything should be preserved as-is are just blind to.

 

The finish on a scope (or a car, or furniture, or any number of other categories) serves a purpose beyond "good looks". It is necessary to put a finsh on steel or pot metal or whatever the thing is made out of in order to protect the substrate. A scratched and chipped steel telescope tube with eventually rust and decay without a repaired finish. Unless your plan is to put it in a hermetically sealed showcase from this day forward, preserving its "patina" [decay] is literally shortening its lifespan.

 

Repairing finishes is one of the most important things you can do to something you want to last. Even dabbing nail polish on exposed metal is better than doing nothing. The telescopes we're discussing here are actively being used. They are continuously exposed to UV light, moisture, and wide temperature fluctuations. Telling someone not to maintain the finish on a valuable and collectible telescope isn't just bad advice, it's antiquarian malpractice.

 

If you're using it, maintain it.

Edited by godelescher, 14 August 2021 - 07:00 PM.

[Kasmos]

I'm sorry, but I just completely disagree with this statement, and this is coming from someone who owned an antique store. There is a form-follows-function element here that people who think everything should be preserved as-is are just blind to.

 

The finish on a scope (or a car, or furniture, or any number of other categories) serves a purpose beyond "good looks". It is necessary to put a finsh on steel or pot metal or whatever the thing is made out of in order to protect the substrate. A scratched and chipped steel telescope tube with eventually rust and decay without a repaired finish. Unless your plan is to put it in a hermetically sealed showcase from this day forward, preserving its "patina" [decay] is literally shortening its lifespan.

 

Repairing finishes is one of the most important things you can do to something you want to last. Even dabbing nail polish on exposed metal is better than doing nothing. The telescopes we're discussing here are actively being used. They are continuously exposed to UV light, moisture, and wide temperature fluctuations. Telling someone not to maintain the finish on a valuable and collectible telescope isn't just bad advice, it's antiquarian malpractice.

 

If you're using it, maintain it.

I've restored lots of stuff and have been known to touch up a telescope or two so some might think I'm firmly in the preservationist camp. That said I think you're kind of overstating how much something like a a few scratches in tube is going to hurt a telescope. Also, this side of an observatory how many telescopes have a steel tube? It would take lots of exposure like sitting out day and night all of the time to do any real harm so I don't see regular telescope use as being that damaging. Afterall, I'm sure everybody on this forum (including me), has a scratch on their equipment that other than the asthetics, are not very concerned about them. Plus I'm sure most folks dust and wipe them down every now and then.

 

Right when I was finishing up on refreshing my Mizar I checked out some scopes on the Japanese Telescope Museum and noticed some of them with different levels of rusty hardware. It almost made me regret doing anything more than cleaning mine as there is something said for patina and or being original. Then there's my Mayflower 814 that I've had since 1976 and recently for the first time, polished it's hardware and tube, plus did some small touch ups. I only live one mile from the ocean and it really wasn't that bad. After 45 years some of the hardware was begining to look a little dull and where the tripod brackets were chipped they were lightly rusted.

 

When it comes to vintage cars, motorcycles, or even midcentury furniture, original finishes (scratches and all) are generally more preferred among collectors and fetch higher prices. 

 

Don't get me wrong as I'm a believer in taking care of things, but depending on the item, its condition, value, or age there's plenty of wiggle room for different opinions.

 

p.s. because they may do more harm than good, I wouldn't advise anyone to restore or repaint a valuable telscope if they don't have the skills to do it properly. 

Edited by Kasmos, 15 August 2021 - 04:18 AM.

[Matty S]

Looks very good to me, but I know from experience that photos don't show all the dings, scratches, nicks, etc.

 

IF you can't find a rattle-can match (or, make a match the way Chris / Kasmos does), lots of shops can make pix of the scope, or use pix you provide, and let a computer create a match.  I did that with my antique Mogey 3, only to figure out later that it was never painted...

Ya, can't see the real finish there. Here's some close-ups of the worst bits. Other than the whole kit being coated in dingy, yellowy gunkiness from age and (I assume) smoke, it's mostly just scuffs and scratches, some small burrs from dings, but no dents, seams or warps. Eminently worthy of a clean-up and repaint, I think.

I always cringe a little when I think about stripping off original old paint but in this case I keep thinking of the end result. I really like this little kit.

BTW, did you paint that Mogey before discovering it wasn't painted?

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Bomber Bob]

p.s. because they may do more harm than good, I wouldn't advise anyone to restore or repaint a valuable telscope if they don't have the skills to do it properly.

 

My own paint jobs yield unpredictable results; so, if I really treasure a scope, I'll pay JD (my local powder-coat guy) to put a pro finish on it.

 

Almost always, I'll give a scope a thorough cleaning before repainting.  My 1964 Sears 6336 had layers & layers of tobacco smoke grime on it & in every nook & cranny!  Disgusting.  I soaked all the nasty chrome parts in that green cleaner from the Dollar Tree; used SOFT toothbrushes + Formula 409 on the painted stuff.  Took a couple of days, but under all that gunk was a mint scope, after all.

 

BTW, did you paint that Mogey before discovering it wasn't painted?

 

My Mogey had a hefty Eye Bracket bolted to the tube, and its 2 steel bolts had rusted in place.  Right before taking it to JD, and after I'd removed all the other hardware, I tackled it.  I'd polished the whole tube -- except for the long strip under this bracket.  I was sure I'd find the original paint under it, but...  once I got it off, saw bare (& pristine!) yellow brass.  So, it was never painted.  I went ahead & took it to JD (who matched the Mogey Gray to a Tee), as it also had a thin black stripe (that was sticky to the touch) that ran the full length of the tube -- as though it had lain on a damp cushion for decades.  So, I was also concerned about preserving / protecting the brass:   https://www.cloudyni...0#entry7493547 

Edited by Bomber Bob, 15 August 2021 - 09:35 AM.

[Kasmos]

Ya, can't see the real finish there. Here's some close-ups of the worst bits. Other than the whole kit being coated in dingy, yellowy gunkiness from age and (I assume) smoke, it's mostly just scuffs and scratches, some small burrs from dings, but no dents, seams or warps. Eminently worthy of a clean-up and repaint, I think.

I always cringe a little when I think about stripping off original old paint but in this case I keep thinking of the end result. I really like this little kit.

BTW, did you paint that Mogey before discovering it wasn't painted?

That doesn't look all that bad to me. My Mizar might have been worse. Before doing anything try using some Polishing Compound. It might remove 90+% of those marks. I personally wouldn't strip it's original paint and touch it up.

 

To illustrate what can be done, here's a link to the post showing some before and afters:

 

https://www.cloudyni...0mm/?p=10035050

[Bowlerhat]

I'm sorry, but I just completely disagree with this statement, and this is coming from someone who owned an antique store. There is a form-follows-function element here that people who think everything should be preserved as-is are just blind to.

 

The finish on a scope (or a car, or furniture, or any number of other categories) serves a purpose beyond "good looks". It is necessary to put a finsh on steel or pot metal or whatever the thing is made out of in order to protect the substrate. A scratched and chipped steel telescope tube with eventually rust and decay without a repaired finish. Unless your plan is to put it in a hermetically sealed showcase from this day forward, preserving its "patina" [decay] is literally shortening its lifespan.

 

Repairing finishes is one of the most important things you can do to something you want to last. Even dabbing nail polish on exposed metal is better than doing nothing. The telescopes we're discussing here are actively being used. They are continuously exposed to UV light, moisture, and wide temperature fluctuations. Telling someone not to maintain the finish on a valuable and collectible telescope isn't just bad advice, it's antiquarian malpractice.

 

If you're using it, maintain it.

Do people maintain non classic scopes by persevering it? the goal using it here is to preserve the records of the performance being used, not only to preserve it as eye candy in living room. Just like we don't coat uncoated lenses to preserve and maintain them.

[Matty S]

Ok, if this is inappropriate here, let me know and I'll move it or a moderator can move it at his/her discretion if needed.

I had some time today so I pulled the dewshield off my TS 50 to see what I could do as per Kasmos' and others' suggestions.

I wiped it down with windex first just to get the dust off, took it to the sink and placed it in a small container and sprayed it with scrubbing bubbles bathroom cleaner a few times. This got off much of the latent dirt and stains. A little soak and scrub with some 409 got off the stubborn stuff. Finally, I grabbed some turtle wax polishing compound and went at it. A final rinse and dry and look at this! Took about 30-40 mins total. You guys always know your stuff! As always, thanks for the knowledgeable advice and support!

As I'm always a sucker for before and after shots, here ya go (note the small pinhead at lower left I used as a placement mark).

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Kasmos]

Ok, if this is inappropriate here, let me know and I'll move it or a moderator can move it at his/her discretion if needed.

I had some time today so I pulled the dewshield off my TS 50 to see what I could do as per Kasmos' and others' suggestions.

I wiped it down with windex first just to get the dust off, took it to the sink and placed it in a small container and sprayed it with scrubbing bubbles bathroom cleaner a few times. This got off much of the latent dirt and stains. A little soak and scrub with some 409 got off the stubborn stuff. Finally, I grabbed some turtle wax polishing compound and went at it. A final rinse and dry and look at this! Took about 30-40 mins total. You guys always know your stuff! As always, thanks for the knowledgeable advice and support!

As I'm always a sucker for before and after shots, here ya go (note the small pinhead at lower left I used as a placement mark).

 That turned out very good. Maybe you should give it's own thread? 

 

It's amazing what a little TLC can do for a sad old neglected telescope. It transforms them into a scope that looks like it's always been well cared for. Also, two reasons it's good to save the original finish. It's very smooth and durable. When you repaint using a spray can, it's almost impossible to be as smooth and will chip much easier, so you could end up with more chips and scratches before you know it.

 

Personally I'd rather have an original finish with a few chips or touch ups then a repaint that will never be the same.

Edited by Kasmos, 17 August 2021 - 01:42 PM.

[Sirius Black]

I’m going to reply to the subject of refurbishing a telescope finish and then post a picture of another subject.

 

 I have heard on another thread about the heavy, steel castings that Takahashi is noted for, and in this thread, someone mentioned steel tubes or pot metal castings on telescopes in general.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have a powerful little magnet, and for the parts I’ve tested, everything that a Takahashi is made of is aluminum or the highest quality stainless steel.  I had one of the older, black clamshells (until I painted it the pail, Takahashi green) and it’s aluminum too!  Having to maintain it so it won’t degrade is not that much of a problem.

 

That being said, I believe in making my equipment look good if you’re standing 10 feet away.  For my personal tastes, I’m buying the telescope equipment for the superior optics, but I’m childish in that I do want my pieces to match.  None of those black or gray clamshells on my FC-50.

 

Now onto my current reason for being here.  I’ve almost collected all of the 0.965” orthoscopic eyepieces for my telescope as I can.  There is a 2.8mm HI-Or I could get, but I’m substituting a 3mm HI-Or that was originally an astrometric eyepiece, with a removed reticle.  And I had a seller generously throw in a 32mm erfle.  Both the 32mm and 40mm screw in for straight through viewing in place of the compression ring.

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[norvegicus]

My FS-60Q in Little Tak, f=600mm mode.    In terms of image quality it blows away any other 60mm scope I've ever looked through.

 

Edited by norvegicus, 02 April 2022 - 01:09 PM.

[norvegicus]

And in Tiny Tak mode, f=355mm, on a Tiny Tak TG-SPII mount

 

[Dave Trott]

Now that is a beautiful outfit. Miniature perfection!

[norvegicus]

Needs a better tripod.  Also after looking at my photo I cringed and flipped the clamshell 180° to move the COG more over the tripod.

[Dave Trott]

Needs a better tripod.  Also after looking at my photo I cringed and flipped the clamshell 180° to move the COG more over the tripod.

I made a special mount to address that problem: https://youtu.be/DIDyuoO_Pys

[Sirius Black]

Sean,

Get on YouTube, do a search for Dave Trott + Teegul to see how he solved the problem of the center of gravity of his Space Patrol mount.  I think he could make some money marketing that solution, but I’m guessing there are not enough of those mounts to actually make very much profit.

 

As you and I have discussed off of the Cloudy Night forum, I have the exact same mount, with the optional GEM parts and polar scope.  It is also the Space Patrol II.  I’ll post a picture of how I use it now and my reasons for this configuration.

 

I chose a Berlebach tripod, largely because I had read about it from another post as being used with this particular mount.  It was a good choice, but everything in life is a trade off, and this is definitely what we deal with in our hobby/love.

 

 I originally tried using the Teegul in the German equatorial configuration, but it presented some unique problems.  To begin with, I have real mobility issues.  Because of my age and a nerve disorder, I walk with aid, have very poor balance, and lack strength and dexterity in my hands.  The Teegul in the GEM configuration coupled with a comparatively heavy wooden mount whose legs tended to collapse (I bought the tray later) was causing problems getting the telescope out the door.  The weight of the GEM tended to make it top heavy when transporting it also.

 

This mount also has a RA locking screw that prohibits it from doing the “meridian flip” when crossing from one side of the sky to the other.  I actually haven’t tried to use the polar scope.  I’m not using my setup for astrophotography, so I just point the polar axis in the general direction of Polaris and it works pretty well.  I’ve got an idea about how to use the polar scope if I were to ever mount my little telescope on a permanent pier, but I believe it would be too complicated to do it each time I moved it outside for each viewing session.

 

I really appreciate the mount and tripod the way I have it configured now.  One thing I like is the aesthetics of wood.  I now own a matching Berlebach observing chair and the whole system is a source of pride.  I added the tray below that keeps the legs from collapsing, but they now have a tendency to catch on things I’m trying to walk past.  Still an improvement in moving though.

 

As far as the tracking ability of the mount, it is doing a fairly good job, but I’ve experienced some problems that may be due to operator error, but I’m not sure.  Because of my lack of dexterity, I think I was failing to get the clutch screws tightened adequately.  If too lightly tightened, neither of the RA or DEC slow motion knobs would move the tube.  If tightened too much, the slow motion knobs were too difficult to move the tube.  My mount has to have the tension on the clutch screws adjusted just right for the slow motion to work properly AND the tracking to work properly.

 

 I have also experienced a problem with the tracking at times.  The telescope tube will be tracking fine and then just stop for a while.  I can fiddle with the RA slow motion, rack it back and forth, and then it will start working again.

 

In our offline correspondence, you are discussing either a Berlebach or carbon fiber tripod.  In hind sight, carbon fiber would certainly be lighter to move around.  It would also make the whole thing much top heavier for moving around.  For aesthetic appeal I like wood!

 

Either way, I would opt for a tripod head that can swivel to help in aiming to polar north, and a head that can crank up and down to bring the eyepiece to a comfortable height.  My tripod head on the Berlebach can swivel, which I appreciate, but can’t be cranked up and down.  I have another tripod with an alti-az mount that can crank up and down and it makes viewing sooo comfortable and easy.

 

My two cents and some change Sean.  I really look forward to hearing your thoughts and experiences about your unique mount!

[Sirius Black]

Dave responded with his own work in the time it took for me to write a post! Oops!

[norvegicus]

I made a special mount to address that problem: https://youtu.be/DIDyuoO_Pys

I've considered that.  This scope is so light it's not a big deal.

 

Your video and Roger Vine's review were instrumental in me choosing this mount. 

[norvegicus]

 

 

This mount also has a RA locking screw that prohibits it from doing the “meridian flip” when crossing from one side of the sky to the other.  

 

If you replace the locking knob with an M6 x 8mm knurled head screw, it fits underneath everything except the drive housing as the axis turns, giving the mount a lot more range.  You still can't go all the way around but it's better.  If you look at Roger Vine's review (of the SPIII), he switches out the Dec knob for a short screw for this reason when configuring the mount as a GEM:  http://www.scopeview...k/TakTeegul.htm

 

I will most likely use my mount in single arm fork mode as you are.  I don't need a counterweight for this little scope and I mostly use it for the southern sky.

 

The polar scope on this mount is about useless.  I'm sure I'll never use it.

 

I'm pretty sure I'm going to go with a Berlebach 212.  I don't like tripods with adjustable center columns that crank up and down for astronomy; it introduces too much instability and vibration.

Edited by norvegicus, 03 April 2022 - 07:48 AM.

[Dave Trott]

I think Takahashi supplied an interchangeable lever knob to be used as a lock. It was more secure but it would not clear in some positions.

 

I love all the little doodads and gizmos Takahashi sells for their equipment. I have to admit I am a complete sucker for devices like the cute little polar scope no matter how unnecessary they may be. It's a very expensive weakness but I am pretty sure I'm not the only one who has it!

 

Agree with your choice, Sean. A Berlebach tripod makes a perfect combination. That picture Sirius Black posted looks very inviting, doesn't it?!?

[Bomber Bob]

While the TS-65P is outside the conditions for this thread, my 1975 TS-50/700 fits:

 

 

It's also a fitting replacement for my Swift 838 (50/700).  Double Stars beware!

[Sirius Black]

Drum roll…..

If you’re on this forum, you’re familiar with Dave Trott’s video reviews of the “Tiny Tak” and the comparisons with similar sized telescopes.

 

Well, Ed Ting will be posting his video review of the FC-50.  In his words:

“I have all the material filmed.  Now comes the time consuming part - editing the footage so it makes narrative sense.  I think the material is decent but until I see the final cut I'm not sure when it will hit YouTube.”

 

So there you have it!  I know I’m looking forward to it!

 

Clear and steady skies,

Sirius Black 

[barbie]

I'm back in the Tiny Tak camp as of today with my purchase of an FOA-60!! I'll have it sometime next week!!!